Posted on 10/28/2016 8:19:04 AM PDT by Lorianne
She apparently thinks it’s a bunch of busywork for fun and profit.
Would would Russia do. Maybe they’d be too convulsed with derisive laughter to be angry.
She will NEVER say, because THAT word will be a definition in progress until the f’n day she leaves office. It will be a completely arbitrary and subjective HRC definition from one minute to the next..... it's all about what the definition of is,’IS’
Sure she would.
If she steals this election, she ain’t going to have to worry about fighting Russians...She’s gonna have her hands full here....
Meanwhile, it was the Soros-supported Obama administration that has been helping to strengthen the Russians.
The O admin, not only handed Putin everything that he wanted on all-important missile defense and nukes, including the Iran nuke deal, which Putin loves and claims to have played a major role in, he (Obama) practically took apart our military. So don't so easily fall for the smoke and mirrors BS coming from the Russians, or this administration. The facts speak for themselves...
____________________________________
From the campaign trail, 2008...
A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.
The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:
Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.
First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[i.e. not win it]
Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space.
I will slow our development of future combat systems.
And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.
You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.
Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090412030633/http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp
"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."
__________________________________________________________
From Investor's Business Daily, Jan 2012:
Appeasement: From ObamaCare to recess appointments, honoring the Constitution has not been an administration hallmark. But when it comes to betraying secrets to mollify the Russians, it becomes a document the president hides behind.
It was bad enough that the 2012 defense authorization bill signed by President Obama set America on a downward spiral of military mediocrity.
He also issued a signing statement, something he once opposed, saying that language in the bill aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on the U.S. Standard Missile-3 - linchpin of our missile defense - might impinge on his constitutional foreign-policy authority.
Section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending any funds that would be used to give Russian officials access to sensitive missile-defense technology as part of a cooperation agreement without first sending Congress a report identifying the specific secrets, how they'd be used and steps to protect the data from compromise.
The president is required to certify that any technology shared will not be passed on to third parties such as China, North Korea or Iran, that the Russians will not use transferred secrets to develop countermeasures and that the Russians are reciprocating in sharing missile-defense technology. ..."
"In his signing statement, Obama said he would treat these legal restrictions as 'non-binding' and that 'my administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 (sic) in a manner that does not interfere with the president's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications.'
Betraying our secrets is easy for a president who betrayed allies Poland and the Czech Republic to placate Moscow.
Poland was to host ground-based interceptors such as those we've deployed in California and Alaska, with missile-tracking radar deployed in the Czech Republic.
Obama pulled the plug when Moscow objected. Never mind, he said, we have a better approach: a four-phase plan that calls for using three versions of the Navy's Standard SM-3 interceptor missile that forms the backbone of its Aegis missile-defense system.
The fourth phase consists of a missile still on the drawing board scheduled for deployment by 2020, a version of the SM-3 called the Block IIB. It would intercept hostile missiles in the "early intercept" phase before an enemy missile could release its warheads and decoys. The Russians want the SM-3's secrets, and Obama appears to be willing to turn them over.
The president wants to save the New Start Treaty, which the Russians have threatened to abandon if we try to fully implement President Reagan's dream of defeating a nuclear missile attack.
Russia has unilaterally asserted that any qualitative or quantitative improvement in U.S. missile defenses would be grounds for withdrawal from the treaty.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010912-597158-obama-gives-russia-missile-defense-secrets.htm#ixzz3jXmMbVwY
___________________________________________________
March 2012...
"Obama was talking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when neither of them realized that their conversation was being picked up by microphones. Here is what they said:
Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space."
Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ..."
Obama: "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."
Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."
"This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." That statement tells us much about the president's mindset.
The specific mention of missile defense is worrisome enough. Mr. Obama has retreated from the missile defense plan that was negotiated with European allies during the George W. Bush administration.
Apparently, he is signaling Moscow that he intends to retreat further. The clear implication from the president's comments is that he cannot tell the American people before the election what he plans to do after the election.
In addition, there is the phrase "on all these issues," implying more is at stake than just missile defense."
Article: Obama plans double cross on missile defense
When it comes to keeping America safe, we shouldn't be too flexible:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-plans-double-cross-on-missile-defense/print/
The Destabilizer wants more destabilization power.
My sister is one of those touting a “woman president” in the Boston suburbs — sadly she’s been rather brainwashed by the whole feminist movement over the decades. I told her I’d happily vote for Maggie Thatcher as a woman President if she could clone her...
Clearly does not understand, nor care for the Constitution.
I know you don’t “want” to die in a nuclear war with Russia, but is a world where Syria is run by Alawites instead of Salafists really worth living in?
Agreements dawn up with a “U.N. heading with a Phoenix or dragon logo, perhaps?
“Who was the last Republican that started a war? Just asking.”
GW Bush.
No war without a declaration from Congress. Period. Unless there are missiles inbound it should go to a vote and a case should be made. NO more ‘police actions’ or ‘regime change’- call up the troops and make it official or stay the hell out and let other countries settle their own affairs, no exceptions.
If we can’t get a declaration of war passed through Congress then not one bullet. penny or drop of blood.
And when she gets it she'll crapping in her depends in an underground bunker coming out of her hole to part of the new USSR.
I am confused. HRC wants to go to war? Who goes looking for a fight? We have a depleted military and she wants to engage? She has poor judgement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.