Hot-Mic Moment

[SassyLady]

Will Obama's hot mic moment have an impact on his relection? Has anyone else noticed how this is not getting national attention ... and why is something this important taking a back seat to the Zimmerman/Martin situation?



President Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."

President Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"

President Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

President Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

Captured by open microphones, President Barack Obama (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/whitehouse/barack-obama.htm#r_src=ramp)’s private conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/world/president-dmitry-medvedev.htm#r_src=ramp) on Monday in Seoul could have a big negative impact on Mr. Obama’s re-election.By telling Mr. Medvedev and his patron, the once-and-future Russian President Vladimir Putin (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/world/vladimir-putin.htm#r_src=ramp), that he will have “flexibility” after the American election on Russian demands opposing a US missile defense for Europe, Mr. Obama is in effect saying he is ready to do something the Russians will like but that the American people won’t.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/27/why-obamas-open-mic-slip-could-seriously-hurt-his-reelection-hopes/#ixzz1qOYdMAyG

[SassyLady]

More:



Given that the two were talking about missile defense, the implication was clear enough. In order to please Russia (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/russia.htm#r_src=ramp), President Obama will use a second term to weaken further the peaceful, purely defensive systems that can defend the U.S. and our allies from missile attacks.


Mr. Obama did not refute this conclusion. Instead, he lashed out at others for the inadvertent clarity, complaining to the press about "the stories you guys have been writing over the last 24 hours."This fits what is now a clear fact pattern.

In September of his first year in office, Mr. Obama betrayed Poland (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/poland.htm#r_src=ramp) and the Czech Republic (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/czech-republic.htm#r_src=ramp), our allies on missile defense.

They had previously agreed to host missile interceptors and radars necessary to defend against inbound missiles from Southwest Asian countries like Iran (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/iran.htm#r_src=ramp). In so doing, they had stuck their necks out—gaining the ire of their traditional adversary and former occupier Russia—to show their commitment to NATO (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/world/nato.htm#r_src=ramp), their American allies, and a civilized order that rejects being held hostage by a future Iranian nuclear arsenal.

Mr. Obama canceled the deployment. In return, he and his Secretary of State received a number of feel-good photo opportunities with Russian leaders but little else.

Russian help on Afghanistan (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/afghanistan.htm#r_src=ramp) never materialized—substantially none of the military goods our troops need to fight in Afghanistan have ever even transshipped through Russia.

On the Arab Spring (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/world/arab-spring.htm#r_src=ramp), to the extent Mr. Obama has ever had a policy, Moscow has opposed it.In late 2010, President Obama got the Senate to ratify the new START treaty. The agreement drastically cut America’s nuclear arsenal in exchange for reductions Moscow was already undertaking. It ignored Russia’s advantage in tactical nuclear weapons. Worst of all, the Russians believe that the treaty pledged the U.S. to forgo missile defense enhancements—a belief Mr. Obama and his administration have quietly indulged.

In other words, Russia wants to U.S. and our allies to remain as defenseless as possible to ballistic missile attacks from existing or future nuclear powers. President Obama helped Moscow achieve this in return for nothing other than a supposedly improved relationship. And he will ‘double down’ on this far-left approach to foreign policy in the second term he expects, when, as his comments imply, he no longer feels accountable to the American electorate.

Mr. Obama will clearly continue to indulge his fantasy that nuclear weapons can be wished out of existence—cheered on in his delusions by the weak Washington foreign policy establishment, Moscow, and nuclear aspirants around the world.The alternative to this is to tell the truth about the gathering nuclear threats America faces.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/27/terrible-truth-told-by-obamas-open-mic-slip/#ixzz1qOaLnnjI

[fj1200]

Meh. No one would care either way.

[Gaffer]

The media is already burying it. The GOP should be all over this and make a big deal of it, as it is a big deal. The media has no interest in stuff like this. They have a race war to incite and they can't be bothered with trivial politics like national security and selling out the American people.

[Abbey Marie]

I want to know- what's in it for Obama? I think this is a very important question that we need to have answered.