Putin to accept PM job if protege wins
MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin told a party congress Monday that he would accept the prime minister’s post if his longtime protege is elected president, guaranteeing Putin an ongoing heavyweight political role in Russia.
Q. And to President Bush. …is this a man that Americans can trust?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I will answer the question. I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank dialogue.
There was no kind of diplomatic chit-chat, trying to throw each other off balance. There was a straightforward dialogue. And that’s the beginning of a very constructive relationship. I wouldn’t have invited him to my ranch if I didn’t trust him.
Just one more reminder that George W. Bush has no talent whatsoever at judging character. If our President wasn’t such a putz he would have looked into Putin’s eyes and realized that the guy was a fiendish dictator who is trying to turn Russia into a KGB police state.
This is pretty hilarious. You guys on the left only seem to care about feindish dictators when they are actually somewhat helpful to the U.S. You don’t care about feindish dictators, like Saddam Hussein or Ahmadinejad who want to harm our country. If Hillary Clinton is elected President, will she be sending Madeline Albright back to North Korea for another Champagne toast?
Chris:
Vladamir Putin has done nothing help the United States.
And, finally there is a difference between diplomacy with fiendish dictators, and enabling fiendish dictators. We have only enabled Putin in the last 7 years as he has dimmed Russians rights.
Sean
“You guys on the left only seem to care about feindish dictators when they are actually somewhat helpful to the U.S. You don’t care about feindish dictators, like Saddam Hussein or Ahmadinejad who want to harm our country.”
Oh man that is just precious! Yes it would be wiser to be concerned about a dictator who actually has weapons of mass destruction as opposed to dictators who pose no actual threat. But of course wisdom is very much in short supply in Republican circles. Witness virtually every aspect of our foreign policy under Bush
Chris — Which sainted American President tilted US foreign policy towards Sadaam Hussein and sold him helicopters and weapons? Hint: it’s the same President who backed murderous regimes in Latin America, and who supported the Islamic fighters in Afghanistan who morphed into the Taliban.
Moral blindness is a big tent.
Futhermore Chris, no where in that post did it suggest we should go to war with Putin. I have no desire to go to war with Russia to liberate their people, if they want actual freedom they can do it themselves. Gotta earn that freedom, not have laid in your lap.
SeanH,
You know, Hillary Clinton and her husband both said throughout the 1990s that Saddam had WMDs. They advocated for regime change in Iraq. I guess that means that you won’t be supporting Hillary in November 2008? Also, it was the Clinton foreign policy that led us to go to war in Bosnia and Kosovo, Somalia and having troops in Haiti when the U.S. had no national interests being in any of those countries. Moreover, when you talk about the Clinton foreign policy you cannot forget about the champagne toast with Albright and Kim Jong Il of North Korea or the fact that we had 8 years of terrorist attacks (starting with the first attack on the WTC in 1993) against the U.S. and Clinton did nothing about them. Yeah, let’s go back to the Clinton years of being distracted by trivial wars and oral sex while being asleep at the switch while the terrorists try to destroy our country.
the “incompetent” GWB has been giving Congress the middle finger all year, he has outsmarted them on every occasion, who is actually incompetent??..Nancy is… yea i wish he did not say that about Putin, he was just making nice I guess..
“You know, Hillary Clinton and her husband both said throughout the 1990s that Saddam had WMDs. They advocated for regime change in Iraq. I guess that means that you won’t be supporting Hillary in November 2008?”
Did Clinton advocate regime change by invasion? Chris’s attempt #1 to make Bush look better-failed.
“Also, it was the Clinton foreign policy that led us to go to war in Bosnia and Kosovo, Somalia and having troops in Haiti when the U.S. had no national interests being in any of those countries.”
There was some national interest in Haiti. Bosnia and Kosovo involved the the world interest of keeping Europe stable. But most importantly, how many U.S. Troops were killed in those actions? Chris’s attempt #2 to make Bush look better-failed.
“Moreover, when you talk about the Clinton foreign policy you cannot forget about the champagne toast with Albright and Kim Jong Il of North Korea”
Gotta love how you ignore the Republican congresses’ torpedoing of the agreement with NK-but hey-who needs facts in republican land? Chris’s attempt #3 to make Bush look better-failed.
“that we had 8 years of terrorist attacks (starting with the first attack on the WTC in 1993) against the U.S. and Clinton did nothing about them.”
It is amazing that Bush fans STILL try to make this statement YEARS after it has been thoroughly debunked. But once again, who needs facts in republican land? Chris’s attempt #4 to make Bush look better-failed.
“Yeah, let’s go back to the Clinton years of being distracted by trivial wars and oral sex while being asleep at the switch while the terrorists try to destroy our country.”
It was Republicans who were distracted by oral sex. Meanwhile the same Republicans who in the past few years have said that criticism of the President in times of conflict is harmful to the troops heaped scorn on Clinton’s actions in Kosovo and Bosnia and demanded withdrawal. Chris’s attempt #5 to make Bush look better-failed.
Now, for argument’s sake, let’s go ahead and assume that everything Chris mentioned is legit, relevant and/or Clinton’s fault. Have any of those items or all of them put together been even close to be the colossal ongoing disaster that is the Bush foreign policy?
Let’s cut to the chase:
Did George W BUSH say he looked into Putin’s
EYES or HEART?
Another muck up by Bush - and its someone else’s fault again?
Somebody put that boy in reform school.
I see the original says EYES above.
Was pretty sure it was his heart & soul:
George sez:
I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul;
____________
Time for George to get a sense of leaving office.
Hoping that the next occupant has more insight & better vision.
I think “fiendish dictator” is a little harsh. If you talk to Russians, they don’t think Putin is “fiendish” — that’s why he’s the most popular leader in Russian history.
Don’t forget that Putin can legally run for president again after four years of Medvedev. His party and the populace wanted to change the constitution to allow him to remain president, but he refused. Compare that to Rudy Giuliani, for whom term limits are apparently optional.
Of course, the anti-democratic moves are troubling. I think the majority of Russians accept them because they believe Putin is the best man for the job, but hopefully the trend will start to reverse. Medvedev is not a KGB man, so perhaps if Putin does not try to control him he can begin to restore some of the freedom that has been lost.
All the incompetence and crap connected with the Bush Administration make the Nixon and Clinton look like Saints.
SeanH,
You can’t actually believe that it’s not an embarassment for the Clinton administration to have Madeline Albright toasting Kim Jong Il of North Korea. You can’t actually think that Clinton did anything to hunt down bin Laden after 8 years of terrorist attacks. You can’t actually defend Clinton for letting France and Germany cheat Iraq’s sanctions for more than five years after the U.N. weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq by Saddam.
P.S. To your point #1, Clinton didn’t have time to invade Iraq between getting bj’s from Monica and invading Haiti, he was too busy.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t President Clinton order missile strikes against bases in Afghanistan? It may not have been particularly effective, but it was not “nothing.”
At least, it was more than propping up the element in Afghanistan that later gave al Qaida refuge.
Chris
Dec 18th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
P.S. To your point #1, Clinton didn’t have time to invade Iraq between getting bj’s from Monica and invading Haiti, he was too busy.
Actually he was too busy LYING to everyone about it!!
How about Hillary, she went on national TV before Bill finally admitted to the sex and said it was all a “right wing” consipracy.
Guess no one will ask her about that now.
The Clinton presidency was a total joke and his legacy will be getting caught having sex in the oval office. Bet his Mom is proud.
Hillary claims to be so seasoned and all this experience but will not allow any documents out from her time as 1st hag.
I think the “Hate Bush” syndrome runs rampant here.
Over the last few decades both Democrats and Republicans have made their share of mistakes in foreign policy. For me Iraq is biggest of these and I put the majority of the blame for it on most Republicans with an important assist from many Democrats.
Clinton’s mistakes were not pushing the criminal investigation of the first Word Trade Center bombing enough or listening to intelligence advisors to get to the true root of the problem. An ill-conceived and poorly executed outing in Somalia that despite what may have been good intentions showed that the U.S. policy could easily be affected by a a poorly armed and organized group willing to fight. His launching of missiles into Afghanistan and the Sudan came across more as impotent attempts to distract the American public from his scandals than anything else. All of these continued to give those so inclined more evidence to promote the idea that the United States had it in for Muslims everywhere in the world.
All of that pales in comparison to the current mess in Iraq and the rest of the middle east. While I hope that things are and will continue to get better I still whole heartedly believe the U.S and the rest of the world would be better off if the invasion had not occurred. One big reason for my belief is that we would have much more leverage with the global population with emerging dictators like Putin and established dictatorships like Iran. As it is most of the world’s population feels that the U.S. is a bigger threat to global peace than North Korea or Iran. That fact while our military is at the breaking point from continued extended deployments and our national debt continues to sink the value of the dollar means we are dealing with the world from a position of relative weakness. Not a good thing no matter what your party affiliation.
That is the reason Bush feels compelled to play nice with Putin. His choices have become very, very limited.
Kerosene Hat,
The criminal prosecution of al Qaeda? That’s what led to 9/11. We got the blind sheik and prosecuted him. That was the end of it. It wasn’t until we went to war with al Qaeda did we begin to roll up the ring leaders like Kahlid Sheik Mohammed and others.
You say Iraq was a huge foreign policy disaster for the U.S. I see it much, much different. Invading Iraq and removing Saddam led to the dismantling of Lybia’s nuclear weapons program. Lybia had been a top sponsor of terrorism in the past. Morover, we are defeating al Qaeda in Iraq today. The Iraqi people, both Sunni and Shi’ite are standing up to al Qaeda. We’ve dismantled al Qaeda in many parts of Iraq, including Baghdad. There is no doubt that it’s been a tough road and there is no guarantee what the future will bring. But there is also no doubt that criminal prosecutions and appeasement was what led to 9/11 in the first place.
“SeanH,
You can’t actually believe that it’s not an embarassment for the Clinton administration to have Madeline Albright toasting Kim Jong Il of North Korea.”
Not nearly as embarrassing as what the Repubs did to torpedo that deal.
“You can’t actually think that Clinton did anything to hunt down bin Laden after 8 years of terrorist attacks”
Unless you live in some alternate reality, you can’t actually believe he didn’t.
“You can’t actually defend Clinton for letting France and Germany cheat Iraq’s sanctions for more than five years after the U.N. weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq by Saddam.”
Do you mean the French and German governments had policies to cheat the system or do you mean French and German individuals and companies? Why don’t you mention Australia or the numerous American companies that were in on it as well?
“The Clinton presidency was a total joke and his legacy will be getting caught having sex in the oval office. Bet his Mom is proud.”
And even with all of that he was a far superior President than what we have currently.
I think the “Hate Clinton” syndrome runs rampant.
Oh boy! Good come back SeanH.
Um, the Clinton disaster was better how again??
Liberals have such fun with history facts.
You saying Clinton was better does not make it so my friend. Funny how many historians have said Clinton killed his own legacy with his sex scandal in the white house. Had he faced it and not lied, he would have probably had some legacy to point to but now he is nothing more than an impeached president for lying about what he did and the rest of the world laughed at the US for voting in such a classless womanizer.
Sad part is that Hillary would be even WORSE! She claims to have such great experience and has been “tested” tey cannot release any documents from the Clinton days.
Gee, wonder what is left to hide after their friend MR. Burger “borrowed” some classified documents that he had to carry out in his socks. 
Clinton = The most corrupt presidency in recent history.
Invading Iraq and removing Saddam led to the dismantling of Lybia’s nuclear weapons program.
False
Yeah, Clinton was *great.* That was such a smart move to not capture bin Laden when he had the chance…
WTM, you don’t still believe that debunked story do you?
Libya’s renunciation of nuclear weapons and its return to the international community is a triumph of sanctions, legal action, and long, grueling diplomatic effort under Clinton, not Bush’s failed display of American military might.
// It is possible that the Bush administration’s policy did nudge Colonel Qaddafi forward, but discussions for Libya’s return to the international community began under the Clinton administration. In 1999, Libya extradited two men implicated in the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, a decade earlier. The same year, it agreed to pay compensation for the victims of the bombing of a French airliner, UTA Flight 772, whose destruction over Niger was traced back to Libya. Discussions between the United States and Libya about its weapons of mass destruction programs also began that year. These discussions finally bore fruit last fall with Colonel Qaddafi’s decision to renounce these weapons. It is true that this announcement came after Saddam Hussein’s regime collapsed, but is a mistake to link these two events. //
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E1DA1E3DF932A05754C0A9629C8B63
It goes to show there are no quick and simple solutions to international issues, and a consistent, fair, and just American leadership is needed.
In other words, Chris, you can’t just put a bullet in the bad guy. Its a little more complicated than that.
I guess I am not a putz because I can tell you are an idiot withput even looking into your eyes.
how is that theory debunked SEANH? who debunked it? anyone with credibility? Clinton enabled Bin laden, Clinton is a dick
Actually, strictly speaking, Reagan enabled bin Laden. Clinton may or may not have done everything possible to capture him, but as long as we’re looking through the lens of 20/20 hindsight, if Reagan and Co. had taken a harder look at the beliefs of the folks they were arming, training and funding…you can fill in the blanks here…
And I’m not sure Lybia ever had a nuclear program. Not even sure that Lybia is an actual country. Libya gave up on WMD research, though. Although, as the WH said repeatedly at the time, the bulk of the credit for that has to go to Britain and the EU.
And of course Clinton’s legacy is partly defined by the impeachment. How could a president maintaining sky-high approval numbers while being vindictively impeached for lying about getting a blow job NOT be considered impressive? Incidentally, going back to the “Clinton didn’t do enough to get bin Laden” concept, what vital national issues was the GOP congress looking into? Stains on a dress?
“Big” said “Clinton = The most corrupt presidency in recent history.”
This shows how detached from reality some people are.
Remember kids, just because some dickhead troll says it, doesn’t make it so. He and his political partys track record show no accountability. They are losers.
Clintons last 4 years were a total waste, all he accomplished was getting a federal building blown up, Nitro, not only was clinton corrupt, but he is a serial rapist
Reagan Bush41 and Clinton all part of the NWO
Nitro, I hope your hate can subside for a few days and you get to enjoy your Christmas.
The ignorance will never change, but maybe your mood can.
There is always better living through chemicals for you Nitro.