Skip to comments.Opinion: Ignore Western hypocrisy, Putin will do what he wants
Posted on 03/07/2014 10:28:51 AM PST by Jim Robinson
(CNN) -- All the self-righteous huffing and puffing in Washington over Ukraine jars on European and especially Russian ears after the multiple U.S.-led invasions and interventions in other people's countries of recent years. It's difficult to say what is more astonishing: the double standards exhibited by the White House, or the apparent total lack of self-awareness of U.S. officials.
Secretary of State John Kerry risked utter ridicule when he declared it unacceptable to invade another country on a "completely trumped-up pretext," or just because you don't like its current leadership. Iraq in 2003 springs instantly to mind. This is exactly what George W. Bush and Tony Blair did when they "trumped up" the supposed threat posed by the hated Saddam Hussein's fabled weapons of mass destruction.
Like Saddam, the Taliban leadership in place in Afghanistan in 2001 was deeply objectionable. But instead of just going after Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda training camps after the 9/11 attacks, Bush (again abetted by Blair) opted for full-scale regime change. The lamentable consequences of that decision are still being felt 13 years later, not least by Afghan civilians who have been dying in ever greater numbers as the final Nato withdrawal approaches.
U.S. President Barack Obama, a former law professor who should know better, has charged Vladimir Putin, his Russian counterpart, with violating Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, in breach of international law.
But it is Obama, following in Bush's footsteps, who has repeatedly and cynically flouted international law by launching or backing myriad armed attacks on foreign soil, in Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan to name a few, without U.N. security council authorization...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
When Obama fails, it’s all Bush’s fault.
Not to make light of an article which makes well-taken points, with which I very much agree. But as a lawyer of many decades, the above quote had me laughing. From what he has shown us in Washington, Professor Barrack Obama, as a Constitutional scholar is a total joke! Most rooted fifth graders could be expected to show a better understanding of American Constitutional Law.
Pooty-Poot has a pen and a phone too.
All of which is true.
The last time America intervened to protect Americans was in Grenada.
Since then its busied itself reordering other countries to its liking and appointing governments for them.
And here its accusing Russia of doing the very same things that itself stands guilty of. Psychologists call it projection.
Put quite simply, Ukraine is none of our business. The Russians haven’t turned it into a Guernica and no one in the West can claim they have troops anywhere openly occupying Ukraine.
As for Crimea - most of it is Russian. Its not Russia that is living in another world, but the West, led by America that is oblivious to the human rights of the people who live there, including their right to decide their own future.
Its bad enough when America doesn’t come with clean hands to the court. What’s really inexcusable are two things: America is backing a regime no body in Ukrained voted for and its also invoking a Ukrainian Constitution to deny the right of the Crimeans that as it turns out, no body in Ukraine voted to ratify.
This is what America and the West mean by democracy: supporting lawlessness and usurping the rights of minorities. They can spare Russia the hypocritical indignation as well as the bullying and the pressure. Its not a principled position.
Which is exactly what the world and Americans too, have come to expect from the Obama Administration and its leading officials. And moreover, whilst they lecture to Russia about the sanctity of international law, they cannot faithfully execute the laws of their own country.
America should put its own glass house in order before it throws stones at Russia.
The case against Saddam Hussein was not trumped up. Hussein’s fingerprints were all over the anthrax attacks which followed 9/11 and it does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax spores to create pandemonium, all that was involved was a few tablespoons full. The most major cases of trumped up US rationals for US involvement in recent times have been Serbia/Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011.
I pretty much do the same.
--someone might point out to this individual that Blair and Bush took that action on the advice of all of the major powers "intelligence" services and with the blessing of their respective legislatures -and the U. N.---
“Obama, a former law professor...”
If the author can’t get this fact right, how are we to believe the rest of what he has to say?
We’ve been on wild goose chases ever since Presidents stopped asking Congress for a formal declaration of war. If there is any part of the Constitution that conservatives should emphasis, it is that Congressional action. Instead we have been using various Constitutional work-arounds for the President to commit military forces. These do not unite the nation but foster political second guessing and opposition.
Somehow we are expected to give blood and treasure to anyone who wants to start a revolution and get us to bail them out. Others expect us to provide job exporting trade deficit to the world. Regardless of who is President, we need to rebuild America to be the strongest in the world and that includes the resurrection of MADE IN USA. If we had exported our factories to China, Germany and Japan we would have lost WW II. We need American nationalism not world adventurism.
“Weve been on wild goose chases ever since Presidents stopped asking Congress for a formal declaration of war.”
You mean Jefferson?
Roosevelt but you must have forgotten that.
That may all be true, but that invasion ultimately wasn’t intelligent. It’s in our national interests to have dictators control Islamic nations, specifically dictators that don’t take Islam seriously. Otherwise we end up with an Iran. Or an Arab Spring.
Bush should’ve just conducted a few bombing strikes and retained a Sunni Iraq counterbalance to the Shi’ite Iran.
Obama kicked it back to Russia over the net—Next move is Putin’s now. What Obama wants is a face saving “Putin Blinks” Moment (and headline). Wait til you see what happens next—maybe 48 hours from now—and it might be something both unexpected and a real bitter pill for the USA. Will Putin pull back? I don’t think so. What might happen? I will put on my swami’s turban and see what I can come up with:
1. A move on the part of China to do something to seize Islands, or move on a Japanese ship.
2. A blowing up of a gas pipeline in Ukraine (by “Terrorists”) that will stop natural gas to the state and Europe.
3. A “terrorist” action—like Boston Bombing—maybe against an oil pipeline in the USA?
4. New scandalious leaks from Snowden about corruption in Obama’s White House? Maybe how Obama ordered the IRS to attack Tea Parties?
5. The surfacing of a new Kenyan Birth Certificate for the President showing he isn’t an American at all.
6. Putin gives Hannity or Rush an interview.
7. More Pro-Russian demonstration in Ukraine—maybe coal miners this time—a violent reaction by Ukraine might be all he needs to roll in with the T-90 Tanks.
8. Iran explodes a nuke—even a small one vintage WW II would do the trick.
9. How about a flood of money and information to Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz—or just to Fox?
10. Cut the use of Russia to supply our troops in Kabul? or weapons to the Taliban?
11. The list goes on and on—you can think of a few I am sure...
Inconvenient facts aside, the case that Putin will do whatever he desires is correct. One purpose of diplomacy is to see that the stage of decision-making through armored formations is not reached. 0bama's has failed. This will go where Putin drives it, no more, no less.
Jefferson's dealings with the Barbary Pirates were honorable. Clinton & Obama are not morally fit to clean the manure our of the stable at Monticello. (Yes, I know I am blending the centuries, but you get the idea.
I’m out of this one also. I’m giving no voluntary moral or material support to intervening in Ukraine. I don’t care if it aligns with Usama’s policy.
+1. One of my favorite subjects.
Read this: "the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United states."
One of the things missing from the last 70 years of military failures is the phrase "all the resources of the country are hereby pledged". The President cannot do that. In the theology of the American system, Congress is us. Through representation, they act on our behalf and exercise powers that belong to us, one of which is the War Power.
The President can deploy armed forces, but he cannot give those forces the total commitment that war requires.
Also notice the words "authorized AND DIRECTED". That describes a correct relation between the power to initiate war and the power to carry it out. Also missing this past 70 years or so.
It seems to me conservatives and liberals have had a complete role reversal since the 60’s. I am not old enough to remember the Vietnam protests of John Kerry and the Clintons or other radicalism they and Obama were part of back then, but I recall descriptions that include advice to “turn on, tune in, and drop out”, and “don’t trust anyone over 30”. These, along with Hollywood leftists, like Jane Fonda, war violent anti-war protesters.
Now they have transformed themselves into the short-haired hippies running the nation. And conservatives now find themselves opposing the pointless wars, the abuse of power, and the general lack of human decency that these leftists so loudly accused our former leaders of.
Thanks for pointing out what should be done by Congress. Conservatives take note of the Constitution.