Barry the Backstabber

Barry's campaign of selling out our friends while sucking up to our adversaries hit unprecedented levels when he betrayed the UK to the Russians in order to get the horrible (for America and the Eastern European countries that we used to help protect) START treaty signed.

Wikileaked documents that the UK's Telegraph first reported on yesterday show that Obama traded British nuclear secrets to the Russians as a bargaining chip in the already steeply one sided (in Russia's favor) agreement:

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website. 

Here's a great quote from Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit about this revelation:

We knew Barack Obama was inexperienced. We knew he was weaned on Marxism. We knew he believed in redistribution of wealth…
But, we had no idea he was this dangerous.

Obama has a long history of appeasing our enemies while alienating our friends, so this really shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone, except maybe those who only get their news from the fawning Obamamedia.

At Atlas Shrugs, Pamela Geller writes:

More sedition at 1600 Pennslyvania Avenue.
You have to believe that Putin scratched his head after Obama bowed down to him and went on to abandon our Eastern European allies by giving up missile defense in Eastern Europe, and routed any American advantage by signing START.... Putin must have said, "This is too easy, it must be a trick!"
No, Putin, it's just an enemy in the White House. Obama sold out America for START and, according to new Wiki docs, he sold out the UK, too.
Here is a real president's take on START: John Bolton: New Start Is Unilateral Disarmament -- WSJ.com

The centerpiece of "New Start," the arms-control treaty that President Barack Obama signed with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April, is its reduction in nuclear warheads. Less well-understood—but profoundly misguided—is the treaty's return to outmoded Cold War limits on weapons launchers, which will require the United States, but not Russia, to dismantle existing delivery systems. This could cripple America's long-range conventional warhead delivery capabilities, while also severely constraining our nuclear flexibility. We will pay for this mistake in future conflicts entirely unrelated to Russia.
In pursuing New Start, the Obama administration has essentially jettisoned the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, which only dealt with the limitation of nuclear warheads that were operationally deployed. That freed large numbers of U.S. launchers (land-based and submarine-based ballistic missiles, along with heavy bombers such as the B-2) to carry conventional payloads world-wide—a concept known as "conventional prompt global strike."
Such delivery flexibility is far more important to America than to Russia, given our global interests and alliances. Its wisdom was evident after 9/11, as we fought in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond. New Start encumbers us with unnecessary constraints that will distort strategic priorities and weapons-development for decades. (read the rest)

According to a report on Fox, Obama asked England if he could give the Russians information on Britain’s nuclear forces as a bargaining chip. England said no.

Obama did it anyway.
As I laid out meticulously researched and proved  in my book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America, Obama is abandoning our allies and relinquishing American hegemony. Our "special relationship" with Britain and Israel is all but in ashes.

READ THE REST including more information from the latest Wikileaks.

Nice Deb has lots of information at her place, including extensive updates along with the Obama administration's response to the Telegraph story via Twitter. Really. They freaking tweeted the official federal response to what under any other president would be an international crisis, but with the lap dog media in their pocket this will barely be a ripple for Barry and the gang.

I'd be surprised if this gets reported by anyone in the old media besides Fox and The Wall Street Journal, or if it is mentioned at all, it will surely be whitewashed to keep the leper messiah in a positive light. Protect Dear Leader at all costs, right, JournoListers?

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air correctly asserts that a Congressional investigation of Barry's betrayal is in order and that the senate should revoke its ratification of START (which was done in the lame duck session and in my opinion, every single Republican who went along with it needs to be primaried out at their next election cycle). Here's an excerpt:

The revelation about the deal with the Russians is huge, however.  According to the Telegraph’s report on the cables, the Obama administration asked permission of the British government to share the details of their nuclear program, and were refused.  The Obama administration agreed to do it anyway without letting the UK know.  We apparently will hand over all of the serial numbers of the Trident nuclear missiles we sell to the Brits so that Russia can keep track of them.  This means that the UK’s relatively small but ambiguous nuclear deterrent can be more easily calculated, and perhaps neutralized if the necessity arises.
This is a disgrace, of course.  Remember when Obama the candidate insisted that he would restore our standing with friends and allies after the supposedly inept diplomacy of the Bush administration?  We do not increase our standing among friends or foes when we stab the former in the back for the sake of the latter.  Instead, we look craven, disloyal, and inept.
Regardless of what Obama thinks of American nuclear deterrents and policy, he has no right to undermine the policies of our closest ally and stalwart friend, especially as they fight with us in Afghanistan.  Congress should immediately investigate this, and if possible the Senate should revoke its ratification of START.
Update: Via Teresa Kopec on Twitter, State Dept spokesman P. J. Crowley tweets, “Contrary to @TelegraphNews claim, we carried forward requirement to notify#Russia about U.S.-UK nuclear cooperation from the 1991 treaty.”  But if that were true, why did the UK refuse permission to do it again?

 Niles Gardiner at the Telegraph has an excellent op-ed and an "I told you so":

In December I wrote extensively on the White House’s relentless drive to sign the New START Treaty with Moscow as part of its controversial “reset” policy, despite the fact that it represented a staggeringly bad deal for the United States, and a remarkably good one for the Russians. The Telegraph report confirms the extraordinary lengths to which Washington stooped to meet Russian demands, which stunningly included passing on British nuclear secrets to a major strategic adversary.
As the Prime Minister and senior British ministers head to Germany this weekend to take part in the Munich Security Conference, key questions must be asked of their US counterparts, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as to the exact nature of the deal struck with Russia, and what more has been compromised in relation to British national security.
The matter is serious enough to merit Congressional hearings in Washington as well as parliamentary hearings in London. It is easy to see why the Obama team refused to allow the US Senate access to the negotiating documents for New START, as they would have sparked outrage on both sides of the Atlantic that would almost certainly have killed the Treaty. The Telegraph report clearly contradicts repeated claims by the Obama negotiating team that no side deals were struck with their Russian counterparts. Not for the first time, the current US administration has been eager to appease America’s enemies while shamelessly undercutting her allies.

Obama's capitulations to adversaries at the expense of America's friends is weakening us not only by pushing away those who have always stood with the United States, but also in demonstrating to those he seeks to appease that he is not to be trusted nor respected under any circumstances.  Like Dr. Phil tells the "other women" of their married boyfriends, "If he'll do it with you, he'll do it to you."

The message being broadcast by this administration to the world is that until Obama is removed from office, the U.S.A. cannot be trusted nor relied upon for anything. Barry is a serial backstabber in addition to an unmitigated disgrace and embarrassment to the office of the President.

Here's something from Cold Fury that I think many of us will agree with as many are referring to this as "America's betrayal":

This is Obama’s betrayal, and throughout his misbegotten term in the office he defrauded his way into, he’s betrayed us as well, many times over. Let him own it.
I’ll say it again: this lying, insidious weasel is not my president, and he never will be, except in the most threadbare, strictly legal sense. It might be the most insignificant of gestures, but I’ll offer it anyway: NOT IN MY NAME, Mr “president.” Not now, not ever.
Eventually, if the lousy bastard isn’t removed from office soon, real Americans are going to have to put up one of those stupid Leftard-style “we’re sorry, world” websites, to offer our apologies to the world for ever allowing this mountebank to seize power. Then again, a good portion of the world lobbied pretty hard themselves to get him in there, so maybe they’re just getting what they deserve.

I couldn't have said it better myself.