Obama and Medvedev: The Open Mic Incident

[Seawytch]

Does anyone remember the last negotiations we recently had over START thanks to the intransigent Republicans?

President Obama is right to wait until after the election. If he wins, the Republicans will be more likely to support it because their number one goal won't be to make him a "one term President" anymore. If he doesn't, naturally the Republicans will support whatever President Romney wants to do. (Which won't be a lick different than anything President Obama wanted to do).

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Well, at least Gorbachev was willing to give Reagan some credit for that. I still feel a lump in my throat remembering Reagan's funeral. And Gorbachev was there to pay respects. I thought that a most remarkable thing.

But we digress here.

The leftwing media from Wapo to Huffinton Post to the NY Times to NBC to Jon Stewart are all doing their damndest to help Obama clean this up. They have all figuratively checked the "much to do about nothing" option up there in the poll.

But then there is this from Charles Krauthammer:

You don't often hear an American president secretly (he thinks) assuring foreign leaders that concessions are coming their way, but they must wait because he's seeking re-election and he dare not tell his own people.

Not at all, spun a White House aide in major gaffe-control mode. The president was merely explaining that arms control is too complicated to be dealt with in a year in which both Russia and the U.S. hold presidential elections.

Rubbish. First of all, to speak of Russian elections in the same breath as ours is a travesty. Theirs was a rigged, predetermined farce. Putin ruled before. Putin rules after.

Obama spoke of the difficulties of the Russian presidential "transition." What transition? It's a joke. It had no effect on Putin's ability to negotiate anything.

As for the U.S. election, the problem is not that the issue is too complicated but that if people knew Obama's intentions of "flexibly" caving on missile defenses, they might think twice about giving him a second term.

After all, what is Obama doing negotiating on missile defense in the first place? We have no obligation to do so. The ABM Treaty, a relic of the Cold War, died in 2002.

We have an unmatched technological lead in this area. It's a priceless strategic advantage that for three decades Russia has been trying to get us to yield. Why give any of it away? In order to placate Putin, Obama had already in 2009 abruptly canceled the missile-defense system the Poles and Czechs had agreed to host in defiance of Russian threats. Why give away more?

It's unfathomable. In trying to clean up the gaffe, Obama emphasized how intent he is to "reduce nuclear stockpiles" and "reduce reliance on nuclear weapons." In which case, he should want to augment missile defenses, not weaken, dismantle or bargain them away. The fewer nukes you have for deterrence, the more you need nuclear defenses. If your professed goal is nuclear disarmament, as is Obama's, eliminating defenses is completely illogical.

Nonetheless, Obama is telling the Russians not to worry, that once past "my last election" and no longer subject to any electoral accountability, he'll show "more flexibility" on missile defense. It's yet another accommodation to advance his cherished Russia "reset" policy.
Why? Hasn't reset been failure enough?

Let's do the accounting. In addition to canceling the Polish/Czech missile defense system, Obama gave the Russians accession to the World Trade Organization, a START treaty that they need and we don't (their weapons are obsolete and deteriorating rapidly) and a scandalously blind eye to their violations of human rights and dismantling of democracy. Obama even gave Putin a congratulatory call for winning his phony election.

In return? Russia consistently watered down or obstructed sanctions on Iran, completed Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr, provides to this day Bashar al-Assad with huge arms shipments used to massacre his own people (while rebuilding the Soviet-era naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus), conducted a virulently anti-American presidential campaign on behalf of Putin, pressured Eastern Europe and threatened Georgia.

On which of "all these issues" — Syria, Iran, Eastern Europe, Georgia, human rights — is Obama ready to offer Putin yet more flexibility as soon as he gets past his last election? Where else will he show U.S. adversaries more flexibility? Yet more aid to North Korea? More weakening of tough Senate sanctions against Iran?

Read more: Charles Krauthammer: The flexibility doctrine

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah! Krauthammer! He rules!

And.....he reminds me of the guy who grabbed the kids in "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang". Creepy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Based on your posts lately, LL, I'm guessing anybody with a coherant thought creeps you out. But what in Krauthammer's essay partially quoted here is inaccurate? (If you can actually bring yourself to read something I mean.)

 

[Katzndogz]

If obama had meant that these sensitive negotiations would be best served by waiting until after the election he would have said so. Instead he went wink wink, ya know what I mean. Medeved replied by saying "I understand you and I will tell Vladimir". Whateve obama was communicating was understood by the Russian without his having to be explicit.

obama has a history of telling the public one thing, while privately giving assurances to someone else that what he's telling the public isn't at all true.

Obama privately assures banks that default won’t happen, even if debt ceiling isn’t raised » The Right Scoop -

While officials from the Obama Administration raised their rhetoric over the weekend about the possibility of a debt default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, they privately have been telling top executives at major U.S. banks that such an event won’t happen, FOX Business has learned.

In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn’t raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders. Geithner made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows saying a default is imminent if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, and President Obama issued a similar warning during a Friday press conference after budget negotiations with House Republicans broke down.

 

[JoeB131]

Based on your posts lately, LL, I'm guessing anybody with a coherant thought creeps you out. But what in Krauthammer's essay partially quoted here is inaccurate? (If you can actually bring yourself to read something I mean.)

Well, Krauthammer was one of these guys who kept insisting the Iraq war was a wonderful idea even after it was clear it wasn't.

But to the point, his whole position is that anti-ABM technology is 1) viable and 2) useful, when it is neither.

It is a great thing for a lot of companies that make technology to get big fat government contracts, though. So that's something.

All the Russians have to do to counter ABM technology is make a bunch of dummy missiles. The missiles themselves are cheap. it's the warheads that are expensive.

Right now, the technology we have can only hit a missile launched at a predetermined time on a pre-determined course about half the time. Hundreds of missiles fired at random in random directions, from dozens of launch sites. It'll never work.

But there are people who are willing to collect the money who say it does, and they kick some of that money back to folks in Congress.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Based on your posts lately, LL, I'm guessing anybody with a coherant thought creeps you out. But what in Krauthammer's essay partially quoted here is inaccurate? (If you can actually bring yourself to read something I mean.)

Odd. I crave coherent thoughts. That's a primary reason why I support President Obama.

I did not read the Krauthammer essay that you presented. I never read his shit. He's got no credibility at all as far as I am concerned.

You may ask why, given the fact that I think YOU also have little credibility, I read your comments? I asked myself the same question. The answer: I like you. And I suppose that if Krauthammer made himself available here for replies from people with credibility, I'd probably read his shit after all.

 

[Foxfyre]

If obama had meant that these sensitive negotiations would be best served by waiting until after the election he would have said so. Instead he went wink wink, ya know what I mean. Medeved replied by saying "I understand you and I will tell Vladimir". Whateve obama was communicating was understood by the Russian without his having to be explicit.

obama has a history of telling the public one thing, while privately giving assurances to someone else that what he's telling the public isn't at all true.

Obama privately assures banks that default won’t happen, even if debt ceiling isn’t raised » The Right Scoop -

While officials from the Obama Administration raised their rhetoric over the weekend about the possibility of a debt default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, they privately have been telling top executives at major U.S. banks that such an event won’t happen, FOX Business has learned.

In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn’t raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders. Geithner made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows saying a default is imminent if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, and President Obama issued a similar warning during a Friday press conference after budget negotiations with House Republicans broke down.

This seems to be a pattern, yes. All we have to do is go back to Senator Obama's criticism's of then President Bush and how 'unAmerican" and what a demonstration of failure it was for Bush to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling against President's Obama's repeated requests for an increase in the debt ceiling and his duplicity in how he got it.

We only have to go back to Obama's own words that it will take time and effort, but we will nave nationalized healthcare in America and that is the goal against President Obama's assurance that Obamacare is not nationalixzed healthcare and there is no intent to nationalize healthcare.

We only have to go back to Candidate Obama and his assurance that the budget willl be balanced and fiscal responsibility will be restored in an Obama administration.

It is obvious that this is a dishonest person who doesn't care about personal integrity so long as he can delude himself that he is fooling all us stupid people among the great unwashed.

But 'secret negotiations' with foreign powers that absolutely do not have our best interests at heart is quite a different thing. Most especially when he tells us one thing while he is obviously telling them something quite different.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

This is a reality the Russians understand better than Obama. Carter negotiated a treaty that the Senate refused to even take up for discussion.

I personally think it is a Freudian slip where he acknowledges that he can't sell out american interests during what could be a rough election year.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is a reality the Russians understand better than Obama. Carter negotiated a treaty that the Senate refused to even take up for discussion.

I personally think it is a Freudian slip where he acknowledges that he can't sell out american interests during what could be a rough election year.

That's it! It should be a huge red flag for all of us as to what a second Obama term might look like once he doesn't have to worry about re-election.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Is that the "Twilight Zone" theme I hear in the background?

A huge red flag? Care to elaborate?

 

[JoeB131]

This is a reality the Russians understand better than Obama. Carter negotiated a treaty that the Senate refused to even take up for discussion.

I personally think it is a Freudian slip where he acknowledges that he can't sell out american interests during what could be a rough election year.

That's it! It should be a huge red flag for all of us as to what a second Obama term might look like once he doesn't have to worry about re-election.

The Senate Refused to take up the SALT II Treaty for discussion because the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. That put a damper on all US-USSR relations. We withdrew from the Moscow Olympics and so did the rest of the world, we re-instituted draft registration (which we are still doing for no good reason) and it looked like for an hour and a half that Carter might have a pair of testicles..

Look, both we and the Russians would like to see further reductions in nuclear weapons. For obvious reasons. Many of these weapons are old and unreliable, and we don't need that many of them. The Russians would like to see us take Missile Defense off the table before they go back to their people and say it's a good thing. Understandable. You don't want to reduce yourself to 100 missiles when you can shoot them down. That makes you want to have more missiles than they could possibly shoot down.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Disarmerment has been a goal of both Republican and Democratic presidents since the 1960's.

Only because a guy who hid from military service doing missionary work in France wants to look tough now are we even discussing this stupidity.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is a reality the Russians understand better than Obama. Carter negotiated a treaty that the Senate refused to even take up for discussion.

I personally think it is a Freudian slip where he acknowledges that he can't sell out american interests during what could be a rough election year.

That's it! It should be a huge red flag for all of us as to what a second Obama term might look like once he doesn't have to worry about re-election.

The Senate Refused to take up the SALT II Treaty for discussion because the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. That put a damper on all US-USSR relations. We withdrew from the Moscow Olympics and so did the rest of the world, we re-instituted draft registration (which we are still doing for no good reason) and it looked like for an hour and a half that Carter might have a pair of testicles..

Look, both we and the Russians would like to see further reductions in nuclear weapons. For obvious reasons. Many of these weapons are old and unreliable, and we don't need that many of them. The Russians would like to see us take Missile Defense off the table before they go back to their people and say it's a good thing. Understandable. You don't want to reduce yourself to 100 missiles when you can shoot them down. That makes you want to have more missiles than they could possibly shoot down.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Disarmerment has been a goal of both Republican and Democratic presidents since the 1960's.

Only because a guy who hid from military service doing missionary work in France wants to look tough now are we even discussing this stupidity.

A reasoned argument and one I will even think about. At the same time, I remember Reagan saying let's work on SDI and get it up and running and then give it to everybody. And that will end the threat of nuclear war. He was ridiculed and damned and accused of the worst sorts of things by the Democrats for even suggesting that we would give our technology away to the enemy.

There is a lot of history on both sides that factors into what is and what is not reasonable.

Russia has no reason to fear any manner of aggression, much less nuclear attack, from any European nations. Given Russia's long history of aggression, threats, doing deals with viscious totalitarian regimes, and annexing neighboring nations, many if not most European nations have a great deal of reason to distrust a rearmed and newly ambitious Russia. And to distrust any agreements to reduce armaments. So for that reason, if no other, a missile defense system at least makes the people feel better whether or not it is 100% effective. And only a nation who wanted military superiority would care whether those countries had a missile detense system.

We might even question whether a President who acquiesced to Russian demands to shelve a missile defense system might have great sympathy for the country that was the greater threat to the others? I'm not saying that is the case because I don't know. But the question hangs out there.

Nobody, other than suicidal or kamikazi type fanatics presumes to mess with the USA because we have ability to wipe any aggressor off the face of the Earth should we choose to do so. Nor does anybody fear unprovoked attack or invasion by the USA.

Russia is a very different ballgame.

 

[usmcstinger]

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.

Obama has wasted much more money on theoretical programs that have never worked.

You are a perfect example of how bad our education system has become.

 

[usmcstinger]

Based on your posts lately, LL, I'm guessing anybody with a coherant thought creeps you out. But what in Krauthammer's essay partially quoted here is inaccurate? (If you can actually bring yourself to read something I mean.)

Well, Krauthammer was one of these guys who kept insisting the Iraq war was a wonderful idea even after it was clear it wasn't.

But to the point, his whole position is that anti-ABM technology is 1) viable and 2) useful, when it is neither.

It is a great thing for a lot of companies that make technology to get big fat government contracts, though. So that's something.

All the Russians have to do to counter ABM technology is make a bunch of dummy missiles. The missiles themselves are cheap. it's the warheads that are expensive.

Right now, the technology we have can only hit a missile launched at a predetermined time on a pre-determined course about half the time. Hundreds of missiles fired at random in random directions, from dozens of launch sites. It'll never work.

But there are people who are willing to collect the money who say it does, and they kick some of that money back to folks in Congress.

Do some research on how good their maintenance of their missile systems are.
Do you have a viable source to back you up?

 

[JoeB131]

A reasoned argument and one I will even think about. At the same time, I remember Reagan saying let's work on SDI and get it up and running and then give it to everybody. And that will end the threat of nuclear war. He was ridiculed and damned and accused of the worst sorts of things by the Democrats for even suggesting that we would give our technology away to the enemy.

There is a lot of history on both sides that factors into what is and what is not reasonable.

Russia has no reason to fear any manner of aggression, much less nuclear attack, from any European nations. Given Russia's long history of aggression, threats, doing deals with viscious totalitarian regimes, and annexing neighboring nations, many if not most European nations have a great deal of reason to distrust a rearmed and newly ambitious Russia. And to distrust any agreements to reduce armaments. So for that reason, if no other, a missile defense system at least makes the people feel better whether or not it is 100% effective. And only a nation who wanted military superiority would care whether those countries had a missile detense system.

We might even question whether a President who acquiesced to Russian demands to shelve a missile defense system might have great sympathy for the country that was the greater threat to the others? I'm not saying that is the case because I don't know. But the question hangs out there.

Nobody, other than suicidal or kamikazi type fanatics presumes to mess with the USA because we have ability to wipe any aggressor off the face of the Earth should we choose to do so. Nor does anybody fear unprovoked attack or invasion by the USA.

Russia is a very different ballgame.

I think it depends on how you see Russia. I see Russia as a great potential ally. We have more in common than apart, there's a lot of areas where they can help us. They can also be kind of a pain in the arse on a few issues.

The real problem with SDI is that we have been working on this since Reagan, and we are really no closer to workable technology than we were 25 years ago. But we also have a lot of Aerospace companies sucking off the teet on this boondoggle, something they'd never bother to try to develop without government grants.

 

[JoeB131]

Based on your posts lately, LL, I'm guessing anybody with a coherant thought creeps you out. But what in Krauthammer's essay partially quoted here is inaccurate? (If you can actually bring yourself to read something I mean.)

Well, Krauthammer was one of these guys who kept insisting the Iraq war was a wonderful idea even after it was clear it wasn't.

But to the point, his whole position is that anti-ABM technology is 1) viable and 2) useful, when it is neither.

It is a great thing for a lot of companies that make technology to get big fat government contracts, though. So that's something.

All the Russians have to do to counter ABM technology is make a bunch of dummy missiles. The missiles themselves are cheap. it's the warheads that are expensive.

Right now, the technology we have can only hit a missile launched at a predetermined time on a pre-determined course about half the time. Hundreds of missiles fired at random in random directions, from dozens of launch sites. It'll never work.

But there are people who are willing to collect the money who say it does, and they kick some of that money back to folks in Congress.

Do some research on how good their maintenance of their missile systems are.
Do you have a viable source to back you up?

Can you clarify the question?

 

[Foxfyre]

A reasoned argument and one I will even think about. At the same time, I remember Reagan saying let's work on SDI and get it up and running and then give it to everybody. And that will end the threat of nuclear war. He was ridiculed and damned and accused of the worst sorts of things by the Democrats for even suggesting that we would give our technology away to the enemy.

There is a lot of history on both sides that factors into what is and what is not reasonable.

Russia has no reason to fear any manner of aggression, much less nuclear attack, from any European nations. Given Russia's long history of aggression, threats, doing deals with viscious totalitarian regimes, and annexing neighboring nations, many if not most European nations have a great deal of reason to distrust a rearmed and newly ambitious Russia. And to distrust any agreements to reduce armaments. So for that reason, if no other, a missile defense system at least makes the people feel better whether or not it is 100% effective. And only a nation who wanted military superiority would care whether those countries had a missile detense system.

We might even question whether a President who acquiesced to Russian demands to shelve a missile defense system might have great sympathy for the country that was the greater threat to the others? I'm not saying that is the case because I don't know. But the question hangs out there.

Nobody, other than suicidal or kamikazi type fanatics presumes to mess with the USA because we have ability to wipe any aggressor off the face of the Earth should we choose to do so. Nor does anybody fear unprovoked attack or invasion by the USA.

Russia is a very different ballgame.

I think it depends on how you see Russia. I see Russia as a great potential ally. We have more in common than apart, there's a lot of areas where they can help us. They can also be kind of a pain in the arse on a few issues.

The real problem with SDI is that we have been working on this since Reagan, and we are really no closer to workable technology than we were 25 years ago. But we also have a lot of Aerospace companies sucking off the teet on this boondoggle, something they'd never bother to try to develop without government grants.

Russia could choose to be a strong U.S. ally, but they have not. Even in WWII we had to treat them with kid gloves and walk on egg shells to avoid offending them and losing their support. They regularly vote against our interests in the U.N., and give nobody, and I mean nobody reason to trust them about much of anything, but they collaborate with and support nations such as Iran, Syria, North Korea, and others who are no friends of the USA. There is no reason to believe that Russia's leader(s) have given up illusions of restoring Russia to a great, feared, totalitarian power.

If that clip of Obama had been in a discussion with the U.K. Prime Minister or the French president or some other peaceful ally, it would have raised eyebrows nonetheless, but it would not have been as much cause for speculation.

Russia is a very different animal.

 

[JoeB131]

Russia could choose to be a strong U.S. ally, but they have not. Even in WWII we had to treat them with kid gloves and walk on egg shells to avoid offending them and losing their support. They regularly vote against our interests in the U.N., and give nobody, and I mean nobody reason to trust them about much of anything, but they collaborate with and support nations such as Iran, Syria, North Korea, and others who are no friends of the USA. There is no reason to believe that Russia's leader(s) have given up illusions of restoring Russia to a great, feared, totalitarian power.

If that clip of Obama had been in a discussion with the U.K. Prime Minister or the French president or some other peaceful ally, it would have raised eyebrows nonetheless, but it would not have been as much cause for speculation.

Russia is a very different animal.

Since you brought up WWII, let's look at that from the Russian point of view. The west (UK, France and the US) did nothing to discourage Hitler. They stood idly by when he annexed Austria. they kept the USSR out of the Munich conference when they sold Czechoslovakia down the river. So Stalin threw in with Hitler and invaded Poland, and really, the West let Hitler get away with that, too. The west even considered helping Finland (Hitler's ally) in their war with the USSR. So they had no real reason to trust the west, either.

Now, all that said, there are things in the Russian character and history. They do not have a history of developing democratic institutions from the ground up. In fact, the westernizing/civilizing influences had to be imposed top down (Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Alexander II). So no big surprise after the dubious democracy that followed the fall of Communism, they turned to a strongman like Putin who could at least get things done.

Personally, I'm more worried about China and Iran than I am about Russia.

 

[Jroc]

WASHINGTON, March 6 | Tue Mar 6, 2012 7:56pm EST

WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) - The Obama administration disclosed on Tuesday that it is considering sharing some classified U.S. data as part of an effort to allay Russian concerns about a controversial antimissile shield.

The administration is continuing negotiations begun under former President George W. Bush on a defense technical cooperation agreement with Moscow that could include limited classified data, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Brad Roberts told a House of Representatives' Armed Services subcommittee.

He gave no details on the sort of data that might be shared under such an agreement.

Russia strongly opposes the U.S.-engineered bulwark being built in and around Europe against ballistic missiles that could be fired by countries like Iran.

Moscow fears that such a shield could grow strong enough over time to undermine Moscow's own nuclear deterrent force and has threatened to deploy missiles of its own as a counter.

Obama mulls giving Moscow data on missile defense | Reuters