Lech Walesa: Obama Has Failed, "America No Longer Leads the World'

Aleister
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

Here ye be. Sergey Lavrov is the Russian Foreign Minister:

www.cnn.com...

Lavrov and Kerry had discussed the idea over the weekend; the two spoke again after Kerry's comments on Monday in a previously scheduled call, when Lavrov told Kerry he would make a public proposal based on the American's remarks.

That's how things work out there in diplomacy land.

edit on 2-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

I think you glossed over this lil' tidbit that FF linked.

And on PUTIN taking advantage of Kerry's GAFF -

Business Insider - Russia Quickly Jumped on Kerry's RHETORICAL Offer of No US Strike

On Monday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Syria could avoid an American attack by turning over "every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week."
Russia immediately jumped on the offer, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow will urge Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control in a bid to avert military intervention.

This is a deft political move on Russia's part, especially since the State Department immediately walked back Kerry's comments by saying that he "was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used."

The Wall Street Journal's Tom Gara observes that Russia is capitalizing on a "silly Kerry mistake," since even though Assad would never turn over chemical weapons, beginning such a process would serve an ideal delay to any U.S. decision to attack Syria.

Kerry screwed up, the White House even tried walking it back...but it was too late. The Bear had pounced. The US diplomacy team was schooled, hard, on how to conduct negotiations. But I still don’t think they really have learned their lesson yet. Their bumbling ineptitude is making this administration a laughing stock.

Amatuers will always get their head handed to them...That's how things work out there in diplomacy land.

reply to post by Aleister

Those couple of Russians can claim whatever they want .... Kerry's own State Dept backpeddled and said it was a rhetorical statement on the part of Kerry.

Business Insider - Russia Quickly Jumped on Kerry's RHETORICAL Offer of No US Strike

On Monday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Syria could avoid an American attack by turning over "every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week."
Russia immediately jumped on the offer, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow will urge Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control in a bid to avert military intervention.

This is a deft political move on Russia's part, especially since the State Department immediately walked back Kerry's comments by saying that he "was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used."

The Wall Street Journal's Tom Gara observes that Russia is capitalizing on a "silly Kerry mistake," since even though Assad would never turn over chemical weapons, beginning such a process would serve an ideal delay to any U.S. decision to attack Syria.

OBVIOUSLY Kerry gaff'd and Putin jumped on it. Good thing too, otherwise Obama would have us all at war in Syria with Americans dying in order to defend Al Qaieda cannibals.

reply to post by TDawgRex


First you ask me to prove it, I prove it, and then you go back to quoting the public spin. If I ask someone to prove something, and they do, I say "cool, thanks for the data" or type words to that effect. The State Department statement was a lie, a misdirect, a gotcha, just to "prove" to the public that America and the Russians don't negotiate behind the scenes. But I know the mindset, because to me both old man and young idiot Bush could do no right, whatever they did, because of their evil aura just being too much to even look at. You might feel the same about Obama. But yes, he did keep America out of war with Syria, something the rebels weren't at all happy about.

Aleister
First you ask me to prove it, I prove it, and then you go back to quoting the public spin.

The State Department itself admitting that their leader GAFF'd isn't 'public spin'.
If they were engaging in 'public spin' then they'd cover and say Kerry meant to say it all along.
But that's not what they did. They admitted his error. RUSSIA is spinning.

The artificially constructed "bankers shill" (Obama to some) has done exactly as he was ordered to do.....
The fact that we did not end up bombing Syria, is testament to Obama having his ass handed to him in the international arena.....rightly so....
The truth is that the people are no longer listening to that jingoistic crap about the US leading the free world......
The Russians are working for the same bankers by the way......no dichotomy, no illusions that there is more than one system of control......

Aleister
... Obama. But yes, he did keep America out of war with Syria,....

No ... the voting public kept America out of war with Syria DESPITE Obama's high powered intentions to engage in war for his Al Qaeda buddies. I already gave the news reports from various sources across the political spectrum. Obama pushed for it. He sent his shills out to campaign for it. Then the American public gave a loud outcry and Putin grabbed hold of Kerry's GAFF.

Obama tried to push the war as a necessity because it was, according to him, a matter of our national security. What a crock.

www.youtube.com...

FlyersFan
reply to post by Aleister

 

Wow .. that's a lot of spin. Believe what you wish ...

The truth is Obama pushed FOR WAR. He should give back his Peace Prize.

Washington Post - Obama launches final push to win congressional support for a strike on Syria

President Obama will begin an intensive public and private lobbying push this week to win congressional support for a limited missile strike against Syria, but even some of the strongest supporters on Capitol Hill for military action are pessimistic that the White House will succeed.

Obama plans to meet with Senate Democrats on Tuesday, senior Senate aides said. Then millions of Americans will see him make his case during network television interviews Monday and a prime-time address from the White House on Tuesday in which the president, according to an administration official, will argue that not punishing Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons would embolden his regime and his allies Hezbollah and Iran.

CNN - White House pushes Congress on Syria

(CNN) -- The Obama administration pushed forward Sunday on a new path toward military action in Syria, urging Congress to support the president's call.

Tests found signatures of sarin gas in blood and hair samples collected from the Damascus site of an alleged chemical weapons attack, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday on CNN's State of the Union.
The samples were collected separately from a United Nations investigation into the August 21 attack and provide further proof that the Syrian regime attacked its own people, Kerry said.

With "each day that goes by, this case is even stronger," he said, arguing that the United States must act.
"If you don't do it, you send a message of impunity," Kerry said. Iran, North Korea, and Hezbollah "will look at the United States and say 'Nothing means anything' -- that's what's at stake here," he said.

NBC - Obama Pushes For Support Over Syria Action

The White House ratcheted up lobbying Monday to convince Congress to authorize military action against Syria over an alleged chemical weapons attack by government forces.

And on PUTIN taking advantage of Kerry's GAFF -

Business Insider - Russia Quickly Jumped on Kerry's RHETORICAL Offer of No US Strike

On Monday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Syria could avoid an American attack by turning over "every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week."
Russia immediately jumped on the offer, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow will urge Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control in a bid to avert military intervention.

This is a deft political move on Russia's part, especially since the State Department immediately walked back Kerry's comments by saying that he "was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used."

The Wall Street Journal's Tom Gara observes that Russia is capitalizing on a "silly Kerry mistake," since even though Assad would never turn over chemical weapons, beginning such a process would serve an ideal delay to any U.S. decision to attack Syria.

Yea, that about says it all. Obummer is a wolf in lambs clothes and al the sheeple go " Bah Bahh O bahhhh maaaaaaa

SLAYER69

FlyersFan
Someone mark the calendar. I agree with Buster!

That doesn't happen often.

I know, me too. He got one from me as well.

On topic, I admire what Lech did for Poland.

15 minutes of fame and all that.

What Lech did(think of the time) was amazing. I think he deserves much more respect than that.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Just once more and I'll leave this for now.

Obama did not want war with Syria. He stalled by going to Congress, which he knew would not vote for war, at least until the UN inspectors report which was two weeks away.

He sable-rattled in public, as he had to do to keep Syria's attention.

At the same time highest-level talks with Russia worked out the deal. The Russian Foreign Minister and John Kerry talked about the plan the weekend before Kerry purposely "gaffed", which was on Monday. They then talked again, went ahead with the plan, and the rest is ..... history.

Part of that package was the U.S. State Department saying "No, no, he misspoke" when he had already spoken of the plan over the weekend with the (and think about who this is) the Russian Foreign Minister! They both had to have the nod from their respective presidents to move ahead.

Aleister
At the same time highest-level talks with Russia worked out the deal. The Russian Foreign Minister and John Kerry talked about the plan the weekend before Kerry purposely "gaffed", which was on Monday. They then talked again, went ahead with the plan, and the rest is ..... history.

Part of that package was the U.S. State Department saying "No, no, he misspoke" when he had already spoken of the plan over the weekend with the (and think about who this is) the Russian Foreign Minister! They both had to have the nod from their respective presidents to move ahead.

As narcisstic as this administration is, I would say that this is just wishful thinking.

They got played, they were in over their heads. The proof is in the pudding.

Do you even honestly believe that this administration would play that game if they were successful? Hell, No. Remember how Obama took credit for killing Bin Laden? It would be all over the MSM with the White House saying..."Look at what we did!"

The emperor has no clothes. And his cronies have no clue.

intrepid
What Lech did(think of the time) was amazing.

Considering what he was up against at that time and in that country ... he's a very brave man.



reply to post by Aleister

LIke I said you are free to believe what you wish.
Obama's own words say different as evidenced by the YOUTUBE of him I presented earlier.

FlyersFan
reply to post by Aleister

 

Those couple of Russians can claim whatever they want .... Kerry's own State Dept backpeddled and said it was a rhetorical statement on the part of Kerry.

Whats scary is the fact it had to be a foreign leader to call them out instead of the media doing it.

Purpose of a free media - To mind the peoples business by irritating politicians by demanding they back their claims with facts / more information.

Purpose of media in America - ehhhh lets just say Joseph Goebbals comes to mind.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Walesa said something interesting ... 'we are lucky their was no big conflict' ... meaning that the world would expect the USA to bail them out in a major conflict and we are no longer capable of doing so. I agree that is what the world expects and that we are no longer capable of doing so .. but I REALLY RESENT the assumption that America will shed it's blood to bail out those countries that refuse to spend their own money and blood to insure their own safety.

With all do respect Flyers? I really enjoy much of your posting..but I have to strongly disagree with you here. They assume that because we have promised it. In writing, clearly and with no doubt whatsoever left as to our intent in such situations. Among the direct Nation-to-Nation agreements and obligations for mutual aid in crisis or war? The United States has effectively been the leadership and equipment core that made NATO possible on the scale and level it has been. (I worded that carefully for the Euro folks to not be offended...and it's industrial/military reality that financially broke us which made the above true).

Personally, I feel the man's pain as an American who has watched this empire of ours become a collection of litter across the world. Other nations just haven't gotten around to taxing or asking us to leave outright in the countless little bases, outposts, consulates and Embassies scattered far beyond anything, any other nation has ever attempted.

They've looked to us for help and protection because Uncle Sam has always been the voice in the darkness of night to tell them...'Don't worry..no matter what happens, we'll bring hell itself to protect you, if needed'.

Obama has broken that Faith in spectacular ways with allies and it's something that may cause shock as to who is and IS NOT an ally in the next shooting war.

Why is it that many Americans get all huffy and throw up their arms in disgust at the "help" given to those countries in need when the money spent on "helping" other countries is a pittance compared to the money spent blowing other countries up?

Kryties
Why is it that many Americans get all huffy and throw up their arms in disgust at the "help" given to those countries in need when the money spent on "helping" other countries is a pittance compared to the money spent blowing other countries up?

Because funding both would be to obvious of a scheme.

Easier to take money to research weapons, then take money to build prototypes, then take money to fix whats broke in said system, then take money to build advanced prototypes for actual testing, then take money to build the things, then take money to deliver the things, then take money.......

The take money to incite a war, then take money to drag other nations / US into the war, then take money to fight said war, then take money......

Then take money trying to rebuild what they just destroyed, then take money to "improve" what was destroyed, then take money to build things, then take money to build an embassy to such a degree that the 3 criminals trapped in the mirror in Superman would look like probation / parole, then take money to buy military items for the army that just got destroyed, then take money to train those militaries, then take money.....

Recession, Depression, War, Recovery, Recession, Depression, War, Recovery.......

Dragging it out pretty much guarantees there will almost always be something, somewhere, that will be spoken ill of.

* - Congress will then debate on changing the rules to allow DairyLea Dunkables on the floor.
* - The White House will call for action because Switzerland is on the verge of becoming a superpower with the worlds largest navy.
* - The Judicial will be playing a game of red Rover.

All the while we do nothing to stop it because we are to apathetic to vote idiots out of office. As I stated many times before, when a Senior Senator from New York tells the media the three branches of government are the President, The House and the Senate and, not only does no one really call him out, he gets voted back in.

If you are thinking the above is ridiculous and does not make any sense then you understood my post perfectly. Its that, constantly changing / throwing shiny objects for the public to focus on, they are able to "play government".

If we want responsible leadership then the American people must do their job and vote / be heard / talk to your reps in office.

If we don't do more than just bitch (not directed at you) then we rightfully deserve the government we have now. We would be better of with the cast of HeeHaw running the government.

Somewhere, unseen in the shadows, lurks "something" that is able to tug on the "strings" of events to ensure that the people on Earth don't start working together. God forbid we accept the fact we are all stuck on this rock and that the only way forward is to renounce the system we have now and to embrace one of understanding and cooperation.

I was filled with so much hope when Tony Blair was elected Prime Minister of the UK back in 1997.
Never have I been so let down and betrayed.

I see so many striking similarities between Blair and Obama.

I for one appreciate the role the US has played in recent years on the world stage.
Sure it's government had made some horrendous mistakes and it seems the current administration is determined to continue in the same fashion.
But the world would be a lot worse a place if it weren't for the US. (And no, I'm not a pro-US sycophant as many on here can attest to - I just call things as I see them).

The US has indeed lost the moral high ground and is almost universally mistrusted.

It's policy on Syria beggars belief - who'd have thought that Putin would be viewed as the good guy and Obama condemned the world over by friend and foe alike?
How much of it was political posturing purely for public consumption I'm not too sure?

But does public opinion actually count for much?

As has been touched on, much of what we see is carefully stage managed and the real political negotiating goes on behind the scenes.
I suspect there is very little of major importance that the USA, China and Russia don't secretly agree on but they have to maintain the public charade.
Which leads us to ask just whose and what agenda's are being acted out?

Lech Walesa was a brave man - I remember as a teenager wearing Solidarity armbands in support. (Naïve and idealistic? I don't know, seems like so long ago at times).
But deep down he was something of a traditionalist and quite at odds with the globalist viewpoint we see so prevalent today.
But they were different times, and simpler times.
Despite the realities the USA was almost universally viewed as the good guy.
The lines aren't so clearly defined anymore and we live in a world where everything is simply a different shade of grey, nothing is black and white.

I don't know if any of that makes any sense to anyone else.

Freeborn

I for one appreciate the role the US has played in recent years on the world stage.

Really? Really?

Im 26 and in my life time I cant think of a situation that the USA has involved itself in which hasnt gotten worse.

Well maybe the Kosovo ordeal a exception.

But apart from that they have just been a bunch of yahoos running round the world trashing things.[

reply to post by crazyewok

Really? Really

Really.

Im 26 and in my life time I cant think of a situation that the USA has involved itself in which hasnt gotten worse.

Well maybe the Kosovo ordeal a exception.

But apart from that they have just been a bunch of yahoos running round the world trashing things.

Sure they've screwed a lot of things up and you have to question the reasoning why they've become involved in some things but still, their initial intentions aren't to screw up and aren't always solely motivated by self-interest.

I'm a little bit older and I wonder what the alternatives would have been if they hadn't got involved in a lot of situations.

As I said, nothing in this world is black and white.

ETA.

I don't expect many people will agree with me on this, but it is what it is and we can only speak as we see it.

reply to post by intrepid


Yeah, I should have been clearer on that. Sarcasm doesnt convey well in text form.

What I meant was how soon people forget about those trying times what he did in the overwhelming face of adversity.

SLAYER69

On topic, I admire what Lech did for Poland.

Freeborn

I'm a little bit older and I wonder what the alternatives would have been if they hadn't got involved in a lot of situations.

If we had stayed the hell out of Iraq, Afganistan and avoided blitzing Yemana and pakistand with drones and threating syria and Iran with war every 5 secounds + sucking up to isreal Im pretty sure we would have a lot less terrosism. Theres a reason muslim terrosim not much of a problem in Norway, Finland and sweden,