Obama's presidency

Obama Nominates New Chiefs for Pentagon, CIA


WASHINGTON, January 7 (RIA Novosti) – US President Barack Obama on Monday nominated former US Sen. Chuck Hagel as his next secretary of defense and John Brennan, a White House counterterrorism adviser, as the new head of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The potentially controversial nominations come as Obama begins to shape his national security team for his second term.

Hagel, a former Republican senator who would replace the retiring Leon Panetta as head of the Pentagon, has faced criticism over the depth of his commitment to Israel’s security. But the Vietnam War veteran has also received support from prominent US military leaders.

Hagel was accused of making anti-Semitic comments in 2007 after using the term “Jewish lobby” to describe pro-Israel advocacy groups that he said “intimidate” Washington lawmakers.

The former senator also drew criticism over comments he made in 1998 after opposing the nomination of a potential US ambassador that he described as “openly, aggressively gay.” Hagel has since apologized for the statement.

In announcing the nomination at the White House Monday, Obama said Hagel would be the first person of enlisted rank and the first Vietnam War veteran to serve as secretary of defense.

Obama called Hagel “the leader that our troops deserve.”

If confirmed, Brennan would succeed retired Army Gen. David Petraeus as head of the CIA. Petraeus resigned earlier this year after admitting to an extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell.

Obama described Brennan as “tireless,” and said he would remain “relentless” in pursuit of al-Qaeda.

Brennan was nominated for the post in 2008 but withdrew himself from consideration after he faced questions regarding his views on so-called “enhanced interrogation” techniques, such as waterboarding, used on terrorism suspects under the administration of President George W. Bush.

Many of the interrogation techniques are widely considered torture, and Brennan has said he opposes the waterboarding. But he said in 2007 that such tactics did produce actionable intelligence from “real hardcore terrorists.”

Brennan’s latest nomination is widely expected to go much more smoothly.

“The issue has been removed from the debate because the president and John Brennan, as his top counterterrorism adviser, brought those techniques to an end,” Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, told CBS News.

The nominations of Hagel and Brennan must be confirmed by the US Senate.


http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130107/178631903/Obama_Nominates_New_Chiefs_for_Pentagon.html

The nomination of Hagel, is not surprise. Since 2006, following the Israelis defeat in Lebanon and simultaneously the replacement of Donald Rumsfeld -in fact he was fired- USA is on a verge of new diplomatic's mutation. Simply because they cannot sustain their outrageous barbaric empire.
Thx to the crisis, thx to Ahmadinedjad, thx to China, and especially thx to Vladimir Putin, and the new russian's rise.
Now Russia will have to help Serbia in the goal to retrieve Kossovo, Russia will retrieve its historics lands as Lithania, Lethonia-more than 40% of russian people-, estonia. These baltics areas are simply a kind of north Chechenia. Now they are becoming simply nato's basis.

The nomination of Hagel, after Panetta, and Breman to CIA is a message from Washington, it is obvious, they cannot afford to keep their empire.
I have no doubts in a near future that Israel will disapear, we will see a new geographical's recomposition in the middle east and Balcanic areas.
USA became the only superpower since 1989 because of Yeltsin's administration. Shame on Yelsine and Gorbatchov, they were the worst russian gouvernements in several centuries Russia's history.
US's filthy 's human's rights'hype noone is believe.

It seems that the Chuck Hagel's nomination was blocked by jewish's lobby.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=chuck+hagel+nomination&oq=chuck+hagel+nom&gs_l=news-cc.3.1.43j0j43i400.2675.9661.0.11736.12.6.2.4.3.0.156.767.1j5.6.0...0.0...1ac.1.cXm1QKDWiGk

How would you judge the presidency of Barack Obama, with his internal and international policy? How does he compare co Bush(es), Clinton or Reagan or the leaders of other countries (Putin etc.) The opinions I read about him from Americans aren't the bestm people often compare him to Carter, some even say he's worse than him.

Bush- war criminal.
Reagan- war criminal.
Obama- war criminal.
Carter- not a good president, but the "best" since a long long time.
Carter is a good person, and have made good things since he left the presidency.
Putin i doubt the 99 buildings bombs, if he had anything about that is almost equal as the 3 firsts.

Choosing Carter was the biggest blunder that Americans made. It was because of his weak policy and constant talking about "democracy" that the mullahs took over Iran and turned it from a relatively liberal country into a medieval theocracy and a mortal enemy of the US. And it was during his presidency when US army was the weakest. He may be a good person but his policies weren't effective. He simplu lacked balls.

As Sa'iqa wrote:Choosing Carter was the biggest blunder that Americans made. It was because of his weak policy and constant talking about "democracy" that the mullahs took over Iran and turned it from a relatively liberal country into a medieval theocracy and a mortal enemy of the US. And it was during his presidency when US army was the weakest. He may be a good person but his policies weren't effective. He simplu lacked balls.

WTF?
Are you so bad educated about History or are you just nuts?

Iran was democratic untill 1953 Operation Ajax, when the US installed the Shah Reza Pahlavi, the pro-pentagon puppet that has oppressed his people, controlled its people and country through militarism and sold out iranian resources for almost nothing to the US due this unbearable conditions iranians searched for help and found a strong antiamerican view and the eager to act against this oppression in fundamentalist groups. Iran was the only democratic country in the middle east before 1953.

In your mind: not bomb other countrys, not made regime changes is weak police.
If Iran is a mortal enemy of USA, as you said, its because they put a puppet ditatership in Iran and bribe their government.
Is the US that threats Iran not the oppose, but as always the American stablishment turn that up side down, and you gladly follow that.
I think i Know the answear, but can i ask you what you think about the presidents you spoke...

As Sa'iqa wrote:Choosing Carter was the biggest blunder that Americans made. It was because of his weak policy and constant talking about "democracy" that the mullahs took over Iran and turned it from a relatively liberal country into a medieval theocracy and a mortal enemy of the US.

The CIA financed the mullahs against Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq back in 1953 to topple him and to install The Shah because he nationalized Iran's oil fields. Kermit Roosevelt led "Operation AJAX" which had a giant disinformation campaign against Mossadeq, handing leaflets making erroneous claims about Mossadeq like claiming he was a communist and a proud atheist to stir up the Islamic fundamentalist community, the same mullahs got tired of the Shah and overthrew his totalitarian state, and made it (Iran) a theocracy.

Mossadeq is a different story. The revolution took place roughly 25 years after that. It wasn't even islamists who constituted the majority of protesters but the socialists. Brzeziński encouraged Carter to convince Shah to crack down on the protests mor harshly but he didn't, talking about "freedom and democracy" instead. As a consequence, all that youths who protested against Shah were made into useful idiots of Khomeini. Khomeini promised Iranians that he will make Iran into a democracy but (like every demagogue who wants to raise to power) he lied. Later he got rid of all his enemies, including the leftists whom he owed his rise to power.

Obama is often compared to Carter. He certainly does not seem to be too proud of his country. In fact, his spiritual gurus are the black supremacist Malcolm X and pastor Jeremiah Wright, who hates USA and says that "God Bless America" should be replaced with "God Damn America". Obama said he'd never heard that but he'd been a member of Wright's church for 20 years and I doubt that it's possible to listen to someone for 20 years and not know him well. Evem Michelle Obams said that she had disliked the US and only started loving it after her husband became president.

As Sa'iqa wrote:Choosing Carter was the biggest blunder that Americans made. It was because of his weak policy and constant talking about "democracy" that the mullahs took over Iran and turned it from a relatively liberal country into a medieval theocracy and a mortal enemy of the US. And it was during his presidency when US army was the weakest. He may be a good person but his policies weren't effective. He simplu lacked balls.

This is the kind of stupid "strong president" analysis that Americans right now are throwing at Obama.

Herp derp if Reagan was around the Russians would know their place herp derp.

As Sa'iqa wrote:How would you judge the presidency of Barack Obama, with his internal and international policy? How does he compare co Bush(es), Clinton or Reagan or the leaders of other countries (Putin etc.) The opinions I read about him from Americans aren't the bestm people often compare him to Carter, some even say he's worse than him.

Bush blundered internationally. Iraq alone is a farce of epic proportions.

Under Obama at least things with Russia (since this is a Russian mil forum) moved forward. Regarding Iran, new nuclear treaties, A-stan, etc.
In the last years of Bush and Putin it was the two of them talking shit about each other and not finding any common ground. Pathetic is what it was.

If there was a hawkish president, the US would have dove right into Syria, would have lead the Libyan campaign, would have been far more aggressive (innefectually mind you) towards Russia and China....none are things I would vote for, as an American citizen.

dino00 wrote: Bush- war criminal.
Reagan- war criminal.
Obama- war criminal.
Carter- not a good president, but the "best" since a long long time.
Carter is a good person, and have made good things since he left the presidency.
Putin i doubt the 99 buildings bombs, if he had anything about that is almost equal as the 3 firsts.

Same opinion .

ahmedfire wrote:

dino00 wrote: Bush- war criminal.
Reagan- war criminal.
Obama- war criminal.
Carter- not a good president, but the "best" since a long long time.
Carter is a good person, and have made good things since he left the presidency.
Putin i doubt the 99 buildings bombs, if he had anything about that is almost equal as the 3 firsts.

Same opinion .

X3

US leaders change but their foreign policy doesn't change that much....

Carter was the only US president of the XX century along with hoover that didn't engage in imperialism against the latin american people. That deserves a special kind of applause. Of course that doesn't make him any less  center- right like all democrats, and anyone who thinks he's left wing truly has mental problems.

Americans Want to Pull Back From World Stage, Poll Finds



Nearly Half Surveyed in WSJ/NBC Poll Back Anti—Interventionist Stance That Sweeps Across Party Lines

Americans in large numbers want the U.S. to reduce its role in world affairs even as a showdown with Russia over Ukraine preoccupies Washington, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

In a marked change from past decades, nearly half of those surveyed want the U.S. to be less active on the global stage, with fewer than one-fifth calling for more active engagement—an anti-interventionist current that sweeps across party lines.

The findings come as the Obama administration said Tuesday that Russia continues to meddle in Ukraine in defiance of U.S. and European sanctions. Pro-Russian militants took over more government buildings in eastern Ukraine, while officials at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization said satellite imagery showed no sign that Russia had withdrawn tens of thousands of troops massed near the border. (Read five takeaways from the poll.)

The poll showed that approval of President Barack Obama's handling of foreign policy sank to the lowest level of his presidency, with 38% approving, at a time when his overall job performance drew better marks than in recent months.

Mr. Obama defended his diplomacy-first approach at a news conference Monday in the Philippines, the last stop on a four-nation tour through Asia. He said those who called for a more muscular policy hadn't learned the lessons of the U.S. decision to invade Iraq.

"Why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we've just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget?" he said. "And what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished?"

Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said, "After a week of rhetoric from the administration, I had hoped we would have responded to Russia's blatant violations…with more than just a slap on the wrist."

The poll findings, combined with the results of prior Journal/NBC surveys this year, portray a public weary of foreign entanglements and disenchanted with a U.S. economic system that many believe is stacked against them. The 47% of respondents who called for a less-active role in world affairs marked a larger share than in similar polling in 2001, 1997 and 1995. (See poll results over time about America's role in the world.)

Similarly, the Pew Research Center last year found a record 53% saying that the U.S. "should mind its own business internationally" and let other countries get along as best they can, compared with 41% who said so in 1995 and 20% in 1964.

"The juxtaposition of an America that wants to turn inward and away from world affairs, and a strong feeling of powerlessness domestically, is a powerful current that so far has eluded the grasp of Democrats and Republicans," said Democratic pollster Fred Yang, who conducts the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "The message from the American public to their leaders in this poll seems to be: You need to take care of business here at home."

The poll results have broad implications for U.S. politics, helping to explain, among other developments, Mr. Obama's hesitance to have the U.S. take the lead in using military force in Libya, the reluctance of Congress to authorize force against Syria and the ascent as a national figure of Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), a potential 2016 presidential candidate who has called for a restrained foreign policy.

Support for Mr. Obama's handling of Russian intervention in Ukraine slipped to 37% in the new poll from 43% in March. But at the same time, a plurality agreed with the statement that Mr. Obama takes "a balanced approach" to foreign policy "depending on the situation," with smaller shares rating him as too cautious or too bold.

Melissa Western, a graphic designer from Chandler, Ariz., who participated in the poll, called Mr. Obama's foreign policy "lackadaisical."

"I'm not saying go to war, but I feel like he has a lot of empty threats," said Ms. Western, an independent who voted for Republican Mitt Romney in 2012. "He's hard to take seriously."

Dora Lovett, a Democratic poll respondent in Ozark, Ark., said Mr. Obama should focus more on domestic issues and less on events abroad. "I just feel like he does more for them than he does for us," she said, citing foreign aid as an example.

While Mr. Obama's standing as a foreign policy leader has slipped, the poll found his overall job approval rose to 44% from March's record low of 41%.

But the president's standing remains perilously low just six months before the midterm congressional elections, and the poll was riddled with warning signs for his party. Support for his signature health-care law is improving slightly, a result that comes after the announcement that eight million people had picked insurance plans under the law. Still, support for the law remains weak, with 46% saying it is a bad idea and 36% saying it is a good one. "Clearly, the president has better news from his health-care law. But in general, that better news has still left people, by double-digit margins, saying it is a bad idea," said Mr. McInturff, the GOP pollster.

The public is deeply divided over the benefits of international trade and globalization, a challenge for Mr. Obama as he tries to shepherd major trade deals through a reluctant Congress.

The poll found that 48% viewed globalization as bad for the U.S. economy, with 43% calling it a good development. Asked whether they preferred a congressional candidate who argued that free trade was a positive force or one who called it a negative force, 46% favored the pro-trade candidate and 48% the anti-trade candidate.

Opinions on trade and globalization correlated more with income and education than with party affiliation. People with lower incomes and education tended to be the most skeptical of those forces, with support rising in tandem with income and education. "There are huge chunks of Republicans who would be looking at and supporting anti-free trade candidates, and huge chunks of Democrats who are pro-free trade," Mr. McInturff said, adding that both parties face a difficult task in finding their footing on the issue.

For all the poll's warnings to Democrats about the 2014 midterm elections, it offered some good news for the party in its early glances toward the 2016 presidential election. The poll found that potential Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is viewed significantly more positively than two potential Republican contenders.

Mrs. Clinton was viewed positively by 48% of those surveyed and negatively by 32%. Both Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Paul were viewed more negatively: Mr. Bush was viewed favorably by 21% and unfavorably by 31%. For Mr. Paul, opinion split 23% to 25%.

—Colleen McCain Nelson and Rebecca Ballhaus contributed to this article.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304163604579532050055966782

http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/engagement-poll/

Americans in large numbers want the U.S. to reduce its role in world affairs ...

This poll is meaningless.
Agree, or not, the north american regime of Washington fed up with the opinion of its population. Who was agree during the Iraq invasion ? Who was agree during the Vietnam's war ? Who is agree during the actual occupation of Afghanistan ? Who was agree with baillout that gave tax payers' billions $ to the banksters, the uggly bastards of Wall street's ?

North American regime never took care about opinion of its population, because Washington consider it could modelize the opinion of average american thanks to Hollywood-usefull tool, with american leftists-.
North american regime of Washington could trigger the third world war, with or without the consent of its population.
It is not worth to scrutinize american public opinion, because noone either in Washington, New York, Hollywood, or San Francisco -the leftists areas, now became near all, the new ultra liberalists, and worst barbarics worse than any fascissts- never considered it.

President Barack Obama pushed for a raft of proposals crafted to boost the middle class in his 2015 State of the Union speech, marking the first time he addressed a GOP Congress that largely opposes his governing agenda.

Much of President Obama’s address – like his last two annual speeches – focused on the plight of the middle class, which is struggling with stagnant wages even as the American economy bounces back from the recession caused by the 2008 financial crisis. He also highlighted the growing wealth and inequality gap in the United States, saying the country now has an opportunity"turn the page"on recession and give every citizen “a fair shot.”

“At this moment – with a growing economy, shrinking deficits, bustling industry, and booming energy production – we have risen from recession freer to write our own future than any other nation on Earth,” the president said. “It’s now up to us to choose who we want to be over the next 15 years, and for decades to come.”

“Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort?”

To address these problems, Obama outlined plans that would increase the capital-gains tax rate on family incomes over $500,000 a year in order to pay for tax cuts for the middle class, close tax loopholes on inheritance, and provide students with two years of free community college education.
Since Obama spent the past couple of weeks detailing these initiatives, he didn't spend much time diving into many details. Instead of going through a "checklist of proposals," he said he wanted to "focus more on the values at stake in the choices before us." The contents of his speech were even released to the public ahead of the event for the first time.

As with his previous proposals intended to help the middle class, Obama faces a tough task in trying to get legislation passed through the Republican-controlled Congress. The GOP has come out against the president’s community college plan – calling it a“non-starter”– and has instinctively opposed tax hikes on the wealthy for decades, making Obama’s agenda unlikely to gain the support of conservative lawmakers.

Nevertheless, Obama outlined an economic vision that could become the basis for the Democratic platform moving forward and into the 2016 elections. In addition to announcing tax and education plans, he called on lawmakers to establish paid family and medical leave programs for workers, to give government employees at least six weeks of paid parental leave, and offer cheaper child care for Americans.

“Middle-class economics works,” Obama said. “Expanding opportunity works. And these policies will continue to work, as long as politics don’t get in the way.”

Obama added that it's past time for Congress to issue a law mandating that women in the same positions as men are paid the same amount.

"This Congress still needs to pass a law that makes sure a woman is paid the same as a man for doing the same work. Really. It's 2015. It's time," he said.

Foreign Policy: Islamic State, Cuba and Iran

Looking beyond America’s borders, the president said the US is making progress in its effort to battle the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (also known as ISIS/ISIL), and officially asked Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the use of military force against the group.

He added that US efforts, alongside their Arab partners and other coalition members, are “stopping ISIL’s advance” while keeping America from “getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East.”

“I believe in a smarter kind of American leadership,” Obama said. “We lead best when we combine military power with strong diplomacy; when we leverage our power with coalition building; when we don’t let our fears blind us to the opportunities that this new century presents. That’s exactly what we’re doing right now – and around the globe, it is making a difference.”

Aside from the battle against the Islamic State, Obama said the US’ combat mission in Afghanistan is over for the first time since 9/11, noting that just 15,000 troops remain in the country – compared to 150,000 one year ago.

On reestablishing diplomatic ties with Cuba, Obama said his administration ended a policy of isolation that was "long past its expiration date." He called on Congress to begin ending the embargo against the country, citing Pope Francis when describing the work of diplomacy is done in "small steps." This is the first time an American president has asked Congress to end the Cuban embargo.

Obama also defended the White House's approach to Iran, saying more time is needed to see if world powers can negotiate an agreement with the country regarding its controversial nuclear program. He threatened to veto any bill that could derail talks by imposing new sanctions.

"There are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, and I keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran," the president said. "But new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails – alienating America from its allies; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. It doesn’t make sense."

Meanwhile, he praised US policy for "opposing Russian aggression, supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies," saying that Russia is "isolated" and has an "economy in tatters."
With Guantanamo still open, Obama vows closure

Speaking about the Guantanamo Bay prison complex in Cuba, Obama reiterated his intention to shut down the facility. Obama said America has a "profound commitment to justice," noting that the cost of keeping the prison open -- some $3 million per prisoner -- cannot be justified when the world is against its operation and terrorists use it as a recruiting tool. The president said the complex's inmate population has been cut in half since he became president.
Obama stays away from police reform

Notably, the president chose not to speak much on the topic of police reform, referring to the controversial deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner as "the events of Ferguson and New York." He called on people to understand a father's concern that his son would be harassed by police for walking home, as well as a wife's fear that her police officer husband could be injured or killed on duty. He noted that crime and incarceration rates are down, and said the country's criminal justice system should serve all Americans.

However, police reform advocates criticized Obama for failing to dig into the issue and take a strong stand on it, especially considering the massive anti-police-brutality protests that have swarmed the nation.

Obama seeks 'fast-track' for trade deals

Seeking some common ground with the GOP, Obama renewed his support for a pair of international trade deals currently being negotiated with Europe and countries in the Pacific. Obama asked Congress to grant him “fast-track” negotiating authority to secure his ability to finalize the pacts and pass them through the legislative branch more easily, arguing that it's part of America's efforts to maintain influence in the Pacific.

"In the Asia Pacific, we are modernizing alliances while making sure that other nations play by the rules -- in how they trade, how they resolve maritime disputes, and how they participate in meeting common international challenges like nonproliferation and disaster relief. And no challenge -- no challenge -- poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change."

Supporters say the deals will open new markets for American goods and boost the economy. However, opponents have criticized the potential agreements for being conducted largely in secret. Leaked reports on their contents suggest they are too corporate-friendly, reduce regulations on companies, and decrease internet privacy.
Improving America's cybersecurity

Obama also prioritized efforts to enhance cybersecurity in the wake of the hack against Sony. The president wants Congress to pass legislation, which requires companies to notify customers if their data has been compromised within one month of a breach. He also called for a law that would promote information sharing between the government and the private sector.

“No foreign nation, no hacker, should be able to shut down our networks, steal our trade secrets, or invade the privacy of American families, especially our kids," Obama said. "We are making sure our government integrates intelligence to combat cyber threats, just as we have done to combat terrorism."

“If we don’t act, we’ll leave our nation and our economy vulnerable. If we do, we can continue to protect the technologies that have unleashed untold opportunities for people around the globe.”

Additionally, the president reiterated his support for municipalities to build their own internet infrastructure, a proposal that, if supported by the Federal Communications Commission, would bypass laws on the books in about 20 states that ban local governments from offering their own internet service.
Climate change action needed

Obama also pointed to a climate change pact sealed with China late last year as a sign that America is focused on fighting global warming. He added that 14 of the warmest years ever recorded have occurred during the last 15 years, indicating that scientists are right when they say the Earth is getting hotter.

"The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe," the president said. "The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it."
The tan suit stays in the closet

On a more lighthearted note, many Americans breathed a sigh of relief when the president chose to deliver his speech in a navy blue suit. Prior to the speech, the White House tweeted a picture of the tan suit Obama wore during a press conference last year -- an outfit that earned him numerous snide comments from sartorial critics everywhere. Fortunately, the president decided to leave that suit behind.

http://rt.com/usa/224595-obama-state-of-union-2015/

Will Russia take any hard decision ?
14 Ways Russia Can Retaliate to Western Sanctions

Zero hedge did a bit right after his speech, breaking it apart and throwing it back at Obama's face.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-20/everything-awesome-sotu-post-mortem-its-not-governments-job-make-everybody-rich

Also, for his comment about isolation and tattered economy of Russia, it should come as an insult to the rest of the world who is working with Russia, which cobstitutes 66% of the world. And tattared economy.....what a laugh.

And please, never use the Moscow times. It isnt even a Russian paper. Its Finnish.

New Obama Self-Parody: "Bigger Nations Can't Bully the Small...Russia Is Isolated"
Obama's State of the Union address full of laughs, tears and seizures

Riley Waggaman

Barack Obama likes to say silly things about Russia. You could call it his hobby. Not long ago he decreed that Russia doesn't make a single thing, and that there is currently a mass exodus from Russia, Moses-in-Egypt's-land-style. He even dropped a worn-out BS bomb about Russians keeling over at alarming rates.

Then, slightly less long ago, the Nobel Peace Prize-bedazzled president proclaimed that the United States, in contrast to Russia, "upholds core international principles...You don't invade other countries." They don't give Peace Prizes to just anybody!

Now—not actually "now," but rather last evening—Obama has unveiled the latest purple prose from his Evil Russia repertoire, presented during the annual State of the Union:

We are demonstrating the power of American strength and diplomacy. We’re upholding the principle that bigger nations can’t bully the small — by opposing Russian aggression, supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies.
"Bigger nations can't bully the small"? This is coming from a gentleman who destroyed Libya, extended the occupation of Afghanistan indefinitely, and is currently drone-bombing half a dozen other small, defenseless nations.

"Opposing Russian aggression, supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies": This is fancy Harvard Law School talk for "supporting a violent, illegal coup that overthrew the democratically-elected leader of Ukraine, then blaming Russia for all the world's problems while moaning about how the Russian army is at the 'doorstep of NATO,' a military alliance which happens to have forts directly on Russia's borders." Can we move on? Yes we can! Take the wheel, Barry:

Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, some suggested that Mr. Putin’s aggression was a masterful display of strategy and strength. Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated, with its economy in tatters.

That’s how America leads — not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve.

It takes football-sized gazongas to get up in front of the whole world and spew transparent guano. Hats off to Obama. Four more years!

The State of the Union: more harmful to brain cells than huffing Elmer's glue.

Nice read.

Dunno where to post it so I put it in here... well after all at the moment the nominal leader of U.S. goverment is Obama...

https://www.rt.com/usa/315126-americans-back-military-coup/

Basically according to a certain poll 1/3 of the surveyed American is OK with the goverment being toppled by force. To be honestly the sample is 1000 people and I do not really know about the randomess of this sample.

@Mike E: what do you think ?

As Sa'iqa wrote:How would you judge the presidency of Barack Obama, with his internal and international policy? How does he compare co Bush(es), Clinton or Reagan or the leaders of other countries (Putin etc.) The opinions I read about him from Americans aren't the bestm people often compare him to Carter, some even say he's worse than him.

In the first place, it isn't his "internal and international policy", but the persons who control him.

ALL presidencies, Presidents, since Regan, for sure, are an illusion. The person you see, especially when they are campaigning for election, is not the person they are, but it is what a team of people put together and present to the American people to elect. That doesn't mean it's true or factual, it is just "marketing".

All the things they say, when they are campaigning, is just what the persons behind them scientifically or statistically come up with for them to say, that will "sell" them to the American people. The persons behind them intend for them to do what they tell them to, and nothing more, nothing less.

It's like playing poker. If you watch them long enough, they eventually "tell" their true selves, either by actions or words. but for the most part, it's just baloney smaloney.

Maybe if you look at their "team' and their actions, you can figure out what kind of President the person will be, i.e. what their future actions will be...

IMHO