February 5, 2011

"The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty."

Says the UK Telegraph, relying on Wikileaks:
A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.
Oh, but don't be upset! The START treaty was Obama's chosen post-elections showdown with GOP last fall:
Just two weeks after an election that left him struggling to find his way forward, President Obama has decided to confront Senate Republicans in a make-or-break battle over arms control that could be an early test of his mettle heading into the final two years of his term.
Obama proved his mettle! What's more important? Our relationship with the UK or proof of Obama's mettle after the crushing 2010 elections?


virgil xenophon said...

TREASON!! If this isn't grounds for impeachment nothing is. In a sane world the House would be gearing up for impreachment hearings even as I type..

virgil xenophon said...

Or at the very least investigative hearings to ascertain the truth of the report.

Freeman Hunt said...

Selling out Britain for Russia (who no sane person would trust to keep a treaty anyway) would be enough to keep me from voting for someone. But that's no loss to Obama; I wouldn't be voting for him anyway.

traditionalguy said...

What's new? Secret Obama actions that are 180 degrees opposite of what he says he is doing are yawners these days. We have learned that Obama will "DO whatever it takes" to destroy the structure supporting the arrogant American enterprise that make Soros spitting angry. Glen Beck is slow to catch the nuanced lies that pass in the media as valiant Obama's need to succeed. The question we need answered is not what is on Obama's Birth Certificate, rather it is what will be the cause of death on America's Death Certificate.

Anonymous said...

I seem to remember cheering throngs for the messiah in Europe, now....?

NOW?!?! Thought so, join the club.

Cecil Isbell Meade said...

2010 Nobel Peace Prize - Barack Obama
2011 Nobel Peace Prize - Wikileaks

Am I seeing a pattern?

Freeman Hunt said...

I hate the prefix/word "wiki." Uncomfortable in the mouth. Icky.

Chris said...

Well, now we all know what the word "Ally" means to your President.

john said...

This attitude was telegraphed 2 years ago when he packaged up that bust of Churchill and sent it back across the pond.

AllenS said...

Since obama got the most votes in the last presidential election, I guess all of us will have to live with the decisions that he makes.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Stupid Russia. All they had to do was wait a few months and Wikileaks probably would have released Britain's nuclear secrets anyway.

rollingdivision said...

Obama's number one foreign policy principle, the USA is bad so screw the friends of the USA.

The Drill SGT said...

virgil xenophon said...

Sorry, it's not treason to betray the Brits to the Russians.

It's sleazy and a betrayal of our relationship with our strongest ally for a short term politcal gain (unless of course hurting the UK was the intent), but it's technically not treason.

Beyond the UK damage, how could any country in the world look at this betrayal and ask:

- if he breaks promises to their oldest ally, how can I trust his promises to me?
- Obama and by extension America can't be trusted anymore

Althouse, does this count as a pragmatic Obama plus for you, or a double-dealing short sighted ploy?

Freeman Hunt said...

Now we know what was on the iPod we gave Russia.

Lem said...

Obama mettle..

He engaged in a give and take negotiation with the Russians for START and rolled over his republican rivals for Health Care.

Rialby said...

Obama hates Britain, always has. Because soldiers acting on behalf of Her Majesty once kicked his radical Muslim grandfather. That's kind of personal insult no normal man can put aside.

What's that? He's supposed to be the President of the United States and above that? Well, what sucker voted for this clown?

Rialby said...

Sorry, not Her Majesty. The alleged torture of Obama's radical Muslim grandfather happened under George VI. Speaking of which, I wonder if Obama will allow "The King's Speech" to be shown in the White House.

Shanna said...

If true, this is definately one of the worst things I've seen. Obama apparently just can't stand Britain. What's up with that?

JAL said...

You know -- I am listening to Decision Points as I do my running around.

I'd like to mention here that once upon a time, not so very long ago, we had an adult as POTUS who loved this country and its people with a deep and grounded passion.

I really do miss W.

Britain, Israel?
Barack Hussein Obama: "You can go to hell. Better yet, I'll help it come to you."

Mick said...

Obama was born a British Subject, do to his father's Kenyan Citizenship, and his birth before Kenyan Independence.

At his campaign website, "Fight the Smears", it is said that Britain "controlled the citizenship status of Barack Obama Sr. as well as Obama Sr's. children."

This is the reason he is not a natural born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS, no matter where he was born.

He may even be a British Subject to this day, and if so, he has definitely committed Treason in Britain's eyes. We are not allowed to see his passport records, but he may have traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on a British passport (Pakistan was a Commonwealth country). If so, he swore allegiance to Britain at the age of consent. Why are we not allowed to know this? Does Britain know?
There might be a lot of truth in that recent book about Obama's anti-colonialist feelings, since he is supposedly so fond of his "birth-country", Kenya, a colony of Britain when he was born. Remember him sending back the Churchill bust when he first stepped into the WH?

Here is the exact quote from "Fight the Smears":

" “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Notice that it says that his Kenyan Citizenship expired, but not his British citizenship. Why?

Mick said...

Rialby said...

" Obama hates Britain, always has. Because soldiers acting on behalf of Her Majesty once kicked his radical Muslim grandfather. That's kind of personal insult no normal man can put aside."

Obama was born a British Subject due to his Kenyan father, and the British Nationalization Act of 1948.
That is why he is not a natural born Citizen, even if born in the White House.

bagoh20 said...

Yea, but the Queen has that great Ipod with Obama speeches on it. If they could just give him maybe a knighthood, THEN we could call it even. You got to have "Sir Obama" before you can have King Obama - Lord of Putin's sock drawer.

Chef Mojo said...

Wow. It's really been "screw an old ally" week for Obama and the US, hasn't it?

Chris said...

Regardless of where he was born or what his eligibility status is, Canada needs to act like he's the legitimate POTUS. Thankfully, our Prime Minister is a very smart guy who will no doubt be watching his back around Obama from now on.

DaveW said...

If true, this is definately one of the worst things I've seen.

Yeah me too, at least as far as foreign policy is concerned. Most of what Zero has done is at least reversible by the next president. This sort of thing will cause allies to question whether it is ever safe to reveal national security info to the U.S. no matter who is currently occupying the office.

What an idiot he is. An absolute idiot.

virgil xenophon said...

Disagree, Drill Sgt. The British nukes are an integral part of our own SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan) for waging nuclear war. Anything that weakens the Brits by making their force more vulnerable ipso facto makes our own more vulnerable as well by dint of degrading the overall effectiveness of the total strike force and thus its deterrent effectiveness as well as "after-the-shooting-starts" wartime capabilities.

Sixty Grit said...

Bros before hos, right? Commies before Brits. Odouche really hates the British, that's for sure.

Why is he still in office? How many more criminal acts can he and his thug crew commit before they are removed?

The Crack Emcee said...

"Elections have consequences", right, Ann?

Chris said...

Sorry to harp on, but I really don't get this guy. He doesn't appear to have a high regard for his own country and he's obviously not working in the interests of his allies. So what IS his interest?

Anonymous said...

How do we know it was US negotiators as opposed to an exercise by opponents of the government, done to induce reporters to write stories antagonistic to the government?

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cedarford said...

Tempest in a tea pot.
Only bad thing with this is it is another big diss of Black Messiah to the oppressor people that messed up Kenya. (As opposed to the blissful black nation it is now). The Kenyan half-breed should have thought 1st and foremost of America's dearest ally.
(Though a counter-theory is that this was a slap at the Brits for treating Julian Assage as a distinguished guest of honor, the toast of London.)

On the missile treaty disclosures: We transfer Trident superaccurate, MIRV'd D-5 missiles to Britain and part of the nuclear cooperative defense arrangment that has existed since the Manhattan Project. Previous arms treaties require inspection of missile production facilities and tracking where each thermonuclear tipped missile ends up, and verifying those missiles by serial number, including when we downsize and destroy them.
So we are accounting for our missiles, and we expect reciprocity from the Russkies..which they have been very good at since their VEKTOR fiasco.

We made X number of D-5 missiles. The Russians know there are X number of D-5s left. The Russians need to know that 1/14th of X is with the Brits. We know the Russians made X number of Topol 3s. We need to account for them by queries to the Russians.


Trooper York said...

Barry just hates the Brits.

Trooper York said...

Anyway those Limeys should just shut up. I mean he gave them a bunch of DVD's for crying out loud.

They are stating to sound like Sammie from the Jersey Shore.

Anonymous said...

"Judging people by how they look rather than what who they are and what they have done. His character never even mattered."

Just so, and amazingly after all of these years since MLK just over half of this country and overwhelming global opinion judged Obama on the color of his skin.The content of his character, not at all!

So here we are....

edutcher said...

I think we can put the Reset button away. At this point, we really have no friends in the world.

O! For the good old days of cowboy diplomacy.

PS As to virgil's claim of treason, we'd have to be at war, but if this isn't malfeasance and misfeasance in office, I don't know what is.

dave in boca said...

I hope the Brits look into this. I know the US congress will probably look the other way, as Issa seems to be chastened by the flurry of character-assassination pieces put out against him by the NYT and The New Yorker.

If Cameron had a set, he'd have a relook at the US/UK relationship if these charges have merit. Could be wikileaks disinfo, but Barry's naivete and his "disappeared" senior thesis at UColumbia on US/USSR disarmament make him susceptible to third-class thinking.

Sadly, an advanced system like Trident probably needs US hands-on support for refurbishment and upkeep, so the Brits have a weak hand, unless they scrap the Trident program altogether.

virgil xenophon said...

I know, edutcher, technically it isn't--but imo it's its functional equivalent--at least in my eyes. Besides, TREASON sounds better.. :)

Mick said...

Legislative Bill currently in the Nebraska house re vetting eligibility of POTUS candidates. Read page 4 #15-#21:

"I was born a citizen of the United States of America and
16 was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of
17 America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my
18 birth. On the day I was born, both my birth mother and birth father
19 were citizens of the United States of America. As further evidence of
20 the above statements, I have attached the items required in
21 subsection (6) of this section.

They all know BO is not eligible.

ricpic said...

Whatever motivates vomits like Hussein and Hillary one thing's for sure: the White West Must Pay! be it Britain or that western outpost, Israel.

Mick said...


Read page 4 #15-21.
They know what a natural born Citizen is, and the WH is in a tizzy.

Eligibility being discussed at highest levels.


Anonymous said...

""The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty.""

The Brits didn't get the hint when he threw the Churchill bust out of the White House?

ken in sc said...

This certainly fits Dinesh D'souza's theory that Obama is devoted to the anti-colonialist anti-western ideology promoted by his father.

Quaestor said...

Cedarford innocently gives us the reasons for Obama's betrayal of secrets, but not justifications.

Every criminal can rationalize his deeds.

Big Mike said...

Guy doesn't much like the UK, does he?

After Jeb gets sworn in on January 20th, 2013, fixing up relations with Number 10 Downing Street has to be his first order of business.

David said...

First Mubarak, and now this.

Message: Think twice (and then think again) before you become an ally of the Americans.

The Chinese and the are licking their chops.

The South Koreans are figuring how to fight the North on their own, if it comes to that.

g2loq said...

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama and his retinue but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

g2loq said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Prosecutorial Indiscretion said...

Has any president since the War of 1812 been more anti-British than Obama?

Trooper York said...

Yes Andrew Jackson.

Of course the limeys killed his brother and one of them slashed him with a sword because he wouldn't shine his boots.

Barry only hates them because....I don't know why he hates those pasty faced guys so muc.....hey wait a minute?

kent said...

Gosh, sure is a good thing we didn't end up with that awful Palin woman anywhere near the Oval Office, huh...?


Jason (the commenter) said...

Prosecutorial Indiscretion: Has any president since the War of 1812 been more anti-British than Obama?

"anti-British" sounds too passionate for Obama. I think he just likes to fawn over the powerful (note his constant bowing) and try to make people like him. Once they do, they are of no interest to him, and he holds them in contempt for falling for his charms.

Belkys said...

So he acted like Assange,
The relationship ? It stopped when he sent back Churchill statue and gave Soro´s tool the zone 1 dvd´s

Crimso said...

Oddly, at 52 comments in, I expected to see someone come to Obama's defense. There are several regular commenters here that I would expect to have done so. Maybe later. Or maybe they won't touch this one with a ten foot pole.

Bartender Cabbie said...

If this be true then someone in the administration has committed treason. Selling out an staunch ally to gain favor with a potential enemy nation is nothing more than treason.

The Concrete Dog said...

restd his boots on my head
leand bak in his chair
fingrs pointd to his chin

he told cesar borga
to betray
th duches of sforza

to pretend a truce
then strip hr
put hr in a iron cage
n rape hr in front of hr troops

talk virtu he sed
but be ruthlss

problm is
only works once

JAL said...

@ Jason (the commenter) ...and try to make people like him. Once they do, they are of no interest to him, and he holds them in contempt for falling for his charms.

And he honestly thinks Vladimir Putin will fall for this?

Putin will not only eat Obama's lunch, he eats Kobe steak raw.

dick said...

I would certainly hope that people who voted for this sham will at least consider what this POS has done in the past before they tell us just how pragmatic he is and why he got their vote. This should be enough to get even academics to think things through before they cast their vote for whoever is on the left rather than who can be trusted to do the right things. Obviously Zero cannot be trusted but we should have known that before the last election had we just checked his bona fides but if we could not bother to take the trouble to do that then no wonder we made a stupid decision.

WV: bullying - getting some strange WV's lately.

woof said...

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called the report “nonsense,” saying the information sharing about U.S. transfers of nuclear weapons to the U.K. dates back to the original START treaty, an assertion backed up by the White House and British government officials.

The report, based on a Wikileaked cable from February 2010 during negotiations over the U.S.-Russian New START nuclear disarmament treaty, discussed an agreed statement on the transfer of Tridents II SLBMs to the United Kingdom…

A knowledgeable source with the British government, speaking anonymously because his government has a policy of not commenting on Wikileaks, says his understanding of the policy conforms with that asserted by the State Department.

Crimso said...

From the article in question:

"Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain."

Doesn't sound like the Brits were on board with this. It's not entirely clear from the article that this was an explicit part of the treaty. In one part they say it is part of the "deal," but another says it's secret (as in "The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose"). While being secret doesn't mean it can't be part of the deal, it does mean we can't verify it (unless your anonymous British official will go on the record).

Nevertheless, the quote above is quite clear. If it's incorrect (i.e., if the Brits were asked for such provisions in the treaty and gave their permission), then the British government can quite easily clear all of this up by officially admitting to having agreed with the request. They can do so regardless of their stance on WikiLeaks, as the question is about whether they agreed to the US providing Russia with the information (i.e., it is about the treaty, not WikiLeaks). Commenting on the treaty is not the same as commenting on WikiLeaks. You'll note one of the other leaks mentioned in the article refers to the Duchess of York. Will the British government refuse all further comment on her since she was mentioned in WikiLeaks?