Tornado Alley (PROG)

[F6]

Romney: The Price of Failed Leadership


A day after Crimea's March 16 vote to join Russia, the Russian flag waves in Simferopol.
AFP/Getty Images

The President's failure to act when action was possible has diminished respect for the U.S. and made troubles worse.

By Mitt Romney
March 17, 2014 7:17 p.m. ET

Why are there no good choices? From Crimea to North Korea, from Syria to Egypt, and from Iraq to Afghanistan, America apparently has no good options. If possession is nine-tenths of the law, Russia owns Crimea and all we can do is sanction and disinvite—and wring our hands.

Iran is following North Korea's nuclear path, but it seems that we can only entreat Iran to sign the same kind of agreement North Korea once signed, undoubtedly with the same result.

Our tough talk about a red line in Syria prompted Vladimir Putin's sleight of hand, leaving the chemicals and killings much as they were. We say Bashar Assad must go, but aligning with his al Qaeda-backed opposition is an unacceptable option.

And how can it be that Iraq and Afghanistan each refused to sign the status-of-forces agreement with us—with the very nation that shed the blood of thousands of our bravest for them?

Why, across the world, are America's hands so tied?

A large part of the answer is our leader's terrible timing. In virtually every foreign-affairs crisis we have faced these past five years, there was a point when America had good choices and good options. There was a juncture when America had the potential to influence events. But we failed to act at the propitious point; that moment having passed, we were left without acceptable options. In foreign affairs as in life, there is, as Shakespeare had it, "a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries."

When protests in Ukraine grew and violence ensued, it was surely evident to people in the intelligence community—and to the White House—that President Putin might try to take advantage of the situation to capture Crimea, or more. That was the time to talk with our global allies about punishments and sanctions, to secure their solidarity, and to communicate these to the Russian president. These steps, plus assurances that we would not exclude Russia from its base in Sevastopol or threaten its influence in Kiev, might have dissuaded him from invasion.

Months before the rebellion began in Syria in 2011, a foreign leader I met with predicted that Assad would soon fall from power. Surely the White House saw what this observer saw. As the rebellion erupted, the time was ripe for us to bring together moderate leaders who would have been easy enough for us to identify, to assure the Alawites that they would have a future post-Assad, and to see that the rebels were well armed.

The advent of the Arab Spring may or may not have been foreseen by our intelligence community, but after Tunisia, it was predictable that Egypt might also become engulfed. At that point, pushing our friend Hosni Mubarak to take rapid and bold steps toward reform, as did Jordan's king, might well have saved lives and preserved the U.S.-Egypt alliance.

The time for securing the status-of-forces signatures from leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan was before we announced in 2011 our troop-withdrawal timeline, not after it. In negotiations, you get something when the person across the table wants something from you, not after you have already given it away.

Able leaders anticipate events, prepare for them, and act in time to shape them. My career in business and politics has exposed me to scores of people in leadership positions, only a few of whom actually have these qualities. Some simply cannot envision the future and are thus unpleasantly surprised when it arrives. Some simply hope for the best. Others succumb to analysis paralysis, weighing trends and forecasts and choices beyond the time of opportunity.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton traveled the world in pursuit of their promise to reset relations and to build friendships across the globe. Their failure has been painfully evident: It is hard to name even a single country that has more respect and admiration for America today than when President Obama took office, and now Russia is in Ukraine. Part of their failure, I submit, is due to their failure to act when action was possible, and needed.

A chastened president and Secretary of State Kerry, a year into his job, can yet succeed, and for the country's sake, must succeed. Timing is of the essence.

Mr. Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts and the 2012 Republican nominee for president.

Copyright ©2014 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304747404579445170801186310 [with comments]


--


Thank Goodness Romney Isn’t President


Maria Dryfhout [ http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&page=1&gallery_id=87499 ] / Shutterstock.com

By Daniel Larison • March 17, 2014, 9:22 PM

Mitt Romney reminds [ http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304747404579445170801186310 (above)] us why most of us are glad that he isn’t president right now:

When protests in Ukraine grew and violence ensued, it was surely evident to people in the intelligence community—and to the White House—that President Putin might try to take advantage of the situation to capture Crimea, or more. That was the time to talk with our global allies about punishments and sanctions, to secure their solidarity, and to communicate these to the Russian president. These steps, plus assurances that we would not exclude Russia from its base in Sevastopol or threaten its influence in Kiev, might have dissuaded him from invasion.

I’m sure Romney doesn’t see the flaw in this argument, but it is a very large one. Before the change in government in Ukraine, it was extremely unlikely that Russia would seize control of Crimea because no one in the Russian government would have thought it necessary or even desirable. The main thing that would have dissuaded Putin would have been the perpetuation of the old status quo in which a friendly government was still in power. The U.S. was in no position to reassure Moscow that it would not lose influence in Kiev, since the Kremlin assumed that the U.S. and EU were actively seeking to reduce its influence by encouraging Yanukovych’s overthrow. Romney thinks that the U.S. could have headed off the crisis by threatening Russia with punishment for things it had not yet done, but that ignores that Russia has behaved the way that it has because it already thought that Western interference in Ukraine was too great. Threatening Russia with sanctions at an earlier date would have changed nothing, except perhaps to make the crisis even harder to resolve. The problem with U.S. involvement in this situation has not been poor timing, as Romney claims, but a profound failure to anticipate and take into account the very likely Russian reactions to the attempt to drag Ukraine out of its orbit. This is another confirmation that Romney doesn’t understand why Russia behaves the way that it does, nor does he understand how to deal with it effectively. Whatever else one wants to say about the U.S. response to events in Ukraine, most of us should be able to agree that it’s a good thing that Romney isn’t the one in charge of it right now.

It has become fashionable in the last few months to give Romney credit for “prescience” on Russia in the 2012 campaign, as if he did anything more than echo ignorant hard-line talking points that didn’t show the slightest understanding of the relevant issues. He uttered a nonsensical claim about Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe,” which is still very wrong, and most of his defenders still don’t understand how laughable this was. All that Romney demonstrated as a candidate was a knee-jerk hostility to Obama’s policies and equally reflexive hostility to improving relations with Russia. To the extent that he had a coherent idea for how to approach Russia differently, he thought that Russia should be provoked at every turn and that cooperation should be avoided. This approach was rightly mocked during the campaign, and one can only imagine how much more poisonous relations with Russia would be now if it had been official policy for almost five years before the crisis in Ukraine. Had Romney been carrying out his preferred policy towards Russia over the last year, relations would be considerably worse, and we would be saddled with an administration that would go out of its way to clash with Russia on every issue. It was bad enough listening to Romney try to make foreign policy arguments as a presidential candidate, but it is simply ridiculous to be treated to the same nonsense now that the election campaign is long over.

Copyright 2014 The American Conservative

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/thank-goodness-romney-isnt-president/ [with comments]


--


Mitt Romney Explains Where Obama Went Wrong (Hint: It Is ‘Everywhere’)



by Doktor Zoom
1:30 pm March 18, 2014

It sure is a good thing that politics stops at the water’s edge, because otherwise this Mitt Romney pouting in the Wall Street Journal [ http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304747404579445170801186310 (first item this post)] sure would be controversial, since basically he tells America that we really screwed up bad by choosing such a terrible president who is decidedly not Mitt Romney. You see, were it not for all of Barack Obama’s manifest failures to do things much differently, the world would be a pretty nice place, but as it is, everything that foreign countries have done is the result of Barry Bamz being a big weakling. Also, Hillary Clinton, too. Romney laments that there are “no good options” on a whole bunch of international issues, like Crimea [ http://wonkette.com/tag/crimea ] of course, but also Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran and North Korea, all of which Obama really screwed up on, leaving America with its hands tied:

A large part of the answer is our leader’s terrible timing. In virtually every foreign-affairs crisis we have faced these past five years, there was a point when America had good choices and good options. There was a juncture when America had the potential to influence events. But we failed to act at the propitious point; that moment having passed, we were left without acceptable options.

Fittingly, the column was published on a Monday night; you sort of imagine Mitt in a helmet and shoulder pads, calling plays into the past. Because if you look at history, it’s clear that America can always make other countries do exactly what America wants when we have a good leader who does the right thing, as proven by that quote from Shakespeare about how you gotta catch the tide just right and ride it, because Charlie don’t surf.

First off, on Ukraine, Barry totally failed to recognize the possibility that Putin would invade Crimea, even though it should have been obvious once the government started responding violently to the protests:

That was the time to talk with our global allies about punishments and sanctions, to secure their solidarity, and to communicate these to the Russian president. These steps, plus assurances that we would not exclude Russia from its base in Sevastopol or threaten its influence in Kiev, might have dissuaded him from invasion.

Which is a pretty good backwards psychic prediction, because it doesn’t need to account for pesky details like the fact that shortly before the Ukrainian government started shooting protesters, it was looking like it was going to negotiate with them instead, and then that government fell almost as suddenly as it started killing people. But yes, had Obama just seen the situation with the clarity of a month later, he should have warned Putin, and we all know how Putin listens to other leaders.

Similarly, when protests in Syria first started to turn into a revolt against Bashar Assad, Mitt tells us that

the time was ripe for us to bring together moderate leaders who would have been easy enough for us to identify, to assure the Alawites that they would have a future post-Assad, and to see that the rebels were well armed.

Why, yes, all you have to do is look at the headlines from three years ago, when they all said “Good Guys In Syria Easy to Identify” — and when the administration sought to work with the moderate rebels, there certainly weren’t any teabaggers like Michele Bachmann screaming that the Arab Spring was just a cover for al Qaeda trying to take over everything.

And so on — in one foreign situation after another, Mitt Romney finds the perfect moment where Barack Obama was asleep at the switch again [ http://www.rulit.net/books/jailbird-read-90676-42.html ]. Really, he should go back in time and fix stuff, but he refuses to because he is Weak. But has anything worked out for poor feckless Barack? Heck no, because he failed to bully the world into fearing America the way he should have:

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton traveled the world in pursuit of their promise to reset relations and to build friendships across the globe. Their failure has been painfully evident: It is hard to name even a single country that has more respect and admiration for America today than when President Obama took office, and now Russia is in Ukraine.

Because god knows, we were so very, very admired and respected under the able leadership of George W. Bush.

©2014 Wonkette Media LLC

http://wonkette.com/544371/mitt-romney-explains-where-obama-went-wrong-hint-it-is-everywhere [with comments]


--


Bill Maher Slaughters Neocon Bill Kristol

Published on Mar 3, 2014 by Secular Talk [ http://www.youtube.com/user/SecularTalk ]

Bill Maher and Fox News contributor Bill Kristol argued over the consequences of U.S. miltary intervention in a time when the Pentagon is proposing budgetary cuts on Real Time on Friday, with Maher pressing Kristol on his history of supporting armed responses.

"Have you ever met a war you didn't love?" Maher asked with a tone of exasperation. "I'm asking, is there any place you don't want to intervene in?"

Read More At:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/01/bill-maher-hammers-hawkish-bill-kristol-have-you-ever-met-a-war-you-didnt-love/

Clip from the Monday, March 3rd 2014 edition of The Kyle Kulinski Show, which airs live on Blog Talk Radio and Secular Talk Radio monday - friday 4-6pm Eastern.

Check out our website - and become a member - at:
http://www.SecularTalkRadio.com

Listen to the Live Show or On Demand archive at:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/kylekulinski

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq0Pt2Ih7OY [with comments]


--


Fischer: God Hasn't Struck Down Bill Maher In Order To Give Him A Chance To Repent

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Monday, 3/17/2014 4:25 pm

On his HBO program on Friday, Bill Maher delivered an epic rant [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/15/bill-maher-god-psychotic-mas-murderer_n_4970831.html (at/see {linked in} http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=98899782 and preceding and following)] against religion in which he called God an "psychotic mass murderer" and declared that America is a "stupid country" because most Americans believe the Bible's story of Noah and the Ark to be true.

Maher's blasphemy did not sit well with Bryan Fischer, who dedicated a segment [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VjIs2vAwyk ] on his radio program today to defending the Biblical tale of Noah's flood, arguing that it was the free will choices made by humans that left God with no other option but to kill every living thing, just as God has given Bill Maher the free will to engage in this sort of blasphemy.

The only reason Maher is able to say such things, Fischer declared, is because God allows it and the only reason Maher is not struck down on the spot for engaging in this sort of blasphemy is because God is merciful, compassionate, and loving.

God allows Maher to continue living after saying these things, Fischer explained, is in order to give Maher an opportunity to repent and ask forgiveness.

"Bill Maher might have thought he was being hip and kind of trendy and kind of cool and all of that," Fischer said [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svLmiqtdEvk (next below, as embedded)], "but he is going to be judged for those careless words. God hopes it doesn't come to that. God could, by all rights, take him right now and Bill Maher would have to face judgment by the end of the day. Why doesn't He do that? Because He is patient with Bill Maher. He doesn't want to have to do that. He wants to give Bill Maher the time to come to his senses and to come to a place of repentance":

© 2014 People For the American Way

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-god-hasnt-struck-down-bill-maher-order-give-him-chance-repent


--


Dick Cheney on Ukraine: "No question" Putin believes Obama is weak

Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer
March 9, 2014, 10:36 AM

Former Vice President Dick Cheney discusses with Charlie Ross the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and the Obama administration's response.

© 2014 CBS Interactive Inc.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/dick-cheney-on-ukraine-no-question-putin-believes-obama-is-weak/ [with comments; the above YouTube of the segment at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPyK6YA-Tvo (with comments)]


--


Rep. Paul Ryan on 'Face The Nation' - 3/9/2014

Published on Mar 9, 2014 by John Doe [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCf3jFe9xR7zw4ykbc17OcMw ]

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) talks with Charlie Rose on CBS' 'Face The Nation' with Charlie Rose. Topics include Foreign Policy, CPAC, GOP Policy & 2016.

Recorded from CBS on Sunday, March 9th, 2014. No copyright infringement intended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWapohnZbss [with comment]


--


Obama's Ukraine policy: Scream loudly, carry no stick


Lindsey Graham


Newt Gingrich

By Lindsey Graham and Newt Gingrich
updated 10:41 PM EDT, Sat March 15, 2014

Editor's note: Sen. Lindsey Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. Newt Gingrich is a co-host of CNN's "Crossfire," which airs at 6:30 p.m. ET weekdays. A former speaker of the House, he was a candidate in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors.

America's response to the most dangerous security crisis Europe has faced in decades has been all speeches and symbolism with no actions of substance.

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama hosted Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the new interim Ukrainian Prime Minister, for lunch at the White House, supposedly a thumb in the eye of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a sign of America's commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty.

On Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the U.S. will take "very serious" steps if Russia does not back down by Monday from its attempt to annex Crimea.

But while the White House was serving lunch and the State Department was issuing stern warnings, the President was also refusing to lift a finger to actually deter Putin's aggression. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration, "wary of inflaming tensions with Russia," has refused to act on Ukraine's emergency request for military aid, including arms and ammunition, except to send military rations.

Officials in Kiev estimate that Putin has amassed 80,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, and we are worried about "inflaming tensions"? When will the administration put its might where its mouth is: When Kiev is in flames? Or never?

As for Yatsenyuk, whose visit symbolized our solidarity, well Obama hopes you had a nice dessert, because we're not going to give your country the weapons it needs to defend itself.

Theodore Roosevelt is famous for a foreign policy he summarized as "speak softly and carry a big stick." Obama's foreign policy is closer to "scream loudly and carry no stick."

It's no wonder Putin has concluded that he's unlikely to face serious consequences for his imperial adventure. The U.S. did nothing when he invaded Georgia in 2008. More recently, we did nothing after the Syrian regime violated the "red line" Obama had established regarding the use of chemical weapons there. (Recall Kerry's offhand reference to inspections became the pretext a day later for backing off the pledge.)

Putin doesn't take the words of Obama or Kerry seriously because their words aren't serious. The speeches are gestures -- much like the President's Wednesday luncheon -- and their relationship to action is nonexistent, as the administration's refusal of Ukraine's aid request makes quite clear.

The fact is anything short of providing arms and intelligence to the sovereign Ukrainian government is unlikely to deter Putin. Clearly, we do not need American boots on the ground in Ukraine, a step we would both oppose. But if the U.S. wants to stop Russia's dangerous incursion into Eastern Europe, we have to raise the cost. Not just talk about potentially raising the cost at some point in the future once Russia has swallowed half of Ukraine and stationed tens of thousands of troops there.

Unless the President is willing to back up his words with military aid, he's not serious about stopping Putin's armed aggression.

In addition, the President should immediately issue an executive order approving the export of American natural gas to 20 countries that are awaiting bureaucratic approval. The highest priority should go to approving exports to Europe, where in many places, Russia has a near-monopoly on natural gas.

Furthermore, the President should issue an executive order approving 24 pending liquefied natural gas facilities that have been delayed by bureaucratic red tape.

This would be a serious blow to the Russian economy that would impose a real cost on Putin's foray into Ukraine. National emergencies justify actions that would not be taken in quiet times. A Russian invasion of Ukraine will create conditions that the President himself in his first executive order about sanctions called a national emergency.

No one should doubt the seriousness of the events in Eastern Europe.

Russia is threatening to forcibly take over the territory of a sovereign state. Taking over Crimea, which was historically Russian and has a substantial Russian majority, has already been described by Obama and Kerry as unacceptable and very dangerous. Russian occupation of the rest of Ukraine would be a vastly more threatening and more aggressive action.

The situation calls for more than talk. If Putin discovers that once again the West will do nothing to stop his aggression, he might be reckless enough to test our resolve in Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia -- NATO members that we are bound to protect with military force. Trouble there could "reset" us right back to direct warfare with Russia. That would be a disaster and very, very dangerous.

It's past time for the United States to help Ukraine.

Indeed, passivity is the path most likely to lead to war. The Obama administration should grant the request for military aid immediately -- before it's too late for deterrence.

Related

Video [embedded]

McCain calls for U.S. support to Ukraine
In Kiev, Sen. McCain called for the U.S. to provide long-term military assistance to Ukraine.

© 2014 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/15/opinion/gingrich-graham-ukraine-obama/ [with comments]


--


Lindsey Graham Doubles Down On Benghazi

by Paige Lavender
Posted: 03/06/2014 11:00 am EST Updated: 03/07/2014 10:59 am EST

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he wouldn't back down from criticizing the Obama administration over the deadly 2012 attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

"Everything I have done has been about what I think is best for the country," Graham told CNN's Dana Bash [ http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/03/06/ac-dana-bash-graham.cnn.html ]. "I think it's best to find the truth about Benghazi. When my primary is over and I'm going to win, I'm going to still be on Benghazi."

In a tweet [ https://twitter.com/GrahamBlog/statuses/440920315292811264 ] Tuesday, Graham said [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/lindsey-graham-russia-ukraine-benghazi_n_4898222.html ] the Russian invasion into Ukraine is rooted in the Benghazi attack:

It started with Benghazi. When you kill Americans and nobody pays a price, you invite this type of aggression. #Ukraine
— Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) March 4, 2014

Graham reiterated that idea in his discussion with CNN, saying "it's not just about Ukraine."

"When you tell the world, we're going to find the people that killed our four Americans in Libya including the ambassador and you do nothing about it, whether you agree with this policy in Syria or Egypt, whether you agree with his policies, when he tells people there are going to be consequences and there are none, it sets in motion exactly what you see," Graham said.

Copyright © 2014 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/lindsey-graham-benghazi_n_4911841.html [with embedded video, and comments]


--


Sen. Ted Cruz on ABC's 'This Week' - 3/9/2014

Published on Mar 9, 2014 by John Doe

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) talks to ABC's Jonathon Karl following CPAC 2014. He talks Ukraine, Obama & Conservative Principles/Tactics.

Recorded from ABC's This Week on Sunday, March 9th, 2014. No copyright infringement intended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7s5K6Pmeis [with comments]


--


Hot Mic Catches Lindsey Graham Offering John Kerry 'Help' With John Boehner

by Mollie Reilly
Posted: 03/13/2014 6:49 pm EDT Updated: 03/13/2014 6:59 pm EDT

Secretary of State John Kerry appeared on Capitol Hill Thursday to make the case to the Senate Appropriations Committee [ http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/03/223414.htm ] on approving an aid package to Ukraine.

After his testimony, Sen. Lindsey Graham approached Kerry to offer help negotiating with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- an exchange caught on the desk microphone before Kerry turned it off.

"Hey John, good job," Graham said. "Let me know what I can do to help you with Boehner."

During his testimony, Kerry pressed Congress to include reforms to the International Monetary Fund, as proposed by the Obama administration, in an aide package to Ukraine.

Boehner, however, has remained firm in his opposition to the IMF boost.

"Let's make sure we all understand something: The IMF money has nothing to do with Ukraine [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/13/boehner-ukraine-aid_n_4958146.html ]," he said Thursday.

(h/t Roll Call [ http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/graham-to-kerry-let-me-know-what-i-can-do-to-help-with-boehner-video/ ])

Copyright © 2014 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/13/lindsey-graham-hot-mic_n_4960010.html [the YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpUeISnUIX4 (with comments), as embedded; with comments]


--


Nothing New in GOP's Smear of Obama on Ukraine

by Earl Ofari Hutchinson
Posted: 03/03/2014 11:09 am EST Updated: 03/03/2014 11:59 am EST

GOP leaders took giddy delight in mocking President Obama's 90-minute phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This was Obama's frontal effort to get Putin to stand down from his assault on the Ukraine. They called his talk with Putin weak, soft, and even cowardly. The GOP smears of Obama on his handling of the Ukrainian crisis are a virtual repeat of the same smears it has repeated time and again against him on the issues of national security and foreign policy. The GOP trotted out the script of Obama as an alleged foreign policy green horn and bungler the moment he declared his presidential candidacy in 2007.

It pounded him mercilessly as soft on the war on terrorism and the military and who when the first time a crisis arose would jeopardize America's security with his supposed weak kneed approach to a foreign policy. GOP presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., and especially George W. Bush in 2004 in his reelection fight with Democratic presidential foe Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, used this ploy masterfully against their Democratic opponents. GOP presidential candidate John McCain tried it against Obama in 2008 presidential election, and since then has continued to lambast him on every foreign policy issue as weak and indecisive.

The GOP strategists believed that the soft-on-terrorism, rank amateur on foreign policy smear would work especially well on Obama. He was a liberal Democrat, untested in foreign policy matters, had made conciliatory remarks about Islam, was a staunch opponent of the Iraq War, and unstated, he was African-American. This supposedly made him vulnerable to the sneaky and borderline racial suspicions among many that question the patriotism of blacks.

In quick succession, the GOP has dusted off the script on every foreign policy crisis that's popped up since Obama entered the White House. The list is endless: Somalia, Bin Laden, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran and, of course, Benghazi. In each instance, just change the names and the rap is till the same, he's weak, indecisive, and soft, and always the charge is that his alleged weakness somehow puts the nation at mortal risk. As in every one of the crisis's that Obama allegedly bungled and jeopardized the nation's security, the unreconstructed cold war hawks and professional GOP Obama bashers flatly declare that the U.S. must get tough, firm, and resolute up to and including a military and even nuclear a saber rattle against a perceived American foreign enemy.

The Ukraine is no different. Obama is being plastered from the right for not taking any of a hodgepodge of actions. Boycott the Sochi summit, suspend trade talks with Russia, demand that the major industrial nations make Russia a rogue state among nations and of course, slap any and every other imaginable economic and travel sanction on Russia.

Even if Obama took one, two or all of these proposed tough guy measures against Putin's regime it wouldn't do a fig to stop Russia's aggression. Yet, that aggression, as politically and morally odious as it is, hardly poses any direct threat to national security that Obama's foes claim. The real peril is to Russia's security. Continued military action in the Ukraine there would hopelessly embroil Russia in an unsustainable, and ultimately self-defeating military, economic and political quagmire. The demand that Obama talk and act even tougher with Putin also ignores two other hard realities. One is that the Ukraine is a regional crisis and the Crimea a scant few decades ago was a part of Russia. The area has deep ethnic, economic, and political ties with Russia and by no stretch could be considered a vital cog in the U.S. strategic, military, or geopolitical interests and security. The other is that America's Western allies do a lot of business with Russia and lean heavily on it for its oil and natural gas.

Obama's correct and really only sensible option is to try through negotiation to give Putin a viable face saving way out of the box he's recklessly and to his peril put Russia in. No matter how loud the war hawks scream about Obama's actions, he has little choice but to try and help craft a solution through diplomacy. This hardly shows weakness, but recognition that the U.S.'s options are few.

But then this is an election year and the GOP hopes again that by slapping the age old tag of Obama as weak, soft and an appeaser it will gain some footing with voters. There's little evidence so far that this is a priority issue, let alone fear, of any significant percent of American voters. Still, the Ukraine is yet another foreign policy crisis that the GOP can try and spin as a life-or-death threat to American interests and one that's supposedly being botched by another Democratic president. There's nothing new and certainly nothing truthful to this smear.

Copyright © 2014 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/gop-obama-ukraine_b_4887862.html [with comments]


--


McCain Attacks Obama Over What He Wrote About Russia In College

by Sabrina Siddiqui
Posted: 03/04/2014 4:58 pm EST Updated: 03/04/2014 5:59 pm EST

WASHINGTON -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Tuesday drew from a new source in arguing that President Barack Obama has been too 'soft' on Russia: An article Obama wrote back when he was in college.

In a blistering speech on the Senate floor, McCain blamed Obama in part for Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggression amid the Ukraine crisis, days after Russian forces moved in on the Crimean peninsula.

"This is the same guy that the president of the United States pushed the reset button time and again with," McCain said of Putin.

He then shifted his attention to a 1983 article called "Breaking the War Mentality [at/see (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39386755 and preceding (and any future following)]," which Obama penned for a campus magazine as a senior at Columbia University. Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg resurfaced the article on Monday in a USA Today op-ed [ http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/03/ukraine-obama-putin-russia-column/5992011 ].

In his article, Obama blamed "U.S.-Soviet tensions largely on America's war mentality and the twisted logic of the Cold War," McCain said, quoting from Goldberg. "President Reagan's defense buildup, according to Obama, contributed to the 'silent spread of militarism' and reflected our 'distorted national priorities' rather than what should be our goal: a 'nuclear free world.'"

"That's what student Obama said," McCain added, before making the case that the president's approach to Russia was fundamentally naive.

"The remarkable thing is that two weeks ago in response to tensions in Ukraine, two weeks ago, the president explained that -- quote -- 'Our approach is not to see events in Ukraine as some Cold War chessboard in which we're in competition with Russia,'" McCain said. "This is a horrible way to talk about the Cold War, because it starts from the premise that it all was just a game conducted between two morally equivalent competitors."

This isn't the first time Republicans have used Obama's 1983 college article to cast judgment on his handling of foreign policy. The piece gained traction [ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/world/05nuclear.html (at/see {linked in} http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39386755 and preceding {and any future following})] just before Obama's first inauguration, with several conservative bloggers calling it anti-American and oblivious to the Soviet threat.

The New York Times noted in 2009 that Obama's article profiled two anti-nuclear groups on campus, Arms Race Alternatives and Students Against Militarism, and that despite his sympathetic portrayal of the groups, "the article seemed to question the popular goal of freezing nuclear arsenals rather than reducing them."

McCain and other Republican lawmakers are now using recent developments in Ukraine to bolster their claims that Obama has simply failed to view Russia as a serious threat. "I say it's time we woke up about Vladimir Putin," McCain said. "It's time that this administration got real."

But for all their fury, few Republicans have proposed a response that differs significantly from the administration's reaction thus far.

Before wrapping up his floor speech, McCain called for a suspension of military-to-military engagements between the U.S. and Russia -- a move the Pentagon announced [ http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/ukraine-crisis-usa-pentagon-idUSL1N0M102320140304 ] on Monday. He also said the U.S. should boycott June's G-8 summit in Sochi. Although the White House has not withdrawn from the summit as of yet, Obama said the U.S. was backing out of planning meetings for the G-8. Finally, McCain called for Russia to be thrown out of the G-8, an option Secretary of State John Kerry has left on the table [ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/03/u-s-laying-groundwork-to-kick-russia-out-of-g8/ ] if Russia fails to stand down in Crimea.

Copyright © 2014 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/john-mccain-ukraine_n_4899085.html [with embedded video report, and comments]


--


John McCain Unloads On Senate Republicans: 'I Haven't Been Embarrassed This Way'

by Luke Johnson
Posted: 03/13/2014 6:08 pm EDT Updated: 03/14/2014 11:59 am EDT

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) took to the Senate floor Thursday to castigate fellow Republicans for holding up aid to Ukraine over provisions boosting funding for the International Monetary Fund [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/12/senate-ukraine-aid_n_4952113.html ].

"What has happened? Where are our priorities? Is the IMF, no matter whether it's fixed or not fixed with this legislation, more important than the lives of thousands of people? Is that what we're talking about here?" he said.

He invoked Republicans' secular saint -- President Ronald Reagan. "I will say to my friends who were objecting to this -- and there are a number of them on my side -- you can call yourself Republicans. That's fine, because that's your voter registration. Don't call yourself Reagan Republicans. Ronald Reagan would never, would never let this kind of aggression go unresponded to by the American people."

He went on, "So now because of an IMF fix, or a campaign finance fix, we are now going to reject a piece of legislation that was done in a bipartisan basis with the leadership of the chairman who I see on the floor, of which I'm proud, ranking member, Senator Corker of Tennessee, and we're going to say 'no.' And you know the most ridiculous thing about all of this is? The majority leader has filed cloture. We have well over 60 votes. So we're going to be back in about 11 or 12 days, whatever it is. Cloture will have been expired. It's well over 60 votes. And we will pass this."

"I've been embarrassed before on the floor of the Senate, I will tell the president. But I haven't been embarrassed this way about members of my own party," said McCain.

McCain has long been hawkish toward Russia and is not afraid to take on his fellow Republicans. But McCain's remarks stand in contrast to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who said the IMF provision [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/13/boehner-ukraine-aid_n_4958146.html ] to boost funding had nothing to do with the Ukraine bill. Ukraine has long been a recipient of IMF loans, and is negotiating a new package of loans with the IMF.

The Senate is likely to vote on the Ukraine aid package when it returns from recess next week. McCain is leading a congressional delegation to Kiev [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/12/exclusive-mccain-to-lead-delegation-to-ukraine0.html ] in a show of support for the new government.

Copyright © 2014 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/13/john-mccain-ukraine_n_4959741.html [with embedded video report, and comments]


--


Obama Has Made America Look Weak


Mike McQuade

John McCain on Responding to Russia’s Aggression

By JOHN MCCAIN
MARCH 14, 2014

Should Russia’s invasion and looming annexation of Crimea be blamed on President Barack Obama? Of course not, just as it should not be blamed on NATO expansion, the Iraq war or Western interventions to stop mass atrocities in the Balkans and Libya. The blame lies squarely with Vladimir V. Putin, an unreconstructed Russian imperialist and K.G.B. apparatchik.

But in a broader sense, Crimea has exposed the disturbing lack of realism that has characterized our foreign policy under President Obama. It is this worldview, or lack of one, that must change.

For five years, Americans have been told that “the tide of war is receding,” that we can pull back from the world at little cost to our interests and values. This has fed a perception that the United States is weak, and to people like Mr. Putin, weakness is provocative.

That is how Mr. Putin viewed the “reset” policy. United States missile defense plans were scaled back. Allies in Eastern Europe and Georgia were undercut. NATO enlargement was tabled. A new strategic arms reduction treaty required significant cuts by America, but not Russia. Mr. Putin gave little. Mr. Obama promised “more flexibility.”

Mr. Putin also saw a lack of resolve in President Obama’s actions beyond Europe. In Afghanistan and Iraq, military decisions have appeared driven more by a desire to withdraw than to succeed. Defense budgets have been slashed based on hope, not strategy. Iran and China have bullied America’s allies at no discernible cost. Perhaps worst of all, Bashar al-Assad crossed President Obama’s “red line” by using chemical weapons in Syria, and nothing happened to him.

For Mr. Putin, vacillation invites aggression. His world is a brutish, cynical place, where power is worshiped, weakness is despised, and all rivalries are zero-sum. He sees the fall of the Soviet Union as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” He does not accept that Russia’s neighbors, least of all Ukraine, are independent countries. To him, they are Russia’s “near abroad” and must be brought back under Moscow’s dominion by any means necessary.

What is most troubling about Mr. Putin’s aggression in Crimea is that it reflects a growing disregard for America’s credibility in the world. That has emboldened other aggressive actors — from Chinese nationalists to Al Qaeda terrorists and Iranian theocrats.

Crimea must be the place where President Obama recognizes this reality and begins to restore the credibility of the United States as a world leader. This will require two different kinds of responses.

The first, and most urgent, is crisis management. We need to work with our allies to shore up Ukraine, reassure shaken friends in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, show Mr. Putin a strong, united front, and prevent the crisis from getting worse.

This does not mean military action against Russia. But it should mean sanctioning Russian officials, isolating Russia internationally, and increasing NATO’s military presence and exercises on its eastern frontier. It should mean boycotting the Group of 8 summit meeting in Sochi and convening the Group of 7 elsewhere. It should also mean making every effort to support and resupply Ukrainian patriots, both soldiers and civilians, who are standing their ground in government facilities across Crimea. They refuse to accept the dismemberment of their country. So should we.

Crimea may be falling under Russian control, but Ukraine has another chance for freedom, rule of law and a European future. To seize that opportunity, Ukrainian leaders must unify the nation and commit to reform, and the West must provide significant financial and other assistance. Bipartisan legislation now before Congress would contribute to this effort.

More broadly, we must rearm ourselves morally and intellectually to prevent the darkness of Mr. Putin’s world from befalling more of humanity. We may wish to believe, as President Obama has said, that we are not “in competition with Russia.” But Mr. Putin believes Russia is in competition with us, and pretending otherwise is an unrealistic basis for a great nation’s foreign policy.

Three American presidents have sought to cooperate with Mr. Putin where our interests converge. What should be clear now, and should have been clear the last time he tore apart a country, is that our interests do not converge much. He will always insist on being our rival.

The United States must look beyond Mr. Putin. His regime may appear imposing, but it is rotting inside. His Russia is not a great power on par with America. It is a gas station run by a corrupt, autocratic regime. And eventually, Russians will come for Mr. Putin in the same way and for the same reasons that Ukrainians came for Viktor F. Yanukovych.

We must prepare for that day now. We should show the Russian people that we support their human rights by expanding the Magnitsky Act to impose more sanctions on those who abuse them. We should stop allowing their country’s most corrupt officials to park ill-gotten proceeds in Western economies. We should prove that countries like Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova have a future in the Euro-Atlantic community, and Russia can, too.

We must do all we can to demonstrate that the tide of history is with Ukraine — that the political values of the West, and not those of an imperial kleptocracy, are the hope of all nations. If Ukraine can emerge from this crisis independent, prosperous and anchored firmly in Europe, how long before Russians begin to ask, “Why not us?” That would not just spell the end of Mr. Putin’s imperial dreams; it would strip away the lies that sustain his rule over Russia itself.

America’s greatest strength has always been its hopeful vision of human progress. But hopes do not advance themselves, and the darkness that threatens them will not be checked by an America in denial about the world as it is. It requires realism, strength and leadership. If Crimea does not awaken us to this fact, I am afraid to think what will.

John McCain is a Republican senator from Arizona.

© 2014 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/opinion/mccain-a-return-to-us-realism.html [with comments]


--


McCain’s Cold War confusion


Sen. John McCain leaves the Senate chamber, March 5, 2014.
J. Scott Applewhite/Getty

By Steve Benen
03/17/14 08:00 AM—Updated 03/17/14 08:43 AM

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) made his latest Sunday show appearance yesterday, having just completed a trip to Ukraine, and though much of the senator’s rhetoric was expected, there was one thing that stood out for me.

Not surprisingly, McCain is concerned about the crisis and sees Crimea’s departure from Ukraine as “a fait accompli.” But the Arizona Republican also told CNN [ http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1403/16/sotu.01.html ] he does not want to see a “re-ignition of the Cold War.” McCain added:

“[W]e need to give long-term military assistance plan, because, God knows what Vladimir Putin will do next, because he believes that Ukraine is a vital part of his vision of the Russian empire and we need to understand that and act accordingly.

“And again, no boots on the ground. It is not the Cold War over again.”

Wait, so McCain doesn’t believe this is the Cold War all over again?

Keeping track of the senator’s competing postures is getting a little confusing. It wasn’t too long ago, for example, when McCain declared [ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-mccain-cold-war-obama-delusional ], “The Cold War is over.”

Last week, he changed course, telling msnbc’s Andrea Mitchell [ http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mccain-changes-his-mind-the-cold-war ], “[Obama administration officials] have been near delusional in thinking the Cold War was over. Maybe the president thinks the Cold War is over, but Vladimir Putin doesn’t. And that’s what this is all about.”

And then yesterday, McCain apparently went back to his old position, pulling off the hard-to-execute flip-flop-flip – which, in all likelihood, will have no bearing on his Beltway credibility. How can he accuse the White House of being “delusional” on March 7 for having the same belief McCain endorsed on March 16?

On a related note, the senator had a 1,000-word op-ed [ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/opinion/mccain-a-return-to-us-realism.html (just above)] in the New York Times over the weekend, complaining that President Obama “has made America look weak.”

For five years, Americans have been told that “the tide of war is receding,” that we can pull back from the world at little cost to our interests and values. This has fed a perception that the United States is weak, and to people like Mr. Putin, weakness is provocative. […]

Mr. Putin also saw a lack of resolve in President Obama’s actions beyond Europe. In Afghanistan and Iraq, military decisions have appeared driven more by a desire to withdraw than to succeed. Defense budgets have been slashed based on hope, not strategy. Iran and China have bullied America’s allies at no discernible cost. Perhaps worst of all, Bashar al-Assad crossed President Obama’s “red line” by using chemical weapons in Syria, and nothing happened to him.

This is a deeply odd take on a variety of levels. Of particular interest. Obama has said many times that “the tide of war is receding,” in reference to two of the longest hot-war conflicts in American history: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ending these conflicts has made the United States appear “weak”?

It’s hard not to get the sense that McCain believes Vladimir Putin’s aggressive moves in Ukraine are the result of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

As for the rest of the op-ed, McCain proceeded to urge the Obama administration to take a series of steps, which can generally be broken down into vague platitudes (the United States “should work with our allies” and “reassure shaken friends”) and steps the president is already taking (“boycotting the Group of 8 summit meeting in Sochi”).

It’s an underwhelming perspective.

©2014 NBC UNIVERSAL (emphasis in original)

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mccains-cold-war-confusion [with comments]


--


Tasty Ukraine Bites for Pundits!

by Mark Fiore
Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 06:50 AM PST

After Kiev erupted in protest, then open revolt that caused Yanukovych to flee and Putin to barge into Crimea, it's time to play catch up about a part of the world we generally ignore. I've been having fun watching the appearance of instant-experts across media landscape from Twitter to cable news.

It seems that in the United States, Ukraine can serve nearly any purpose, from beating the conspiracy drum [ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/04/lindsey-grahams-benghazi-linkage-lights-up-twitter/ ] to boosting the foreign policy cred [ http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2014/0301/Sarah-Palin-I-told-you-so-on-Ukraine ] of a failed vice presidential candidate. (Never mind the pain and suffering of the people in Ukraine.) There are plenty of places to find information and analysis about the situation in Ukraine, but Sarah Palin's Facebook page is probably not the best choice.

Enjoy the cartoon, and dive into the links behind the cartoon (found on my site [ https://markfiore.com/mark-fiore-blog/tasty-ukraine-bites-for-pundits.html (in the future, may/likely will instead be at https://markfiore.com/mark-fiore-blog/cartoons/tasty-ukraine-bites-for-pundits.html )]), I spent a good deal of time this week looking into some of the newer digital news outlets that revel [ http://www.buzzfeed.com/hunterschwarz/28-intense-photos-from-the-bloodiest-day-of-ukraines-uprisin ] in reposting high resolution photos and endless listicles [ http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/kyiv-ukraine-protests-disaster-porn-103721.html ].

Transcript:

[fun ad sales voice]

Hey, Kids!

Want to have fun and talk intelligently about Ukraine?

Always wanted to be a smart-sounding member of the American pundit class?

Then Ukraine Bites are for you!

All the knowledge with none of the work!

Sure, you could learn all about Ukraine, the Crimean Peninsula, ethnic Muslim Tatars and how Ukraine was nearing a trade deal with the EU when Putin offered them fifteen billion to stick with Russia . . .

But that would take hours, weeks even! Bor-ing!

Plus, you need to tweet right now, and maybe even go on a cable news show!

All you need is just one Ukraine Bite, which one is up to you!

"The Blame Obama!"

Everyone knows that Obama not-bombing Iran caused citizens in Kiev to revolt, which in turn caused Putin to invade Crimea-- simple!

"The Irony-Free-Russia-Has-Violated-A-Nation's-Sovereignty-and-International-Law-In-A-Brazen-Act-of-Aggression-So-What-If-I-Supported-the-Invasion-of-Iraq Bite!"

Lets you sound stern and legalistic!

"The Told-Ya-So Bite!"

Popularized by Sarah Palin's prediction that bad-guy Putin would attack Ukraine, now we just have to wait for her other predictions to come true!

"The Listicles Photo Bite!"

Why explain things when you can just show shocking photos and maps!

Click here for seventeen earth-shattering reasons this is the Ukraine Bite for you!

"The Stewed Toothless Bite!"

Why not do nothing because you can't do everything?

Tastes great with UN and NATO declarations and usually served when encouraging popular revolt! Smart, easy and delicious!

And "The Cold War Is Back Bite!"

Perfect for staying out of the fray while getting those Pentagon budgets back up! Up! Up!

(Just try not to sound too excited about someone else's misfortune.)

Ukraine Bites!

All the knowledge with none of the work!

Finally, you can be part of America's pundit class. Now get out there and get your talking head talking!

Copyright 2014 Mark Fiore

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/07/1282527/-Cartoon-Tasty-Ukraine-Bites-for-nbsp-Pundits [the (original Mark Fiore) YouTube above, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4lGH78YfOQ (with comments), in place of the embedded Vimeo version, http://vimeo.com/88324309 (with comments); with comments]


--


Sen. Rand Paul: U.S. Must Take Strong Action Against Putin’s Aggression


Chip Somodevilla—Getty Images

In an op-ed for TIME, Senator Rand Paul argues that if he were President, he would take a harder stance against the Russian President for his actions: "Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community"

Sen. Rand Paul
March 9, 2014

Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community. His continuing occupation of Ukraine is completely unacceptable, and Russia’s President should be isolated for his actions.

It is America’s duty to condemn these actions in no uncertain terms. It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression.

Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation.

This does not and should not require military action. No one in the U.S. is calling for this. But it will require other actions and leadership, both of which President Obama unfortunately lacks.

I recommend a number of specific and decisive measures to punish Putin for his ongoing aggression.

Economic sanctions and visa bans should be imposed and enforced without delay. I would urge our European allies to leverage their considerable weight with Russia and take the lead on imposing these penalties. I would do everything in my power to aggressively market and export America’s vast natural gas resources to Europe.

I would immediately remove every obstacle or current ban blocking the export of American oil and gas to Europe, and I would lift restrictions on new oil and gas development in order to ensure a steady energy supply at home and so we can supply Europe with oil if it is interrupted from Ukraine.

Because of so many of our current needless laws and regulations, President Obama has left Europe completely vulnerable because of its dependence on Russian oil and gas.

I would support immediate construction of the Keystone Pipeline.

It is important that Russia become economically isolated until all its forces are removed from Crimea and Putin pledges to act in accordance with the international standards of behavior that respect the rights of free people everywhere.

We should also suspend American loans and aid to Ukraine because currently these could have the counterproductive effect of rewarding Russia. Ukraine owes so much money to Russia that America would essentially be borrowing from China to give to Russia.

The U.S. should suspend its participation in this summer’s G-8 summit and take the lead in boycotting the event in Sochi. If Putin’s troops remain in Crimea at the time of the summit, Russia should be expelled from the group.

I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic, only this time, I would make sure the Europeans pay for it. The problem with the foreign policies of both Democratic and Republican administrations is that they never give a second thought to how America can afford what they implement.

America is a world leader, but we should not be its policeman or ATM.

At the end of the day, I still agree with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen — the greatest threat to America’s security is our national debt.

Russia, the Middle East or any other troubled part of the world should never make us forget that the U.S. is broke. We weaken our security and defenses when we print money out of thin air or borrow from other countries to allegedly support our own.

Like Dwight Eisenhower, I believe the U.S. can actually be stronger by doing less.

Like Ronald Reagan, particularly regarding Russia, I also believe, “Don’t mistake our reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.”

I stand with the people of Ukraine against subjugation and support their efforts to restore freedom. The Ukrainian people must be free to determine the fate and future of their own nation without unwarranted military or political intimidation from Russia.

Reagan’s policy of “peace through strength” requires strength of the sort President Obama now fails to project. But what some American leaders, including some in my own party, often forget is that lasting peace was always Reagan’s ultimate objective.

I have said, and some have taken exception, that too many U.S. leaders still think in Cold War terms and are quick to “tweak” the international community. This is true.

But mutual respect and practical diplomacy is a two-way street, where Russia or any other nation should not be tweaking us, or their neighbors, either.

Putin’s invasion and occupation of Crimea certainly now go far beyond tweaking.

The U.S., in cooperation with the international community, should respond to Russia’s aggression with action.

The Budapest Memorandum said that Russia wouldn’t violate the integrity of Ukraine, but now it has. There is no realistic military option in this conflict, at least for the U.S. But this does not mean there aren’t options, many of which I’ve outlined here.

The real problem is that Russia’s President is not currently fearful or threatened in any way by America’s President, despite his country’s blatant aggression.

But let me be clear: If I were President, I wouldn’t let Vladimir Putin get away with it.

Paul is the junior U.S. Senator for Kentucky.

© 2014 Time Inc.

http://time.com/17648/sen-rand-paul-u-s-must-take-strong-action-against-putins-aggression/ [with comments]


--


Sen. Rand Paul on FOX News Sunday - 3/9/2014

Published on Mar 9, 2014 by John Doe

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) talks with Chris Wallace following CPAC 2014. Topics include Liberty, President Obama's record, Ted Cruz & a 2016 Presidential Run.

Recorded from FOX on Sunday, March 9th, 2014. No copyright infringement intended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBs47qQmG-I [with comment]


--


Oil corporations key to leverage over Russia

The Rachel Maddow Show
March 17, 2014

Amb. Michael McFaul, former United States ambassador to Russia, talks with Rachel Maddow about new sanctions levied by Europe and the United States against Russia for their actions in Crimea, and the likely retaliatory sanctions from Russia.

©2014 NBCNews.com

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/54705594#54705594 / http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/54705594 [with transcript; the above YouTube of the segment at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPZIe4G4Ncw (with comments), also at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu8CQJJJeYk (with comment)] [show links at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/links-the-317-trms (with comment)]


--


Putin grab also takes Russians out of Ukraine

The Rachel Maddow Show
March 18, 2014

Rachel Maddow reports on the recent political history within Ukraine and how Vladimir Putin's taking of Crimea changes Ukraine's political dynamics and actually hurts Russia's influence by changing the balance of pro-Russian Ukrainians.

©2014 NBCNews.com

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/54714701#54714701 / http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/54714701 [with transcript] [show links at (yes, misnamed) http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/links-the-319-trms-1 (with comment)]


--


Concerns over Ukraine military left in Crimea

The Rachel Maddow Show
March 18, 2014

Richard Engel, NBC News chief foreign correspondent, talks with Rachel Maddow about the danger of Vladimir Putin finding an excuse to go deeper into Ukraine and the risk of remaining Ukrainian forces in Crimea as a potential flashpoint for violence.

©2014 NBCNews.com

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/54714821/#54714821 / http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/54714821 [with transcript]; http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/concerns-over-ukraine-military-left-in-crimea-199520323985 [with comment] [show links at (yes, misnamed) http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/links-the-319-trms-1 (with comment)]


--


Scott Lively Blames Gays For Ukraine Crisis, Lauds Russia As Human Rights Leader Of The World

Submitted by Brian Tashman on Tuesday, 3/11/2014 11:20 am

Anti-gay pastor Scott Lively is standing with Russian president Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine crisis, hailing Putin’s government for cracking down on LGBT rights and becoming a “defender of true human rights.”

Writing today in WorldNetDaily [ http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/russia-set-to-supplant-u-s-as-human-rights-leader/ ], Lively said that LGBT equality in the US is destroying the Constitution and the rule of law, creating “special rights for favored groups” and putting America “in a death spiral of moral and ethical degeneracy.” In contrast, he writes, Russia “has begun embracing Christian values regarding family issues.”

“And this is why the greatest point of conflict between the U.S. and Russia is the question of homosexuality (I believe even the conflict in Ukraine is being driven to a large extent by this issue, at least on the part of the Obama State Department and the homosexualist leaders of the EU.),” Lively writes.

It is therefore obvious why America is in decline and Russia is on the ascendancy in the matter of human rights. America has largely turned her back on God, reorganized her government and culture on a statist model and is plummeting in a death spiral of moral and ethical degeneracy. As our collective former (Bible-based) values of self-restraint and personal responsibility steadily decline, external controls and surveillance by the new police state increase. The rule of law becomes the rule of man, and equal justice under law becomes special rights for favored groups.

Conversely, Russia has begun embracing Christian values regarding family issues, albeit imperfectly, in stark contrast to its aggressively godless Soviet past. Repression in Russia is decreasing as rapidly as it is increasing in the U.S.

The crux of the human-rights debate is what it means to be human. Russia appears to be returning to its pre-Soviet understanding that humans are made in the image of God, and that our “rights” are really duties of respect and care for each other imposed on us by Him. This is why the first principle of both the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights is the protection of the Christian church, from which the very concept of modern human rights emerged. And this is why the greatest point of conflict between the U.S. and Russia is the question of homosexuality. (I believe even the conflict in Ukraine is being driven to a large extent by this issue, at least on the part of the Obama State Department and the homosexualist leaders of the EU.)

There is no human right to sodomy to be found in nearly 4,000 years of human-rights jurisprudence. It is an invention of Cultural Marxists in the late 20th century and rests on their dangerous premise that the state, not God, grants us our rights. In fact, the “right” to sodomy is really an anti-right, because it can only be granted at the expense of the true human rights of religious freedom and family values. Thus, the first principle of the Magna Carta stood unbreakable in Britain for almost 800 years until the recent introduction of “sexual orientation regulations” (SORs), and the first principle of the First Amendment stood for over 200 years until SORs were passed here in the United States.

Today, both the Magna Carta and the First Amendment are deemed to be trumped by the “right to sodomy” in case after case, and pro-homosexual activist federal judges in the U.S. are striking down “Defense of Marriage” laws in the most morally conservative states in the union with brazen disregard for the Constitution and the will of the people.

I ask you, which is the greater threat to human rights: Russia’s law preventing homosexual activists from disseminating their propaganda to children, or the lawless decrees of these American federal judges? I submit that the former is not a threat at all, but a reaffirmation of true human rights (in that case the right of parents to raise their children according to their own values), while the latter is an egregious affront to liberty and an undermining of respect for the rule of law, which endangers all human rights.

Russia has a long way to go even to meet today’s tarnished standards in America, but if current trends hold, Russia will eventually supplant the U.S. as the greater defender of true human rights. Unfortunately, at the pace that our country is falling, that day may not be far off.

© 2014 People For the American Way

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/scott-lively-blames-gays-ukraine-crisis-lauds-russia-human-rights-leader-world


--


Lively: A Revolution Is Coming Because People Are 'Fed Up' With The Lawless 'Homosexual Agenda'

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Tuesday, 3/18/2014 12:41 pm

Scott Lively was a guest on Bryan Fischer's radio program yesterday [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sybnPwLBUSg ] to discuss his campaign for governor [ http://www.livelyforgovernor.com/ ] in Massachusetts but, of course, most of the interview revolved around Fischer's and Lively's mutual battle against the "homosexual agenda."

Lively asserted that America will soon undergo both a secular revolution and a simultaneous Christian revival because people are "fed up" with the "lawlessness" that is "exemplified by the homosexual agenda."

"Homosexuality always is used a symbol of extreme rebellion against God, on the verge of judgment," Lively said [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AoSL2jIz_I (next below, as embedded)]. "And that's where we are now in our country. It's a powder keg and I think we're going to see some real explosive changes are going to take place":

© 2014 People For the American Way

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/lively-revolution-coming-because-people-are-fed-lawless-homosexual-agenda


--


(linked in):

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39386755 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76925118 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93675334 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95846080 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=97414534 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=99048251 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=98076471 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=98132549 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=98240786 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=98511278 and
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=98526103 and
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=98797447 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=98885327 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=98958882 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=99017682 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=99043940 and preceding (and any future following)