Obama appointee, Philip Coyle: Russia must pressure U.S. not to deploy missile defense system in Europe

President Obama took advantage of a Senate recess Wednesday to appoint Philip Coyle as associate director for National Security and International Affairs. The recess appointment allowed the President to bypass the normal Senate confirmation process.

Mr. Coyle is widely known for his opposition to President Bush's proposal to deploy a missile defense system in Eastern Europe.

During an interview with a Russian news channel in 2008, Coyle was asked by the host what actions should be expected from Russia to prevent the U.S. from deploying a missile defense system in Europe. Incredibly and shockingly, Coyle responded by advising the Russians to put pressure on the U.S. not to deploy the defense shield.

"I think it's important for Russia to keep the pressure on the United States about these matters," Coyle said. "I think it's important for Russia to continue to stress that it's not acceptable to have these missile defenses deployed so close to its border, because if they work against Iran, they also work against Russia. If Russia just lets it go, then people in the United States say 'well, Russia doesn't care anymore, so we can go ahead and deploy these systems'."

The host was apparently quite happy with Coyle's reply and he continued to goad him on: "When you say it's important that Russia keeps up the pressure, does it mean... building more missiles [that Russia should build more missiles], or do you just mean words? Because Russian reaction can be different. There may be a reaction from the side of the diplomat, from the side of the military, from the side of the engineers and the best minds in Russia, who as you said should be worried by the possibility that the system will work. What kind of countermeasures would you expect from Moscow?"

Another panelist interjected himself into the conversation before Coyle had a chance to answer the question. But clearly the host - and probably the Russian government - appreciated Mr. Coyle's heartfelt advice.

Which leads me to believe that President Obama acted wisely when he chose to circumvent the senate confirmation hearing for Mr. Coyle.....

Cedra Crenshaw receives the 'Obama' treatment, Dems invalidate her nominating petition

While running for the Illinois state senate in 1996, Barack Obama - the master of Chicago-style politics - invalidated the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers [because of mere technicalities], which enabled him to run unopposed and to cruise to victory. Likewise, Cedra Crenshaw, a Republican candidate for the 46 district of Illinois - which includes several of Chicago's suburbs - was removed from the November ballot on Wednesday after her Democrat opponents invalidated 1300 signatures from her nominating petition, allowing her Democrat challenger to run unopposed and to cruise to victory come November.

Illinois law required that Ms. Crenshaw's nominating petitions be circulated between March 30 and April 19, but her petitions did not indicate the dates they were circulated. When Crenshaw's attorneys requested that the board convene a hearing so that those who circulated the petitions could testify to the dates of the signatures, the board refused to heed their request and sent Crenshaw packing.

Jay Stewart of Chicago's Better Government Association commented on Barack Obama's 1996 state senatorial run: "He came from Chicago politics. Politics ain't beanbag, as they say in Chicago. You play with your elbows up, and you're pretty tough and ruthless when you have to be. Sen. Obama felt that's what was necessary at the time, that's what he did. Does it fit in with the rhetoric now? Perhaps not."

CNN added: "As a community organizer, he [Obama] had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers."

Chicago Tribune columnist, John Kass, remarked: "That was Chicago politics. Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice."

Likewise, on Wednesday, in the suburbs of Chicago, Democrats took their cue from their revered leader - the former card carrying member of the Chicago Machine and current head of America's new Socialist order - and they too, made sure, that come November, the voters have but one choice. They made them an offer they can't refuse.....

Obama's Politically Motivated Timetable unbefitting for the Commander-in Chief

President Obama's decision to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July of 2011 was clearly a selfish and politically motivated strategy, which has not only emboldened the enemy and jeopardized America's war efforts, but has also brought about a significant increase in casualties among U.S. troops in the region.

Newsweek Magazine notes that Gen. David Petraeus initially sought a much longer time-frame to implement the U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan, but Obama would have none of that:

'The president wanted to know why the Pentagon needed 21 months to send 40,000 troops to Afghanistan when it had taken only six months to send a similar number to Iraq in 2007. When Petraeus began to explain - saying that the Afghanistan escalation wasn’t modeled on his surge in Iraq -' Obama rejected this explanation. 'Petraeus was expected to work his magic' in Afghanistan in roughly the same amount of time that he had accomplished this feat in Iraq.

“The only way we’ll consider this [continuing the war with more troops] is if we get the troops in and out in a shorter time frame,” Obama told Petraeus and other advisers in the room that day.

Why was Obama so insistent that the troop surge be implemented in such a short and unrealistic time-frame?

He was looking ahead to 2012:

Obama is hardly oblivious to the electoral implications. Let’s say that Petraeus insists that the July 2011 time-line be pushed back a year, which is quite possible considering the current problems on the ground. That means the de-escalation—and the political windfall—will begin around the summer of 2012, just in time for the Democratic National Convention. In other words, Americans should get used to it: we ain’t staying long.

In other words, despite General Petraeus's pleas, the President will stick to his [politically calculated] 2011 timetable.

And now, as a result of Obama's self-serving political aspirations, the enemy has been emboldened. Consequently, more American troops are dying on the battlefield and the war in Afghanistan..., well, it's not going too well.

The question that arises, however, is as follows:

Even if the President manages to retain his core base of constituents by implementing an initial draw-down of U.S. troops by next summer, can he win re-election in 2012, if he appears to be losing the war in Afghanistan?

Only time will tell.

But an even bigger question that arises is the following:

Is Barack Obama - whose decisions on life and death-related matters are based solely on his own political and selfish aspirations - fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the U.S Armed Forces?

Afghanistan Ambassador: Obama's Timetable for Withdrawal is 'Unhelpful & Unrealistic'

Afghanistan's ambassador to the U.S. said Sunday that President Obama's decision to set a timetable for the start of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan is 'unhelpful and unrealistic'.

Over-emphasizing "a deadline that is not realistic" only serves to embolden the enemy and prolong the war, he said. The ambassador went on to say that the U.S. and its NATO allies need to send "a clear message to the enemy" that they "are there to finish this job," otherwise, he added, they'll "lose the support of the Afghan people, and also make the neighboring countries of interest a lot more bolder to interfere in Afghanistan."



Also, Lt Col Paul James, a commanding officer in Afghanistan's Sangin district, said Sunday that, due to an insufficient number of Nato forces and Afghan police in his district, it could take up to ten years to secure the area from a Taliban resurgence.

"It just takes hellishly long unless you have the right force density," he said.

Did Obama conspire with Balanoff to extort Blagojevich? - Withhold campaign contributions?

Yesterday, I raised the question as to why Barack Obama had chosen Illinois SEUI chief, Tom Balanoff, to be his emissary to Rod Blagojevich - to communicate his recommendation that Valerie Jarret be appointed to the US Senate. I noted that Blagojevich, in a taped conversation, can be heard offering his own explanation on the matter, namely, Obama wanted to distance himself from the pick etc. and wanted it to appear as if the appointment of Valerie Jarret was solely Blagojevich's decision.

I expanded a bit on Blagojevich's explanation: Balanoff was an outsider, not part of Obama's inner circle, hence, he was the perfect emissary for Obama. Essentially, it was an effective way for the President-elect to avoid leaving any fingerprints attached to the appointment.

But I was still puzzled as to why Obama specifically chose Balanoff of all people - outsiders, if you will - to communicate his recommendation of Jarrett for the senate. I then went on to offer a bit of rationale for that decision. However, I'm still contemplating whether to delete that part of my post - because the theory I had offered seems a bit of a stretch and because I don't have anything solid with which to back up this theory.

Nevertheless, the New York Times reports the following tidbit, which sheds some additional light on the matter. The last few paragraphs is the real zinger!:

Mr. Balanoff’s testimony [at the Blagojevich corruption trial] suggested he had mixed apple-polishing of Blago with tough love.

The apple-polishing included telling Blago that his off-the-wall notion about exiting office to run a union-sponsored, tax-exempt nonprofit to lobby on health care was a good one....

The unionist acted with a sense of entitlement and highlighted another reality, namely how money talks. The S.E.I.U. was a huge contributor to Mr. Blagojevich. If Mr. Balanoff wanted a meeting, presto, he got it.

And if Mr. Balanoff didn’t like what he heard, he raised the prospect in at least one conversation with the former governor of withholding his union’s ample purse in the next election — in this case, if Blago didn’t quickly pick Valerie Jarrett as Mr. Obama’s successor.

Mr. Balanoff..., initially desired Representative Jan Schakowsky for the seat. Yanking his union’s contributions would be perfectly legal, of course, but it also constituted a slice of the realpolitik that has Blago sitting at the defense table. [Ed. Note: It's funny how I didn't notice any of this when I perused the transcripts of the [tapped] phone calls. Either I missed this conversation, or it only came out during Balanoff's testimony. Nevertheless, until today, I didn't notice any of this in the media reports pertaining to Balanoff's testimony.]

Hmmm. So, Tom Balanoff, who just happens to be an emissary of Barack Obama, threatens to withhold campaign contributions from Blagojevich if he didn’t quickly pick Valerie Jarrett as Obama’s successor; even though Balanoff's preferred choice was Jan Schakowsky and he wasn't even keen on Valerie Jarrett, Obama's preferred choice.

Oh my! Chicago-style politics at its worst, with Obama right smack in the middle of the corruption and the extortion attempt.

The question that really needs to be examined, is not whether Rod Blagojevich tried to sell Barack Obama's senate seat, but whether Balanoff and Obama tried to purchase the seat from Blagojevich by means of extortion!

Question: Is the mainstream media still going to turn a blind eye to Obama's likely [at best indirect] involvement in the aforementioned extortion attempt?

Answer: Yes......

Obama clearly lied about Blagojevich & Jarrett - But why did he choose Balanoff as his emissary?

Some are questioning whether [Illinois SEIU chief] Thomas Balanoff's testimony - during Rod Blagojevich's corruption trial Wednesday - contradicts a report issued by the Obama transition team in December of 2008. The answer is a resounding 'YES'. Balanoff's testimony contradicts at least two sections of the aforementioned report and reveals that Obama blatantly lied about his communications with Rod Blagojevich.

One section of the aforementioned report states that "President-Elect [Obama] had ruled out communicating [to former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich] a preference for any one candidate [to fill his vacant US Senate seat]." One need only to read the report to ascertain that the word "communicating" refers to both direct and indirect communications.

However, Mr. Balanoff testified Wednesday that he was at dinner the night before the November, 2008 Presidential election when he got a call from [President-elect Obama]:

From the Chicago Sun Times:

"Tom, I want to talk to you with regard to the Senate seat," Obama told him... Obama said he wasn't PUBLICLY coming out in support of anyone [yeah, right!] but he believed Valerie Jarrett would fit the bill.

"I would much prefer she (remain in the White House) but she does want to be Senator and she does meet those two criteria," Balanoff said Obama told him. "I said: 'thank you, I'm going to reach out to Gov. Blagojevich."

Although, Obama told Mr. Balanoff that his preference would be for Jarrett to remain in the White House', he, nevertheless, recommended her [and ONLY her, at the time] for the Illinois senate. Clearly, the intention was for Mr. Balanoff to communicate the message to Rod Blagojevich. The fact that this message was communicated to Blagojevich via an individual who is not a member of the Obama administration is irrelevant. [Not surprisingly,the President's apologists are making this disingenuous (and phony) argument. They also contend, rather disingenuously, that Obama never told Balanoff explicitly to communicate his preference to Blagojevich. Utter nonsense!]

A different section of the aforementioned [2008] report goes on to say that [at a later date] Rod Blagojevich's office contacted Obama pal, Eric Whitaker, and asked him, "who, if anyone, had the authority to speak for the President-Elect" with respect to the Senate appointment.

Whitaker said he would find out. The President-Elect told Dr. Whitaker that no one was authorized to speak for him on the matter. The President-Elect said that he had no interest in dictating the result of the selection process, and he would not do so, either directly or indirectly through staff or others. Dr. Whitaker relayed that information to [Blagojevich's office].

There is no evidence - from any of the tapes released thus far by the feds - that Obama offered anything in exchange for the senate seat. But clearly, Obama [in his typical cunning, wily and surreptitious style] authorized Thomas Balanoff to speak with Blagojevich on his behalf about Valerie Jarrett filling the vacant senate seat. Hence, the President's [purported] statement, that "no one was authorized to speak for him on the matter; that he had no interest in dictating the result of the selection process, and he would not do so, either directly or indirectly through staff or OTHERS", is an outright lie! Period!

Why did Obama specifically chose Balanoff as his emissary to communicate the aforementioned recommendation?

Rod Blagojevich, in one of his taped [tapped] phoned conversations, can be heard offering the following explanation:

BLAGOJEVICH: The new dynamics is the president-elect has a candidate that he wants. He doesn't want anybody to know that he has a candidate that he wants.... It's Valerie Jarrett... and... what he really wants is that I make the pick,... and not say that he wanted her.... He doesn't wanna piss anybody else off.... He wants to be able to have some deniability on it... And so he reached out to Tom Balanoff at SEIU and, uh, Balanoff Tuesday night told me that Barack had called him Monday night and then, uh, Balanoff hustled into my office Thursday, yes, the day bef-, yesterday, you know, to talk about this and that he really wants her.. So Thursday Balanoff came back with a message directly from Obama...

In other words, Obama used an outsider, with whom he shares no particular or special connection, to communicate his preference because he didn't want to leave any fingerprints attached to this request.

But the question still remains: Why did he specifically choose Balanoff, the powerful SEIU chief - of all people and of all outsiders - to be his emissary?

I'm not sure. Did Obama anticipate, or hope that Balanoff, the Illinois SEIU chief, would perhaps offer Blagojevich a high-paying position for his post-gubernatorial years - a position connected to the SEIU - in exchange for the senate seat? [If Blagojevich refused to give it way for free.] This way, Blagojevich could get the prominent and high-salary position he was seeking upon leaving the Governorship [this can be heard on the tapes], and Balanoff, in return, would receive assistance with his legislative agenda from the incoming President. And no one would notice that a quid pro quo had transpired.

From the aforementioned tape [transcript]:

BLAGOJEVICH AIDE, JOHN HARRIS: One idea we, we had, which is still kind of in the exploratory phase is, um, the SEIU, whose in a coalition with the Laborers, the Teamsters and Unite Here... SEIU being the greater among equals, have this, have this, uh, "Change to Win" campaign. And maybe, uh, they make Rod the national director...

Harris goes on to suggest that an SEIU Official could make Rod Blagojevich the head of 'Change to Win', and, in exchange, the President-elect could help 'Change to Win' with its legislative agenda on a national level.

Thus, Balanoff, Obama/Jarrett and Blagojevich would all stand to gain from the deal.

There is no evidence [from any of the tapes released thus far] to suggest that Obama, or Balanoff had actually made a proposal of this nature. But could it be that Obama, the master pol and manipulator par excellence, had expectations that Balanoff - if need be - would offer a high-paying position to Blagojevich in exchange for Valerie Jarret being appointed to the US Senate?

Of course, this is merely speculation and, admittedly, a bit of a stretch, but I'd still like to know why Balanoff, the powerful SEIU chief, of all people, was chosen to be Obama's emissary. Hmmm....

Nevertheless, one thing is for certain, Obama clearly lied about his communications with Blagojevich and his efforts to obtain the senate seat for Valerie Jarret. Which begs the question: Did Obama also lie about his communications with Blagojevich during his interview with the FBI in 2008? The feds refuse to release the transcripts of these interviews, hence, we'll probably never know the truth.

It should also be noted that the judge, who is currently residing over the corruption trial, refuses to release the rest of Blagojevich's taped conversations - which hinders the public's ability to ascertain the facts. Additionally, the Politico reported in December of 2008 that "e-mails and other records [belonging to the Obama (Presidential) transition team] that could be key to understanding those contacts [between the Obama team and Blagojevich]... may never see the light of day, thanks to a gap in government records disclosure laws that allows presidential transition teams to keep their documents - even those prepared using taxpayer dollars - out of the public record."

Without the aforementioned tapes, e-mails and records, it is virtually impossible to find out what really transpired between the President and Rod Blagojevich.

Ultimately, it would seem as if Obama is well-covered and well-protected. But as far as Blagojevich is concerned, well, he never was, and never will be, the Messiah - if you know what I mean........