One has to wonder what other "promises " have been made by the President to Israel , China , the Saudis - to be fulfilled once the election is out the way ?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/obama-promises-russia-be-more-flexible-after-election

Obama Promises Russia To Be More "Flexible" After Election

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/26/2012 17:59 -0400

• Crude
 
• default
 
• Iran
 
• Israel
 
• Nat Gas
 
• Reality
 
• Twitter
 
• Vladimir Putin

In today's open mic farce that has made the president a target of a fresh republican onslaught, we have Obama telling Russian presidential pawn Dmitry Medvedev that "this is his last presidential election", and that he will have "more flexibility after the election." One can only assume that Obama is referring to the aggressive NATO expansion which has angered Russia substantially as noted previously, and even led to Russia putting radar stations on combat alert. It could be this or it could be anything, including US posturing vis-a-vis Syria assuming the stance a huanitariam, if completely impotent, do-gooder globocop, or for that matter any other foreign policy fiasco in which Russia now have the upper hand by default. Naturally, one wonders why Obama would be pandering to Russia (well, aside for the country's premier export position when it comes to nat gas and crude of course) in the first place. Or more importantly, as the GOP has now figured out, why does the president need to be more flexible after the election to begin with, and to what other special interest will Obama be far more responsive than to his mere electorate. Either way, nothing but more theater as central planning continues on its merry way to terminal dislocation with reality.More from CNN:

The video features the clip of Obama and Medvedev holding a private conversation at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea. During their talk, which was caught on camera and on microphone, Obama asked his Russian counterpart for some "space" on the U.S.-led NATO missile defense system in Europe.

"This is my last election," Obama told Medvedev. "After my election I have more flexibility."

While Obama put his hand on Medvedev's arm, the Russian president responded saying he would transmit the information to the incoming president, current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

But Republicans seized on Obama's request as an opportunity to frame the president as a politician primarily focused on re-election.

"It's amazing what we find out about this president's policies when he thinks no one is listening and it begs the question: What else doesn't Obama want us to know about before he's reelected?" Kirsten Kukowski, RNC spokeswoman, said.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also came out against Obama's comments, saying the moment represented "an alarming and troubling development."

"This is no time for our president to be pulling his punches with the American people. And not telling us what he's intending to do with regards to our missile defense system, with regards to our military might and with regards to our commitment to Israel and with regard to our absolute conviction that Iran must have a nuclear weapon," Romney said while campaigning in San Diego.

His team launched a new Twitter campaign Monday, highlighting the president's remark.

From his Twitter account, Romney asked followers to fill in the blank: "@BarackObama: I'll have more flexibility to ______ after the election."

Pushing back, the Obama campaign said Romney was distorting the president's words.

"Governor Romney has been all over the map on the key foreign policy challenges facing our nation today, offering a lot of chest thumping and empty rhetoric with no concrete plans to enhance our security or strengthen our alliances," Ben LaBolt, the campaign's press secretary, said in a statement. "Instead of passing the buck, it is time that Governor Romney shared his foreign policy agenda with the American people."

Naturally, the show must go on for the general public (which would be wise to please dump its entire life savings in the Bernie Bernankoff Asset Management ponzi scheme post haste - have you seen the monthly returns? just scorching!), even as all truly important decisions are made deep behind the scenes, and are accompanied by electronic sacks of money, where the squid in one capacity or another, always "makes a market."

and.....


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/chairman-armed-services-subcommittee-asks-what-obama-has-offered-russia-bargaining-chip

Chairman Of Armed Services Subcommittee Asks What Obama Has Offered To Russia As A Bargaining Chip

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/26/2012 22:59 -0400

• Testimony

Following the earlier microphonegate (someone really need to tell politicians that any time they speak, they are now on the recordalways, and no just for the benefit of the NSA's brand spanking new compound in Utah known as "1984", that includes Portuguese and German politicians too) it was only a matter of time before the more conservative republican elements went beyond the simply rhetorical and asked some pointed questions, such as this from Mike Turner, Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, who minutes ago said that "It’s Unclear What the President has Offered up to the Russians as Bargaining Chips." Additionally, what is funny is that a part of the much hated NDAA which essentially eliminates the bill of rights for American citizens who are suspected of terrorist activity, Congress specifically targeted missile information sharing with Russia. To wit: "Congress has included in the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress, which the president has signed into law, a provision constraining his ability to share classified U.S. missile defense information with the Russian Federation. Congress took this step because it was clear based on official testimony and Administration comments in the press that classified information about U.S. missile defenses, including hit-to-kill technology and velocity at burnout information, may be on the table as negotiating leverage for the president’s reset with Russia." So let's get this straight - Obama signs the NDAA, with supposed reservations because he is well aware it is unconstitutional, and yet when it comes to its plain vanilla provisions, he violates them? Has anyone figured out yet what follows a banana republic in the escalation to pure centrally-planned lunacy, because America is there now.  

From Mike Turner:

Turner: “Obama’s Plans for Missile Defense Won’t Stand Up to Electoral Scrutiny”
It’s Unclear What the President has Offered up to the Russians as Bargaining Chips

Congressman Mike Turner, Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, wrote to the president today, requesting an “urgent explanation of [his] comments to President Medvedev in Seoul this morning.” The president had stated that “this is my last election, and after my election I'll have more flexibility,” in regards to missile defense in Europe.

“Congress has made exquisitely clear to your Administration and to other nations that it will block all attempts to weaken U.S. missile defenses.  As the Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which authorizes U.S. missile defense and nuclear weapons policy, I want to make perfectly clear that my colleagues and I will not allow any attempts to trade missile defense of the United States to Russia or any other country,” wrote Turner.

Congress has included in the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress, which the president has signed into law, a provision constraining his ability to share classified U.S. missile defense information with the Russian Federation. Congress took this step because it was clear based on official testimony and Administration comments in the press that classified information about U.S. missile defenses, including hit-to-kill technology and velocity at burnout information, may be on the table as negotiating leverage for the president’s reset with Russia.

“Despite signing the FY12 defense authorization legislation into law, you then issued a signing statement signaling that you may treat that provision protecting U.S. missile defense information as non-binding.  This morning’s comments, on top of that action, suggests that you and your administration have plans for U.S. missile defenses that you believe will not stand up to electoral scrutiny,” added Turner.