Russians don't like being blamed for Wiki

Caller: Russia Is Ready for War

.

RUSH:  Here is Louis in Los Angeles.  Hey, Louis, great to have you on the program, sir.  Hi.

.

CALLER:  Hi!  Yes, I'll get to the point.  Okay, I was in Russia three years ago visiting my adopted baby -- and, of course, I was with the families and what not, and we went through the news cycles and what not, and what I've seen is Russia is ready for war.  They have been upgrading for the past five years, and no thanks to Hillary and Obama because they really screwed 'em over. The Russian people are really upset with them.  I mean, they are really, really mad.

.

RUSH:  Russian people are upset with who?

.

CALLER:  With Obama and Hillary.

.

RUSH:  It's too bad they can't vote..

.

CALLER:  That's true.  Well, actually there are a lot of Armenians here, there are a lot of Russian people here, Ukrainian people here.  I live in Los Angeles and there's areas where there's a large population of these people, and that's why I have an adopted baby, and she's Russian, and I care for her dearly and she has a little boy and I'm madly in love with both of them.

.

RUSH:  Right.  So your point is that we are in a position or situation here that is fraught with danger with the Russians, because they're ready.  They are loaded and ready, and they're taunting us, and we've got people toying around with things in the geopolitical sense.  For example: Blaming the Russians for the WikiLeaks stuff. Apparently the Russians have nothing to do with it.  At least that's what Assange is saying, and it's supposedly really ticking off Putin and the Russians, who don't like being blamed for this. 

.

.

Who knows, folks.  But let's just... I'll just put it this way.  If it isn't true -- if the Russians have nothing to do with this and Obama and Hillary are running around blaming 'em -- that's the kind of thing amateurs do.  That's the kind of thing people with no responsibility and no hands on the levers of power do.  Those are people that don't face the consequences of what they say, and they do! These two people do.  Obama and Hillary both have to deal with the consequences of what they say. 

.

She's a presidential candidate, and he is the president.  You know, blame it on the Russians? You have Harry Reid do it, you can have somebody on CNN -- you could have some commentator -- do it.  But if you're gonna send the president out to do it or Hillary out to blame the Russians and they've got nothing to do with it and you know they've got nothing to do with it? That is irresponsible as it can be.  And if they haven't called Putin and say, "Look, we know you got nothing to do with this, we're gonna blame it on you anyway..."

.

I don't think they would do that 'cause Putin's not the kind of guy you toy around with like that.  I just think it's an illustration of the genuine rank amateur incompetence that both Obama and Hillary pose.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why Clinton's plans for no-fly zones in Syria could provoke US-Russia conflict

.

Many in national security circles consider the risk of a confrontation with Russia to be severe: ‘I wouldn’t put it past them to shoot down a US aircraft’

.

https://www.theguardian.com/…/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.

Folks, our incompetent leaders like Obama and Hillary have basically re started the cold war between Russia and the US.  To add insult to injury the Obama administration:

.

1. Has degraded the military...

.

2. They have given Iran, an ally of Russia millions/billions.

.

3. Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

.

To further add insult to injury, the Democrats ar provoking Russia by blaming the leaks on them.

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (22)

  1. Gulfman

    If Hillary is elected Putin won’t fuck around with us.He wlll wipe our server clean alright

    November 01, 2016
    1. Brn2bfree

      What, with a cloth or something?

      November 01, 2016
  2. stevehayes13

    According to Julian Assange Russia did not provide WikiLeaks with the Democrat emails. The Clinton campaign made up the story to deflect attention from the content of the documents. James Clapper, who subsequently issued a government statement suggesting Russia was responsible for the transparent reason of trying to protect Clinton’s campaign, is the same person who committed perjury when he told Congress that the US intelligence community was not spying on millions of American citizens. Making false allegations against a foreign country for the purpose of domestic politics is irresponsible, immoral and dangerous.

    November 01, 2016
    1. Brn2bfree
      Making false allegations against a foreign country for the purpose of domestic politics is irresponsible, immoral and dangerous.

      ~~~~~~~~~
      I just like the way you summed this up.

      November 01, 2016
  3. Brn2bfree

    November 01, 2016
  4. stevehayes13

    Have you seen this Democrat fruitcake on MSNBC?

    https://youtu.be/RhWTdnjAxEU

    He apparently believes the KGB exists!

    November 01, 2016
    1. Brn2bfree

      I couldn’t stomach the whole thing..
      I remember that (idiot) James Carvile when he said .. ‘you can drag a $100 bill through a trailer park’ defending Bill Clinton’s abuse of women.

      November 01, 2016
  5. Munkyman

    No one likes being blamed for things they haven’t done.
    Deflect, Spin, Spread the lie, Control perception.

    November 01, 2016
    1. Brn2bfree

      The Democrats are masters at that

      November 01, 2016
      1. Munkyman

        Not that the Republicans don’t try hard.

        November 01, 2016
        1. Brn2bfree

          They may try hard but never the less.. the Democrats are Masters at that. They Trump the Republicans.

          November 01, 2016
  6. willsblog

    Just as the Bible says, “be sure your sins will find you out.” Obama and Hillary’s criminal activities WILL be brought to light.

    November 01, 2016
  7. mrmacq

    " Has degraded the military…"
    .
    you still spouting that crap?
    get lots of fools listening do you?
    .
    Obama’s Whopping New Military Budget

    Forget what Republicans tell you. The president still likes big military budgets.
    .
    the Republican candidates who scorn President Obama for ravaging the military and strangling its cash flow should take a close look at his budget for 2017. Released Tuesday by the White House and the Pentagon, it falls only a few billion dollars short of the largest defense budget since the start of the century—and that slightly bigger budget was Obama’s as well.
    .

    November 02, 2016
    1. mrmacq

      Comparing the eight years of George W. Bush’s base budgets and the eight years of Obama’s (including the one proposed today), Obama’s exceed Bush’s by a sum total of $816.7 billion ($4,121.2 billion for Obama’s two terms, $3,304.5 for Bush’s)

      November 02, 2016
      1. wirelessguru1

        Buffoon, the Bushes are also supporting The Devil! WAKE UP!!!

        November 02, 2016
    2. Brn2bfree

      Is the Obama Admin Trying to Wreck the Military?
      .
      You’ll find charts galore in the 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength, but two at the start of the detailed report are particularly troubling.
      .
      One shows the overall state of our military. It’s not “very strong” or even “strong,” according to the foreign-policy experts who wrote the index, but “marginal” for all branches except one—the Army, which is rated as “weak.”
      .
      The other chart notes the threats to our vital interests. They range from “elevated” for Iran and Middle East terrorism to “high” for Russia, China, and Afghanistan-Pakistan terrorism to “severe” for North Korea.
      .
      As Al Gore liked to say on the campaign trail, everything that should be down is up, and everything that should be up is down. And it’s obvious that the task of turning the situation around will fall to the next president.
      .
      True, President Obama has a year to go in office. But when you consider the role his policies have played in creating our deteriorating security situation, it seems unlikely that a last-minute turnaround is imminent.
      .
      A 2010 paper from Kim Holmes and James Carafano, both of whom have extensive experience with foreign policy, points to the underlying problem. The president made it clear early on that his administration—unlike others, Republican and Democratic—didn’t feel the United States had an “exceptional” role to play among nations. We’re just one among many and should act accordingly.
      .
      As a result, the emphasis of the Obama administration would be on “soft power” and diplomacy. If, for example, you wanted to address global crises and security concerns such as nuclear weapons, you would turn more toward treaties and international organizations, not your traditional friends and allies.
      .
      You’d be more humble in your state-to-state relations. Downplay your military might. Play a more restrained role on the world stage. To drive the point home, you’d go on an apology tour such as the one President Obama undertook in 2009, then have your press secretary say it made America “safer and stronger.”
      .
      Mr. Holmes and Mr. Carafano weren’t convinced. “These tenets may be well-intentioned, ostensibly to improve America’s standing in the world, but they will make America and the world far more insecure,” they wrote.
      .
      Five years later, with our military degraded and tensions rising worldwide, who can disagree?
      .
      Of course, Congress plays a role in this situation. Perhaps its most notable failure is its inability to reduce spending in any meaningful way, which led to the indiscriminate budget cuts that have been undermining our military.
      .
      But the president, as commander in chief, is the one who sets the tone and the direction of our foreign policy. He’s the one most responsible for ensuring that our military is used wisely. And let’s face it: Even before the Paris attacks, the need for a substantial change of direction was clear.
      .
      One step recommended by Mr. Carafano and other foreign policy experts is to build enduring alliances with key nations in key regions. That means, among other things, strengthening the special relationship the United States has with Britain, one of our oldest allies. It means reinvesting in our allies in Eastern and Central Europe, the first line of defense when it comes to deterring threats from Russia—which has become more bellicose since its “reset” under the Obama Doctrine.
      .
      Another step is to rebuild our military. It’s overtaxed, overextended and just plain worn out. Mind you, our troops do an outstanding job, but we’re making their job harder than necessary. Spending more is vital, as is instituting reforms to ensure that our defense dollars are spent as efficiently as possible.
      .
      Third, we need to promote economic freedom, which tends to increase political freedom. Removing barriers to free trade, for example, can help create a safer and more peaceful world.
      .
      The next president has a big job ahead. The prospect of a world with a still weaker U.S. military and a still bigger threat abroad is unthinkable.
      .
      Originally published in The Washington Times.
      .
      http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/ed-feulner/

      November 02, 2016
      1. mrmacq

        Not Found

        The requested URL “/commentary/ed-feulner/” was not found on this server.
        .
        besides herr brn it was a commentary
        you know…an opinion?

        November 02, 2016
        1. wirelessguru1

          Buffoon, your demonic opinions suck!

          November 02, 2016
      2. mrmacq

        United States of America
        Ranked as 1 of 126
        http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-states-of-america
        downgraded my ass
        PS
        -Ed Feulner is president of the Heritage Foundation
        .
        Lies, Damn Lies, And The Heritage Foundation
        December 19, 2011 3:15 pm ET — Jamison Foser
        If you’ve paid any attention to congressional Republicans over the past several years, you may have noticed that they have a remarkable tendency to be wildly, almost unbelievably wrong. Not just wrong in their judgment — wrong about basic facts. One reason they’re so wrong so often is, of course, that they just don’t care about being right: When a United States senator like Tom Coburn (R-OK) has no idea what the federal government’s annual budget is, that’s a pretty good indication that factual accuracy just isn’t a priority. But another factor is that the conservative movement’s most respected and influential think tank is fundamentally dishonest.

        The Heritage Foundation describes itself as “a research and educational institution—a think tank” and boasts of “performing timely, accurate research on key policy issues and effectively marketing these findings to our primary audiences: members of Congress, key congressional staff members, policymakers in the executive branch, the nation’s news media, and the academic and policy communities.”

        But, without even getting into its thoroughly absurd economic projections, Heritage is comically dishonest. It credits tax cuts with economic growth that preceded them. It claims a reduction in tax rates isn’t a tax cut. It suggests nobody claimed the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves, when in fact both the Bush administration and Heritage itself made exactly that claim. Again and again, Heritage crosses the line between “wrong” and “dishonest.”

        November 03, 2016
        1. Brn2bfree

          Comrade, do you guys even have a military? I thought you liberals dismantled it.

          November 03, 2016
          1. mrmacq

            not sure why you enjoy being an ass

            November 03, 2016
            1. wirelessguru1

              Buffoon, you seem to enjoy it!

              November 03, 2016