Posted on 12/11/2014 5:01:57 AM PST by wetphoenix
Recently, the House passed, by an overwhelming margin, a resolution to condemn the Russian Federation for actions considered hostile and aggressive within its sphere of influence, specifically with regard to the politically torn country of Ukraine.
Ten Members voted “nay,” myself among them. I wish to explain why I took this unpopular position.
Above all, while Vladimir Putin’s government may well have engaged in questionable behavior toward neighboring countries, Resolution 758 was nothing more than gratuitous, needlessly provocative and shortsighted. Moreover, reasonable observers the world over can see it as tantamount to a declaration that Russia is America’s enemy.
The wording spilled over with uncommon vitriol and inaccuracy at a time when our language must be focused, measured and responsible. Since the end of the Cold War, the world has grown increasingly dangerous. This is not the time for motions designed to make Congress look tough and on top of global events.
The moment, rather, calls for a clear-sighted and surefooted ability to identify friends, foes and those who—following their own interests—fall somewhere in between, always ready to find convenient allies.
More than ever, Congress must assess emerging threats astutely, with the highest degree of accuracy and balance. By passing this resolution, it failed these requirements.
The threats to America looming largest are, in order, radical Islamic terrorism and a still-Communist China, whose new economic power has emboldened its leadership to imagine that the ancient Middle Kingdom should control the world. The perils posed by Putin, if any, are not close.
As Americans who enjoy that most mature of democracies—and I say that with a straight face—we may not like the way Putin resolves conflicts in his region. We may not appreciate how he treats dissenters in his fledgling democracy—a reminder of how we’ve turned, for example, the IRS into
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
“...engaged in questionable behavior toward neighbouring countries..”
Invading neighbouring countries is just ‘questionable’?
Because House resolutions “condemning” another country are stupid?
What does Putin have on him?
Can't argue with that.
If I make a statement like this, I'll generally provide some excerpts and explain why I agree/disagree. Nothing like that in this article.
I read the resolution myself, expecting it to be a wild rant, ending with some Khrushchev-esque shoe banging. Most of it deals with Ukraine and Crimea, but it's generally about Russian threats to former Soviet satellites. So the only odd thing I found was this tangential throw away bullet point:
•cease its support for the Assad regime in Syria.
It really doesn't have much to do with the rest, but I'd hardly consider any of it vitriolic or innacurate.
There was a program on C-SPAN a few days ago about the Ukraine situation with a number of well-informed people including the US ambassador to Ukraine. Toward the end a pro-Putin woman got up and accused them all of wanting to start a world war by opposing Putin. She reminded me of a Moonie by her demeanor and relentlessness.
Yep, Putinskies still have long KBG arms, all the way into US government traitors.
Invading sovereign country, disregarding Budapest treaty, ignoring world’s opinion,......
Dana, think clearly man, it may have been in the minority among the Members of Congress, that doesn't mean it was unpopular. Represent, bro!!
Actually I posted my comment into the wrong thread. I thought I was commenting on why Dana voted against the Cromnibus Rule. Putin’s is a wannabe great conqueror and an all around bad guy, who’s bad first of all for Russians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.