Russia, Obama: what we knew

But what media won’t talk about. Yet at a hearing with Peter Strzock, for proof of the conspiracy, media were forced to talk about what they have ignored for about a year.

Obama’s cybersecurity coordinator confirms Susan Rice ordered him to ‘stand down’ on Russian meddling

by Christian Datoc | June 20, 2018 | Washington Examiner

Michael Daniel confirmed Wednesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice ordered him and his staff to “stand down” in 2016 in regard to Russian attempts to meddle in the 2016 election.

Daniel, special assistant to former President Barack Obama and White House cybersecurity coordinator, told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that quotes attributed to him in the book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, were an “accurate rendering of the conversation” he had with Rice and his staff.

Daniel’s staff reportedly responded to the order in “disbelief.”

Over the past year, the Obama administration has been criticized for allegedly being aware of Russian attempts to influence the election yet primarily remaining silent on the subject.

The Washington Post reported that Obama himself — along with three top aides — was given direct evidence from the CIA of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s cyber campaign to influence the election.

The Obama administration reportedly knew of Russia’s actions for months ahead of the 2016 election, but failed to take retaliatory action until December.

“It is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend,” a former senior Obama administration official involved in White House deliberations on Russia said of the administration’s inaction. “I feel like we sort of choked.”

I don’t know, but there are words so much more fitting than “choking.” How about dereliction of duty; or treason; or maybe just fulfilling that super-flexibility role, like President Gumby had promised Putin? Media has been busy ignoring it all.

I remember another distant place where standing down was an issue. Oh yeah, Benghazi.

The Question of Obama’s Second Term

So with Obama’s second and last term is winding down, one probing question needs to be asked of Obama. It needs asked but that is why sycophant press will not ask him.

Mr, Obama, you promised in 2012, after your last election, more flexibility to Russia and Putin. Can you tell us what you meant by that? Have you satisfied your promise?

Follow up. In retrospect, no one forced you to say that, was that a wise thing to say? Some would say Russia collected on that promise. Have you anything to tell Putin after the fact?

Second question: how is it you can complain about Russia and its influence, around the world and in our own country, when you personally promised them flexibility? You also mocked the geopolitical threat of Russia and said the 80’s want their foreign policy back. What do the current conditions and circumstances now say about your foreign policy?

Obama really needs to answer that hanging question but no one has the guts to ask him in the press corp. It is very ironic that his term ended on this high note on Russia. All the rage and outrage on the Left is about fears and concerns of Russia. My, how the times have changed. Sort of like 80’s are back. But Obama has a Cabbage Patch foreign policy.

Now he says ‘our relationship with Russia has deteriorated over the recent years, significantly.’ It seems his flexibility has not paid off. Can anyone say epic failure?

To Russia with love

What was it Obama told Medvedev? (when he thought no one could hear him) I think it was “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” Yea, that was it.

“Russia’s recent tests of ballistic missiles are clear signs Moscow is making good on announced threats to prepare preemptive strikes on U.S. missile defenses, a senior House Republican disclosed this week.
Rep. Michael Turner (R., Ohio) stated in a June 12 letter to senior Obama administration officials that he is also concerned Russia appears to be taking steps to abandon a 1980s treaty banning intermediate-range missiles.
Additionally, Russian missile developments “are clear evidence by Russia of plans for its withdrawal from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty,” he said.

…Stike three!

“The May missile test was “the third new ICBM announced since the ratification of the New START treaty,” he said.
“The pattern of activities that are now being reported would completely eviscerate the INF Treaty’s impact on Russia while the U.S. continues to comply with the Treaty’s ‘zero option,’” he said.

Eviscerate? Not in the wonderful world of the Obama administration.

In this game of baseball, three strikes doesn’t mean you’re out, it only means we continue reductions and “honor” the treaty, which apparently Russia is not. (and probably never intended to)  Maybe that is what Obama meant about “flexibility”,  that he agrees to accept whatever they want to do, despite the treaty. Obviously,  in their eyes this treaty was only meant to restrict us not them.

But really now, is “more flexibility” the prescription to deal with Russia? I get it, they are doing this because we need to be more flexible. (as if he hasn’t already been) And their flagrant violations of the ballyhooed treaty go on, without a word or mention from officials in Washington. Crickets.

Oh but the closer it gets to election, expect him to tout the Start Treaty as one of his signature successes…right along with his successful green energy and jobs, and right by his lack of a real energy plan, which he likes to call an “all-of-the-above approach”

But Obama appears comfortable with an anything-goes policy from Russia with disdain. You just know what is needed is “flexibility” from US.