On Tuesday, Obama began the day with this image, mocking legitimate concerns about his national defense motives if, God forbid, he is reelected.
This is of course in reference to Monday's blog about Obama selling out missile defense to the Russians for the sake of his reelection, which now some are debating as a near treasonous offense, as well as indicative of a hard Left next term (again, God forbid).
Later, while in Seoul, South Korea, he tried to BS his way out of the whispers...
AP: President Barack Obama said Tuesday he is not trying to “hide the ball” in negotiations with Russia over U.S. plans for a missile defense shield in Europe, trying to put to rest a controversy over comments to Russia’s leader that were picked up by an open microphone...
“I want to reduce our nuclear stockpiles. And one of the barriers to doing that is building trust and cooperation around missile defense issues,” he said while he and Medvedev made a separate announcement about nuclear materials cleanup on the sidelines of a major security conference here. “And so this is not a matter of hiding the ball,” Obama said. “I’m on record.”
Well it's kind of hard to 'hide the ball' when you've already let the cat out of the bag. This President has perfected the art of backtracking, along with deceiving. Moving on...
TheRightScoop has done an excellent job in compiling the chronology of Obama's long, consistent history of being against the idea of missile defense.
In 2001 Obama told a Chicago public TV host that he did not agree with a missile defense system:
Fast forward to 2008 where Obama pledges to cut investments in ‘unproven’ missile defense systems:
And fast forward to yesterday where Obama tells Medvedev that he’ll have more flexibility on solving missile defense systems, according to Jake Tapper:
Critics have lined up to comment on this disturbing exchange:
Krauthammer focuses on 'last election'
Bolton: Obama's comment was a 'firebell in the night'
PJtv's Trifecta (Bill Whittle, Scott Ott & Stephen Green): Did President Obama's open mic remarks to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev constitute impeachable treason, or is he just one practical politician talking with another?
I think it's important to repeat Scott Ott's recitation of the U.S. Constitution, and lay out the entire reading of those specified Articles (BOLD is my emphasis in relation to this particular incident):
ARTICLE III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
ARTICLE II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
We know who the Russians are, we know the former KGB ties that are instilled in their leadership...has Obama not given 'Aid and Comfort' to them? And on 'Testimony' of well over 'two Witnesses'...how about being broadcast across the entire Nation?! Well beyond any entanglements of a birther argument, here's the clear-cut path to the same impeachable goal...is anyone listening? But rest assured, our shameful elite Washington ruling class won't even consider this.
