First time visitor? Learn more.

Friday with the ‘hammer – Obama’s ‘flexibilty’ doctrine is another word for appeasement

by Speranza ( 39 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Russia at March 30th, 2012 - 2:00 pm

Dr. K. gives his take on the concessions that Obama promised the Russians during his open mic fiasco (his second open mic incident in less then a year, the first being his allowing Nicolas Sarkozy to trash Netanyahu). Obama is the American Neville Chamberlain, an appeaser, a coward, and a pusillanimous weakling. For the self righteous amongst you are more interested in “sending a message” to the GOP Establishment  and sitting the election out or voting for a third party – is this what you want?

by Charles Krauthammer

On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [Vladimir Putin] to give me space. . . . This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

— Barack Obama to Dmitry Medvedev, open mike, March 26

You don’t often hear an American president secretly (he thinks) assuring foreign leaders that concessions are coming their way, but they must wait because he’s seeking reelection and he dares not tell his own people.

Not at all, spun a White House aide in major gaffe-control mode. The president was merely explaining that arms control is too complicated to be dealt with in a year in which both Russia and the United States hold presidential elections.

Rubbish. First of all, to speak of Russian elections in the same breath as ours is a travesty. Theirs was a rigged, predetermined farce. Putin ruled before. Putin rules after.

Obama spoke of the difficulties of the Russian presidential “transition.” What transition? It’s a joke. It had no effect on Putin’s ability to negotiate anything.

As for the U.S. election, the problem is not that the issue is too complicated but that if people knew Obama’s intentions of flexibly caving on missile defense, they might think twice about giving him a second term.

[...]

We have an unmatched technological lead in this area. It’s a priceless strategic advantage that for three decades Russia has been trying to get us to yield. Why give any of it away?

To placate Putin, Obama had already in 2009 abruptly canceled the missile-defense system the Poles and Czechs had agreed to host in defiance of Russian threats. Why give away more?

[...]

Nonetheless, Obama is telling the Russians not to worry, that once past “my last election” and no longer subject to any electoral accountability, he’ll show “more flexibility” on missile defense. It’s yet another accommodation to advance his cherished Russia “reset” policy.

Why? Hasn’t reset been failure enough?

Let’s do the accounting. In addition to canceling the Polish/Czech missile-defense system, Obama gave the Russians accession to the World Trade Organization, signed a START Treaty that they need and we don’t (their weapons are obsolete and deteriorating rapidly), and turned a scandalously blind eye to their violations of human rights and dismantling of democracy. Obama even gave Putin a congratulatory call for winning his phony election.

In return? Russia consistently watered down or obstructed sanctions on Iran, completed Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr, provides to this day Bashar al-Assad with huge arms shipments used to massacre his own people (while rebuilding the Soviet-era naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus), conducted a virulently anti-American presidential campaign on behalf of Putin, pressured Eastern Europe and threatened Georgia.

On which of “all these issues” — Syria, Iran, Eastern Europe, Georgia, human rights — is Obama ready to offer Putin yet more flexibility as soon as he gets past his last election? Where else will he show U.S. adversaries more flexibility? Yet more aid to North Korea? More weakening of tough Senate sanctions against Iran?

Can you imagine the kind of pressure a reelected Obama will put on Israel, the kind of anxiety he will induce from Georgia to the Persian Gulf, the nervousness among our most loyal East European friends who, having been left out on a limb by Obama once before, are now wondering what new flexibility Obama will show Putin — the man who famously proclaimed that the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century was Russia’s loss of its Soviet empire?

They don’t know. We don’t know. We didn’t even know this was coming — until the mike was left open. Only Putin was to know. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev assured Obama.

Added Medvedev: “I stand with you.” A nice endorsement from Putin’s puppet, enough to chill friends and allies, democrats and dissidents, all over the world.

Read the rest: The ‘felxibilty’ doctrine

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

39 Responses to “Friday with the ‘hammer – Obama’s ‘flexibilty’ doctrine is another word for appeasement”
( jump to bottom )

  1. Daffy Duck
    1 | March 30, 2012 2:33 pm

    Speranza said:

    “For the self righteous amongst you are more interested in “sending a message” to the GOP Establishment and sitting the election out or voting for a third party – is this what you want?”

    I think the lack of a bit of “self-righteousness” by voters over past elections has helped bring about the situation we have now, i.e., mediocre (at best) candidate(s). Yet, you seem to be telling me that no matter what, I should “pinch my nose” and vote for the “lessor of two evils.”

    Maybe I should, but having done that many times already, my nose is quite sore, and a wee bit bent outta shape.


  2. Speranza
    2 | March 30, 2012 2:57 pm

    @ Daffy Duck:
    Sit this one out and you have effectively voted for Obama.


  3. buzzsawmonkey
    3 | March 30, 2012 3:00 pm

    Obama is the American Neville Chamberlain, an appeaser, a coward, and a pusillanimous weakling.

    Hey, for all we know, he is none of these, but rather a loyal employee who is doing what he is being paid to do—what he was, indeed, put into his current office to do. He is an appeaser, a coward, and a pusillanimous weakling only if we believe he is working for us.


  4. citizen_q
    4 | March 30, 2012 3:08 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    only if we believe he is working for us.

    I have never been in that camp.

    IMHO he is a man with a mission, and the effects of his actions are largely by design. What exactly that mission is, or for whom may be debatable. In general he is successfully bringing about “change”, and his change is undeniably to our country’s detriment.

    He and his enablers need to be voted out.


  5. Daffy Duck
    5 | March 30, 2012 3:14 pm

    @ Speranza:

    A predictable response*; I guess I’ll reply-in-kind:

    What’s the difference between Socialism, and Socialism-lite?

    * I reject the premise, by-the-way… you see, unless I vote for Obama, I’m not voting for Obama.


  6. buzzsawmonkey
    6 | March 30, 2012 3:17 pm

    Daffy Duck wrote:

    What’s the difference between Socialism, and Socialism-lite?

    Socialism Lite has less oil.


  7. waldensianspirit
    7 | March 30, 2012 3:17 pm

    Vote for dog catcher up to including the Senate


  8. buzzsawmonkey
    8 | March 30, 2012 3:20 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    Vote for dog catcher up to including the Senate

    Obama would make a good dog catcher, judging by his helpmeet.


  9. 9 | March 30, 2012 3:23 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Cowcatcher…


  10. Daffy Duck
    10 | March 30, 2012 3:28 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Socialism Lite has less oil.

    Oooh, good point. “Oil bad; Romney 2012!”

    I can work with that. ;)


  11. buzzsawmonkey
    11 | March 30, 2012 3:35 pm

    Obama is about as “flexible” as a petrified trilobite when it comes to a question of veering away from race-baiting or doctrinaire government takeover.


  12. Vinegar Joe
    12 | March 30, 2012 3:39 pm

    Chamberlain at least had good intentions. Does anyone see that in Obama? Honestly?


  13. Bumr50
    13 | March 30, 2012 3:39 pm

    OT -- Sorry, but too funny not to post…

    Concern over endangered bat expedites gas driller’s tree cutting plans


  14. Speranza
    14 | March 30, 2012 4:05 pm

    Vinegar Joe wrote:

    Chamberlain at least had good intentions. Does anyone see that in Obama? Honestly?

    I don’t see it in him.


  15. Speranza
    15 | March 30, 2012 4:06 pm

    Daffy Duck wrote:

    A predictable response*; I guess I’ll reply-in-kind:

    Sit this one out, don’t complain about Obama. I do not embrace the nobility of defeat.

    * I reject the premise, by-the-way… you see, unless I vote for Obama, I’m not voting for Obama.

    bulleffingshit


  16. yenta-fada
    16 | March 30, 2012 4:13 pm

    Arab Americans (NOT my idea of what to call them) disappointed in the Imam in Chief.

    http://dearborn.patch.com/articles/arab-americans-grapple-with-which-presidential-candidate-to-support-in-2012


  17. yenta-fada
    17 | March 30, 2012 4:14 pm

    @ yenta-fada:

    h/t to Canadian blogger:
    http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.ca/


  18. Speranza
    18 | March 30, 2012 4:24 pm

    yenta-fada wrote:

    Arab Americans (NOT my idea of what to call them) disappointed in the Imam in Chief.
    http://dearborn.patch.com/articles/arab-americans-grapple-with-which-presidential-candidate-to-support-in-2012

    Until he puts on a suicide vest they will never be happy. That doesn’t mean he is not the most pro Arab president we have ever had.


  19. buzzsawmonkey
    19 | March 30, 2012 4:29 pm

    [deleted by request of the author]


  20. Guggi
    20 | March 30, 2012 4:30 pm

    OT but not funny:

    Iran’s march for “martyrs” to JerusalemParticipants in the Global March to Jerusalem approach Israel’s borders today and, in the process, become weapons in Iran’s foreign policy arsenal

    (…)

    Among them, Iranian television Press TV stars, George Galloway (of Viva Palestina fame) and Yvonne Ridley, both from the United Kingdom; Italy’s Giulietto Chiesa – a leading sponsor of the 9/11 “truthers” movement in Europe and his U.S. counterpart, Richard Falk; Noam Chomsky; President Obama’s former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright; and a list of who’s who among the world wide web of anti-Zionist Jews.

    (…)


  21. RIX
    21 | March 30, 2012 4:35 pm

    This is our first post American President.
    He disdains American Exceptionalism, the Constitution
    and his fellow citizens.
    Sitting this election out is really not an option.


  22. yenta-fada
    22 | March 30, 2012 4:59 pm

    @ RIX:

    http://agendadocumentary.com/


  23. citizen_q
    23 | March 30, 2012 5:00 pm

    @ Guggi:
    Target rich environment, IMHO


  24. Buckeye Abroad
    24 | March 30, 2012 5:10 pm

    @ Daffy Duck:

    What’s the difference between Socialism, and Socialism-lite?

    With Obama you sit at the front of the bus as it plunges over a cliff, with Romney you are sitting at the back of the bus.


  25. RIX
    25 | March 30, 2012 5:15 pm

    @ yenta-fada:
    Obamas attack on the Catholic Church is no clumsy
    accident.
    Religion must be mocked & weakened to control the populace.


  26. Buckeye Abroad
    26 | March 30, 2012 5:22 pm

    @ RIX:

    And the resitance stiffened.


  27. coldwarrior
    27 | March 30, 2012 5:30 pm

    Buckeye Abroad wrote:

    @ RIX:
    And the resitance stiffened.

    i wont believe resistance if the catholic vote goes 50%+ for him again, that’s for sure.


  28. 28 | March 30, 2012 5:33 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    Buckeye Abroad wrote:
    @ RIX:
    And the resitance stiffened.

    i wont believe resistance if the catholic vote goes 50%+ for him again, that’s for sure.

    Well? did you buy our “Friend” a drink for being kind enough to not bash your skull in with a golfball?


  29. RIX
    29 | March 30, 2012 5:37 pm

    Buckeye Abroad wrote:

    @ RIX:
    And the resitance stiffened.

    It’s one of the reasons that Solidarity succeded
    in Poland.


  30. coldwarrior
    30 | March 30, 2012 5:42 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    Buckeye Abroad wrote:
    @ RIX:
    And the resitance stiffened.
    i wont believe resistance if the catholic vote goes 50%+ for him again, that’s for sure.

    Well? did you buy our “Friend” a drink for being kind enough to not bash your skull in with a golfball?

    :lol:

    nah…i had to get home and study.


  31. Buckeye Abroad
    31 | March 30, 2012 5:47 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    i wont believe resistance if the catholic vote goes 50%+ for him again, that’s for sure.

    Considering half of the voting population doesn’t vote during the election, I think the ongoing economic down turn, the racial focus of the federal administration, the health care doctrine clashing with catholic beliefs and the general incompetence of this entire administration….I would wager that the US catholics side with the forces of good this time around. Shall we bet a bottle of Bushmills or Jamesons?


  32. coldwarrior
    32 | March 30, 2012 5:55 pm

    Buckeye Abroad wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    i wont believe resistance if the catholic vote goes 50%+ for him again, that’s for sure.
    Considering half of the voting population doesn’t vote during the election, I think the ongoing economic down turn, the racial focus of the federal administration, the health care doctrine clashing with catholic beliefs and the general incompetence of this entire administration….I would wager that the US catholics side with the forces of good this time around. Shall we bet a bottle of Bushmills or Jamesons?

    hmmmm…..

    last time the catholics voted 54% for obama….

    this time…?


  33. Buckeye Abroad
    33 | March 30, 2012 5:56 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Buckeye Abroad wrote:

    @ RIX:
    And the resitance stiffened.

    It’s one of the reasons that Solidarity succeded
    in Poland.

    You all know more than I do… I only get the beat from family and friends back home, but they all say the same… never have seen so much disgust and anger. Not good for a healthy Republic and me thinks there will be payback at the polls.

    Unfortunately, IMHO, Romney is a squish who will do what his handlers tell him, which will be is good for Romney, and not what is good for America.

    As I said before, I had more enthusiasm voting for Dole, but I will pull the lever for Mittens… just like I did for McCain. I don’t expect anything if he wins, but I do hope he picks a solid conservative for the USSC and we pick up the Senate.

    I’m not hopefull.


  34. Buckeye Abroad
    34 | March 30, 2012 6:00 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    this time…?

    Put your money where your smiley face is, boyo.

    To avoid the rush, I prefer Bushmills Black Bush.


  35. coldwarrior
    35 | March 30, 2012 6:05 pm

    Buckeye Abroad wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    this time…?
    Put your money where your smiley face is, boyo.
    To avoid the rush, I prefer Bushmills Black Bush.

    besides the fact that i dont gamble, my #27 was in no way a wager. it was a request to see some proof of catholic resistance in the upcoming election. simple proof that the catholics will vote against a democrat in something more than 46% like last time.


  36. coldwarrior
    36 | March 30, 2012 6:07 pm

    new thread


  37. Buckeye Abroad
    37 | March 30, 2012 7:22 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    it was a request to see some proof of catholic resistance in the upcoming election. simple proof that the catholics will vote against a democrat in something more than 46% like last time.

    Cannot provide the proof requested, but I think there is more than enough afflictions from this administration to move enough catholics to the other side.

    Time will tell.

    Gotta go. It’s late.


  38. Speranza
    38 | March 30, 2012 8:46 pm

    @ citizen_q:
    Here’s a weapon to use against them
    Skunk weapon


  39. 39 | April 1, 2012 1:11 am

    I’ll vote for the GOP candidate, whoever it may be.

    But if the GOP candidate is not a conservative, I’ll continue with my plans to emigrate.

    Just about everybody on Blogmocracy will hate me for saying this, but I’m an Orthodox Christian before all else. If it ever came down to a one-on-one between the US and Russia, I’d have to defect to Russia.

    Whatever you say about Putin, my Russian contacts think very highly of him. At the very least, you have to admit that Putin will go all out for the interests of Russia. Would that the US had a President who would go all out for the interests of the US. The last President of that description was Reagan. Before that, perhaps Thomas Jefferson.

    Sad, but true.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David