Why the country cannot risk four more years of this guy

[ScreamingEagle]

another 4 years of this marxist prez will be disastrous....

Gingrich called the exchange with Medvedev an "extraordinary moment caught on tape where the president basically said to a Russian leader, 'Please wait until after the election so I can sell out.'

"If you read what he said, it is the most blatant comment about selling out American defenses I think any American president's ever made and I don't see how any American could trust him ever again after that comment," Gingrich said. "I mean, he thinks it's in private and he's saying to the Russians, please quote 'give me some space' so I can be re-elected and then I'll be free to do anything I want to. Well, that just told you how radically left-wing Obama's going to be in the second term."

Romney, Gingrich blast Obama for hot mic missile defense comments - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

 

[Uncensored2008]

But WE keep the house and the car.

He can keep the bobblehead collection, though..

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama Hot Mic: Tells Russia He Needs ‘Space’ and Can be Flexible After Eleciton | Video | TheBlaze.com



Who knows what would even be left of the country after 4 more years of this guy, and without his being constrained by concerns for reelection.

What's the big deal exactly?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You mean there's a chance we might not hand over a few trillion dollars to the defense lobby for a missile defense arms race?

You people really don't get it do you?

 

[Valerie]

"The greatest threat the US faces is a nuclear Iran ... [But] who is it who always stands up for the world’s worst actors? It’s always Russia, typically with China along side,” Romney said. “Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage.”


Russia Is Mitt Romney's 'Number One Foe' - Global - The Atlantic Wire

What’s at Stake

In a 1939 radio broadcast Winston Churchill famously called Russia “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” The line is quoted often. But most leave out the rest of Churchill’s statement, where he offered a key to understanding Russia, and “that key is Russian national interest.” What is Russia’s national interest today? At the risk of oversimplification, we can say that Vladimir Putin, who is seeking a third term as Russian president in 2012, aims above all else to preserve his power, stoking Russian nationalist passions to maintain popular support, and using wealth garnered from energy and arms sales to stave off economic calamity. With the Kremlin’s leverage over the energy supplies of Central and Western Europe, its stockpile of nuclear weapons, its recent history of aggressive military action, and the power it wields in multilateral institutions like the United Nations, Russia is a destabilizing force on the world stage. It needs to be tempered.


Obama’s Failure

President Obama famously sought to “reset” U.S. relations with Russia. The ambiguity of that term cannot mask that the Obama administration has failed to move Russia toward a more beneficial working relationship with the United States and our allies. President Obama began his reset policy by withdrawing, without reciprocal concessions, from President Bush’s plan to place a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move Russia strongly desired. He continued the same “we give, Russia gets” policy by signing the New START treaty in 2010. While the agreement compels the U.S. to reduce our nuclear launcher and warhead limits, the levels it sets for Russia are above what the Russians possessed at the time the agreement was reached. In other words, New START gave Russia room to expand its arsenal while requiring the United States to reduce our own. In any event, even if we put aside the demerits of the treaty, it was a squandered opportunity to extract concessions from the Russians that would have advanced our interests. Thus, President Obama failed to press for meaningful reductions not only in Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal, but also in its extensive tactical nuclear force. And he failed to elicit Russian help in dealing with North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Russia

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You mean there's a chance we might not hand over a few trillion dollars to the defense lobby for a missile defense arms race?

You people really don't get it do you?

duh i guess we are all so stoopid.....we all (like our marxist prez) better listen to Medvedev telling us what we should do.....

Moscow rejects Washington's claim the plan is solely to deal with any Iranian threat and has voiced fears it will eventually become powerful enough to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent.

Read more here: Russia issues new warnings over US missile defense - World - TheState.com

gosh now....we wouldn't want that would we.......?

 

[Polk]

You mean there's a chance we might not hand over a few trillion dollars to the defense lobby for a missile defense arms race?

You people really don't get it do you?

duh i guess we are all so stoopid.....we all (like our marxist prez) better listen to Medvedev telling us what we should do.....

Moscow rejects Washington's claim the plan is solely to deal with any Iranian threat and has voiced fears it will eventually become powerful enough to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent.

Read more here: Russia issues new warnings over US missile defense - World - TheState.com

gosh now....we wouldn't want that would we.......?

Medvedev is not telling us what to do. He's stating his country's concerns, which happen to perfectly valid. And no, we don't really have an incentive to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent. Having that ability is only important if you seriously think Russia is going to launch a first strike, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Polk]

"The greatest threat the US faces is a nuclear Iran ... [But] who is it who always stands up for the world’s worst actors? It’s always Russia, typically with China along side,” Romney said. “Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage.”


Russia Is Mitt Romney's 'Number One Foe' - Global - The Atlantic Wire

What’s at Stake

In a 1939 radio broadcast Winston Churchill famously called Russia “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” The line is quoted often. But most leave out the rest of Churchill’s statement, where he offered a key to understanding Russia, and “that key is Russian national interest.” What is Russia’s national interest today? At the risk of oversimplification, we can say that Vladimir Putin, who is seeking a third term as Russian president in 2012, aims above all else to preserve his power, stoking Russian nationalist passions to maintain popular support, and using wealth garnered from energy and arms sales to stave off economic calamity. With the Kremlin’s leverage over the energy supplies of Central and Western Europe, its stockpile of nuclear weapons, its recent history of aggressive military action, and the power it wields in multilateral institutions like the United Nations, Russia is a destabilizing force on the world stage. It needs to be tempered.


Obama’s Failure

President Obama famously sought to “reset” U.S. relations with Russia. The ambiguity of that term cannot mask that the Obama administration has failed to move Russia toward a more beneficial working relationship with the United States and our allies. President Obama began his reset policy by withdrawing, without reciprocal concessions, from President Bush’s plan to place a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move Russia strongly desired. He continued the same “we give, Russia gets” policy by signing the New START treaty in 2010. While the agreement compels the U.S. to reduce our nuclear launcher and warhead limits, the levels it sets for Russia are above what the Russians possessed at the time the agreement was reached. In other words, New START gave Russia room to expand its arsenal while requiring the United States to reduce our own. In any event, even if we put aside the demerits of the treaty, it was a squandered opportunity to extract concessions from the Russians that would have advanced our interests. Thus, President Obama failed to press for meaningful reductions not only in Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal, but also in its extensive tactical nuclear force. And he failed to elicit Russian help in dealing with North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Russia

Someone needs to give Mitt Romney a math lesson. At the time New START was being drafted, the United States had around 1,200 deployed missiles and bombers and about 6,000 deployed warheads. Russia had 800 and 4,000, respectively. New START limits both nations to 700 and 1,550, respectively. I don't know where Mitt Romney learned math, but both of those numbers are lower than the amount Russia had deployed at the time.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You mean there's a chance we might not hand over a few trillion dollars to the defense lobby for a missile defense arms race?

You people really don't get it do you?

duh i guess we are all so stoopid.....we all (like our marxist prez) better listen to Medvedev telling us what we should do.....

Moscow rejects Washington's claim the plan is solely to deal with any Iranian threat and has voiced fears it will eventually become powerful enough to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent.

Read more here: Russia issues new warnings over US missile defense - World - TheState.com

gosh now....we wouldn't want that would we.......?

Medvedev is not telling us what to do. He's stating his country's concerns, which happen to perfectly valid. And no, we don't really have an incentive to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent. Having that ability is only important if you seriously think Russia is going to launch a first strike, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

so why are Medvedev's panties all up in a wad.....? that doesn't make "sense" either....

 

[Dot Com]

Notice how the cons don't hesitate to tear down the President but not a peep out of them for their *cough* candidates?

 

[Sunshine]

I really do wonder what he intends to do when he is no longer beholden to the people.

Anything he can convince his goons to do. This country will no longer be safe for us to walk the streets.

 

[sealybobo]

When you say we can't afford another 4 years of "this guy" you could mean anyone. Mitch McConnell, Newt, Mitt, Cain, Keyes, Ryan, Boehner, Rush, Santorum?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

When you say we can't afford another 4 years of "this guy" you could mean anyone. Mitch McConnell, Newt, Mitt, Cain, Keyes, Ryan, Boehner, Rush, Santorum?

representatives are elected every 2 years, senators every 6 years, some of those guys you mention we do not "afford", i.e., cut a paycheck for...........only the prez is elected every 4 years.....GUESS WHO that is....?

 

[Avatar4321]

Notice how the cons don't hesitate to tear down the President but not a peep out of them for their *cough* candidates?

We've been more than critical of any of candidates when they are wrong on an issue.

When have you ever been critical of the President?

 

[Polk]

duh i guess we are all so stoopid.....we all (like our marxist prez) better listen to Medvedev telling us what we should do.....

gosh now....we wouldn't want that would we.......?

Medvedev is not telling us what to do. He's stating his country's concerns, which happen to perfectly valid. And no, we don't really have an incentive to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent. Having that ability is only important if you seriously think Russia is going to launch a first strike, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

so why are Medvedev's panties all up in a wad.....? that doesn't make "sense" either....

How would you feel if someone had a loaded gun in your face?

 

[Uncensored2008]

We've been more than critical of any of candidates when they are wrong on an issue.

When have you ever been critical of the President?

Scheiß Mause? He was critical of the president when the president was Bush, of course....

 

[Uncensored2008]

How would you feel if someone had a loaded gun in your face?

Do you think the United States should unilaterally disarm in phases, or all at once?

 

[Decepticon]

Is the OP suggesting that the political landscape WON'T be altered after this election?
And that Obama is confident that he'll be in a better legislative position?

And THIS is what CONZ are upset about?
A confident President?

Well Boo Hoo.
Got an issue?
Here's a tissue!

 

[Polk]

How would you feel if someone had a loaded gun in your face?

Do you think the United States should unilaterally disarm in phases, or all at once?

No one is saying the United States should unilaterally disarm. What is being said is that placing a missile shield in Poland is needlessly antagonistic and does nothing to enhance American security.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No one is saying the United States should unilaterally disarm.

In fact, not only has Obama been saying it, he's doing it.

What is being said is that placing a missile shield in Poland is needlessly antagonistic and does nothing to enhance American security.

Is Poland part of NATO? Not that Russia would ever occupy Poland, mind you.....

Standard Disclaimer: Jimmy Carter should be smiling. Obama makes even him look competent....