Obama may give Russia secret data on Missile Shield interceptors

[Beetle]

Oliver North Diplomatic Duplicity

WASHINGTON — In the summer of 1987, just before my "television debut," a true friend instructed me in a congressional hearing, "Remember, the microphone is always on — even when it's not!" It's a lesson I never have forgotten. Apparently, Barack Obama doesn't have any friends to give him similar advice, or he doesn't learn well. Either way, an open mic during this week's nuclear security summit in Seoul, South Korea, has revealed our president's extraordinary hubris and his penchant for dangerous diplomatic duplicity. The video clip of an unscripted exchange March 26 between Obama and outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev should be grounds for the American people to hire a new commander in chief in November. The two leaders, evidently unaware they were being recorded, were discussing new limits on U.S. ballistic missile defense. Obama: "On all these issues — but particularly missile defense — this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space." Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space — space for you." Obama: "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility." Medvedev: "I understand. I (will) transmit this information to Vladimir." Note to reader: The "him" in Obama's opening soliloquy and the "Vladimir" in Medvedev's final remark are the same person: Vladimir Putin — the former and future president of Russia. On May 7, Putin and Medvedev exchange places in Moscow's revolving-door government. This surreal moment of unintended transparency from the Obama administration immediately went viral around the world. In Warsaw, where pro-U.S. politicians are still bruised from endorsing U.S.-built missile defenses — only to have the O-Team "postpone" the project — the president's conversation is seen as proof that "Obama will cave in to Russia." One Polish paper's headline read, "Were they trading Poland?" In the immediate aftermath, officials in Romania and the Czech Republic — both of which are slated for ballistic missile defense sites — wouldn't comment on the Obama gaffe. But more than one political commentator observed that this is what we should expect from the Obama "reset" with Russia. Unfortunately, the Obama reset hasn't worked at all — and Putin didn't need any privately delivered message from his lackey Dmitry to tell him that. Putin has been playing Obama as Yo-Yo Ma plays the cello. And now, thanks to what happened in Seoul, everyone can hear the music. The indelibly corrupt regime in Moscow has spurned every effort at improving relations with the U.S. and repeatedly used its veto threat in the United Nations Security Council to pre-empt any onerous sanctions against its clients in Iran and Syria. Despite repeated entreaties from the White House to endorse Obama's naive hope for "a world without nuclear weapons," Putin is proceeding to quietly modernize Russia's own arsenal — while we do not. Notably, Putin has spurned an invitation to the May 20-21 NATO summit in Chicago, where ballistic missile defense is on the agenda. The fallout from the fiasco in Seoul is undoubtedly good news to the ayatollahs in Tehran. Buoyed by the precipitous withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq last November and talk of an early pullout from Afghanistan, Iranian advocates for pressing ahead with their nuclear weapons program just gained further evidence that the American president is a paper tiger with a big mouth but no teeth. The day after he bared his political soul in Seoul, Obama tried to make light of the matter. As he walked into the summit meeting, he clowned for the world press by placing his hand over the microphone on the dais and said, "Is the mic on?" They all laughed. But it really isn't a laughing matter. Who can imagine Ronald Reagan saying or doing such things anywhere — much less at a summit of world leaders — on or off mic? Can any of us recall Reagan in 1984 talking about "my" election? He knew it wasn't his; it was ours. We shouldn't want a clown for a president. We ought to have a commander in chief who knows that his primary job is to protect the American people from harm. We deserve a head of state who will bow before God Almighty and no one else. And we need a chief executive who will tell the truth to our allies, our adversaries and, most importantly, the American people. It would be good to remember all this, particularly these dangerous diplomatic deceits, in November. Oliver North is the host of "War Stories" on Fox News Channel, the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance, and the author of "American Heroes in Special Operations." To find out more about Oliver North and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

http://www.creators.com/print/conser...duplicity.html

[Beetle]

Of course I would look out for my interest.

I don't see though why Obama would have to consider it "more important" for the sake of "all the issues, including missle defense" to wait. It concerns me because it is my understanding that Obama pulled Eastern Europes missile defense systems without even bartering. Is it important for the Russian to wait because Obama will give them a better deal? That is what it seems like to me. My questions would be why pull missile defense systems without using them as bartering chips? Is Obama going to give them the secrets without even getting anything in return (like what happened with the missile defense systems in eastern Europe)? With actions like these, I must asks questions concerning the motives and loyalty of the President. I am no Obama fan, but if Reagan made moves like this I would questions his motives as well.

So, I don't see this as a matter of what other politicians do, I see this as a matter of what Obama is willing to GIVE to the Russians.

[American Patriot]

Go back and re-read what I said the other day... about double-Entandre here.

Obama was asking for "Space"... not "space".

I think you all need to think a bit deeper than you're thinking here.

[Beetle]

Go back and re-read what I said the other day... about double-Entandre here.

Obama was asking for "Space"... not "space".

I think you all need to think a bit deeper than you're thinking here.

Well, Obozo said "space for me". And before that he mentioned "all the issues" and then states "including missile defense". I am not sure what he is talking about when he says all the issues. In my mind, I see "all the issues" as the things that Yuri Bezmanov speaks of. But that is my mind.

So, are you saying he wants a ride to Space set up because we are abandoning the space shuttle? Or are you saying SDI?

In what areas are the Russian's crowding Obozo's space? Why must Obozo ask for space? Who is Obama loyal to, the Russians or the American people? What happens after the election? Does Obama GIVE our secrets away? These are my questions. What else should I be asking?

[American Patriot]

SDI....

I think he was a sending a different message than everyone else is getting.

But that's me thinking "Conspiracy"

[Beetle]

SDI....

I think he was a sending a different message than everyone else is getting.

But that's me thinking "Conspiracy"

Very possible. I feel that if he sets any kind of deal up with the Russians, he is a traitor to our Nation. It cost a lot of hard earned money to create our technology. It should not be given away by any means. I don't even like bartering. I would only barter if I had a three to four generation lead on the things I am giving away. And I surely would not give or make any move without getting something in return.

[American Patriot]

Either way, no matter what his 'secret message' meant, it didn't MEAN anything GOOD for the USA.

The man is intent on taking us down a few notches.

The Left sees him as a hero. Look at what the other thread is saying about how much of Congress is "bought off" and belongs to the Communists.

Obama is just the "Man in the middle" in this case. He's the catalyst for "Change"

His message "Hope and Change" was meant for those people, not for Americans. It was a "Secret Message" - the battle cry of Communists. Look at the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution - and you will see none other than the same "Face" applied to "Occupy".

They are Leftists, Marxists, Communists and Anarchists who were JUST WAITING for the battle cry "Hope and Change".

Obama was the catalyst.

Change is upon us and there is almost nothing left to do about it but fight it.

[Beetle]

I concur

[American Patriot]

Is what Obama said sinister? Yes. Is it vague? Also yes. Without a context supplied by what had to be an earlier conversation between Obama and Medvedyev, you could just as easily think Obama said something that should make THE RUSSIANS nervous and untrusting of him, as we are.

Ummm The Russians TRUST him a lot more than the American people do, unless they are commies..

Sinister? Damned RIGHT it is fucking sinister. Can you even IMAGINE what would have happened had Reagan said something like that???????????

Doesn't MATTER about any earlier communications between the two or Putin ad Pukin.

Both and either are bad enough.

All we really can know from this conversation is that Obama wants the Russians to believe that being silent, and not pushing him on certain unknown matters that also include 'missile defence' until after the presidential elections, would be in their best interests.

No, Obama was trying to HIDE this shit from the American People. Now it's out, and it's not relevant what he was was thinking. What IS relevant now is that he FIX IT. Come clean, come forward and do the right thing. Now. But we ALL know that ain't going to happen.

The other element of this conversation is that Obama basically said he was certain he would have a free hand if re-elected, but obviously he might not be re-elected if word got out on what this conversation was about. Again, in other words, he's at the very least telling the Russians not to make certain moves until after the election.

And the Russians won't because they damned well want the fucker reelected. The question is WHY?

Because he's a fucking commie and is going to turn America over to the Soviets.

[American Patriot]

Rick, my fear is that the majority of the American people are dumb enough to see Obama re-elected.

And I have a hunch the Russians will regret thinking Obama is the best candidate for their interests too, especially if he's a crypto-Moslem....They are playing a dangerous Byzantine game that will become far too crazy for them to control, no matter how clever they are.

A LOT of them are dumb enough. I don't know there's a majority.

Remember unless you're a dyed in the wool, brainwashed liberal you have half a brain. If you have HALF a brain you can think and thinking means you can see into the future.

Let's hope folks can see far enough into the future they will be aghast at what is coming.

Otherwise, we're pretty much doomed.

I think you're probably right though... we're probably doomed.

[American Patriot]

That, Michael, is where you and I part ways. I'm afraid I've been in too many circumstances where "man" has come through completely for his fellow man, no matter the circumstances

[Beetle]

Why isn't he considered a National Security threat?

[American Patriot]

America is being set up. One way or another.

There were double entendres involved here... innuendo as you've never heard before.

Quoting myself for a reason here...... check this out:

Obama Asks Russia for "Space"

by Taylor Dinerman
April 10, 2012 at 3:30 am

For the men in the Kremlin, nuclear weapons are the last shred of superpower status they have left, and anything that even slightly reduces the threat of their missile force is a menace to be fought with every tool available. The Undersecretary of State for Arms Control recently offered to provide Russia with classified data on US missile defenses to show America's good faith. The very fact that this offer was proposed shows the public where the senior administration officials' hearts are.

At an international summit on nuclear security held in Seoul South Korea, President Obama told Russia's outgoing President Medvedev that on Missile Defense he needed "space" until after the election. What he said was, "On all these issues, but particularly on missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him (Vladimir Putin) to give me space." Obama added that, "After my election I'll have more flexibility." He did not realize that the microphone was on, and in spite of the efforts of his supporters, the resulting political firestorm is not going to die down any time soon.


In the area of strategic policy, defense budgets and actual hardware, the Obama administration's record of supporting effective defense against ballistic missiles for America and for America's allies, is dismal. The President's appointees have dramatically reduced the budget for National Missile Defense and have decided to cut back on essential sensors such as the large sea-based X Band Radar, which is used to track incoming enemy missiles. The administration has also made major cuts in the number of interceptor missiles that are protecting the US homeland.
One of the first substantive military decisions made by this administration in 2009 was to cancel the planned deployment of ten modified Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) ballistic missile defense missiles in Poland, and also the accompanying radar system system that was to be built in the Czech Republic. The GBIs that were to be based in Central Europe were adapted versions of the ones devoted to America's National Missile Defense system now deployed in Alaska and California.
The George W. Bush administration said that this deployment was aimed at preventing new long-range Iranian missiles from hitting targets in Europe and the US. This plan was determined by a US Intelligence estimate; it was still valid as of June 2011 that Iran would be capable of deploying an ICBM in 2015. Iran' s recent launch of a small satellite into orbit would tend to confirm that estimate. The technology needed to put a satellite into orbit and the technology needed to build an ICBM, are basically identical.


Russia had been trying for years to bully these Central European nations into refusing to install the American missile defense system, claiming that it was a threat to Moscow. The pressure the Kremlin brought to bear against Poland and the Czech republic was intense, and was supported by the same political elements in western Europe who had tried unsuccessfully to stop President Reagan and his allies from installing NATO's Cruise and Pershing missiles in the early 1980s. The political leaders in central Europe stood up to the bullies in Moscow and agreed to the American plan.


The political impact of the Obama administrations' 2009 decision to cancel the Central European GBI deployment was devastating. Czech and Polish leaders who had courageously supported the American plan found themselves publicly abandoned and humiliated by Washington. Old memories of the way the West failed to save them from Stalin's empire in 1945 were revived.


While the administration never acknowledged openly that it had blundered, it tried to repair some of the damage. The US promised to deploy something it called the Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) centered around the Navy's SM-3 missile, guided by the Aegis radar and based on ships at sea. This capability against medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles had been successfully tested on countless occasions and has been purchased by Japan as part of their defense against North Korean and Chinese ballistic missiles. The first phase of the PAA uses ships with the SM-3 1A missile, cruising in European waters.


In 2015 the plan is to deploy ships and a single site with an Aegis ashore system using the SM-3 1B missile. The one ground-based site is planned to be located in Romania. By 2020 the PAA plan, if carried out in its entirety, will deploy improved versions of the SM-3 which will, it is hoped, be able to hit Iran's ICBMs on their way from Persia to the continental US.


By deploying these missiles on destroyers and cruisers in European waters in 2011, the Obama administration claimed that it could protect Europe, but not the US, from Iranian missiles at a low cost and without upsetting the Russians. Medvedev and Putin choose to be upset nevertheless, and are still publicly unhappy with any sort of US missile defense program in Europe or even on US soil.


Russia is not going to give up or change its opposition to any sort of US missile defense. For the men in the Kremlin, nuclear weapons are the last shred of superpower status they have left and anything that even slightly reduces the threatening nature of their missile force is a menace to Russia's military power and therefore is something to be fought against with every tool available.


President Obama has repeatedly proclaimed his belief in Arms Control as something the desirability of which is beyond doubt. Ellen Tauscher, this administration's Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, recently offered to provide Russia with classified data on US missile defenses to show America's good faith. She backed off this offer in the face of considerable criticism from Capitol Hill, but the very fact that this offer was proposed shows the public where the senior administration officials hearts are.


For the Obama administration, asking for "space" on subject of missile defense and by implication the PAA, indicates that the ships that are now deployed as part of the current missile defense plan could be with drawn from European waters and the rest of the program could be cancelled or delayed. This would be easier and less visibly humiliating than withdrawing a missile system that had been deployed on land. So, will a newly reelected Obama administration repeat itself and cancel its planned missile defense program to please the Russians? To judge by the President's own words in Seoul, that is a very real possibility.

[vector7]

Russia and Obama: attempt N 2

Nikita Sorokin

Jan 18, 2013 21:34 Moscow Time

Photo: AFP

On the 20th and 21st of January a raft of solemn ceremonies will be held in Washington as incumbent head of state Barack Obama prepares to be sworn in for his second term of presidency.

According to mass media, once Obama is sworn in he will send his national security advisor Tom Donilon on a visit to Russia. In Russia Donilon is to hand Obama’s personal letter to Russian president Vladimir Putin.

This message may become the first step towards positive changes in American-Russian relations. However there are optimistic and pessimistic forecasts about it.

Recently the key figures of the new line up of Obamas’ administration have become known. Though the Senate is yet to approve them, the proposed candidacies are well known. John Kerry has been nominated as new US State Secretary. Chuck Hagel is likely to become the Pentagon’s new head and Jacob Lew is expected to become Treasury Secretary and John Brennon is to head the CIA.

Some facts from the biographies of the new members of Obama’s team give analysts grounds to assume that the new administration will be more flexible with regard to the US foreign policy.

For example, John Kerry repeatedly made statements that the deployment of ABM in Europe would be no longer relevant if Iran’s nuclear problem was solved diplomatically. In this case, according to Kerry, the US would have chances to remove tension in its relations with Russia which position on ABM is known.

Chuck Hagel was an active participant of the Senate commission which produced a report regarding the US policy regarding Russia. This report was quite positive towards Moscow.

Judging from first appointments in Obama administration, the president and the members of his new team are reasonable people who tend to settle conflicts not to escalate them, Valery Garbuzov, deputy head of the Institute of the US and Canada said in an interview with the Voice of Russia.

"In general Obama understands Russia’s concerns and personally he is committed to solve the existing issues. How it is implemented we will see in the near future. ABM is likely the main issue in the future relations between Russia and the US. It is obvious that Americans won’t give up the idea of ABM but how Russia will adjust its position is a different thing."

Moscow is still counting on Obama’s flexibility with regard to ABM. The US president promised then Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev to be more flexible in case of his reelection. But at that moment all other aspects in the reset of the US-Russia relations initiated by Obama got stuck because of ABM issue.

While the issue of ABM remains, the fate of the “reset” is seen differently by different experts. Americans were the first who stopped using this term. They say that 4 years ago it was simply necessary to renew Russian-American relations, which had come to a deadlock under George Bush Jr. We hear from Leonid Polyakov, head of the department of political sciences at the Higher School of Economics.

"Today Americans prefer not to use this term. That means that the reset exists neither as part of the diplomatic vocabulary nor as a fact. We are entering the new reality, the reality the US did not want to have but in which Americans will have to cooperate with Russia ruled by president Vladimir Putin. Cooperation between Putin and Obama is one of the decisive factors for building the world order in 21st century."

The potential of the reset in the US-Russian relations has been exhausted and the relations will only worsen because the unsolved issues tend to become tenser, pessimistic experts say.

All the aspects of the bilateral dialogue including humanitarian and economic ties are very vulnerable due to different international crisis factors which seldom go beyond the military and political context. The military and political context is formed by such factors as ABM program and disagreements on Iranian and Syrian issues.

When counting on potential flexibility of the key figures in the new US administration it is important to remember that it was Obama who personally approved the draft on ABM as part of NATO development.

It is also important to remember that it was Obama who presented his program on strengthening US global leadership in the 21st century to the Pentagon.

And of course we should not ignore the fact that first bill Obama signed after his reelection was the Magnitsky Act.

After the results of the US presidential elections were announced, the US ambassador in Russia Michael McFaul wrote on his Twitter page that in relations with Russia the US would keep to the strategy which had been set four years ago.

However Tom Donilon’s visit to Russia will take place soon. If Obama’s letter he is to hand to president Putin is not a formal protocol gesture it may mean a new attempt by Obama to really renew the content of the bilateral dialogue with Moscow.

[American Patriot]

So he wants to give them our secrets on blowing Russian Missiles out of the sky.

Fucking Commie asshole.

[vector7]

Obama discussing giving Russia missile defense data

May. 8, 2013 - 09:02PM |
Comments

By Desmond Butler
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency says that the Obama administration has discussed declassifying key data on U.S. missile defense in order to provide it to Russia.

The administration has been exploring how to ease Russian concerns that the U.S. missile defense shield is aimed at countering Russia's nuclear arsenal.

Arms control advocates have suggested that revealing missile interceptor capabilities could provide a breakthrough on an issue that Russia says stands in the way of nuclear arms reductions. But doing so would provoke charges by Republicans that the administration is compromising national security to appease Moscow.

Under questioning at a hearing on Wednesday, Missile Defense Agency director Vice Adm. James Syring said that he has discussed declassifying data, including the speed of interceptors, with senior Defense Department officials.

Missile defense has long been a contentious issue between the United States and Russia. The U.S. has said that its capabilities are aimed at countering threats from Iran and North Korea. It says that its interceptors would not pose a threat to Russia's huge nuclear arsenal.

President Obama has twice altered U.S. missile defense plans in Europe that Russia had stridently opposed. He has said the decisions were about better addressing threats. But Republicans have charged that they were aimed at soothing Russian objections.

[American Patriot]

Somehow....

You know wait a minute.

Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify" but he also said, "We will share this technology with the Russians" (speaking about the Strategic Defense Inititive - aka "Star Wars" and now called Missile Defense Agency) and when he did, the Leftists went BATSHITFUCKINGCRAZY.



http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=2424,5167492

https://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publ..._against_b.pdf


Obama wants to do it and not a stinkin' peep out of them.

[American Patriot]

What's the difference?


How do you tell a communist? Well, a communist is someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-communist? That's someone who understands Marx and Lenin! Ronald Reagan - 1982

[Ryan Ruck]

Russians Inspect Missile Defense Base in California

August 22, 2013
By Bill Gertz

Russian officials this week carried out a secret inspection of the U.S. strategic missile defense base in California as part of the New START arms treaty, according to Obama administration officials.

The inspection of five missile defense interceptors is allowed under the 2010 arms accord. The treaty requires cuts of U.S. and Russian deployed strategic warheads to 1,550.

A defense official said the visit was a treaty verification visit hosted by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

A State Department official declined to comment on the inspection but confirmed it was related to New START. “Implementation activities under New START are confidential,” the official said.

However, Thomas Moore, a former Senate Foreign Relations Committee professional staff member, said the inspection of the base was a controversial part of U.S. and Russian arms talks leading up to New START that was ratified by the Senate in December 2010.

The United States had opposed including the five Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) silos in the treaty inspection terms, said Moore, a specialist on arms control issues.

The Russians refused, and because the five silos had been converted from offensive intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos, negotiators settled on a single inspection, Moore said, adding that he believed this week’s Russian review was that inspection.

Russia had demanded including the five silos in New START inspection provisions to monitor the conversion of long-range launch tubes into missile defense shooters.

“Russia gets one exhibition visit in the first three years of New START and one more if it ever wants to look at them again, for a total of two inspections,” Moore said. ”But this first one has to be the only one where they get to confirm the distinguishing features that set these five silos apart from a launcher of an ICBM.”

The treaty prohibits converting any additional ICBM silos at Vandenberg to missile defense silos, and the five current GBI silos, built prior to the treaty, were “grandfathered” into the accord.

“The administration agreed with Russia to provide assurances to Russia that the converted ICBM silos ‘remain incapable’ of launching strategic offensive arms [and] record the distinguishing features that set a GBI-converted intercontinental silo apart from a pure intercontinental silo,” Moore said.

The Russian visit from Aug. 18 to Aug. 23 is the only time the Russians will be allowed to look at the GBI silos to confirm that they have not been converted back into ICBMs.

Moore said the visit does not appear to be part of the Obama administration’s effort to show more transparency toward Moscow as a way to placate Russian opposition to missile defenses, especially in Europe.

“Even if this administration was contemplating some more transparency measures for our missile defenses, these five silos at Vandenberg are a settled matter,” he said. “Moscow gets to confirm what we think makes these silos distinct launchers of GBIs, nothing more, nothing less, and only one time.”

Russia issued a unilateral statement in April 2010 saying that its adherence to the New START treaty would be based on “no qualitative or quantitative buildup in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States.

The Senate conditioned its approval of New START in a resolution that specifically rejected the Russian statement on missile defense. It also said the treaty would not impose limits on missile defense deployments beyond the curb on converting additional ICBM or submarine-launched missiles into missile defense launchers, not including the five at Vandenberg.

The Pentagon currently operates two long-range missile defense interceptor bases at Vandenberg and Fort Greely, Alaska. A third base, for the East Coast, is being studied in response to intelligence assessments that Iran will have a missile capable of hitting the United States by 2015.

The missile defense system, which includes satellite and ground- and sea-based radar and sensors, has been activated several times in recent years in response to North Korean long-range missile tests.

The two western-oriented missile defense bases are focused on countering long-range missiles from North Korea.

The Pentagon in March announced that it will add 14 additional long-range interceptors in Alaska following reports that North Korea has fielded at least six road-mobile ICBMs that can hit the United States.

The 14 new interceptors would be added to the 26 currently deployed in Alaska.

The visit by the Russians is likely to prompt concerns on Capitol Hill from Republicans opposed to the administration’s efforts to share missile defense technology with the Russians.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R., Ala.) revealed in May during congressional testimony from Vice Adm. James D. Syring, director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency, that the administration has sought to declassify sensitive missile defense technology that could be shared with Moscow.

As a result, Brooks drafted legislation that would prohibit the Pentagon from releasing classified missile defense know-how to the Russians, specifically advanced hit-to-kill missile defense interceptor technology.

Brooks said at the time that the admiral’s comments were “confirmation that the administration is actively discussing the declassification of our life-saving missile defense technology [and] further affirms the importance of enacting legislation to prevent our critical weapons technology from falling into unreliable hands.”

[American Patriot]

Guess it ain't a secret any more?