Here’s the Thread That Shreds the Obama-Clinton ‘Tough on Russia’ Narrative Matt Vespa
I’m sorry, but I think that $30 million in crack pipes was really for the liberal media. Newsrooms needed scores of them to deal with the endless stream of bad news that emanates from the Biden White House. They can’t spin it. They can’t polish it. Every time one wave of bad news exits a cycle, a new one begins. Joe Biden is literally Mr. Magoo only he crashes into everything. It’s a disaster. Now, with war breaking out in Ukraine, Democrats and their allies in the media are in overdrive with their anti-Russian antics. It’s not to support the Ukrainians. It’s to attack Donald Trump who they’ve been obsessed with like OJ Simpson was with his ex-wife. They’re also beating the war drums. They were joined by some of their Republican colleagues as well. Yeah, World War III is just what we need from Congress.
Yet, Hillary Clinton resurfaced from her darkened lair to address the GOP directly, calling on the party to stand up to Russia and stop those from giving “aid and comfort” to Vladimir Putin. Here’s where the hits of the crack pipe come into play. When did the Democratic Party become tough on Russia? The Russian collusion hoax was not that—that’s long ventured into the realm of psychosis. It wasn’t that long ago that we learned that Hillary Clinton pretty much gave the Russians ownership of our uranium mines in the United States. Remember the Uranium One deal. Remember the $500,000 check the Clintons received from a Russian bank selling Uranium One futures. And this woman has the stones to lecture about being tough with Moscow. Please.
Kyle Becker, a former Fox News producer and promoter of Becker News, had a mega-thread that gutted this narrative with a hot knife. I mean, he charts it from Ted Kennedy’s collusion with the Russians during the Reagan administration to the Obama administration’s pervasive fecklessness when it came to our Eurasian adversary.
Obama’s admin. was punctuated by weakness and deference towards Russian foreign policy objectives. In April 2009, Obama announced his vision for a “nuclear-free world.” Then he announced intentions for a new START treaty & Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Music to Moscow’s ears.
On April 8th, 2010, the new START treaty was signed, which would entail a strategic drawdown in nuclear weapons stockpiles. While maintaining nuclear parity is not a bad thing on its face, the treat was ‘hopelessly lopsided’ and allowed Russia to ‘cheat.’
Furthermore, the START treaty did nothing about Russia’s 10:1 tactical nuke advantage or MIRVs. Russia has been a flagrant violator of IRNFT, as well as Chemical Weapons Convention, particularly when Putin certainly poisoned Litvinenko & Sergei Skripal.
[…]
The Obama admin. had denied Ukraine access to “radar jamming and detection equipment necessary to evade and counter [Russian] anti-aircraft systems” — like the system Putin’s cronies had used to shoot down Flight 17.
Obama did not arm Ukraine. Trump did.
“The downing of Flight 17 is of a piece with Putin’s lawless aggression. Having already absorbed Crimea, he seeks to further dismember a European country… So far, he hasn’t paid enough of a concrete price, despite repeated warnings from President Obama.”
Russia is invading because they’ve been getting away with using brute force for years, coupled with an eight-year administration in the United States that did all it could to weaken everyone around them. Obama did nothing when Crimea was seized. He did nothing when Russians established themselves in the Middle East, which went against our decades-long policy of keeping these people out of the region. For a solid decade, the use of force has worked, and Biden being Obama’s former VP, he sees a continuation of that weakness. Putin was right in that regard, gaming out the West’s response with a senile US President. What he did not expect was the tenacity of the Ukrainian resistance.
Comments are closed.
