Rightbloggers Find the Real Issue in Ukraine: Obama's a Sissy

tomt200.jpgWe've had about a week of Crisis in the Crimea, as crypto-Russian troops patrol the streets of Sevastopol, Kiev digs in, and Obama and the EU try a strategy of diplomatic "de-escalation." There's some disagreement among observers as to how this will play out.

Among rightbloggers, though, while there is some diversity of opinion as to how big a badass Vladimir Putin is, there is great consensus on the conclusion that Russia is in Ukraine because Obama is a sissy.

At this writing Putin remains intransigent and Obama plans to meet with the Ukraine interim prime minister on Wednesday.

This may go on awhile, so let us stipulate that despite all the argh-blargh over the issue, almost no one on either side has proposed that the U.S. invade the Crimea or even threaten. Yet conservatives suggest that Obama's failure to do something butch is the reason for the crisis.

For example, Rand Paul, not heretofore known as a Big Stick Republican, said Obama "hasn't projected enough strength and hasn't shown a priority to the national defense. That is something that, were I in charge, I would" -- though he ruled out the use of actual military force in the Crimea, raising the question as to how, then, Paul would "project" "strength." (Dick Cheney also accused Obama of creating an "image" of "weakness and indecisiveness," so maybe Paul would project strength by having Cheney as Vice President.)

Paul also thought the U.S. should respond by drilling for oil "in every possible conceivable place" before people calm down and forget what a great excuse this would be to get around environmentalists.

Former Bush Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complained, too, in the Washington Post, suggesting Obama's "continued inaction in Syria" and attempted outreach to Iran were at least partly to blame; "these global developments have not happened in response to a muscular U.S. foreign policy," she diplo-spoke. Rice proposed responses, including "authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline" to break Russia's oil power, and reaching out to "Russian youth, especially students and young professionals, many of whom are studying in U.S. universities and working in Western firms. Democratic forces in Russia need to hear American support for their ambitions," possibly via podcast.

There have naturally been some unflattering comparisons made by the brethren between Obama and Putin. The best-known was Sarah Palin's "mom jeans" remark -- which may seem peculiar to non-aficionados, though the association of Obama and mom jeans has a long history among rightbloggers. Others were not as dada-poetic, but still fully evocative of a masculinity crisis.

Haw haw lookit -- his bear is pink! (Via)
"The White House is threatening to take a Boy Scout merit badge away from Al Capone," snorted Kevin D. Williamson at National Review. "At their joint public meetings, Putin has dismissively looked away from Obama, treating him as someone he could dupe or roll over at will," noted his colleague, John Fund, who knows how to deal with tough guys: "If Russian troops advance deeper into Ukraine," said Fund, "it might also be time to reassess Russia's membership in the World Trade Organization." That's how you deal with dictators, Obama!

Victor Davis Hanson had a suggestion for Obama: "Every time he gets angry and is about to say something about Israel, stop, and think first to substitute the reset vocabulary he has used with Putin in the past," chortled Hanson. "And vice versa: Imagine Russia is 'Israel!' and Putin 'Netanyahu' each time he wants to see red and reset reset." Because Obama hates Israel, see -- shoot, it's awful when you have to explain the jokes.

"Would Putin have lunged for Ukraine if he didn't have such a clueless adversary?" said Charles Krauthammer. "No one can say for sure. But it certainly made Putin's decision easier." Scared Monkeys agreed, and condensed Krauthammer's argument for his particular audience: "Charles Krauthammer Nails It With Putin & Barack Obama ... 'Putin Looks at this Guy and Says I'm Dealing with an Adolescent, this is a Community Organizer, He Doesn't Understand How the World Works.' HOW ON EARTH DID THIS 'ADOLESCENT' CLOWN GET REELECTED!!!" etc.

Saying Obama had "the snarl of a puppy," Stephen F. Hayes of The Weekly Standard called Obama's de-escalation policy in Ukraine "delusion... Vladimir Putin, it turns out, is who we thought he was. Unfortunately, so is Barack Obama." "Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters is spot on as he discusses the differences between Putin and Obama," reported Steve Straub at The Federalist Papers. "Sadly I think he is right when he states that Putin believes in Russia, while Barack Obama does not believe in America." The Foxhole agreed: "If anyone believes Putin won't follow up on his threat to grab Ukraine and force it back under Russian dominance, they're as stupid as Obama... Putin has no reason whatsoever to worry about the chickenshit in the Oval Office."

"Obama -- and this is a significant character flaw -- still believes he knows how history will unfold -- but thugs like Putin, whether we like it or not, make history," swooned John Ruberry at Da Tech Guy. The Daily Caller literally posted a "Who would win in a fistfight: Putin or Obama?" poll.

When Obama said, "We are now deeply concerned by military movements taken by the Russian Federation within Ukraine," Michael Barone sniffed: "Pretty bland stuff. 'Deeply concerned' rather than 'gravely concerned' -- a much stronger phrase in diplomatic argot." Among Barone's suggestions, besides using "gravely": "Extend the list of Russians barred from the United States under the Magnitsky Act" and "improve relations with Kazakstan." Woof!

Some of the brethren went beyond being anti-Obama and were more explicitly sympathetic to Putin.

"Putin Doesn't Threaten Our National Security, Obama Does," wrote Don Feder at The American Thinker. "Vladimir Putin isn't the Easter Bunny," Feder charitably assessed the Russian president. "On the other hand, he isn't Joseph Stalin." Feder was not as nice to the new government of the "Maidan mob": "We're told that the interim government is pro-Western and pro-EU," said Feder. "When Reagan was president, the expression pro-Western meant something. It meant pro-representative government, pro-human rights and pro-Western (Judeo-Christian) values. Today, it means a willingness to accept same-sex 'marriage,' abortion on demand, an anti-religion ethos -- the agenda of the EU's cultural commissars -- and the economic dictates of the Brussels bureaucracy." He then denounced Obama for making the West stand for "Muslims in the Obama White House," "Obama's life style-friendly military" (gays gays gays), and "the only sitting president to address Planned Parenthood." Between that and Russia, what American patriot wouldn't choose the latter?

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

Funny how the loudest voices of this opinion are the group that is comprised of the largest percentage of non all volunteer Army chicken hawks (found at C.P.A.C. or glued to their boob tubes watching FAUX Noise), and older politician Vietnam "draft dodgers".  

whateveryousay topcommenter

I don't believe it's any of our business.


Of course the raging-right feels it has a patriotic duty to pound on Mr. Obama for--whatever.  The man favors religious tolerance, equal rights for all and paying impoverished workers just enough to get them off food stamps.  It isn't enough for them that Obama has actually overtly or tacitly continued nearly every single one of the Cheney Administration's fear-driven capital-centric policies...including the Patriot Act, domestic spying, terrorist dronings, multi-trillion dollar bail-outs, indefinite Gitmo detention, record setting soft-drug busts, deportation of illegals and prosecutions of snoopy journalists.

They imagine themselves strapping nukes to their testicles, swaggering into red square with six-shooters on their hips and calling-out Mr. Putin for a finger twitching quick-draw.  Yippie kai aye, mo-fo...I love the smell of radio-active isotopes in the morning.

Actually, the U.S. has all of zero business sticking its nose into the Ukraine-Russian affair.  We are not the E.U.  We are not this world's policeman.  The U.N. has not yet asked for our assistance implementing a 'peace-keeping' resolution.

The Ukraine never actually had a legitimate right to the Crimea.  It was a faux '59 gift from a completely insincere dictator on a drunken afternoon.  The place is 90% Russian.

The Ukraine, primarily its parliament, quite severely mismanaged itself.  This led to public protests, popular unrest, rioting on the streets.  Parliament then removed the Ukrainian president without due process--no hearings on his culpability.

This would never fly in the U.S.  Running an elected leader out-of-town sans due process? we call that a coup.  We support that man's right to attempt government in exile...we reinstate him until due process has been carried out, until legitimate elections have been held.

The current Ukrainian leader was not elected.  He was instated by that renegade parliament that, two years ago, falsely imprisoned their recently freed tortured PM.  Why then is the Obama Administration supporting this illegitimate Ukrainian government, their destabilizing actions, fueling of popular unrest and instigation of a coup?

No, Mr. Obama's mistake isn't that he's a sissy...and he isn't really an anti-Putin fool.  But, after Mr. Putin rubbed his face in Snowden, Obama's maniacal ego has again overridden his common sense--forced him to stick his neck out over the Crimea in an id-like attempt to save face.  A wise man would have ignored the whole thing.

That area of the world has been dividing-up into political units according to ethnic lines since the break-up of the Soviet Union.  Considering that Russia contains nearly 90 federal subjects, this isn't the last of the border conflicts, struggles for ethnic-based sovereignty and governments mismanaged into the culturally diverse ground.  Only they can determine their sovereign directions, governmental systems and ruling factions--and it's our job to let them.


Russia is still a country of several nationalities. Based on this past week, it is time to restart the 1980's economic war of aggression. The strategy is to break Russia up. The tactical overlay: drop the price of oil by ramping up exploration, drilling and pipelines on fed land. We become the supply for Europe. The price of gas goes to 65 cents per gallon. Russia goes bankrupt - 55% of her gov revenue is from oil and nat gas. Consider velocity of money from oil and gas production in Russia and the number really goes to 80%. Do you have anything made I Russia in your house: a TV, a laptop, a pair of pants, a video - you see the point.  Next, when gas goes to 65 cents, the Sauds go bankrupt; then Al Queda runs out of money; the Taliban run out of dough.

The world will have an economic boom and can begin to pay off national debt. The US will be able to go to single payer health with no tax increase. Obamacare can be forgotten. NYC property will double in value in five years. With no more Al Queda and Taliban and Jihad terror (no oil money for them anymore), NSA can be retired to spy on themselves.

The controversy is about greenies. Time to null the green voice and wage economic war against Russia. Big oil will make way more dough by selling a lot more oil at a cheaper price. The price of electric will go down; the subway cost can go down.

US unemployment will be at 2% in an energy boom that we control. No more OPEC. Drill, drill, frack and drill. And yes, Greenpeace can get their boat back.

I may be wrong - the price may go to 50 cents per gallon. There is no "Peak Oil." I believed that years ago and I was a fool. Deep drilling almost always hits. The world is awash in oil. It is not  "fossil" fuel at all, just ubiquitous carbon, heat and pressure. Old fields really do refresh somewhat. So, let's go! All Obama has to do is read this posting to Putin and the economic war can begin.

The benefit to each of you would be very large.  Further, we could consider bringing Latvia, Lituhuania and Estonia into the US as States. Same for Belarus and Ukraine. We run the table.


<blockquote>"If I'm the Poles," said Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, "the lesson I'd take is that if Ukraine had kept its nukes, this wouldn't be happening, and if I want to be safe, I should get hold of some nukes myself. If I were Lithuania, even more so.</blockquote>

glenn reynolds is so stupid, he doesn't know Poland is a member of NATO and, therefore, has plenty of nukes 


If Glenn Reynolds is the Poles, all of those jokes would be understatements.


I thought Sasquatch is Irsael.

Make up your mind, Venerius Diseasus Hanson.

merl.allen topcommenter

I thought all of them had totally forgotten Chicken George Bush, I guess one of them kind of remembers him.

StringOnAStick topcommenter

Michael Savage Weiner says "Putin is not the villain in this"; in what way does giving the orders to take over Crimea absolve him of being the villain?  Oh right, PWB.  The last time I tried rationalizations this lame I was just out of toddlerhood. 

glennisw250 topcommenter

Wait, I'm confused. Did Putin invade Crimea because Sarah Palin said he would in 2008, or did he do it because Obama went golfing this week? 

I wondered when the moment would come that the wingnuts would just abandon any pretense at connecting what they write with reality, and just make everything up. I guess that moment is here.


Interesting comment, I disagree, Russia is always meddling in Eastern Europe because they believe they have a right to the old Warsaw Pact. The WP was created and enforced by murder. If we can destroy the economy of Russia and split it up into Rus, Muscovey, etc., why not? What's so special aboout Russia? Leave the military out of it. Why not deal with them as an economic opportumity? We could bring Port Arthur (Vladivostok) into the US as part of Alaska. Muscovy would not like that, but the Siberians would love it. Why are people afraid of a thrid world country that is suffereing a population implosion, a declining lifespan and a single resource economy.If at the same moment we break the finances of Al Queda, Taliban, Iran, Venezuala, N. Korea and Cuba, it's all good. And better yet, we break OPEC. I think Obama would be hailed as the greatest ever. War is a multi-faceted action. The military soultion is always the last resort, meaning that diplomacy and civil leadership has failed. Go after the whole bunch, at one time, in the same economic conflict. Personally, I like Russians. They drink a lot and are sport nuts. They have had the worst luck with governments, though. Try driving from Moscow to Vladivotok in 2014. Might as well be Trotsky escaping Siberia on a sled pulled by Raindeer in 1907. Carthago delenda est. Crash the price of oil.


@gold I question the premises of your argument. 

There is no way that we're returning to $1/gal gas, much less 65 cents or less. I don't know where that number came from, but it's certainly not going to happen, no matter how much oil gets pulled from the ground. 

Trying to accomplish this will take years, probably decades to complete, which means it would have no impact on Russia in the near future. And moreover, is deep oil deposits are so easily accessible, then won't Russia be able to accomplish the same thing? Or Europe, for that matter? Why would they turn to the US for their oil needs in that case?

And, why would they even turn to oil? Solar power generation and wind energy is becoming more common. China is slowly ramping up their solar panel industry for export. Relying on fossil fuels seems to be less important for the future. 

And all this ignores the impact of all this oil will have on the environment - we've already had several major pollution events in the past year from fossil fuel industries, and they have a very bad past record. And lest we forget, burning all this oil and gas is going to add to the carbon in the atmosphere, which is going to continually heat the planet - drilling with wild abandon is a shortsighted policy which will benefit very few people in the end, much less accomplish this frankly fantastical world you propose. You'll have better luck getting to Narnia than the US in your scenario,


@MattinNOLA @gold  Thank you for your review My comment is just common sense (Tom Paine) framed in this moment (Lincoln)with a review of opportunity (James Polk), Bismarck's  politics and the very real advantage that the US has over our present and old foes. Substitute our foes for Carthage: "Carthago delenda est." I don't want US airports looking like the old "Check Point Charlie." I don't want NYC cops carrying M-4's.   I am weary of Americans being told to be afraid.

We defeat the Taliban by an oil war, not a West Point adventure.


@McSalmon @gold   Thanks for your points. I am presenting the hard choice. Forget the environmental issues. Grrenpeace has been a failure at everything save PR. I am showingPTOUS how to finally toss Russia back about 900 years, leaving them like Norway, today, a small country after they break up again. OPEC loves environmentalism because it is not practicd in OPEC and they rob us blind every day. Action demands choices; environmentalism stops while the economic war is practiced. Oil is all over the place, but expert drillers are not. Russia is loaded with oil but they are still haunted by Soviet non production, thus, a well educated highly literate European Russian population does not produce cars, laptops, sewing machines, oil drilling rigs, etc. They don't build commercially viable ships and their mil ships are disasters. No one buys their aviation except the helos, and they are iffy. Russia is third world.

Once the US announces such a program, before anything is drilled, the little Russian stockmarket will collapse. Gasprom shares will suffer.

Once the permits go out for fed land and water and new refineries, new keels will be financed to ship LNG and oil to Europe.  Yes, Wall Street will begin to assemble capital to build ships, rigs, and finance startups and the big boys who gear up for the massive program - like Isasbella selling her jewels to finance Columbus.

We even many old scores. Saud goes broke and OPEC tumbles and all the terrorists, who don't have any jobs aside from terror, go broke because we all know they exist on oil money.

We can burn the poppy fields in Afghan and stop the heroin epidemic in the US. We can shut down the NSA - n need to spy.

Once we do it, others will join in.

Russians can't build or do anything - sorry, that's their history, They stole the atomic industry and nuke weapons from the US and their space program from Germany. They copy well but they do not innovate. They can't compete. Just can't.

POTUS will save his image and presidency from the failure of Obamacare, etc., by using this program. He should call up the boys in Saud, tell them the bowing is over, tell them they're done, and then hang up.

And we take oil to 20 bucks a barrel. That's all it's worth. Exxon MObil sells probably 6 or 7 times as much for lower prics - more profit. They'd love to take their lobby money and return it to shareholders, which includes municipal pension funds. That menas the underfunded gov worker pensions make money.  Apple will sell more phones when people have more money.

African poverty can be attacked with this free money and the lowest part of the third world can get clean water, decent hospitals, schools, roads, better crop and food distribution - because oil will be so cheap and they can fire up those tractors and water pumps.

LA can desalinate ocean water with spare cash and Cali can desal for the central valley so that lettuce will be cheaper.

NYC can hire more cops, lower taxes and turn into Paris.

Cheap oil would be great for the entire world and would crush our opponents and enemies.

There was a time in Manhattan when the standing drinking water was a pond by the bowery and Mott street areas, near the old five corners. It was filthy. People drank beer, hot tea, coffee, anything but raw water - and still there was typhus. Now there is abundant clean water in NYC - best in the world. Engineers did that.

Engineers can crush the oil market.

This is the time. It will make Obama a star for real, not just the fawning language to cover his routine failures.

Imagine if Hizzbollah went broke. If they couldn't afford AK-47's and anti-air and land-to-land missles. We can do this with oil.

I remember the Arab oil embargo. Let's return the favor by knocking their economies for a loop. We can also use some dough to build a real, FREE, memorial to the WTC 9/11.

We are already at war - you see it when you go to the airport, when you see cps with M-4's.

Let's go on the offensive. Hot wars, cold wars, now it's time for an economic war.


@gold @McSalmonNow, if you're serious about this working, and we go along with your premises, then there's really only one way to do it, and that's to nationalize the oil industry. Just make the oil and gas industry a direct arm of the government, which would make sense, since it's now a part of the economic war against Russia and the Saudi government. It'd be part of national security.

We would have to manage it, wouldn't we? How else could we insure all that money getting into public coffers? The fossil fuel industries are well known for tax dodges and price fixing - why would they reduce prices just because they have more oil? In fact, what prevents them from buying public land with subsidized dollars, just to hold against competition? What would prevent a foreign company from bidding on land through a legal shell? It would be ironic to have Putin and the Saudis to buy up rights to drill in ANWR just because they went through a proxy. 

I mean, if we're just going to ignore global warming, and all the pollution that will arise as a result of this extensive drilling, we should own the whole thing, right? It's your idea, what do you think? What do we really gain from the private sector running this when it could be run, with more accountability, from the public sphere?

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault