Obama and Medvedev: The Open Mic Incident

I think the open mic incident is

  • much ado about nothing.

    Votes: 9 36.0%
  • a dangerous and sinister side of our President.

    Votes: 16 64.0%
  • probably somewhere in between.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other and I'll explain in my post.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Further re my previous post, Mitt Romney is STILL doing damage control in the wake of a staffer's 'etch-a-sketch' metaphor. When asked if Romney was being forced to run too far to the right to win primary elections, the staffer said that once he had the nomination, they could shake the 'etch-a-sketch' and start over with a clean slate. Romney, on his worst day, wouldn't have made a gaffe like that, but it is out there and will show up in Democrat ads from now on.

Obama isn't dealing with an errant staffer. He made the comment himself in a non-stressful and private moment not knowing that he would be heard by anybody other than Medvedev.

That has to be seen as a lot worse.

Not really.

Any sensible person knows a President has very little flexibility to get treaties approved in an election year.

Let's say Putin (who is really running things, not Medvedev ) where to hammer out a really good arms control treaty? YOu really think he can get it passed in this environment?
 
Is treason one of those "high crimes and misdemeanors" that are impeachable?

Yep.

But it was never used on Ronnie "I went to Iran to win an election" Reagan.

Boy howdy..you gotta to love a guy that gives money to terrorists that rape and kill American nuns..right? And on the down low.

Why do you keep going so deep into moonbat territory on this one?

Seriously.

This was debunked years ago... but you keep repeating it...

Are you being willfully ignorant? Or do you just have the inability to let a good conspiracy theory be tripped up by facts.

One More Time - What did the Iranians get out of this deal with Reagan?

When you answer that one in a non-crazy way, I might be able to give you some credence.
 
Further re my previous post, Mitt Romney is STILL doing damage control in the wake of a staffer's 'etch-a-sketch' metaphor. When asked if Romney was being forced to run too far to the right to win primary elections, the staffer said that once he had the nomination, they could shake the 'etch-a-sketch' and start over with a clean slate. Romney, on his worst day, wouldn't have made a gaffe like that, but it is out there and will show up in Democrat ads from now on.

Obama isn't dealing with an errant staffer. He made the comment himself in a non-stressful and private moment not knowing that he would be heard by anybody other than Medvedev.

That has to be seen as a lot worse.

Not really.

Any sensible person knows a President has very little flexibility to get treaties approved in an election year.

Let's say Putin (who is really running things, not Medvedev ) where to hammer out a really good arms control treaty? YOu really think he can get it passed in this environment?

It isn't a matter of any treaty. It is a matter of whether somebody means what they say. In this case I took it that Obama was signaling loud and clear that the Russians shouldn't worry about what he says for public consumption now, and that after the election he can work something out with them.

Again, how do you trust somebody like that?
 
Is treason one of those "high crimes and misdemeanors" that are impeachable?

Yep.

But it was never used on Ronnie "I went to Iran to win an election" Reagan.

Boy howdy..you gotta to love a guy that gives money to terrorists that rape and kill American nuns..right? And on the down low.

Why do you keep going so deep into moonbat territory on this one?

Seriously.

This was debunked years ago... but you keep repeating it...

Are you being willfully ignorant? Or do you just have the inability to let a good conspiracy theory be tripped up by facts.

One More Time - What did the Iranians get out of this deal with Reagan?

When you answer that one in a non-crazy way, I might be able to give you some credence.

:lol:

Riiight.

The Iranians released the hostages a within the hour after Reagan's inauguration.

You go with that..

And you seem good with the nun raping thing as well.

Reagan was either a liar or an extremely big dupe.

Either way..what he did was treasonous.
 
Yep.

But it was never used on Ronnie "I went to Iran to win an election" Reagan.

Boy howdy..you gotta to love a guy that gives money to terrorists that rape and kill American nuns..right? And on the down low.

Why do you keep going so deep into moonbat territory on this one?

Seriously.

This was debunked years ago... but you keep repeating it...

Are you being willfully ignorant? Or do you just have the inability to let a good conspiracy theory be tripped up by facts.

One More Time - What did the Iranians get out of this deal with Reagan?

When you answer that one in a non-crazy way, I might be able to give you some credence.

:lol:

Riiight.

The Iranians released the hostages a within the hour after Reagan's inauguration.

You go with that..

And you seem good with the nun raping thing as well.

Reagan was either a liar or an extremely big dupe.

Either way..what he did was treasonous.

And yet the Democratically controlled Congress through countless Congressional hearings, countless hours of special orders spewing all sorts of damning 'evidence, and years and more than $50 million dollars spent by their special prosecutor and his team, were not able to come up with a single crime that carried any penalty of any kind. Do you honestly think if there was anything there, they wouldn't have come up with something to accuse President Reagan who they loathed with a passion?

But as JoeB said, don't let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
 
Yep.

But it was never used on Ronnie "I went to Iran to win an election" Reagan.

Boy howdy..you gotta to love a guy that gives money to terrorists that rape and kill American nuns..right? And on the down low.

Why do you keep going so deep into moonbat territory on this one?

Seriously.

This was debunked years ago... but you keep repeating it...

Are you being willfully ignorant? Or do you just have the inability to let a good conspiracy theory be tripped up by facts.

One More Time - What did the Iranians get out of this deal with Reagan?

When you answer that one in a non-crazy way, I might be able to give you some credence.

:lol:

Riiight.

The Iranians released the hostages a within the hour after Reagan's inauguration.

You go with that..

And you seem good with the nun raping thing as well.

Reagan was either a liar or an extremely big dupe.

Either way..what he did was treasonous.

The Iranians released the hostages within an hour of Reagan's inaguration because they already got what they wanted. Carter humiliated for giving sanctuary to the Shah (again, that's what this was about, nothing Reagan did.) At that point, the Shah was dead, so there was no point in keeping the hostages at that point.

Applying simple logic, Carter had hammered out an agreement with the Iranians in exchange for releasing Iran's frozen assets. Keeping them an hour after innaguration was just a big "fuck you" to Jimmy. Which, incidently, he fully deserved.

Now, for the nuns (who again, were raped on Carter's watch, not Reagans) let's not forget that these Catholics were throwing in with the revolutionaries, and the government dealt with them accordingly. Hey, if your stupid enough to go into someone else's country and screw with their politics, boo, hoo, too bad for you.

Frankly, this was the bad old days of "liberation theology", where the Church thought it could cut a deal with the commies and keep sodomizing altar boys....
 
It isn't a matter of any treaty. It is a matter of whether somebody means what they say. In this case I took it that Obama was signaling loud and clear that the Russians shouldn't worry about what he says for public consumption now, and that after the election he can work something out with them.

Again, how do you trust somebody like that?

You mean he's doing what they all do?

Regardless of how you "took it", that's a matter of supposition.

Clearly, Obama would like to outright kill Missile Defense, because it's kind of retarded and a waste of money.

But, no, he isn't going to say that now. It's a distraction.
 
We don't know specifically what it was about. It just implied that the Russians don't need to worry about anything he says now. After he is elected he will be more free to 'play ball' with them or whatever. And it was a slap in the face to all of us regardless of political party affiliation that he will tell us one thing when he intends something different., He obviously is convinced he will be reelected which extends the time frame another four years.

The GOP didn't frame him ABS. This is something he chose to do/say entirely on his own.

How many of the GOP who have been fear mongering have even stopped to think about it? Like I said, look how long it took Reagan to do the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT).

If Medvedyev was asking for another reduction, Obama would have no choice other than to tell him he's gotta wait until after the election, because he would have more "flexibility" (i.e. time) to get them done PROPERLY.

What do you want him to do, put together a half assed reduction treaty that the Russians could ignore?

If that was the case, he could have said that when he was forced to defend himself the next day. What is a good idea six months from now is a good idea now. The implication that the Russians don't have to worry about what he says now, because 'it is an election year' implies that what he says now is of no consequence whatsoever.

How do you trust somebody like that?

He shouldn't be forced to defend shit.

You guys got some balls after the shit Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush pulled.

You really should be fucking apologizing to the nation for electing such horrible presidents.
 
It isn't a matter of any treaty. It is a matter of whether somebody means what they say. In this case I took it that Obama was signaling loud and clear that the Russians shouldn't worry about what he says for public consumption now, and that after the election he can work something out with them.

Again, how do you trust somebody like that?

You mean he's doing what they all do?

Regardless of how you "took it", that's a matter of supposition.

Clearly, Obama would like to outright kill Missile Defense, because it's kind of retarded and a waste of money.

But, no, he isn't going to say that now. It's a distraction.

A disttraction? Or political suicide both at home and abroad?

Of all the nations in the world, which one wants us and/or the majority of Europe to have no missile defense system? And why is that?

You say it is retarded and a waste of money. So if you were President you would just lower our defenses and take our chances with whomever? How many Americans do you think would go along with that?
 
Why do you keep going so deep into moonbat territory on this one?

Seriously.

This was debunked years ago... but you keep repeating it...

Are you being willfully ignorant? Or do you just have the inability to let a good conspiracy theory be tripped up by facts.

One More Time - What did the Iranians get out of this deal with Reagan?

When you answer that one in a non-crazy way, I might be able to give you some credence.

:lol:

Riiight.

The Iranians released the hostages a within the hour after Reagan's inauguration.

You go with that..

And you seem good with the nun raping thing as well.

Reagan was either a liar or an extremely big dupe.

Either way..what he did was treasonous.

The Iranians released the hostages within an hour of Reagan's inaguration because they already got what they wanted. Carter humiliated for giving sanctuary to the Shah (again, that's what this was about, nothing Reagan did.) At that point, the Shah was dead, so there was no point in keeping the hostages at that point.

Applying simple logic, Carter had hammered out an agreement with the Iranians in exchange for releasing Iran's frozen assets. Keeping them an hour after innaguration was just a big "fuck you" to Jimmy. Which, incidently, he fully deserved.

Now, for the nuns (who again, were raped on Carter's watch, not Reagans) let's not forget that these Catholics were throwing in with the revolutionaries, and the government dealt with them accordingly. Hey, if your stupid enough to go into someone else's country and screw with their politics, boo, hoo, too bad for you.

Frankly, this was the bad old days of "liberation theology", where the Church thought it could cut a deal with the commies and keep sodomizing altar boys....

Yah..Joe..sure.

Sure.

:lol:
 
I am shocked that this devious comment has not gotten that Kenyan into deep trouble. The media is, as usual, giving Obummer a free pass. He admitted........on mic.....that he was willing to sell out America's security in order to appease the Soviet dictator again! Fuckin' pansy-ass liberal commie fascist!

No wonder he wanted to race bait with his hateful comments about that dead thug in FLA. He had to draw attention away from his plans to turn AmeriKa into a Soviet slave colony.
 
A disttraction? Or political suicide both at home and abroad?

Of all the nations in the world, which one wants us and/or the majority of Europe to have no missile defense system? And why is that?

You say it is retarded and a waste of money. So if you were President you would just lower our defenses and take our chances with whomever? How many Americans do you think would go along with that?

If the Europeans want missile defense that bad, there's nothing stopping THEM from building it.

The problem is, MISSLE DEFENSE DOESN'T WORK. It's like hitting a bullet with a bullet. It's why presidents always kind of throw it out there and then pull it back to get other concessions, like Nixon did with SALT and Reagan did with START.
 
:lol:

Riiight.

The Iranians released the hostages a within the hour after Reagan's inauguration.

You go with that..

And you seem good with the nun raping thing as well.

Reagan was either a liar or an extremely big dupe.

Either way..what he did was treasonous.

The Iranians released the hostages within an hour of Reagan's inaguration because they already got what they wanted. Carter humiliated for giving sanctuary to the Shah (again, that's what this was about, nothing Reagan did.) At that point, the Shah was dead, so there was no point in keeping the hostages at that point.

Applying simple logic, Carter had hammered out an agreement with the Iranians in exchange for releasing Iran's frozen assets. Keeping them an hour after innaguration was just a big "fuck you" to Jimmy. Which, incidently, he fully deserved.

Now, for the nuns (who again, were raped on Carter's watch, not Reagans) let's not forget that these Catholics were throwing in with the revolutionaries, and the government dealt with them accordingly. Hey, if your stupid enough to go into someone else's country and screw with their politics, boo, hoo, too bad for you.

Frankly, this was the bad old days of "liberation theology", where the Church thought it could cut a deal with the commies and keep sodomizing altar boys....

Yah..Joe..sure.

Sure.

:lol:

Still waiting for you to tell me what the Iranians got out of their super swell deal with Reagan.
 
I think he's saying that he just has to fool us one more time, then he can take his mask off and do whatever the hell he wants.
 
Hopefully the Missile Defense program gets deep sixed as the money pit it is..

It's amazing all the shit Republicans find to waste tax payer funding on.

"Many forces contributed to the fall of the "Evil Empire", but foremost among them was the deployment of those 464 cruise and 108 Pershing II missiles slated to offset triple-warhead Soviet SS-20s and Backfire bombers that could reach all of Western Europe (but not the American homeland). Needless to say, it was not the "theo-logic" of deterrence that drove the counter-deployment. The drama was not really about "circular-errors probable" or "hard-target kill capabilities." The name of the game was as old as Thucydides' disquisitions on Peloponnesian power politics. It was a pure test of will and strength, and on its outcome hung, as it turned out, history. Yet what a slender thread it was."
The "amazing and mysterious" life of Ronald Reagan - page 3 | National Interest, The
 
Hopefully the Missile Defense program gets deep sixed as the money pit it is..

It's amazing all the shit Republicans find to waste tax payer funding on.

"Many forces contributed to the fall of the "Evil Empire", but foremost among them was the deployment of those 464 cruise and 108 Pershing II missiles slated to offset triple-warhead Soviet SS-20s and Backfire bombers that could reach all of Western Europe (but not the American homeland). Needless to say, it was not the "theo-logic" of deterrence that drove the counter-deployment. The drama was not really about "circular-errors probable" or "hard-target kill capabilities." The name of the game was as old as Thucydides' disquisitions on Peloponnesian power politics. It was a pure test of will and strength, and on its outcome hung, as it turned out, history. Yet what a slender thread it was."
The "amazing and mysterious" life of Ronald Reagan - page 3 | National Interest, The

Ah, the old "Reagan won the Cold War" Myth.

The USSR collapsed for the same reason the British Empire Collapsed after "winning" World War II. Because the various people of that Empire really saw no benefit from being lorded over by the Russians.

It really had little to do with Reagan, and all the way up until 1988, the CIA was still telling Congress that the USSR was an imminent threat when it was collapsing in on itself.
 

Forum List

Back
Top