Skip to comments.Putin a Hypocrite with Blood on His Hands
Posted on 09/12/2013 12:40:32 PM PDT by TangledUpInBlue
There he goes again -- Russian President Vladimir Putin, portraying himself as the world's champion of peace and democracy. And, of course, doing it at America's expense.
This time, Putin's PR machine managed to get him an op-ed in The New York Times, just in time for the start of talks in Geneva, Switzerland, over a plan to dismantle Syria's chemical weapons arsenal. The column is so filled with hypocrisy, inaccuracies and even veiled threats that it's hard to know where to begin.
Putin chastises the United States, which has stumbled badly in Syria, for considering an attack because a strike "will result in more innocent victims and escalation." It could, he warns, "unleash a new wave of terrorism." He forgets to mention that tens of thousands of innocent victims in Syria have already died at the hands of President Bashar al-Assad's forces, which are armed, supported and supplied by Moscow.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
All leaders of major countries are “hypocrites with blood on their hands” and always have been.
Come on. He is KGB. OF COURSE he has blood on his paws.
I don’t think that’s what he meant. It just came out badly. I think he means why don’t WE put the U.S. national interest first. As Russia is doing with their own.
“He forgets to mention that tens of thousands of innocent victims in Syria have already died at the hands of President Bashar al-Assad’s forces, which are armed, supported and supplied by Moscow.”
And what of the tens of thousands of “innocent victims” who were killed by the Al-Qaeda linked rebel forces, which are armed, supported and supplied by Washington?
True dis. See? I speak Obamics.
Putin is not a good guy. He is not even a good guy when it comes to Russia as he perpetuates a kleptocracy that runs the country. Even so he is better than Obummer becuase he does not hate his country and its culture so he defends it on occasion.
The question these talking heads should be asking is how evil and incompetent must Obama be to make Putin look like the good guy?
And that, really, is the only problem CNN has with him.
Putin is putting the national interest of Russia first.
Why dont we do the same?
The Free Trader Communist Globalist hate folks like Putin, hate America, and hate anyone or anybody that is national instead of Globalists
There was a thread a few weeks ago that shed favorable light on Putin...the ones who complained the most were the ones who support Globalism, Free Trade, and anything not pushing the One World agenda. The same folks who hate Putin have no problem Free Trading with COMMUNIST CHINA
No, Putin, is not a nice guy....but he seems to like his nation...unlike the folks who keep pushing for US war in Syria
Links to verify your assertion, please!
John Adams' son, John Quincy, was 9 when the Declaration of Independence was written, 20 when the Constitution was framed, and from his teen years, served in various capacities in both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government, including as President. His words on this subject should be instructive on the subject at hand.
In 1839, he was invited by the New York Historical Society to deliver the "Jubilee" Address honoring the 50th Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington. He delivered that lengthy discourse which should be read by all who love liberty, for it traced the history of the development of the ideas underlying and the actions leading to the establishment of the Constitution which structured the United States government. His 50th-year summation seems to be a better source for understanding the kind of government the Founders formed than those of recent historians and politicians. He addresses the ideas of "democracy" and "republic" throughout, but here are some of his concluding remarks:
"Every change of a President of the United States, has exhibited some variety of policy from that of his predecessor. In more than one case, the change has extended to political and even to moral principle; but the policy of the country has been fashioned far more by the influences of public opinion, and the prevailing humors in the two Houses of Congress, than by the judgment, the will, or the principles of the President of the United States. The President himself is no more than a representative of public opinion at the time of his election; and as public opinion is subject to great and frequent fluctuations, he must accommodate his policy to them; or the people will speedily give him a successor; or either House of Congress will effectually control his power. It is thus, and in no other sense that the Constitution of the United States is democratic - for the government of our country, instead of a Democracy the most simple, is the most complicated government on the face of the globe. From the immense extent of our territory, the difference of manners, habits, opinions, and above all, the clashing interests of the North, South, East, and West, public opinion formed by the combination of numerous aggregates, becomes itself a problem of compound arithmetic, which nothing but the result of the popular elections can solve.
"It has been my purpose, Fellow-Citizens, in this discourse to show:-
"1. That this Union was formed by a spontaneous movement of the people of thirteen English Colonies; all subjects of the King of Great Britain - bound to him in allegiance, and to the British empire as their country. That the first object of this Union,was united resistance against oppression, and to obtain from the government of their country redress of their wrongs.
"2. That failing in this object, their petitions having been spurned, and the oppressions of which they complained, aggravated beyond endurance, their Delegates in Congress, in their name and by their authority, issued the Declaration of Independence - proclaiming them to the world as one people, absolving them from their ties and oaths of allegiance to their king and country - renouncing that country; declared the UNITED Colonies, Independent States, and announcing that this ONE PEOPLE of thirteen united independent states, by that act, assumed among the powers of the earth, that separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them.
"3. That in justification of themselves for this act of transcendent power, they proclaimed the principles upon which they held all lawful government upon earth to be founded - which principles were, the natural, unalienable, imprescriptible rights of man, specifying among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that the institution of government is to secure to men in society the possession of those rights: that the institution, dissolution, and reinstitution of government, belong exclusively to THE PEOPLE under a moral responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe; and that all the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.
"4. That under this proclamation of principles, the dissolution of allegiance to the British king, and the compatriot connection with the people of the British empire, were accomplished; and the one people of the United States of America, became one separate sovereign independent power, assuming an equal station among the nations of the earth.
"5. That this one people did not immediately institute a government for themselves. But instead of it, their delegates in Congress, by authority from their separate state legislatures, without voice or consultation of the people, instituted a mere confederacy.
"6. That this confederacy totally departed from the principles of the Declaration of independence, and substituted instead of the constituent power of the people, an assumed sovereignty of each separate state, as the source of all its authority.
"7. That as a primitive source of power, this separate state sovereignty,was not only a departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but directly contrary to, and utterly incompatible with them.
"8. That the tree was made known by its fruits. That after five years wasted in its preparation, the confederation dragged out a miserable existence of eight years more, and expired like a candle in the socket, having brought the union itself to the verge of dissolution.
"9. That the Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people. That it was the work of the ONE PEOPLE of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute as a nation, but ONE PEOPLE.
"10. That this Constitution, making due allowance for the imperfections and errors incident to all human affairs, has under all the vicissitudes and changes of war and peace, been administered upon those same principles, during a career of fifty years.
"11. That its fruits have been, still making allowance for human imperfection, a more perfect union, established justice, domestic tranquility, provision for the common defence, promotion of the general welfare, and the enjoyment of the blessings of liberty by the constituent people, and their posterity to the present day.
"And now the future is all before us, and Providence our guide."
In an earlier paragraph, he had stated:
"But this institution was republican, and even democratic. And here not to be misunderstood, I mean by democratic, a government, the administration of which must always be rendered comfortable to that predominating public opinion . . . and by republican I mean a government reposing, not upon the virtues or the powers of any one man - not upon that honor, which Montesquieu lays down as the fundamental principle of monarchy - far less upon that fear which he pronounces the basis of despotism; but upon that virtue which he, a noble of aristocratic peerage, and the subject of an absolute monarch, boldly proclaims as a fundamental principle of republican government. The Constitution of the United States was republican and democratic - but the experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived; and it was obvious that if virtue - the virtue of the people, was the foundation of republican government, the stability and duration of the government must depend upon the stability and duration of the virtue by which it is sustained."
An article by a pissed off lesbo. Safe to ignore.
Meant that Free Trader Communist Globalists DISLIKE Putin
As long as Putin keeps slapping Obama around and revealing to the world what a pathetic empty-suit he is (even if it reveals how degraded and moronic the American populace is for voting for him), along with admirably keeping his Russian homeland and its culture from being destroyed by disgusting perverts and preventing it from decaying into a degenerate sewer in the manner America has...
Putin has my praise.
Putin once vowed to defend Christians worldwide. Has 0bama said ANYTHING about Christians in Libya, Egypt or Syria? (CRICKETS!!)
Remember the Gorbasms the left was having when Reagan was President?
Sorry, I have to disagree. There's at least one obvious mistruth in it, which taints the rest of the article. Christine states that there have been 8 verified atrocities by the Assad administration, but only one by the rebels in the past year and a half.
Off of the top of my head, there's been several Christian village attacks, massacres, kidnappings, and forced conversions. There's been roadside executions--the recent one where some truckdrivers weren't Sunni enough and were summarily shot, and the one from last year now going around showing the execution of Syrian soldiers. And wasn't there the charming video of a rebel leader gutting a soldier and muching on his heart and/or liver?
Ms. Amanpour gives great concern, but as someone said in the 90's, she's also a "war slut." Her fame is based on her concern, and she is a go-to interviewer when war crops up.
Americans aren't that dumb.