Obama's missile defense betrayal even riles liberals

Rick Moran
The Washington Post is asking why. So are many nervous Democrats who want to know just what concessions Obama expects to get from Russia by groveling and bending to their threats.

As NRO said, the decision to stab the Poles and the Czechs in the back after they went far out on a political limb to support the placement of the missile shield was "inexplicable."

The Post:

Nevertheless Mr. Gates's "almost" speaks volumes -- because the suggestion by other administration spokesmen that the decision had nothing to do with Russia will probably not be credible to much of the rest of the world, including the Russians themselves. By replacing a planned radar system in the Czech Republic with another in the Caucasus and by ending a commitment to place 10 long-range missile interceptors in Poland, President Obama satisfies the unjustified demands of Russia's leaders, Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev. Moscow implausibly claimed to feel threatened by those systems; in reality, Russia objects to any significant U.S. deployment in NATO countries that once belonged to the Soviet bloc. Following his meeting with Mr. Obama in July, Mr. Medvedev declared a linkage between U.S. concessions on missile defense and the conclusion of a new strategic weapons agreement.

Mr. Obama, who -- as it happens -- will meet Mr. Medvedev in New York next week, has now, whether it was his intention or not, conceded to him. "We appreciate this responsible move by the U.S. president toward realizing our agreement," Mr. Medvedev crowed Thursday. German Chancellor Angela Merkel also didn't get the administration's memo: She called the change "a hopeful signal for overcoming difficulties with Russia when it comes to a uniform strategy to combat the threat of Iran together."

In fact, administration officials say they sought nothing from Russia in exchange for the missile decision -- and, it's worth noting, there have been no parallel steps by Moscow to address major U.S. concerns in Europe or anywhere else. Mr. Putin's foreign minister reiterated just a few days ago that Russia will not support new sanctions against Iran. The strategic arms agreement, though desirable, is of far greater interest to Russia than to the United States.

Does anyone begin to see a pattern here? Obama gives away the store unilaterally - to Iran, to Venezuela, to Russia, to any nation with their hand out - while getting absolutely nothing in return.

Is this the change we were promised? Unilateral concessions are sometimes necessary but Obama makes a habit of it - a bad habit. He has, as the Post points out, made a huge concession to Russian interests and has received no promise of getting anything in return.

The separate issue of pulling the rug from underneath the Poles and Czechs has got Europe in an uproar. If the US won't stand against a newly aggressive Russia, who will? Certainly not the militarily insignificant Europeans who won't even fight in Afghanistan (except the Brits, French, and Dutch).

I think it imperative that Obama be stopped from negotiating any nuclear treaties with anyone. If he is going to give away such an important asset even before talks start, what is he going to agree to once the negotiations actually get underway?

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky







The Washington Post is asking why. So are many nervous Democrats who want to know just what concessions Obama expects to get from Russia by groveling and bending to their threats.

As NRO said, the decision to stab the Poles and the Czechs in the back after they went far out on a political limb to support the placement of the missile shield was "inexplicable."

The Post:

Nevertheless Mr. Gates's "almost" speaks volumes -- because the suggestion by other administration spokesmen that the decision had nothing to do with Russia will probably not be credible to much of the rest of the world, including the Russians themselves. By replacing a planned radar system in the Czech Republic with another in the Caucasus and by ending a commitment to place 10 long-range missile interceptors in Poland, President Obama satisfies the unjustified demands of Russia's leaders, Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev. Moscow implausibly claimed to feel threatened by those systems; in reality, Russia objects to any significant U.S. deployment in NATO countries that once belonged to the Soviet bloc. Following his meeting with Mr. Obama in July, Mr. Medvedev declared a linkage between U.S. concessions on missile defense and the conclusion of a new strategic weapons agreement.

Mr. Obama, who -- as it happens -- will meet Mr. Medvedev in New York next week, has now, whether it was his intention or not, conceded to him. "We appreciate this responsible move by the U.S. president toward realizing our agreement," Mr. Medvedev crowed Thursday. German Chancellor Angela Merkel also didn't get the administration's memo: She called the change "a hopeful signal for overcoming difficulties with Russia when it comes to a uniform strategy to combat the threat of Iran together."

In fact, administration officials say they sought nothing from Russia in exchange for the missile decision -- and, it's worth noting, there have been no parallel steps by Moscow to address major U.S. concerns in Europe or anywhere else. Mr. Putin's foreign minister reiterated just a few days ago that Russia will not support new sanctions against Iran. The strategic arms agreement, though desirable, is of far greater interest to Russia than to the United States.

Does anyone begin to see a pattern here? Obama gives away the store unilaterally - to Iran, to Venezuela, to Russia, to any nation with their hand out - while getting absolutely nothing in return.

Is this the change we were promised? Unilateral concessions are sometimes necessary but Obama makes a habit of it - a bad habit. He has, as the Post points out, made a huge concession to Russian interests and has received no promise of getting anything in return.

The separate issue of pulling the rug from underneath the Poles and Czechs has got Europe in an uproar. If the US won't stand against a newly aggressive Russia, who will? Certainly not the militarily insignificant Europeans who won't even fight in Afghanistan (except the Brits, French, and Dutch).

I think it imperative that Obama be stopped from negotiating any nuclear treaties with anyone. If he is going to give away such an important asset even before talks start, what is he going to agree to once the negotiations actually get underway?

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky