Trying to play down the significance of a comment at Catallaxy Files

Trying to play down the significance of a comment

And in a non-issue minor matter just in, the American President told the Russian President, when he thought the microphones were turned off, that he will get to his real agenda on nuclear disarmament after the election is over. From the WSJ:

U.S. Prsident Barack Obama is trying to play down the significance of a comment, accidentally picked up by a live microphone, in which he cited his re-election campaign as the reason he won’t tackle the divisive issue of missile defense this year.. . .

‘This is my last election,’ Mr Obama said to Mr Medvedev. ‘After my election I have more flexibilitiy.’

Mr Medvedev, who will soon cede the Russian presidency to Valdimir Putin, replied: ‘I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.’

With the American media, anything damaging to Obama’s presidency is automatically played down. A Romney campaign director mentions that there is an etch-a-sketch restart to a campaign when the nomination process ends and the battle turns to dealing with Obama and the Democrats and this becomes an issue that goes on for days. Meanwhile the actual American President in a candid moment says as clearly as you like that as soon as this election is over, he can get back to undermining the defence of America, the West in general and us here in Australia in particular, and the issue is gone before it has even begun.

The President is what he is, a man of the moonbat far left. That is a major problem but the ongoing and neverending problem is that the media in the US is also of the moonbat far left. No issue like this ever becomes the issue it needs to become.

The infantile press, those university graduates who never grew up, still reliving their glory days of the protest movement, are a menace and a poison that continue to weaken us. That this candid statement from Obama did not open a wider and larger debate is probably even more worrying than the fact that he said what he said since that is what I think he thinks already. But that he says it and the US media goes to sleep over it, making it an invisible issue, something for me and for others who would never vote for Obama to begin with, means that the things that ought to be pivotal in this election are never going to be discussed.

Is this an important issue? Do Americans care about national defence? Do they care what Obama thinks? If so, with the media covering Obama’s tracks at every turn, we are never going to be allowed to find out.

Written by Steve Kates

March 29th, 2012 at 11:12 am

Posted in Uncategorized

132 Responses to 'Trying to play down the significance of a comment'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Trying to play down the significance of a comment'.

The infantile press, those university graduates who never grew up, still reliving their glory days of the protest movement, are a menace and a poison that continue to weaken us.

Yes, the press is a menace and a poison. A cancer that should be ripped out.

You make very sensible points, Kates.

Les Majesty

29 Mar 12 at 11:16 am
A cancer that should be ripped out.

You make very sensible points, Kates.

Where does Steve say that, Tillman?

Gab

29 Mar 12 at 11:18 am
The infantile economics lecturers, those university post-graduates who never grew up, still reliving their glory days of… um… are a menace and a poison that continue to publish rambling, incoherent screeds to no effect at all.

This is poor quality even by your low standards, Steve.

m0nty

29 Mar 12 at 11:29 am
That is a major problem but the ongoing and neverending problem is that the media in the US is also of the moonbat far left.

Such as Fox News, and the Wall Street Journal. Curse those useless lefty media outlets.

steve from brisbane

29 Mar 12 at 11:34 am
Just another sign in neon that the American MSM is poisonous.

Yjey are eactially even more egregiously leftist than ours.

But the MSM are fooling themselves.

This is the nail in the coffin of the woeful Obummer experiment and in the MSM credibility with now even more of the populace.

If the GOP opponent wasn’t likely Snoremitten, Obama’s loss could be Anna Bligh-like

JamesK

29 Mar 12 at 11:38 am
This is the nail in the coffin of the woeful Obummer experiment and in the MSM credibility with now even more of the populace.

JamesK did not notice in the Midweek Forum?:

President Barack Obama holds a double-digit lead over GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in hypothetical general election matchups, according to a new poll.

Of course, he might yet lose, but no one should be putting money on it.

steve from brisbane

29 Mar 12 at 11:42 am
I was at the gym earlier and I thought to myself, where’s Stepford and Monster these days because since the QLD purge I have seen these two numbskulls much.

And here they are.

JC

29 Mar 12 at 11:43 am
Commentor 1,3&4 dont see an issue in a President promising a “pay off” if another country lies doggo on a matter related to defence?

Now realpolitik is one thing, but promising a security related payoff if they dont make his re-election harder should be a major issue.

If you dont think this why?
Howard going “just stop any boats leaving Indo until my re-election, After my election I have more flexibilitiy”..

thefrollickingmole

29 Mar 12 at 11:44 am
The infantile economics lecturers, those university post-graduates who never grew up, still reliving their glory days of… um… are a menace and a poison that continue to publish rambling, incoherent screeds to no effect at all.

What is more infantile? Getting a Ph D in empirical research or running a fantasy football league?

You don’t have a leg to stand on fatso.

.

29 Mar 12 at 11:45 am
What is more infantile? Getting a Ph D in empirical research or running a fantasy football league?

You don’t have a leg to stand on fatso.

Amazing hubris Dot. Simply breathtaking. 40 kilos overweight and attitude.

JC

29 Mar 12 at 11:51 am
Bill Kristol:

Obama’s new comment is also revealing. What does Obama mean by saying that the current environment isn’t conducive to “thoughtful consultations” with the Pentagon, as well with Congress? Obama is, it seems, suggesting he’ll be able to override military advice more easily once he gets past the election. That’s good to know. And that his consultations with the Pentagon fall for Obama into the same category as negotiations with congressional leaders from the other party. This is revealing—and scary.

Finally, Obama doesn’t seem at all aware of how inappropriate his whole line of discussion with Medvedev was. It’s one thing to acknowledge election year imperatives when discussing domestic issues at home. It’s quite another to do so when discussing foreign policy with a foreign leader. A president of the United States, meeting with a foreign leader abroad, should surely maintain the posture that he’s acting in the best interests of the United States at all times. Others can explain election year considerations sotto voce if necessary. But it’s deeply inappropriate for the president to discuss election year considerations—especially with a foreign leader whose country is often hostile to U.S. interests. Obama’s comments are therefore not only an acknowledgment of his thorough politicization of American foreign policy. They also represent a self-inflicted diminution of the stature of the American president in the world.

Obama vincendus est.

Indeed.

We all know liar-steve™ is a typical numb-nut leftist but this Obama dialogue whilst patting Medvedev’s forearm will be prominent in the final weeks of the campaign.

It is devastating and the MSM know it.

JamesK

29 Mar 12 at 12:04 pm
JamesK, have you been in the pharmacy cabinet without authority again?

steve from brisbane

29 Mar 12 at 12:07 pm
Danielle Pletka on the Amerian Enterprise blog:

But the Obama whisper—like his previous open mike chat with French President Sarkozy letting on that he can’t stand Israeli PM Netanyahu—tells us more. Here are five lessons about the real etch-a-sketch president:

1. The Bibi-hating, Iran-failing, American-decline embracing Obama is not the real Obama. The real Obama is much worse.

2. Still, this Obama has no problem in allowing the same Russians who stole their latest election to think that he too lies to the American people in order to get reelected.

3. He has no intention of keeping his missile defense deal with Congress.

4. He is totally cool with the farce of Russian democracy, something Medvedev will also likely “tell Vladimir.”

5. He will say anything and work with anyone to further his reelection.

JamesK

29 Mar 12 at 12:12 pm
Even Snoremitten nailed it on consrvative talk-radio

HH: Your reaction, Governor Romney?

MR: Well, it is revealing, it is alarming, it’s troubling, it suggests that the President has a very different agenda with the Russians than he’s willing to tell the American people. And for that reason alone, we ought to vote him out of office. This is a very disconcerting development.

HH: What do you think he has in mind, Governor, when he says I will be flexible? Is it missile defense? It is the number of our warheads? Is it Iran? What is he talking about?

MR: Well, he says missile defense, but we’re talking about one of those two issues, either missile defense or warheads. What he’s done on warheads, of course, with the new START Treaty, he took warheads down to 1,500 on strategic nuclear weapons. Of course, the Russians were already at 1,500. They didn’t have to have any reductions. We were at 2,200. So the only reduction in his missile defense treaty was a reduction at the U.S. level. And of course, he ignored the tactical nuclear weapons, which are of course the same nukes. They’re just on smaller rockets. He ignored that, where Russia has an advantage of five or ten to one over us. So this is a president who continues to try and appease and accommodate, and believes that the best interests of America are to bow to the interests of Russia. And it’s very, very troubling, and I mean, I’m very disturbed by this. I hope the American people understand that what we heard from the President is revealing about his character in terms of what he tells the American people, and revealing about his direction and sentiment with regards to Russian, which is after all our number one geopolitical foe. They don’t represent a military threat to us at the present, but they oppose us at every turn in the United Nations, and oppose us in every one of our efforts, whether in Iraq or Iran, North Korea. They’re on the other side. And for him to be cozying up with them with regards to missile defense is simply unacceptable.

HH: How do you expect this aside from the President will be understood in Poland and the Czech Republic, and Ukraine, and Georgia, and other front line states facing a newly-expansive Russia?

MR: Well, I think our friends around the world have been reevaluating their relationship with the United States, in part because of this president’s treatment of friends relative to the treatment of enemies. I’ve heard from more than one foreign leader that it seems to be preferable to be an American foe than an American friend to this president.

HH: Now Governor Romney, the press will of course attempt to dismiss this as not a big issue. Will this remain a front line issue? And do you think that the President has got to spell out with great detail what he has in mind here?

MR: You know, I don’t think he can recover from it, to tell you the truth. I mean, I think he will try and spin something. But I don’t know how you spin from an open mic, where you’re talking about having more flexibility after the election, which means quite clearly that you don’t want the American people to hear what you’re really planning on doing, and that you’re going to be able to do more when you no longer are accountable to the American people. You know, the mainstream media may try and put this to bed, but we’re going to keep it alive and awake. And we’re going to keep hammering him with it all the way through November.

JamesK

29 Mar 12 at 12:17 pm
Powerline: Obama’s useful idiocy: A look back

At Politico, Jennifer Epstein reports Obama’s “explanation” of his comments to Medvedev, but they don’t explain much. The man is spinning as fast as he can. The story should come with an admonition: Quiet: BS artist at work. Obama “explained” that the remarks reflect his publicly stated desire to reduce nuclear weapons. Epstein doesn’t note that Obama’s comments to Medvedev singled out missile defense. You’d think that the folks who do this for a living would want a little more in the way of “explanation.”

JamesK

29 Mar 12 at 12:23 pm
What is more infantile? Getting a Ph D in empirical research or running a fantasy football league?

I would say that starting a small business, surviving the 90% fail rate and still going strong seven years later is pretty mature, Dot. Got any other ad homs, sonny Jim?

m0nty

29 Mar 12 at 12:28 pm
A parasitic small business that selectively respects IP law.

.

29 Mar 12 at 12:30 pm
Yeah!

Well done M0nty!

JamesK

29 Mar 12 at 12:30 pm
Fix the freaking site, Monster. It’s disgusting.

JC

29 Mar 12 at 12:30 pm
Isn’t the WSJ part of the MSM?

Stop whining about the media, Steve. They don’t have the power you ascribe to them. Drudge alone got Clinton impeached. The internet will do far more damage to Obama than the MSM.

Rococo Liberal

29 Mar 12 at 12:34 pm
monty – you’re mature? How old are you? 40? Do you want a fucking medal for that, pal?

.

29 Mar 12 at 12:41 pm
You always know with a Kates post that it will be an empiricism free zone.

His thesis is that the press has “gone to sleep” on Obama’s comments which “means that the things that ought to be pivotal in this election are never going to be discussed”.

Unfortunately, this is utter garbage.

The simplest of Internet searches shows that the New York Times itself has had at least ten – count ‘em, ten – articles focussing on Obama’s comments in the last two days, including a number focussing on the GOP’s response to his comments.

So Kates thesis is demonstrably false, and his conclusion that the press Is a “poison and a menace” sounds even more loony and hysterical.

Les Majesty

29 Mar 12 at 12:58 pm
Imagine if Bob Brown said that the “infantile press is a poison and a menace that continues to weaken us”.

Imagine how hysterical all the Catellaxetards would be. It would be a veritable festival of bed-wetting.

But Kates says it and no-one bats an eyelid.

Such phoneys you are.

Les Majesty

29 Mar 12 at 1:00 pm
Sorry, I know you lot don’t know how to do basic Internet searches, so for your edification here is the link showing the Times’ coverage of Obama’s comments:

http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=obama+medvedev&n=10&prev=0&frow=12&page=2

Les Majesty

29 Mar 12 at 1:02 pm
Sorry, should be:

http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=obama+medvedev&n=10&prev=0&frow=12&page=1

Les Majesty

29 Mar 12 at 1:02 pm
Wow, four in a row on the Tillman/Bird turkeymeter.

.

29 Mar 12 at 1:05 pm
A bad week for Les. Humiliated over quote doctoring. Obamacare about to be defeated in the SCOTUS and worst of all Apple reprimanded for lying and ~~quote doctoring~~ misleading.

Infidel Tiger

29 Mar 12 at 1:15 pm
No you are lying.

Les Majesty

29 Mar 12 at 1:19 pm
The Obama presidency is the smelly dog in the cage on the roof of the American national station waggon.

C.L.

29 Mar 12 at 1:21 pm
It needs to be hosed off at a truck stop.

Infidel Tiger

29 Mar 12 at 1:22 pm
Imagine if Bob Brown said that the “infantile press is a poison and a menace that continues to weaken us”.

He does in his own way. He refers to da hate media all the time.

People here have either laughed at those comments by the rabid loon or essentially ignored them.

However it became a different story when Mad Dog Bob decided he was going to force the lying Slapper to do something about da hate media with a “quiry.

Imagine how hysterical all the Catellaxetards would be. It would be a veritable festival of bed-wetting.

See above to references to da hate Media.

Oh and someone put up the vid one time when Mad Dog went hysterical in a press conference and we were all making fun of him.

But Kates says it and no-one bats an eyelid.

Such phoneys you are.

Lester, you’re over egging this. There is nothing wrong with using any word to describe media opponents. What is wrong is attempting to finkelsteinize da hate media.

Big fucking difference.

JC

29 Mar 12 at 1:22 pm
Meanwhile the actual American President in a candid moment says as clearly as you like that as soon as this election is over, he can get back to undermining the defence of America, the West in general and us here in Australia in particular, and the issue is gone before it has even begun.

Steve Very interested to know how that conclusion was reached. Some missiles on the other side of the world has nothing to do with us. If you mean putting US troops here might make us a target as the first thing China will do is point a nuclear weapon at Darwin (I would if I was them) then fair enough but an explanation is in order.

kelly liddle

29 Mar 12 at 1:27 pm
If you mean putting US troops here might make us a target as the first thing China will do is point a nuclear weapon at Darwin (I would if I was them) then fair enough but an explanation is in order.

Quick Kelly, surrender to the Chinese so they don’t nuke us!

You think the Chinese would nuke us to take out a couple of hundred US Marine Corpsmen?

Their ICMB stockpile is small. They would be a monumental waste of resources. Say what you like about the Chinese but they are not stupid.

.

29 Mar 12 at 1:34 pm
Reagan and Thatcher saw to it that the West defeated communism without firing a single shot.

Now Obummer is tryin’ to see to it that the Chinese and Russian thugocracies will defeat the West without firing a shot.

Besides they won’t need to.

Iran will.

I-will-inform-Vladimir and China will cheer from the sidelines.

JamesK

29 Mar 12 at 1:37 pm
Well tell us what you think Kates was referring to, dot?

Everyone from Les to RL can see that this was a silly post.

steve from brisbane

29 Mar 12 at 1:38 pm
Everyone except JamesK, that is. But his mood stabilisers haven’t kicked in yet.

steve from brisbane

29 Mar 12 at 1:39 pm
I’m sure the Americans are turning to blogs for their news these days, just as we are here in Australia.

Uber

29 Mar 12 at 1:50 pm
The really powerful thing about blogs is not that an individual blogster can break an important story, but that blogs act like one stop shops, referring the reader to the best stories around. They’ve become the Webjets and Wotifs of the news world.

Uber

29 Mar 12 at 1:52 pm
More improved polling for Obama:

President Barack Obama is benefiting from an improving economy – and from the fact that most voters don’t blame him for rising gasoline prices, according to a new Quinnipiac poll of key swing states.

It’s a media conspiracy.

steve from brisbane

29 Mar 12 at 1:52 pm
The Soviet Union was never defeated by external forces.

Its elite took a look in particular at China’s growth, and their stagnation, and realized they were on a path of self-destruction.

If only the American elite were capable of such self-reflection.

Max Scream

29 Mar 12 at 1:53 pm
What a beat up.

Catallaxy readers must actually believe Obama is a Nigerian communist atheist muslim.

Sr Kates, is it really that hard to believe that the US and Russian Federation have ongoing discussions on arms control? And have done so under every President including the sainted Reagan?
Or did you think Obama just happened to be in Prague one day and signed the new START treaty?

Mark P

29 Mar 12 at 2:03 pm
Catallaxy readers must actually believe Obama is a Nigerian communist atheist muslim.

Kenyan. Otherwise correct.

Infidel Tiger

29 Mar 12 at 2:06 pm
Kenyan lesbian. You forgot that bit.

Gab

29 Mar 12 at 2:06 pm
And you forgot – homo.

Infidel Tiger

29 Mar 12 at 2:06 pm
Kenyan. Otherwise correct.

Ah yes, thankyou. Kenyan indeed.

Mark P

29 Mar 12 at 2:07 pm
Obama is a gay Muslim Marxist who raised his grandma from the dead.

.

29 Mar 12 at 2:08 pm
Rasmussen, Wednesday, March 28, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 28% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends).
….

In a hypothetical 2012 matchup, President Obama leads Mitt Romney leads by a single percentage point, 45% to 44%. If Rick Santorum is the GOP nominee, the president leads 47% to 43%.

8 months out and steve is a fvckwit.

8 hours before and 8 hours after steve will still be a fvckwit

Well… unless God decides in the interim that He so loves the world, that He sacrifices His one and only conservative catholic liar, stevefb that collective sanity be saved

JamesK

29 Mar 12 at 2:08 pm
Sr Kates, is it really that hard to believe that the US and Russian Federation have ongoing discussions on arms control? And have done so under every President including the sainted Reagan?

Pee, but why does the Kenyan need to wait until after he’s “reelected?”

Can you please explain the ‘strategy’ behind that strategy?

JC

29 Mar 12 at 2:08 pm
Obama is a gay Muslim Marxist who raised his grandma from the dead.

Then he through her under the bus.

Infidel Tiger

29 Mar 12 at 2:09 pm
Obama is a gay Muslim Marxist who raised his grandma from the dead.

…and lowered sea levels.

Gab

29 Mar 12 at 2:09 pm
Obama budget defeated 414-0

Alex Pundit

29 Mar 12 at 2:11 pm
… and lowered sea levels.

In all 57 States…

Rabz

29 Mar 12 at 2:12 pm
In all 57 States…

…especially in the great state of Hawaii now located in Asia.

Gab

29 Mar 12 at 2:14 pm
Pee, but why does the Kenyan need to wait until after he’s “reelected?”

Can you please explain the ‘strategy’ behind that strategy?

Let me enlighten you with some showers of gold, Jayzee.
Vladimir Putin, and even blind Freddie can see the insanity and political opportunism of the hard right in the US. You only have to look at the hysteria surrounding the START treaty ratification during the 2010 election. It’s as if Republicans actually WANT more Russian nuclear weapons pointed at the US.
Obama has been up front about wanting further arms control in continuation of what used to be a bipartisan policy. Cheap politics mean it’s not a possibility until after the election. Nothing is going to pass congress, so the only chance he’s got is a better congressional result in 2012.

Mark P

29 Mar 12 at 2:15 pm
Pee, but why does the Kenyan need to wait until after he’s “reelected?”

Because otherwise the venal morons in the GOP will play political funny buggers with national security for the sake of scoring points.

Les Majesty

29 Mar 12 at 2:16 pm
Because otherwise the venal morons in the GOP will play political funny buggers with national security for the sake of scoring points.

Fme Les – even for you – that is woefully pissweak.

JamesK

29 Mar 12 at 2:17 pm
Pee,

It is difficult to see that you would have supported President Kennedy over the Cuban missile crisis.

Here’s a simple principle. The US is a democracy with a free press. They have dibs on nukes. Russia would also find it a lot harder to fund nuclear arms development. Now has Russia developed new weapons since 2010?

.

29 Mar 12 at 2:19 pm
Because otherwise the venal morons in the GOP will play political funny buggers with national security for the sake of scoring points.

I hear Jimmy Carter cancelled the B-1B for the same reasons.

.

29 Mar 12 at 2:20 pm
Oh thanks fellas, I get it.

The Kenyan believes that the American people are too stupid to understand his strategy and that they will only be gulled into the GOP’s hysteria over a decision, so he needs to keep things under wraps, lie by omission and then when/if elected he will jam it through that way.

Great. That will work.

JC

29 Mar 12 at 2:21 pm
Pee,

It is difficult to see that you would have supported President Kennedy over the Cuban missile crisis.

Here’s a simple principle. The US is a democracy with a free press. They have dibs on nukes. Russia would also find it a lot harder to fund nuclear arms development. Now has Russia developed new weapons since 2010?

Punctuation mark,
If you don’t know what you are talking about or any facts, why bother making a comment?

Mark P

29 Mar 12 at 2:21 pm
Nothing is going to pass congress, so the only chance he’s got is a better congressional result in 2012.

Pee,

He never spoke about the congress. He spoke about himself be reelected. You’re just adding shit in as you go along.

Stop it.

JC

29 Mar 12 at 2:23 pm
Great. That will work.

Bluddee oath. Start programming the teleprompter.

Rabz

29 Mar 12 at 2:23 pm
Oh thanks fellas, I get it.

The Kenyan believes that the American people are too stupid to understand his strategy and that they will only be gulled into the GOP’s hysteria over a decision, so he needs to keep things under wraps, lie by omission and then when/if elected he will jam it through that way.

Great. That will work.

Why don’t you have a sensible discussion for a change. Nothing is going to pass the current congress, so why bother?
BTW, he’s a politician who wants reelection just in case you were wondering.

Mark P

29 Mar 12 at 2:23 pm
Pee,

He never spoke about the congress. He spoke about himself be reelected. You’re just adding shit in as you go along.

Stop it.

Jayzee,
Just so you know, treaties require congressional approval.
Just for your educational benefit.

Mark P

29 Mar 12 at 2:25 pm
Ah Pee, you’re such a military genius you don’t think tactical nuclear weapons matter.

Here’s a clue: Russian submarines and heavy bombers.

That was the concern of the conservatives, fuckwit.

.

29 Mar 12 at 2:27 pm
Senate approval, you stupid, pretentious [edited. Sinc].

.

29 Mar 12 at 2:27 pm
Senate approval, you stupid, pretentious twat.

.

29 Mar 12 at 2:28 pm
Jayzee,
Just so you know, treaties require congressional approval.
Just for your educational benefit.

Not “congressional approval” as in the House of Reps fvckwit.

Only space cadet Harry Reid’s approval before mid January 2013

JamesK

29 Mar 12 at 2:29 pm
Pee

Treaties may, but moving shit around or mothballing military assets is the president’s power within reason. That’s what the Kenyan was referring to, you dill.

He doesn’t need the fucking Congress for that.

JC

29 Mar 12 at 2:29 pm
Actually Dot, James

I don’t think the prez requires any approval to mothball stuff. He can turn to the military and demand they de0militarize all the nukes if he wanted to theoretically.

JC

29 Mar 12 at 2:31 pm
…most voters don’t blame him for rising gasoline prices…

Poll: 68% disapprove of Obama on gas prices.

C.L.

29 Mar 12 at 2:32 pm
Pee

Treaties may, but moving shit around or mothballing military assets is the president’s power within reason. That’s what the Kenyan was referring to, you dill.

He doesn’t need the fucking Congress for that.

No you fool – he was referring to missile defense shield.

Mark P

29 Mar 12 at 2:33 pm
What moral, economic or strategic reason should America remove the NMD?

If Russia doesn’t like it…then they can disarm.

Like I said. The US is a democracy with a free press. They, and any other free country have dibs on WMD.

What kind of moral failure believes otherwise?

.

29 Mar 12 at 2:35 pm
I hear Jimmy Carter cancelled the B-1B for the same reasons.

The Bone was a turkey. It should have been scrapped.

The GOP’s hard on for strategic bombers gives the lie to their claims for fiscal prudence.

Les Majesty

29 Mar 12 at 2:35 pm
Like I said. The US is a democracy with a free press. They, and any other free country have dibs on WMD.

Interesting. You’re cool for Bolivia to have nuclear weapons.

Mark P

29 Mar 12 at 2:39 pm
The B-1B was a Turkey?

Fuck me you come up with some utter crap Les. It has a very good radar cross section and payload characteristics. It can be used in conventional warfare as well. It can do everything the B-52 can with ALCMs but with more speed and lower observability. Hell, it is still airworthy.

.

29 Mar 12 at 2:39 pm
True JC.

There need be no treaty for Onbummer to fvck over missile defence a second time.

He needed no consultation with the Pentagon much less a treaty the last time he sideswiped the Czechs and Poles.

A Traty is a bilateral agreement.

Obummer is the unilateral type appeaser.

Most appeasers are.

JamesK

29 Mar 12 at 2:40 pm
The GOP’s hard on for strategic bombers gives the lie to their claims for fiscal prudence.

It’s an important part of the arsenal in the case of a first strike against the continental US. It’s stupid to be giving that advantage away.

JC

29 Mar 12 at 2:41 pm
Pee – tell me why Boliva can’t but Gadaffi era Libya was on the UN security council? Tell me why Boliva is a joke but the dear leader etc basically barter for grain etc with threats of nuclear war every two years?

What a crock of shit.

.

29 Mar 12 at 2:47 pm
Pee – tell me why Boliva can’t but Gadaffi era Libya was on the UN security council? Tell me why Boliva is a joke but the dear leader etc basically barter for grain etc with threats of nuclear war every two years?

What a crock of shit.

I think it’s fascinating you think Evo Morales should have nuclear weapons. I wonder what Chile would have to say about it. No doubt Chavez would be ecstatic.

Mark P

29 Mar 12 at 2:48 pm
Les only approves of bombers if they’re incinerating Japense children.

C.L.

29 Mar 12 at 2:49 pm
QUESTIONING OBAMA’S ‘SECRET PLANS’

ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO FACE CRITICISM FOR OBAMA-MEDVEDEV EXCHANGE ON FUTURE U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE CONCESSIONS

House Speaker John Boehner joined a growing chorus of critics concerned over President Obama’s secret promise of concessions to Russia on missile defense after the November elections.

The administration came under fire from an independent, and a senior Pentagon official was sharply questioned at a House hearing.

In a letter to the president, House Speaker John Boehner said he was “alarmed” by the message sent to incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin through Medvedev.

“I and other members of the House have previously expressed concern about your administration’s apparent willingness to make unilateral concessions to Russia that undermine our missile defense capabilities,” he said. “Your comments reinforce those worries.

“It is troubling that you would suggest to Russian leaders that their reckless ambition would be rewarded with greater ‘flexibility’ on our missile defense program after the upcoming election,” he wrote. “That has significant implications for the security of our homeland, sends a terrible signal to our allies around the world, and calls into question the effectiveness of your ‘reset’ policy with the Russian government.”

JamesK

29 Mar 12 at 2:57 pm
Bullshit Dot. The Bone should have been boned.

Tell me how much it cost, how many bombs it has put on target, and how much it cost on average to deliver each ton of ordnance.

Perhaps you could also tell me how much the Bone has been used in the two gulf wars and Afghanistan?

It was absolutely unnecessary for the purpose of maintaining a strategic deterrent.

The only conceivable good the Bone delivered was in convincing the Sovs that Reagan was mad enough to bankrupt the US in order to maintain an edge in strategic nukes.

Gosh I love hearing “fiscal conservatives” cream their jeans over useless and expensive weapons projects.

Les Majesty

29 Mar 12 at 3:08 pm
Don’t pull this shit on me Tillman. I reckon the US could have defence spending with no capability reduction. I’ve already told Kelly to calm the fuck down and the idea of someone invading the US is laughable given a “successful” invader after a nuclear war would be fighting 40-45 divisions of reserve infantrymen to the death.

The B-1B costs about 1/8 as much as a B-2 and can carry more cruise missiles. Now Tillers unless you bone a ship and an AFB, both have fixed costs but the cost of a frigate dropping cruise missiles on a recalcitrant’s palace is a lot more than doing so out of a bomber, unless you want to intimidate them into being civil in the first place. A ship requires a few hundred people and a lot more fuel. As well as escorts on the surface, undersea and in the air.

I’m going to have data on USAF bombing rates? As if Tillman. It is absurd you ask this then chip me for getting a fact on insurance conflated.

.

29 Mar 12 at 3:18 pm
could half

Sorry.

.

29 Mar 12 at 3:18 pm
FUCK

halve

.

29 Mar 12 at 3:21 pm
Oh, I am sure the media will ask Pres Obama exactly what he meant by those comments at an appropriate time. Most people would consider an appropriate time to be the next press conference or during a presidential debate with Mitt Romney. But the press will most likely decide its a great question to ask after Obama has left office.

John Comnenus

29 Mar 12 at 3:54 pm
The New START treaty was low-hanging fruit, Mark Pee. Hardly a feat of great diplomacy – even you could have negotiated a deal. Why? Because once the Americans were ready to sign on, the Russians were only too happy to follow suit, because it was about bringing the USA to parity with them.

Now, if Obama had the stones (he doesn’t) or the inclination (ditto), he’d start agitating strongly for a treaty on tactical nuclear weapons limitation. The Russians aren’t so keen on this because they have traditionally favoured tactical nuke production, and the Americans strategic nukes, and consequently they have many more tactical warheads than the Americans.

Oh come on

29 Mar 12 at 4:46 pm
You think the Chinese would nuke us to take out a couple of hundred US Marine Corpsmen?

Dot If there is a ship that regularly parks there and is capbable of carrying nuclear war heads then yes. Remember the rhetoric was talking about keeping sea lanes open what on earth is that about? Iron ore is of national security interest to the Chinese as they have stated so no way in hell they will be blocking any sea lanes so who is considering blocking them? Sort of think they would not want to cut oil supplies off from themselves either but US is saying they are considering cutting some oil supplies to our region how generous of them.

kelly liddle

29 Mar 12 at 4:51 pm
China bombs Darwin? They’d get a Darwin award for such an action.

Oh come on

29 Mar 12 at 4:54 pm
Pee brain

Where is McRdle’s piece wrong to suggest Elizabeth Warren is a lying, dishonest sack of turd.

Elizabeth Warren has another study out showing that medical expenses contribute to more than half of all bankruptcies–indeed, this time, it’s 70%, up from the 50% she found in 2001.

Now, it is possible that this is true. The fact that it seems to disagree with every other study I’ve ever read that is not authored by Elizabeth Warren, and also, the self-reports of the people in her study (only about a third of whom attribute their bankruptcy to a health problem) could just be a fluke. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong.

Yet upon closer examination, it turns out that it is not just wrong, but actively, aggressively wrong. Warren and her co-authors have obscured important and obvious facts that call the integrity of the work into serious question.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabeth-warren-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-utterly-misleading-bankruptcy-study/18827/

And

So why am I so angry about Elizabeth Warren’s study? Aren’t I just miffed because, as one commenter put it, she has “failed to present her results in the way most congenial to libertarian ideology?”

Er, no. The world is full of studies that do this. I get mad at only a minority of their authors. I am mad, first of all, because Elizabeth Warren is not a third-year statistically illiterate policy analyst at a health care advocacy group. She’s a professor at Harvard, and the head of the Congressional TARP oversight panel. This conveys a certain responsibility to present data in the most illuminating way, not in the way that will induce journalists to say things that aren’t true.

And they have done just that. Read a sampling of the stories about this study on Google News. It’s clear that none of the authors of the stories I’ve read understand that we’re talking about a smaller absolute number of medical bankruptcies, representing a larger proportion of a much smaller overall number: that this increase in the proportion could at least as easily have been driven by less need for non-medical bankruptcy, than by bigger, scarier medical bills. Indeed, many of the stories indicate that medical bankruptcies have risen since 2001, which is not true even according to Warren’s figures.

I submit that the study is designed to get that result from journalists. Readers have responded that my criticism is out of line, because after all, they only talk about the proportion, so who am I to say they’re misleading the readers?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/why-elizabeth-warrens-new-bankruptcy-study-is-so-bad/18835/

Warren is a truly contemptible person, possibly on par with repugnant Rhiannon.

JC

29 Mar 12 at 6:32 pm
Wrong Fred.

JC

29 Mar 12 at 6:34 pm
Yeah Kelly, they will really be worried about one battalion of American marines in Australia. Usually the reason the anti Americans give for opposing the US alliance is because they want an independent foreign policy. Now they tell us that the alliance, which helped liberate China from Japan in WWII is too provocative for China. Why does China get a say in our foreign policy? Traded with them but that’s all. They are a vicious, imperial one party state that props up some of the most despicable regimes in the world. They spread corruption and misery everywhere they go in the third world. China can get fucked in my view. This should not be confused with any concern about Chinese people, who are generally excellent.

John Comnenus

29 Mar 12 at 6:35 pm
John
It depends on the hardware they couldn’t care less about a few soldiers but they could if there are nuclear weapons stationed here which there may be. Not suggesting there will be any conflict but if there was. In other words what are they doing here?

Why does China get a say in our foreign policy?

They don’t and nor do we as we only follow the US and do as we are told.

US soldiers being here is provocative to Indonesia not China. We are in reality no where near China compared to Korea or Japan.

kelly liddle

29 Mar 12 at 6:53 pm
This should not be confused with any concern about Chinese people, who are generally excellent.

Well, you need to make the distinction between HK/Macau and Taiwan and the mainland, and what Australians know as ‘the Chinese’ are people very often from HK, Taiwan, or were part of a Chinese ethnic group in a SE Asian state and NOT recently from the mainland.

I’ve lived in mainland China and visited HK and Macau extensively. Sadly, I have to say that the Maoist communist system and its “free market” fascist successor has resulted in the reality that a great many Chinese mainlanders are far from excellent and I would even go so far to say that such folk are not nice or good people. Consider the rather ugly way the rich often treat ordinary people, or even the at best totally aloof way customers treat service workers. Then there’s the common “me first, me only, as far as I’m concerned you don’t exist” attitude that strangers have towards each other in public places and on the road (the way they drive – my god), the deeply entrenched system of public-private patronage that fuels mammoth injustice and bitter resentment…I could go on.

Oh come on

29 Mar 12 at 7:00 pm
US soldiers being here is provocative to Indonesia

Absolute and total bullshit. We are not a threat to Indonesia, nor they to us. If anything, they are happy to see us secured by strong alliances.

wreckage

29 Mar 12 at 7:19 pm
Kelly, are you being realistic?

“Some missiles on the other side of the world has nothing to do with us.”

The fact that these warheads are on missiles means they can be over here, on this side of the world, in about an hour.

Winston Smith

29 Mar 12 at 7:22 pm
Even if that were correct (and I doubt it), who gives a shit? What are the Indos gunna do in a worst case scenario? Invade? hahahahaha good luck with that. They wouldn’t even make it over the Timor Sea.

Oh come on

29 Mar 12 at 7:25 pm
The Indonesian gov’t soak up most of their military power holding their thousands of islands, hundreds of languages, and dozens of cultures into one barely-functioning state. They don’t have the capacity to invade.

wreckage

29 Mar 12 at 7:40 pm
oco…..

I have wondered for quite a while now what the scenario would be should ‘the boats’ miss Christmas Island completely and land on the mainland coast up north.
We seem to have only intermittent occupation, and even more intermittent aerial coastal surveillance. So when they land, and dial 000, we will pay to “rescue” them?

Same with an invasion force??

like you, hahahahahah

hzhousewife

29 Mar 12 at 7:45 pm
Kelly, you are hysterical. The US won’t be storing any nuclear weapon here. Nuclear armed vessels may visit, like they have done for some time here and do elsewhere.

By not allowing the US troops here because China is upset, you are giving China a say in our foreign policy. Our alliance with the US goes back to 1942 or 70 years. Why is China now upset that we are in a long term alliance with the US? That alliance is older than the People’s Republic of China.

China can butt out and leave us to make our own decisions about our sovereign terrritory.

Kelly do you know that the Sinagaporeans store an armoured brigade’s heavy equipment here including lots of tanks. Are you aware that they do all their fixed wing and rotary wing pilot training here? I am pretty sure they fly on their own eqipment. So Singapore has more stuff he than the US proabably does. Is that infuriating the Chinese or threatening the Indonesians or Malays?

Re Chinese people, I m going off my experience of the ones I have met here. I know they have the supremacist middle earth concept with respect to us barbarian unter menschennen.

John Comnenus

29 Mar 12 at 8:22 pm
I’m not talking about that. A lot of people who identify themselves as being members of an especially ancient culture feel similarly. Think the Egyptians, Iranians, the Jewish…and I don’t think that’s especially harmful.

No, I’m talking about the modern Chinese mainlander, sadly afflicted by 60+ years of communism.

Many HK Chinese call them locusts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueNr7mfFZu8

Oh come on

29 Mar 12 at 9:12 pm
hzhousewife
Just get out an atlas and have a look at where Christmas Island is and have a look at where mainland northern Australia is in relation to Indonesia — not possible in the rubb-a-dubb boats in which Centrelink-seekers put out to sea.

Calpurnia's Cat

29 Mar 12 at 9:54 pm
Interesting video by Dick Morris about how polling works.

And why to only trust Rasmussen.

Alex Pundit

29 Mar 12 at 10:29 pm
Carter cancelled not the B-1B but its high-level supersonic prototype the B-1A. Reagan resurrected the B-1 program, which was developed as a low-level, high-subsonic strategic nuclear-armed penetrator with secondary conventional capability (the B-1B). AFAIK unlike the -A, the -B is no longer supersonic (and certainly no longer Mach 2 capable) as the engine intake geometry won’t allow it.

There is a definite school of thought that the high-level supersonic bomber’s day is long since done, and it’s a valid POV, but (again AFAIK) that’s not why Carter pulled the plug on the B-1A.

perturbed

29 Mar 12 at 10:41 pm
Wreckage
If you knew anything our fighter planes can’t even fly to Indonesia and make it back are our RAAF kamakazis are they? Indonesia has better planes than us which could bomb darwin at least and go home. So it is very provocative to Indonesia there will now be a force operating that can invade at will. Having nuclear armed vessels visit is different to stationed.

John
I know that the Singaporeans do there training here and have a base at Oakey. This would not annoy the Indonesians you can hardly launch an attack from southern QLD. Tanks are defensive no body cares about tanks in this region as they would probably be useless invading a mountainous tropical country.

The fact that these warheads are on missiles means they can be over here, on this side of the world, in about an hour.

Winston
And as everyone has just said China wouldn’t even bother pointing a nuclear weapon at us even if we have nuclear armed vessels based here, even though I dissagree I can’t see anyone else bothering to point a nuclear weapon in our direction. So who exactly would want to send a missile here?

kelly liddle

29 Mar 12 at 11:10 pm
That’s not the point I was making Kelly, and I find it difficult to figure out what yours is.
Missiles can go in damn near any direction. It depends on which way they are aimed.
You pointed out that these missiles were on the other side of the world.
I’m pointing out that they go wherever they’re pointed. I’m not suggesting that they will come here, I am saying they can come here.

Kelly, you’re not making any sense at all with your comment about tanks. Can you try again?

Winston Smith

29 Mar 12 at 11:37 pm
Indonesia has better planes than us which could bomb darwin at least and go home. So it is very provocative to Indonesia there will now be a force operating that can invade at will.

First up, there is no logical connection there. Drop the word “so” and you have two coherent (but wrong) sentences. Keep it in and you have very confused thinking.

Invading Indonesia would be in the ball park of the War in the Pacific, just smaller in scale. No Indonesian pollie or strategist who is not out of his fucking MIND on psychedelic drugs would seriously think the USA has either the motive or will to invade.

Indonesia could bomb Darwin and go home. Which would gain it what territory, what wealth? There is no motive. They won’t do it. Cost: possible retaliatory bombing by the USA. Benefit: bombed Darwin.

I bolded some words so I can point out the error in your next stupid argument.

wreckage

29 Mar 12 at 11:56 pm
Kelly, you’re not making any sense at all with your comment about tanks. Can you try again?

Winston
That was just in reply to John saying the Singaporeans keep some tanks here and I am just saying tanks are in no way threatening to anyone, just getting them to another country would be difficult. I Get your point about the missiles.

kelly liddle

29 Mar 12 at 11:59 pm
Wreckage to use the same arguement Winston used against me I didn’t say they would invade us only that they could bomb Darwin. The Indonesians would be concerned about the US being here because the US is known to drop bombs on terrorist camps etc. which they would be afraid might happen. It would not be considered a high risk but a risk.

kelly liddle

30 Mar 12 at 12:05 am
“…the Singaporeans keep some tanks here and I am just saying tanks are in no way threatening to anyone, just getting them to another country would be difficult.”

Kelly, the military practice that stuff. A lot.

Winston Smith

30 Mar 12 at 12:18 am
Wreckage to use the same arguement Winston used against me I didn’t say they would invade us only that they could bomb Darwin.

My understanding is that this is irrelevant to the argument. I assert that they do not want to nor can they invade us. We (including our allies) do not want to nor could we invade them.

The Indonesians would be concerned about the US being here because the US is known to drop bombs on terrorist camps etc. which they would be afraid might happen. It would not be considered a high risk but a risk.

The US can and would launch its attack from naval or air assets that would be in the region even if Terra Australis had never existed. We are irrelevant to the possibility of that kind of attack and irrelevant to its likelihood.

The USA would not launch an attack on a terrorist camp in Indonesia. The Indonesians would.

It would not be considered a high risk but a risk.

The risk would be considered negligible, and the shared ties to Australia of Indonesia and the USA make such an attack less likely, not more so.

When was the last time the USA launched an attack against the will and in the territory of a major trade partner and peaceful neighbour of a friendly, allied, English-speaking nation?

Finally, I reiterate, US presence permanent or transient makes no difference whatsoever to their ability to make minor, remote strikes against terrorist camps in Indonesia.

wreckage

30 Mar 12 at 12:24 am
Kelly’s obviously never heard of Butterworth.

Oh come on

30 Mar 12 at 12:50 am
Winston
even if they do practice stuff a lot it is very hard to move tanks without overwhelming force or doing it using camoflouge like loading up a cattle ship with tanks. I mean in an attack type situation.

Wreckage
agree with what you said but still think the Indonesians would prefer less US soldiers in Aus not more. Think if it was the other way and Russia or China had a base with the Indonesians, even if it was only a small number of troops it would concern us.

kelly liddle

30 Mar 12 at 12:50 am
Kelly’s obviously never heard of Butterworth.

A previously Australian base which is now Malaysian.

kelly liddle

30 Mar 12 at 12:52 am
That was quick, Kelly. Wiki really is fast.

Anyway, yes we can and do still use it. In the event that we needed to bomb Indonesia, there’s more than a reasonable chance we could use it for such purposes.

Oh come on

30 Mar 12 at 12:54 am
nah had read up on it before

kelly liddle

30 Mar 12 at 12:56 am
ie. if Indonesia had turned to shit bad enough that we needed to bomb them, I suspect the Malaysians would be crapping themselves, too, and be all too happy to allow the constant Australian presence at Butterworth to strike Indonesian targets.

Alternatively, the Singaporeans would help a brother out with one of their bases.

Oh come on

30 Mar 12 at 12:56 am
If you say so, Kels.

Oh come on

30 Mar 12 at 12:57 am
OCO

Of no use to bomb Jakarta too far for our planes.

kelly liddle

30 Mar 12 at 12:58 am
hey I think this has all got a bit off track now lol. So I will leave it at that.

kelly liddle

30 Mar 12 at 1:00 am
but still think the Indonesians would prefer less US soldiers in Aus not more. Think if it was the other way and Russia or China had a base with the Indonesians

You’re assuming that Indonesia views the USA the same way we view China. Indonesia doesn’t. They view China the way we view China, only much more so.

wreckage

30 Mar 12 at 1:06 am
Indonesia has “better planes” that can bomb Darwin without any interception?

Do you realise we have air to air refueling?

Jesus Christ Liddle, WHAT are you smoking?

Good old wiki. They have ten F-16s and six Su27s and six Su 30s. The F-35 and Super Hornet would smoke these BVR before they would be threatened themselves with proper coordination from an AWACS.

.

30 Mar 12 at 2:18 am
The issue has been very widely reported by the press; that is how we all know about it. Thus I can’t understand what the press did wrong.

I thought what Obama said was pretty damaging, but it appears that Americans have more pressing concerns. After all, they know these things are done all the time (and if they didn’t, they get this from WikiLeaks).

But it was hilarious. Including Medvedev’s reply, and its tone.

Boris

30 Mar 12 at 4:39 am
US soldiers being here is provocative to Indonesia not China.

Kelly I am sure you can do better than this. Indonesia is an ally of the US and I wouldn’t be surprised if they allowed US ships too. Or wait, maybe this will upset Australia?

Boris

30 Mar 12 at 4:46 am
Surely Kelly knows that China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea extend all the way to Indonesia. The only force between the Chinese Navy and Indonesia is the US Navy. The US is becoming more and morepopular in South East Asia as China presses its claims south. Even Vietnam wants to align with the US. A much bigger strategic problem is if the US goes bust and dramatically winds back it’s military in our part of the world. Everyone rightly worries about China’s expansion.

John Comnenus

30 Mar 12 at 7:12 am
Yes John. Taiwan is separate to China now. The Spratleys are far more contentious.

.

30 Mar 12 at 10:51 am
Kelly, your thought processes are bizarre enough for me to ask you, are you stoned?
You’re truly all over the shop.

Winston SMITH

30 Mar 12 at 11:30 am
Kelly, for homework you might want to google “KC-30A” and “F-18 Buddy Stores”, specifically the “Cobham 31-300″.
For background info, every US Navy or Marine fighter/bomber that flew missions over Iraq or Afghanistan tanked at least twice per mission if not more.
In short, your beloved and apparently rusted on theory that the RAAF can’t reach Indon and get back is the result of misinformation at best.

Zatara

30 Mar 12 at 2:02 pm
I doubt we have much to fear from China, historically and indeed presently they have more interest in paranoidly retaining their existing borders with a desire to reclaim historic boundaries (ie Taiwan) than in global conquest.

I guess this strategy makes it harder for USA to take them down. I personally believe that USA will attempt to use limited military action and economic containment to force a reversal of China’s rise and American decline. I suppose they must act if they wish to remain the worlds sole super power.

Cory Olsen

30 Mar 12 at 2:25 pm
Indonesia has but TWO KC-130 Hercs, and they don’t have AWACS.

We have 71 F/A-18s and 24 Super Hornets. The F/A-18s will be replaced by 100 F-35s.

We have six Wedgetail AWACS and five KC-30 As (one on delivery).

The AMRAAM 120 C-7 has 120 km range.

WHY would Indonesia want to bomb Darwin anyway??? We’re giving them some old Hercs anyway.

.

30 Mar 12 at 2:41 pm
As I understand it in a doctrinal sense, airborne refuelling is not used to increase an aircraft’s range but rather to extend its duration in the air or time on target. However, the The Black Bucks Raid by the British in the Falklands War saw Vulcan bombers fly a return flight of about 15,000 km. For a time this was the longest airborne bombing raid in history. It relied on multiple air to air refuelling operations in both directions and these were very closely run activities. So yes range can be extended.

John Comnenus

30 Mar 12 at 3:55 pm

Catallaxy Files