John Hinderaker:
Vladimir Putin once again showed his deep respect for Barack Obama, as he complained about the incompetence of U.S. policy in Syria:
“Now, we often hear that our pilots are striking the wrong targets, not IS,” Putin said at an investment forum in Moscow explaining that Russia had asked Washington to provide a list of targets.
But Washington declined.
“‘No, we are not ready for this’ was the answer,” Putin quoted them as saying. “Then we thought again and asked another question: then tell us where we should not strike. No answer too,” he said, adding: “That is not a joke. I did not make this up.”
“How is it possible to work together?” he asked. “I think some of our partners simply have mush for brains, they do not have a clear understanding of what really happens in the country and what goals they are seeking to achieve.”
While Putin didn’t use Obama’s name, his meaning is clear enough:
Q: Shall we bomb this?
Q: Shall we not bomb that?
A: Crickets.
At least Obama’s not treating Putin any different than he had treated Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, when they looked for his cooperation.
Obama doesn’t want to degrade & destroy ISIS at all.
If he’d had his way ISIS would have continued to grow and expand.
So, explain how Obama’s on the ”right side of history” and Putin on the wrong side?
@Nanny G: Obama is NOT on the right side. He’s only on ‘his’ side.
I weep for my former country when someone as despicable as Putin is more deserving of respect than the US president.
Opinions concerning who might actually have mush for brains vary: Imperial overreach: How Putin’s move into Syria could bring his government down
Many seem to be taken in by Putin’s international public image, crafted and promoted as if it were a product brand. That has diverted a lot of attention from the underlying reality of a faltering Russian economy and an unresolved situation in Ukraine. It’s not really all that clear how it will benefit Russia to add increased military involvement in the Middle East to their problems. Possibly it serves Putin as a distraction, but that’s not the same thing as benefiting Russia.
@Greg: @Greg: “Imperial overreach” is not an automatic given. We had no imperial aspirations in Afghanistan, as opposed to the Soviets, and we could have absolutely completed our mission there of eliminating the Taliban and allowing a stable government to form that could resist the Taliban.
The same goes for Iraq and, in fact, that entire region. Sadly, Obama has screwed both up, reviving that myth that no one can come in and succeed. It can be done… it HAD been done.
In this example, Obama is simply now afraid to answer any of Putin’s question because Putin is so much higher on an experience plane that Obama fears another Syria, where Putin played Obama like a Scruggs played a banjo. Obama and Kerry as SO inept that they have out nation boxed into a corner they cannot get out of.
As Russia grows stronger and more assertive all around the world, how long will our allies, risking their entire populations, stand by their old, reliable friend when that friend is more worried about a bogus weather threat than protecting the world from falling, again, into a struggle between world communism and freedom? Iraq saw the writing on the wall, many of the rebel groups in Syria are seeing it more clearly as well; the United States no longer supports its friends.
Now we are afraid to answer simple questions, especially when we have been complaining about the targets the Russians have been hitting. Obama has no idea whatsoever how to take charge of this situation. Leading from behind doesn’t seem to work with Russia. With them, if you aren’t leading, you “lead from your knees”.
@Bill: F–k Putin. Let the mighty midget dig a hole he can’t get out of—stop fawning over him–he’ll go the way of all despots. Assad will go too..
@rich wheeler: No one here is fawning over Putin. They are fretting about how spineless and incompetent Obama is in dealing with him and the rest of our enemies.
@rich wheeler: Putin is what we all know, unfortunately for our country, Obama doesn’t understand him. The country will only get it’s stature back when Obama is out of office and someone reputable is in. Then Putin will go away. But until we get a leader in our President’s office, we are going to have to ‘enjoy’ Putin’s bluster.
Webb did the best in the DimDebate last light. Best of the loser’s.
@Bill, #5:
Russia has certainly grown more assertive. That doesn’t mean Russia is growing stronger. Abysmally low wages, rising poverty, and a tiny super-wealthy oligarchy—all of whom have been required to pledge personal allegiance to Vladimir Putin—doesn’t bode well for the nation’s future. Syria could quickly turn from a useful distraction to a bottomless quagmire.
@another vet, #7:
Showing restraint with regard to Syria is wise, not an indication of spinelessness or incompetence. Bravado is stupid when it leads a charge into quicksand.
@Greg:
Russia is bombing people we spent half a billion dollars to train. What kind of training does one need to be cannon fodder? Yeah, Obama is a genius at foreign policy.
@Greg:
And of course, an oligarchy, by definition is a government controlled by a group of rich people. So to get into that oligarchy, they may have to pledge allegiance to Putin, but the ‘group’ is in charge. Once he has served his purpose as their ‘useful idiot’ he will be gone.
Make no mistake, it is that group that is jerking Obama’s chain.
And in case you’re wondering, yes the US is currently an oligarchy.
No doubt the GOP has some elaborate fantasy concerning how well things would be working out if only one of their own had been calling the shots. This probably involves Iraq having become a stable Middle Eastern democracy with all internal ethnic and sectarian factions somehow reconciled. Iran would have become polite, jihadists would have settled down, and Shias and Sunnis would all be living happily together.
The best policy would have been to deal with the people who attacked us. Invading Iraq was a serious blunder. It was done without giving sufficient thought to the long-term consequences. Having done it, there was no ready way to fill the power vacuum that we created. Does anyone really believe staying there indefinitely ourselves would have worked out? Or that the inherent instability would have gone away after 5, or 10, or 20 years?
@Redteam, #13:
Uh oh. Bernie Sanders may have gotten to you.
@Greg:
Let’s see. We left troops in Germany. They have not started another war. We left troops in Japan, they have not started another war. We left troops in Korea, they have not started another war. We left troops in Iraq and they didn’t start another war. Then Obozo withdrew the troops and ‘whoops’. And, gee what went wrong? I can’t figure it out.
@Greg:
Not likely, he’s your type. But if you don’t recognize the US government type, what are you doing here?
@Greg: I see you don’t understand how power works. If allowed to continue along the course Obama has charted, Russia will become more influential while the U.S. loses influence. Economic activity begins to go away from the U.S. Once the trickle begins, it rapidly turns into a torrent.
Don’t forget China is out there, circling like a buzzard as well. U.S. enemies will be emboldened and, before any liberal knows it, we are isolated and surrounded.
Duh.
@Greg: Declaring a red line, then denying one was ever declared is not “restraint”. It’s “stupidity”.
@Bill: I’d like to think the the Obama decline with end with him, but only if we elect an American for the next term.
the pres has SFB’s. Intell out of Beirut demonstrates a total politicization of most intelligence report. The cia and your pres has been lying to the American people for the last six plus years. Massive cover ups on troops, materials and monies. Why would you let a non-barred attorney, a marketing, con man and an illegal alien become the pres?
@Redteam:
For a moment there, I thought you were talking about our Washington establishment. Then I realized you weren’t. Then I thought about it further, and considering all the socialists in Washington coming out of the woodwork… Maybe I was right the first time.
@Greg:
Well, unfortunately for your argument and hundreds of thousands of innocent people, we can’t know for sure because Obama stepped in and absolutely screwed the entire scenario up, but it is uncontested that the situation, under the circumstances left in place by Bush, was success.
Bush running things, good, Obama running things, disaster.