PDA

View Full Version : Hillary fails with Russia



Bobbyrx
10-14-2009, 05:22 PM
regarding sanctions on Iran. What did we get for the missle defense overhaul??? link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/13/AR2009101300221.html?hpid=topnews)

Gayle in MD
10-15-2009, 09:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Senior administration officials said that the differences are tactical rather than substantive. Both sides agreed that Iran would face sanctions if it failed to carry out its obligations, a State Department official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

But failure to win a Russian commitment to a set of specific sanctions in advance could leave the administration vulnerable to Republican criticism that it gave the Kremlin what it wanted by overhauling missile defense plans in Europe but that it got nothing in return.

</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Both sides agreed that Iran would face sanctions if it failed to carry out its obligations, </div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">How is this a loss, other than in the world of un-named sources with an ax to grind? </span>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But failure to win a Russian commitment to a set of specific sanctions in advance could leave the administration vulnerable to Republican criticism </div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">LOL, how is this a loss of consequence, when they are going to be bashed left and right by Republicans regardless of what they do. </span>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">gave the Kremlin what it wanted by overhauling missile defense plans in Europe but that it got nothing in return.
</div></div>


<span style="color: #000066"> The overhaul was not done as a bargaining chip in the first place. It was done because the original plan was not effective to our goals, and real threats, in the region, and because it was extremely costly, obsolete, and did not provide the right kind of defense.

Gates, and the Military, are the ones who changed the plan, and they did so for very good reasons which had nothing at all to do with Russia.

The president did the correct thing, by listening to them, and floowing their advice, instead of doing what was politically safe.

Gayle in Md.</span>

wolfdancer
10-15-2009, 12:26 PM
one never fails, if one never tries. This sounds like the same argument used against the POTUS re: the Olympics????

Gayle in MD
10-16-2009, 06:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">one never fails, if one never tries. This sounds like the same argument used against the POTUS re: the Olympics???? </div></div>

Yep. People hear the buzz, and then relay according to what supports their own slant.

Fact is, this may be the first time we have ever had such good relationships between the various Secretaries of our agencies, W.H.Staff, Military, and the Oval office. That alone is transformational, as is the status of the Health Care bill, having never before gotten out of the Senate Finance Committee. Again, transformational.

Our previous extremely low approval ratings from countries around the world, turning around on a dime, after so many people all over the world were inspired by President Obama. Again, Transformational.

The nit picking is of little relevance, as we can already see.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

pooltchr
10-16-2009, 08:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[Yep. People hear the buzz, and then relay according to what supports their own slant.

</div></div>

I agree wholeheartedly! You are living proof.

Steve