Politics and War in Ukraine (1 Viewer)

[kupcho1]

So what exactly are these half-wits suggesting via their unsolicited FFA proxy?

Maybe try reading his post.. Reading comprehension down?

I've read it. I don't see a suggestion. Obama said there would be a cost if they invade. Obviously, there will be.

Your credulity knows no bounds.

 

[kupcho1]

These political threads are pathetic.

Agree. Posts on grammar and plagiarism though? Awesome!

 

[matuski]

To the feckless West this Ukrainian crisis is sudden. Putin on the other hand has been planning for it for years and has necessary contingency plans at the ready. With an impotent US president and toothless EU as his only opposition, this is a lock for a Russian invasion. It appears from the propaganda being put out (i.e. "liberation", protecting the East from murderous right wing fascists) there will be some level of a straight-up invasion by Russia.

I hate being right about tragedy, but with Obama as CinC and his numerous geopolitical blunders in Libya, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, etc. already on the books it's easy guessing correctly. Who on earth could possibly believe anything the man says? "Don't cross red lines?" "Respect territorial integrity?" Obama has proven to be a liar and opportunist at every turn and utterly ineffective abroad. I cannot think of anything selfless or noble that this President has done. Moreover, he lacks any kind of personal moral courage. He wouldn't risk a toenail to save one of his daughters, much less help a nation of millions of evil, colonialist, Europeans. The man is a narcissistic coward as are a great many Americans these days. He could care less how many people die wherever, as long as his family and entourage are hooked in the US Treasury IV to keep the Obama/Democrat entitlement stash going.

The only thing that saves the Ukraine is the Ukrainian people going to the mat, IED's, suicide vests, and every man, woman, and child with a rifle, and taking the fight to Russia.

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/02/28/lost-in-history/

OldSaltUSN said:

In the West, the Ukrainian crisis is sudden, but Putin has been planning for it for years, and has necessary contingency plans at the ready. With an impotent US President and EU his only opposition, this is a lock for a Russian invasion. Whatever, it appears in the propaganda (i.e. "liberation", protecting the East from murderous right wing fascists, whatever), it will be a straight up invasion by Russia.

I hate being right about tragedy, but with Obama as CinC, it's easy guessing correctly. Who on earth could possibly believe anything that man said? Obama has proven to be a liar and opportunist at every opportunity. I cannot think of anything self-less, noble, or in the "best interest of the country" that this President has done. Moreover, he lacks any kind of personal moral courage. He wouldn't risk a toenail to save one of his daughters. The man is a narcissistic coward. He could care less how many people die wherever, as long as his family and entourage are hooked in the US Treasury IV to keep the Obama stash going.

The only thing that saves the Ukraine is a united Ukrainian people going to the mat, IED's, suicide vests, and every man, woman, and child with a rifle, and taking the fight to Russia. I don't think that they have it in them. Too many years of being a Soviet satellite to change stripes now.

To be fair TPW added the word feckless

Good find. So now at least 95% of TPW's post was plagiarized.

Oof.

 

[rascal]

"You just don't in the 21st Century behave in 19th Century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext," Mr Kerry told the CBS program Face the Nation.

Lol....Unless it's the US invading Iraq.

 

[Fennis]

I'm reading a lot of opinions from Europe and other places that they are surprised that western countries are speaking to the new government in Ukraine. A lot of the world citizens find it strange that he a coup can take place and the US and others will begin to interact with them as though they were a legitimate government immediately. Technically, the government in place right now simply took over. It is not a legitimate government.

After the dictator left, why wouldn't we ring the new guys to say hello and ask what they have planned? (I'm not good with politics, in case you couldn't tell )

Yanukovych wasn't a dictator. He was elected president. He was also impeached by Ukraine's parliament.

I know he was elected so technically not a dictator, but everything I've read about him has called him one. Are they using it too loosely or just as a way to describe his "leadership"?

IMO, they were using it to describe his unwillingness to change policies and for not listening to the peoples demands of moving Ukraine towards the EU, instead of Russia.

 

[kupcho1]

What should we do?

I hate to say it, but much like the Soviet Union crushing Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, what can we do other than wag our finger at them and say, stop that!

seems like something the un should do something about.

There is literally nothing the UN can do because Russia has their veto power.

NATO would be the organization that could do something militarily.

My opinion is to let the Crimeans vote on whether they want to be annexed by Russia.

Well being that Crimea is 56% Russian that's a no brainier. Maybe California can have a similar vote about bein annexed by Mexico in a decade.

Well to complete the analogy, the President of Mexico, let's call him Stalinez, would have to forcibly relocate or kill those already living in California and then move some Mexican citizens in.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

What should we do?

I hate to say it, but much like the Soviet Union crushing Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, what can we do other than wag our finger at them and say, stop that!

seems like something the un should do something about.

There is literally nothing the UN can do because Russia has their veto power.

NATO would be the organization that could do something militarily.

My opinion is to let the Crimeans vote on whether they want to be annexed by Russia.

Well being that Crimea is 56% Russian that's a no brainier. Maybe California can have a similar vote about bein annexed by Mexico in a decade.

What is the argument against Crimea joining Russia? Seems like the population wants it.

What's the argument about the South seceding? Seemed like the population wanted it.

Yeah, because those are very similar situations.

 

[timschochet]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

Thank you for your attempts to make this thread even more unreadable.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

Thank you for your attempts to make this thread even more unreadable.

 

[timschochet]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

Thank you for your attempts to make this thread even more unreadable.

I couldn't if I tried.

 

[mad sweeney]

Good find. So now at least 95% of TPW's post was plagiarized.

What difference does that make? Your criticism is akin to spell checking an opposing viewpoints post..

Obviously none to you.

You disagree with his post, and all that you can come up with is "TPW's post was plagiarized"..

If that's the top line of your debate bullet points

You want me to copy and paste a response?

No, you should go ask your 8th grade poli-sci teacher and report back to us what he/she told you about annexation.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

Thank you for your attempts to make this thread even more unreadable.

I couldn't if I tried.

Oh yes you can. Don't sell yourself short, Tim.

 

[mr roboto]

Sweeney, Carolina, Tim, Max are all on a 24 hour shut the #### up break. K thx.

 

[squistion]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

That was all over the right wing sites and blogs yesterday as supposed proof of something. Apparently they think it was a big deal even though he was briefed on the meeting by Susan Rice.

 

[mad sweeney]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

That was all over the right wing sites and blogs yesterday as supposed proof of something. Apparently they think it was a big deal even though he was briefed on the meeting by Susan Rice.

It's a gargantuan deal. If he's not in the meeting then he'll never know what they talked about and wouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with any action that happened. This is just like when all the Republicans criticized W for "going on vacation" more than any other President. They rightfully chastised him for what amounts to skipping school.... didn't they? Er, maybe not.

 

[otello]

Ukraine Just The Latest Example of Obamas Limited Global Influence

From Kiev to Kabul to Cairo, the U.S. president is a frustrated bystander

By Michael Crowley

@CrowleyTIME

March 01, 2014

Russia's escalating intervention in Ukraine once again confronts Barack Obama with a foreign policy crisis over which his options are painfully limited, forcing him into a reactive posture that relies on tough, but largely hollow rhetoric.

Appearing on short notice in the White House briefing room yesterday, Obama warned Russian president Vladimir Putin that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine. Within hours, Putin had requested and received from Russias parliament the authority to use force in its western neighbor, whose capital city Kiev saw an uprising against Moscow last month.

Putin appears to have calculated that the benefits of maintaining control of Ukraines Crimean peninsula, home to a large ethnic Russian population and a major naval base, would outweigh any costs that Obama and the West can impose.

Hes probably right. The prospect of a U.S. or NATO military response is roughly nil. The West has limited, if any, economic leverage over Russia. In fact, the leverage may work in the opposite direction as Russia is a major oil exporter at a time of already-high crude prices. Rhetorical shaming? Putin has endured months of it over his support of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, without budging from his position. Western support for Putins domestic opposition would likely undermine its recipients and allow Putin to dismiss all protest as foreign intervention.

So Obama is left to issue tough statements and place overseas phone calls, to little likely effect. By now its a familiar storyand a particularly frustrating one, given the American publics unrealistically high expectations for presidential problem-solving. Consider several other crises that have left him stumped:

In Syria, Obama stubbornly refuses to wade more than ankle-deep into the bloody fight against al-Assads regime. He doubts whether the U.S. can influence the course of the war and worries that the risks of actionincluding an Iraq-style quagmireoutweigh the costs of inaction. His critics argue that hes wrong about that, a debatable proposition. But the practical result is Obamas pursuit a diplomatic solution that has gone nowhere, along with rhetorical condemnations of Putin, who supports Assad, that achieve nothing.

In Afghanistan, president Hamid Karzai refused to sign a carefully negotiated agreement that would allow a residual U.S. military force in his country after 2014, saying he would leave that decision to his successor, who will be chosen in elections this spring. Obama has threatened that such a delay might require scrapping plans for a residual force. But with the stability of the Afghan government uncertain and al-Qaeda operatives just across the border in Pakistan, he wants to avoid a total withdrawal. Lacking any real leverage over an Afghan leader who seems willing to let the Americans exit for good, Obama endures Karzais bluster and false accusations, while letting his deadline slide for deciding on a full withdrawal.

And in Egypt, Obama has largely been a spectator to that countrys ongoing political turmoil. His condemnations of a July 2013 coupthough he wont actually use the wordhasnt rattled the generals in Cairo, whose military aid he cant bring himself to sever. Meanwhile, bolstered by financial and political support from wealthy Arab neighbors, Egypts military regime has ignored U.S. pleas for restraint and waged a brutal crackdown. Libya, Iraq, Sudan all are places where terrible things happen that the U.S. can do little about.

Obamas critics say hes been risk-averse, reactive and lacking vision. But even they would have to concede that American power is not what it was before two costly foreign wars and a budget-wrecking economic crisis. The result is a frustrated president whose foreign policy often amounts to tough statements which fall on deaf ears.

 

[mad sweeney]

Ukraine Just The Latest Example of Obamas Limited Global Influence

From Kiev to Kabul to Cairo, the U.S. president is a frustrated bystander

By Michael Crowley

@CrowleyTIME

March 01, 2014

Russia's escalating intervention in Ukraine once again confronts Barack Obama with a foreign policy crisis over which his options are painfully limited, forcing him into a reactive posture that relies on tough, but largely hollow rhetoric.

Appearing on short notice in the White House briefing room yesterday, Obama warned Russian president Vladimir Putin that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine. Within hours, Putin had requested and received from Russias parliament the authority to use force in its western neighbor, whose capital city Kiev saw an uprising against Moscow last month.

Putin appears to have calculated that the benefits of maintaining control of Ukraines Crimean peninsula, home to a large ethnic Russian population and a major naval base, would outweigh any costs that Obama and the West can impose.

Hes probably right. The prospect of a U.S. or NATO military response is roughly nil. The West has limited, if any, economic leverage over Russia. In fact, the leverage may work in the opposite direction as Russia is a major oil exporter at a time of already-high crude prices. Rhetorical shaming? Putin has endured months of it over his support of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, without budging from his position. Western support for Putins domestic opposition would likely undermine its recipients and allow Putin to dismiss all protest as foreign intervention.

So Obama is left to issue tough statements and place overseas phone calls, to little likely effect. By now its a familiar storyand a particularly frustrating one, given the American publics unrealistically high expectations for presidential problem-solving. Consider several other crises that have left him stumped:

In Syria, Obama stubbornly refuses to wade more than ankle-deep into the bloody fight against al-Assads regime. He doubts whether the U.S. can influence the course of the war and worries that the risks of actionincluding an Iraq-style quagmireoutweigh the costs of inaction. His critics argue that hes wrong about that, a debatable proposition. But the practical result is Obamas pursuit a diplomatic solution that has gone nowhere, along with rhetorical condemnations of Putin, who supports Assad, that achieve nothing.

In Afghanistan, president Hamid Karzai refused to sign a carefully negotiated agreement that would allow a residual U.S. military force in his country after 2014, saying he would leave that decision to his successor, who will be chosen in elections this spring. Obama has threatened that such a delay might require scrapping plans for a residual force. But with the stability of the Afghan government uncertain and al-Qaeda operatives just across the border in Pakistan, he wants to avoid a total withdrawal. Lacking any real leverage over an Afghan leader who seems willing to let the Americans exit for good, Obama endures Karzais bluster and false accusations, while letting his deadline slide for deciding on a full withdrawal.

And in Egypt, Obama has largely been a spectator to that countrys ongoing political turmoil. His condemnations of a July 2013 coupthough he wont actually use the wordhasnt rattled the generals in Cairo, whose military aid he cant bring himself to sever. Meanwhile, bolstered by financial and political support from wealthy Arab neighbors, Egypts military regime has ignored U.S. pleas for restraint and waged a brutal crackdown. Libya, Iraq, Sudan all are places where terrible things happen that the U.S. can do little about.

Obamas critics say hes been risk-averse, reactive and lacking vision. But even they would have to concede that American power is not what it was before two costly foreign wars and a budget-wrecking economic crisis. The result is a frustrated president whose foreign policy often amounts to tough statements which fall on deaf ears.

That does not seem to be the case.

 

[Fennis]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

That was all over the right wing sites and blogs yesterday as supposed proof of something. Apparently they think it was a big deal even though he was briefed on the meeting by Susan Rice.

It's a gargantuan deal. If he's not in the meeting then he'll never know what they talked about and wouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with any action that happened. This is just like when all the Republicans criticized W for "going on vacation" more than any other President. They rightfully chastised him for what amounts to skipping school.... didn't they? Er, maybe not.

I think its a legitimate expectation that the president attends almost all National Security briefings, and especially those during times of raised tension.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

What TWP has in common with Crazy Putin?

http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=17128

 

[Rove!]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

That was all over the right wing sites and blogs yesterday as supposed proof of something. Apparently they think it was a big deal even though he was briefed on the meeting by Susan Rice.

It's a gargantuan deal. If he's not in the meeting then he'll never know what they talked about and wouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with any action that happened. This is just like when all the Republicans criticized W for "going on vacation" more than any other President. They rightfully chastised him for what amounts to skipping school.... didn't they? Er, maybe not.

I think its a legitimate expectation that the president attends almost all National Security briefings, and especially those during times of raised tension.

agreed

also, liberals consider Bush to be "on vacation" many times when he was working remotely from his ranch as some kind of twisted talking point.

We know that during the Bin Laden raid O was playing cards. During the Benghazi attack he was headed to Vegas. During the financial metldown, he spent a lot of time at the gym. This just seems to be a pattern.

 

[mad sweeney]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

That was all over the right wing sites and blogs yesterday as supposed proof of something. Apparently they think it was a big deal even though he was briefed on the meeting by Susan Rice.

It's a gargantuan deal. If he's not in the meeting then he'll never know what they talked about and wouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with any action that happened. This is just like when all the Republicans criticized W for "going on vacation" more than any other President. They rightfully chastised him for what amounts to skipping school.... didn't they? Er, maybe not.

I think its a legitimate expectation that the president attends almost all National Security briefings, and especially those during times of raised tension.

agreed

also, liberals consider Bush to be "on vacation" many times when he was working remotely from his ranch as some kind of twisted talking point.

We know that during the Bin Laden raid O was playing cards. During the Benghazi attack he was headed to Vegas. During the financial metldown, he spent a lot of time at the gym. This just seems to be a pattern.

Darn those liberals and their twisted talking points! I'm so glad the Rs don't have any of their own, especially not in the second paragraph there.Hint: presidents are ALWAYS working remotely from wherever they are. It's a silly talking point for whoever uses it.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

That was all over the right wing sites and blogs yesterday as supposed proof of something. Apparently they think it was a big deal even though he was briefed on the meeting by Susan Rice.

It's a gargantuan deal. If he's not in the meeting then he'll never know what they talked about and wouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with any action that happened. This is just like when all the Republicans criticized W for "going on vacation" more than any other President. They rightfully chastised him for what amounts to skipping school.... didn't they? Er, maybe not.

I think its a legitimate expectation that the president attends almost all National Security briefings, and especially those during times of raised tension.

agreed

also, liberals consider Bush to be "on vacation" many times when he was working remotely from his ranch as some kind of twisted talking point.

We know that during the Bin Laden raid O was playing cards. During the Benghazi attack he was headed to Vegas. During the financial metldown, he spent a lot of time at the gym. This just seems to be a pattern.

You're always taking the negative side of things aren't you? What you're not seeing is his dedication to playing cards and staying in shape.

 

[Tom Servo]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

That was all over the right wing sites and blogs yesterday as supposed proof of something. Apparently they think it was a big deal even though he was briefed on the meeting by Susan Rice.

It wasn't just a yesterday thing. From what I've read previously, he misses a lot of security briefings. Why would yesterday be any different?

 

[timschochet]

Ukraine Just The Latest Example of Obamas Limited Global Influence

From Kiev to Kabul to Cairo, the U.S. president is a frustrated bystander

By Michael Crowley

@CrowleyTIME

March 01, 2014

Russia's escalating intervention in Ukraine once again confronts Barack Obama with a foreign policy crisis over which his options are painfully limited, forcing him into a reactive posture that relies on tough, but largely hollow rhetoric.

Appearing on short notice in the White House briefing room yesterday, Obama warned Russian president Vladimir Putin that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine. Within hours, Putin had requested and received from Russias parliament the authority to use force in its western neighbor, whose capital city Kiev saw an uprising against Moscow last month.

Putin appears to have calculated that the benefits of maintaining control of Ukraines Crimean peninsula, home to a large ethnic Russian population and a major naval base, would outweigh any costs that Obama and the West can impose.

Hes probably right. The prospect of a U.S. or NATO military response is roughly nil. The West has limited, if any, economic leverage over Russia. In fact, the leverage may work in the opposite direction as Russia is a major oil exporter at a time of already-high crude prices. Rhetorical shaming? Putin has endured months of it over his support of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, without budging from his position. Western support for Putins domestic opposition would likely undermine its recipients and allow Putin to dismiss all protest as foreign intervention.

So Obama is left to issue tough statements and place overseas phone calls, to little likely effect. By now its a familiar storyand a particularly frustrating one, given the American publics unrealistically high expectations for presidential problem-solving. Consider several other crises that have left him stumped:

In Syria, Obama stubbornly refuses to wade more than ankle-deep into the bloody fight against al-Assads regime. He doubts whether the U.S. can influence the course of the war and worries that the risks of actionincluding an Iraq-style quagmireoutweigh the costs of inaction. His critics argue that hes wrong about that, a debatable proposition. But the practical result is Obamas pursuit a diplomatic solution that has gone nowhere, along with rhetorical condemnations of Putin, who supports Assad, that achieve nothing.

In Afghanistan, president Hamid Karzai refused to sign a carefully negotiated agreement that would allow a residual U.S. military force in his country after 2014, saying he would leave that decision to his successor, who will be chosen in elections this spring. Obama has threatened that such a delay might require scrapping plans for a residual force. But with the stability of the Afghan government uncertain and al-Qaeda operatives just across the border in Pakistan, he wants to avoid a total withdrawal. Lacking any real leverage over an Afghan leader who seems willing to let the Americans exit for good, Obama endures Karzais bluster and false accusations, while letting his deadline slide for deciding on a full withdrawal.

And in Egypt, Obama has largely been a spectator to that countrys ongoing political turmoil. His condemnations of a July 2013 coupthough he wont actually use the wordhasnt rattled the generals in Cairo, whose military aid he cant bring himself to sever. Meanwhile, bolstered by financial and political support from wealthy Arab neighbors, Egypts military regime has ignored U.S. pleas for restraint and waged a brutal crackdown. Libya, Iraq, Sudan all are places where terrible things happen that the U.S. can do little about.

Obamas critics say hes been risk-averse, reactive and lacking vision. But even they would have to concede that American power is not what it was before two costly foreign wars and a budget-wrecking economic crisis. The result is a frustrated president whose foreign policy often amounts to tough statements which fall on deaf ears.

Again there is no specific criticism here. There is no explanation of how a different President could have handled these matters differently. What is written here has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with the limitations on our role as as the world's remaining superpower.

 

[otello]

Was not posted to respond to any post. Just informing the thread.

 

[timschochet]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

That was all over the right wing sites and blogs yesterday as supposed proof of something. Apparently they think it was a big deal even though he was briefed on the meeting by Susan Rice.

It wasn't just a yesterday thing. From what I've read previously, he misses a lot of security briefings. Why would yesterday be any different?

Lots of Presidents have different governing styles. Obama, like Truman and Nixon, unlike FDR and Reagan, may prefer one on one summary meetings rather than larger group meetings. To suggest from this that he's not paying attention is absurd. Again, come up with a specific complaint about some action he should be taking.

 

[Christo]

Earlier this morning I asked critics of Obama on this issue to explain what the President should be either doing or saying that he is not. I'm still waiting.

What is wrong with you? This post is a like a monkey flinging poo at random people and then beating its chest and jumping around. No-one here wants to read 10 pages of you baiting others into a useless political debate.

I'm not baiting anyone. This thread is filled with people ripping Obama. But no specifics are offered. What should he do?

For one, not say there will be consequences when there won't really be any consequences that matter.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Good find. So now at least 95% of TPW's post was plagiarized.

What difference does that make? Your criticism is akin to spell checking an opposing viewpoints post..

Obviously none to you.

You disagree with his post, and all that you can come up with is "TPW's post was plagiarized"..

If that's the top line of your debate bullet points

Apparently not one thought here was original or his own - just a cut-and-paste from far right web sites (he couldn't even take the time to rephrase it) That meets your standards, it doesn't meet mine.

Whether they were his original thoughts or not, they were still thoughts he agreed with and decided to share in the discussion.

Your contributions are disappointing.. At least he made an effort to convey an opinion..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Good find. So now at least 95% of TPW's post was plagiarized.

What difference does that make? Your criticism is akin to spell checking an opposing viewpoints post..

Obviously none to you.

You disagree with his post, and all that you can come up with is "TPW's post was plagiarized"..

If that's the top line of your debate bullet points

You want me to copy and paste a response?

If the response you cut/paste is one you agree with, sure.. Would be better than dismissing the point completely.

 

[squistion]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

That was all over the right wing sites and blogs yesterday as supposed proof of something. Apparently they think it was a big deal even though he was briefed on the meeting by Susan Rice.

It's a gargantuan deal. If he's not in the meeting then he'll never know what they talked about and wouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with any action that happened. This is just like when all the Republicans criticized W for "going on vacation" more than any other President. They rightfully chastised him for what amounts to skipping school.... didn't they? Er, maybe not.

I think its a legitimate expectation that the president attends almost all National Security briefings, and especially those during times of raised tension.

agreed

also, liberals consider Bush to be "on vacation" many times when he was working remotely from his ranch as some kind of twisted talking point.

We know that during the Bin Laden raid O was playing cards. During the Benghazi attack he was headed to Vegas. During the financial metldown, he spent a lot of time at the gym. This just seems to be a pattern.

Geez, they were in the Situation Room for hours waiting for news of the Bin Laden raid, he played a few hands of cards to pass the time while they were waiting.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

That was all over the right wing sites and blogs yesterday as supposed proof of something. Apparently they think it was a big deal even though he was briefed on the meeting by Susan Rice.

It's a gargantuan deal. If he's not in the meeting then he'll never know what they talked about and wouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with any action that happened. This is just like when all the Republicans criticized W for "going on vacation" more than any other President. They rightfully chastised him for what amounts to skipping school.... didn't they? Er, maybe not.

I think its a legitimate expectation that the president attends almost all National Security briefings, and especially those during times of raised tension.

agreed

also, liberals consider Bush to be "on vacation" many times when he was working remotely from his ranch as some kind of twisted talking point.

We know that during the Bin Laden raid O was playing cards. During the Benghazi attack he was headed to Vegas. During the financial metldown, he spent a lot of time at the gym. This just seems to be a pattern.

Geez, they were in the Situation Room for hours waiting for news of the Bin Laden raid, he played a few hands of cards to pass the time while they were waiting.

You don't think that looks bad? American lives are on the line and he's playing cards? I guess in the end it's not that big a deal but it does seem a bit careless. At the very least it doesn't look good.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I seriously have no idea what would have been more important than being at this morning's Security Team meeting.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-skips-national-security-team-meeting-russia-ukraine_783659.html

Best foreign policy President in 40 years though.

"Obama did not attend the meeting, but WH official says he has been briefed by Susan Rice and his national security team," says Miller.

Why should he have to attend a meeting every time some nutjob from another country does something nutty.. The situation has not escalated to the point where we need to intervene, why should it be his top priority?

 

[squistion]

You disagree with his post, and all that you can come up with is "TPW's post was plagiarized"..

If that's the top line of your debate bullet points

You want me to copy and paste a response?

If the response you cut/paste is one you agree with, sure.. Would be better than dismissing the point completely.

Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work.[1][2] The idea remains problematic with unclear definitions and unclear rules.[3][4][5] The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement.

Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics. It is subject to sanctions like expulsion.

Plagiarism is not a crime per se but in academia and industry it is a serious ethical offense,[6][7] and cases of plagiarism can constitute copyright infringement

.

 

[timschochet]

Earlier this morning I asked critics of Obama on this issue to explain what the President should be either doing or saying that he is not. I'm still waiting.

What is wrong with you? This post is a like a monkey flinging poo at random people and then beating its chest and jumping around. No-one here wants to read 10 pages of you baiting others into a useless political debate.

I'm not baiting anyone. This thread is filled with people ripping Obama. But no specifics are offered. What should he do?

For one, not say there will be consequences when there won't really be any consequences that matter.

But there will be consequences. We're not going to get involved militarily, but we could make an impact economically in many many ways. We have all sorts of trade agreements with Russia and new ones that need approval. All kinds of things we are working on could come to a halt if the aggression becomes more serious. There is also the question of our selling military hardware to Russia's neighbors, which Boeing and other companies have been urging for years and which Putin is opposed to. And then there are oil and natural gas contracts- Obama was 100% correct to say there will be consequences.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

Thank you for your attempts to make this thread even more unreadable.

I couldn't if I tried.

I know you think you're different from the rest of the hacks here but you most definitely are not.

 

[Christo]

Earlier this morning I asked critics of Obama on this issue to explain what the President should be either doing or saying that he is not. I'm still waiting.

What is wrong with you? This post is a like a monkey flinging poo at random people and then beating its chest and jumping around. No-one here wants to read 10 pages of you baiting others into a useless political debate.

I'm not baiting anyone. This thread is filled with people ripping Obama. But no specifics are offered. What should he do?

For one, not say there will be consequences when there won't really be any consequences that matter.

But there will be consequences. We're not going to get involved militarily, but we could make an impact economically in many many ways. We have all sorts of trade agreements with Russia and new ones that need approval. All kinds of things we are working on could come to a halt if the aggression becomes more serious. There is also the question of our selling military hardware to Russia's neighbors, which Boeing and other companies have been urging for years and which Putin is opposed to. And then there are oil and natural gas contracts- Obama was 100% correct to say there will be consequences.

You think Putin doesn't know that? Obviously, he took all of it under consideration and decided it doesn't matter.

 

[mr roboto]

Earlier this morning I asked critics of Obama on this issue to explain what the President should be either doing or saying that he is not. I'm still waiting.

What is wrong with you? This post is a like a monkey flinging poo at random people and then beating its chest and jumping around. No-one here wants to read 10 pages of you baiting others into a useless political debate.

I'm not baiting anyone. This thread is filled with people ripping Obama. But no specifics are offered. What should he do?

For one, not say there will be consequences when there won't really be any consequences that matter.

But there will be consequences. We're not going to get involved militarily, but we could make an impact economically in many many ways. We have all sorts of trade agreements with Russia and new ones that need approval. All kinds of things we are working on could come to a halt if the aggression becomes more serious. There is also the question of our selling military hardware to Russia's neighbors, which Boeing and other companies have been urging for years and which Putin is opposed to. And then there are oil and natural gas contracts- Obama was 100% correct to say there will be consequences.

You think Putin doesn't know that? Obviously, he took all of it under consideration and decided it doesn't matter.

But Russia is weak economically. If the world community unites to restrict trade then Putin will feel it at done point. But we are beyond being able to quickly do anything to another world power.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You disagree with his post, and all that you can come up with is "TPW's post was plagiarized"..

If that's the top line of your debate bullet points

You want me to copy and paste a response?

If the response you cut/paste is one you agree with, sure.. Would be better than dismissing the point completely.

Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work.[1][2] The idea remains problematic with unclear definitions and unclear rules.[3][4][5] The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement.

Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics. It is subject to sanctions like expulsion.

Plagiarism is not a crime per se but in academia and industry it is a serious ethical offense,[6][7] and cases of plagiarism can constitute copyright infringement

.

Distract

Evasive

Obfuscation

 

[mad sweeney]

You disagree with his post, and all that you can come up with is "TPW's post was plagiarized"..

If that's the top line of your debate bullet points

You want me to copy and paste a response?

If the response you cut/paste is one you agree with, sure.. Would be better than dismissing the point completely.

Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work.[1][2] The idea remains problematic with unclear definitions and unclear rules.[3][4][5] The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement.

Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics. It is subject to sanctions like expulsion.

Plagiarism is not a crime per se but in academia and industry it is a serious ethical offense,[6][7] and cases of plagiarism can constitute copyright infringement

.

Distract

Evasive

Obfuscation

Idiocy

 

[timschochet]

Earlier this morning I asked critics of Obama on this issue to explain what the President should be either doing or saying that he is not. I'm still waiting.

What is wrong with you? This post is a like a monkey flinging poo at random people and then beating its chest and jumping around. No-one here wants to read 10 pages of you baiting others into a useless political debate.

I'm not baiting anyone. This thread is filled with people ripping Obama. But no specifics are offered. What should he do?

For one, not say there will be consequences when there won't really be any consequences that matter.

But there will be consequences. We're not going to get involved militarily, but we could make an impact economically in many many ways. We have all sorts of trade agreements with Russia and new ones that need approval. All kinds of things we are working on could come to a halt if the aggression becomes more serious. There is also the question of our selling military hardware to Russia's neighbors, which Boeing and other companies have been urging for years and which Putin is opposed to. And then there are oil and natural gas contracts- Obama was 100% correct to say there will be consequences.

You think Putin doesn't know that? Obviously, he took all of it under consideration and decided it doesn't matter.

Of course he knows it. As to whether or not it matters, let's see just how far Putin goes. So far this is all show and bluster. I doubt it will go much beyond that.

 

[TwinTurbo]

I'm reading a lot of opinions from Europe and other places that they are surprised that western countries are speaking to the new government in Ukraine. A lot of the world citizens find it strange that he a coup can take place and the US and others will begin to interact with them as though they were a legitimate government immediately. Technically, the government in place right now simply took over. It is not a legitimate government.

After the dictator left, why wouldn't we ring the new guys to say hello and ask what they have planned? (I'm not good with politics, in case you couldn't tell )

Yanukovych wasn't a dictator. He was elected president. He was also impeached by Ukraine's parliament.

Well Yanukovych and his supporters fixed the elections. That doesn't make him a dictator, but he is about as corrupt as they come. And if you were Russia and you were playing the long game, it certainly would have been part of the grand plan to keep this puppet in power. Whereas the US is going to back any opposition that favors better relations with the West.

 

[mr roboto]

Sweeney, Carolina, Tim, Max are all on a 24 hour shut the #### up break. K thx.

 

[timschochet]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

Thank you for your attempts to make this thread even more unreadable.

I couldn't if I tried.

I know you think you're different from the rest of the hacks here but you most definitely are not.

I try to offer my opinion, some insight, and engage in debate. If that's being a hack, then I'm proud to be one.

 

[timschochet]

Sweeney, Carolina, Tim, Max are all on a 24 hour shut the #### up break. K thx.

congrats on your elevation to a management position!

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So now the criticism about Obama is which meetings he attends? Are you guys serious?

Thank you for your attempts to make this thread even more unreadable.

I couldn't if I tried.

I know you think you're different from the rest of the hacks here but you most definitely are not.

I try to offer my opinion, some insight, and engage in debate. If that's being a hack, then I'm proud to be one.

Just like TPW, Hustler and jon_mx. Good for you.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I seriously have no idea what would have been more important than being at this morning's Security Team meeting.http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-skips-national-security-team-meeting-russia-ukraine_783659.html

Best foreign policy President in 40 years though.

Cut Obama some slack. It is not easy fighting two cold wars at the same time, and Putin taunching him with his unibrower.http://310627192.r.worldcdn.net/media/k2/items/cache/fe62fb74306723ed64bfe28ddc47706b_XL.jpg

 

[rascal]

You guys seriously think EU and others will agree to boycott Russia when all/most of their oil/natural gas comes from Russia?

I think I'm going to go buy some energy stocks.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You disagree with his post, and all that you can come up with is "TPW's post was plagiarized"..

If that's the top line of your debate bullet points

You want me to copy and paste a response?

If the response you cut/paste is one you agree with, sure.. Would be better than dismissing the point completely.

Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work.[1][2] The idea remains problematic with unclear definitions and unclear rules.[3][4][5] The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement.

Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics. It is subject to sanctions like expulsion.

Plagiarism is not a crime per se but in academia and industry it is a serious ethical offense,[6][7] and cases of plagiarism can constitute copyright infringement

.

Distract

Evasive

Obfuscation

Idiocy

For you

 

[mad sweeney]

You disagree with his post, and all that you can come up with is "TPW's post was plagiarized"..

If that's the top line of your debate bullet points

You want me to copy and paste a response?

If the response you cut/paste is one you agree with, sure.. Would be better than dismissing the point completely.

Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work.[1][2] The idea remains problematic with unclear definitions and unclear rules.[3][4][5] The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement.

Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics. It is subject to sanctions like expulsion.

Plagiarism is not a crime per se but in academia and industry it is a serious ethical offense,[6][7] and cases of plagiarism can constitute copyright infringement

.

DistractEvasive

Obfuscation

Idiocy

For you

How exactly does that not apply to you?