President Obama’s Moment of Truth

Pages: 1 2

What does it mean when the President of the United States tells the leader of a foreign nation that he has more “flexibility” to negotiate away U.S. Interests after he’s reelected?

It means the country is in serious trouble.

Last week, President Obama spoke with Dmitry Medvedev at an event in South Korea. What he didn’t realize is that his microphone was still on when he decided to get candid with the Russian president. “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense,” he said, “this can be solved, but it’s important for him [Putin] to give me space …. This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” Medvedev nodded and replied, “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you … I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.” And then he said, “I stand with you.”

So, what’s the problem? The mainstream media certainly didn’t seem to see one. They thought that this was just Obama being “too honest” – obviously, he will have more flexibility after winning re-election.

But there’s more to it than that. This is the President of the United States telling a country that is effectively an enemy – Russia has variously backed Syria, Iran, China, and Venezuela in their anti-American plays – that we will hand them what they want should they take off the pressure for a few months. As usual, Obama has it wrong. The  job of the President of the United States is not to treat the people of the United States as an inconvenient obstacle to handing anti-American regimes what they want. The job of the President is to represent the people of the United States and their interests. Obama didn’t just reject that job, he took action directly in opposition to it.

But there’s even more to it than that. This is Obama’s entire re-election strategy.

Obama faces two particularly thorny issues with regard to his re-election effort. The first is oil prices, which have skyrocketed recently. The second is Iran.

When it comes to oil prices, Republicans have jumped on the president with both feet, blaming him for higher pump bills. That’s led Obama to do what he does best: blame others. This week, he blamed the big oil companies for rising gas prices, and suggested that their tax breaks be repealed (a proposal immediately rejected by the Democratic Senate).

Pages: 1 2

  • pierce

    Dishonest and corrupt wouldn't you day. Time to say bye bye.

    • Ronald Johnston

      If there is an antichrist, osama obama has to be it!!!!!

  • MrWHBraden

    I agree, Americans are inconvenient to his flexibility.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Obama has had four years for the American people to realize his major strong point, he can not be
    trusted and nothing he does is for but against The United States of America. The left is determined
    to bring down our Nation to a once was power and a land of socialist misery with elite leaders leading
    the high life and doling out to their darlings what is left to be skimmed from their new slave states.
    God protect us from Obama and his criminal organization………………………….William

  • mrbean

    Now we know why Putin calls Obama "Obambi". Obama is an weak omega male and he is truly intimidated by an strong alpha male like Putin. So he accomdates as he has done all his life, not realizing ex Russian KGB like Putin play the game to win not to particpate.

  • DHConner

    This jug-earred monkey is merely doing his master's bidding, which is to be all show and no go. Those who control him are quite satisfied with the way things are. And when he is either booted out or retires, he will be handsomely retired, if not already to some degree now. His appearing to flounder and flail is actually the consumate acting job: go far enough to appease your keepers, but no so far as to arouse the blissfully and willingly ignorant and foolish average American citzen, for whom only an event like 9-11 cane bring from somnolence. Mssrs Bean and Ward above are quite right, as are the others.

  • Schlomotion

    This article is a good example of why Zionists are on the wrong side of high gas prices. My question is, is Forbes antisemitic? Because they and others blame Israel for the recent price spike in oil:

    • Sage on the Stage

      Hey…whats-your-name…is Iran's threat to take over the Strait of Hormuz Israel's fault? The article does NOT blame Israel for high oil prices. In addition, do you know how high gasoline in Israel is? 7.8 NIS(New Israel Shekel) per liter. A shekel is worth about 27 cents; therefore 7.8 NIS is roughly $2.11, per LITER. This works out to about $8.00 per gallon. Go get a life…Israel is suffering too.

      • Schlomotion

        Iran's threat to take over the Strait of Hormuz is retaliation for the several month tirade and threat to attack Iran's enrichment facilities. Also, Israel's now scuttled airstrip purchases in Azerbaijan. Also, the US trying to put a trade embargo on Iran. Israel is really poised to trash the whole world economy. That would make them really popular.

        Here's another article about Israel and oil prices:
        And another:

        Here's Yuval Steinitz saying it:

        There Uzi Landau says half of your gas price is TAX.

        • Sage on the Stage

          Take your reasoning one step further–Iran should let UN inspectors into their facilities, and stop enriching Uranium. Israel wouldn't be threatening to Iran if Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon. Iran has been making war–by proxy–against Israel and the West since 1979.(Read: IRAN is the aggressor)
          And what do you mean "trying to put a trade embargo on Iran?" You don't try, you just do it. Besides, the embargo you mention won't begin until JULY. The embargo is a joke, and you know it. And "half of Israel's gas prices are tax"…so what?! At least a dollar a gallon of US gas prices are a tax; Israelis are still paying a very high price for gas. "Israel is poised to trash the whole world economy." Is it Israel's fault that the US, Greece, Germany, and other European countries have spent themselves into the poorhouse? Really…now.

          • Schlomotion

            I agree with the idea of UN inspections. However, Iraq agreed to them too and when Hans Blix said they had none, he was fired and replaced with someone who was willing to continue to act like they had some. On the other hand, Iran is certainly trying to build nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Israel already has a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons. China, Pakistan, North Korea or Russia could have already passed Iran nuclear weapons. And the big issue is, you can't make nuclear weapons without heavy water (I know, I've tried), and who is selling them that? Russia is behind Iran. Also, Iran has a belligerent NPT non-signatory claiming that they need to launch preemptive strikes against them.

  • D S Dunlap

    This is why I didn't vote for him in 2008 (yeah, I know, shocking that a black American didn't vote for Obama *if you want to run that angle, he's only half-Black, by the way*). I felt then that he was wrong for this Republic, and the last 3+ years have only confirmed that. He must NOT be re-elected.

    • elmysterio

      Considering one administration builds upon the foundations of the previous, I figure we're screwed no matter who "wins". NEITHER party represents the interests of the working class people.

  • Flowerknife_us

    Fundimental change =changing sides.

  • Maxie

    More to the point, what does the GOP have to say? Crickets? Are those crickets I hear?