Then Snowden flew to Moscow, and Obama asked the Russians to extradite him. The Putin response?
Now it looks like Snowden will be off to Cuba and/or Ecuador. Surely, Obama will ask them to arrest him and extradite him to the US.
And you know what they will tell Obama:
The world has truly taken the measure of this man.
16 comments:
What happened to that highly publicized "Reset button"? I thought that once Obama apologized for our past arrogance, then relations with other countries would improve.
In fact, we are ignored or dismissed as impotent now. Our image in the Middle East has declined. We have no influence with our friends or enemies, thanks to the foreign policy crafted by Obama/ Hillary Clinton.
"Leading from behind" is, without the spin, following.
From a strong country, a world leader, we have become a nonentity that can be ignored without consequences in just the last 5 years.
And if only Mittens were president, the Chinese would have been quaking in their boots, and in fear and trembling would have tendered the fugitive to American officers post haste???
Gary, in your desire that all things shall discredit the president a majority of your fellow citizens elected twice to that office, you trip over your own feet so effortlessly.
Personally, I don't think the administration should have bothered about Snowden. If they can get their hands on him sometimes, perhaps a trial is in order. Until then, it does not do to indulge in powerless posturing. The man is not in the grasp of our government at the present time, and we shouldn't pretend he is.
Miggie,
That what apologies get you as president. Do you see Putin going around apologizing to all the countries and ex Soviet republics that Russia may have harmed? And that guy should be apologizing.
Siarlys,
A majority of Americans also elected Bush twice. Did that stop you from bashing him? No.
That's the way democracy works.
Oh, you have a right to bash the president Gary. I'm just pointing out that you're doing a piss-poor job of it.
And a majority of Americans NEVER elected Bill Clinton (the first time I think it was around 43%, which means that more people voted for someone else than for him), but he still also served two terms.
As Gary observes, as goofy as it sometimes is, that is the way democracy works.
Pretty sure a majority of Americans voted for Gore the first time. He won the popular vote.
jakes,
Yes he did. It is the electoral college that counts, as you know. Gore never won a majority of popular votes in Florida and every count confirms that-even with the hanging chads and military absentee votes thrown out by Dem election officials.
Elwood,
We have Ross Perot to thank for Clinton being elected.
Siarlys,
If I am doing a piss poor job of bashing Obama, why are you so quick to rush to his defense?
How can you say that every count confirms that Gore lost Florida when the Supreme Court ordered the count to be stopped? Seems like there was at least one count where we don't know the outcome.
jakes,
As I recall, the decision, which was released 15 minutes before the Florida deadline for certifying the results (or possibly some other deadline, I am not sure)consisted of two votes.
In the first, the Court overturned the Florida State Supreme Court decision by a 7-2 margin. The next question was there still a remedy to continue the fiasco in Florida. By a 5-4 vote the Court ruled there was no further remedy to be done.
The NY Times reported, "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html
The NY Times is hardly a Bush supporter.
What have I said lately to defend him? He's the best president we've had in a long time, but that's a rather low bar. I've been spending this week sending sarcastic replies to every OFA fundraising email I get, telling them why I'd be wasting my money to send them any.
I don't know that Ross Perot got Clinton elected. Clinton did receive a PLURALITY of the popular vote (that means less than a majority, more than any other single candidate). If GHW Bush had won, he too would have been elected by less than a majority. Clinton had a MAJORITY in the Electoral College, which unfortunately is how we elect presidents. GW Bush, on the other hand, not only had a minority of votes, he had LESS popular votes than one other candidate, so he couldn't even claim a PLURALITY. But he did have a majority in the Electoral College, which, as we all know, is how we elect president.
Perot's voters were all over the map. They were VERY dissatisfied with Bush, or they wouldn't have been voting for Perot. They were not inspired by Clinton, or they would have voted for Clinton. How would they have split if Perot wasn't there? That's conjectural.
If we had an order-of-preference ballot, I suspect the instant run-off would have been between Perot and one of the other two, because more people would have felt comfortable voting first for Perot, second for their next choice.
Didn't Perot get 195 of the vote? I have to believe Most of those would have gone to bush.
I don't believe most of those would have gone to Bush. I don't believe anyone could reconstruct accurately how they would have gone. People are more complicated than political pundits admit.
Post a Comment