What’s in a meeting?

…Billed as the most significant meeting in recent times?

A lot of built up anticipations. It’s what the Left and media do. The fallout.

A simple metaphor could be appropriate to set the stage for the Russian talk: Obama cocked the gun and team Trump is now trying to disarm the weapon, particularly on Syria. Another way you could look at it is: there is a three-alarm fire and the Trump administration is the fire department.responding. No matter what it takes to get it under control and put it out, there is major damage that cannot be avoided. Coming to terms with that view is necessary.

Two items lead: 1) mentioning the Russian meddling, 2) talk on cease fire in Syria.

So Syria is on the table as a major issue. Let’s remember how Russia got there, by way of Obama and an invitation. But now that Russia is there, let’s all talk about what to do and how to fix it. (some hubris) Even Ukraine, per any mention, is much the same.

Naturally, Putin and Russia would rather deal with — realistically or not — a marginal issue like Syria. There is suddenly talk of Assad leaving, at some point, and more future discussion. Of course, Putin seems willing to discuss that. (no surprise) Now that they are in there, they will have a controlling interest in it and the region — by propping up a vulnerable dictator. See the way it works?

The question now is do we play along by accepting those premises? Again, because it is centrally important, they are there by intervention and will benefit through their current involvement, in the aftermath decisions. It’s like having the arsonist stick around to help deal with the damage from the fire. You welcome his help. What he is doing there in the first place is dismissed as unimportant. That’s the strategy.

I am a bit of an ideologue on Russia. They aren’t really ideologues but opportunists.

Russia for its part wants meeting talks to be about distant side issues — important as they might seem — rather than dealing with the central concerns on Russia. Media assists on that. As long as Putin keeps the conversation about those marginal things he’s ahead. He can debate details or denials on those matters without touching his family jewels. So they have a bargaining chip they stole along the way. Assad, Syrian crisis, ISIS, refugees?

Yet here we are; what the left wants to talk about is elections. Our crown jewels seem to be on the table, or that is the appearance. Then media wants to control the interpretation of any results. Breaking through arbitrary barriers is a central key.

BTW: I forgot to add that the 3-alarm fire was called in and confirmed on 1/20/17.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama meets Obama in Syria

In 2009, Obama went to Strasbourg, France to proclaim:

“Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

Even aside from Syria, Obama is the very definition of arrogance. Who is more dismissive than Obama of any opinion differing with his, especially toward the American people? And derisive, could that not be his middle name – if it wasn’t Hussein already?

His excuses for those comments were just as insult…derisive. Flash forward to Obama on Syria being, arrogant, dismissive, derisive even toward America.

But in the case of Syria, his red-line mantra and acting like an arrogant bully, and then ignoring the will of the people preparing to act unilaterally bypassing Congress. He sent out others to make his case for action.

Then he said he wanted congress’s support, after the fact. He was completely dismissive of anyone disagreeing with him. And later he acts even more derisive, claiming he did not draw a red-line that it was everyone else. Plus it is everyone else’s credibility on the line, not his. He was derisive about Putin acting like a school kid. Of course, there are plenty more negative words to describe Obama but those were among his top complaints against America. Have we ever got arrogance, in spades, with Obama!

His arrogance exudes. He is dismissive of who used the WMD–chemical weapons or where they came from, and derisive toward anyone who questions it.

At the G-20 Summit answering questions, on Syria, he said he was not making an analogy to WWII … and went on to make an analogy to WWII and Britain. He can contradict himself in back to back sentences. Now chief critique of America wants support for his second intervention, third when you count Egypt.

He has been equally dismissive toward Israel and the concerns over Iran building another Holocaust, even undermining strategy. All while his arrogance plays a leading role.

Don’t even start me on his sheer arrogance over abortion, standing in support of that genocide; while being dismissive of rational reason, supporting a final solution of infanticide if necessary, deriding anyone who disagrees.

PS: I didn’t mean to leave out his arrogance, dismissiveness, and derisiveness in Benghazi and Libya.