Obama made with his "nuclear" agreement with his comrades in Russia by subverting Constitution
"MOSCOW -- With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate?s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a ?provisional basis? until the Senate ratifies the treaty."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...cation-for-treaty.html
Concerning the same agreement, UK Telegraph writers could hardly contain their scorn for the "Looney Tunes" irrationality of it all.
One writer for the Telegraph (Nile Gardiner) wrote a story titled "Is Obama The Most Naive president in history ?"
Gardiner wonders just what the US gains from Obama's defense cut since it serves to reduce US nuke capability to Russia's advantage:
"The whole agreement makes no sense, and is little more than a vanity exercise for Barack Obama who has ludicrously pledged to carve out a nuclear-free world. Surely a better strategy would be to further build up America?s defences, including a global missile defence shield, rather than cut defence spending and further gut the superpower?s nuclear capability.
At this rate, even Jimmy Carter looks like General Patton compared to the dove-like current U.S. president. Why cut nuclear weapons at a time when rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran are busy building their own programmes? Does the President seriously believe this move will encourage the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il to renounce their nuclear designs? What evidence is there in history that a unilateral policy of disarmament will prompt tyrannical regimes to change their behaviour?...
The Obama administration?s naive approach will strengthen the resolve of America?s enemies such as Iran to aggressively pursue their nuclear ambitions and exploit the weakness of a president who is gravely undercutting American global power in an increasingly dangerous world."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...esident-in-us-history/
Concerning the same gutting of defense, another writer in the Telegraph (Gerald Warner) writes " the Looney Tunes President?s sell-out of US and Western interests is proceeding at such a speed that it is difficult to keep pace". His supposed missile deal with Vladimir Putin..is very satisfactory to Russian ambitions and realpolitik..
For America voluntarily to reduce its nuclear superiority is madness. Bien-pensant talk of a nuclear-free world displays total stupidity in a global situation where nuclear weaponry is proliferating, not receding. There is even a nuclear bomb in Pakistan, which is teetering on the brink of failed statehood at the hands of Islamist insurgents. Is this a time for America to disarm, to ?sell the store? as one trenchant right-wing commentator has already described Obama?s posturing in Moscow?
For Obama, success is not the delivery of watertight nuclear security for America; it is a feel-good news conference and photo opportunity that will create huge approval ratings on liberal campuses where the delusions of 1968 and the anti-Vietnam war movement still linger on in these isolated Jurassic Parks.
It seems certain Obama will sacrifice the anti-missile shield in Europe that would have been our defence against a nuclear Iran after the ayatollahs, with Russian help, emerge as potential vapourising agents of the infidel. The interceptor missiles do not even carry warheads: they rely on an impact at 14,900mph to destroy any incoming missile, so Russian hysteria about this ?threat? is synthetic."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...ar-defences-in-moscow/
While Obama was on tour it was interesting to note the Russians also thought Obama was more style than substance. One student quoted in NY Times said:
"We don?t really understand why Obama is such a star,? said Kirill Zagorodnov, 25, one of the graduates. ?It?s a question of trust, how he behaves, how he positions himself, that typical charisma, which in Russia is often parodied. Russians really are not accustomed to it. It is like he is trying to manipulate the public.?
Another young Russian described a split over Obama's election: ?Students in Moscow, they are pretty positive about this,? he said. ?It?s cool, modern, progressive. All the students know American history, they know about segregation, so it shows us about democracy, how it can be.?
But the same cannot be said for average Russians, he said, adding: ?It looks weird to them. They just think that America has gone crazy.?
"In Russia, Obama?s Star Power Does Not Translate"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07...ope/08russia.html?_r=1
"MOSCOW -- With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate?s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a ?provisional basis? until the Senate ratifies the treaty."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...cation-for-treaty.html
Concerning the same agreement, UK Telegraph writers could hardly contain their scorn for the "Looney Tunes" irrationality of it all.
One writer for the Telegraph (Nile Gardiner) wrote a story titled "Is Obama The Most Naive president in history ?"
Gardiner wonders just what the US gains from Obama's defense cut since it serves to reduce US nuke capability to Russia's advantage:
"The whole agreement makes no sense, and is little more than a vanity exercise for Barack Obama who has ludicrously pledged to carve out a nuclear-free world. Surely a better strategy would be to further build up America?s defences, including a global missile defence shield, rather than cut defence spending and further gut the superpower?s nuclear capability.
At this rate, even Jimmy Carter looks like General Patton compared to the dove-like current U.S. president. Why cut nuclear weapons at a time when rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran are busy building their own programmes? Does the President seriously believe this move will encourage the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il to renounce their nuclear designs? What evidence is there in history that a unilateral policy of disarmament will prompt tyrannical regimes to change their behaviour?...
The Obama administration?s naive approach will strengthen the resolve of America?s enemies such as Iran to aggressively pursue their nuclear ambitions and exploit the weakness of a president who is gravely undercutting American global power in an increasingly dangerous world."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...esident-in-us-history/
Concerning the same gutting of defense, another writer in the Telegraph (Gerald Warner) writes " the Looney Tunes President?s sell-out of US and Western interests is proceeding at such a speed that it is difficult to keep pace". His supposed missile deal with Vladimir Putin..is very satisfactory to Russian ambitions and realpolitik..
For America voluntarily to reduce its nuclear superiority is madness. Bien-pensant talk of a nuclear-free world displays total stupidity in a global situation where nuclear weaponry is proliferating, not receding. There is even a nuclear bomb in Pakistan, which is teetering on the brink of failed statehood at the hands of Islamist insurgents. Is this a time for America to disarm, to ?sell the store? as one trenchant right-wing commentator has already described Obama?s posturing in Moscow?
For Obama, success is not the delivery of watertight nuclear security for America; it is a feel-good news conference and photo opportunity that will create huge approval ratings on liberal campuses where the delusions of 1968 and the anti-Vietnam war movement still linger on in these isolated Jurassic Parks.
It seems certain Obama will sacrifice the anti-missile shield in Europe that would have been our defence against a nuclear Iran after the ayatollahs, with Russian help, emerge as potential vapourising agents of the infidel. The interceptor missiles do not even carry warheads: they rely on an impact at 14,900mph to destroy any incoming missile, so Russian hysteria about this ?threat? is synthetic."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...ar-defences-in-moscow/
While Obama was on tour it was interesting to note the Russians also thought Obama was more style than substance. One student quoted in NY Times said:
"We don?t really understand why Obama is such a star,? said Kirill Zagorodnov, 25, one of the graduates. ?It?s a question of trust, how he behaves, how he positions himself, that typical charisma, which in Russia is often parodied. Russians really are not accustomed to it. It is like he is trying to manipulate the public.?
Another young Russian described a split over Obama's election: ?Students in Moscow, they are pretty positive about this,? he said. ?It?s cool, modern, progressive. All the students know American history, they know about segregation, so it shows us about democracy, how it can be.?
But the same cannot be said for average Russians, he said, adding: ?It looks weird to them. They just think that America has gone crazy.?
"In Russia, Obama?s Star Power Does Not Translate"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07...ope/08russia.html?_r=1
Facebook
Twitter