I guess all the world leaders aren't rushing to kiss Kerry's ass after all. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20040611/pl_nm/campaign_putin_dc_1&printer=1 SEA ISLAND, Ga (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin stepped into the U.S. political campaign on Thursday, saying the Democrats had "no moral right" to criticize President Bush over Iraq. The Kremlin leader, answering a reporter's question in Sea Island, Georgia, suggested that the Democrats were two-faced in criticizing Bush on Iraq since it had been the Clinton administration that authorized the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia by U.S. and NATO forces. The reporter had asked Putin to respond to U.S. press articles questioning Russia's place at the G8 feast of leading industrial countries. Putin brushed these off, saying such articles were part of an internal U.S. political debate. He went on: "I am deeply convinced that President Bush's political adversaries have no moral right to attack him over Iraq because they did exactly the same. "It suffices to recall Yugoslavia. Now look at them. They don't like what President Bush is doing in Iraq." Russia was adamantly opposed to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, as it has been to the U.S.-led military operation Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. At the same time, Putin forged a strong friendship with Bush by offering immediate support in the global fight against terrorism. Both men go out of their way now to avoid criticizing each other publicly.
I guess that put Kerry in his place. But I'm interested to hear how our resident leftists will find a way to spin that. I'm sure it will involve mention of the terms "unilateralism" and "lies" and be more of the yawn-inducing, reflex action of Bush-bashing we get from these folks.
I don't give a rat's ass what Putin thinks. He is a former KGB boss who is as crooked as an Enron Exec.
Since he could only selectively recall what happened during the Bosnia Serb Muslim Croat genocide, who knows what he really meant.
I'm not sure how Yugoslavia is exactly the same as Iraq. Were we in a major war before sending troops there? Did we lose 800+ soldiers in Yugoslavia? Also, does this imply that the Republicans who were opposed to our involvement in Yugoslavia(Tom DeLay, etc.), yet in favor of the Iraqi War, are also two-faced? That was hard.
Not sure. But it could have been a whole lot worse than that. Faulty, and old intel in Bosnia caused us to accidently bomb the Chinese embassy. It took a lot of quick conversations and apologies to avoid something REALLY nasty happening.
I had never heard that the mistake leading the Chinese embassy bombing was because of faulty intel. I'm trying ot say that it wasn't the reason, but is there a link or anything so I can read about it.
I don't have a link that I know off the top of my head, but IIRC the bad intel was the use of a 6 or 7 year old map of the city.
OK thanks, that probably makes sense. I didn't have a link either but I thought I remembered something about navigation problem. For some reason I was thinking human and/or equipment error, but I definitely wasn't sure about it or anything.
Unsurprisingly, neither Putin nor BS understands that "US invasion of (to the dismay of the rest of the world minus Tony Blair)" does not equate with "NATO bombing of (prompting the ambivalence of the global community)." Since BS has me on ignore, perhaps someone else can explain to him how a NATO coalition action differs from a unilateral, US invasion. Be sure to use small words, shallow concepts and very, very short paragraphs. Thanks.
I heard that explanation, but I wasn’t sure I believed it. After the performance of the intelligence services in Iraq, I now believe it without a problem. I think the most interesting question here is, why would Putin say that? What possible reason would he have to say something that was clearly aimed to influence American domestic politics? What reason would he have for wanting Bush re-elected? Here is one possibility for discussion. While the US is distracted struggling to handle the Iraq situation, many people believe that Putin is systematically eliminating opposition in Russia and is moving the country more and more toward a de facto one party state. If he thinks Bush is more likely to keep the US focus where it is he has more room to play his games in Russia if Bush is re-elected. It might even be worth his while to slip a few bucks to Al Qaeda to help keep Iraq unstable and to keep the Americans chasing their tail. With Bush taking America in to this was almost alone the US really got boxed in. This war is now largely about the US and the US is stuck, almost alone, in Iraq with no way to get out any time soon. This is pure speculation, of course. I just find it curious that a Russian head of state, a former “communist”, would be essentially entering into American domestic politics to support a neocon like Bush. Makes you wonder why, doesn’t it? Is he taking advantage of a weakened and diverted watchdog, and trying to keep it weak and diverted?
Total garbage. We didn't have any UN sanction to do what we did there, either. I guess that is what Putin is talking about. And there is a coalition in the Gulf, albeit not as big as the one we had in the first gulf war. I thought that NATO waging a needless war (which we didn't need to be in because the Balkans have nothing to do with our vital national interests.) was an overreach of what was primarily a defensive organization. A stable Iraq on the other hand, located in a region filled with oil vital to our economy, is in America's vital interests. That's the reason why one is correct (Iraq) and one was a humanitarian waste that accomplished nothing (our Balkan adventures).
I disagree, this war isn't about oil. It's about WMDs... er, I mean it's a humanitarian mission. At least it's being sold to us as a humanitarian mission now by republicans. Which again, is funny, since going over to the Balkans was for humanitarian purposes, but Republicans like DeLay were against that war. Seriously though, Bama is right. This is a war about oil. We remove a dictator and try to stabalize a country with huge oil reserves that we can benefit from. War for profit, we can call this "oozing down economics" because oil doesn't trickle. I'm all for a strong economy, but starting a war to achieve that, I'm sorry, it just goes against my morals. And now we can all agree that this wasn't about curbing terrorism, especially since terrorism has increased since we invaded Iraq (btw, I actually wrote a paper for a poli sci class and that was my hypothesis, that invading iraq would cause an increase in terror). Thanks for your courage Bama, now that somebody stepped forward and admitted this was a war for oil, basso, can stop posting thousands upon thousands of articles that say there were wmds still over there.
I love this! Instead of talking about how good their candidate is, now the Bush fans have resorted to "see, Kerry is as bad as Bush! Putin things the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans!" Nice way to defend your guy. Don't forget that Putin, the guy who's opinion is now so valuable, was vehemently against the Iraq invasion...
Yes, thank you. It's what I've been saying from day one. This is a war about oil....and a Bush family vendetta. So wonderful that our tax dollars are being used for bullsh*t like this.
Just get Clinton on the horn, he'll set 'em straight quick....."Come on Pooot'n....Ah feel your paaaiin..." I LOVED the Clinton skits on SNL
