March 26, 2012
Obama to Russian President Medvedev: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space," he said, referring to incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
78 comments:
January 20, 2013 cannot get here soon enough.
At least Obama is honest with someone!
I'm not sure what to make of it. Could be treason, could be legitimate and harmless. But whatever else it might be, if it isn't campaign commercial, Republicans don't deserve to win.
I'd like to see a commercial made up of nothing but Obama statements--no narrator, no explanations, just Obama's voice saying things a man worthy of his job wouldn't say.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
What if we misheard and it was not election but erection? Makes sense.
I don't expect his remarks to be widely reported, except possibly on Fox News.
So what difference does it make?
Pussy.
Look.. Obama is just expressing his totally incontrovertible confidence that most University professors are going to vote for him.. again.
Nothing wrong with that.
Richard Fernandez describes it as the principal-agent problem. US citizens are the principal, Obama the agent. He's supposed to represent citizens' interests against third parties, regardless of any adverse results to him - like the loss of an election.
Whose interests are Obama representing in this pleading to Medvedev?
Wouldn't be treason (we're not at war with the Russkies), but certainly impeachable given the stakes and context.
This is someone trying his dead level best to destroy this country by any and every means he can and this clearly proves it.
Revenant said...
I don't expect his remarks to be widely reported, except possibly on Fox News.
So what difference does it make?
It's all over the Internet and, I presume, all over talk radio.
So there's a big difference; if there weren't, there wouldn't be any opposition to ZeroCare.
Campaign commercial, already teed up.
Romney could air about 10 commercials on O's failure in the economy and now this post-election dealmaking with the Russians and win, without making one speech or being in one debate.
If he doesn't have the guts, we're doomed.
Obama to Russian President Medvedev: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space,"
===============
Oh, fucking joy!
Let the Fundies and conservative yahoos help reelect Obama because the Republican nominee isn't pure enough ideologically, or he hasn't embraced Jesus as his personal savior and stand by after the election for:
1. President Obama to apologize to Russia for the Cold War.
2. To announce he will scrap any missile defense rather than offend the Russians and Chicommies and NORKs.
3. Announce he is cutting America's strategic arsenal 30% and he hopes Russia follows suit.
4. Praise the Russian model of universal health care and their commendable years of ensuring that
the richest 1% did not run the Soviet Union...at least before that great empire sadly fell.
It's certainly an admission that the GOP will be harder on Putin than he will be.
That's the only reason Putin would give him space until after Obama's election.
Tim Maguire has a very good idea for a campaign ad. I hope someone influential reads it. What a brilliant idea.
I'm a university prof by the way and won't vote for him.
Major error. And they know it.
It's an admission that he is not planning on telling the truth during the election campaign
about his plans for dealing with Russia.
So far the Post has it on the lower part of their digital front page while the Times has buried it in two blog entries.
We'll see if the press does its job at Obama's next press conference. The questions are obvious.
Don't hold your breath.
Cedarford said...
Oh, fucking joy!
Let the Fundies and conservative yahoos help reelect Obama because the Republican nominee isn't pure enough ideologically
This just reminds people it's ABO, not ABR.
That line about hanging focusing the mind.
But I think we all know the consequences of staying home this time.
What chilled me was the little hand pat. They pat each others hands as they agree that the Russians will help to reelect Obama so he will sack the missile defense.
An watchdog press would be asking Obama what his position is on missile defense, and what flexibility he might consider once out of the reach of voters.
But the toothless bowsers will just hump the Presidents leg.
Amateur. And supposedly this guy knows how to play poker?
This should have just about all the governments west of the Russian Federation thinking about their long-term prospects.
Space, as in room, or Space, as in Outer?
I suspect it's just room.
It'll be interesting to see the spin. Note to people: All microphones are live!
Yes, our president is a tool.
As if that wasn't entirely, completely predictable.
Yet, Obama voters will once more convince themselves that somehow, Obama's sotto voce gaffe is the necessary, smart thing for our idiot president to say to the Russians.
And idiot purists on the Right will once more convince themselves that somehow, this failed, affirmative action hire is still better than Romney.
November '12 is an intelligence test. Too many will undoubtedly fail.
"It'll be interesting to see the spin. Note to people: All microphones are live!"
Why would the White House bother with spin?
Obama voters are, on balance, too dumb to presume this a problem.
The balance of voters who see the pathetic idiocy of this didn't vote for Obama in the first place, and won't this time around either.
Swing voters who could go either way?
They won't pay attention until the Sunday before election day, after they've mailed in their absentee ballots - and in the meantime, the news media will comply by burying this under the sad Trayvon Martin death.
Probably also should be considered in context with the video someone - I think in Denmark - put together of the little speech Obama gives every small-nation prime minister that is invited to the Oval Office for a photo-op.
It is the identical, word for word, speech delivered in the same hesitant cadence as if he is searching for just the right words for this particular visitor and the nation he/she represents.
Denmark, Norway, Iceland, the Philippines, and I lost track - just "cross out machinegun and write pizza."
It would be entertaining, I think, to also have the CIA tapes recording what the dignitaries had to say to their aides when they got back to their embassies!
This one is going to hurt, a lot, when it gets put into attack ads.
minor point, but just fyi edutcher, we don't have to be at war with Russia for it to be treason. The constitution has a very narrow definition of treason, but it's not that narrow.
Thank God that it was not Romney or Bush telling a Russian leader this on an open MIC.
Else it would have been a disaster in the press.
Now, the press can hide it as expected. This is why we will be re-elected. We have friends. The GOP has no one in the Press.
Obama voters aren't dumb. They are literally getting paid to vote for him. That's the issue here.
As to Romney's response, he's still dealing with that idiot Newt who thinks that 60 days is all that is needed to defeat Obama. And, St. Santorum who becomes more skin-crawlingly creepy daily.
If only the MSM would pay attention to whatever it is on this tape that is allegedly bad!
tim maguire said...
minor point, but just fyi edutcher, we don't have to be at war with Russia for it to be treason.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Pretty much puts it in a wartime criterion, especially since the Cold War is over. How else do you define a country as the enemy?
And, yeah, otherwise, every Democrat would legally be a traitor.
The constitution has a very narrow definition of treason, but it's not that narrow.
"levying War against [the USA], or in adhering to [the USA's] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"
Russia isn't an enemy of the United States, and a vague promise to "solve" certain "issues" is neither aid nor comfort.
As a Russian-American, I prefer Reagan's live mic screw up to Barry's.
Nuke Putin, and his dog too!
Whose interests are Obama representing in this pleading to Medvedev?
The only interest I have ever noticed in the I-Me-my president is Barack Obama's.
This man does not deserve to represent the United States of America.
O just doesn't want the Russkies giving us bitter clingers any ammo before the election.
"Play ball with me and in a year or so I will fold like a cheap suitcase."
That's what I heard. I hope it sticks.
Obama should have done a mic check.
GM@8:59,
Wow, where to start. Our president asks Russia to not make trouble for him until after the election and maybe there will be a little something extra in Putin's Christmas stocking, and you have trouble seeing anything wrong with that.
The only thing worse is that this genius thinks he actually has to tell the Russians this because he thinks they are too stupid to figure it out on their own. The combination of live mic stupidity with arrogance is too much to be believed.
86-ing the missile defense shield would be quid pro quo for access to a northern supply route into Afghanistan.
I don't know, but this seems like a big f'n deal to me.
Accidental discovery can be a bitch, as Major Andre found out when his era's version of an open mike message from the heroic American General giving up Washington's defenses to certain death.
Obama is another two bit Benedict Arnold that wants to seee us all dead. Not that anyone is surprised by learning that anymore
But even Putin must be sad at seeing his staunch old foe the USA being sold out so cheaply by such a reptilian man.
Seems like a lot of folks are assuming that Obama was being straightforward with Medvedev, rather than just politely telling him no. What's Medvedev supposed to say in response to this "I think you're going to lose so give me what I want now"? No. He's just got to sit there & take it.
Of course the ". . . if you can only wait longer, I can give you more. . . " negotiating strategy is exceedingly difficult to pull off.
The last worthy practitioner was the late great Neville Chamberlain.
We'll have to see if President Obama can be as successful.
Would Obama sell us out?
Would he sell his typical white person grandma out?
To ask the question is to answer it.
It's more likely Obama is setting up the Russians.
Don't make me look bad before the election and ...
and nothing, perhaps. Just don't make me look bad.
I'm guessing, then, that we're already past the "Don't call my bluff, Vlad!" stage.
SCENE: MEETING OF ISRAELI CABINET.
NETANYAHU: Well, if that jug eared fuck's willing to fuck over the pollacks so easily, where does that leave the Jews?
CABINET: [crickets, albeit Jewish desert crickets...]
NETANYAHU: Uh, huh. Thought so. Yuval! Bring me the Iran plans!
And he didn't even have to look into his soul
I bet Putin just laughed when told. Does Obama think Putin is as dumb as the people who voted for him, and just believes his campaign promises? Is that Guantanamo thing still open?
If only the MSM would pay attention to whatever it is on this tape that is allegedly bad!
of course a traitor would not see anything wrong with this.
There's Obama.. major league asshole..
Big time.. responds Chaney.
What's Medvedev supposed to say in response to this
Something like "You are so smart and charismatic, President Obama, you will win reelection even after you give us even more than we want right away" would have worked.
I don't expect his remarks to be widely reported, except possibly on Fox News.
No way. Are you kidding? They'll all jump on this. They love this shit.
"We're exposing a secret!" It trumps their politics, it trumps everything.
CBS news.
CNN.
ABC news
MSNBC.
They'll all run it. Many of them will spin it and downplay the scandal. (See for instance the MSNBC story). ABC news is running the Santorum "gaffe" at the top of the page, and Obama's in the middle of the page.
But the clip is so damning, they have to run it. And discuss it. And ask him about it.
It's like the Romney etch-a-sketch gaffe, except 1000 times worse. It's Obama, not an aide. And it's not just contempt for the voters, but also insider sleaze involving the Russians (who just stole an election themselves).
I don't know if this is a genuine scandal or not, but the clip is utterly damning, that's for sure.
The moment Obama notices the cameras, he avoids eye contact. Busted!
Maybe Pooty Poot plays golf.
Then again..the noted pundit and WH insider Chris Rock has said in his 2nd term, Obama will "go gangsta"
I linked to the MSNBC clip twice, apparently. Here's a CBS news clip.
It really is interesting to compare the Obama story with the Santorum story.
The Obama clip is a honest-to-gosh scandal. In Obama's clip, we're hearing something we're not meant to hear. A secret is exposed. It's truth! This is what Obama said, in a secret, private talk.
Santorum's clip, it's a campaign speech to Republicans. We're supposed to hear it.
The media cuts out a damning remark and gives it to us out of context.
So, yes, the media will report on Obama's scandal. (An actual scandal). But they will also give this scandal all the context and spin that they can. They will try to save him from his own scandal, while reporting on the scandal.
Because they know we love scandals!
Santorum, on the other hand, gets zero context from the media. They're not going to play the next sentence for us. In fact they are using a remark, out of context, to try to damn Santorum as much as they can.
They are trying to create a scandal around Santorum. While they will report on Obama's scandal, they will also try to spin it so it's not so bad.
What's your problem with Obama, C-fudd? Now you know he's going to screw Israel just like you want. You should be chowing down on him the way you do your Hezbollah buddies.
one can only imagine the state dept is generating numerous backchannels to eastern europe heads of state after this little faux pas. As noted above if the GOP cannot make this into a campaign issue, they deserve to lose.
any head of state anywhere, after looking at this exchange, will have zero trust in the president of the united states. Mr Obama has singlehandedly destroyed the credibility of the United States on the world stage. Disgraceful
He's a subversive, trying to regress the USA into a European Socialist/Authoritarian Welfare State.
The perfect reason to vote Obama out.
But, then again, I knew that back in 2008, when he was talking like one.
Trying to install 19th Century Authoritarian Technocrat Government isn't "Progressive". It is a few steps backwards in political freedom.
And idiot purists on the Right will once more convince themselves that somehow, this failed, affirmative action hire is still better than Romney.
That will be the "Black Helicopter kook" wing of the GOP, whose rise we saw back in the 1990 under Clinton. I remember them well.
If I were eastern Europe I'd be looking to Israel for a missile defense system and just write off the US.
Con Man.
Con Man needs "space" to set up con.
Con Man gotta con.
What else won't we find out about until ... after ... the election?
Wouldn't be treason (we're not at war with the Russkies), but certainly impeachable given the stakes and context.
Pray tell, what is "the high crime or misdemeanor".
He told a political truth. If he tried to change the ridiculous missile defense policy now the Republicans would make a federal crime out of it. Better to wait until after the election to develop a rational policy
If I were eastern Europe I'd be looking to Israel for a missile defense system and just write off the US.
Only problem with this line of reasoning is that Eastern Europe doesn't want the missile shield. The Czech Republic has already explicitly rejected it and there is serious opposition to it in Poland.
For a bunch of people who hate wasteful government spending, you sure are willing to give it a pass when it involves blowing shit up.
trying to regress the USA into a European Socialist/Authoritarian Welfare State.
Which countries in Europe do you consider Authoritarian?
Regardless, your history is wrong. The current social welfare states in Europe are a creation of the twentieth century, beginning after World War I and not developing fully until after World War II.
You, on the other hand are clinging to a social order established in the 18th century.
And don't forget, Saint Ronald waited until his second term to pull all the intermediate range nukes and cruise missiles out of Europe. And tried, at Reykjavik to eliminate all nuclear weapons.
The traitor!
He told a political truth. If he tried to change the ridiculous missile defense policy now the Republicans would make a federal crime out of it. Better to wait until after the election to develop a rational policy
So, Progressives are pro-lying to the voters about your policies.
Nice.
Only problem with this line of reasoning is that Eastern Europe doesn't want the missile shield. The Czech Republic has already explicitly rejected it and there is serious opposition to it in Poland.
The opposition is that they stuck their necks out to support it and Obama ALREADY shafted them.
Can you give a reason for any country to trust a word we say when Obama just cavalierly discounts everything done before him?
And don't forget, Saint Ronald waited until his second term to pull all the intermediate range nukes and cruise missiles out of Europe. And tried, at Reykjavik to eliminate all nuclear weapons.
The traitor!
Reagan never liked nukes. SDI was a means to end nukes.
Moron.
SDI was a means to end nukes.
SDI was not and never will be a means to end nukes. We learned that in the early sixties, and for some reason forget it by the early eighties.
It will always be cheaper to just build more nukes to overwhelm a defense system than it ever will be to build and maintain a effective shield against them.
Freder--I didnt understand your comment about trying SDI in the early 1960s--could you explain it a bit more please. Thanks in advance.
Yeah, Freder, when were these tests of SDI from the 1960's?
Reagan always intended it to end nukes. He offered it to the USSR to use as well for that reason. Few liked nukes less than Ron.
I didnt understand your comment about trying SDI in the early 1960s--could you explain it a bit more please. Thanks in advance.
Certainly
The idea of SDI was not to produce an impenetrable shield, it was to make planning a first strike impossible.
A first strike has to take out all of the enemy's nukes because the retaliatory strike will be to population centers. That was the idea in the cold war. Now the reason is that we could intercept completely the kind of limited strike that N. Korea or Iran could mount.
Freder--thanks. The nike zeus program was a very primitive first generation attempt at intercepting incoming missiles. And as you point out, correctly, the appropriate counter response is to simply build more incoming missiles. I would suggest awareness of that fact led to the strategy of mutual assured destruction which was our nuclear policy until the 1980s. Technological advances, particularly new radars and spaced based technology probably stimulated SDI. The issue herein I submit was that interception of incoming missiles was increasingly likely and in turn required the USSR to spend more money than it had to build the necessary response. And it was the economic cost that in part helped to precipitate the fall of the USSR.
The issue herein I submit was that interception of incoming missiles was increasingly likely and in turn required the USSR to spend more money than it had to build the necessary response. And it was the economic cost that in part helped to precipitate the fall of the USSR.
Actually, we were the ones during the '80's spending unsustainable amounts on missiles and missile defense. The idea that the Soviets tried to keep up with us and spent themselves into the dustbin of history is simply untrue. Yes, the Soviets did increase defense spending in the early eighties, but that was because they were fighting an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. By the end of the decade they were actually reducing their defense spending.
Freder--I will respectfully disagree with your point--and I would base that on the documents that emerged from the USSR after the fall of the Soviet Union. We will have to agree to disagree on this point.
I think that several hundred square feet in Chicago next January would be plenty!
Should be an "Obama is stupid" tag. Everyone's always trying to convince themselves that he's so brilliant, what a savant, what a full on red hot orator, what a heroic genius philosopher king who makes people faint by his mere presence. He's not. It's all smoke and mirrors and palace guard narrative manipulation. And this little episode was just stone stupid. He knows he ought not to wander off script, you know he's been told, but he still does it anyway, and around a hot mic. Well done, Barry. More please.
That will be the "Black Helicopter kook" wing of the GOP, whose rise we saw back in the 1990 under Clinton.
Them, plus the obnoxious Personal Honor contingent, who confuse voting for a politician every four years with expressing a lifelong religious commitment. The urge to elect ourselves a Messiah has crossed party lines.
Post a Comment