Putin's Secret Message to Obama - Andrew Klavan video

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2015 10:37 PM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2015 10:47 PM GMT
    socalfitness said


    LOL! That "more flexibility" comment was bad enough, but the MSM's refusal to follow up on it was ten times worse. I think of it as just an other exhibit - we must be into the teens by now - in the case of USA v. Obama.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 12:21 AM GMT
    At my age, my gag reflex is triggered when I'm inundated with Instagram posts from narcissistic, entitled teen-and-twenty-somethings' perpetual duck faces.

    That's the rock. The hard place is this inane "humor" crap you guys think passes for smart political commentary. I thought they melted this guy with acetone in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

    Don't you miss that sweet spot in your life, between popping an unwelcome boner in Algebra class and not being able to pop a boner at all? I mean, unless war, or a shirtless Putin is mentioned...?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 1:06 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio saidAt my age, my gag reflex is triggered when I'm inundated with Instagram posts from narcissistic, entitled teen-and-twenty-somethings' perpetual duck faces.

    That's the rock. The hard place is this inane "humor" crap you guys think passes for smart political commentary. I thought they melted this guy with acetone in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

    Don't you miss that sweet spot in your life, between popping an unwelcome boner in Algebra class and not being able to pop a boner at all? I mean, unless war, or a shirtless Putin is mentioned...?

    Sounds like you have erectile dysfunction. Does the Viagra delivered in plain packages help much? Does shirtless Putin that you keep mentioning in so many threads provide you sufficient excitement?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 1:50 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidSounds like you have erectile dysfunction. Does the Viagra delivered in plain packages help much? Does shirtless Putin that you keep mentioning in so many threads provide you sufficient excitement?

    Sounds like you suffer from comprehensione deficit lectionis.

    And by my count, this is my first mention of a shirtless Putin.

    Is picturing that, in fact, the only way you can get a boner?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 2:09 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    socalfitness saidSounds like you have erectile dysfunction. Does the Viagra delivered in plain packages help much? Does shirtless Putin that you keep mentioning in so many threads provide you sufficient excitement?

    Sounds like you suffer from comprehensione deficit lectionis.

    And by my count, this is my first mention of a shirtless Putin.

    Is picturing that, in fact, the only way you can get a boner?

    I'm surprised you even stuck around the thread. Your normal MO is to make a nasty comment then disappear.

    Joking aside, it appears you are a nasty lib who can't tolerate seeing opinions that differ from your own. In a previous thread that I started, you called me a troll for posting something that did not conform to your liberal position. Of course you never criticized Metta8 for his many threads because they are what you want to hear.

    I'm also sure that based on your loyalty to Obama, you are unable to see any of the problems that his politics have brought to the world and the US.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 2:17 AM GMT
    socalfitness,
    You've presented so many bizarre conspiracy theories regarding President Obama.
    It's impossible to take you seriously.

    At this point, "the nasty libs" as you describe them are just having fun with you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 2:40 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidJoking aside, it appears you are a nasty lib who can't tolerate seeing opinions that differ from your own...I'm also sure that based on your loyalty to Obama, you are unable to see any of the problems that his politics have brought to the world and the US.


    As a nasty lib, I'm A) not loyal to Obama, not that it matters to the topic (but it must help your straw man arguments, so keep it up if it makes you feel better), B) LOVE opinions that differ from my own...if, in fact, they're legitimate (defensible) opinions and not trolling. This thread is bullshit trolling, and you know it.

    How we know: Fire Marshall Bill up there in your original post, not funny (unless you're the type who gets emotionally caught up in WWE story lines). Bashing Obama, but without any substance. Our policy toward Russia should be...what? Not being pussies? Not being flexible? A Real Republican wouldn't put up with Putin's crap because bombs?

    I personally think this round of aggression by Russia is going to amount to another bankruptcy, considering they're really only leveraging Europe with oil. Tell me how an aggressive escalation (including arming Ukraine--not that we aren't) will win this for America. Or better yet, tell me how America can afford to be the police of the world when raising the minimum wage is going to end civilization as we know it (if you've got real conservacred).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 2:51 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    socalfitness saidJoking aside, it appears you are a nasty lib who can't tolerate seeing opinions that differ from your own...I'm also sure that based on your loyalty to Obama, you are unable to see any of the problems that his politics have brought to the world and the US.


    As a nasty lib, I'm A) not loyal to Obama, not that it matters to the topic (but it must help your straw man arguments, so keep it up if it makes you feel better), B) LOVE opinions that differ from my own...if, in fact, they're legitimate (defensible) opinions and not trolling. This thread is bullshit trolling, and you know it.

    How we know: Fire Marshall Bill up there in your original post, not funny (unless you're the type who gets emotionally caught up in WWE story lines). Bashing Obama, but without any substance. Our policy toward Russia should be...what? Not being pussies? Not being flexible? A Real Republican wouldn't put up with Putin's crap because bombs?

    I personally think this round of aggression by Russia is going to amount to another bankruptcy, considering they're really only leveraging Europe with oil. Tell me how an aggressive escalation (including arming Ukraine--not that we aren't) will win this for America. Or better yet, tell me how America can afford to be the police of the world when raising the minimum wage is going to end civilization as we know it (if you've got real conservacred).

    The video in the OP is based on some real-life events that spoofs Obama. Perhaps you remember the open mic where he told Medvedev to tell Vladimir (Putin) that Obama would be more flexible after the election. That was strong indication that he would make concessions that would not be popular with the American people.

    But going back further, the pathetic "reset" with Russia that involved both Obama and Hillary, gave the Russians something they desperately wanted, cancellation of the missile defense shield. They got absolutely nothing from Russia in return, such as support wrt Iranian nuclear program.

    Aside from your little straw man argument, i.e. the choice is bombing if you don't soft-pedal, there are real measures, even economic measures with more teeth, but Obama has pussyfooted around it. Not to mention his Red Line fiasco.

    With these real situations in mind, the video is a spoof. You don't like the humor, too bad. Maybe part of the reason is you didn't understand or care to hear the factual bases behind it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 3:25 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidYou don't like the humor, too bad. Maybe part of the reason is you didn't understand or care to hear the factual bases behind it.


    It is not humor. Either you have never laughed at real humor, or snark delivered by a Neo-Con is your bag. To each his own.

    But I'm going to let Politifact explain this (and if it's too long or reading comprehension isn't your thing, skip ahead to the bold paragraphs):

    The missile defense system

    The missile defense issue represented the first significant break from President George W. Bush administration policy in Obama’s first year in office, so it attracted a lot of attention.

    Bush, taking advice from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, pushed for an initiative to install 10 interceptor missiles on the ground in Poland and an advanced radar system in the Czech Republic to fend long-range missiles from Iran.

    American officials saw the Europe-based plan as improving their ability to deflect long-range missiles launched by Iran (not Russia) to Europe or the U.S while strengthening military partnerships with countries in Eastern Europe. Some interceptors had already been built on America’s West Coast to protect against nuclear attacks from North Korea. The interceptors in Europe would not be ready until at least 2017, Gates later wrote.

    The interceptors couldn’t do much against Russia’s nuclear weapons, experts said, but Russia still saw them as a threat to its arsenal and NATO-Russia cooperation. Russian defense minister Sergei Ivanov told a Belarus newspaper in 2006, "The choice of location for the deployment of those systems is dubious, to put it mildly," according to the New York Times.

    Enter Obama, who explained he supported the missile shield to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly during the 2008 campaign. He gave himself wiggle room, however, by saying, "I want to make sure it works, which is actually one of the problems we've got." He ordered a review.

    Washington’s relationship with Moscow was icy at the time following Russia’s war with Georgia. Obama took office in 2009 talking about hitting the "reset" button with Russia.

    Then, three years after Bush announced his missile defense proposal, Obama changed course. On Sept. 17, 2009, Obama announced that the United States would pursue a new missile defense policy focused on knocking out short- and medium-range missiles from sites closer to Iran.

    Russian concerns about the previous program were "entirely unfounded," Obama said.

    "Our clear and consistent focus has been the threat posed by Iran's ballistic missile program, and that continues to be our focus and the basis of the program that we're announcing today," Obama said. "In confronting that threat, we welcome Russians' cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests, even as we continue to -- we continue our shared efforts to end Iran's illicit nuclear program."

    A ‘gift’ to Russia?

    Russians cheered the decision, though Russian officials said they didn’t promise anything in return. Putin called Obama’s move on the missile defense shield "correct and brave."

    Bush allies and congressional Republicans thought Obama caved.

    Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. (who is now governor of Indiana), and Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, released statements along the lines of Obama is soft and let down American allies. Pundits like John Bolton, whom Bush appointed as ambassador to the United Nations, said Russia and Iran came away as "big winners" in a "bad day for American national security."

    Meanwhile, Israel and most NATO countries in Western Europe approved of the move, news stories show, as they thought the missile system provoked Russia. Initial reactions from Polish and Czech leaders were not thrilled.

    Obama delegated explaining the decision to an interesting source: Gates, the same official who recommended the missile defense plan to Bush in 2006 to combat the growing threat of Iranian ballistic missiles.

    Gates explained why he urged Obama to change course in a 2009 New York Times op-ed and in his 2014 book Duty, in which he described the new strategy as necessary due to changing times, technology and threats. (And in which he said some not-so-nice things about Obama.)

    "It was neither the first nor last time under Obama that I was used to provide political cover, but it was okay in this instance since I sincerely believed the new program was better -- more in accord with the political realities in Europe and more effective against the emerging Iranian threat," he wrote.

    Gates wrote that Defense Department officials realized the Iranian government was putting more stock into building short- and medium-range missiles over long-range ones. The agency wanted to uproot the old plan to better counteract that threat, and the new tactic Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended to Obama was not only cheaper, but the sea-based missiles could be more easily and quickly produced.

    "While there certainly were some in the State Department and the White House who believed the third site in Europe was incompatible with the Russian ‘reset,’ we in Defense did not," Gates wrote in Duty. "Making the Russians happy wasn’t exactly on my to-do list."

    Lost in the GOP fury, Gates wrote, was that Russians found Obama’s new approach to be an even bigger problem than the Bush-era plan as they worried about future adjustments that could make the short- and medium-range missiles a bigger threat to Russia.

    "How ironic that U.S. critics of the new approach had portrayed it as a big concession to the Russians," Gates wrote. "It would have been nice to hear a critic in Washington -- just once in my career -- say, Well I got that wrong."

    Lance Janda, chairman of the Department of History and Government at Cameron University, told us Romney’s comments are partially accurate. Yes, Obama ended the missile shield planned in Poland and Czech Republic, but the U.S. will address the ballistic missile threat with Aegis missiles in Eastern Europe by 2018, he said by email.

    "While our decision to cancel the sites in 2009 eased tensions with Russia -- which DEEPLY opposed the sites -- we also had legitimate security reasons for not moving forward and in that sense it's not like we were really doing Putin a ‘favor,’ " Janda said. "And we're certainly not leaving Poland or the Czech Republic exposed. They're covered by the rest of NATO and will get the Aegis system ... soon."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 3:39 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    socalfitness saidYou don't like the humor, too bad. Maybe part of the reason is you didn't understand or care to hear the factual bases behind it.


    It is not humor. Either you have never laughed at real humor, or snark delivered by a Neo-Con is your bag. To each his own.

    But I'm going to let Politifact explain this (and if it's too long or reading comprehension isn't your thing, skip ahead to the bold paragraphs):

    The missile defense system

    The missile defense issue represented the first significant break from President George W. Bush administration policy in Obama’s first year in office, so it attracted a lot of attention.

    Bush, taking advice from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, pushed for an initiative to install 10 interceptor missiles on the ground in Poland and an advanced radar system in the Czech Republic to fend long-range missiles from Iran.

    American officials saw the Europe-based plan as improving their ability to deflect long-range missiles launched by Iran (not Russia) to Europe or the U.S while strengthening military partnerships with countries in Eastern Europe. Some interceptors had already been built on America’s West Coast to protect against nuclear attacks from North Korea. The interceptors in Europe would not be ready until at least 2017, Gates later wrote.

    The interceptors couldn’t do much against Russia’s nuclear weapons, experts said, but Russia still saw them as a threat to its arsenal and NATO-Russia cooperation. Russian defense minister Sergei Ivanov told a Belarus newspaper in 2006, "The choice of location for the deployment of those systems is dubious, to put it mildly," according to the New York Times.

    Enter Obama, who explained he supported the missile shield to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly during the 2008 campaign. He gave himself wiggle room, however, by saying, "I want to make sure it works, which is actually one of the problems we've got." He ordered a review.

    Washington’s relationship with Moscow was icy at the time following Russia’s war with Georgia. Obama took office in 2009 talking about hitting the "reset" button with Russia.

    Then, three years after Bush announced his missile defense proposal, Obama changed course. On Sept. 17, 2009, Obama announced that the United States would pursue a new missile defense policy focused on knocking out short- and medium-range missiles from sites closer to Iran.

    Russian concerns about the previous program were "entirely unfounded," Obama said.

    "Our clear and consistent focus has been the threat posed by Iran's ballistic missile program, and that continues to be our focus and the basis of the program that we're announcing today," Obama said. "In confronting that threat, we welcome Russians' cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests, even as we continue to -- we continue our shared efforts to end Iran's illicit nuclear program."

    A ‘gift’ to Russia?

    Russians cheered the decision, though Russian officials said they didn’t promise anything in return. Putin called Obama’s move on the missile defense shield "correct and brave."

    Bush allies and congressional Republicans thought Obama caved.

    Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. (who is now governor of Indiana), and Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, released statements along the lines of Obama is soft and let down American allies. Pundits like John Bolton, whom Bush appointed as ambassador to the United Nations, said Russia and Iran came away as "big winners" in a "bad day for American national security."

    Meanwhile, Israel and most NATO countries in Western Europe approved of the move, news stories show, as they thought the missile system provoked Russia. Initial reactions from Polish and Czech leaders were not thrilled.

    Obama delegated explaining the decision to an interesting source: Gates, the same official who recommended the missile defense plan to Bush in 2006 to combat the growing threat of Iranian ballistic missiles.

    Gates explained why he urged Obama to change course in a 2009 New York Times op-ed and in his 2014 book Duty, in which he described the new strategy as necessary due to changing times, technology and threats. (And in which he said some not-so-nice things about Obama.)

    "It was neither the first nor last time under Obama that I was used to provide political cover, but it was okay in this instance since I sincerely believed the new program was better -- more in accord with the political realities in Europe and more effective against the emerging Iranian threat," he wrote.

    Gates wrote that Defense Department officials realized the Iranian government was putting more stock into building short- and medium-range missiles over long-range ones. The agency wanted to uproot the old plan to better counteract that threat, and the new tactic Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended to Obama was not only cheaper, but the sea-based missiles could be more easily and quickly produced.

    "While there certainly were some in the State Department and the White House who believed the third site in Europe was incompatible with the Russian ‘reset,’ we in Defense did not," Gates wrote in Duty. "Making the Russians happy wasn’t exactly on my to-do list."

    Lost in the GOP fury, Gates wrote, was that Russians found Obama’s new approach to be an even bigger problem than the Bush-era plan as they worried about future adjustments that could make the short- and medium-range missiles a bigger threat to Russia.

    "How ironic that U.S. critics of the new approach had portrayed it as a big concession to the Russians," Gates wrote. "It would have been nice to hear a critic in Washington -- just once in my career -- say, Well I got that wrong."

    Lance Janda, chairman of the Department of History and Government at Cameron University, told us Romney’s comments are partially accurate. Yes, Obama ended the missile shield planned in Poland and Czech Republic, but the U.S. will address the ballistic missile threat with Aegis missiles in Eastern Europe by 2018, he said by email.

    "While our decision to cancel the sites in 2009 eased tensions with Russia -- which DEEPLY opposed the sites -- we also had legitimate security reasons for not moving forward and in that sense it's not like we were really doing Putin a ‘favor,’ " Janda said. "And we're certainly not leaving Poland or the Czech Republic exposed. They're covered by the rest of NATO and will get the Aegis system ... soon."

    I'm extremely familiar with the topic, and nothing in the Politifact article was new to me. The fact is, even if there were technical and other reasons to not continue, our canceling did not involve a quid pro quo from Russia. That was a huge mistake, not only from the lost opportunity to get a concession from them, but also the demonstration of weakness. In addition to reading from the web, such as Politifact, I also read international viewpoints, including those from Russia.

    My initial assessment of Obama and Hillary, per an earlier message, was based on a very thorough analysis and extensive reading. Might also note the political bias of the Politico article. Many besides Republicans, as alleged by Politico, thought Obama caved.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 3:50 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidMy initial assessment of Obama and Hillary, per an earlier message, was based on a very thorough analysis and extensive reading. Might also note the political bias of the Politico article. Many besides Republicans, as alleged by Politico, thought Obama caved.


    Except he didn't. If the argument is that it's not Bush's missile defense system, thus inferior, it would be a cave. Instead, if it allows the defense system to be more facile (oh god, my favorite word Bush ever used), it's the opposite of a cave. What concession would they need from Russia, if their position has strengthened--as Robert Gates says here. Russia said, "Thank you," when all they got was Obama's middle finger up their ass. Gaining a concession from Russia presumes the original system was better. According to Robert Gates, it was not.

    But critics gonna hate. Apparently, they and Robert Gates disagree.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 4:06 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    socalfitness saidMy initial assessment of Obama and Hillary, per an earlier message, was based on a very thorough analysis and extensive reading. Might also note the political bias of the Politico article. Many besides Republicans, as alleged by Politico, thought Obama caved.


    Except he didn't. If the argument is that it's not Bush's missile defense system, thus inferior, it would be a cave. Instead, if it allows the defense system to be more facile (oh god, my favorite word Bush ever used), it's the opposite of a cave. What concession would they need from Russia, if their position has strengthened--as Robert Gates says here. Russia said, "Thank you," when all they got was Obama's middle finger up their ass. Gaining a concession from Russia presumes the original system was better. According to Robert Gates, it was not.

    But critics gonna hate. Apparently, they and Robert Gates disagree.

    A future system could have improvements over the original system, but that system is not in place, nor are there plans to field it. The only relevant system was the original system, and it was cancelled. The Russians gained from the situation changing from a system planned to a system cancelled. They very much wanted that system cancelled, and they got it without having to give up anything or do anything in return.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 5:37 AM GMT
    And we gained nothing by canceling a missile defense system that wasn't implemented by Bush either?

    The entire operation, it sounds, was a great big slurping kiss to the defense contractors...who hadn't actually built anything.

    No, I think applause is in order. The only thing the Bush missile system offered was a threat and a return to Cold War posturing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 10:55 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio saidAnd we gained nothing by canceling a missile defense system that wasn't implemented by Bush either?

    The entire operation, it sounds, was a great big slurping kiss to the defense contractors...who hadn't actually built anything.

    No, I think applause is in order. The only thing the Bush missile system offered was a threat and a return to Cold War posturing.

    The whole point was we got absolutely nothing from the Russians in return for canceling the system. The Russians saw this as weakness, which further emboldened Putin. We're seeing the results of that daily.