Ukraine

[BedellBrave]

"After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Sen. Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's (Vladimir) Putin to invade Ukraine next."

Come on Sav, you can do it.

It really isn't hard.

"However she may have gotten that thought, she may have had a point there."

 

[The Tariff King]

So let me get this right... she's criticizing a sitting senator over something the current President wasn't handling and in the end she pulls Ukraine out of her hat and she was right?

Bed you are really really reaching on that. She's Mrs. Cleo of the modern day.

She predicted this move 6 years later. Unreal. What a savant.

 

[BedellBrave]

Or, maybe this will be even easier for you:

"However that dumb broad may have gotten that thought, she may have had a point there."

 

[The Tariff King]

Bed I'd imagine you're about 10 times smarter than Sarah. I have no idea why you defend and come to her rescue. She's an idiot only out to further her brand. She really really wanted to overshadow McCain on the night they lost. She demanded to do a vice presidential concession speech not in history before.

 

[BedellBrave]

So let me get this right... she's criticizing a sitting senator over something the current President wasn't handling and in the end she pulls Ukraine out of her hat and she was right?

Bed you are really really reaching on that. She's Mrs. Cleo of the modern day.

She predicted this move 6 years later. Unreal. What a savant.

1. She was criticizing her opponent in a presidential election.

2. I've criticized Bush already, so, let's stay focused.

3. Her point is in essence the same one Julio just made about Obama's reticence.

4. Georgia and Ukraine had been working in conjunction on a sort of former Soviet-bloc, Black Sea coalition. Tying Russian action in Georgia with possible future action in Ukraine, made good sense. It wasn't a "pulling it out of a hat."

Again, it really isn't a hard thing for you to do Sav.

 

[goldfly]

Or, maybe this will be even easier for you:

"However that dumb broad may have gotten that thought, she may have had a point there."

what's the saying

even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while

i don't think she knew **** about the Ukraine and didn't actually foresee this happening but even if that is false

i don't get why you and others are trying to bring her back into the light.

 

[BedellBrave]

Bed I'd imagine you're about 10 times smarter than Sarah. I have no idea why you defend and come to her rescue. She's an idiot only out to further her brand. She really really wanted to overshadow McCain on the night they lost. She demanded to do a vice presidential concession speech not in history before.

It's not about her Sav. It's about you - me - us.

 

[BedellBrave]

what's the saying

even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while

i don't think she knew **** about the Ukraine and didn't actually foresee this happening but even if that is false

i don't get why you and others are trying to bring her back into the light.

See gold can do it Sav.

 

[yeezus]

So she was right?

And if it was so easy to be right then, why was President Obama wrong?

And why was being right so easily, readily and quickly mocked?

What was Obama wrong about?

Palin stating that means so, so little it hurts my brain that it gets brought up repeatedly, as if it's some amazing feat.

First, she threw a lot of **** at the wall. One thing ended up sticking, and not really for any reason she saw.

She was technically correct, but not really fundamentally correct. It's not like she had some deep understanding of Ukraine and saw this coming. And the fact that so many are hanging her hat on this one statement she made 6 years ago is laughable, but when that's all you've got...

It's funny you bring up the "dumb broad" thing, as if liberal men have no respect for women. Sarah Palin is legit unintelligent. Hillary is not.

In short, her saying that means nothing to me. It doesn't make her some foreign policy genius, but she's dumb enough to think it does.

 

[jpx7]

I'm not concerned about her. My interest is in you guys.

Then why hammer this point?

I think Palin's an idiot—when I have the strength to care or think about her at all—and the fact that she may have said something that may have ended up adjacent to correct doesn't change that.

But any of our opinions regarding Sarah Palin are incredibly tangential to this discussion.

 

[yeezus]

Then why hammer this point?

Because they're tired of their pet being appropriately ragged on, and finally found something to hang her hat on.
That is seriously it. She has said so many stupid things, that when she's technically correct, but not fundamentally correct, it has to be blown up by them. Even though it mean absolutely nothing.

Bedell, do you believe this statement by Palin means she's a foreign policy wunderkind, and is more knowledgeable than the president?

 

[Hawk]

But any of our opinions regarding Sarah Palin are incredibly tangential to this discussion.

This.

And let this be a gender-oriented segue back to the topic at hand -- Ukraine crisis: Angry Angela Merkel questions whether Putin is 'in touch with reality' [Telegraph]

 

[50PoundHead]

I don't agree with all of this, but found the article interesting and somewhat in the same vein as what I wrote yesterday. You can sign up for a daily newsletter on the situation in the Ukraine at The New Republic. The magazine leans further to the left on foreign policy than it did when Martin Peretz was the publisher, but it's still fairly balanced and has no trouble dogging the President when they feel he needs to be dogged.

Link to article: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116859/putin-envy-and-american-conservatives

As for Palin, she's still in the neocon echo chamber and if that group needs a spokesperson, she likely gets a phone call. The press isn't going to listen to some mid-level analyst at Project for the New American Century. They want to talk to a celebrity and Palin is, if nothing else, a celebrity. She gets coverage if she f*rts in public. So yeah, what she said was correct, but it's a bit more complex than that.

 

[57Brave]

in the circles she runs in it is no more complicated!!

Yesterday Lindsey Graham equated the Ukraine and Benghazi. or Obamacare or Moms Jeans or whatever he is talking about
//

And this guy still gets airplay???

Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:10 AM PST
McCain: Obama's 1983 college essay on US-Soviet tensions proves he's to blame for Putin and Ukraine

by Jed LewisonFollow for Daily Kos

Email
67 Comments / 67 New

U.S. Senator John McCain speaks during a news conference at the U.S. embassy in Kabul January 2, 2014. REUTERS/Omar Sobhani (AFGHANISTAN - Tags: POLITICS) - RTX16ZTP
You've got to be Putin me on
Sarah Palin's political mentor speaks out:

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.

So McCain finds some 1983 essay that Obama wrote for a student newspaper while he was a senior at Columbia and decides that essay means Obama is responsible for Putin's actions in Ukraine? And if that's not ridiculous enough, McCain's whole spiel was centered less on what Obama (who was 21 at the time) actually said than it was on what a right-wing pundit's interpretation of the essay:

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.'"

A "nuclear free world"? The horrors! I know Sarah Palin might be disappointed by such a thing, what with her front-row seats to nuclear apocalypse and all, but c'mon John. Isn't it time for you to take a vacation?

 

[zitothebrave]

I have a question.

What's so drastically different about what Russia is doing in the Ukraine when compared to what we did to Iraq?

 

[Krgrecw]

Hmm let's see. We didn't stay and take over the country? Think that's a big difference.

 

[Krgrecw]

So What stops china from taking over the Japanese claimed islands that they are bickering over?

 

[50PoundHead]

I think we were trying to unseat a sitting government and the Russians are trying to re-install a toppled government.

I wonder if the dissidents now wish they would have accepted the truce?

 

[zitothebrave]

Hmm let's see. We didn't stay and take over the country? Think that's a big difference.

What do you call occupying a country for 8 years? And we still have what like 50,000 non-civilian personnel there or something like that?

Also what is to say Russia would stay there permanently? We're just gonna assume they will while assuming we weren't gonna stay in Iraq permanently.

 

[BedellBrave]

What was Obama wrong about?
Palin stating that means so, so little it hurts my brain that it gets brought up repeatedly, as if it's some amazing feat.
First, she threw a lot of **** at the wall. One thing ended up sticking, and not really for any reason she saw.
She was technically correct, but not really fundamentally correct. It's not like she had some deep understanding of Ukraine and saw this coming. And the fact that so many are hanging her hat on this one statement she made 6 years ago is laughable, but when that's all you've got...

It's funny you bring up the "dumb broad" thing, as if liberal men have no respect for women. Sarah Palin is legit unintelligent. Hillary is not.
In short, her saying that means nothing to me. It doesn't make her some foreign policy genius, but she's dumb enough to think it does.

You are a hoot Sav. But I'll take that as a concession.