While President Obama was taking part in a global nuclear security summit in South Korea, he was caught on tape asking for Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for “space.” “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility,”
Who was it that took down the Eastern European Missile Defense System and got nothing in return? Who was it that sold 20% of American Uranium to the Russians? Who was it that insulted Israel and aided Iran, a Russian ally, to become the premiere power in the Middle East? Who said that Assad had destroyed all his chemical weapons? Who engineered the “Russian Reset?”
All this talk about Trump collusion with the Russians. It’s poppycock. Where’s the evidence? Yet we have plenty of evidence that Obama and his Administration were playing cozy with the Russians.
THE RUSSIAN STOOGE – BY RICH LOWRY
Obama’s record on Russia
The circumstantial evidence is mounting that the Kremlin succeeded in infiltrating the U.S. government at the highest levels.
How else to explain a newly elected president looking the other way after an act of Russian aggression? Agreeing to a farcically one-sided nuclear deal? Mercilessly mocking the idea that Russia represents our foremost geopolitical foe? Accommodating the illicit nuclear ambitions of a Russian ally? Welcoming a Russian foothold in the Middle East? Refusing to provide arms to a sovereign country invaded by Russia? Diminishing our defenses and pursuing a Moscow-friendly policy of hostility to fossil fuels?
All of these items, of course, refer to things said or done by President Barack Obama. To take them in order: He reset with Russia shortly after its clash with Georgia in 2008. He concluded the New START agreement with Moscow that reduced our nuclear forces but not theirs. When candidate Mitt Romney warned about Russia in the 2012 campaign, Obama rejected him as a Cold War relic. The president then went on to forge an agreement with Russia’s ally Iran to allow it to preserve its nuclear program. During the red-line fiasco, he eagerly grasped a lifeline from Russia at the price of accepting its intervention in Syria. He never budged on giving Ukraine “lethal” weapons to defend itself from Russian attack. Finally, Obama cut U.S. defense spending and cracked down on fossil fuels, a policy that Russia welcomed since its economy is dependent on high oil prices.
Put all of this together, and it’s impossible to conclude anything other than that Obama was a Russian stooge, and not out of any nefarious deals, but out of his own naivete and weakness. Obama didn’t expect any rewards when he asked then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during a hot-mic moment at an international meeting to relay to Vladimir Putin his ability to be more “flexible” after the 2012 election; he was, to put it in terms of the current Russian election controversy, “colluding” with the Russians in the belief it was a good strategy. His kompromat was his own foolishness.
The cost of Obama’s orientation toward Russia became clearer during the past two weeks. When he pulled up short from enforcing his red line, an agreement with the Russians to remove Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons became the fig leaf to cover his retreat. This deal was obviously deficient, but Obama officials used clever language to give the impression that it had removed all chemical weapons from Syria. Never mind that Assad still used chlorine gas to attack his population — exploiting a grievous loophole — and that evidence piled up that Assad was cheating more broadly.
The Russians eagerly covered for Assad because he’s their client. What was the Obama administration’s excuse? It effectively made itself a liar for the Russians at the same time Moscow bolstered the Assad regime we said had to go, smashed the moderate opposition we were trying to create and sent a destabilizing refugee flow into Europe. This was a moral and strategic disaster.
To be sure, Donald Trump’s statements about Russia during the past year and a half have often been stupid and shameful. But there was always a good chance that Russia’s blatant hostility to our values and interests would make any attempted Trump detente unsustainable. With his secretary of state and U.N. ambassador hitting Russia hard over the Assad gas attack and Trump’s strike challenging Russia’s position, the administration looks to be adopting a hardheaded attitude without bothering with a doomed reset first.
Even if Obama eventually got tougher on Russia — imposing sanctions after the Ukraine invasion and sending contingents of U.S. troops to countries near Russia — he never entirely shed his reflex toward accommodation. No matter what conspiracy theorists might say, there’s nothing to suggest anything untoward about Obama’s relationship with Russia. But based on the record alone, you might have suspicions.
“The circumstantial evidence is mounting that the Kremlin succeeded in infiltrating the US government at the highest levels.” Now, the hoi polloi and the great unwashed reading that are obviously going to think that Lowry is talking about the Russians colluding with Trump to beat Hillary.
“The circumstantial evidence is mounting that the Kremlin succeeded in infiltrating the US government at the highest levels. How else to explain a newly elected president looking the other way after an act of Russian aggression? Agreeing to a farcically one-sided nuclear deal? Mercilessly mocking the idea that Russia represents our foremost geo-political foe?”
Let me take each one of these. How else to explain a newly elected president looking the other way after an act of Russian aggression. That’s Obama and Crimea. That’s Obama and Ukraine. And that’s Assad. At every step of the way, when Russia, when Putin commits an act of aggression, Obama said (imitating Obama), “You better cut it out. You better stop doing it,” and with Syria he drew a red line and dared Assad to cross it. Assad crossed the red line; Putin kept acting aggressive. Nothing was done to stop it.
Agreeing to a farcically one-sided nuclear deal, that’s Iran. Agreeing that the region’s number one terror state will be permitted to develop nuclear power under terms of an agreement with the American president, that’s Obama. That is not Trump. And mercilessly mocking the idea that Russia represented our foremost geopolitical foe, that’s the presidential campaign of 2012 when Mitt Romney was doing everything he could to convince people that Russia was a foremost enemy, and it was Obama and his team mocking Romney for seeing a communist behind every rock, making a mountain out of a molehill and being stereotypical in his foreign policy.
It was Obama at every stage of the way aiding and abetting and facilitating Putin and the Russians. But we’re not through. How else to explain a newly elected president “accommodating the illicit nuclear ambitions of a Russian ally?” Of a president, an American president “welcoming a Russian foothold in the Middle East?” Hello, Syria. Hello, Iran.
How about an American president “refusing to provide arms to a sovereign country invaded by Russia?” Hello, Ukraine. An American president “diminishing our defenses and pursuing a Moscow-friendly policy of hostility to fossil fuels?” That would be Obama and climate change, which benefits Putin and the Russians. All of these items, of course, refer to things said or done by Barack Hussein Obama, not by Donald Trump.
“To take them in order: He re-set with Russia shortly after its clash with Georgia in 2008. He concluded the New START agreement with Moscow that reduced our nuclear forces but not theirs. When candidate Mitt Romney warned about Russia in the 2012 campaign, Obama rejected him as a Cold War relic.
“The president then went on to forge an agreement with Russia’s ally Iran to allow it to preserve its nuclear program. During the red-line fiasco, he eagerly grasped a lifeline from Russia at the price of accepting its intervention in Syria. He never budged on giving Ukraine ‘lethal’ weapons to defend itself from Russian attack,” which we had sworn by treaty to do. We were the ones that made Ukraine give up its military in exchange for our defending them against such aggression.
Then when the aggression happened and they had no weaponry to defend themselves, we sided with the aggressor, Russia. All of this, Barack Obama. Not a single instance of this collusion can be laid to Donald Trump because he was not even running for president when this stuff happened. The evidence of Kremlin, Moscow, and Washington collusion is with Obama and Putin. “Finally, Obama cut US defense spending and cracked down on fossil fuels — a policy that Russia welcomes, since its economy is dependent on high oil prices.”
So it is abundantly clear that if anybody in our country was working with Russia to their benefit, it was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. It was not Donald Trump. All of this business about Russia and Trump colluding to deny the election, it would have made every bit of sense in the world for Putin to want Hillary Clinton to win to continue just this kind of deference.
With this evidence and using common sense guided by intelligence, there is no way Putin would want to deal with some newcomer like Trump who was talking tough. America first and all this sort of stuff. He would much rather prefer Hillary Clinton, guaranteed to continue the same appeasement policies of Barack Obama as she was promising to do.