|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Putin owns Obama|
Putin owns Obama
Posted - 9/12/2013 5:50:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
First, Vladimir Putin seized on an off-the-cuff comment by Secretary of State John Kerry and co-opted it. He's brokering a deal...first suggested by Kerry and quickly rejected by the Obama White House...that Syria turn over its chemical weapons to the international community.
This was followed by another political and public relations coup when Putin published an Op-Ed in the New York Times in which he lambasted Obama for calling Americans "exceptional," saying this was a "dangerous" line of thought.
And Putin seeks to ingratiate himself with world political figures and the American public by feigning innocence in the growing animosity between Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and the US.
Putin is reciting chapter and verse of his grievances with the US, all the while minimizing or ignoring his own role in the growing conflict...and the Soviet Union's bitter defeat in Afghanistan.
This was a public relations master stroke. But it was largely enabled...and tied up with bows...by Obama's indeciseveness and obvious impotence in the face of an international showdown...and after his whimpering, waffling remarks the other night on TV.
In recent memory only Jimmy Carter was similarly embarrassed by a foreign government. You may remember that the Ayatollah Khomeini captured and held American hostages for 444 days in the waning months of Carter's term and turned them over to Ronald Reagan only hours after the 1980 election had been decided.
Putin has captured the psychological advantage and is rubbing it into Obama's face...and the poor sap is not savvy enough to realize that he's been embarrassed and is being played like a cheap violin.
Posted - 9/12/2013 6:52:51 PM | show profile | flag this post
Because Putin would have done something if Obama had followed cruiser's sage advice and done nothing at all.
This was TOTALLY not because Obama threatened military action at all!
Putin is a known humanitarian who always puts human and human rights life first. Isn't he?
He would have TOTALLY done something about the gas attacks. I mean sure, he didn't, but he would have... right?
Anyway, Putin's biggest fan, cruiser, is glowing with pride that his humanitarian mentor has sprung into action TOTALLY not because Obama threatened to strike Syria.
Posted - 9/12/2013 7:04:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
By The Way Brave cruiser
Your admiration for Putin's support of the Syrian regime and its murderous campaign is yet another example of your courage... from your basement... anonymously.
Who else has what it takes to support the slaughter of more than 100,000 Syrians in a bloody and brutal civil war?
Just you. And Putin. And Assad. And other murderous dictators.
You are truly a shining light of love for human life and courage as an American.
Posted - 9/12/2013 9:56:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
And what's up with the New York Times???
I don't believe the publishers were dumb enough to give Putin a forum such as that. i can't remember another time in our history when a major US daily would have made space available to an adversary of the country for propaganda purposes.
Posted - 9/12/2013 11:06:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
Surely it's not
...that they wanted to sell newspapers?
No, couldn't be that (insert eyeballs rolling mightily here).
Posted - 9/13/2013 2:25:21 AM | show profile | flag this post
Not that I was ever a big fan but
it's pretty disheartening to see the Gray Lady go from the self-styled "America's newspaper of record" to a cheap yellow journalism stunt. It doesn't enhance the image.
Posted - 9/13/2013 10:32:45 AM | show profile | flag this post
I know, huh? Here a guy has a plan for handling the chemical weapons issue without a military strike, and that loser NYT lets him explain the strategy in an op-ed.
What is the world coming to when a newspaper lets readers get information from the horse's mouth?
Posted - 9/13/2013 10:39:35 AM | show profile | flag this post
Here is your lesson for today, cruiser, in newspapers -- let's call them "real newspapers" -- that publish more than one point of view:
"The Story Behind the Putin Op-Ed Article in The Times
"By MARGARET SULLIVAN
"A Times reader, Lawrence DeVine, has a few questions about The Times’s publication of an Op-Ed article in Thursday’s paper by Vladimir V. Putin, the president of Russia. He asks: 'Did he call up the editorial page editor and say, hey, how would you like 800 words on you, us and Syria, I’ll have it in by Wednesday night deadline, no sweat, I’ll take your usual freelance rates?'
"It didn’t happen just that way, the editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal told me Thursday morning, but it also wasn’t too much more complicated than that.
"The Times editorial department was approached Wednesday by an American public relations firm that represents Mr. Putin, offering the piece. Also on Wednesday, Mr. Putin’s spokesman, in the course of an interview about Syria, mentioned to The Times’s Moscow bureau chief Steven Lee Myers that an article was in the works.
"Mr. Rosenthal agreed to review the article and quickly decided to publish it. It was posted on the Times Web site by Wednesday evening.
“'I thought it was well-written, well-argued,' he said. 'I don’t agree with many of the points in it, but that is irrelevant.'
“'Syria is a huge story and Putin is a central figure in it,' giving the piece great news value, he said. It has created a major stir, including plenty of criticism. Richard Murphy of Fairfield, Conn., wrote to me Thursday with harsh words for The Times’s decision to publish it. He described himself as 'horrified' and said that The Times was 'aiding and abetting a long-term foe of the United States.'
"Mr. Rosenthal rejects that argument.
“'There is no ideological litmus test' for an Op-Ed article, he said. ..."
(I included the URL twice so that you can finish reading the article and so that it's clear to you that the words are not mine.)
Posted - 9/13/2013 10:49:25 AM | show profile | flag this post
The United States became great because of the openness of information and opinion. That's why it's protected by the Constitution.
In this century, we've seen what happens when openness gets cut off voluntarily by intellectual midgets.
Posted - 9/13/2013 11:00:41 AM | show profile | flag this post
All of your silly platitudes aside
the Constitution doesn't protect foreign tyrants...nor should it.
You people are real big on the First Amendment...except when a conservative is using it to inject some rationality into the discussion.
Posted - 9/13/2013 2:01:32 PM | show profile | flag this post
"played like a cheap violin."
Even though some "experts" like David Ignatius maintain this was no accident and is the result of well orchestrated diplomacy.
Ignatius says the Obama administration has been talking with Russia for more than 2 years about taking an active role to convince Syria to surrender chemical weapons.
And he says the only way Syria and Russia would ever agree to that would be under the threat of military force.
And he says Kerry's "off-the-cuff comment" was not off the cuff at all but a well played card that opened the door now that Syria has taken a "please don't bomb us" attitude.
And he claims if this works it's a win for Obama because he demonstrated resolve that forced the international community and especially Russia and Syria to make serious moves to contain chemical weapons without firing a shot.
However, Ignatius is only an well known well respected expert on foreign affairs. And he is considered liberal. Ewwwwwwww!
cruiser is a well known internet troll and he is considered conservative, well... right wing and obsessed actually. Plus his ideas are original thoughts he thinks immediately after Rush and Glenn Beck tell him to think them.
Who would you believe?
Posted - 9/13/2013 2:28:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** You people are real big on the First Amendment...except when a conservative is using it to inject some rationality into the discussion. ***
Thanks for clarifying that you personally don't read op-ed pages in newspapers that offer a variety perspectives.
It was no big mystery anyway, considering the junk you post.
Posted - 9/13/2013 2:56:18 PM | show profile | flag this post
I didn't know the New York Times...
was a "foreign tyrant," cruzo.
It was the Times, not Putin, exercising the First Amendment freedom of the press in choosing to publish it.
The fact that you are upset would tickle the framers of the Constitution. They didn't guarantee freedoms solely for points we all agree on. They guaranteed those freedoms so that unpopular points of view would be freely published.
Otherwise, there'd be no need for any Constitutional protections.
Posted - 9/13/2013 4:34:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
ES, do you really think that cruiser gives a rat's whisker what's in the Constitution? He doesn't even know what a platitude is.
Posted - 9/13/2013 6:33:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
he thinks a platitude is what his mother..
serves him breakfast on in the basement..
Posted - 9/13/2013 7:44:48 PM | show profile | flag this post
"I don't believe the publishers were dumb enough to give Putin a forum such as that."
the rest of the world is asking " how does it feel america?"
after all, ain't we good at lecturing other nations about what's best for them? how they should live up our standards?
Posted - 9/13/2013 8:16:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
troo-beleevers will thinkerate a obama "win"-putin showed us who is truly the bored student and who is the professor.
on the world stage, the obama administration showed unbelievably small. no amount of liberal media spin will change that.
american exceptionalism? least obama, the left and putin can agree on something.
Posted - 9/13/2013 10:19:29 PM | show profile | flag this post
If you want to be an English teacher, dearie,
I recommend you retake your ESL courses a couple more times.
Posted - 9/14/2013 10:41:18 AM | show profile | flag this post
So, orth, you gonna do what cruiser says, junior pal dearie?
Cruiser is as thick as a brick and so proud of it, he thinks heaping on insults and flailing like a cranky baby will hide it.
Posted - 9/14/2013 11:17:16 AM | show profile | flag this post
cruiser, here's another lesson for you:
All of the news professionals here have dealt for our entire careers with all kinds of people, including fakes, blowhards, meatheads, old yellers, agenda pushers, anger mongers and small minds. You're one in a series -- collect them all. A big, fat been-there-done-that predictable yawn.
You're so far in over your head, and so clueless, that all of the toying with you has begun to look cruel.
You really should consider switching to a forum where you could feel like the highly trained genius scientist writer lawyer racist misogynist economist statesman, etc., that you want people to believe you are. The Yahoo! forums, for example, if they still exist, used to have the perfect impressionable audience for someone like you. Here, you will only ever be one in everybody's career-long series of pointless characters.
If you really want to be the next Rush, get some training. Figure out what gave Rush an audience and what gave him a job. Then figure out what you need to do to replicate his success, and be willing to change if you want that success for yourself. What you do here won't get you there. Nobody wants a childish, yelling old guy who needs attention.
Posted - 9/14/2013 2:45:02 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'm sure that was cathartic to you
Didn't make you any smarter but probably made you feel a whole lot better.
Simple minds treasure simple victories.
Posted - 9/14/2013 4:16:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
How true cruiser!
And some people can't accept simple defeats. Who are these people?
How will they prepare for the coming ice age? The Romney landslide? For Obamacare to be DOA? For Putin to NOT own Obama?
Only someone who has grown old but not grown up.
That would be indubitably egregious pal!
Posted - 9/14/2013 6:16:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
time to see cruiztwit for what he is..
a racist, white supremacist wannabe who cannot stand the fact that a black man has TWICE been elected president of the united states..
virtually every word he inflicts upon everyone else is solely motivated by his blinding hatred of Obama..no matter the topic, he will find some way to bend the issue so that Obama is at fault..
never mind that the issue at hand may have NOTHING to do with Obama..by the time cruiztwit finishes venting his spleen, it will be all Obama's fault..
there is nothing else that drives him..
why we pay attention to him at all is sometimes mystifying to me..
but at root, he's a sick old man who has no friends, no life, and no one who cares about him..i suppose the charitable thing to dlo would be to pity him..but I can 't quite get there..
much the same can be said, by the way, of his fellow travelers, con and newscred..
Posted - 9/14/2013 10:17:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
So what happened here?
"The United States and Russia struck a deal Saturday under which Syria will allow its stockpile of chemical weapons to be removed or destroyed by next year — easing a crisis over a threatened American military attack."
So another crisis has been avoided--through diplomacy instead of war--and we should A) Be thankful for that, or B) Condemn Obama. Now that's a toughie. Cue the 'Jeopardy theme music.
As one pundit put it: "Who cares how we avoided a war and got a dictator to give up his chemical weapons if we avoided a war and got a dictator to give up his chemical weapons."
"Putin owns Obama" has got to be the dumbest most ignorant downright stupid I Hate Obama thread here to be started since the last dumbest most ignorant downright stupid I Hate Obama thread that was started here.
Wingnuts like cruise were all 'down with the vapors' this week. Fox News’s Tucker Carlson: “This strengthens Russia and humiliates the United States…” Sean Hannity: “Vladimir Putin has filled the leadership gap…” Fox's Carlson: “Now have we handed the power back to the shirtless Putin?”
Personally, and as an American, and as human being, I don't give a flyin rats ass how we avoided WWIII (as Fox was putting it), or that other countries were involved in stopping another MidEast War. Hell, I would have supported Bush if Norway or Bulgaria stepped in to avoid Iraq. But he wouldn't have listened. He wanted a ground war no matter what and that's what we got, damn the consequences and casualties.. THIS president obviously prefers smart thinking. (Libya for example; advanced fighter sorties, no loss of life). And if that means dealing with Putin? So be it.
If armchair warriors like cruise (and many many others) want to go on with their 'We should have done this..' and "Putin owns Obama"...fine. STFU and enlist. Maybe President Cruz will send your asses off to war.
Posted - 9/14/2013 11:30:32 PM | show profile | flag this post
As for attacking the NYT
for publishing what?, an opinion? cruise?, Should Mediabistro ban you because you're an idiot wingnut bigoted know-it-all-asshole ??How low can you sink? How desperate can you be? In WingnutWorld even printing an opinion piece is a sure sign of 'Obama weakness' and "I don't believe the publishers were dumb enough to give Putin a forum such as that..."
Good Lord. Allowing 'anyone and everyone' a forum is a tenet of newspapers since they began. The very phrase "op-ed" was coined out of 'geography' reasons; in other words it was 'opposite the editorial page' where the newspapers editorial(s) were....And other people got a voice. What you see as "dumb", I see as not only a free press in action, (Thank God), but the 1st Amend in action.
The Times (and other papers of course) has caught crap in the past for publishing op-eds from less than popular folk. So what. Let's give a hurrah to the publishers.
Yea, I know, none of that makes sense. If it's not I-Hate-Obama, then you don't want to hear it.