kiev: your one rank piece of shit mr obama!

[bentech]

jesus,
did you hear him talk today?!?!?

not content with winning the cold war then instead of honoring our promises to the people of the former soviet union we instead have been building military bases surrounding them and funding every fascist in their ranks we can find whos willing to burn their fellows countrymen out

fuck if we aint even and if obama aint more all in than any president before him

[bentech]

i dont like goodman,
but she brought on a decent source on this today


Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent book, "Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War," is out in paperback. His latest Nation article is "Distorting Russia: How the American Media Misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine."



http://www.commondreams.org/video/2014/02/20-0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bentech]

But as the violence itself has captured most of the headlines—and even as moderate opposition leaders in Ukraine have admitted they have "lost control" of the protests to more "quasi-fascist" and nationalist factions—experts on the situation in Ukraine say that most western media outlets are performing a disservice to the overall situation by casting Russia and Yanukovych as the source of blame for the bloodshed while glossing over key facts about the manner in which Europe and the U.S. have added to the recent instability.


the Russian Foreign Ministry, also on Wednesday, painted the U.S. and its western allies in Europe as the hidden culprit for the explosion of violence this week. "What's going on [in Kiev] is the direct result of the policy of connivance on behalf of Western politicians and European structures," read a statement from the government of Vladimir Putin. "From the very start of the crisis, [the U.S. and E.U.] have turned a blind eye to the aggressive actions of radical forces in Ukraine, encouraging them to engage in escalation and provocations against the legitimate government."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/02/20-3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bentech]

"Well, here again," said Cohen, after being played a clip of the conversation by Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman,"the American political media establishment, including the right and the left and the center—because they’re all complicit in this nonsense—focused on the too sensational, they thought, aspect of that leaked conversation. She said, 'F— the European Union.'" But the significant part is what the conversation actually represented, continued Cohen: "The highest-ranking State Department official, who presumably represents the Obama administration, and the American ambassador in Kiev are, to put it in blunt terms, plotting a coup d’état against the elected president of Ukraine."

Neither of these critics of U.S. involvement suggest that the Kremlin is a supremely noble actor in the ongoing events and stipulate that Putin's government is also operating to serve its own financial and geopolitical interests. And the same is said of Yanukovych, who was forced in many ways to "choose" between dueling financial bailout deals offered by his European neighbors to the west and his backers in Moscow in the east.

As Aris explains:

It’s critical to understand the economics of the situation. Ukrainian hard currency reserves have dwindled from $35 to $17 billion — not enough to ensure the stability of the government. Ukraine is bankrupt. Under the terms of the EU offer of last year — which virtually nobody in the Western media seriously examined, the EU was offering $160 million per year for the next five years while just the bond repayments to IMF were greater than that. In contrast, Russia offered $15 billion in cash and immediately paid $3 billion. Another $3 billion was to be paid today but that was just suspended. Now [Ukrainian President Viktor] Yanukovych is indeed very corrupt, but it’s being reported as if he is some sort of Putin puppet — and somehow Putin ends up demonized on the cover of the Economist. Had Yanukovych accepted the EU deal, the country would have collapsed.

[bentech]

by CHRIS FLOYD
It is no secret that Barack Obama is one of the supreme illusionists of modern times. The disconnect between his words and his deeds is so profound as to be almost sublime, far surpassing the crude obfuscations of the Bush-Cheney gang. Their projections of unreality were more transparent, and in any case were merely designed to put a little lipstick on the pig of policies they were openly pushing (militarism, tax cuts for the rich, etc.). Indeed, the Bushists delivered their lines like bored performers at the end of a long run, not caring whether they were believed or not — just as long as they got what they wanted.

But Obama has taken all this to another level. He is a consummate performer, striving to “inhabit” the role and mouthing his lines as if they make sense and convey emotional truth. He is not just gilding his open agenda with some slap-dash lies; posing as a compassionate, progressive, anti-elitist peacemaker, he is masking a hidden agenda with a vast array of artifice, expending enormous effort to generate an alternate world that does not exist.

Masking Tragedy in Ukraine
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/20/ ... n-ukraine/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bentech]

Take his astonishing attack on Vladimir Putin for “interfering” in Ukraine. That Obama could make this charge with a straight face — days after his own agents had been exposed (in the infamous “Fuck the EU” tape) nakedly interfering in Ukraine, trying to overthrow a democratically elected government and place their own favorites in charge — was brazen enough. But in accusing Putin of doing exactly what the Americans were doing in Ukraine, Obama also fabricated yet another alternate world.

Obama unilaterally declared that Ukraine should overturn the results of the 2010 election (which most observers said was generally “fair and free” — more so than elections in, say, the US, where losing candidates are sometimes wont to take power anyway, and where whole states dispossess or actively discourage millions of free citizens from voting). Instead, the Ukrainians should install an unelected “transitional government” in Kiev. Why? Because, says Obama, now channeling all Ukrainians in his own person, “the people obviously have a very different view and vision for their country” from the government they democratically elected.” And what is their vision, according to Obama the Ukrainian Avatar? To enjoy “freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, fair and free elections.” Something you might think they had enjoyed by having free elections 2010, and exercising freedom of speech and assembly to such a degree that a vast opposition force has occupied much of the central government district for months.

[dill786]

impeach the bastard.

[bentech]

we'd only get worse AND we would empower the forced who wish to do worse in the process...

[bentech]

Every time we overhear U.S. diplomats talking when we are not supposed to, the conduct of American foreign policy sounds less imaginative, more reckless, and astonishing in its fidelity to eras many of us thought would never come again. Who would have thought Obama’s conduct abroad would recall so closely Eisenhower’s — the years when the Dulles Brothers, Allen at the CIA and John Foster at State, made sheer havoc in the name of American security — and thus reproduce an eternal state of insecurity?

Allergic to history, American administrations can learn nothing from it. Einstein’s thought on insanity — doing the same thing incessantly and wanting a new result — is the default position. No wonder America’s relations in the Middle East and across both oceans have deteriorated since the Germans took down the Berlin Wall.



Nuland and the Ukraine: The Message Beneath the Vulgarity
http://fpif.org/nuland-message-beneath-vulgarity/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bentech]

February 26, 2014 | Like this article?Join our email list:Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
Jon Stewart made merciless fun of the recent outpouring of conservative pundits calling for President Obama to be more Ronald Reagan-like when it comes to dealing with the unrest in Ukraine. "What would Reagan do?" has been the common hue and cry on Fox news and other news outlets. Especially rich was having Reagan lackey Oliver North commenting that Reagan, unlike Obama, did not draw "red lines," he simply acted. Yes, Stewart pointed out, that's Oliver North, the one illegally sold arms to Iran, and illegally funded the Nicaraguan contras. That's the one we should be listening to all right.

Stewart then gave several examples of how well Reagan's action-oriented policies yielded such fantastic results. Funding the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to fight the Russians. Of course, it was the the extreme elements of the Mujahadeen that became the Taliban, but, we didn't have to fight them for another "12 years," said Stewart, long after Reagan had left office. And, of course, Reagan selling arms to Saddam Hussein, whom we did not have to fight for another "two years . . . and then another 12 years after that."

Yeupp, that's the kind of president dilly-dallying Obama should emulate, all right.

Theres more hilarity, of course. Watch:


http://www.alternet.org/video/watch-ste ... -reagan-do" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;