Snakes Are Flexible Too

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him [Russian President Putin] to give me space. This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” —Barack Obama

President Obama told a university audience in South Korea that the U.S. possesses more nuclear arms than it needs, and can reduce that arsenal without damaging America’s security. Obama: U.S. has more nukes than it needs


The prospect of four more years of Barack Obama’s Marxist ‘stewardship’ should be enough to induce blind panic in even the hardiest of American citizens.  This man (and the rest of his socialist compadres who masquerade as Democrats) needs to be sent packing before his plan to turn out the lights on the United States leaves us all sitting in permanent darkness.  That’s ‘fundamental transformation’ all right, but not of the sort that a gullible electorate thought they were getting when they foolishly allowed this man to Occupy and subvert an office to which he shouldn’t have been allowed within a hundred miles.   To wit:

Turner to Obama: What Flexibility?

Rep. Michael R. Turner (R., Ohio), chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, sought an explanation for the overheard comments made by the president Monday in a discussion in Seoul with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev…

Turner noted that during the December 2010 ratification debate over the New START arms treaty with Russia the president made specific promises that Russia’s opposition to U.S. missile defenses would not impact U.S. plans to deploy both short- and medium-range missile defenses in Europe and elsewhere.

Additionally, the president promised to make both “qualitative and quantitative improvements in its missile defenses,” Turner said.

“You have already walked away from detailed promises to modernize the U.S. nuclear deterrent; are you now planning to walk away from your promises regarding U.S. missile defense as well?” Turner asked.

Amid concerns that the administration planned to share highly classified missile defense secrets with Russia in an effort to assuage Moscow’s fears that U.S. defenses will target its missiles, the defense authorization bill signed into law by the president contains a provision that limits the president’s ability to share classified data with Russia.

“Congress took this step because it was clear based on official testimony and administration comments in the press that classified information about U.S. missile defenses, including hit-to-kill technology and velocity at burnout information, may be on the table as negotiating leverage for your reset with Russia,” Turner said, noting that the president said he may treat the limit as nonbinding when he signed the defense bill into law.

The comments in Seoul, in addition to the signing statement, “suggests that you and your administration have plans for U.S. missile defenses that you believe will not stand up to electoral scrutiny,” Turner said.


Issa on Obama’s Remarks to Medvedev: ‘He’s Going to Sell Out Our National Defense After the Election’

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Tuesday that “the American people should be very afraid” after hearing President Barack Obama’s accidentally recorded remarks to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday that after the election he would have more “flexibility” in dealing with the Russians.

“I judge that in fact he’s going to sell out our national defense after the election,” said Issa.


President Obama’s Treacherous Deals With The Russians

[…] the sane have already come to the conclusion that something is amiss in the Oval Office. After all, if you had taken a vodka shot for every time the president double-crossed America, you’d be drunker than a Russian sailor on payday.


Obama’s secret plan: National security takes a back seat to president’s re-election

There is only one thing scarier for the future of America than all of the debt and bad policies President Obama has built up since his 2008 election: It’s what the prospect of an Obama second term would bring. And the president isn’t being honest about what his secret plans are.


Is THIS the ‘flexibility’ Obama promised Russia on nukes?

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, with [John] Holdren on the board of directors from 1984 until recently, has long petitioned for the U.S. to reduce its nuclear stockpiles. According to Pavel Sudoplatov, a former major-general in Soviet intelligence, this kind of work by the magazine editors was for the benefit of the Soviet Union.

Holdren is assistant to the president for science and technology, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and co-chairman of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists began publishing regularly in 1945, when it was founded by former physicists from the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb.

Two of the magazine’s founding sponsors, Leo Szilard and Robert Oppenheimer, were accused of passing information from the Manhattan Project to the Soviets. Both were also key initiators of the Manhattan Project.

In 1994, Sudoplatov, a former major-general in Soviet intelligence, identified Szilard and Oppenheimer as key sources of crucial atomic information to the Soviet Union.

The most vital information for developing the first Soviet atomic bomb came from scientists engaged in the Manhattan Project to build the American atomic bomb – Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard,” wrote Sudoplatov.

The regime of Barack Hussein Obama (or whatever his real name is) doesn’t deserve four more years—it doesn’t deserve four more minutes.

See also: Obama Chides America as Only Country to Ever Use Nuclear Weapons via Maggie’s Notebook

About Bob Mack

Retired since 2003. Military Service: U.S. Army, 36th Artillery Group, Babenhausen, Germany 1966-67; 1st Signal Brigade, Republic of Vietnam, 1967-68 Attended University of Miami, 1969-73
This entry was posted in News, Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Snakes Are Flexible Too

  1. boudicabpi says:

    Reblogged this on Boudica BPI Weblog and commented:
    “The regime of Barack Hussein Obama (or whatever his real name is) doesn’t deserve four more years—it doesn’t deserve four more minutes.”
    It didn’t deserve the first four years.

      • AFVET says:

        Thank Heaven for the hot mike.
        Just one more hole in the pseudo ‘transparency’ Barry promised.

        • Bob Mack says:

          Rove: Obama’s Open-Mic Russia Comment Could Sink Re-election

          “By telling Mr. Medvedev and his patron, the once-and-future Russian President Vladimir Putin, that he will have ‘flexibility’ after the American election on Russian demands opposing a U.S. missile defense for Europe, Mr. Obama is in effect saying he is ready to do something the Russians will like but that the American people won’t.”

          Rove added that Obama’s remarks in Seoul, South Korea, could confirm to voters that he’s “not shooting straight with the American people.”

          “Is Mr. Obama also concealing unpopular domestic policies he’ll spring on the country in a second term? What the president calls ‘flexibility’ with Russian autocrats, American voters will likely view as a lack of candor with them,” Rove wrote on the Fox News website. “If that’s the case, it could seriously undermine the president’s chances for re-election.

  2. I was amazed this morning to read that new ABC poll shows Obama with a 53% approval rating. Was that poll taken in Russia?

    • AFVET says:

      Propaganda to the ignorant masses.

    • Bob Mack says:

      PRAVDA endorses Obama. So does ABC. Rasmussen tells a different story:

      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.

  3. Bob Mack says:

    What Happened to Preserve, Protect, and Defend?
    By John Griffing via The American Thinker

    How does a president of the United States whose allegiance is to his country knowingly and in plain sight sabotage his nation’s defenses? Until recently, the discussions of severe military cuts remained in the appropriate realm of working groups, and few seriously considered Obama’s radical campaign promises to eliminate nuclear weapons from the U.S. arsenal to be of any real validity. After all, many Democrat presidential contenders before Obama had pandered to pacifists and the armies of the naïve swelling the Democratic base in order to get elected. But none of these individuals actually took proactive steps to completely remove America’s nuclear triad from the list of strategic options. Our ability to instill fear in the hearts of our enemies, both current and future, was left unquestioned by all previous presidents, minor reductions in stockpiles notwithstanding.

    Obama has done what no guardian of America would do: systematically tear down the most vital of America’s defenses, all while America’s enemies wait with bated breath for the nation that owes trillions in debt to be left standing defenseless. What happens when America lays down its arms? It seems Obama would like to find out. Americans may be the unintended (intended?) victims of a perverse social experiment.

    Leaks from high-level defense sources reveal that in addition to commitments under the New START agreement, which brings the total number of deliverable U.S. warheads to 1,000 — an unacceptably low number that prevents the U.S. from being able to destroy the 3,000 priority strategic targets identified by the DoD — Obama now plans to implement an 80-percent force reduction that will leave America with only 300 deliverable warheads. Such a move is suicidal. Such a low number is wholly insufficient to protect America from the growing list of dangerous and erratic nuclear regimes with global ambitions. Even more crucial to understanding the risk inherent in such a decision is the role of U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiles as a deterrent.

    Americans have only been able to live the cushy, carefree existence of the last half-century — now taken for granted by new generations of youngsters who have known only prosperity and for whom Cold War politics are moot — because the U.S. possessed a credible nuclear arsenal capable of devastating any adversary. It is because of, not in spite of, America’s nuclear assets that America has survived multiple existential threats.

    The danger of nuclear confrontation has increased, not decreased, since the end of the Cold War. The likelihood of nuclear exchange has increased rapidly, mirroring the acquisition of nuclear weapons by small and medium-sized states, with multiple hostile nuclear powers now vying for global influence. Obama is at best gravely naïve if he is pursuing drastic and suicidal cuts to our arsenal at the present time.

    Obama has been busy gutting American conventional forces as well.

    The Army and the Marines are to be significantly downsized, even as their global commitments expand. Consequently, America can no longer simultaneously fight two major wars in two theaters of deployment, a capability deemed vital by defense insiders to ensuring America’s defense against coalitions of aggressor states, and now a plausible scenario owing to the Russian military buildup in the Middle East and the increasingly belligerent actions of China on every front. Both nations are in a Warsaw-Pact prototype alliance called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that openly challenges U.S. leadership and engages in maneuvers in which the United States is the target. Iran is also a member of this organization. Eliminating the two-war capability would seem ill-advised. But then, Obama probably knows this.

    The Navy thinly escaped Obama’s hacksaw. Recent studies commissioned by DoD indicate that the present number of aircraft carrier battle groups is not sufficient to maintain an adequate defensive posture in the Pacific, where U.S.-Taiwanese forces are under constant threat of nuclear exchange with China. Even though the number of carrier groups is already below normal, Obama had wanted to cut another carrier battle group from the fleet. The Navy torpedoed the move, but not without cost. Modernization efforts have been canned, and shipbuilding will be greatly slowed, which will cause the fleet to shrink by approximately 70 ships in the 2020s.

    Enter and exit the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force has been forced to lose several hundred planes, even though its present number is already below the threshold admittedly needed to carry out tactical bombing campaigns. In Bosnia, when the Air Force was a few times larger than today, it took 40 percent of active aircraft to execute the campaign. Can anyone seriously argue that the U.S. Air Force, which needed nearly half of its resources to prosecute Bosnia, can actually manage a conflict involving multiple major powers at one time, especially if cuts of the magnitude enacted go unchallenged?

    America’s president has done more to harm American security than our greatest foes could ever dream of doing, and he has done it with both eyes wide open, willingly, with full knowledge of the implications, which raises the obvious question: what word describes a president who will do this to his own country? The recent Medvedev revelations are a good indicator of Obama’s interest in satisfying Russian demands in ways that would be unpopular with the American people.

    Obama admittedly seeks the eradication of American superpower status. Even if a case can be made for a reduced U.S. footprint worldwide or for a less interventionist foreign policy, would a loyal American knowingly seek to undermine his or her nation’s greatness merely to satisfy some philosophical pretense to equality with “everybody else”?

    The time for pretense is over. Obama is no friend of America.

  4. coffeeandsleeplessnights says:
  5. Pingback: Wednesday Afternoon Grumpy Daily Headline News | Grumpy Opinions

  6. TexasFred says:

    How much more will it take to make ALL Americans see Obama for what he is??

  7. bunkerville says:

    I caught this on Fox last night

  8. Pingback: Saturday Afternoon – Recovering From Stupidity – Laundry Time , An Ol' Broad's Ramblings

  9. Pingback: Obama Medvedev Hot Mic: Obama Promises Russia More Accommodation After Elections: Obama Chides America as Only Country to Ever Use Nuclear | Maggie's Notebook

  10. Sherry says:

    It just boggles the mind to think that Obama doesn’t mind putting his daughters through a war… Oh, wait. He and his family would be sent off to a safe haven. Mind unboggled~

  11. Great coverage on this important story, Bob. I hope our “candidate” will pound it home often. Love the title:-)

Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s