Is obama on Putin's side or is he just a useful idiot? You Decide

Obama Helped Disarm the Ukraine



One reason Putin has been able to impose his will so effortlessly in the Ukraine is the fecklessness of current American leadership. Another is that the Ukrainian military is not in a position to put up a fight — in part due to that same American leadership:

As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition – weapons which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Russian President Vladimir Putin during his invasion of Crimea.

In August 2005, just seven months after his swearing-in, Obama traveled to Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine with then-Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar, touring a conventional weapons site.

Lugar was an infamous RINO.

The two met in Kiev with President Victor Yushchenko, making the case that an existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program covering the destruction of nuclear weapons should be expanded to include artillery, small arms, anti-aircraft weapons, and conventional ammunition of all kinds.

After a stopover in London, the senators returned to Washington and declared that the U.S. should devote funds to speed up the destruction of more than 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition.

Obama’s justification for helping disarm what could have been an extremely valuable US ally at US taxpayer expense was, like all things Obama, farcical:

Obama said then that the existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program ‘has effectively disposed of thousands of weapons of mass destruction, but we must do far more to keep deadly conventional weapons like anti-aircraft missiles out of the hands of terrorists.’

Much of the Ukrainian small-arms supply was ultimately exported, not scrapped, by a Yushchenko regime that chose revenue from arms dealing over the cost of melting down metal.

In 2008 the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that between 2004 and 2007, the Ukrainian Export Control Service told the UN that it sent 721,777 small arms and light weapons to 27 different countries.

So instead of potentially warding off a Russian invasion of the rest of the Ukraine, the weapons are now spread out all over the world — so as to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. The terrorist hotbed Libya imported over 101,000 of them.

To give up all this ordnance, Ukrainians must have thought that someone would take the Budapest Memorandum seriously. This document — signed by the USA, the UK, the Ukraine, and Russia — guarantees the Ukraine’s territorial integrity in return for renouncing nuclear weapons.

Elsewhere in the former Soviet bloc, the missile shield Bush had promised Poland and the Czech Republic to defend them from Russia was nixed by Obama — evidently to curry favor with Russia.

Obama isn’t actually on Putin’s side. But his dopey liberal ideology makes him behave no differently than if he were.

.....................More at the Link.....................

Ya know, the demonstrators, putin claims are neo nazis demanded second amendment rights.....

I think Its pretty obvious what happens when second amendment rights are denied...

So um... What do you think? Is obama on putins side or was it just an "accident"?

 

Obama thinks, like all progressives, that despite the lessons of history, diplomacy alone will defeat barbaric evil. Obama sees strength, not in terms of the military strength, but in strength of his words. It's why he's so easily duped by Putin and other leaders who use their power to act, not just talk. it's also why he's so easily frustrated by the political process in Washington and views any form of suggested comprise to his will as obstructionism and has resorted to the "pen & a phone" strategy. Progressives love it, but in overall scheme of things, it's the weakest form of governance and will result in a diminished America, both nationally and internationally.

 

I cant deny your obvious logic, but it does beg the question, Is obama doing it on purpose?

You seem to think he is, and to be honest, so do I.

 

Obama?

From all I've seen it's the Republicans on Pootin's side.

 

Really? Didnt obama reset relations with russia by weakening our defense, aka Missile Shield? No... We dont need that.... right??

Have you ever considered the possibility that obama doesnt have the first freakn clue what hes doing?

 

We don't need a middle shield.

 

like Ukrainians dont need guns?

or maybe you prefer Ukrainians dont need a country??

 

Obama is no tyrant and he is not going to belligerently interfere with the relationship between the Ukraine and Russia.

They're living in another decade, when the Star Wars program would protect America from the commies, and war was "good for business".

 

Obama is in on this entire thing. The hot mic incident led to this. Remember, Obama has a love for Russia, his parents met there.

 

Star wars was the result of Reagan's Alzheimer condition confusing reality with Hollywood fiction.
Of course, the military never passes up a chance to get more money so they egged him on.
In the end, it took Gorbachev to put an end to the threat from the USSR.
But I wonder what Reagan would think of his right-wing spawn today for swooning at the sight of a bare-chested commie thug and spouting their anti-American nonsense?

 

but obama did interfere.

You cant be that blind.

Only a total idiot would believe that Russia would allow their access to warm water seaports be denied, by US backed coup attempts.

obama is a total idiot, but I dont believe hes working to help putin.

- - - Updated - - -

WTF??? Maybe you forgot to tell putin, that hes not a threat.....

OMFG..... get real....

 

Lol...The only ones working to help Putin are right-wingers.
Their derangement about Obama leads them to get in bed with a commie thug who is happy to have such useful idiots running interference for him.
You have to laugh at the utter stupidity and hysteria that underlies right-wing rhetoric.

 

Why didn't Bush veto this bill? I guess Bush and the Republicans are on Putin's side too.

 

I think it was an pork project earmark, not a bill.

- - - Updated - - -

So you too endorse the obama authorized American backed coup's that deny Russia a warm water sea port in the med?

did you really think putin was just gonna stand there and let obama cripple russia?

 

Earmarks are part of bills. So why didn't Bush and the Republicans either force its removal or veto it?

 

no, theyre not, theyre added on after the votes clear. Bush asked for a line item veto and democrats cried about the constitution. My how times have changed huh?

 

Can you provide a source for your claim that earmarks are added after the Bill is voted on?

 

Earmarks seldom are in the text of legislation signed into law. As each of the appropriations bills winds their way through the appropriations process, each is accompanied by plain (not legislative) language that explains the intent behind the bill (see the FY2010 Agriculture Appropriations Bill Conference Report). It is in this “report” or “explanatory statement” that the vast majority of earmarks appear. So, because they are not in the legislative text itself, technically earmarks are not voted on in subcommittee, full committee, or the House or Senate floor. While these earmarks are not "the letter of the law" and may not be legally binding on a government agency, they are effectively treated as such.

http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/earmarks-and-earmarking-frequently-asked-questions#2

most of the real theft comes after the house and senate vote, and before the president signs it.

Lets take a look at how the lies work.

Heres obama telling us we need "Stimulus" to create jobs
[video=youtube;3SPcR6QjaFQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SPcR6QjaFQ[/video]

Heres then speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi lying to the American people
[video=youtube;AaDtkG6afBc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaDtkG6afBc[/video]

Heres chuck schumer raping the American people of $106,000,000,000.00 worth of jobs.
[video=youtube;JEfICUoWKBw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw[/video]

 

it's pretty irrational to think that Obama is trying to harm America in any way. I'm pretty sure no president has ever tried to do that

 

and what do you think it would look like if one did?

 

So why didn't Bush veto it?

 

Indeed, the ONLY "useful idiots" are our self-serving traitorous Republican/Right Wing that will use any excuse to undermine and sabotage our President in our country's positions in these disputes.

 

It is crystal clear to everyone that socialist Obama does not side with the much more conservative Putin regarding the two Ukrainian political factions. Obama is eager to bring the pro-European Union, western, liberal Ukraine under the socialist umbrella.

Russia is also a "socialist" nation of sorts, however it is rapidly gravitating toward conservatism and would be the far lesser of the two evils for eastern Ukraine which is the more Russian, prosperous and capitalist of Ukraine.

Put simply: The pro-Obama, miliitant, liberal, socialist hippies of western Ukraine are demanding that the prosperous, more conservative, eastern Ukraine share their stuff with them.

And Obama is demanding that the hippies get their "democracy."

 

because bush wasnt the president when obama signed the stimulus.

 

He most certainly was in 2005 when the money was passed to destroy the weapons.