??? Where is Wayne Gretzky mentioned in that story?

You mean Gordie Howe right?

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

Yeah I couldn’t find The Great One either. This guy is full of shit.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Okay, points for that one....

Greg

---

If you are a Canuck that engages in gratuitous bashing of the US, you are probably on my Iggy List. So, save your self a bunch of typing a response unless you also feel the need to gratuitously bash me. If so, have fun.
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f___ things up" - Barack Obama, 2020

Well Yzerman was hired/announced as the Wings' GM today and he's had a much better executive career than Gretzky... ?

More fake news from right-wing CNN. Plus, I saw James Clapper on TV last night and he said they did a lot to stop Russia.

   I said this (bolded) for years about Obama and his actions:

"The Mueller report flatly states that Russia began interfering in American democracy in 2014. Over the next couple of years, the effort blossomed into a robust attempt to interfere in our 2016 presidential election. The Obama administration knew this was going on and yet did nothing. In 2016, Obama's National Security Adviser Susan Rice told her staff to "stand down" and "knock it off" as they drew up plans to "strike back" against the Russians, according to an account from Michael Isikoff and David Corn in their book "Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump".
Why did Obama go soft on Russia? My opinion is that it was because he was singularly focused on the nuclear deal with Iran. Obama wanted Putin in the deal, and to stand up to him on election interference would have, in Obama's estimation, upset that negotiation. This turned out to be a disastrous policy decision."
-
https://www.cnn.com/...-jennings/index.html

The thing about the Mueller report is it reminds and expounds on Trump missteps, but it also elucidates some of those from the Obama years, I expect Obama and team to take a serious beating over the next year.

My guess, to state the obvious, is that he calculated that Russian meddling wouldn't amount to actual meaningful influence, and the stakes of the Iran deal were much higher. Apparently that calculation didn't pan out.

Although, people who swear that Russia didn't affect the outcome of the election should probably consider that the ideal scenario, right? Ignore the inconsequential to obtain a more substantive strategic objective.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Wow, so is Jennings dishonest or just he just not know anything? I mean, is that hard to google about the Iran deal? Is he seriously suggesting that Obama did not want to do anything to upset Russia in 2016, after already laying on tons of sanctions in 2014, to protect a deal signed in 2015? Does Jennings just misunderstand the fundamental nature of time?


Couldn't Jennings of just asked his old boss Mitch McConnell why he refused to support Obama's attempts to stop Russia's attack?

Criticizing Obama's treatment of Russia is fine. But it's not for faint-of-heart Trump fanbois because criticizing Obama is like criticizing the Seahawks for their goal-line call in XLIX. Absolutely valid criticism. But at least they were in the game. While the Trump administration would be the 3-13 Oakland Raiders.

-
I guess you know that Obama fought Iran sanctions tooth and nail every time congress moved to ratchet them up:

https://www.wsj.com/...sanctions-1421417585
-
https://www.huffpost.com/...-sanctions_n_4605838
-
http://static7.businessinsider.com/...ons-on-iran---2015-1
=

I am not clear what you are trying to say. What does that have to do with somehow wanting to keep Russia happy in 2016 after the deal was signed?

It shows that Russian "interference" in US elections started much earlier than 2016, and Obama did nothing to stop it because he was more concerned with his legacy. It also shows that it wasn't just about Trump.

Russian "interference" wasn't some new scheme dreamed up by Trump and Putin in 2015/2016, and is probably just about sowing discord to weaken the President (whomever it is) and the US.

Fortunately for Putin and Russia, the dems and all the anti-democracy never-Trumpers fell for it hook line and sinker and are doing the Kremlin's dirty work for them.

Was Obama aware of it in 2014? I mean that is a critical thing, all evidence points to it only being uncovered in 2016. Can you point me to any evidence Obama was aware of it earlier?

I know you won't like the source.. but it is what it is.

https://www.politico.com/...-interference-241547

another you might be ok with

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...m_term=.7717d6b7f776

and some ancient news

https://www.newsweek.com/...trump-clinton-607956

Ok, the first source is good, but does not really reinforce the point. It says that the warning did not explicitly say the Russians would attack the american elections. So what was Obama going to do to Russia in that case? I mean the whole argument here is the Obama didn't do anything so as not to upset Russia. Remember in 2014 the US was already laying down very strong sanctions against Russia, so what more could Obama do against Russia based on some general threat? Seriously, I am asking this because that it is what Jenning's is arguing is that Obama did not want to do something that would upset Russia. All the complaints in that article are that Obama should have upped defenses, but that wouldn't have angered Russia.

The second source says that the FBI knew the DNC was hacked by Russia in 2015, but it was in September and the JCPOA had already been agreed upon by July, so I don't see how that would somehow affect the JCPOA. So once again, how would Obama doing something upset Russia, since they had already approved the deal at the UN in July?

Third source, yes campaigns are hacked all the time. The difference here is that Russia was going to use that information not just for their intelligence, but to actually affect the election. that was new and this source does not give any evidence that would be expected based on 2008. In fact it undercuts it, it is evidence that Russia will hack campaigns, but stay out of them. So this source makes Obama's actions make more sense. He was not expecting Russia to actually weaponize that information based on their history. So this source undercuts Jenning's article. Why would Obama expect Russia to act differently than their history shows?

Of course, the succinct and most plausible answer as to why Obama didn't act was because everyone thought Clinton would win so who cared? No reason to cast any shadow on a Clinton victory.

That is a much more likelier answer for lots of people's failure during the 2016 election.