Are you still h*****g on that lie?

Sorry, Joe: Team Obama refused to arm Ukraine

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and began arming separatists in eastern Ukraine with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko came to Washington to plead for weapons to defend his country. In an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress — with Biden sitting directly behind him — Poroshenko said his country appreciated the nonlethal assistance he was getting, but declared “one cannot win a war with blankets.”

The Obama-Biden administration was unmoved. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine.” Why?

Team Obama feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow.

So what did the administration give him? Instead of rocket-propelled grenades, we provided food rations. As one frustrated former Pentagon official put it at the time, “What kind of message does that send anyway?”

Answer: a message of weakness.

When Trump took office, he delivered a message of strength. In December 2017, the new administration announced that the United States would send the lethal aid to Ukraine that Poroshenko requested and Obama and Biden refused — the sale of $47 million worth of Javelin antitank missiles.

In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko exulted on Twitter “Finally this day has come!” and personally thanked Trump “for supporting Ukraine and adopting a decision to provide Javelin antitank missile systems.”

For Biden to now attack Trump for a temporary delay in a new round of lethal military aid reeks of hypocrisy. It was on Biden’s watch that the United States refused to deliver military aid at all. Yet the same vice president who sat there impassively while Ukraine’s president begged for weapons now dares to cite the Russian threat to Ukraine in castigating Trump?

Talk about chutzpah.

And since Biden raised the Russian threat, let’s recall that the Obama-Biden administration bears much responsibility for the ­annexation of Crimea that necessitated the delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine in the first place. Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine came in the aftermath of the Obama-Biden administration’s failure to enforce its red line against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons by Syria.

In March 2013, Biden declared, “Because we recognize the great danger Assad’s chemical and biological arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we’ve set a clear red line against the use or the t***sfer of those weapons.”

Assad responded by using chemical weapons on innocent civilians not once, but 16 times. And yet Team Obama did nothing, failing to carry out even “unbelievably small” military strikes — a decision Biden publicly defended. “We can easily say we should have bombed and gone in and taken out their air defense system,” Biden said. “Well, you know, big nations can’t bluff.”

Bluff is what Obama and Biden did — and Assad called their bluff. Not only that, they turned to Russia for a face-saving way out, letting Russian President Vladimir Putin broker a phony deal to have Syria disarm. It was one of the most embarrassing foreign-policy debacles of the post-Cold War era.

So it should come as no surprise that, when Team Obama threatened to impose costs on Putin if he invaded Ukraine, the Kremlin called his bluff. Putin knew Biden and his boss didn’t have the will to stand up to him in Ukraine. And he was proved right when they refused to give Ukraine lethal aid for fear of further provoking him.

None of this excuses Trump’s delaying a new round of lethal military aid to Ukraine. But if this military assistance was as vital to countering the Russian threat as Biden says, then it’s fair to ask: Why didn’t the United States provide it when Biden was the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine?

Not by the rules ….. Everybody goes into the campaign knowing what the rules are (e*******l college), and they go into it (supposedly) accepting the outcome according to the rules. If you lose by those rules that you accepted, then you LOSE. PERIOD. And the other guy WINS, by the rules. So you can claim that all you want, but the fact is, T***P W*N, and, what I especially like to point out, HILLARY LOST!!!

If the rules were different, then the campaigns would have been run in a different way.

If you can't accept that, then you're just one more whiny-ass liberal blaming anything or anyone else for YOUR LOSS. Go write a book or something, kemmie. Maybe it will make you feel better.

Not by the rules ….. Everybody goes into the campaign knowing what the rules are (e*******l college), and they go into it (supposedly) accepting the outcome according to the rules. If you lose by those rules that you accepted, then you LOSE. PERIOD. And the other guy WINS, by the rules. So you can claim that all you want, but the fact is, T***P W*N, and, what I especially like to point out, HILLARY LOST!!!

If the rules were different, then the campaigns would have been run in a different way.

If you can't accept that, then you're just one more whiny-ass liberal blaming anything or anyone else for YOUR LOSS. Go write a book or something, kemmie. Maybe it will make you feel better.

Well, according to the rules (e*******l college) he DID win by a landslide .. 304 to 227 ..

No doubt if Hillary had won (ugh) by the same numbers of e*******l v**es, "won by a landslide" would have been turned into some kind of logo for the party.

Again, by the rules, Trump not only won .. he won by a landslide. 304 to 227 …. Nothing else matters at all. And all the whining and sniveling and blaming won't make any difference.

Sucks to be the loser. But you'd think that after almost three years the whining and blaming and pretending otherwise … well … you guys should maybe seek help to get over it already. Geez ….

Not by the rules ….. Everybody goes into the campaign knowing what the rules are (e*******l college), and they go into it (supposedly) accepting the outcome according to the rules. If you lose by those rules that you accepted, then you LOSE. PERIOD. And the other guy WINS, by the rules. So you can claim that all you want, but the fact is, T***P W*N, and, what I especially like to point out, HILLARY LOST!!!

If the rules were different, then the campaigns would have been run in a different way.

If you can't accept that, then you're just one more whiny-ass liberal blaming anything or anyone else for YOUR LOSS. Go write a book or something, kemmie. Maybe it will make you feel better.