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
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.
@ Daffy Duck:
Sit this one out and you have effectively voted for Obama.
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.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
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.
@ 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.
Daffy Duck wrote:
Socialism Lite has less oil.
Vote for dog catcher up to including the Senate
waldensianspirit wrote:
Obama would make a good dog catcher, judging by his helpmeet.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Cowcatcher…
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Oooh, good point. “Oil bad; Romney 2012!”
I can work with that.
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.
Chamberlain at least had good intentions. Does anyone see that in Obama? Honestly?
OT -- Sorry, but too funny not to post…
Vinegar Joe wrote:
I don’t see it in him.
Daffy Duck wrote:
Sit this one out, don’t complain about Obama. I do not embrace the nobility of defeat.
bulleffingshit
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
@ yenta-fada:
h/t to Canadian blogger:
http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.ca/
yenta-fada wrote:
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.
[deleted by request of the author]
OT but not funny:
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.
@ RIX:
http://agendadocumentary.com/
@ Guggi:
Target rich environment, IMHO
@ 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.
@ yenta-fada:
Obamas attack on the Catholic Church is no clumsy
accident.
Religion must be mocked & weakened to control the populace.
@ RIX:
And the resitance stiffened.
Buckeye Abroad wrote:
i wont believe resistance if the catholic vote goes 50%+ for him again, that’s for sure.
coldwarrior wrote:
Well? did you buy our “Friend” a drink for being kind enough to not bash your skull in with a golfball?
Buckeye Abroad wrote:
It’s one of the reasons that Solidarity succeded
in Poland.
doriangrey wrote:
nah…i had to get home and study.
@ 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?
Buckeye Abroad wrote:
hmmmm…..
last time the catholics voted 54% for obama….
this time…?
RIX wrote:
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.
@ coldwarrior:
this time…?
Put your money where your smiley face is, boyo.
To avoid the rush, I prefer Bushmills Black Bush.
Buckeye Abroad wrote:
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.
new thread
@ 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.
@ citizen_q:
Here’s a weapon to use against them
Skunk weapon
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.