Charles Krauthammer on Obama Foreign Policy – DELUSIONAL

Charles Krauthammer lays out the situation in the Ukraine – and US foreign policy in general – in single syllable words. Until he gets to “delusional”.

This is astonishing. Our leaders are unable to muster anything that the Europeans will join that will hurt Putin.

We can remember back to 2008 when one of the big reasons we were supposed to be thankfully voting for Senator Barack Obama was that adults would be in charge of foreign policy. No more “cowboy antics”. World leaders were going to respect the US. Heck, the people around the world would like us. It would be spring in the Middle East. Muslims would stop killing their neighbors, and each other, and a new era of peace would be ushered in.

Newly elected President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for just being, well, not-Bush. He was a visionary. He was the most intelligent guy in the room. He may not have been the “Prince of Peace”, but he sure was the “President of Peace”.

He was everything. He was what we’ve been waiting for.

We apologize for inflicting the following on you, but it’s important we remember just how narcissistic our Imperial President really is.

Our head hurts. It’s not like we weren’t warned. The amazing thing is that he got away with this sham twice. Shame on our country, and most of all, shame on the three million people who voted for John McCain and then sat on their couches and refused to vote for Mitt Romney because he wasn’t [fill in the blank] enough.

Krauthammer is right, delusional, but Charles doesn’t go far enough. It’s not just his foreign policy, domestic policy is no better. But that’s a subject for another day.

Whatever you have on your calendar this year, come November do not sit on your couch. Go to the polls and vote against any Democrat that is running in your races. Don’t just vote against the Democrat, vote for the Republican even if you have to hold your nose to do it. The only way to stop the agenda is take back the Senate.

If we don’t take the Senate you can be sure Benghazi will be forgotten. The IRS will not only continue to run roughshod over taxpayers’ rights, they’ll ramp up the attack. When other federal agencies run by long time Democrat “civil servants” see that nobody does anything about the IRS they’ll get in the game too.

Before November work for the Republican in your state/district. On election day VOTE and vote Republican.

Your children and grandchildren are depending on you.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Alan Grayson and the War on Women goes live
  • alanstorm

    Is there ANY Obama policy that ISN’T delusional?

    Some questions just answer themselves.

  • Hank_M

    Delusional is as delusional does.

    Catch this from the recent Jeffrey Goldberg interview….

    GOLDBERG: So just to be clear: You don’t
    believe the Iranian leadership now thinks that your “all options are on the
    table” threat as it relates to their nuclear program — you don’t think that
    they have stopped taking that seriously?

    OBAMA: I know they take it seriously.

  • Commander_Chico

    CHICO’S BACK!!!!

    This fiasco was caused by American and EU meddling, now the US and the EU have been spanked by Russia after the chaos that resulted.

    Whatever Obama says to try to look effective is OK with me, as long as he doesn’t actually try to do something. Climbing an escalation ladder could get us all killed, and it’s not worth it.

    Fact is, who rules the Crimea does not matter to the American people. It was a part of Russia until 1954, if they want “national self-determination” to join Russia after their referendum, live with it.

    At least Putin isn’t bombing Kiev the way Clinton bombed Belgrade to force the Serbs to let Kosovo break away.

    Both Herr Doktor Strangelove Krauthammer and Hillary share one quality: they are both idiots for comparing this to Hitler!

    • Pity, that.

    • jim_m

      Finished your sentence for solicitation I presume.

    • Retired military

      “This fiasco was caused by American and EU meddling,”

      So Chico goes with Option B. Obama may be bad but XXX was worse.

      BTW Chico

      “As I said before, try answering what people say, and not try to put words in others’ mouths, debate goes better” – Chico, Famed Wizbangblog poster

      How about practising what you preach Chico.

      1 Oprah,the Lamestream media, Reid, Pelosi, and other major dems have called people racist simply because they oppose Obama’s
      policies. Yet when they oppose those same policies when espoused by Bill, Hillary. Reid, Pelos, Gore, Kerry, etc etc they weren’t considered racist then by Oprah, etc etc (I don’t know isn’t good enough)
      Do you feel that it is because the left is just playing the race card?

      2. People were called racist anarchist terrorists when they tried to delay Obamacare yet Al Franken who did the same thing wasn’t called Racist. Do you feel that it is because he is a democrat and the people doing the call just playing the race card because that is all they have?

      3. People were called racist anarchist terrorist when they called for the delay of all or part of Obamacare and Obama who is unconstitutionally doing the same thing is not called a racist anarchist terrorist. Do you feel that it is because he is a democrat and the people doing the calling are just playing the race card because that is all they have?

      4. Chico stated ” They (duck dynasty guys) were clean shaven before they pitched the TV show.” yet you provided zero proof of this statement. Please do so now.

      Examples of statements 1, 2, and 3 (since you reject the premise)

      Salon writer Joan Wals
      It’s simply stunning: Longtime Republican imagemaker Ailes figured out how to make sure that our twice-elected Democratic president, backed by a coalition that represents an emerging, multiracial America, must periodically be checked and hopefully shamed by a representative of the angry right-wing white male minority that barely considers him a legitimate leader…

      O’Reilly and Ailes and their viewers see this president as unqualified and ungrateful, an affirmative action baby who won’t thank us for all we’ve done for him and his cohort. The question was, of course, deeply condescending and borderline racist. Obama has been afforded “so much opportunity”? What about O’Reilly, who pretends he’s a working-class son of Levittown, Long Island, when he’s actually the kid of an accountant who grew up in Westbury and went to private high school and university

      Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore: “This is still a pretty conservative country and people are upset about the policies in Washington and they don’t think the politicians are listening.”
      Host Chris Matthews: “Okay, I think, I think some of the people are upset because we have a black President.”
      Talking about the town hall protests against ObamaCare on MSNBC’s Hardball, August 11, 2009.

      If racism is not the whole of the Tea Party, it is in its heart, along with blind hatred, a total disinterest in the welfare of others, and a full-flowered, self-rationalizing refusal to accept the outcomes of elections, or the reality of democracy, or the narrowness of their minds and the equal narrowness of their public support.”
      — MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Countdown, March 22, 2010.

      “The Republican Party in this country has been running on hate and division for the last 50 years….What black person, gay guy or girl, immigrant or Muslim American in their right mind would vote for the Republican Party? They might as well hang a sign around their neck saying, ‘I hate myself.’”
      — Fill-in host Cenk Uygur on MSNBC’s The Ed Show, August 26, 2010

      Clip from RNC ad: “Stop Obama and his union bosses today. The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.”
      Host Lawrence O’Donnell: “The Republican Party is saying that the President of the United States has bosses, that the union bosses this President around, the unions boss him around. Does that sound to you like they are trying to consciously or subconsciously deliver the racist message that, of course, of course a black man can’t be the real boss?”
      Ex-Governor Jennifer Granholm (D-MI): “Wow, I hadn’t thought about the racial overtones….”
      — MSNBC’s The Last Word, February 25, 2011.

      “The interesting question is: what is it about this President that has stripped away the veneer of respect that normally accompanies the office of the President? Why do Republicans think this President is unpresidential — unpresidential, and shouldn’t dare to request this kind of thing? It strikes me that it could be the economic times, it could be that he won so big in 2008, or it could be, let’s face it, the color of his skin.”
      — MSNBC political analyst and ex-Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe talking about the brief contretemps over scheduling Obama’s speech to Congress, The Last Word, August 31, 2011.

      “I get out of all of these things that many of these [Republican] candidates would rather take legislation to build a time machine and go back in time to where we had, you know, no women voting, slavery was cool. I mean, it’s just kind of ridiculous.”
      — Daytime anchor Thomas Roberts on MSNBC Live, September 23, 2011, talking about the previous night’s GOP debate.

      “Plus, what Mitt Romney has in common with the KKK. Details on a rare Romney campaign blunder ahead….So you might not hear Mitt Romney say ‘keep America American’ anymore. That’s because it was a central theme of the KKK in the 1920s. It was a rallying cry for the group’s campaign of violence and intimidation against blacks, gays and Jews.”
      — Anchor Thomas Roberts on MSNBC Live, December 14, 2011.

      Host Chris Matthews: “How does this guy [Mitt Romney] go from hard right, severely conservative, to this new regular mainstream character he’s portraying himself as?…He ran as a full mooner, Michael. You know, he was saying ‘There’s no such thing as science.’… How can he go from Flat Earth, ‘I don’t believe in evolution,’ to all of a sudden, ‘I’m teaching biology’?… It certainly was in the Grand Wizard crowd over there, okay?”
      Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “Wait, I resent that! No. Come on, what is this ‘Grand Wizard’ nonsense? Are you saying that we’re Ku Klux Klan?”
      Matthews: “Okay, I’m just saying, the far-right party.”
      Steele: “Give me a break! Don’t go there with me on that.”
      — MSNBC’s Hardball, April 23, 2012.

      You notice he [Romney] says ‘anger’ twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama. The other-ization, he’s not like us. I know it’s a heavy thing to say. I don’t say it lightly. But this is niggerization, ‘You are not one of us,’ and that ‘you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.’”
      — Co-host Touré on MSNBC’s The Cycle, August 16, 2012.

      Host Martin Bashir: “Of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s forthcoming oration, can I quote something [to] you? ‘For four years, Barack Obama has been running from the nation’s problems. He hasn’t been working to earn re-election. He’s been working to earn a spot on the PGA tour.’ How about that?”
      MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: “Well, we know exactly what he’s trying to do there….These people reach for every single possible racial double-entendre they can possibly find in every one of these speeches.”
      — MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, August 29, 2012, talking about McConnell’s speech at the Republican National Convention.

      They hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy al Qaeda. Their number one enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred — hatred for Obama. We can go into that about the white working class in the South, and looking at these numbers we’re getting in the last couple days about racial hatred in many cases. This isn’t about being a better president. They want to get rid of this president. That’s their number one goal and they’re willing to let Romney go to the hard center, even if it’s to the left on issues, as long as they get rid of this guy.”
      — Chris Matthews during MSNBC’s post-debate coverage, October 22, 2012

      “I look at Obama as a perfect American. I don’t mean politically. We can disagree left and right on him. You can argue about the drones. Argue about the fiscal policy, all that stuff. But as a citizen. The guy went to school, he never broke a law. He did everything right. He raised a wonderful family. He’s a good husband, a good father. My God I don’t think he’s ever gotten a speeding ticket. The guy does everything right and these right-wingers — and he’s really been pretty moderate on guns until the horror of Newtown — and I don’t know what they’re so afraid of, except that he happens to be black.”
      — Host Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, March 6, 2013

      What does your study tell you about the nature of the racial piece here of the Tea Party?…Is it sort of a resumption of the Old South, of the way things were before the Civil War, for example? Is it like that old dreamy nostalgia you get in the old movies, Gone With the Wind? Is it that kind of America they want to bring back or what? When there were no gays, where blacks were slaves, Mexicans were in Mexico? I mean, is this what they want?”
      — Chris Matthews to author Christopher Parker on MSNBC’s Hardball, March 20, 2013

      The problem is there are people in this country — maybe 10 percent, I don’t know what the number, maybe 20 percent on a bad day — who want this President to have an asterisk next to his name in the history books, that he really wasn’t President….They can’t stand the idea that he is President, and a piece of it is racism. Not that somebody in one racial group doesn’t like somebody in another racial group. So what? It is the sense that the white race must rule. That’s what racism is. And they can’t stand the idea that a man who is not white is President.”
      — Chris Matthews appearing as a guest on MSNBC’s PoliticsNation, May 15, 2013

      “The IRS is being used in exactly the same way as they tried to use the President’s birth certificate…Despite the complete lack of any evidence linking the President to the targeting of Tea Party groups, Republicans are using it as their latest weapon in the war against the black man in the White House….This afternoon, we welcome the latest phrase in the lexicon of Republican attacks on this President — the IRS. Three letters that sound so innocent, but we know what you mean.”
      — MSNBC host Martin Bashir, June 5, 2013.

      ¦ “At least back in 1939, when Marian Anderson had to sing here, ‘My Country ‘Tis of Thee’ rather than at the Constitution Hall, because — they said the reason was she was black. At least they were honest back then….[Today] you’ve got people talking about nullification of the law of the land [ObamaCare]. You got people talking impeachment like [Senator Tom] Coburn. You got Ted Cruz out there. They never say their problem with Obama is that he’s black, but look at the pattern….At least the Daughters of the American Revolution knew what they were saying and they said it out loud: ‘He’s black, she’s black, she can’t sing here.’ These guys today use all the techniques of nullification and talking about illegitimacy and accusing the President of being a crook, basically, for even being president, because he’s here illegally. And then they talk about impeaching him on grounds they can’t even come up with. At least in the old days they were honest about it. Today, they’re not.”
      — Chris Matthews during MSNBC live coverage of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, August 28, 2013.

      ¦ “I want to talk today about a controversial word….A word that was originally intended as a derogatory term, meant to shame and divide and demean. The word was conceived of by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man, to render him inferior and unequal and to diminish his accomplishments…. Y’all know the word that I’m talking about: ‘ObamaCare.’”
      — Host Melissa Harris-Perry on her MSNBC show, December 8, 2013.

      Host Ed Schultz compared Tea Party activists to Nazi brownshirts and said that the Republican Party stands for racism; and accused Texas Gov. Rick Perry of referring to Obama in racial terms when he described the national debt as a “big black cloud” hanging over the heads of the American people.

      Reporter Lawrence O’Donnell accused Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell of using a “racial double-entendre” when McConnell complained that Obama spends too much time golfing;

      Daytime anchor Thomas Roberts famously claimed that Republicans want to go back to a time when “slavery was cool;”

      Contributing analyst Toure – so self-important that he goes by only one name – accused Romney of participating in the “niggerization” of Obama;

      PRESS: I just think the whole thing is outrageous. I hate this apology, I think it was unnecessary and just, just played right into their hands. And, I mean, they won’t (laughs), they’re not going to let conservatives watch MSNBC, fine! You’re not even going to notice that. How many conservatives, seriously, are watching Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow, you know, or Al Sharpton every night?

      JEREMY HOLDEN OF MEDIA MATTERS: Yeah, yeah, I don’t know, but, uh, I’m just …

      PRESS: It’s silly.

      HOLDEN: I want to see how this probation looks and when it ends. (Alluding to RNC chair Reince Priebus’s response to Cheerios ad tweet). And what, you know, is there going to be a soft landing from the probation? This is kind of silly at this point.

      PRESS: It is and, you know, first of all, good for Cheerios for bringing that spot back and not bowing into the pressure and as far as this tweet goes, again, “maybe the rightwing will hate it, but everybody else will go awww: the adorable new #Cheerios ad w/ biracial family,” that’s the truth. That is the truth! The right winger, the racist right winger will hate it. Everybody else will like it. It’s a beautiful spot.


      Hunter – Daily Kos
      MSNBC bending over themselves to apologize for someone in the network thinking the American right wing was made up of people who pore over the nation’s television commercials to find companies acting Not Bigoted Enough is, and there’s no other word for it, pathetic. As are, of course, the predictable reactions from the right wing themselves. You would think that people who get so very, very, very mad whenever someone suggests that they might be bigoted simpletons would be able to go at least one weekend without proving to be exactly that, but no. Never quite works out that way.

      Ron Fournier – Twitter

      The GOP argument on Obamacare has more than a whiff of Reagan-era racial “welfare queen” politics —>


      Ron Fournier – Twitter
      In light of today’s #Obamacare column, a little background: “How and Why Romney is Playing the Race Card.”

      “There are certain elements of the party who go out of their way to demonize people who don’t look like the way they’d like them to look like or came from some other place,” Powell said. “I think
      the party has to deal with this.”

      Markos MoulitsaS

      …[T]he GOP has a problem. It can’t win national elections without getting some support from immigrant demographics—Asians and Latinos, the fastest growing in the country. Yet conservatives hate brown and different-looking people. They speak foreign languages and eat weird stuff and play strange music and vote Democratic. Those are all unforgivable sins.

      Read more:


      “What we had here with you and President Obama was a culture class… It was the president of most of the white guys of America, that’s you. And, Barack Obama the president of almost everybody else. And the discussion was at that level… To watch it was some ways unsettling to me… What you did was strip him of his majesty…”

      From An examiner story about congressman Cummings

      In fact, the authors of the very report cited by Cummings, Devin Burghart and Leonard Zeskind also “exposed” alleged links between “certain Tea Party factions and acknowledged racist hate groups,” for the NAACP in 2010, as reported by Jack Cashill at the American Thinker, who writes wryly that Zeskind “could find racists in each of the nine choirs of angels and feel comfortable designating at least three of those choirs as hate groups.”

      At the time, Burghart and Zeskind wrote in part that Tea Party members were

      “defending their special pale-skinned privileges and power.”


      HOWARD FINEMAN (on MSNBC): And as if that’s some kind of explanation, some kind of explanation for the weird phenomenon of the fact that the Republicans didn’t win. There was this extraterrestrial force out there of African-Americans and Hispanics.

      CHarlie Crist – ““Sadly I think another part of it was that he was a Democrat, but not just a Democrat, an African-American.””

      MSNBC interview regarding rejection of union.

      WAGNER: – nails this a little bit. And he talks about the UAW has, or the idea of organized labor and finds, y’know, great welcome in NYU and in bastions of sort of liberal, progressive thought. But then when it comes down to it, here you have workers on an assembly line in Chattanooga, Tennessee, who have turned down the option. And he makes a point that, “As many unions have discovered, generally to their woe, the politics of race and culture often eclipse those of class in the United States.” [1]

      NOAH: Right.

      WAGNER: And these sort of cultural means around unions, um, distracted from the actual economic benefits of them. [2]

      NOAH: The South has always been hostile territory for union organizing. Y’know, as Harold said, the culture war in the South trumps the class war. [1] You already have in a number of Southern states right to work laws, which means that even if they had unionized the plants, those who benefitted from the presence of that union wouldn’t have had to pay union dues if they didn’t feel like it.

      So you’re in an overwhelmingly hostile climate. And the opposition I gather, through, portrayed this as a kind of northern invasion, a refighting of the Civil War. [3] Apparently there are not a lot of, uh, black employees in this particular plant. [4] And so, that kind of, uh, uh, uh, waving of the Confederate flag was an effective strategy. [5]

      WAGNER: That would explain also the sign, “United Obama Workers,” which speaks volumes [6] in terms of the, uh, cultural differences in certain parxts of the country. Author Timothy Noah, thank you as always for your time and thoughts.

      In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent “Tea Party” movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted

      Harry reid – ““We’re not going to bow to tea party anarchists who deny
      the mere fact that Obamacare is the law. We will not bow to tea party anarchists who
      refuse to accept that the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is constitutional,”

      Former Wash Post Editor Robert Kaiser
      “The base consists principally of white evangelical Christians who, the pollsters tell us, fear that their America is disappearing. Of course they are right; it has probably disappeared already. Their America would not have elected a black president.

      From Wash times regarding Obama appointee

      A furious Mr. Reid hinted that Republicans’ opposition was based on racism, pointing to to several other black nominees that GOP senators had opposed earlier. But in the case of Mr. Adegbile, his defense of Abu-Jamal was too much for even some Democrats

    • jim_m

      Krauthammer did not compare Putin to Hitler. He stated that when Hitler went into the Sudetan he claimed that he was rescuing ethnic Germans. Krathammer then followed that by immediately saying, “That is what all dictators do”. The comparison was not to Hitler specifically but citing a specific instance of the claim which followed that all dictators provide bogus excuses for invading their neighbors.

      Nuance – A concept not fully understood by the left.

      • Commander_Chico

        I think I am beginning to understand you. “Implicit” is not something you do or get.

        • jim_m

          I think you just need remedial English. I’d ask Bruce to help you but he never received an education either.

          • Retired military

            He could ask Obama but then he would never learn to spell respect. Not that he would show any.

        • jim_m

          I think you just need remedial English. I’d ask Bruce to help you but he never received an education either.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Whatever Obama says to try to look effective is OK with me, as long as he doesn’t actually try to do something.

      Wouldn’t it be better for everyone if 0bama was actually effective? Instead of trying to look effective?

      • Retired military

        With lefties like chico it is all about the looks and nothing about the substance.

      • Commander_Chico

        Not necessarily. GW Bush was very effective in doing things, like invading Iraq, and they turned out badly.

        • we won that war until Obama surrendered … things didn’t turn bad until your guy got involved …

          • Commander_Chico

            What did we “win?”

            The only thing that’s different from having the troops out is that a few score soldiers that would have been killed in Iraq the last 2 1/2 years are still alive.

          • LiberalNightmare

            The only thing that’s different from having the troops out is that a few score soldiers that would have been killed in Iraq the last 2 1/2 years are still alive.

            And instead, they are dying in afghanistan, because 0bama doesn't have the balls to pull out or the desire to win. So he leaves the troops in place and hamstrings them with bullshit ROE.

            The real difference is that now a democrat is in office, so we don't see the body count in the news every night.

            what do we win for that?

        • Jwb10001

          He did that with the explicit approval of the US Senate, including yes votes from Hillary and others. Lots of people thought that Iraq should be brought to account for their actions, not just Bush. I don’t see your rage directed at Hillary? She’s the absolute worst of the bunch, when pressed to explain her vote she basically said she didn’t know what she was voting on? That’s either incredibly dishonest or incredibly stupid either should disqualify her for public office. So please try to be more like our friend Wesley and be a bit more objective LOL.

        • jim_m

          It turned out badly for the left because it didn’t turn into a quagmire until obama tried to cut and run.

  • Vagabond661

    ANY Democrat victory will only embolden them more.

  • 914

    His foreign policy appears to be following the same path as every other policy.. Destroy, destroy and destroy..

  • Paul Hooson

    I think you have it wrong here. Both the U.S. and Russia are back to playing classic Cold War politics here. On one hand, Vladimir Putin’s own sense of Russian nationalism has pushed him to try to reverse what he sees as a shrinking Russian empire, much like a Russian version of Abraham Lincoln, willing to use military might to prevent a further dissolution of the once powerful former Soviet Union, which many Russians once viewed as their own mirror image of the United States. On the other hand, both the U.S. and NATO view a fresh opportunity to further shrink the former Soviet Union, and create a new buffer state between Russia and Poland, and other former East Bloc states, that are now NATO friendly.
    President Obama and John Kerry have acted as much in United States and NATO interests as any rational Republican president would have here. No rational Republican would have exceeded the measured response of this current White House. This is no cause for anyone to go to war, nor should they.
    If President Obama was put in a similar position as Vladimir Putin, where he felt that some foreign power meant peel off a close U.S. ally such as Canada or Mexico from the sphere of American influence, you’d likely see a noticeable U.S. response, possibly not even as measured or peaceful as Putin’s response has been so far. In some nations like South Korea or South Vietnam, the U.S. engaged Communists in long and protracted wars to block the influence of Communists to spread their influence to new areas. In South Vietnam for example, the government of the South refused to allow a Democratic election to reunify the country with the North, because most in South Vietnam supported the notion of a single Vietnam, Communist or not, partially due to the respect and/or popularity of Viet Minh leader, Ho Chi Minh, which was seen as a patriotic and nationalist figure for his opposition first to the Japanese, and later to the French colonists.

    The ultimate outcome in the Ukraine already looks somewhat clear. Crimea stays in the influence of Russia, while much of the rest of the Ukraine more closely aligns with the U.S. and NATO. Both Putin and the U.S. leave feeling that they gained something, that they proved something to the other, and both will eventually get over it, both looking forward to the next government to come along to be more reasonable to work with. Such is the dance of this latter day version of post-Cold War, Cold War international politics. Putin and his main government officials are all nearly former Communists. And Obama and Kerry proved they could play the game of Cold War politics nearly as well as some like Vice President Richard Nixon proved that they could during the 1950’s era.

    • jim_m

      You are half correct. Russia is back to playing cold war politics. obama is still stuck playing high school model UN and thinks that if we all just put aside our differences we can all get along in peace and harmony.

      Evidence for the fact that obama is not playing cold war politics is that when Russia invaded Ukraine (none of this bullshit spin from the lefty media that they have occupied Crimea, a nation that does not exist), he announced his intent to reduce military to pre WWII troop levels. Nevile Chamberlain looks like a positive warmonger by comparison.

      If obama gave a damn about any of our allies he wouldn’t be insulting them so often. The fact is that every world leader knows that you are better off being an enemy of obama than you are being an ally. You can count on obama doing anything you want him to if you are an enemy and if you are an ally you can count on betrayal.

      As it is Putin has invaded Ukraine, partitioned it without gaining any preapproval from the UN, and is now threatening to take over the rest of the Ukraine. Only an ass like you, Paul, would think that obama is doing a good job on this.

      • Paul Hooson

        No, I don’t think Obama is doing a good job at this here. Look at my critical tone here how both sides are playing Cold War politics. But, at the same time I doubt any president would be handling this situation much different either. I think, that’s a very realistic view here. – On the Russian news site, VOICE OF RUSSIA, there was an attempt to attack the notion of sanctions, so that must mean that they will have some effect on moderating Russian behavior here. – Obama and Putin have never gotten along well. Obama doesn’t like Putin, and visa versa. Obama is as every bit a Cold Warrior as any president, while Putin always manages to offend this White House with some antidemocratic move.

        • jim_m

          I guess my position is that if obama were not such a weak President on foreign policy, Putin would have thought twice about sending in troops. However, obama has demonstrated multiple times that he is incapable of handling an international crisis, cannot make decisions in a timely manner and cannot put together any sort of coalition to do anything because he is not trusted by our traditional allies.

          If obama does not like Putin it is because he knows that Putin thinks that he is a pushover and a poseur. obama only likes sycophants and that is exactly what Putin is not.

          You are dead wrong that obama is a cold war President. He does not believe that the US is right or has ever been a force for good. He does not believe in democracy. He does not think that communism is wrong. If obama were a cold war President we would have already sent troops to Poland, Belarus and the Baltic states in a message that we will not tolerate Russian expansionism

          Putin, on the other hand, is a cold war leader and will push his advantage to the fullest. Putin sees that he can extend Russian influence and will do so at every opportunity.

          obama is not offended by anti-democratic moves that Putin might make. He is only offended that Putin’s actions reveal him to be the weak, indecisive, appeasing, pushover that he is.

          • Paul Hooson

            Putin would have done exactly the same thing if Reagan was president, and Reagan would only have answered with sanctions like Obama has done. No difference here. – There’s a consensus in Washington that’s entirely predictable, and action from Russia, equally predictable.

          • Jwb10001

            I think you may be missing a few of the other things that Reagan did to help the USSR go bankrupt and break their backs. None of Obama’s thinking is nearly that strategic he’s a complete reactionary.

          • Paul Hooson

            I know there’s a popular myth that Reagan helped to bankrupt the former Soviet Union, but regardless of U.S. backing for the Mujahadeen by way of Pakistan, including misguided Reagan Administration aid to Osama Bin Laden, only making him into a later threat to the U.S., many internal factors within the former Soviet Union cannot be understated in a more accurate history here.
            Mikhail Gorbachev made many fast moving reforms within the former Soviet Union, allowing press freedom for journalists to openly condemn the war in Afghanistan. Further, the Russian public grew weary of Taliban or al Qaeda videos featuring the execution of Russian prisoners. Further, Russian attempts to poison water supplies or other acts against civilians in Afghanistan only helped to weaken Russian cooperation with villagers. The Russians didn’t fight this war well, despite U.S. efforts through Pakistan. And just like Vietnam, this war only helped to create dissent within the former Soviet Union among the public. In a climate of reforms with Mikhail Gorbachev, this only helped to make public demonstrations more likely, and things snowballed. The attempted coup by the hardliners was the last straw for many like Yeltsin, who joined the street crowds as a leader demanding change.
            Both Reagan and the Polish Pope helped to inspire shipyard workers in Poland to challenge the government, which inspired East Germans and others to protest, and Gorbachev demanded that these people have the right to voice their opinions without Soviet action.
            Gorbachev, the Pope and to a lesser extent, Reagan can take credit for a series of events. But, without a greater climate of freedom under Gorbachev, probably little would have happened. China proved that a hard line towards demonstrations could stop reforms there.
            Today, Gorbachev has founded an opposition party in Russia, and condemn Putin for his antidemocratic views. Gorbachev deserves a great deal of credit for being a true democrat and reformer in the former Soviet Union.

          • jim_m

            It’s not a myth. Reagan’s expansion of military spending engaged the USSR in an arms race that accelerated their financial collapse. Everyone accepts that, even the Russians.

            Also, obama would never have supported the Solidarity movement in Poland. They were anti-communist and he would never have supported such a group. obama would have propped up the soviets as long as he could. Like Carter kissing Breznev, obama will do whatever is necessary to appease and suck up to communists and dictators.

          • jim_m

            See my revision above. A cold war President would have been moving troops into neighboring nations to back them up and to send a signal that Russian expansionism would not be tolerated. You can send troops to these nations without provoking war and it sends a clear message.

            The difference is that obama dithers about trying to figure out a course of action and his first reaction is to find a convenient cover story to deny the fact that all his detractors on foreign policy for the last 5 years have been right.

            Reagan would have acted by now. obama has done nothing, unless you count the announcement that he is going to reduce our military strength.

            Honestly, what kind of appeasing moron announces that he is going to reduce troop strength to the lowest levels in a century when his primary international opponent is invading other nations?

            You cal this a cold war President? You are as delusional and he is.

          • Paul Hooson

            No. The U.S. doesn’t like this situation, but for Russia it’s seen as a pure border security situation. – Reagan wouldn’t go to war over this. There’s no good reasoning to support that opinion. He would have responded just about the same with sanctions and harsh words as Obama and Kerry have done here.

          • jim_m

            Reagan wouldn’t have to go to war because he could pose a credible threat to Russia. obama cannot pose a credible threat to Grenada, much less Russia.

          • jim_m

            Here is a good evaluation of the issue and how obama’s foreign policy is totally incapable of meeting the needs of the situation.

            Far from thinking that its incursion was a foolish blunder, Russia appears to be acting in the belief that it has inflicted a humiliation on the West and made solid gains on the ground in Ukraine. It is doubling down on the policy, and as far as one can read the mixed signals from the Kremlin, appears to be saying that the West must swallow the annexation of Crimea or watch as Russia further destabilizes eastern Ukraine.

            Krauthammer does an excellent takedown of obama’s idiotic and adolescent foreign policy views in the WaPo

            How to figure out Obama’s foreign policy? In his first U.N. speech, he says: “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.” On what planet? Followed by the assertion that “alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War” — like NATO? — “make no sense in an interconnected world.”

            Putin’s more cynical advisers might have thought such adolescent universalism to be a ruse. But Obama coupled these amazing words with even more amazing actions.

            (1) Upon coming into office, he initiated the famous “reset” to undo the “drift” in relations that had occurred during the George W. Bush years. But that drift was largely due to the freezing of relations Bush imposed after Russia’s invasion of Georgia. Obama undid that
            pushback and wiped the slate clean — demanding nothing in return.

            (2) Canceled missile-defense agreementswith Poland and the Czech Republic. Without even consulting them. A huge concession to Putin’s threats — while again asking nothing in return. And sending a message that, while Eastern Europe may think it achieved post-Cold War independence, in reality it remains in play, subject to Russian influence and interests.

            (3) In 2012, Obama assured Dmitry Medvedev that he would be even more flexible with Putin on missile defense as soon as he got past the election.

            (4) The Syria debacle.Obama painted himself into a corner on chemical weapons — threatening to bomb and then backing down — and allowed Putin to rescue him with a promise to get rid of Syria’s stockpiles. Obama hailed this as a great win-win, when both knew — or did Obama really not know? — that he had just conferred priceless legitimacy on Bashar al-Assad and made Russia the major regional arbiter for the first time in 40 years.

            (5) Obama keeps cutting defense spending. His latest budget will reduce it to 3 percent of GDP by 2016 and cut the army to pre-Pearl Harbor size — just as Russia is rebuilding, as Iran is going nuclear and as China announces yet another 12-plus percent increase in military spending.

            Puzzling.There is no U.S. financial emergency, no budgetary collapse. Obama declares an end to austerity — for every government department except the military.

            obama is ignorant and dangerously out of touch with reality. He will lead us into another world war or into slavery. You think he is some great cold war President? You’re a fool.

          • Paul Hooson

            Krauthammer, misses the real obvious here. That Putin and Russia would not expect military action by anyone for dealing with any situation related to their close border security. This makes superpowers nervous, when problems on their borders arise. – This was responsible for Afghanistan for the Russians and the Cuban Missile Crisis for the U.S. – Border security makes superpowers nervous, so they react to events.

          • jim_m

            This was never about border security. This was about Russian control of satellite nations and recreating the USSR.

        • jim_m

          obama is not a cold warrior:

          obama has decided that finishing his vacation is more important than stopping Putin from enslaving a few million people to his country.

          • Brucehenry


            Read the comments, too, especially those of long-time OTB denizen Michael Reynolds.

            You are a lunatic. US troops to Poland and Belarus? Yes, I suppose the US would have a mild reaction if Russian paratroopers were suddenly sent to Cuba and Venezuela just as the US was having a major dispute with, say, Mexico.

            If Obama HAD gone insane and sent troops to a former Soviet republic and a former Warsaw Pact country you can be sure every Republican in Washington and Wingnublogistan would be denouncing his “unConstitutional usurpations” and “reckless foreign policy” and “failure to consult with Congress” and yada yada as they did regarding Libya and Syria.

            The GOP wanted a no-fly zone over Qadafi’s Libya until one was established, then it was BAD, because Obama did it. The GOP wanted Obama to act against Assad in Syria, but any help to Assad’s opponents was painted as “aiding Al Qaeda.”

            Obama SHOULD do very little in this “crisis,” just as Ike did little when the Soviets crushed the East German workers in 1953, and when Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary in 1956. Just as Johnson did very little when Brezhnev crushed the Prague Spring in 1968, and just as Reagan did nothing when Poland’s Soviet-backed government imposed martial law in 1983, and just as Bush did next to nothing when Russian troops crushed Georgia in 2008.

            As for Reagan’s exhibition of leadership, the US became a laughingstock in the eyes of the world when Reagan fled in terror after 240 US Marines were murdered, then days later invaded fucking Grenada. Oh, yeah, IMPRESSIVE.

            Far from “standing up” to aggression, Reagan wouldn’t even use the military to punish a fourth-rate power like Syria for the barracks bombing., much less stand up to the mullahs of Iran who ordered it. Indeed he was selling missiles to those very mullahs in exchange for hostages WITHIN MONTHS. And using the proceeds to fund terrorists in Nicaragua, an act which, in a just world, would have seen him impeached and disgraced.

            Again, you are a lunatic, one who doesn’t remember history and has internalized an alternate, Bizarro-world version instead.

          • jim_m

            FIrst of all, there is no dispute between the Ukraine and Russia. Russia has invaded the Ukraine because they deposed a puppet leader that Putin wanted to keep in power. Putin has used the bogus excuse of protecting ethnic Russians in Crimea to cover for his naked act of aggression. You are an apologist for fascist aggression.

            Second, I support moving troops into other nations where the leaders of those nations would welcome them. I would offer to do so if they felt that it would enhance their security. Unlike you I do not favor the insertion of troops to protect some ethnic group simply because my nation is lead by a fascist dictator.

            Why I bother engaging an apologist for fascism I don’t know but you should check yourself and notice that while I have said to you multiple times that you would apologize for fascism right up to the point that they started sending people to concentration camps you have just taken the next step of apologizing for the fascist take over of a peaceful country based on the same excuse that Hitler used to invade Czechoslovakia and Poland.

            However, I doubt that you will admit this or even begin to recognize the fact that you really are a supporter of facsism.

          • Brucehenry

            I may be uninformed but I’m not aware that even the most rabid GOP warmonger has so far advocated sending US troops to Poland and especially Belarus, which already has Russian troops stationed there. However NATO is sending fighter jets to the Baltic States, so will that satisfy your lust for gambling with young men’s lives for now?


            If you call recognizing that the US has no treaty obligations to Ukraine and no strategic interest in whether or not Crimea is Russian or Ukrainian “apologizing for fascism” that’s up to you. Just another example of over-the-top conclusion-jumping from our own loony Jim, and that’s fine.

            It’s fine to oppose with sanctions and diplomacy the kind of aggression that Putin has perpetrated. But to risk all out war with a nuclear power led by a gangster would be foolish. I for one, were I a believer, would thank God we have a president uninterested in penis-measuring contests with the likes of John McCain, or Putin himself for that matter.

            Send troops to Poland, Belarus, and the Baltic states? Then what? If Russia did not bend to our will, would those troops be ordered to act? In what way? Are you advocating for an invasion of Russia to expel them from Crimea as Saddam was expelled from Kuwait? How likely do you think that is? Do you reckon Germany, France, Poland, and the Netherlands relish the idea of an escalation of this conflict into nuclear brinkmanship, as would surely result?

            The idea is lunacy. Which is why Ike, LBJ, Reagan, and Bush all acquiesced to reality when confronted with similar situations.

            BTW I note that you have nothing to say when presented with an argument that Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon, then masked his cowardice with an invasion of tiny Grenada, after 240 Marines were murdered. If Obama had done that he’d be impeached by now. Instead Reagan has been beatified by historical ignorami like yourself.

          • jim_m

            The purpose of sending troops is to send the message that we will not allow Putin to go any further. Ukraine is already los unless we want a war. The point is to contain this and end his expansionist aspirations.

            You, of course, would do nothing. You would have some weak ass policy of appeasing Putin and kissing his ass (which is what obama will do). Everyone in the world sees obama as weak and incapable of delivering any coherent response. Putin is taking advantage of this fact.

            This is not about what happened with Reagan or anyone else. This is about your appeasing of dictators and your defense of fascism. I will note that your defense of coddling dictators and appeasing fascist aggression is that GOP presidents have done things in the past that you think weren’t right. That’s a really strong moral position you’ve got there. I suppose you really will use that when people do start going into the gulags.

          • Brucehenry

            And about your inability to put this latest “crisis” into any sort of historical context. What did Ike “do” about Hungary? What did LBJ “do” about Czechoslovakia? What did Bush “do” about Georgia? What did Reagan “do” about martial law in Poland?

            Answers to all those questions? Not much, because there was not much that could have been done.

            Perhaps if Bush in 2008 had deployed troops to Kazakhstan and Moldova Russia would not have undertaken this expansionist move, huh? Why was Bush so Chamberlainesque, do you think? LOL.

            Ukraine is only “lost” if one thinks that it was ever ours to ‘lose.” Was it? It was part of the Russian, then the Soviet, empires for hundreds of years. The czars and then the commissars decided whether to consider Crimea part of Russia or part of Ukraine for purposes of administration. When was it ever in the interest of the US to have an opinion on the subject?

            You say the purpose of sending troops is to send a message that “we will not allow” Russia to go any further. If we DO send troops to, say, Belarus, and a year from now Russia starts making demands on, say, Moldova, should those troops be ordered to act? In what way, Jim? Again, are you advocating that Russia be militarily stopped, BY THE US, by sending our troops to fight in a shithole like Moldova? A shithole the US has no treaty obligations to? What would the consequences of that be?

            And if WE decided to send troops, hypothetically, into Mexico to arrest cartel members (as we did in Panama in 1989), would you be fine with Russia sending paratroopers to Nicaragua and Cuba to “send us a message”? You are so full of shit.

          • Commander_Chico

            Pat Buchanan answered that question:

            When Red Army tank divisions crushed the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, killing 50,000, Eisenhower did not lift a finger. When Khrushchev built the Berlin Wall, JFK went to Berlin and gave a speech. When Warsaw Pact troops crushed the Prague Spring in 1968, LBJ did nothing. When, Moscow ordered Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski to smash Solidarity, Ronald Reagan refused to put Warsaw in default. These presidents saw no vital U.S. interest imperiled in these Soviet actions, however brutal. They sensed that time was on our side in the Cold War. And history has proven them right.

            What is the U.S. vital interest in Crimea? Zero. From Catherine the Great to Khrushchev, the peninsula belonged to Russia. The people of Crimea are 60 percent ethnic Russians. And should Crimea vote to secede from Ukraine, upon what moral ground would we stand to deny them the right, when we bombed Serbia for 78 days to bring about the secession of Kosovo?


          • jim_m

            The vital interest is in arresting any further expansion. obama will do nothing to prevent that. Pat Buchanan has always been an ignorant isolationist. The notion that the US can blithely stand by in isolation and that other nations will not act to damage our national interests n the long term is ignorant and without foundation in history.

            Those who would have us engage in another world war, where tens off millions of lives will be lost are those who advocate doing nothing because there is no immediate interest. Those people are the true war mongers.

            I suggest sending a message that there will be real resistance should Putin try to continue this expansionism and fascist apologists rush to call me a war monger. I suppose you probably don’t consider yourselves in that way because you would rather have us surrender to that fascism instead of ever opposing it. The totalitarian state is the one you welcome. Democracy is what you fight against.

          • jim_m

            If Crimea were to vote to secede it would be a different matter. However it did not and since Russia has invaded any subsequent vote would be highly suspect.

          • Commander_Chico

            Pat Buchanan has been pretty much right the last 20 years.

            The Ukraine already voted for Yanukovich for president. That election was observed and judged to be free and fair.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, and there is never, ever, in the entire history of mankind, any example of a people regretting the election of a leader. For proof of that I point to the fact that no states have laws providing for the recall of elected officials and nations with parliamentary systems never have votes of no confidence. Oh wait, those things do exist.

            Putting sarcasm aside I can point to Honduras, which deposed its president, Zelaya, because he was maneuvering to turn the country into a communist dictatorship patterned after Cuba and Venezuela. Your lord and savior obama tried to get him reinstated so he could complete the act.

            There are lots of instances where properly elected leaders are removed for legitimate reasons. Ukraine is just another example. Bottom line is that you support the oppression of other people. Just like you support obama because “he won” so you think that he should be allowed to do anything that he wants.

            [edit] funny that the one conservative voice you think is correct is the one man that is arguably the most bigoted voice on the right for the last 3 decades. Sort of fits with your world view doesn’t it?

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah Pat is a bit too much white nationalist for my taste, but his analysis of US foreign policy is right up there with Noam Chomsky’s.

            the point about Yanukovich is that it shows the number of people who are pro-Russia in the Ukraine. Pretty much the whole eastern part and the Crimea voted for him.

          • jim_m

            OK. Thanks for the laugh. You’re heroes are Buchannan, a belligerent racist, and Chomsky, an idiot anti-American. You’ve chosen well. They reflect your opinions perfectly.

          • jim_m

            That’s right. Who cares if millions lose their freedom. Freedom and democracy are silly concepts and people on the other side of the globe do not deserve them and our interests are not advanced by advancing the concepts of liberty and freedom. This is why I call you a fascist and it is why I am correct in doing so.

          • Brucehenry

            Just got back from seeing “300: Rise of an Empire.” You’d love it, it’s full of jingoistic nonsense too.

            We don’t advance liberty and freedom by getting ourselves into a pointless, unwinnable war with a gangster state which also happens to be a nuclear power. Any parent, teacher, or boss knows one must choose one’s battles, and only fight the ones one is likely to win.

            People on the other side of the world absolutely deserve liberty and freedom but it is not up to us to hand it to them. If it were, and we had to do it by the use of our military, we would be at war in Myanmar, Tibet, and most of the Middle East as well as nearly all of sub-Saharan Africa. Do you recommend that, Loonytune?

            An advocate of a smaller government ought to be looking for ways to avoid war, not searching out wars to poke our noses into. Those who aren’t historical ignorami know that government power always increases during wartime, and often ebbs or remains static in times of peace. That leaves you out.

            You can call me a fascist till the cows come home, doesn’t make it so, and it doesn’t bother me. It’s funny, though, that you can’t tell who is “delusional” around here.

          • jim_m

            Listen dumbass. I didn’t say that we should get in a war. Open your eyes and actually read what I freaking wrote.

            I said that obama is going to get us into a war because he is feckless and weak and refuses to stand up for anything and it is exactly that appeasing attitude which you defend that ill get us into a war.

            I suggested a show of strength that will not necessarily provoke a war but will reduce the likelihood of further aggression while at the same time drawing our regional allies together.

            Instead you’re asking to kiss the ass of a dictator and saying that we should wrap our lips around his penis and beg him for forgiveness for thinking that he doesn’t have the absolute right to invade his neighbors for the same bullshit reason that Hitler used. The other examples you give do not represent the kind of threat the Putin does.and you know it.

            Like I have said before, there is no fascist aggression you will not apologize for. You do not believe in having a strong America and you beiieve that we should have a supine foreign policy that encourages dictators and military aggression globally.

          • jim_m

            Let’s put it this way Bruce. I believe that obama should have done something that looked like a strong position against military aggression but instead he decided that going golfing on vacation was far more important.

            And you find that to be preferable to standing up in any meaningful way to a dictator. Like I said you are just puckering up so you can service any dictator you can find.

          • Brucehenry

            If Obama had “done something” you would find it the wrong thing. If he had NOT “done something” you would find it wrong. Who do you think you’re fooling? Yourself, maybe.

          • jim_m

            You are correct. If obama had done something it would have been the wrong thing because his first instinct is to appease.

          • Brucehenry

            Wow, lots of homoerotic imagery there, Jim. What a surprise talk like that comes from one who is calling for sending troops there and sending messages here, all in an effort not to “appear weak.” LOL.

            I believe gun safety advocates will tell you not to point a gun at anybody unless you intend to, or at least are ready to, pull the trigger. I’m pretty sure the same advice applies to sending troops to an area where hostilities may occur.

            There are plenty of steps that can be taken short of sending troops to Poland, dumbass. Some are already being taken, like the sending of NATO fighter jets to the Baltic. As I said, I’m unaware of the most rabid GOP chickenhawk calling for TROOPS to Belarus, which would be like pouring gasoline on a fire. No, even the most batshit GOP backbench House members are not as crazy as you, Jim.

          • jim_m

            I believe gun safety advocates will tell you not to point a gun at anybody unless you intend to, or at least are ready to, pull the trigger.

            Spoken like a true ignorant ass. The rule is don’t point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy, and the next is keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target (and you have made the decision to shoot).

            Lemme guess, you belong to the Brady Campaign.

          • Brucehenry

            Pretty fair try at changing the subject, but you’re still batshit.

          • jim_m

            I suggested sending troops if those nations wanted them. What is batshit about supporting your allies? Oh yeah, you must believe like obama that our job is to betray our allies.

            (otherwise I was just pointing out how ignorant you are on yet another subject. I’d bitch about you being uneducated but we already know the sorry state of your education)

          • Brucehenry

            Not at first you didn’t. Only when challenged as to how crazy that sounds did you qualify. More “intellectual honesty” and ex post facto argument from our resident God of War.

          • jim_m

            I clarified my comments. You are against such clarification? It did not change the original intent one iota.

            Yes, I have been honest in my argument and I have not backed off it one bit. I’m not going to listen to complaints about intellectual anything form an uneducated ass like you (also see my amendment to the comment above for further insults to your intelligence)

          • Brucehenry

            And have Poland, Belarus, or the Baltic states ASKED to have US troops sent there? Gee, wonder why not, you reckon?

            You said, to Paul, that if “Obama were a cold war president we’d already have troops in Poland, Belarus, and the Baltic states.” I’m unaware of any request “already” from any of those countries.

            Crazy AND full of shit. But educated, that’s true.

          • jim_m

            We might if he didn’t have such a reputation for cutting and running on our allies.

            And we have already gone over your lack of education and the resentment that it has fostered in you. Don’t lie.

          • Brucehenry

            Yet your hero cut and ran from Lebanon after 240 Marines were murdered, and did NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT IT, yet is considered a tough guy by you and your ilk. Which proves IOKIYAR.

          • Brucehenry

            BTW here’s an ACTUAL “apologist” for Russia’s actions in Crimea and the rest of Ukraine. I’ll bet you hadn’t considered, or perhaps were never aware of, any of this information before your knee-jerk “obama-is-weak” response kicked in.


            Here’s another voice of reason. Take a valium and read this:

    • jim_m

      You are half correct. Russia is back to playing cold war politics. obama is still stuck playing high school model UN and thinks that if we all just put aside our differences we can all get along in peace and harmony.

      Evidence for the fact that obama is not playing cold war politics is that when Russia invaded Ukraine (none of this bullshit spin from the lefty media that they have occupied Crimea, a nation that does not exist), he announced his intent to reduce military to pre WWII troop levels. Nevile Chamberlain looks like a positive warmonger by comparison.

      If obama gave a damn about any of our allies he wouldn’t be insulting them so often. The fact is that every world leader knows that you are better off being an enemy of obama than you are being an ally. You can count on obama doing anything you want him to if you are an enemy and if you are an ally you can count on betrayal.

      As it is Putin has invaded Ukraine, partitioned it without gaining any preapproval from the UN, and is now threatening to take over the rest of the Ukraine. Only an ass like you, Paul, would think that obama is doing a good job on this.

  • Not content pissing away U. S. gains in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama is now pissing away our victory in the Cold War.

  • Michael Lang

    The conclusion I got from this banter here is that Obama is weak and Brucie is an ass. Nothing new.

  • mikegiles

    Obama, and most of his leftist comrades, came to adulthood in a period when all leftists were scared to death of the Soviet Union. And the only way to prevent the Soviets from raining atomic death down upon us, was to surrender to them. Remember “Better red, than dead”? Putin is the leader of a 3rd world country – with nukes. But we have so many people in our government, who are deathly afraid of him. There mindsets, were set and fixed, somewhere back in the middle of the 70’s.