[tomder55]

The Russians have ,before this week's pow-wow between President Obama and his Russian counterpart and puppet to Putin Dmitry Medvedev ,preemptively announced that they would open an air supply corridor to Afghanistan for the purpose of resuppling our troops .

What is the quid pro quo ? We may learn more this week ;but I suspect Ukraine may be a sacrificial lamb (Georgia has already been ceded to the Russian sphere) .Michael McFaul, the White House National Security Council's senior director for Russian and Eurasian affairs, told reporters that the President has no intention to use the Ukraine as a bargaining chip ;but I think the die is already cast and it is already a done deal. Future negotiations are to decide the fate of Poland and the Czech Republic. The fact that NATO restored full relations with Moscow which were suspeneded during the Rusky invasion of Georgia proves that the West will not stand firm against Russia's attempt to reestablish it's cold war empire.

The President has already stated that he dismisses as "outdated" the "old, Cold War approaches to U.S.-Russian relations" and believes that he can schmooze Medvedev... creating a wedge between him and Putin . He will have separate meetings between them and he hopes (or has fantasies ) to convince Medvedev to throw Putin under the bus. But I have seen no evidence that Medvedev has the ability to act independent of Putin.

The President has also indicated a willingness to put the anti-missile shield for Poland and the Czech Republic on the table... further proof that he is willing to bargain away our commitment to these countries if it serves his purpose . Maybe that will bring "peace for our time" ?

He also wants the Russian cooperation with Iran. That will not happen . The Russians profit mightly by being an arms supplier to the Mullahs.

On the table is nuclear arms reductions. The President wants this more than anything else because he believes it will secure his place in history if he can negotiate a new reduction in nuclear arsenals . Perhaps he will be in line for a Nobel Peace Prize .He thinks the betrayal of allies would be a small price to pay .

Indeed this may be his lifetime obsession. His missing Columbia University thesis was about Soviet Nuclear disarmament .


How important is this issue to him ? With START set to expire in December ,officials in the White House have indicated that they may try bypassing the Senate's role in ratifying treaties to fast track any agreement they reach with the Ruskies according to Jake Tapper of ABC News. .(this links nicely with ET's post about the "dictator President "... this certainly fits in well with his tzar mentality) .

Imagine that ! He now has a veto proof majority in the Senate, but still leaves open the option of ignoring the Constitutional requirements for treaties. Treaties have expired before without dire consequences. Both sides generally stick to the terms until a new agreement is hashed out. This phony urgency is either a poor understanding of how negotiations work; or is masking a hidden agenda. Does he think the Ruskies will launch... or ramp up their production of nuclear weapons in January if there is no treaty in place ? Perhaps he is planning a US reduction greater in scope than the Russians are willing to commit to for themselves... a defacto unilateral disarmament ? Who knows ?

The Ruskies have made no bones that they intend to link negotiations of START with the proposed deployment of a defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Sorry guys... under the bus. It's never too early for the President to do legacy building . The only real question is how much he will give up to achieve this personal goal.

[speechlesstx]

It's never too early for the President to do legacy building . The only real question is how much he will give up to achieve this personal goal.

That, in a nutshell, is what Obama is all about... himself.

[speechlesstx]

LOL, all of this is just "Smart Power" that has "begun to make us and the world safer." Wink at the Nork's missile launches, throw allies under the bus, ignore the freedom movement in Iran, defend the Honduran dictator, unilaterally disarm and bypass the Senate's role in treaties... I feel safer don't you?

I wonder if he brought Hillary's reset button with him?

[excon]

On the table is nuclear arms reductions. The President wants this more than anything else because he believes it will secure his place in history if he can negotiate a new reduction in nuclear arsenals . Perhaps he will be in line for a Nobel Peace Prize .He thinks the betrayal of allies would be a small price to pay . The only real question is how much he will give up to acheive this personal goal.

Hello tom:

So, the only question is how far Obama is going to sell out his country for his personal gain??

You know, as much as I thought George Bush was a dufus, a dummy, and the worst president in history, I never thought he acted in HIS OWN interest against the country.

I can't imagine your side thinking that crap... But, of course, ever since a black man got in, you guys went bonkers so ANYTHING is possible.

excon

[classyT]

EX,

OH come ON!! The RACE card? You can do better than that. Last time I checked.. he was half white too. It has NOTHING to do with his skin color... I'm disappointed... tsk tsk.

[tomder55]

Ex hurls those insults at me on occasion to see if he can get my goat. It don't work .

[excon]

Hello again,

Ok, if it's not because he's black, it's because he's a socialist or a Muslim.

Look, I don't know WHY you think so little of him PERSONALLY. I understand that you don't like his politics, but your attacks are of a personal nature. You don't doubt that he'll sell us out. You only wonder about the price.

Like I said above. I NEVER doubted the loyalty of George W. Bush. I suppose that's because I'm a better person than you folks. I can live with it.

excon

[450donn]

No one ever said that they think that little of the man. Rather rational thinking people are scared of his policies and what effect it will have on US as a free nation.
Cap and Trade is only one goofy idea that will cost the US economy billions of dollars and countless lost jobs.
Nationalized health care and it's accompanied rationing will cost untold numbers of lives of productive citizens.
And you still insist on sticking your head in the sand and worship his highness?

[classyT]

EX,

LOl... well what other conclusion are you going to come too? That HAS to be it! You are so right, the left including YOU never attacked W. personally. Lol I enjoyed that.

I don't trust obama... I don't trust his motives... yes it is personal.

Note... calling W. a dufus head along with many other adjective was never personal... huh? Lol... sorry ex...

[tomder55]

If I'm wrong about his motives I'm wrong .But I don't think so.

Also it is very possible to be ambitious and also think you are loyally serving the best interests of the country .

Edit . As I recall a constant complaint about President Bush was his attempts at legacy building.

[tomder55]

The NY Slimes , finally doing the investigative work they neglected during the camaign ;has unearthed an op-ed that student Barack Obama penned in 1983 for the Columbia campus newspaper .
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/world/05nuclear.html?bl&ex=1246939200&en=9c6e7530c1a524c f&ei=5087%0A

Obama feard American "militarism" and "military-industrial interests" He was a supporter of the nuclear-freeze movement. Reading it is reading a rehash of the lefty talking points of the 80's ,as well as the KGB agit-prop playbook .

The President does not seem to have changed his views much since his college days. The nuclear freeze movement was of course an attempt by leftist activists here and in Europe at preventing the US from deploying Pershing -II missiles in Europe... or in other words... a unilateral concession.

Ronald Reagan instead worked towards true verifiable bilateral reduction in nuclear arms ;which he eventually achieved in START .

[tomder55]

The details are beginning to emerge from the summit in Moscow. Was I right that the President is willing to give away the store (regardless of motive) ? Yes I was .

He agreed to cut our nuclear arsenal by a third . That is not all that big a deal . We will still have plenty .

But that is not the big concession . He also agreed to slash nuclear/conventional delivery systems including missiles ,bombers and submarines.
Who's purpose does that serve ? We still have commitments all over the globe that will be severely impacted by this decision .Or does it serve the Russian's interests who would love nothing more than a weakened US ability to deploy in multiple theaters ;or to respond rapidly in a crisis ? The Russians are already down to these levels so all this does is level the playing field for them .

Besides the air corridor to supply Afghanistan I have heard of nothing else of substance the Russians will concede.
But I'll add details as they become available.

[Skell]

No one ever said that they think that little of the man.

If you read Tom's posts it is quote clear he thinks very very little of the man. He suggests he will sell out his country and the allies for his own personal reasons.

[Skell]

I don't trust obama...I don't trust his motives...yes it is personal.

So why don't you trust him? Black? Muslim? Big ears?

Remember you said its personal so please explain what is it that you so dislike about him...

[tomder55]

If you read Tom's posts it is quote clear he thinks very very little of the man.

Is this a new revelation ? I have since the beginning of last year's election cycle detailed how little I thought of him. He has done nothing to disuade my opinion.
For the record ;yes I think he is motivated by personal ambition and a rigid left ideology drummed into his skull during his college years and later days as a "community activist " by the likes of his mentor William Ayers and the writings of Saul Alinsky .

The op-ed he penned ,that the Slimes unearthed ,(conveniently after the election) ,proves that his radical agenda has not changed much since his Columbia days .
He brought the same US unilateral disarmament mentality to the table that "freeze movement "types he writes about did in the early 1980s .
Yes I do think his attitude sells out the United States.

His world wide apology tour suggests nothing less than his disdain for the country . His latest dissing of the US happened at a Moscow's 'New Economics School ' where he refused to give the US credit for our leadership role in the ending of the Cold War .

Now, make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.

Obama's Moscow speech:A- - Real Clear Politics – TIME.com
This is mind boggling historic revisionism. He can never bring himself to mention the positive roles America plays but he is very quick in addresses all over the world to highlight what he perceives as our shortcomings. Tell me how this helps . You never see another foreign leader talk as much smack against their country as this guy does. (Let's see Putin apologize for the brutal Stalin regime and their role in the Cold War );and he has done it too often in a 6 month term to make me think any else but that he despises the country he leads.

I hope I said it clear enough .

[classyT]

So why don't you trust him? Black? Muslim? Big ears?

Remember you said its personal so please explain what is it that you so dislike about him....

Skell,

It has NOTHING to do with his looks. He is attractive and holds himself with class and can speak very well. I do not think he has America's best interest; I think he has his own agenda. I don't know if he is just being advised badly or what. But his spending is out of control. I don't like him... I don't like his vision of spreading the weath... I don't like his policies and push comes to shove... I don't trust him. Is that personal enough?

[speechlesstx]

More of that Obama is restoring our badly damaged reputation in the world stuff.

Referring to the long history of Russia-U.S. trade stretching back more than two centuries, Obama told an audience of business people in Moscow:

"Along the way, you gave us a pretty good deal on Alaska. Thank you."

Czar Alexander II's sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867 for $7.2 million in gold, around 1.9 cents per acre, was regarded by Russians as a national disgrace -- particularly once it became clear that the province was rich in oil.

Has he not yet learned how to keep from insulting the countries he's visiting?

[tomder55]

Well you know that he an Biden get a pass when they put their feet in their mouths... or maybe TOTUS malfunctioned again. At the time the deal was called Seward's Folly (named for Secretary of State, William H. Seward who negotiated the deal) because it was perceived as a bad deal for America. A bit of gold ,oil and natural gas changed that perception.

I wonder if Vladimir Zhirinovsky was in attendance ?

[Skell]

Is this a new revelation ? I have since the beginning of last year's election cycle detailed how little I thought of him. He has done nothing to disuade my opinion.
For the record ;yes I think he is motivated by personal ambition and a rigid left ideology drummed into his skull during his college years and later days as a "community activist " by the likes of his mentor William Ayers and the writings of Saul Alinsky .

The op-ed he penned ,that the Slimes unearthed ,(conveniently after the election) ,proves that his radical agenda has not changed much since his Columbia days .
He brought the same US unilateral disarmament mentality to the table that "freeze movement "types he writes about did in the early 1980s .
Yes I do think his attitude sells out the United States.

His world wide apology tour suggests nothing less than his disdain for the country . His latest dissing of the US happened at a Moscow's 'New Economics School ' where he refused to give the US credit for our leadership role in the ending of the Cold War .

Obama's Moscow speech:A- - Real Clear Politics – TIME.com
This is mind boggling historic revisionism. He can never bring himself to mention the positive roles America plays but he is very quick in addresses all over the world to highlight what he perceives as our shortcomings. Tell me how this helps . You never see another foreign leader talk as much smack against their country as this guy does. (Let's see Putin apologize for the brutal Stalin regime and their role in the Cold War );and he has done it too often in a 6 month term to make me think any else but that he despises the country he leads.

I hope I said it clear enough .

Tom,

I was answering 450donn. Not you. Yes you have made it quite clear your hatred for the man. Which makes me wonder how 450donn could miss it.

So yeah Tom. You're loud and clear. You didn't need spell it out again to me.

[speechlesstx]

I suppose we should give Obama credit for making dropping the missile defense system in Poland contingent upon Russia's help in eliminating Iran's nuclear weapons program.

“I know Russia opposes the planned configuration for missile defence in Europe.. . I have made it clear that this system is directed at preventing a potential attack from Iran and has nothing to do with Russia,” Mr Obama said in a speech to students graduating from Moscow's New Economic School.

“I want us to work together on a missile defence architecture that makes us all safer. But if the threat from Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes is eliminated, the driving force for missile defence in Europe will be eliminated. That is in our mutual interest.”