Question for Obama: What do you think of Romney’s “Russia is our top geopolitical foe” comment now?

posted at 2:01 pm on March 25, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via the Free Beacon, a reminder from the Hague today that no one takes so long to say so little as our O. Simple two-part question from Jon Karl: How does it feel now that America’s adversaries routinely ignore your threats and bogus “red lines”? And wasn’t Romney right about Russia, a comment you made fun of at the time because you thought you could squeeze a smart-ass soundbite out of it? Less than 30 seconds later, at around 1:14, Karl finds himself literally shaking his head at the lame straw man Obama’s set up, twisting the question into some sort of accusation that enemy nations routinely used to do America’s bidding until O got elected. That’s not what Karl said, obviously; his point was that defiance of U.S. demands is becoming more common, especially after Obama’s empty threat towards Assad. But this is what happens when you put The One on the spot.

Five minutes later, his answer boils down to (a) the nations you think are a threat to the U.S. really aren’t, e.g., Russia is a “regional power” that seized Crimea out of weakness, not strength, and (b) besides, the ones that are kinda sorta a threat have been contained anyway by the genius of Hopenchange soft power (“Syria’s never been more isolated”). Show of hands: Who thinks a country with thousands of nuclear-tipped ICBMs aimed at your hometown is a “regional power”? Exactly how broad is Russia’s “region” if NATO exists to this day to make sure the Kremlin doesn’t send tanks west towards the Atlantic? I’m usually all for tough talk but there’s no benefit I can see to scoffing at Putin’s military muscle at a moment when he has thousands of troops perched across the border from Ukraine and is trying to decide whether to seize the country. If America’s not prepared to push him back militarily — and this poll says Americans definitely aren’t — then why taunt him? Noah Rothman makes a nice point here:

“Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness,” Obama asserted, as though he was talking about the psychological insecurities that plague the average playground bully.

“The fact that Russia felt compelled to go in militarily and lay bare these violations of international law indicates less influence, not more,” Obama insisted.

How convenient. Even when Russia directly threatens to topple the international order, of which America is the chief guarantor, they are not threatening the international order because the threat itself is an implicit admission of inadequacy.

Imagine how weak Putin will look when he’s knocking on Poland’s door. But anyway: I’m keen to know whom O thinks is America’s “number one geopolitical foe.” He refuses, for reasons of simple ego, to admit that Romney was right even though it’s Russia more so than any other rival power that’s thwarted American action against Iran and Assad. Once upon a time, O might have named Iran itself as our top geopolitical foe but he wouldn’t dare say that right now, with a fragile nuclear deal pending. He could say China, but that would be foolish antagonism at a moment when the U.S. has its hands full with the other Asian behemoth. So who is it then?

Note the bit at the end here about how he’s more worried about a loose nuke going off in Manhattan than a Russian missile barrage. Good to know that the probability of the former is sufficiently high to top a classic Cold War scenario at a moment of high tension with Moscow.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Tell us in your own simple words why you are grateful that O’bama lost the college graduate vote in 2012.
Oh, and do so without once using the word “war”.
(Starts Snowdial)
Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM

How about less of

This

This

and this

See there, I didn’t say the word war. A war with Iran, Russia or both would result in the above except on a much higher scale.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 3:30 PM

jdpaz on March 25, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Like a dog with a treat balanced on its snout? Strength is not eating the treat? Maybe that should be Obama’s next move. Call Putin a well-trained puppy.

tdarrington on March 25, 2014 at 3:30 PM

…Smart Power!
Forward!

KOOLAID2 on March 25, 2014 at 3:30 PM

But anyway: I’m keen to know whom O thinks is America’s “number one geopolitical foe.”

Flyover country.

Or — if you had to press him to name a place separated from the bi-coastal areas by water — he’d probably say Britain or Israel. Obama’s shown far more testiness towards them at times over the past five years than he has towards Russia, where you can almost see him being regretful he has to bash their leader at all.

jon1979 on March 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Just an embarrassing pantload.

rick_blaines_forehead on March 25, 2014 at 3:34 PM

I didn’t say the word war. A war with Iran, Russia or both would result in the above except on a much higher scale.
antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 3:30 PM

When did Romeny ever advocate war? Romney wanted to project strength in order to prevent war. It’s the weakness of Obama which invites war and the graphic results you say you want to avoid.

tommyboy on March 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM

In his speech today Obama called Russia a ‘regional power’ – he still refuses to call Russia a threat, especially to the United States. (‘Regional’ suggests ‘Europe’…’power’ versus ‘threat’ shows Obama STILL refuses to acknowlege Putin/Iran is a threat.) Of course the Great Narcisitic One could and would not admit that he was WRONG and that he just got played like a banjo by Putin. The 2nd part of the question was WHO did he think IS our biggest geo-political threat – he refused to / did not answer.

Putin just invaded and seized Crimea. There is nothing to stop him from taking all of the Ukraine…and Estonia….and Latvia. Last week Putin declared the biggest tragedy in his life was the USSR being desstroyed and broken apart because of the United States and delcared he would ‘restore the glory of Russia’. And yet today, even after all this, Obama can’t bring himself to admit he was wrong, that Palin was right when she said Russia would invade the Ukraine due to Obama’s naievity and weakness and that Romney was right for calling Russia a threat.

You can still hear Putin laughing, telling his troops on the Eastern Ukrainian border to ‘warm up the tanks’…

easyt65 on March 25, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Keep forgetting the latest progressive incantation. Is it “Lean Forward” or “Bend Over“, cuz it sure seems like a BOHICA moment is coming from Putin.

in_awe on March 25, 2014 at 3:44 PM

As much as I loath Obama, I am grateful that he’s president.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 3:07 PM

Then my hope for you is that you may enjoy all the human suffering that accompanies it. Matter of fact, be grateful for it.

Bmore on March 25, 2014 at 3:48 PM

…the nations you think are a threat to the U.S. really aren’t, e.g., Russia is a “regional power”…

LMAO! After Comrade Putin hears that Russia is a “regional power,” stand by for a series of ICFs by TU-95 against the East and West Coasts and a couple of ICBM tests.

Regional power, my butt!

NavyMustang on March 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM

When did Romeny ever advocate war? Romney wanted to project strength in order to prevent war. It’s the weakness of Obama which invites war and the graphic results you say you want to avoid.
tommyboy on March 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM

“Projecting strength,” as you all define it, is direct acts if war (bombing) or will inevitably lead to war.

War with Russia is not necessary. Russia is far more justified to invade Crimea, which is 60% ethnically Russia, than the US government, which has invaded or bombed Grenada, Panama, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, and Serbia.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 3:50 PM

“Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness,” Obama asserted.

Hard to argue with President Bozo when he’s proven himself to be the expert on weakness.

Preach it chipmunk.

fogw on March 25, 2014 at 3:53 PM

When did Romeny ever advocate war? Romney wanted to project strength in order to prevent war. It’s the weakness of Obama which invites war and the graphic results you say you want to avoid.
tommyboy on March 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Projecting strength needs to be backed up with force at some point, therefore it is better to project weakness so that no one expects you to ever actually fight.

Murphy9 on March 25, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Has this man ever, in his entire life, admitted he was wrong about something or that he made a mistake? (And I mean truly, without blaming someone else or as is his usual practice, saying he is “responsible” and then immediately shifting the blame to others.)

What a sad, egotistical dick.

LASue on March 25, 2014 at 3:59 PM

He looks pretty small on that world stage…

… doesn’t he?

Seven Percent Solution on March 25, 2014 at 4:00 PM

As scary as it is having Obama for president, is the fact that the American population would be so stupid to elect him twice, if indeed the elections were not fixed.

birdwatcher on March 25, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Now that I think about it, schmuck “academics” like Obama were spouting that the USSR really wasn’t a threat during the Cold War. That we in the USA were the real aggressors.

NavyMustang on March 25, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Projecting strength needs to be backed up with force at some point, therefore it is better to project weakness so that no one expects you to ever actually fight.

Murphy9 on March 25, 2014 at 3:55 PM

70,000 nuclear warheads at the ready says your hypothesis is flawed.

Nobody ever threatened to not use them during the cold war.

fogw on March 25, 2014 at 4:04 PM

The natural move towards irrelevance in history of tyrants is their lack of self correction. Obama rates up there with the most ignorant yet egotistical bores of recorded history. By the end of this term, he’ll rate a “Nero”.

Hening on March 25, 2014 at 4:05 PM

“Projecting strength,” as you all define it, is direct acts if war (bombing) or will inevitably lead to war.
antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Wrongo. Projecting strength is not unilaterally abandoning East European missle defense for no reasnon at all, not letting other countries butcher you ambassadors in the street and doing nothing
all about it, not talking tough and drawing red lines you have no intention of enforcing thus whimpering away when a two bit dictator of a third world hell hole calls your bluff. Stuff like that. Reagan dismantled the entire USSR by projecting strength and never had to fire a shot.

tommyboy on March 25, 2014 at 4:07 PM

70,000 nuclear warheads at the ready says your hypothesis is flawed.

Nobody ever threatened to not use them during the cold war.

fogw on March 25, 2014 at 4:04 PM

That was sarcasm.

Murphy9 on March 25, 2014 at 4:08 PM

I actually think Romney is wrong, but not for the same reasons Obama thinks Romney is wrong. China is the number one geopolitical threat mostly due to the fact they are a growing in power, have real naval ambitions, and threaten our sea lanes and control over the Western Pacific.

No one wants to openly make that clear in many part of the U.S. government because it would upset both liberal peaceniks and big business interests alike. Also there is a strong pro-China lobby in the U.S. that seems to be loaded with academics and even some old cold warriors who still think China is some kind of an ally based purely on nostalgia.

What we have in Russia today is really a return to the way they were pre-Communist Revolution. It is basically Czarist Russia reborn: Autocratic, locally aggressive, ethnocentric, a big ego, but clumsey. We need more American strategist who have studied Russia in the 19th century century, and less cold warriors from the 20th century and utopian leftist who think there is actually something called the, “international community”.

One place to start would be to study the Crimean War…

William Eaton on March 25, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Obama does not to project strength. He is too busy dismantling the military, and firing generals. It seems like he does not want The USA to be a force for good in the world. Seems to me he is an evil person. The kind of person James Bond would would oppose.

birdwatcher on March 25, 2014 at 4:11 PM

That was sarcasm.

Murphy9 on March 25, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Sorry Murph, sounded trollish.

fogw on March 25, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Obama has made Jimmy Carter look like a foreign policy genius. How can a nation with intercontinental ballistic missiles be a “regional power” only?

JQA on March 25, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Putin doesn’t take anything Obama says seriously. I doubt he makes decisions one way or the other based on what Obama says.

JQA on March 25, 2014 at 4:38 PM

It didn’t seem regional when we were flying against Russian Bears along the Alaska ADIZ.

Sven on March 25, 2014 at 4:39 PM

Obama has made Jimmy Carter look like a foreign policy genius. How can a nation with intercontinental ballistic missiles be a “regional power” only?

JQA on March 25, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Obama regularly consults Composite Julia on nuclear proliferation issues

Roy Rogers on March 25, 2014 at 4:42 PM

Russia is far more justified to invade Crimea, which is 60% ethnically Russia, than the US government, which has invaded or bombed Grenada, Panama, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, and Serbia.

“Far more”?

Care to provide us with an exact percentage by which they are “more justified”? And when you’ve done that, it’d be really helpful if you could provide the international laws that bolster your nonsense.

Don’t panic…one is really expecting a substantive response from you.

I would ask you how it feels for you Lefties to spend just about every waking moment having to twist logic and reason into such convoluted, twisted bullsh!t…all to avoid ever having to admit that you’re wrong about something…but I won’t waste my time. After all, if you were capable of that kind of self-reflection, you wouldn’t be a Lefty in the first place.

rvastar on March 25, 2014 at 4:50 PM

I am learning why liberals so vehemently despise private gun ownership – they really, honestly, completely do not know what guns are for. It seems they do not understand neither private nor public defense systems and merely resort to changing the definitions of “nation” and “aggression” and “strength” and “treaty” and “promise”…

So I slightly understand better why Obammy’s first reaction is, “If you like your Crimea, you can keep your Crimea.” He literally has no frikkin’ clue how to use what he’s been given and is just changing definitions of “weakness” and “19th Century” and hoping no one notices his lack of clothing.

DublOh7 on March 25, 2014 at 4:54 PM

He literally has no frikkin’ clue how to use what he’s been given and is just changing definitions of “weakness” and “19th Century” and hoping no one notices his lack of clothing.

DublOh7 on March 25, 2014 at 4:54 PM

“There was one episode like four years ago in which I was wearing some loose jeans mainly because I was out on the pitcher’s mound, and I didn’t want to feel confined while I was pitching, and I think I’ve paid my penance for that.”

Pitchers mound, girls bike, Crimea… It’s all Obama’s “look”

Roy Rogers on March 25, 2014 at 4:58 PM

Obama regularly consults Composite Julia on nuclear proliferation issues

Roy Rogers on March 25, 2014 at 4:42 PM

Hmmmm, and I thought he did that with his caddy. Or does he only consult his caddy regarding environmental and green issues?

hawkeye54 on March 25, 2014 at 5:00 PM

See there, I didn’t say the word war. A war with Iran, Russia or both would result in the above except on a much higher scale.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 3:30 PM

You didn’t?

And sorry, but linking to a “newspaper” that endorsed your Cult Leader O’bama for President twice doesn’t help whatever you’re trying to say.

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2014 at 5:06 PM

Ukraine far-right leader Muzychko dies ‘in police raid’

A Ukrainian ultra-nationalist leader has been shot dead in what officials describe as a special forces operation.

Oleksandr Muzychko, better known as Sashko Bily, died in a shoot-out with police in a cafe in Rivne in western Ukraine, the interior ministry said.

He was a leader of Right Sector, a far-right group which was prominent in the recent anti-government protests.

A Right Sector organiser in Rivne has now threatened revenge for the killing of Muzychko, saying he had not been summoned by investigators.

“We will avenge ourselves on [Interior Minister] Arsen Avakov for the death of our brother. The shooting of Sashko Bily is a contract killing ordered by the minister,” said Roman Koval of the Right Sector in Rivne region, quoted by the Ukrayinska Pravda website.

agmartin on March 25, 2014 at 5:06 PM

“Projecting strength,” as you all define it, is direct acts if war (bombing) or will inevitably lead to war.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Brilliant Satire! Can I have some of what you’re smoking?

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Wrongo. Projecting strength is not unilaterally abandoning East European missle defense for no reasnon at all, not letting other countries butcher you ambassadors in the street and doing nothing
all about it, not talking tough and drawing red lines you have no intention of enforcing thus whimpering away when a two bit dictator of a third world hell hole calls your bluff. Stuff like that. Reagan dismantled the entire USSR by projecting strength and never had to fire a shot.

tommyboy on March 25, 2014 at 4:07 PM

“Doing something” usually means committing acts of war, like air strikes.

It would have been good if GWB were not so intent on projecting strength. If he did not talk tough and drew no red lines, it would have saved the US thousands of lives, tens of thousands permanently maimed, and a trillion dollars worth of wealth.

Reagan did not dismantle the Soviet Union. Their economic system was completely unsustainable.

Conservatives got their @sses handed to them for their reckless foreign policy. The reason why Obama is president today is because of conservative foreign policy. Why do you all insist that your foreign policy is a winning issue?

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Obama does not to project strength. He is too busy dismantling the military, and firing generals. It seems like he does not want The USA to be a force for good in the world. Seems to me he is an evil person. The kind of person James Bond would would oppose.

birdwatcher on March 25, 2014 at 4:11 PM

It’s good to know that unlike conservatives, Obama has identified specific cuts in the Federal budget. The Pentagon cannot account for $8.5T in spending and you “small government” conservatives still insist on forming a human shield around its budget.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Damn, it’s good to have you back!

CurtZHP on March 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Thanks, but keep it quiet :)

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Don’t know why people try and talk sense into Antifederalist. Just tell him mom’s dinner is ready and he’ll come out of her basement…freshly cleaned pajamas for him too.

bfinstock79 on March 25, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Don’t know why people try and talk sense into Antifederalist. Just tell him mom’s dinner is ready and he’ll come out of her basement…freshly cleaned pajamas for him too.

bfinstock79 on March 25, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Hot Airheads talk sense into me? In order to do that someone would have to try to engage in an intelligent discussion. They would have to do things like bring facts to the table. What’s typical in Hot Air “discussions” is that snark routinely masquerades as intelligence. Instead of actually having an intelligent and honest debate, people like to throw out insults, just as you did.

You all should thank me. My presence here raises the IQ of this forum by at least 75 points.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Did he just invite a nuke in Manhattan? O’s words have meaning…..

Key West Reader on March 25, 2014 at 5:25 PM

“Projecting strength,” as you all define it, is direct acts if war (bombing) or will inevitably lead to war.
antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 3:50 PM

..Reagan dismantled the entire USSR by projecting strength and never had to fire a shot.

tommyboy on March 25, 2014 at 4:07 PM

..tell this dickhead that before Reagan, a whole bunch of people in SAC put and kept the machinery in place to rain down a nuclear shitestorm on the USSR and China and Cuba should get a little frisky, tommyboy.

The War Planner on March 25, 2014 at 5:50 PM

It would have been good if GWB were not so intent on projecting strength. If he did not talk tough and drew no red lines, it would have saved the US thousands of lives, tens of thousands permanently maimed, and a trillion dollars worth of wealth.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 5:11 PM

First of all, did you have this exact same objection through 8 years of a Democrat President, when that President was projecting strength in the Balkans? Not to mention that President’s projecting strength by sending cruise missiles into Baghdad? Said Democrat President also had no problem with maintaining the Iraq No-Fly Zones. Using your own “logic”, his doing so was an Act of War.

As for Iraq, why did your Democrat Party give him the authorization to invade that country?

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2014 at 5:55 PM

What we have in Russia today is really a return to the way they were pre-Communist Revolution. It is basically Czarist Russia reborn: Autocratic, locally aggressive, ethnocentric, a big ego, but clumsey. We need more American strategist who have studied Russia in the 19th century century, and less cold warriors from the 20th century and utopian leftist who think there is actually something called the, “international community”.

One place to start would be to study the Crimean War…

William Eaton on March 25, 2014 at 4:08 PM

True in one sense. We have to remember Tsarist Russia controlled the Baltics. Belarus, Ukraine and parts of Romania against these countries’ will prior to WWI. It was.worse than the Soviet Union in many ways.

The Putin regime is worse than either of the predecessors. What we have now is a beliggerent national socialist regime. The old Soviet leaders seemed rational in comparison.

Norwegian on March 25, 2014 at 5:56 PM

Hot Airheads talk sense into me? In order to do that someone would have to try to engage in an intelligent discussion. They would have to do things like bring facts to the table.

I, on the other hand, link to the Washington Post and youtube!

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Edited to reflect reality.

In fact, your presence here lowers the average IQ here by 75 points. That’s because your political Party abandoned the educated vote in 2012 in favor of courting those too stupid to know what or who they were voting for, other than knowing they would get More Free Stuff.

You must be so proud of what your Party has “accomplished” since 2007.

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2014 at 5:58 PM

First of all, did you have this exact same objection through 8 years of a Democrat President, when that President was projecting strength in the Balkans?

Yes

Not to mention that President’s projecting strength by sending cruise missiles into Baghdad?

I opposed this too

Said Democrat President also had no problem with maintaining the Iraq No-Fly Zones.

I opposed this also

As for Iraq, why did your Democrat Party give him the authorization to invade that country?

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2014 at 5:55 PM

I’m not a Democrat but I supposed it is because they were interested in creating a distraction from most of Bill Clinton’s personal problems.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 6:07 PM

Edited to reflect reality.

In fact, your presence here lowers the average IQ here by 75 points. That’s because your political Party abandoned the educated vote in 2012 in favor of courting those too stupid to know what or who they were voting for, other than knowing they would get More Free Stuff.

You must be so proud of what your Party has “accomplished” since 2007.

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2014 at 5:58 PM

Both sides engage in the free stuff campaigns. Remember when GWB kept harping on and on about providing prescription drugs to seniors back in 2000? At least Democrats are honest about their intentions on growing government. Republicans talk limited government but they grow government when they are in power. The only limited government Republicans believe in is a government that is limited to control by them.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Willard, the third debate is over. Unfortunatley, you cowered and had nothing to say.

wraithby on March 25, 2014 at 6:10 PM

My presence here raises the IQ of this forum by at least 75 points.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 5:24 PM

If by “IQ” you mean “Idiot Quotient” then you’re spot on!

Kingfisher on March 25, 2014 at 6:14 PM

I’m not a Democrat…

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 6:07 PM

No, you’re an a$$hat. Come to think of it, both terms are synonyms.

Kingfisher on March 25, 2014 at 6:16 PM

“Projecting strength,” as you all define it, is direct acts if war (bombing) or will inevitably lead to war.
antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Bill Clinton, Operation Desert Fox, 1998

Looks like your “I(diot)Q(uotient)” just increased a few points.

Kingfisher on March 25, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Just once, I’d love to put him in front of a piece of “do-it-yourself” furniture, still in its unopened box, just to see him try to put it together.

“You didn’t build that” would never be truer.

Couldn’t put a price on entertainment like that!

CurtZHP on March 25, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Or put a child’s jigsaw puzzle in front of him and tell him to put it together…

ConstantineXI on March 25, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Or beat his daughters at Checkers.

slickwillie2001 on March 25, 2014 at 6:19 PM

In order to do that someone would have to try to engage in an intelligent discussion. They would have to do things like bring facts to the table.

There are some acts only God can accomplish.

Kingfisher on March 25, 2014 at 6:20 PM

But anyway: I’m keen to know whom O thinks is America’s “number one geopolitical foe.”

Texas, of course.

slickwillie2001 on March 25, 2014 at 6:20 PM

A change of pace:

Any Mustang lovers out there? If so, get your buns to PA on April 25.

This baby is up for auction.

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 2:48 PM

I’m pretty sure I’m related to the former owner.

slickwillie2001 on March 25, 2014 at 6:22 PM

As for Iraq, why did your Democrat Party give him the authorization to invade that country?

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2014 at 5:55 PM

I’m not a Democrat but I supposed it is because they were interested in creating a distraction from most of Bill Clinton’s personal problems.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 6:07 PM

Yes you are.

Allow me to clarify my remark-I was in fact asking you why your Democrat Party gave Bush the authorization in 2002 to invade Iraq.

Clinton sent cruise missiles into Iraq in the 1990s, but he did not require Congressional authorization for that. Ironically, some of those missiles were in retaliation for Saddam’s trying to kill Pappy Bush.

But at that same time (late 1990s) many of the leaders of your Democrat Party made the exact same claims about Saddam’s WMDs that Bush was making in 2002. Were they all Liars too?

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Hot Airheads talk sense into me? In order to do that someone would have to try to engage in an intelligent discussion. They would have to do things like bring facts to the table. What’s typical in Hot Air “discussions” is that snark routinely masquerades as intelligence. Instead of actually having an intelligent and honest debate, people like to throw out insults, just as you did.
 
You all should thank me. My presence here raises the IQ of this forum by at least 75 points.
 
antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 5:24 PM

 
We definitely could’ve used you on the minimum wage thread.

rogerb on March 25, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Putin added another 10,000 troops on the border….so the total is now about 30,000.

Obama’s answer is that Putin is weak.

Obama is an idiot.

workingclass artist on March 25, 2014 at 6:36 PM

Yes you are.

Allow me to clarify my remark-I was in fact asking you why your Democrat Party gave Bush the authorization in 2002 to invade Iraq.

Clinton sent cruise missiles into Iraq in the 1990s, but he did not require Congressional authorization for that. Ironically, some of those missiles were in retaliation for Saddam’s trying to kill Pappy Bush.

But at that same time (late 1990s) many of the leaders of your Democrat Party made the exact same claims about Saddam’s WMDs that Bush was making in 2002. Were they all Liars too?

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Funny, I don’t ever recall voting for a Democrat.

In short, yes, they are all liars (Democrats and Republicans).

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Regional huh?

Sven on March 25, 2014 at 6:39 PM

You all should thank me. My presence here raises the IQ of this forum by at least 75 points.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 5:24 PM

I agree, your presence here raises the total IQ of this forum by 75… thank you.

And I’m more thankful of your honesty on this topic. Most people with an IQ of 75 don’t want it this well known; but you are a bright shining star for people with an IQ of 75 everywhere.

gekkobear on March 25, 2014 at 6:49 PM

agree, your presence here raises the total IQ of this forum by 75… thank you.

And I’m more thankful of your honesty on this topic. Most people with an IQ of 75 don’t want it this well known; but you are a bright shining star for people with an IQ of 75 everywhere.

gekkobear on March 25, 2014 at 6:49 PM

You did notice that I mentioned the word raise? I assumed that most of the Hot Airheads here have an IQ above 50.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 6:54 PM

We definitely could’ve used you on the minimum wage thread.

rogerb on March 25, 2014 at 6:31 PM

It’s pointless talking about the minimum wage. The public wants it so they will get it. The best strategy to provide a teaching moment for the US public is for Republicans to insist that the $10.10/hr or $15/hr minimum wage kicks in the day after its signed into law. That way most people will know who to blame when they are fired from their job. The beauty of Obamacare is that people know exactly who to blame for their rate hikes. The same should occur for the minimum wage.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 6:57 PM

agree, your presence here raises the total IQ of this forum by 75… thank you.

And I’m more thankful of your honesty on this topic. Most people with an IQ of 75 don’t want it this well known; but you are a bright shining star for people with an IQ of 75 everywhere.

gekkobear on March 25, 2014 at 6:49 PM

You did notice that I mentioned the word raise? I assumed that most of the Hot Airheads here have an IQ above 50.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 6:54 PM

WOW – he doubled down on STUPID there. Anti – I think you needed to add “average, mean, median” or something akin instead of “total” to your statement. As it was, anyone with a junior high equivalency of math skills understood your IQ of 75 was being added to the undivided accumulated IQ which undoubtedly has an average in here well above that of our CinC.

LarryinLA on March 25, 2014 at 7:18 PM

The War Planner on March 25, 2014 at 5:50 PM

Tip of the spear…….steam gauges and guts!

dmann on March 25, 2014 at 7:18 PM

Clearly, Obama does not know what “geopolitical” means…

HornHiAceDeuce on March 25, 2014 at 7:29 PM

And yet, that “regional power” is embarrassing us ….

BD57 on March 25, 2014 at 7:54 PM

I’m pretty sure I’m related to the former owner.

slickwillie2001 on March 25, 2014 at 6:22 PM

You and about 10,000 other people so far.

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 8:22 PM

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Your comments are at odds with your nom.

Bmore on March 25, 2014 at 8:39 PM

The truth of the matter….is the truth of the matter that the phrase the truth of the matter is a stalling technique for a guy with no answers who never tells the truth (of any matters).

Ever.

Sherman1864 on March 25, 2014 at 9:00 PM

““Projecting strength,” as you all define it, is direct acts if war (bombing) or will inevitably lead to war.”

Indeed. I think we all can remember the great US/USSR war that raged through the 80′s of the last century, all due to Reagan’s buildup of the military during that time. And look at how ineffective this buildup was, seeing as how the Iron curtain still exists.

And of course we all know that earflaps the shrinking man’s calm and benevolent manner on the world’s stage has led to far fewer drone strikes, no engagements/bombing in Syria/Egypt etc. whatsoever, and a near cancellation of the rendition program.

Such a fine history scholar are you! Now go get a juice box and a graham cracker before your nap time. Off you go, there’s a good toddler- it’s time for the grownups to talk, run along now.

GrassMudHorsey on March 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM

“Exactly how broad is Russia’s “region” if NATO exists to this day to make sure the Kremlin doesn’t send tanks west towards the Atlantic?”

That’s baloney. The Warsaw Pact is gone, and Russia isn’t the Soviet Union. NATO is an aggressive pact, not a defensive one.

David Blue on March 25, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Lol what a maroon. The big O truly is full of hot air.

zacmidnigh on March 25, 2014 at 10:04 PM

blink on March 25, 2014 at 7:35 PM

A centrally planned economy will always inevitably be unsustainable.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 10:08 PM

There are high taxes, deficits, debts (private and public) and unemployment and the only thing neocons like Romney can offer to the middle class are wars. You guys deserved to lose. As much as I loath Obama, I am grateful that he’s president. Both McCain and Romney would have started WWIII if they were president.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 3:07 PM

Who, specifically, is calling for military intervention relative to Crimea/Ukraine?

Not even Insane McVain has called for it.

Acknowledging the reality of a situation is a requisite. It does no one any good to put your head in the sand about geo-political foes or enemies who state that they wish to ‘wipe you off the map.’ You have to understand the motivations and intentions of your adversaries, and, despite what Ron Paul claims to the contrary, countries do not develop their foreign policies as solely a reaction of what America does. That belief is as arrogant as the United States believing it can meddle in the affairs of other nations without paying a price or the notion that the US should be the world’s policeman.

Leon Trotsky once stated a truism that exposes the childishness and naïveté of the isolationist wing:

‘You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.’

I do not support military intervention, but I also recognise the fact that it may not be entirely up to me…just as it wasn’t for the overwhelming majority of Americans after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour and Germany declared war on the United States. They were famously isolationists and didn’t want to become entangled in World War II, but Japan and Germany left them no choice. In the end, the war was fought because two other countries decided to force the US to become ‘interested’ in war.

Resist We Much on March 25, 2014 at 10:09 PM

“Russia is a regional power.”

With lots and lots of nukes.

Where the “region” is most of Eurasia. And where its influence extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

That’s a pretty big “region”.

Not to mention that Russia has significant allies and clients in the western hemisphere. Russia is a “regional” power only in a worldview where all nations other than the US are defined as “regional powers”.

Who knew… Comrade O is a nationalist chauvinist. And an egomaniac.

farsighted on March 25, 2014 at 11:04 PM

Russia is a “regional power” that the US would have a lot of trouble defeating without allies and without using nukes. A “regional power” we are powerless to stop when it wants to reabsorb some of its neighbors.

Does that make the US only a “regional power”, too? Seems Comrade O wants to make it so.

To Big Bro O’s way of thinking, Nazi Germany was only “regional power”.

farsighted on March 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM

When I heard him call Russia a “regional power” my thought was we need rid of this fool as soon as possible. This charade has gone on far too long.

claudius on March 25, 2014 at 11:23 PM

It’s pointless talking about the minimum wage. The public wants it

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Latest polling proves you’re Lying.

Polling Report.com

Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. March 7-10, 2014. N=1,001 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.

“A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office says that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 over the next three years would increase the incomes of 16.5 million Americans while eliminating 500,000 jobs. Does that tradeoff seem acceptable or unacceptable to you?”

Acceptable: 34%

Unacceptable: 57%

Other Low-IQ Democrats: 9%

F-.

Del Dolemonte on March 26, 2014 at 12:19 AM

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Funny, I don’t ever recall voting for a Democrat.

In short, yes, they are all liars (Democrats and Republicans).

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

All of your anecdotal posts on this thread only single out Republicans for criticism.

Please don’t insult our intelligence any further.

Del Dolemonte on March 26, 2014 at 12:22 AM

A centrally planned economy will always inevitably be unsustainable.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 10:08 PM

Thanks for admitting the cool dude you voted for wants to blow up America.

A+

Del Dolemonte on March 26, 2014 at 12:25 AM

In short, yes, they are all liars (Democrats and Republicans).

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

What about Federal Judges ruling on cases, after they’ve heard all the evidence? Or the Department of Justice handing out Federal Indictments?

Here’s a question for your higher-than-mine IQ-do you agree with the following legal judgements?

1. The vast majority of the legal rulings against (Democrat) Al Gore in 2000 in the Florida Recount were handed down by Federal Judges appointed by Democrats.

2. A (female)Democrat Judge who was formerly a law student of Bill Clinton ruled that he was in Contempt of Court during the impeachment thing.

He laughed her off, and said he was Above the Law for the same Felony that he had already had his DOJ successfully prosecute a female Federal employee for. She was a V.A. doctor, no less.

3. 10 or so years ago, in 3 separate lawsuits in New York City in the same Federal Court that Eric Holder wanted to try the 9/11 Planners, 2 different Federal Judges ruled, based on all of the evidence presented, that foreign governments aided al Qaeda in those attacks.

#1 and #2 were Iraq and Iran.

Both of those Judges were appointed by Bill Clinton.

Discuss.

Del Dolemonte on March 26, 2014 at 12:43 AM

I noticed 2 things in this episode

#1. With nothing on the line, Romney is more forceful now about his beliefs about the Russian threat. Where was he 1 1/2 years ago?

#2. Obama never answered the question directly. He reinvented his previous statements and changed the question in his response.

This shows why the GOP is out of touch, and has no agenda, or ideas. Romney had such low hanging fruit he should have been able to make the case against Obama. But he was such a flawed candidate

Brock Robamney on March 26, 2014 at 5:55 AM

This man walks around looking totally lost. All the time. He is.

avagreen on March 26, 2014 at 9:26 AM

And, once again, obama states the simple obvious truth, and the right goes nuts.

everdiso on March 26, 2014 at 10:39 AM

everdiso on March 26, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Sure thing there fellow. Cause having more nuke warheads than the US makes Russia strictly a regional power. Which part was the truth to you? The part where 0 never answered the question. Or the part where 0 never answered the question?

Bmore on March 26, 2014 at 10:59 AM

I can’t think of anything Romney has said in a debate or an interview that was incorrect. The leftist LSM trashes conservatives as a rule, no matter the facts.

earlgrey on March 26, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Taunting Vlad may be unwise. Punks who taunt thugs usually end up getting the snot beat out of them.

dogsoldier on March 26, 2014 at 11:13 AM

I can’t think of anything Romney has said in a debate or an interview that was incorrect. The leftist LSM trashes conservatives as a rule, no matter the facts.

earlgrey on March 26, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Oboober, OTOH…..

avagreen on March 26, 2014 at 11:42 AM

agree, your presence here raises the total IQ of this forum by 75… thank you.

And I’m more thankful of your honesty on this topic. Most people with an IQ of 75 don’t want it this well known; but you are a bright shining star for people with an IQ of 75 everywhere.

gekkobear on March 25, 2014 at 6:49 PM

You did notice that I mentioned the word raise? I assumed that most of the Hot Airheads here have an IQ above 50.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 6:54 PM

I also used “raises” which is a variation on the word “raise”. Sorry you didn’t see that.

You don’t lower the total IQ, as a negative IQ isn’t possible. Nobody could.

If you meant “raise the average by 75″, lets assume 100 commenters, with an average IQ of 50 as you so derisively state.

That’s a total of 5,000 IQ points. To raise the average to 125 (50 + 75) with one person you’d have to raise the total to (101 * 125 =) 12,625.

So you’re claiming an IQ of 7,625 when the highest recorded value is under 250?

Well that indicates you don’t understand the IQ scale, or how math works, or the concept of an average… which makes 75 much more plausible than a number thousands above any human ever tested.

gekkobear on March 26, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Love you Allah, but you are way off on this. As many things as I might criticize ‘The One’ for, his handling of the Ukraine fiasco is not one of them.

Russia is a regional power that is aggressively trying to prevent the spread of European influence because the breakup of the Soviet Union put it in a weak geopolitical situation as former satellites began to drift west.

That doesn’t mean that Russia is not our primary geopolitical adversary right now, but this is hardly the Cold War Mk II.

As for toppling the world order we ensure, do we need to bring up Georgia circa 2008?

GYConservative on March 26, 2014 at 5:43 PM

Schadenfreude

Bmore on March 26, 2014 at 11:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3