Posted on 03/28/2012 7:01:58 AM PDT by Kaslin
As President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ended a public conference in South Korea (a nation demonstrably threatened by North Korean ballistic missiles), a still-open microphone inadvertently recorded a stunning tete-a-tete. The brief but jaw-dropping act of personal diplomacy yoked U.S. and Russian arguments over missile defense systems, a serious international security issue of long-term geo-strategic consequence, to Obama's short-term domestic political plan to secure his own re-election come November.
The whispered exchange:
Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it's important for him (Putin) 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."
Accompanying video imagery, of professionally formal faces masking noxious cynicism, is available on the Web.
Obama and his press apologists dismiss "The Missile Message," spinning it as a minor gaffe. Balderdash. Obama and Medvedev are their nations' top diplomats as well as leaders, so the personal diplomatic exchange, though arrogant, flamingly stupid and brazenly conniving, isn't minor. The apologists' agitprop disregards the men's privileged positions and insults common sense. But then a fair inference drawn from Obama's request for "space" is he believes he can tell the American people any jit and jot, and the rubes will believe. When he ran against Hillary Clinton, Obama opposed the individual mandate. In office, it became the cornerstone of his health care legislation.
The patron-donor of Obama's re-election space, former KGB agent and authoritarian strong man president-elect Vladimir Putin, will soon replace Medvedev. However, like many strong men on the planet, to include his pal, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, Putin confronts his own peoples' demand for democratic change and economic revival.
Twitter-generation Russians opposing Putin know that he and his gang are the corrupt authors and beneficiaries of Russian-brand state cronyism, a vicious economic-political amalgam combining mafia greed and muscle with streaks of communism, fascism, corporatism and czarism. Charges of vote fraud and intimidation marred Putin's suspect re-election, but to ensure his grip on power he needed space to do what he had to do. Yes, Vladimir certainly understands Barack's request.
Losing the Cold War stung Russian pride. Putin portrays himself as the man who revived respect for Russia. As part of the act, he consistently stokes Cold War embers, to include Soviet-era anti-Americanism. The militant theater panders to hardline nationalists and distracts critics of his corruption and cronyism. Thus Obama's quid for Putin's quo is as obvious as it is geo-strategically foolish, for the U.S., U.S. allies and, ultimately, for Russia, as well. Barack will give Vladimir an international diplomatic triumph; its domestic political dividends will strengthen Putin's personal power.
Missile defense is Putin's favorite Cold War ember. In the last decade, the U.S. and NATO have built the diplomatic and technological framework to deploy an anti-missile defense designed to stop an Iranian missile volley. Turkey agreed to host a key radar site. The multilayered shield is actually rather robust, though Obama weakened it in September 2009 when he eliminated ground-based interceptors (GBI) deployment. GBIs have anti-ICBM capabilities but were no counter-force to Russian strategic missiles.
Still, Russia objected. Obama dumped the GBIs, despite howls from U.S. ally Poland.
Would Khomeinist Iran try to politically blackmail Europe with a nuclear-armed ballistic missile? Japan and South Korea decided missile defense was a sane response to North Korea's nuclear extortion racket. Exposing London and Paris to the nuclear whims of millenarian religious nuts is utterly stupid diplomacy. Countering NATO's shield thus puts Iran's ayatollahs in political debt to Russia. Putin's Moscow prefers sphere of influence to a sphere of shared security.
Obama appears to have decided his re-election, with the aid of Putin, is more important than supporting U.S. allies and pursuing responsible collective security measures against rogue regimes. Hope and change? No. A self-centered politician's political security first. American security? Not so much.
The overarching message is actually.. “Help me to win reelection, and I’ll give you all you want.” Am I wrong here? Am I missing something?
“..Help me to win reelection..”
or, “I have not given you everything I promised, and I need more time, I need space.”
**** The overarching message is actually.. Help me to win reelection, and Ill give you all you want. Am I wrong here? Am I missing something? ****
Yep, you’re missing the part where this behavior is far preferable to Mitt Romney as president.
“..Help me to win reelection..”
or, “I have not given you everything I promised, and I need more time, I need space.”
Right there.
"particularly missile defense"
That is the phrase that tells the exact nature of little bammys loyalty.
And is is not the United State of America.
This can be spun by the communist donks throughout the summer till the election but only the O-bot voter drones will buy into it. His weaseling from Tuesday is nothing but a caught pig squealing...
On Tuesday, Obama said his comments, though not intended for public consumption, were not a matter of hiding the ball Im on record
His fascist lying azz damn sure is "on record" now.
From the comments of Rep. Michael Turner, who chairs the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, which has direct oversight on missile-defense issues, Obama's pig squeal excuse will have no influence on how his behind-the-scenes sellout of the u.S. will be viewed.
Rep. Michael Turner:
Dear Mr. President,
I request your urgent explanation of your comments to President Medvedev in Seoul this morning.
During the New START treaty ratification process, you made specific promises that Russian concerns about missile defense will not be allowed to affect U.S. missile defense deployment plans. You further committed that the United States will make both qualitative and quantitative improvements in its missile defenses. You have already walked away from detailed promises to modernize the U.S. nuclear deterrent; are you now planning to walk away from your promises regarding U.S. missile defense as well?
As you know, in the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress enacted, and you signed into law, a provision constraining your ability to share classified U.S. missile defense information with the Russian Federation. Congress took this step because it was clear based on official testimony and Administration comments in the press that classified information about U.S. missile defenses, including hit-to-kill technology and velocity at burnout information, may be on the table as negotiating leverage for your reset with Russia. Despite signing the FY12 defense authorization legislation into law, you then issued a signing statement signaling that you may treat that provision protecting U.S. missile defense information as non-binding. This mornings comments, on top of that action, suggests that you and your administration have plans for U.S. missile defenses that you believe will not stand up to electoral scrutiny.
Congress has made exquisitely clear to your Administration and to other nations that it will block all attempts to weaken U.S. missile defenses. As the Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which authorizes U.S. missile defense and nuclear weapons policy, I want to make perfectly clear that my colleagues and I will not allow any attempts to trade missile defense of the United States to Russia or any other country.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Turner
Chairman, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
House Armed Services Committee
Well now.
Apparently Obama has made himself "exquisitely" clear that his word is worthless and he has absolutely no intention whatsoever to follow what he himself has signed into law.
NONE.
His revocation of Sections 401(3) (4) of Executive Order 12656, November 23, 1988, and replacing it with PART IV - VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES (March 16, 2012.) in E.O. on 16 March 2012 is in line with his back door treason against the United States missile defense.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2862565/posts?page=14#14
Undoubtedly his plans to disarm the U.S. is spreading like wildfire throughout the entire U.S. Armed Forces.
He is rapidly reaching a point where our military forces will not even attempt to follow any bizarre orders that he may issue near the election. Hell, they probably would not follow him to the local Taco Bell.
That could leave only federal LEO to enforce some election-related fraud his communist, narcissistic personality disorder delusion of reality butt might come up with.
This quote, Obama: "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility." and his radical alteration of Emergency Powers on 16 March to include that authority "in peacetime" point directly to the upcoming election as being THE critical point in his plans.
Whatever the little nut-ball has in mind it is "exquisitely" clear that it will harm the United States both economically and militarily.
trea·son [ treez'n ]
betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.
treachery: betrayal or disloyalty
act of betrayal: an act of betrayal or disloyalty
Synonyms: sedition, treachery, disloyalty, subversion, betrayal, duplicity, high treason
Too bad for we mere peasants but in the light of his comments to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that is how it reads.
Obama - The Teflon Turncoat.
Resident Obama makes Bendict Arnold look good.
But the media will continue to prop him up.
He can only be a turncoat if he was actually loyal to the US at a point in his life. His behavior suggests his loyalty has never been to American culture, values, tradition, and laws.
I’m missing that too.
Actually there is very little robust...if there is NOTHING to intercept the missiles. The only other interceptors that might exist are SM3s on our Aegis cruisers...and they typically are nowhere close to where they would need to be defend European targets from ballistic nuclear missiles. So it is not a very robust shield.
Poland is right to be freaked out by Obama's betrayal. And so should we.
Good Point
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.