Russia and the U.S. have two large, unresolved issues between them:
One is a U.S. missile defense system based in Europe that is for protection from Iran and any other rogue missile actors in the Mideast. Obama has already caved on that issue once. Although the Bush administration had gained permission from our allies in Eastern Europe to base the system in their territory, Obama, kowtowing to the Russians, scuttled that agreement just after taking office, though it now is back on the drawing board in light of his administration’s inability to stop the Iranian nuclear program despite his campaign boasts that he could do so by employing “vigorous diplomacy.”
The second issue is how to follow up the new START nuclear treaty with further arms reductions. But the Russians insist that the missile shield question be resolved first. The Russians are shrewd negotiators. They know that reducing nuclear arms is one of Obama’s highest priorities. They know he will “give away the store” on other issues in order to get his way on the one closest to his heart.
Indeed, the new START treaty already has slashed our strategic missile forces, even while allowing Russia to deploy more missiles. And Obama now wants to unilaterally cut our arsenal by a further 80 percent — even as Russia, China and lesser nuclear powers (such as Pakistan, North Korea and soon, Iran) are growing theirs. And even as he is purging Pentagon spending on conventional weaponry, like aircraft carriers and the F-22 and F-35 fighters.
And let’s not forget that earlier this month Obama announced he planned to give the Russians detailed technical info about the anti-missile system planned for Eastern Europe. He thinks that will quiet their objections. Fat chance.
And not only is he offering up such classified info, he’s not even asking for reciprocal sharing of such intelligence! Who’s to say that Putin or one of his Kremlin henchmen won’t just hand off that info to their friends in Iran or North Korea?
Obama faces the voters in November, but he implied to current Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the summit that he was reasonably confident of being reelected, and indicated that missile defense and arms reduction should be put on the back burner until after the election.
Unaware that his words were being picked up on an open mike, Obama told Medvedev, “On these issues, particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him (incoming President Vladimir Putin) to give me space.”
“Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you,” said Medvedev, sounding like a “Seinfeld” character.
Later in the exchange, Obama said, “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”
God forbid — a President Obama who would never again have to answer to voters.
It’s no wonder Putin and Medvedev smile when they see Obama coming. They know an easy mark when they see one.
Meanwhile, American voters should employ some of that “flexibility” Obama referenced and boot him out of the White House this fall.
Follow us on Twitter!
But when it comes to sitting down with his fellow countrymen and working toward a reasonable solution to our own well documented problems and issues he is largely inflexible and recalcitrant.
I get the distinct, uncomfortable feeling that he is, either purposely or naively, weakening our country both domestically and internationally.
Second, Obama has tried repeatedly to reach out to Republicans and has been rebuffed every time. When he was interviewed by 60 Minutes, here's what Speaker Boehner said:
"When Leslie Stahl noted that Boehner seemed "afraid of the word" compromise, he replied, "I reject the word."
How does anyone work with somebody who won't compromise?
By your own admission "diplomacy ALWAYS goes on backstage".
He has continually indicated that the opportunities for negotiation should be exhausted before seeking other more extreme solutions.
Which I happen to agree with.
But when it comes to Obama and his weak kneed, anemic attempts at negotiation are rejected, his preferred extreme solution seems to be our capitulation.
And I suspect that Boehner rejected the word compromise because when it comes to Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the unprincipled liberals in Congress because he knows they are lying through their teeth.
As for negotiating, go to the New York Times web site and look at the short video posted there today (Thursday) on how the great budget deal failed. It's 1 minute long. You'll see who is ready to compromise and who isn't.
"Weak kneed"? Tell that to bin Laden and the other dead AQ leaders.
If compromising means settling for accepting half or even a portion of a very bad idea then, of course, you don't compromise.
As they say "The devil is in the details."
As far as Bin Laden and those other AQ hoodlums are concerned. Good!! I'm glad they have been eliminated. I wish I could have the one who pulled the trigger or dropped the ordnance that ended their lives.
However I would venture to say that if the previous administration had not put the wheels in motion on those operations, Obama would have probably been apologizing to those guys, not hunting them down and killing them.
Besides, they are small potatoes when it comes to things like missle defense systems, nuclear terrorism, faithfulness to our ally's and other such major issues that have a huge impact on the future security and economy our country and the world.
That's where Obama is coming up woefully short.
"go to the New York Times web site and look at the short video posted there"
Now there is a totally objective viewpoint for you!!
The New York Times!!! You have got to be kidding!!
That's like tuning in to Rush Limbaugh to get an objective opinion on Obama.
At least Rush's "opinions" are his own and are not dictated word for word to him by someone else.
Reactionaries don't want us to negotiate or cultivate relationships with those with whom we disagree. They aren't interested in letting sanctions work. They want confrontation right now and when they don't get it they conclude Obama hates America.
Isn't it amazing how one can hate America but love what it provides you -- what you can take from it -- at the same time? This is a theme I'd like to see explored during this election.