US tells UN Russia “outright lied” over activity in Ukraine while Obama lies inert

President Obama can make all the empty rhetorical declarations about Russia being isolated, but the facts are clear. Russia has invaded a sovereign state. They have supported a para-military separatist movement that has ceded the Crimea from Ukraine. Russia was behind the shoot down of a civilian airliner to wit we know nothing about as they enabled their proxy army to cordon off the area from investigators. Just recently it seems that Russian-backed hackers went after the banking systems at JP Morgan Chase — that doesn’t sound like a country that is isolated — certainly not to the Ukrainians.

As reported by USA Today, “The United States told an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Thursday that Russia has “outright lied” over its military activity inside Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists have been fighting Ukrainian armed forces. The accusations came as NATO released satellite photos it said showed heavily armed Russian forces operating inside eastern Ukraine. “Russian soldiers, tanks and air defense have supported and fight alongside separatists as they open a new front in a crisis manufactured and fueled by Russia,” Samantha Power, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told the council.”

Folks, tanks, infantry, artillery and air defense of another country inside the sovereign border of a different country is simply defined one way — an invasion. The Washington Times reported that a Russian separatist stated the Russian Soldiers were in Ukraine for a vacation — that’s how obtuse they are, and reflects how little respect they have for America and Europe.

And let’s be very honest, Russia sits as a permanent member of the United Nations security council and holds veto power, so don’t expect anything from that prestigious body of do-nothing governance. America should take the lead, call for an immediate NATO meeting and admit Ukraine and as part of the violation of Article V render security assistance and support. Right now, that country is being thrown under the bus. Also, you must realize that Vladimir Putin — unlike Obama — is not going to lose face as his separatist movement was losing. Therefore, he is stepping in to save his proxy endeavor, acquiring at least all of eastern Ukraine.

As a matter of fact, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has intimated that Russia supports a federalized Ukraine — ain’t that a peach!

Evidence of Russia’s dismissive and disrespectful attitude towards the United States can be seen in this exchange. U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power stated, “At every step, Russia has come before this [security] council to say everything but the truth. It has manipulated, obfuscated and outright lied.” To which Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, responded, “Everyone knows there are Russian volunteers in eastern Ukraine. No one is hiding it.” He said the conflict was all Ukraine’s fault, calling it the “direct consequence of the reckless policy of Kiev, which is conducting a war against its own people.” He added that rather than blame Russia, the United States should “restrain your geopolitical ambitions. Countries around the world would breathe a sigh of relief.”

USA Today reports that “Russian military boots are on Russian ground,” according to Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk, who also appealed to the U.N. for a response to a “growing military threat from Russia.” In London, British Prime Minister David Cameron said there is “mounting evidence that Russian troops have made large-scale incursions” into southeastern Ukraine. Such actions are “completely unacceptable and illegal,” he added, urging Russia to find a political solution to the crisis or “there will be further consequences.” In Brussels, Brig. Gen. Nico Tak told reporters at NATO headquarters Thursday that the alliance had noted a “significant escalation in both the level and sophistication of Russia’s military interference in Ukraine” in the past two weeks. “Russia is reinforcing and resupplying separatist forces in a blatant attempt to change the momentum of the fighting, which is currently favoring the Ukrainian military,” Tak said.

Lots of talk. I support seeking diplomatic and economic solutions, but there comes a time when the world must recognize a dictator, despot, autocrat or theocrat. I have been on battlefields and dare not rush into any conflagration. However, while not advocating war, we must as well be ready to answer the door when war knocks. To sit in the comfort of your home and believe that the knocking will stop — it might — but that silence could be the prelude to your home being destroyed, just like the neighbors next door.

John Stuart Mill aptly stated, War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse… A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

I pray in America we will always have the “exertions of better men” — certainly better than that of Barack Hussein Obama.


  1. Because of obama’s deceit, lies and inability to connect with reality, our enemies from around the globe are licking their chops and…acting upon their threats. One can only conclude that obama’s inactions speak loudly; he, himself wants America destroyed.

    • Of course as a result of the bush invasion American military is at war in Afg and about to go to war in Iraq.
      We don’t have the man power.

      You tell me what we should do?

      • Some suffer more than others at higher altitudes but Liberals, whether they are from Sun Valley, Chicago, California or New York are sick all of the time.

  2. So we can’t help illegal immigrant children on our own doorstep because that will cost too much money and their plight is not our problem. But we can afford to get into a war with Russia on the other side of the planet?
    Let’s supply the Ukrainians with weapons and money but admitting them into NATO is too risky. If we do that and Putin doesn’t back down then we will be at war with Russia. The Russians have the ability to strike the continental US. I feel bad for the people of Ukraine but this could very easily turn into WW3 and I’m not willing to take that chance.

    • A war with Russia may be inevitable, unless Putin does a complete 180 and realizes that he is enabling ISIS through his imperialistic desires. As it is, there are no good options for dealing with Syria other than an air, land, and sea blockade.

      • Putin is supporting the Assad regime in Syria. How is that enabling ISIL? And what is the threat to American interests from Syria that is greater than the threat of fighting a war with a nuclear armed regional superpower?

      • There are three flaws with that idea
        1) It assumes that Putin is some sort of Jedi master who can predict the future months in advance.
        2) There’s no evidence to support the idea that ISIL didn’t have a foothold from the beginning. They’ve been around longer than the Syrian civil war after all.
        3) Even if points 1 and 2 turn out to be true, Putin is still supplying one of ISIL’s biggest enemies with weapons and equipment that is being used against them right now.

      • 1. Not knowing the impact of you actions does not negate responsibility.
        2. In the first years. ISIS was not a player in the Syrian rebellion, so yes had we helped the opposition the would not have been a factor.
        3. ISIS flourished after we invade Iraq.

        That 3 strikes.

      • 1. I have zero interest in assigning blame. The question I’m interested in is whether Putin’s actions have enabled ISIL and if so whether that was his intention.
        2. Can you prove that?
        3. Your response doesn’t seem to have anything to do with my criticism.

  3. As is your style, Mr. West, you advocate we “take action,” but never specify what action we should take or explore the ramifications of those nonspecific actions. If we take military action, there are grave consequences to such action: in American lives and in dollars. Are we prepared to spend trillions to try to avert this activity? Are we prepared for World War III? Many wise military analysts say that is not the course to take. I have not heard one say we should exercise military options.

    Your posts here, however, accomplish your purpose: they rile up your readers, while drawing ad traffic, so, I guess, you are accomplishing your purpose.

    • Yes, because Generating thought, or informing of new action is a terrible thing.

      And an Imperialist Russia is nothing to worry about… Nothing to see here.

      We have an Imperialistic Nation, under a dominant Leader.. Annexed a nearby Territory… Then held an election after we (as the collective world), protested, in which they won by an overwhelming margin… And was allowed, due to the consideration of the cost of stopping it…

      Now the challenge for you… Name which countries I am referencing. (I’ll give you 2 hints…)

      1. It’s not Russia and Ukraine (Crimea specifically).
      2. It happened in 1938.

      “Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it” ring a bell?

      • Except Mr. West does not generate thought, or propose actions, while discussing the ramifications of those proposed actions: he merely whines and complains. Are we, as a country, willing to go to war with Russia over this invasion? If so, then increase our taxes to pay for this war or tell the public, it will increase our deficit by so many trillions. No, West would merely complain.

      • My thoughts are aligned with what most national security analysts concede: that the only viable option is to impose sanctions and provide military aid and wait for them to take effect. Obama has done both and they are starting to take effect. Most concur that a military option is not viable – as it would cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. There is not the support in Congress or amongst the public for such a war – especially when sanctions are starting to cause unrest in Russia.

        West did not generate any thought, merely complained about Obama. Generating thought means providing suggested courses of action, exploring the ramifications of those options, while addressing other options.

    • maybe we just shouldn’t talk about it, maybe it will just all go away – yeah let us just ignore the whole thing. you are listening to the wrong military analysts.

      • There is a huge difference between discussing various options, along with the ramifications of those options, and merely complaining and saying Obama should do “something.” The former accepts the complexity of the issue; the latter is merely bloviating.

      • Well are you not doing the same thing? Complaining at Allen West for not suggesting what should be done specifically. He said he supports diplomacy but also infers military response, as in war, really can never be off the table. At least that is how I read the last part. The the real take on what he is saying is that if we ever needed a strong commander in chief, it is now, but we don’t. Obama has weakened our nation and this is exactly what emboldens Putin. War is coming, look around, the signs are all right in front of you.

      • West says he supports diplomatic and economic solutions, but while not advocating war, we must as well be ready to answer the door when war knocks. So, he advocates doing exactly what Obama is doing. How disingenuous.

      • Obama wants most of all deflection from his own failures of which there are many, here at home. How convenient for him. Maybe even a little disingenuous 🙂

      • And you try to divert attention from your failure to answer the instant issue: whether West provided a viable solution, or was merely complaining.

      • Again you are guilty of the same charge you put to West. You offer no solution either, but want to complain. As amusing as it is to engage with you and your little tantrum at West, it’s getting a bit boring.

      • I am not complaining about Obama’s inaction, thus I have no obligation to offer solutions. Nonetheless, I would do exactly as Obama is doing now: using diplomatic maneuvering and economic sanctions (which are, interestingly, the same solutions that nearly every national security analyst has said we should be doing).

        My objection is to West whining about Obama not doing anything, when he does not offer specific actions we should take – beyond vague suggestions we use diplomatic and economic measures (as Obama is doing now). So, is West unintentionally endorsing Obama’s actions here?

      • When Obama wanted to take action in Syria, many conservative commenters, West, included, complained, saying he was trying to become an imperial dictator, that he was required to got to Congress to get authorization. So, when Obama did, Congress rebuffed his efforts. In doing so, congress weakened him to the world, setting the stage for such acts as Putin’s.

        Congress and West and those other conservative commenters fail to understand the cause and effect of such political initiatives: when they take actions to reduce any president’s power, that has ramifications on the world stage.

        These people sacrificed our international standing for the fleeting joy of denigrating our president. To roughly quote Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men:” All you people did today was to weaken a nation. Sleep well, my friends.

      • A year ago the situation with Syria was quite different that it is now, very different. Obama WAS required to get approval from Congress by law under those circumstances. Made no difference what anyone said. I think is it a stretch to blame many conservative commentators, such as West, for the response that Congress ended up with. You will have to place the blame on Congress, not people who have an opinion. Congress at that time very much so weakened Obama with their decision. It is ridiculous to say “these people sacrificed our international standing for the fleeting joy of denigrating our president.” Really? I thought a year ago that Obama played a good game with this, IMHO he knew full well that Congress would deny him, he never wanted to bomb Syria in the first place.

      • Obama was required now, as then, to get congressional approval. Nothing in the legal realm has changed. Your argument is specious.

        Obama asked Congress for permission to intercede in Syria – as many conservatives insisted he had to. Congress refused. To now claim that Obama was “weak” for not intervening in Syria defies reason. As Congress had the ultimate vote as to whether we would intercede, it is ridiculous to charge Obama with Congress’ failure to allow him to act. Since Congress refused to provide him the tools to do his job, they bear the ultimate responsibility for our nation’s failure to act there.

        Even you admit that Congress weakened Obama by their decision.

        Commenters, such as West, by their speech, pressured Congress to forbid Obama to act as we should have, so, they, too, bear part of the responsibility for our failure to intercede in Syria. Yes, they have the freedom to say those things. However, speech often comes with consequences: here, that speech urging Congress to deny Obama the tools to act in Syria caused others to see us as weak. When you emasculate the president, you emasculate our nation.

        You can claim he never intended to act, but, as you have no special insight into Obama’s thinking, that’s mere baseless rhetoric.

      • I never claimed anything. I said IMHO, which would mean that was my opinion, not making a claim, which would be something else different from an opinion. A year ago, the situation with Syria was very different. The US was not threatened, so yes he had to go to Congress. This time around the US is threatened. Obama is the commander in chief of our nation and our military. It all rolls up to him and lands in his lap. Although not advisable or desirable, a president can declare war with or without congress approval, but of course the threat would have to be overwhelming, or US attacked. Guess it all comes down to the eye of the beholder. Sort of like the way I think West did give a solution and you think he didn’t and was just complaining. Here’s my final word on it all. West gave an answer, you just didn’t like it. It was not detailed enough for you. You want to stick up for Obama. I understand that.

      • So, you are admitting your opinion is baseless and not based on any facts? The US is no more threatened now than we were then: any threat to the US now is merely speculative. A president CANNOT declare war: only congress can. The War Powers Act gives a president limited power to act for up to 90 days, but beyond that, must get congressional approval. It was expected then that any military solution would take more than 90 days (implicating the WPA).

        West’s solution was merely to exercise “diplomatic and economic solutions” and being prepared to use a military option, “if war knocks.” That is exactly what Obama is doing now. West did not detail what he would do differently from Obama. He spent more time complaining and only two sentences saying what we should be doing (what is being done already).

        If Obama is doing all that West says we should be doing, why is West now complaining? Could it be baseless whining, merely for rhetoric? Sorry, West, some of us can read through your rhetoric.

      • Don’t need to declare war to make war, btw. Your opinion of no threat to the US is completely based on what exactly? Facts? If we are talking about Putin, West suggests fast tracking Ukraine into NATO, albeit a difficult proposition, and the other options you have already yammered on and on about. If you are talking about Syria, you must be brain dead to not connect the dots to what happen last year and what is happening now. The circumstances are entirely different this time around and by that I mean they are much worse. A year ago Assad used chemical weapons on his own people. Right now ISIS is moving into Syria after murdering and beheading its way across Iraq, and would love nothing more than to obtain chemical weapons in the process. They would have no qualms about using them. Maybe West is complaining as you call it, because Obama has been asleep at the wheel for the last year. You words are nothing but empty rhetoric. Stop complaining like a child.

      • A president cannot take military actions (or war, police actions, or whatever you want to call it) for longer than 90 days without approval of Congress. Republicans in Congress and many conservative commenters, including West, have been keen to remind him of that.

        We were discussing the issue of our actions or inactions vis a vis Syria, not Ukraine, as it relates to setting the stage for the Ukrainian issue. Whatever threat the Syrian government posed to us then is the same threat now.

        ISIL is separate from the Syrian government. Please do not conflate the two. Syria and ISIL are enemies (although some ISIL sympathizers occupy positions in Syrian government). Obama wanted to act then and intended to act on his own – until conservatives and Republicans in Congress stated he did not have the authority to act there, without their consent.

        If ISIL is connected with Syria and if ISIL poses a threat to the US, that responsibility falls on Congress for their failure to act when called upon by the president (as Congress (rightfuly) insisted). Once they clipped his wings, Obama was, in large measure, essentially powerless to act there. It is fruitless to undertake a military campaign if Congress will prevent you from following it to completion.

        Until a few days ago, Ukraine was not seeking membership in NATO. Many NATO allies and many in the Ukraine oppose Ukrainian membership. We are not the dictator of NATO and cannot unilaterally grant Ukraine membership.

        You say Obama has been asleep at the wheel for the past year: what is it he should have been doing that he was not? Or, are you going to follow that up with more obfuscation?

        By the way, paragraphs are your friend: they make lengthy documents more clear. That is why we were taught in elementary school to use them.

      • Making war is not the same as declaring war, guess you didn’t catch what I meant. We are already making war with airstrikes on ISIS. Maybe not all American eyes look at it this way, but trust me every last pair of ISIS eyes does and . . .

        why yes I know ISIS and Syria are separate lol!. They are both our enemies and each others enemies. A year ago he held off going forward against Syria and instead sought congressional approval. You say that it was the republicans/conservatives of congress that did not give approval. Why was that?

        A good case for the action was not put to congress. He was uncertain in his decision once he made it (in 2013) and started flip flopping, asked for congress approval, then backed up and asked them not to vote as he sent Kerry to talk at the bear on working out a solution with the Syrians. Could he have mucked it up any more? What kind of case did that present? It was not an easy sell for sure, but he completely deflated himself. No wonder it failed at congress.

        We have a new set of circumstances now. Winning approval this time around won’t be so hard for him I think now that ISIS is in the mix. I honestly do not understand your position in saying that the US is not threaten by Islamic aggression and ISIS. Do you not fully understand the Islamic vision for the world in general? Take a good look at what ISIS is doing right now to get a better idea. They are calling our name.

        I said he has been asleep at the wheel because for the past year a lot has been happening in Iraq, but he just sat there watching, apparently. Watched a good portion of Iraq be overtaken, 1/3 of the country. Even after Mosul, still seems as if he was unable to figure out what to do, that was in June. What he is doing now, he should have been doing 4-6 months ago. Also he can seriously follow Cameron’s lead, he seems to get it, finally. That is the best answer I can give to your question. So sorry if you think I obfuscate. It was quite obvious up until the past 3 weeks that Obama did not want to deal with this. Also I might add, coming out and telling the world we have no plan was just a really stupid thing to do. Just not good form.

        Obama has grossly underestimated ISIS. What was initially a force of 5,000 has now grown to 50,000 with an additional 30,000 in Syria. These numbers from several sources, one the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. I don’t know how ready that figure is but SOHR is opposed to the gov in Syria which makes them slightly more believable I guess.

        As to NATO, yes of course we don’t dictate membership. But West did suggest this in the origin post regarding Ukraine. With a current border dispute, membership will be difficult but would be a great solution if it could happen. Putin would then have to back off. Not sure if I heard Obama speak to this or not.

        Do you like my paragraphs? Hope I made it easier for you.

      • The crucial parts of the case he made for intervention in Syria were made mainly in secret meetings with Congress, so few know what case he made. Nonetheless, even before he made his case, conservatives (including West) argued against intervention in Syria. If Obama advocated actions detrimental to our country, many, including West, would call him a traitor.

        Assuming he made a weak case, at the end of day, if Congress denied our country from acting in our best interests, Congress bears responsibility. They could have dug deeper into the issue and acted in our country’s interest – not with the interest of thwarting our commander-in-chief. To sabotage our country’s interests for political gain is outrageous.
        I am well-aware of the Islamic issues. Islam is not a centrally run religion: there is no “Islamic vision for the world in general.” ISIL is murdering many Muslims and is opposed by many Muslims. To claim ISIL represents Islam ignores reality.

        ISIL is a new organization that is gaining converts every day. Not surprisingly. That is not Obama’s fault, as any president has no control over what people do all over the world. Iraq and Syria were unstable before he took office and there is little we can do to provide stability in both, without tremendous cost of lives and money. We knew that going in, which is why many warned this was a war doomed to fail.

        Obama does most of his negotiations in private – as any wise negotiator or national leader does. We know little of what is going on behind the scenes. For West, you, or others to argue, based on what is in the public record, is to ignore reality of the situation.

      • We don’t have to assume anything. A year later you can go back and see it all for yourself. He made a weak case and the evidence is the outcome of the vote. The UN didn’t back him and NATO didn’t back him. But it’s Congress that sabotages our country if they don’t agree with Obama. Right.

        I would suggest you read and listen to Bill Warner. He is an expert on Islam. You can learn a lot. You are not as aware of Islamic issues as you think. If you think there is no Islamic vision for the world you just simply do not know the history of Islam. It’s that simple. Knowing the history explains everything, especially what is happening today. If you refuse to gain the knowledge you will remain ignorant.

        You are the one ignoring reality. You are Obama’s BFF. Get over yourself and open your eyes.

      • Actually, I am very knowledgeable about Islamic terrorism issues. My views are shared by many of my colleagues. Your view is akin to the hatred spewed by the Nazis against the Jews.

      • Congress – not the U.N. or NATO – is directly responsible for the security of our country. If you want to abdicate that responsibility to the UN or NATO, I choose not.

      • “Congress – not the U.N. or NATO – is directly responsible for the
        security of our country. If you want to abdicate that responsibility
        to the UN or NATO, I choose not.” LOL!!! Seriously, that is the best you can do? OF COURSE the UN and NATO are not responsible for the security of our nation you squirming idiot! That is not what I said, can you not read? I said that Obama did not have support from the UN or NATO. What don’t you understand about what I am saying to you. For the love of the Almighty I have tried to speak clearly, slowly and especially basic, to communicate with you. But still you zig and zag. Just stop with your pontification. You like to hear yourself talk big, but when it comes down to it, you are just a vast empty dark hole of space. Try to fill it with some real knowledge. Start with history and work your way up. Then come back and try talking your crap. You will notice that bad taste you sense is coming from your own mouth. Obama is a complete and total failure as a president, he will go down in history as the WORSE THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Get used to it.

      • If NATO or the UN will not approve action does NOT absolve Congress of its failure to act to protect our country.

        Your insults are appalling.

      • Whenever one has approval from UN or NATO or both, one would have much greater success in congress. But keep going round and round with it James. I suppose insults are meant to be appalling.

      • Again, you try to exonerate Congress from their failure to act to protect our country by pinning the blame on someone else: in this case, the UN and NATO. If both entities had taken stances against us, it still falls on Congress to approve or disapprove military action that a president seeks.

        Insults are immature and violate the standards of conduct of these sites and of decent people.

      • I am not pinning blame on anyone, congress, UN, or NATO. I am simply saying what happened a year ago. Obama did not have a strong case, the UN and NATO didn’t support him, congress didn’t either. That’s all. If he had made a strong case everyone would have said “go for it!” but no one did. That’s what happened. Of course the UN or NATO does not control what we do, but it always helps to have their support would you not agree?

        Anyway James insults are a part of life. You can learn a lot from them. You are insulting me by saying I am immature and not a decent person. But it does not bother me in the slightest.

        Have a great day!

      • So, Congress put their blinders on and said, “Sorry, since you didn’t make a strong enough case, we are going to allow a terrorist organization to gain strength and kill thousands of people. But, it’s not our responsibility. Next time, make a better case.” Do you see the problem with your logic?

        Insults are not a part of intelligent discourse. They do not teach anything. They merely show a problem on the part of the person making them. Stick to the arguments – not to personalities.

      • From the G20 Summit Obama’s words:

        “I did not put this before Congress just as a political ploy or as symbolism. I put it before Congress because I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians, women and children, posed an imminent direct threat to the United States.”

        Keep arguing about it into infinity James. Congress did not support him and neither did the American people. His intent was a blatant violation of international law. You summing it up as congress failing to protect the US is a very narrow view. There were so many things going on.

        Obama red line was crossed. Obama forced to respond.
        Kerry described it as a “limited strike” and if so then why ask congress for a declaration of war? Obama knew Congress would vote no, giving him an out and saving face.The United States simply would not approve going to war when Obama could not coherently explain why, and then stick to it.

        Arrogance invites insults. That is what you can learn from an insult. But maybe that went over your head.

      • Insults do not derive from arrogance of the other party, but from an inability to argue on the facts, an inability to stick to the issues at hand. There is even a term for that: “ad hominem attacks.” Educated, professional people do not engage in such name calling. Most web sites prohibit such name calling. To be blunt: quit trying to rationalize your immature behavior.

      • I didn’t say “derive” I said INVITE. If someone, let’s say you, comes off as arrogant, someone might insult you, fyi. Stop whimpering.

      • This is not whimpering, but urging you to follow the rules of civilized society – not those of an elementary school playground. Grow up and act like an adult (and learn the meaning of the word “derive”).

      • Ok I will put it like this since you just want to drone on and on. You are arrogant. That isn’t an insult. It how you have acted here. But the truth can also be an insult, oh well. So I am telling the truth, not insulting you. When you act arrogant someone might insult you; like you are just asking for someone to insult you when you try to act like the smartest person in the room, but actually aren’t. That is why I said arrogance invites insults. It makes no difference at all what you think about it. It is what it is James. Does it feel good to act like the insult police and tell others to grow up? Yeah you whimper and whine. If you don’t have anything else to say then just stop posting. There is nothing to argue about, but you still continue on. That’s not very grown up of you James.

      • It is you who keeps droning on, with nothing to say, repeating the same thing over and over again. It is not being arrogant to argue facts – not rhetoric – to make a point. If you see that as arrogant, then I am very sorry for you, for arguing on the facts – not personal attacks – is what intelligent people do. I’m sorry if that seems arrogant to you, but how else can one criticize your debate style, when it relies heavily on personal attacks and rhetoric?

      • For the last week or so we have gone back and forth. At first it started with the original post about Ukraine. Then it moved by your choice into talking about Syria. Then congress and going to war etc. etc. etc. Like 4 days ago there was nothing really remaining to discuss or debate. So to then you started lecturing on and on about insults and all. What is it exactly that you want? I am not repeating myself at all. I am responding to you and what you write to me. I could not care less if I tried what your opinion is on my “debate style” LOL! Get over yourself. Move on. We don’t agree and I’m ok with that. Like very ok. Have a great day.

    • The ABW fan base is stocked with people who didn’t make it past 9th grade. They are overwhelmingly white & elderly. Rah-rah types who lack critical thinking skills and knowledge. ABW is clever enough to follow the old maxim on great lies: all contain a grain of truth. So his op-eds invariably cite this or that Reichwing outlet that traffics half-truths & outright fabrications (his fans don’t care) and he weaves two or three dubious cites into some 3rd rate scaremongering. ISIS will invade America!

      The Prez turned the tide on ISIS in a few weeks. Pootie’s options in Ukraine are extremely limited because, among other reasons, exports make up one-quarter of Russia’s economy. Don’t expect to hear such truths from ABW though. It ain’t how he rolls.

      • I would like for Obama to stop downplaying the seriousness of this threat. Secure our Sovereign borders. Obama spews weakness and advertises it to our enemy. But the answer to your question is “Resign”.

      • Oh so you want Obama to run away, just like you are from my question.

        Do you remember what Bush did after the Chinese shot down one of our planes?
        Bush apologized to china, now that’s action.

        And what did Reagan do after terrorist killed over 200 marines in Lebanon, he said he would stay than ranway.

      • And what did Reagan do after the Soviets shot down a civilian airliner with many Americans aboard? Talked the big talk, but did absolutely nothing.

    • You should be worrying about Vlad…it is he, and not Obama, who is the biggest enabler of radical Islam. If Putin were not secretly Muslim, what would he be doing differently?

      • Your reply translates to, you have no idea what the president should do but he needs to do somthing, like what Bush did when Russia invaded Georgia ….

        And what did Bush do zip.

        Obama has put together economic sections.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here