https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/03/oba...s-problem/

Lots of good examples.

"Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary for President George W. Bush, is president of Ari Fleischer Communications, a public relations firm that works with corporations and sports teams, leagues, owners and athletes."

"Anti-Trump press bias has become so routine that it’s now taken for granted. But much of what’s wrong with the press was on full display in one question at the president’s recent news conference at the G-7 meeting in France.

One hour into the press conference, the president stated that “President Putin outsmarted President Obama,” referring to the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014.


National Public Radio’s Yamiche Alcindor took exception, interrupting the president to defend President Obama: “Why have you been using the misleading statement that Russia outsmarted President Obama when other countries have said that the reason Russia was kicked out [of the G-8] was very clearly because they annexed Crimea? Why keep repeating what some people would see as a clear lie?..."

That brings me back to Alcindor’s question. No doubt, she earnestly believes President Obama was not outsmarted by President Putin and that President Trump is a liar. The fact that neither she, nor apparently the rest of the White House press corps, thought her question was out of line, and an example of bias, shows how deep the bias runs."

Yes, the media is biased. It's good to keep pointing this out.

But I don't think Putin "outsmarted" Obama. Rather, Putin was just like Kaiser Soze from The Usual Suspects - he had more will to win.

Putin feared that Ukraine's turn to the West would eventually take away his only warm-water naval port, which had been a Russian Naval base for over 2 centuries. He realized (correctly) that America/Germany lacked the will to militarily intervene in a country that was 1) the poorest country in Europe, 2) politically divided, 3) historically Russian, 4) had a weak history of Democracy, and 5) has few strategic natural resources used by the West.

(09-03-2019 09:50 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Yes, the media is biased. It's good to keep pointing this out.

But I don't think Putin "outsmarted" Obama. Rather, Putin was just like Kaiser Soze from The Usual Suspects - he had more will to win.

Putin feared that Ukraine's turn to the West would eventually take away his only warm-water naval port, which had been a Russian Naval base for over 2 centuries. He realized (correctly) that America/Germany lacked the will to militarily intervene in a country that was 1) the poorest country in Europe, 2) politically divided, 3) historically Russian, 4) had a weak history of Democracy, and 5) has few strategic natural resources used by the West.

That's not the point. The NPR reporter asked him why he kept spreading a "lie" when as Fleischer pointed out, it was a reasonable opinion. And it was an opinion, not a true/false fact.

(09-03-2019 10:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 09:50 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Yes, the media is biased. It's good to keep pointing this out.

But I don't think Putin "outsmarted" Obama. Rather, Putin was just like Kaiser Soze from The Usual Suspects - he had more will to win.

Putin feared that Ukraine's turn to the West would eventually take away his only warm-water naval port, which had been a Russian Naval base for over 2 centuries. He realized (correctly) that America/Germany lacked the will to militarily intervene in a country that was 1) the poorest country in Europe, 2) politically divided, 3) historically Russian, 4) had a weak history of Democracy, and 5) has few strategic natural resources used by the West.

That's not the point. The NPR reporter asked him why he kept spreading a "lie" when as Fleischer pointed out, it was a reasonable opinion. And it was an opinion, not a true/false fact.

It's more than opinion. It is fact. What's more Captain Bearcat proves it. The ability to read a situation and maximize advantages is outsmarting the competition whether that is in business, warfare, or politics. Clearly Putin outsmarted Obama politically and strategically. As to lack of will, that too is an advantage Putin smartly seized upon. And why wouldn't he? Obama was caving in on Syria and Iran and the measures taken to reproach both were massively underwhelming.

And let's get real. Obama was a community organizer under the Ayers' instruction. Putin was/is KGB. The leadership advantages, the world knowledge base, and the will were all in Putin's favor. Meanwhile Obama was too busy creating enemies within the U.S. electorate for his base to hate to be able to give full attention abroad. Which by the way is why he did not bring an end to the war in Afghanistan, he did not close Gitmo, and under his 8 years nothing more than standard foreign policy existed other than the covering of Benghazi. He was too busy dividing us to bolster our position in the world, but at least he didn't have time to undercut it too much. But 8 years of Obama greatly strengthened Putin's position and that of China and in that regard he was a colossal detriment to the security of the U.S.

(09-03-2019 10:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 09:50 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Yes, the media is biased. It's good to keep pointing this out.

But I don't think Putin "outsmarted" Obama. Rather, Putin was just like Kaiser Soze from The Usual Suspects - he had more will to win.

Putin feared that Ukraine's turn to the West would eventually take away his only warm-water naval port, which had been a Russian Naval base for over 2 centuries. He realized (correctly) that America/Germany lacked the will to militarily intervene in a country that was 1) the poorest country in Europe, 2) politically divided, 3) historically Russian, 4) had a weak history of Democracy, and 5) has few strategic natural resources used by the West.

That's not the point. The NPR reporter asked him why he kept spreading a "lie" when as Fleischer pointed out, it was a reasonable opinion. And it was an opinion, not a true/false fact.

I don't think it was a reasonable opinion that "Russia was kicked out of the G-8 because Obama was mad about being outsmarted by Putin."

That would be like Obama saying that "Bush invaded Iraq because Iraq insulted his father."

Sitting presidents should not give the impression that US foreign policy is decided by the overemotional whims of past presidents. When dealing with foreign nations, the USA should present a united front.

(09-03-2019 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 09:50 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Yes, the media is biased. It's good to keep pointing this out.

But I don't think Putin "outsmarted" Obama. Rather, Putin was just like Kaiser Soze from The Usual Suspects - he had more will to win.

Putin feared that Ukraine's turn to the West would eventually take away his only warm-water naval port, which had been a Russian Naval base for over 2 centuries. He realized (correctly) that America/Germany lacked the will to militarily intervene in a country that was 1) the poorest country in Europe, 2) politically divided, 3) historically Russian, 4) had a weak history of Democracy, and 5) has few strategic natural resources used by the West.

That's not the point. The NPR reporter asked him why he kept spreading a "lie" when as Fleischer pointed out, it was a reasonable opinion. And it was an opinion, not a true/false fact.

It's more than opinion. It is fact. What's more Captain Bearcat proves it. The ability to read a situation and maximize advantages is outsmarting the competition whether that is in business, warfare, or politics. Clearly Putin outsmarted Obama politically and strategically. As to lack of will, that too is an advantage Putin smartly seized upon. And why wouldn't he? Obama was caving in on Syria and Iran and the measures taken to reproach both were massively underwhelming.

And let's get real. Obama was a community organizer under the Ayers' instruction. Putin was/is KGB. The leadership advantages, the world knowledge base, and the will were all in Putin's favor. Meanwhile Obama was too busy creating enemies within the U.S. electorate for his base to hate to be able to give full attention abroad. Which by the way is why he did not bring an end to the war in Afghanistan, he did not close Gitmo, and under his 8 years nothing more than standard foreign policy existed other than the covering of Benghazi. He was too busy dividing us to bolster our position in the world, but at least he didn't have time to undercut it too much. But 8 years of Obama greatly strengthened Putin's position and that of China and in that regard he was a colossal detriment to the security of the U.S.

I don't think the situation worked well for Putin.

Before Ukraine's political turmoil, Ukraine was a docile client state.

Now, Ukraine is beyond Putin's grasp, and even Belarus is making clear that it's not a Russian puppet.

Sure, Putin got to keep the naval base in Sevastopol. But that's not a gain; he had that to begin with. The only thing Putin gained was 2 million of the poorest people in all of Europe.

Putin paid a high price for this. In fact if I told you ahead of time that the US being "outsmarted" meant that we'd pry 90% of Ukraine out of Russia's orbit, unite Eastern Europe solidly against Russia, and destroy the Russian economy's ability to fund technological parity with the US military for a generation, I think you'd say that we should get outstmarted more often.

(09-03-2019 01:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 09:50 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Yes, the media is biased. It's good to keep pointing this out.

But I don't think Putin "outsmarted" Obama. Rather, Putin was just like Kaiser Soze from The Usual Suspects - he had more will to win.

Putin feared that Ukraine's turn to the West would eventually take away his only warm-water naval port, which had been a Russian Naval base for over 2 centuries. He realized (correctly) that America/Germany lacked the will to militarily intervene in a country that was 1) the poorest country in Europe, 2) politically divided, 3) historically Russian, 4) had a weak history of Democracy, and 5) has few strategic natural resources used by the West.

That's not the point. The NPR reporter asked him why he kept spreading a "lie" when as Fleischer pointed out, it was a reasonable opinion. And it was an opinion, not a true/false fact.

It's more than opinion. It is fact. What's more Captain Bearcat proves it. The ability to read a situation and maximize advantages is outsmarting the competition whether that is in business, warfare, or politics. Clearly Putin outsmarted Obama politically and strategically. As to lack of will, that too is an advantage Putin smartly seized upon. And why wouldn't he? Obama was caving in on Syria and Iran and the measures taken to reproach both were massively underwhelming.

And let's get real. Obama was a community organizer under the Ayers' instruction. Putin was/is KGB. The leadership advantages, the world knowledge base, and the will were all in Putin's favor. Meanwhile Obama was too busy creating enemies within the U.S. electorate for his base to hate to be able to give full attention abroad. Which by the way is why he did not bring an end to the war in Afghanistan, he did not close Gitmo, and under his 8 years nothing more than standard foreign policy existed other than the covering of Benghazi. He was too busy dividing us to bolster our position in the world, but at least he didn't have time to undercut it too much. But 8 years of Obama greatly strengthened Putin's position and that of China and in that regard he was a colossal detriment to the security of the U.S.

I don't think the situation worked well for Putin.

Before Ukraine's political turmoil, Ukraine was a docile client state.

Now, Ukraine is beyond Putin's grasp, and even Belarus is making clear that it's not a Russian puppet.

Sure, Putin got to keep the naval base in Sevastopol. But that's not a gain; he had that to begin with. The only thing Putin gained was 2 million of the poorest people in all of Europe.

Putin paid a high price for this. In fact if I told you ahead of time that the US being "outsmarted" meant that we'd pry 90% of Ukraine out of Russia's orbit, unite Eastern Europe solidly against Russia, and destroy the Russian economy's ability to fund technological parity with the US military for a generation, I think you'd say that we should get outstmarted more often.

We are actually finding out that the Russian's military advances were greater than first thought. And what our policies did do is actually to move several NATO countries including Germany closer to business relationships with Putin. Iran advanced more in nuclear capabilities than they should have, and Israel, always an ally, was stiff armed fairly often by the Obama administration. And none of this addresses the failure in Syria permitting their destabilization to grow, nor does it address China's continued technological advances at our expense, a democrat issue going back to the Clinton's and Al Gore.

Obama was a nightmare. He had the opportunity to bring unity in this country and instead like the militant ideologue he is moved only to further divide it to the ends that are now jumping off the page for the Democrats. The militant screaming mob is the byproduct of the Ayers, who were themselves violent leftists, and all of it is right out the radical left's Alinsky playbook.

Putin's gambit will be playing the Ukraine's permitted independence to draw in the business support of free Europe. Brexit is going to play into that. He will attempt through cheaper oil and gas to buy his own new allegiances and also to spread his abandonment of the Dollar as World Reserve Currency in the process. The struggle the U.S. will have in Europe won't be military. It will be to keep the ECB in line with the FED.

BTW: Trump wanting Putin back in the G7(8) for the next meeting is exactly the kind of strategy we need to keep an eye on him and other leaders susceptible to his overtures. It's safer to have him in that out.

Putin had a significant advantage with respect to Ukraine, and before that with Georgia during the GWB administration. The standard US response to trouble anywhere on the planet is to send in a carrier strike group (CSG). That is a huge show of force, sufficient to alter significantly the strategic and tactical balance in almost any situation. But we can’t do that anywhere in the Black Sea. We are signatories to the Montreux Convention, which places limits on naval activity by non-Black-Sea nations, including no carriers through the Bosporus and Dardanelles. We could, of course, choose to ignore that, but doing so could well be construed as an act of war under international law.

We could certainly engage in other military shows of force besides sending a CSG. But none quite so clear and obvious, or as easy.

(09-03-2019 01:17 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 09:50 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Yes, the media is biased. It's good to keep pointing this out.

But I don't think Putin "outsmarted" Obama. Rather, Putin was just like Kaiser Soze from The Usual Suspects - he had more will to win.

Putin feared that Ukraine's turn to the West would eventually take away his only warm-water naval port, which had been a Russian Naval base for over 2 centuries. He realized (correctly) that America/Germany lacked the will to militarily intervene in a country that was 1) the poorest country in Europe, 2) politically divided, 3) historically Russian, 4) had a weak history of Democracy, and 5) has few strategic natural resources used by the West.

That's not the point. The NPR reporter asked him why he kept spreading a "lie" when as Fleischer pointed out, it was a reasonable opinion. And it was an opinion, not a true/false fact.

I don't think it was a reasonable opinion that "Russia was kicked out of the G-8 because Obama was mad about being outsmarted by Putin."

That would be like Obama saying that "Bush invaded Iraq because Iraq insulted his father."

Sitting presidents should not give the impression that US foreign policy is decided by the overemotional whims of past presidents. When dealing with foreign nations, the USA should present a united front.

President Trump said Putin outsmarted Obama. That is a reasonable opinion. The reporter then said the President was a liar.

(09-03-2019 01:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 09:50 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Yes, the media is biased. It's good to keep pointing this out.

But I don't think Putin "outsmarted" Obama. Rather, Putin was just like Kaiser Soze from The Usual Suspects - he had more will to win.

Putin feared that Ukraine's turn to the West would eventually take away his only warm-water naval port, which had been a Russian Naval base for over 2 centuries. He realized (correctly) that America/Germany lacked the will to militarily intervene in a country that was 1) the poorest country in Europe, 2) politically divided, 3) historically Russian, 4) had a weak history of Democracy, and 5) has few strategic natural resources used by the West.

That's not the point. The NPR reporter asked him why he kept spreading a "lie" when as Fleischer pointed out, it was a reasonable opinion. And it was an opinion, not a true/false fact.

It's more than opinion. It is fact. What's more Captain Bearcat proves it. The ability to read a situation and maximize advantages is outsmarting the competition whether that is in business, warfare, or politics. Clearly Putin outsmarted Obama politically and strategically. As to lack of will, that too is an advantage Putin smartly seized upon. And why wouldn't he? Obama was caving in on Syria and Iran and the measures taken to reproach both were massively underwhelming.

And let's get real. Obama was a community organizer under the Ayers' instruction. Putin was/is KGB. The leadership advantages, the world knowledge base, and the will were all in Putin's favor. Meanwhile Obama was too busy creating enemies within the U.S. electorate for his base to hate to be able to give full attention abroad. Which by the way is why he did not bring an end to the war in Afghanistan, he did not close Gitmo, and under his 8 years nothing more than standard foreign policy existed other than the covering of Benghazi. He was too busy dividing us to bolster our position in the world, but at least he didn't have time to undercut it too much. But 8 years of Obama greatly strengthened Putin's position and that of China and in that regard he was a colossal detriment to the security of the U.S.

I don't think the situation worked well for Putin.

Before Ukraine's political turmoil, Ukraine was a docile client state.

Now, Ukraine is beyond Putin's grasp, and even Belarus is making clear that it's not a Russian puppet.

Sure, Putin got to keep the naval base in Sevastopol. But that's not a gain; he had that to begin with. The only thing Putin gained was 2 million of the poorest people in all of Europe.

Putin paid a high price for this. In fact if I told you ahead of time that the US being "outsmarted" meant that we'd pry 90% of Ukraine out of Russia's orbit, unite Eastern Europe solidly against Russia, and destroy the Russian economy's ability to fund technological parity with the US military for a generation, I think you'd say that we should get outstmarted more often.

Putin got exactly what he wanted. Now whether what he wanted was good for Russia is an entirely different question. In Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova and the Ukraine he has created frozen conflicts with weak states all around his periphery.

(09-03-2019 03:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  [quote='Captain Bearcat' pid='16274676' dateline='1567534635']
President Trump said Putin outsmarted Obama. That is a reasonable opinion. The reporter then said the President was a liar.

Your tax dollars at work.