‘We’re screwed’: Obama won’t concede Romney was right, writes off Russia as ‘regional power’

Loading

Twitchy:

During today’s presser at The Hague, ABC News’ Jon Karl put President Obama on the spot:

.@jonkarl to Obama: ‘Do you think Romney had a point when he said Russia was America’s biggest geopolitical foe?’—
Wash. Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) March 25, 2014

and @jonkarl also asks Obama if he now thinks Romney was right re Russia as top geostrategic foe—
Rick Klein (@rickklein) March 25, 2014

RT @ZekeJMiller .@jonkarl to Obama: “Do you think that Mitt Romney had a point?”—
Rory Cooper (@rorycooper) March 25, 2014

“Do you think Mitt Romney had a point when he said Russia was America’s biggest geopolitical foe?” -BOOM from Jon Karl to Obama—
Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) March 25, 2014

About damn time somebody had the cojones to confront Obama for mocking Mitt Romney over Russia back in 2012.

Nothing like a presser where POTUS gets a question about his former rival.—
Elizabeth Blackney (@MediaLizzy) March 25, 2014

Ha!!! Jon Karl just asked potus about the Romney comment about Russia being a foe.—
LaurieAnn (@mooshakins) March 25, 2014

It was indeed a great question. Unfortunately, Obama didn’t feel like answering it:

. @jonkarl to Obama: is your credibility being ruined with all talk and no action? Obama: I deny the premise of your question.—
Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) March 25, 2014

Holy cow. Pres totally changes @jonkarl‘s question. Says it implies we’re talking ‘military intervention.’ What the heck?—
Brian Faughnan (@BrianFaughnan) March 25, 2014

“Do you think Mitt Romney was right?” – Jon Karl. “Let me pretend Romney was talking about military intervention.” – Obama.—
RB (@RBPundit) March 25, 2014

Obama answers Karl’s question by creating “military intervention” straw man and ruthlessly slaying it.—
Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) March 25, 2014

No one said anything about military intervention.—
Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) March 25, 2014

Doesn’t matter. President Stompy Foot doesn’t give a damn about your questions — or about facts:

Obama responding to Romney: “Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors”—
Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) March 25, 2014

“Russia is a regional power,” says Obama. Putin’s move.—
(@michaelscherer) March 25, 2014

Oh, Good Grief – Obama: “Russia Is a regional power that is threatening some of its neighbors not out of strength but out of weakness”—
Jim Hoft (@gatewaypundit) March 25, 2014

Russia’s a “regional power” just threatening its neighbors? So, not involved in, say, Syria? Iran? Western Europe? Goodness gracious.—
Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) March 25, 2014

Calling Russia a “regional power” reminds me of ‘Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela are tiny.’youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2…
Brian Faughnan (@BrianFaughnan) March 25, 2014

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
70 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Kraken, #45:

So you tell me, brainiac. How can someone be “entitled to an opinion and entitled to express it”, while simultaneously being “out of line” for expressing it? lol

The explanation is fairly simple: We have a constitutional right to freedom of expression. There are also times when any responsible person should show restraint in exercising that freedom, out of consideration for the undesirable consequences that their words may have.

Does the simultaneous presentation of these two generally recognized facts strike you as some sort of totally irresolvable paradox?

If so, it’s most likely just another indication of your tendency to view all things as being either black or white, refusing to acknowledge that shades of gray comprise much of the reality we actually live in. You seem to want a world of absolutes and of total consistencies, where all things are either right or wrong. Such a reality doesn’t exist.

OBAMA SAID TODAY FROM FOX ,
THAT VLADIMIR WAS SO HEARTHBROKEN TO SEE THE LOST OF RUSSIAN UNION,
SO POOR VLADIMIR SO HURT THAT HE TOOK BY FORCE CRIMEA AND SOME UKRAINIANS
WHERE BEATEN AND KILLED, IT HAS BEEN TOLD,
AND NOW IS AT THE DOOR OF UKRAINE AFTER HAVING STOLE THE TWO DESTROYERS FROM UKRAINE
AND THEIR LOVED DOLPHIN TRAINED TO ATTACK THE TRESPASSERS,
NOW HE CALLED OBAMA TODAY, TO DISCUSS UKRAINE, WHILE HE HAS MANY THOUSANDS OF TROUPS SUROUNDING UKRAINE, AND TANKS ALL AROUND BLOCKING ANY EXIT, I THINK OBAMA IS STILL IN ARABE COUNTRY, AND GOT THE PHONE THERE,
THE UKRAINE COMMANDER ASK FOR ALL TO BE READY TO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS,
IT’S ESCALATING NOW, DEATHS IS IN THE MENU,
WHO WILL KILL VLADIMIR NOW, TODAY, BEFORE IT’S START, IT HAS TO BE A RUSSIAN BRAVE
WHO CAN PERCIEVE THE FUTUR ENOUGH
TO DECIDE, AND ACT. BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE,
JUST REMEMBER HITLER IF HE WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED,
HOW MANY LIVES WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED FROM BOTH SIDES, THEY TRYED BUT WAITED TOO LONG AND THEY FAILED

@Kraken: #46

I don’t think Putin wants to go DOWN to that level.

When I said:

I don’t think Putin wants to go DOWN to that level.

I meant that Putin doesn’t want to bring Russia DOWN to our level of reduced military, or firing high ranking officers, or turning his military into muslims, or going into debt so far that he could never find enough rubles to pay for another war.

Putin knows exactly what he is doing, and makes plans like a chess game, where he has planned several moves ahead, where obama waits until something happens, then reacts. Keep in mind that obama can’t do anything until his puppeteers decide what strings they want to pull. Many times we have heard what happens when obama speaks without a prepared speech, then his propaganda media machine has to tell us what obama really meant.

@Greg:

If so, it’s most likely just another indication of your tendency to view all things as being either black or white, refusing to acknowledge that shades of gray comprise much of the reality we actually live in. You seem to want a world of absolutes and of total consistencies, where all things are either right or wrong. Such a reality doesn’t exist.

We’ve been through this philosophical argument before. It’s not that I’m failing to recognize existing shades of gray, rather, it’s that you’re presenting a binary quandary.

Remember, I fully acknowledge that shades of grey do indeed exist. But I also recognize that there are in fact black and white situations as well. These two scenarios coexist side by side. The reality that doesn’t exist, is the one that proclaims exclusivity for one or the other. If black and white didn’t exist at all, then true/false or yes/no questions would have no business appearing on applications, forms, tests, and exams.

Even you yourself have unwittingly acknowledged the existence of black and white scenarios:

The fact of the matter is that we’re going to be governed either by one premise or the other. One allows every woman a moral choice, and the freedom to act in accordance with the dictates of her own beliefs and conscience. The other does not.

A woman has a fundamental, sovereign right to control her own body. Period. Nothing else should enter in. Either she does or she doesn’t.

So it seems that you have no problem acknowledging the existence of black and white scenarios, when they serve your purpose. Or perhaps you can’t remember what you’ve said a few days ago. In any case, these philosophical obfuscations are merely distractions anyway, and we’re both fully aware of that. So let’s dispense with this nonsense and focus on the crux of the issue instead.

Does the simultaneous presentation of these two generally recognized facts strike you as some sort of totally irresolvable paradox?

Not at all. What does strike me as a potential irresolvable paradox, is your own position in these specific instances which do not directly correlate to someone yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

Through one side of your face you’re stating that “Putin can actually react to what he hears them saying,” and through the other side you’re questioning why Putin would “care what Mitt Romney thinks?” How can responsibly showing restraint in exercising the expression of an opinion coexist with the entitlement of expressing the same opinion? How do you reconcile these dichotomies? Do you understand what the definition of entitlement is?

@Kraken, #54:

Through one side of your face you’re stating that “Putin can actually react to what he hears them saying,” and through the other side you’re questioning why Putin would “care what Mitt Romney thinks?”

You continue to ignore the fact that my concerns about Romney’s discretion had far more to do with his public comments regarding the siege of the U.S. embassy in Cairo while that siege was still underway than about his opinion that Russia is our principle geopolitical adversary. As I’ve stated more than once, his opinion about Russia is in my view simply an incorrect opinion, while his high-profile comments about the volatile situation in Cairo could have had immediate and negative real-world consequences. As you may recall, Romney’s untimely statements regarding Cairo were initially criticized by the more responsible members of his own party, but they were quickly pressured to toe the line by the GOP leadership.

How can responsibly showing restraint in exercising the expression of an opinion coexist with the entitlement of expressing the same opinion?

You’re still asking that same question? As I said before, if you really don’t get it, I won’t be able to explain it to your satisfaction. This sort of differing perception is probably why some people genuinely believed that Sarah Palin would be an acceptable person to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, while others could only shake their heads in total disbelief.

You continue to ignore the fact that my concerns about Romney’s discretion had far more to do with his public comments regarding the siege of the U.S. embassy in Cairo while that siege was still underway than about his opinion that Russia is our principle geopolitical adversary.

Well, yes. Of course I continue to ignore it because it’s not relevant to the conversation we’re having. What’s happening here is that you’re attempting to manufacture a “nuance” in order to justify applying different standards to the comments of failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney and potential future presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Besides, you really shouldn’t be the one to harp about ignored points.

As I’ve stated more than once, his opinion about Russia is in my view simply an incorrect opinion, while his high-profile comments about the volatile situation in Cairo could have had immediate and negative real-world consequences.

Please feel free to state it as many times as you like. But it’s important for you to remember that your statement itself is incorrect, as is evidenced by current events, without regard to how many times its stated. Besides, whether or not you felt the statement was incorrect was never the issue. What was the issue, was you stating that he never should have said it even if he was thinking it, which is why you’re backpedaling because you don’t want the same standard applied to Hillary Clinton’s “Hitler” comments.

As you may recall, Romney’s untimely statements regarding Cairo were initially criticized by the more responsible members of his own party, but they were quickly pressured to toe the line by the GOP leadership.

I’m not really interested in the GOP’s political peacock posturing in response to Romney’s comments. I’m not impressed with them either so your “but the GOP” remarks simply elicit shoulder shrugs from me.

You’re still asking that same question?

Well of course. A genuine answer is yet to be forthcoming. It seems that either you don’t really understand what the definition of entitlement is, or you want to project an image of magnanimity by appearing to support free speech while simultaneously desiring to heavily regulate it. You’re trying to play both sides of the fence here, and it’s fairly transparent.

As I said before, if you really don’t get it, I won’t be able to explain it to your satisfaction. This sort of differing perception is probably why some people genuinely believed that Sarah Palin would be an acceptable person to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, while others could only shake their heads in total disbelief.

Pure comedy gold! The problem here is not that I’m unable to get it, rather, the problem is your own inability to articulate your positions without revealing glaring hypocrisy and ignorance, which you and I together have now confirmed repeatedly. This is something that we’re both fully aware of, and which I’m finding intensely entertaining.

I understand that you think my first reaction would be to say that Palin would be a better President, and you’re probably right, but not for the reasons you think.

In comparison to President Obama, of course she would. Let’s take a look at Mr. Obama. This is a man who’s primary experience comes from academia and government. These are not areas where experience about the real world is gained. As the New York Post correctly notes, he’s never tried to operate a business, he’s never had to contend with the taxes and regulation he supports in a real world setting, he’s never had to live by the policies he advocates, and his political experience is severely limited. Palin has done all of these things.

Even with six years of Presidential experience under his belt, the Washington Post declared President Obama’s foreign policy to be based on fantasy. It is, because having been incubated in the insular academic and governmental hives, he’s never been formally introduced to reality. Sure he knows a lot of stuff. But the stuff he knows is all made-up academic nonsense about social justice, white privilege, and whatever the rantings of Alinsky and Marx tell him to think. As thinking adults understand, these things are never applicable in the real world.

Now, that’s not to say Palin would be a good President; I don’t think she would be. She’d just be better than Obama. But that’s not a difficult task. A twelve year old running the lemonade stand that the Collective would like to shut down would be a better President. He’d have more real world experience.

Collective drones shake their head at this, because the Leftist mind never matures into adulthood. Smelly hippies at age 70 still think exactly the same way they did when they were 14 years old. There’s simply no mental development with regards to maturity in the Collective Drone. This is why they continually beseech the heavy hand of parental government to guide their lives; like children, they can’t do anything on their own. So their reaction of total disbelief is perfectly…believable.

@Kraken, #56:

I suspect you’re most likely another of retire05’s sock puppets. How many people can there be who are still ranting about hippies almost 50 years later?

@Greg: Beautiful!
Must be those damn Collectives.

@Greg:

I suspect you’re most likely another of retire05′s sock puppets. How many people can there be who are still ranting about hippies almost 50 years later?

If that’s whats going to help you sleep at night, then suspect away.

But come now Greg, while you and I together have revealed your substandard intelligence, I have a hard time believing that you could possibly be that dense.

You’ve seen today’s students on campus desperately trying to emulate the romanticized fables of the 60s that their hippie professors revel in. I mean, the 60s may have been some 50 years ago, but America is still coping from the intellectual hangover that 60s-era hippies have vomited onto decades of impressionable youth. If truth be told, America has suffered more harm from the counter-cultural movement/revolution than all of the wars it’s ever engaged in combined.

They’re certainly still around though. Heck, your next presidential candidate called for a Woodstock Museum. Apparently we need to see the LSD laden piss-holes from which modern progressivism stumbled out of. Hippies are the ones running the schools, currently governing us, and who gave us the world we live in today. All one has to do is find a school campus or government office and you’ll see a plethora of smelly hippies in their 50s and 60s still trying to rebel against the Greatest Generation. It’s really quite sad, though perhaps not as sad as their younger progressive proteges who don’t fully understand what’s been done to them, and how they’ve been utterly robbed of a true education.

You’re not a very bright chap, are you Greg?

@rich wheeler:

Must be those damn Collectives.

So it seems.

Here’s an excellent editorial from someone with a Russian perspective.

@rich wheeler, #58:

The Sock Puppet Collective—whose members are, among other things, all Holier than Thou… (I think maybe I should leave. I feel a hole string of old Batman and Robin jokes coming on.)

Uh oh. Does this mean that I’m getting the Collective’s classic cold shoulder now?

@Kraken, #59:

Former LSD users would include people such as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Francis Crick, Kary Mullis, and Richard Feynman.

Yeah? It includes this guy too.

@Kraken: #65

Russian-Trained Snipers Killed Ukrainian Protesters

Don’t expect obama to do anything about it, or even care.

so what do we hear from a respectfull knowledgeble in laws
it sais that CONGRESS LET OBAMA GET AWAY WITH MAKING HIS OWN LAWS,
TRASHING THE LAWS OF THE LAND, THEY CAN DO SOMETHING TO STOP HIM FROM GIVING AMNESTY TO CRIMINAL ILLEGALS MORE THAN 60 THOUSANDS OF THEM IN AMERICA,
THAT’S BESIDE THE 11 MILLION ALREADY HERE,
SO IT TELL US THAT CONGRESS ALWAYS LET HIM GET AWAY WITH ANY BREACH HE DOES ON THE LAWS OF THE LAND, SO CONGRESS MUST BE FIRED FOR ALLOWING THE CONSTITUTION TO BE TRASH BY A PRESIDENT THEY ARE AFRAID OF,
THAT’S HOW DANGEROUS HE HAS BECOME FOR THE PEOPLE,
IT SAID THAT HE DID MANY OF THOSE AND THE CONGRESS ALWAYS LET HIM GO UNPUNISH, THEY ALWAYS LOOKED THE OTHER WAY, THEY NEED TO BE REPLACE ALSO,
WHO ELSE CAN PROTECT THE PEOPLE OTHER THAN WORDS,

7 MILLIONS, HOW MANY PRISONERS IN ALL THE USA PRISONS,
ENROLLED WITH FREE OBAMACARE ???

Garry Kasparov: On Ukraine, Obama’s Munich Moment

http://time.com/44618/garry-kasparov-on-ukraine-obamas-munich-moment/

PUTIN CALL THE UKRAINIANS , rampant extremist
WHO AND WHERE IS THE RAMPANT EXTREMIST VLADIMIR IS THE RAMPANT EXTREMIST,
you got the arrogance to call a people you have attack and rob them, rampant extremist,wat a sicko you are, a criminal like you should be hanged by the neck, for invading a sovereign country and steal a part of it,
there is nothing to discuss with a crazy nut like you,
you descent in hell how confortable you are,
as if you always belong there, burn in hell,