How Blaming Bush Led to the Ukraine Crisis

1393712507000-AFP-527606986For the Democratic Party, history began and ended with the election of George W. Bush. Nothing had happened before him. Every world crisis began with him and would only come to an end when the Democratic Party finally squeezed one of its own into the White House.

If there was a problem, Bush had caused it. If another country hated America, it was Bush’s fault. Bush alienated Europe, Russia, Asia, the Middle East and even parts of Antarctica.

It was all his fault, the media, academia and angry Trotskyite grandmothers marching for peace and tyranny in San Francisco agreed. Books were written and movies were made. Cartoons were scrawled and songs were written.

It was all Bush’s fault.

It never occurred to the Democrats, even as they were making excuses for every tyrant from Saddam to Putin to Ahmadinejad, that the sum of all evil might not be George W. Bush.

When Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a misspelled Reset Button, it wasn’t the Russian end of the arrangement that was being reset.

Putin had been running the country through various offices all along. Despite his change of title, nothing significant was going to change in Moscow. It was the United States that was being reset.

The Obama campaign was a giant reset button. Among all its other resets, resetting the economy, resetting welfare, resetting the ocean levels and resetting the military, it was also going to reset America’s relationship with the world. Obama promised to “rebuild” American alliances in keeping with the leftist theme that everything wrong with the world could be blamed on President Bush’s alienation of the international community by riding through Baghdad like a unilateral cowboy on a pale horse.

When Putin invaded Georgia, the New York Times, among other mainstream media outlets, blamed President Bush. The Times collected negative quotes about “Bush’s aggressive response to the Russian incursion into Georgia.”

A year earlier however it had accused Bush of responding to Putin’s provocations with “timid equanimity.”

The men and women of the New York Times might not have been able to decide whether Bush was too soft or too tough on Putin, whether he was provoking him too much or not standing up to him enough, but they could say with certainty that whatever President Bush was doing had to be wrong.

It was wrong because Bush was doing it. Obama and Hillary however would get it right.

Instead of holding Putin accountable, the Reset Button was another piece of Blame Bush theater which sent the message that Obama and Hillary were blaming Bush for the breakdown of ties, instead of Putin.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia was forgotten. His international assassination of dissidents, the radioactive trails through the United Kingdom, his ties to terrorist regimes and his support for Iran were all swept into a big red folder marked “Bush’s Fault.” The folder was dumped into a deep drawer at the offices of the New York Times and no one looked it at again until Putin “unexpectedly” invaded Ukraine.

There was nothing unexpected about the invasion.  Just as there was nothing unexpected about Iran developing nuclear weapons even when their apologists in the media and the government said that it couldn’t possibly be taking place.

The unexpected in foreign affairs is the intrusion of reality into the leftist narrative. It’s the brick through the window and the mugging in broad daylight. A little time passes and everyone gives in to the leftist narrative and forgets until it happens all over again because reality is surprisingly persistent.

The Blame Bush caucus needed to believe that Putin’s behavior was Bush’s fault instead of Putin’s fault. They needed to believe that Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and countless other citizens of the world were reacting to Bush, instead of acting the way that they normally would.

Blinded by their hatred for Bush, they assumed that the world’s worst villains also hated Bush. It didn’t occur to them that they might hate America. Instead Putin, Chavez and Ahmadinejad became extensions of their political grudge match with the President of the United States. Their petty geopolitical view reduced the affairs of the world to a world that shared their hatred for Bush.

And that made it impossible for them to predict the actions of America’s enemies.

When Solidarity was in crisis in Poland, President Reagan didn’t wait for Russian tanks to show up in Warsaw; instead he took preemptive steps to avert a Russian invasion. Obama never even saw the invasion coming. Why would he? The last time Putin invaded a country, it had been Bush’s fault.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine shouldn’t have come as a surprise. But days before the invasion, the mainstream media was claiming that it would never happen even though everyone from the President of Georgia down to Khrushchev’s great-granddaughter had predicted that it would.

While the Democrats couldn’t see past Bush, Putin was acting on centuries’ worth of grudges and ambitions. Blaming Bush for everything had freed Putin to act. It erased his past track record and assigned the blame for it to Republican cowboy diplomacy. It gave him the element of surprise and it’s no surprise that he used it to invade Ukraine and humiliate Obama.

The Democrats had damned Reagan as a warmonger, but he was actually a realist. He understood what the USSR might do when it saw Poland slipping away and took steps to avert it.

Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party lacked any similar ability to soberly assess Russia’s motives.

Had the Democrats been able to let go of their obsession with Bush, they would have been able to head off the crisis in Ukraine. Instead they assumed that their relationship with Putin was going well, not because it was, but because the only reason it had ever been bad was because of George W. Bush.

The Russian government understood this dynamic and exploited it. It knew that Hillary didn’t come bearing a Reset Button because she wanted to improve relations with Russia. Instead she needed a tangible demonstration of how she was reversing Bush’s foreign policy failures to prep for her own presidential campaign.

And the Russians played along. They understood that to the Democrats they were only counters in a domestic political campaign and that Washington, D.C. had become a thoroughly unserious place.

And they weren’t the only ones making that assessment.

China’s escalating militarism and Iran’s nuclear manipulations exploit a profoundly unserious White House less interested in keeping America safe than in blaming Bush.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Judahlevi

    May we never forget that Hillary had the “Reset” button for relations with the Russians. Look where it got us.

    Weakness breeds contempt – and Hillary and Obama reeked of it.

    And now Hillary wants to be president. Based on what accomplishments? That she was born a woman? There is not one achievement that Hillary can point to, and a few huge mistakes, but will this keep the Democrats from voting for her? No, the lemmings will say it is time for a ‘woman’ to lead as if gender trumps competency.

    We have come to the point where political correctness not only controls our speech, it controls who we elect to lead us. We don’t need commissars when we have Democrats.

    • TheOrdinaryMan

      Didn’t any of these Democrats live through the Cuban Missile Crisis? Or was that Bush’s fault, too?

      • truebearing

        It’s very complicated, but yes, that was Bush’s fault, too.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          If the timeline becomes slippery enough we can blame H. W. Bush and every leftist will go along with it.

          • pfbonney

            I wonder if the next Republican president can so conveniently blame Bush for everything and get away with it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The RP has its faults but such weak and mendacious leadership is only tolerable to delusional leftists for their own.

        • TheOrdinaryMan

          Complicated is OK(I can take it)–explain it. Bush was 16 at the time. How was it his fault? I’d like to hear that one.

          • The March Hare

            Bazinga

          • Gee

            They knew he would become President in the future so it had to be his fault

          • truebearing

            You clearly don’t understand the occult powers that Bush possesses. He can travel back or forward in time. He sank the Titanic. He kidnapped Helen of Troy. The Devil himself is afraid of Bush’s powers of evil…at least to hear the insane Left tell it.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            And Bush was Cheney’s Yoda.

          • truebearing

            Or the other way around, but clearly, both were evil shamans of immense power.

    • truebearing

      They will vote for her because they can’t see anything objectively. For the Left, objectivity is psychologically impossible, and they lost any vestige of conscience a long time ago. They will be told who to hate and that her presidency will be historical, and that is all they need to hear.

      • BagLady

        In India, the uneducated masses — who see little of government benefits — vote for a name. ‘Gandhi’ is very popular among the peasants, hence the Italian Sonia Gandhi being pushed into political life, much against her will.

        I wonder if the same can’t be said for America. How else could Hillary seriously contest the Presidency?

        We can blame the Bush hierarchy for much and blame the Obama camp for giving us more of the same.

        Must the US have total global hegemony? Is there really such a great threat from China’s ascendance?

        More importantly, if NATO muscles its way further East, will China sit quietly by?

        Obama has just assured the Japanese that the US will support it in a fight for a handful of rocks in the South China Sea.

        Playing with fire with no benefit to the American people.

        Silk Roads, Spice Roads. Are these the prizes?

        • Jamal

          Must the US have total global hegemony? Is there really such a great threat from China’s ascendance?

          Explain the U.S. hegemony (the threat of force, rather than by direct military force) over the BRIC countries.

          How is the U.S. threatening Brasil? Do U.S. corporation run Brasil? Does any U.S. corporation own more than 49% of any company or corporation in Brasil? As an aside does any American corporation own more than 49% of any Japanese company? If America has hegemony why does Embraer seem to be so dominate in the American market for small and midsized planes?

          “The company competes with Canadian rival Bombardier for the title of the third largest airplane maker after Airbus and Boeing.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer

          • BagLady

            I don’t suggest US hegemony is the status quo. I’m also not certain that it has any alternative but pursue an aggressive shove east. Europe is doing much the same. China has never been into expansionism, unless you count Tibet and seems to prefer trade than out and out take-overs.

            If Monsanato continues its success in the Third World and ends up owning the farmers and the food they produce, they may as well own the Deeds to the land. In fact, a much better arrangement than ownership, with all the benefits and none of the responsibilities of government.

            I see Obama is facing huge crowds of angry Phillipinos. He has promised the people that he will back them in a fight with China over disputed territories.

            He seems to be following the Spice Road.

          • Jamal

            “I’m also not certain that it has any alternative but pursue an aggressive shove east. Europe is doing much the same. ”

            Do you have a predilection for strawmen and false statements? Are you ignorant? Are you FSB?

            NATO’s 2008 Bucharest summit

            “German Minister of Foreign affairs Frank-Walter Steinmeier talked about Ukraine and Georgia and tried not to provoke Russia by doing so, as they are both on Russia’s borders and are both former Soviet states.[28] Romanian President Traian Băsescu said Romania’s approach to the relationship with Russia was to “leave behind the Cold War logic.””

            “Russian President Putin was pleased about the alliance deciding not to invite Georgia and Ukraine to the Membership Action Plan at least for the time being.”

          • Jamal

            “China has never been into expansionism, unless you count Tibet and seems to prefer trade than out and out take-overs.”

            “China Denies Plan for South China Sea Defense Zone”

            http://time.com/3972/china-denies-plan-for-south-china-sea-defense-zone/

            Has China not expanded beyond what you think their borders are because they did not want to or because it was hard to hold onto what they had?

            “The Battle of Talas (or Battle of Artlakh) (怛羅斯會戰) (معركة نهر طلاس) in 751 AD was a conflict between the Arab Abbasid Caliphate and the Chinese Tang Dynasty”

            “The Battle of Talas marked the end of the Tang Dynasty’s western expansion of their territory”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talas

          • BagLady

            I should think the Chinese government has enough on its plate controlling its vast country without hankering after foreign lands. However, we need only look at what’s happening with US expansionism to see that they must be worried.

            This week Obama has allied himself with Japan and the Philippines against Chinese ‘rights’ to outlying disputed islands — not to mention the vast wealth of underwater resources in the South China Sea. In return for ‘protection’ The Philippines has co-signed an agreement that gives the US ‘open waters’ in the area, without any requirement to actually ‘fight’ on the Philippines behalf.

            “The United States and the Philippines on Monday signed a 10-year Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement allowing U.S. forces wider access to Philippine bases and to position ships, aircraft, equipment and troops for maritime security.”

            Hardly surprising that China is worried.

          • pfbonney

            Obama is a paper tiger, and they do seem intent on taking advantage of his weakness.

            Such an agreement is out of character for Obama.

            I have to wonder what is REALLY going on.

          • Jamal

            “He seems to be following the Spice Road.”

            Spice Road? It is much cheaper to transport things by water. This is the 21 st century. Sea Lanes is where it is at baby.

            I was much cheaper to ship grain across the Mediterranean than to transport it by mule or cart from the center of Spain to a port for shipment.

            It remains so today.

            It is something like 75 times cheaper to go by water than land.

            Please try to keep up. I know you do not have a very good education, but please try. Getting a degree in English Lit. or in Marxists studies is not very edifying.

          • Jamal

            You made no point ons your original post so now out of left field you throw out Monsanto to distract?

            Or is it “tangential thinking”. Too much tangential thinking and you will get you 3 meals a day and soft clothing.

          • pfbonney

            “China has never been into expansionism, unless you count Tibet and seems to prefer trade than out and out take-overs.”

            So true. Colonial empires are very expensive to maintain, and China has never been much for expansionism (beyond Manchuria, once it got tired of being attacked from there). China seems to mostly be content establishing a hegemony in any area it perceives it having any interest (e.g., the Panama Canal, now run by the Hong Kong Company, Hutchison Whampoa Limited).

            Though it has had disputes with India, another giant non-expansionist country, over their common boundary.

            Although Chinese businessmen want and need to sell their products to the US, the Chinese Military has adopted a very belligerent attitude towards the United States, which makes me very nervous.

            I’m really hoping that is mostly rhetoric.

        • Jamal

          “Obama has just assured the Japanese that the US will support it in a fight for a handful of rocks in the South China Sea”

          If the U.S. does not protect Saudi Arabia form Iranian aggression and Japan from Chinese aggression how soon will those countries be nuclear powers?

          Some in China have gone further and want all of Okinawa.

          “Now China Says It May Own Okinawa, Too”
          http://www.businessinsider.com/china-okinawa-too-2013-5
          Do you really want to see a world were all 196 nations (or 2 score) on earth have nuclear weapons?
          Japan could go nuclear inside a month. The Saudis could go nuclear inside a week unless the Pakistanis stiff them.
          “Yes, Yes” you say it would be much better than American hegemony.

          • Drakken

            The Japs already have nukes and have had them since the 90′s.

        • Jamal

          “Playing with fire with no benefit to the American people.”

          You could not have written any better than if were an FSB agent, a fellow traveler steeped in the polemics of the international or hitting the secret sauce.

        • Jamal

          “More importantly, if NATO muscles its way further East, will China sit quietly by?”
          If 5 kids band together at a school to protect themselves against a schoolyard bully, then it is really over the top and uncalled for if they admit a 6th or a 7th member to their self protection group isn’t it?

          By your line of reasoning it would be.

          BTW in 2008 NATO declined to admit Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. 4 months later the Russians invaded Georgia. see the problem?

          No, you don’t. You shouldn’t put that little bit of nip into your coffee.

        • Jamal

          “The Brazilian manufacturer says it has a 51 percent global market share in the regional jets category and has dominated 62 percent of deliveries over the last decade.”

          http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/upiUPI-20140219-173821-2769

          Where’s the beef? Where is the American hegemony?

          You are either ignorant or without shame!

        • nimbii

          You have a point, China does business in Iraq mining copper while we fight a war there????

          Why should we be the world’s cops?

          • CowboyUp

            Because it’s cheaper and less costly in American lives than having World Wars every 20 years or so.

          • pfbonney

            While I understand what you say, we DO need to do a better job of keeping our powder dry by choosing our battles better, and fighting them a whole lot smarter.

            We rely far to much on expensive firepower whereas many of our opponents seem to do a much better job of using intelligence and manipulation to do the trick.

            The CIA could be used MUCH more effectively.

        • TienBing

          Dumpster diving causes brain damage.

      • nimbii

        That’s exactly why the Dems win elections.

        They use emotional appeal based on deceit.

        Life is too easy here and people stay in their easy life modes at the bleating edge and only stick their heads up for an instant every two years to throw the lever in the voting booth.

        • Davros11

          don’t forget all the illegal aliens voting, I am from Chicago and during last election they had city officials showing illegals how and what side of the paper to check off. Was standing right next to official when she pointed at Republicans and said in “Spanish” don’t check any on this side, they are all against Hispanics. they also were in groups helping each other fill out the voter card…

  • truebearing

    What else can we expect of a political cult that is so delusional that it believes it can tear down US power, while the world watches, yet still have the power to control international conflicts with an American might that they intentionally diminished and have no intention of using? Do they think they can stop Putin by blaming Bush? Blame only has power domestically.

    The Left hated Bush because he would use American power, and because he represented nearly everything else they hate. He is white, Christian, patriotic, and was too masculine. Now Obama is showing Bush how it should be done, with whiny threats and devastating Twitter campaigns. He’s one-upping Putin by sending gay representatives to the Olympics, or intimidating him by allowing LGBT dance recitals on military bases. Nothing scares Putin like displays of effeminate pettiness.

    The Left’s vision of utopia is a nanny state, or at least that is what they are trying to sell. Nanny states are maternalistic. Mothers don’t fight. They are pretty much obsessed with their domestic world. Presidents who wear mom jeans don’t fight either. They are obsessed with their domestic agenda. Bush was too masculine for the Left, and Reagan even more so. The Left hates them and this country’s forefathers. They hate strong fathers. They destroyed black fathers. They used to whine incessantly about paternalism. The Left, in its incessant divisiveness, wanted to divorce America from fathers — the ones who know when to use power — so they could create their maternalistic fantasy world. It culminated in their irrational hatred of Bush, but it was based in their long range plan to castrate America. The Gelding-In-Chief is what the Left saw as the ideal president, and after him a vindictive, paranoid woman who has never accomplished anything positive in her entire life. The Left wants no more of white men who will wield power effectively.

    The Left knows how to use negative emotions to demonize opponents and rode the “hate Bush” campaign into power, but they can’t govern, much less face down or bluff the ruthless enemies of America. Given the pathetic results of Kerry, Clinton, and Obama, one is justified in suspecting that they are working for our enemies, not against them.

    • Softly Bob

      Spot on.

      • NeoconNightmare

        We can only hope that Bush, unlike Obama, would not have allowed McCain & Co to foment a coup in Ukraine and recognize and support it so fast without Russian cooperation. Otherwise, Bush would have hopefully done with Ukraine what he did after McCain & Co stupidly attacked South Ossetia in Georgia, which was mostly nothing (thanks to Turkey for only allowing 2 US warships in the Black Sea at any one time and for only 2 weeks per ship).

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Thanks for giving us Putin’s side of the story.

          • NeoconNightmare

            At least I served my country militarily (the US). You sound like a Chairborne Ranger who defintely isn’t making plans to head to Donetsk himself to help kill the locals who hate centralized government just like the Bundy Ranch supporters do. You probably think you’re conservative but failed to equate Slavyansk with the Bundy Ranch because you just imbibe propaganda from Fox News rather than look at the underlying principles of “No Centralized Big Government” you’re supposed to be adhering to.

            If you look closely, since Russia is trying to break up the socialist EU and replace it with a conservative Eurasian union from Lisbon to Vladivostok, he is the leader of the world’s conservative movement now while the American Tea Party is just the beyatch of RINOs and the Dems (who will keep on winning because neocons mess up the GOP like it’s supposed to be an outhouse instead of a place for true conservatives).

            You’re cheering for the wrong side if you think you are against Obama. You should be able to tell by the way you approve of Obama’s foreign policy (but just wish he could be more forceful about it, such as for instance, going to war with Russia over Ukraine).

            By the way, the biggest mistake of the Neocons is that they mistakenly think this is all about the mind of one man, Putin, based on the otherwise correct idea that Germany would have behaved otherwise if Hitler hadn’t been in charge (thus we all wish the assassination attempt on Hitler would have succeeded).

            But Russians are only thinking like Americans would think if there was a Russian backed hostile coup in Canada designed to corner the US and bring about regime change in the US. The current Russian behavior and attitude is practically universal, meaning if Putin were to die today, he would be replaced consistently by those who would behave the same toward this unjustified NATO expansion. I served with NATO but any patriotic American officer should no resign his or her commission over this nonsensical posturing.

          • kasandra

            I’m interested in your thesis that Putin is trying to “break up the socialist EU and replace it with a conservative Eurasian union from Lisbon to Vladivostok.” So, then, you’re saying that Putin is an ideologue rather than a nationalist. Any evidence for that?

          • NeoconNightmare

            Yes. He is more of an ideologue. For instance, France’s National Front and England’s UKIP are working with Russia to get countries out of the EU. Most right wing parties in Europe are with Russia on this point except, of course, the Ukrainian nationalists. You can say that it’s just nationalists helping each other be nationalists but any research will show you that, no, they are actually the Tea Party on steroids in their condemnation of EU socialism. They have an advanced ideological agenda that is fairly in line with the US Tea Party. It’s a shock that the American Tea Party isn’t on the same page, but for the fact that the American Tea Party has long been subverted by neoconservatives (through funding mechanisms).

            Look up “Nigel Farage” on youtube and watch him debate a British RINO Tory. Most of the British people are on his side. The EU vote coming up is going to be an earthquake. A lot of Europeans are waking up to realize that socialism isn’t working and unelected burocrats in Brussels are bad news.

            This knowledge doesn’t mean I agree with the UKIP, National Front or Nasha Russia anymore than I agree with Stormfront in the US. But it’s important to know what ideology is flowing where and why.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            NN, who needs to be an ideologue when one can rule all of what was once Czarist Russia. It’s as simple as this: Putin is absolute master of Russia, and wants it to encompass all of what was Russia.

            He doesn’t give a tinker’s d*** about having a “conservative EU” from Lisbon to to Vladivostok. He’s a power hungry tyrant, pure and simple.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            KGB Putins Russia or Ukraine.

            Who should the West support?

            The West should reject BOTH – because they are BOTH virulent forms of SOCIALISM.

            KGB Putin being Soviet Socialism
            Ukraine being national Socialism.

          • BagLady

            Aren’t they all darling?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            It depends on who “they” are.

          • American Patriot

            England is not a country. England is one of four internal divisions (along with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) that make the country called the United Kingdom (or Britain). Calling the UK “England” is offensive to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the UK’s three other internal divisions. So along with being a Communist propagandist, you are also a Celtic nationalist propagandist. The UK is one country, not four.

          • BagLady

            Calling the UK “England” is offensive to the people of Wales…”

            Why do you think we do it?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            That deserved a thumbs up!

            Also, as I understand it, the Scots may make a dent in the United Kingdom, soon.

          • pfbonney

            So what of the Prince of Wales? Do you make an exception for him?

            I fancy he did unsettle a lot of people with his affair with Miss Camilla.

          • BagLady

            For instance, France’s National Front and England’s UKIP are working with Russia to get countries out of the EU” [citation needed].

            You are right. UKIP is becoming more and more appealing to the British people. Shame their leader is just another trough feeder.

          • bigjulie

            Sorry, but you don’t even have the foggiest notion of the makeup of the Tea Party and seem to be obsessed with whatever you are calling a “neocon”, as if this is some kind of extremely dangerous radical political group about to conduct its own coup in Washington DC. Your sentence fragment, “but any patriotic American officer should no resign his or her commission, etc” makes no sense whether one leaves out the “no” or not. What “unjustified NATO expansion” are you talking about? And, as another poster has asked, where is your proof that Putin is attempting to organize a “Conservative Eurasian Union from Lisbon to Vladivostok” when the guy doesn’t seem to be able to organize the country he has now in an efficient manner!
            You have managed to convince me of one thing…I think you are in need of a massive dose of Ex-Lax soon, before you burst!

          • BagLady

            What “unjustified NATO expansion” are you talking about?”

            Google your question and don’t be so lazy. Ha. Too scared at the thousands of responses you’ll get?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            It would appear … from current events … that those who wished to expand NATO were not unjustified.

          • BagLady

            Ah I see. The illegal expansion of NATO forces into and encircling eastern lands have not caused the current nervousness in your opinion.

            This will all end in tears and no-one will win. Excepting, of course, the usual military and allied corporations.

            The greatest risk is to the power of your dollar.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            What “illegal” expansion? I thought Lefties always appreciated international cooperation …

            The “current nervousness” has two causes. The first, Vladimir Putin and his thirst for power. The second, the weakness of Barack Hussein Obama, and his failure to understand what he has wrought.

            The tears have already started flowing. The only thing we can hope for is that it doesn’t end in worldwide war. That is the risk.

            I would suggest the interwar period, 1918-1939, and many good texts that explain how weakness always leads to war. But you appear to think that money causes war, and not people …

          • BagLady

            I certainly do believe that money causes war. The West has cast its vote and it just so happens to rest with the Neo-Nazi Right Wingers who have (illegally) taken Kyiv. It would seem that that vast majority of the population are not happy with this arrangement and it will obviously lead to a wider battle between bigger players. Very dangerous and very childish of Obama & Co.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            The government is Kiev is NOT neo-Naz!. If anything, the government they replaced is at the least traitorous and at the worst fascist. This is Putin’s attempt to swallow up what once was the Soviet Union. His aggression is palpable, with pro-Russian RUSSIANS, with obvious military training and sophisticated military weapons which came from Russia.

            Putin’s troops are on the border, and they will invade just as soon as he’s sure there will be no reaction from the West. The “sanctions” imposed by Obama were laughable, and have actually caused the Russian stock market to go up.

            Very often, you speak in half-truths. This is something that I’ve noticed about you. It is true that the “vast majority” of the population are not happy with their new government. But what you didn’t say is that this is only true in areas that are majority RUSSIAN. There is no love lost between ethnic Ukrainians and Russians, and Ukrainians have borne the brunt of Russian aggression and tyranny, for centuries.

            Oh, for a Reagan in the White House …

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            For the moment, let’s assume that you are correct. This also requires us to believe that the pro-Russian activists are not actually parts of the Russian military.

            All that is needed to defuse the current situation if for Putin to withdraw his forces away from the Ukrainian border, and make a public statement that Russian troops will not enter Ukraine. Without support from Russian, the activists will, generally, come to an agreement with the government in Kiev, and the crisis will be over.

            But I don’t believe that you are correct. I believe Putin wants more of Ukraine, at least, or all of it, at most. The specter that frightens him the most is Ukraine becoming part of NATO. And remember that NATO’s purpose was to confront an aggressive Soviet Union … read that: Russia … in the first place.

            Obama’s actions have not prevented Putin from doing one thing that he wishes to do. Obama is not a leader, and he is not pro-West. His weakness is what makes war an increased possibility, not anything that he has done … which is virtually nothing.

          • BagLady

            “All that is needed to defuse the current situation if for Putin to
            withdraw his forces away from the Ukrainian border, and make a public
            statement that Russian troops will not enter Ukraine…”

            He appears to have done precisely as you advise but with little effect on Obama. They are coming, regardless of Putin’s protestations.

            I’m not sure what you mean by preventing Putin from doing as he pleases. There was a democratic referendum in Crimea and the people won. No one got killed in the process and everyone was satisfied. What is happening elsewhere does not involve Russians but does seem to involve a sudden influx of extremists from over the borders all ready for a good street battle. They’re probably football hooligans at home.

            Wonder what the deal is with moving his troops back from the Ukrainian border. Perhaps there has to be equidistance between NATO forces, the Russians and the target so that they can have a fair fight.

          • BagLady

            But you appear to think that money causes war, and not people ..”

            I am aware that the 21st century has brought ‘life’ to hitherto inanimate objects, for example your US voting corporations. However, I have not morphed that far yet. Of course people cause wars but money is usually the driving force.

            I have never noticed Putin’s “thirst for power”. In fact and correct me if I’m wrong. Isn’t he the one trying to calm the situation in Ukraine?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            BL, saying that you’ve never noticed Putin’s thirst for power is like saying, in 1939, that you’ve never noticed H!tler’s thirst for power. Let’s start with Putin’s effective “President for Life” status.

            As for “calming the situation in Ukraine”, he could do that better by NOT sending Russian forces with Russian weapons into Ukraine, and masquerading as pro-Russian Ukrainians.

          • BagLady

            “Conservative Eurasian Union from Lisbon to Vladivostok” when the guy
            doesn’t seem to be able to organize the country he has now in an
            efficient manner! ”

            …. and yet Putin’s popularity ratings at home have never been so high – up there in the 80s so he must be doing something right at home.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The only country you might have served is Russia. Your comments are being posted from the Ukraine.

            Please stop lying and go away.

          • MLCBLOG

            Thank you, DG. I love the truth.

          • BagLady

            With respect Daniel, if he’s posting from Ukraine then he’s a valuable source of information. Whether you like it or not is another matter.

            Surely this site benefits from debate and would be quite pathetic if only ‘yes men’ were welcome.

            A little more objectivity and less emotion would improve things somewhat. Silly personal insults add nothing to the quality of the mag.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            As long as he’s honest about that, instead of falsely claiming to be a US conservative.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Let me get this straight …

            You believe that if the Russians backed a coup in Canada that was designed to bring about regime change in the US, that would cause Obama to react militarily? Obama wouldn’t call up the troops if the Russians were marching down Pennsylvania Avenue.

            He would send a representative to the advancing Russian troops to propose “peace talks”. This is how he sees the world. You can talk you way out of anything.

            He would … and might, on May 16 … call out the troops if millions of patriotic American marched on Washington. I shall be there, by the way …

            Also, whenever I see the word “neocon” in a comment, I always tell the commenter that the word has a distinct anti-Semitic overtone to it. A word to the wise is sufficient …

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            When will Obama go on a apology tour of Russia and bow to Putin as Obama bowed to the Saudi King?

            Obama Bows to Saudi King
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY

            Before or after Obama leaves office?

          • bigjulie

            I am still puzzling over your obsession with “Neocon”. That term used to be code for “Jew” in the US. Did you, perhaps, pick the term up in that context and assume that everyone in the US would interpret it the same way?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            There was a time when neoconservatives were called “neoconservatives”. Then, along came the Paulbot movement. Suddenly, “neoconservatives” became “neocons”.

            And you’re right … the term neocon is code for Jew.

          • BagLady

            Well there you go. Learn something new every day.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I’ve spent a lifetime teaching eager young minds new things. Why should I change? :)

          • BagLady

            I marvel the importance placed on putting everyone in narrow-minded boxes on this site. Is it totally inconceivable that someone from another little box may actually have an idea you would normally agree with except that you are in your own little box and dare not lest you risk losing the approbation of your clique.

            Daniel has the excuse that he is a paid employee of a right wing rag and must toe the party line, but we of the chattering classes are free to flit from side to side as we see fit.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Never have I claimed to have all the answers … unless I was teaching a section, and I DID have all the answers!

            That said, “freedom to flit” is a God-given human right, but doesn’t make for stability in reasoning. There must be underlying principles to one’s worldview, from which everything else derives. If not, one is lost, marching “triumphantly” from one idea to the latest fad.

            When I see some wisdom in people that I normally disagree with, I acknowledge it. But if the “wisdom” doesn’t fit the underlying principles, I must reject it as wisdom.

            As for Daniel, he works for one of the most sophisticated conservative online magazines, extant. He fits in quite well.

            If you don’t believe me, go to Stormfront and see how these debates usually go (I don’t even regard Stormfront as “right-wing”, but I thought that you might).

          • truebearing

            This word salad you posted makes no sense, whatsoever. You don’t understand the terms you use, the history, or the relationships.

            Hiding behiond your alleged service to the country is cowardly. On a forum such as this, your ideas have to stand on their own merits, not by bullying, and they fail to do that quite convincingly.

          • Been There Done that

            You talk about states rights and that might lead a person to think you are Tea Party.
            However, considering neocons have only slightly less poor reputation than liberals or progressives. If you are spouting propaganda for the FSB, you have failed .
            What does the FSB do to such massive failures such as yourself?
            #FAIL

          • TienBing

            Incoherent drivel like most comments by Putin’s inamorata .

          • Lightbringer

            Utterly incomprehensible drivel.

          • BagLady

            Sorry Daniel but the West immediately accepted the result of a coup. “What can’t speak can’t lie”, as market traders say.

            I’m sure that the Ukrainians are looking at both sides of the table and asking themselves: “Who will give us a better standard of living than the miserable state we find ourselves in?” They look over the border to Russia and find their neighbours earning three times as much as they do. They look to Europe and find Madame Lagarde looking down her extremely brown nose (in both definitions) and wagging her finger. “Tighten your belts folks. You are in for an even rougher ride as we extract your life’s blood to pay the interest on the interest on the debts accrued by your oligarchs, many of whom now sit in judgement of you.”

        • Major_Stofil

          Please let us know more about this US attack on South Ossetia, I seem to have missed it…

    • bigjulie

      …”that they are working for our enemies, not against them.” Mine (and numerous other people’s) conclusions 3 years ago. My belief was that Obama was purposely doing what he was doing in hopes of gaining a minor governing position when America was taken over by the Communists or Islamists. To this day I have had no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise. The Democrats did a brilliant job of selling America’s voters the concept that a totally invented, kind-of Black candidate with good looks and a mellifluous speaking voice would project us into a new millennium, end racial divisions, clean up the environment and launch an era of kindness and sharing that would make America the perfect place to live, forever.
      We fell for it, hook, line and sinker…and brother…did we get conned!

      • truebearing

        I’ve said for years that the only reason more people aren’t more enraged at Obama is because they misinterpret his actions as incompetence instead of treason. The underlying mistake lies in the assumption that an American president will always at least try to do the best thing for America. Until Obama, that was probably true, but he broke the chain and has made the people’s trust a deadly vice.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          I was one of those who thought him merely poorly-prepared for the Presidency, and incompetent. I have a different assessment of him, today.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Obama was the Socialist Manchurian Cadidate.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I agree, wholeheartedly …

          • Edward E

            The “Melting Pot” agenda is for EVERY White country and ONLY White countries!

            It’s not for Japan

            It’s not for India

            It’s not for Kenya

            It’s not for Saudi Arabia

            It’s not for Mexico

            It’s for EVERY White country on earth. Whites countries need to be
            MELTED and if you disagree then you are called a
            naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews! Any planned eradication of a race
            (aka “Melting Pot” for EVERY White country) IS geNOcide.

            Anti-Racist is a codeword for Anti-White

          • The Right Fight

            Flagged for posting spam .. .. for repetitive inappropriate comments.

          • MLCBLOG

            What?

          • JamesJ

            Please point out what is factually wrong with his post.

          • BagLady

            Well for starters. Is “the melting pot” as he describes it, a fact or just a racist wish?

          • JamesJ

            No other countries except the US and Europe are pushing for diversity (DNA, not thought) and a melting pot. We haven’t been a “melting pot” for 30 years. We are now a centrifuge.

          • pfbonney

            California, even more so.

          • BagLady

            Is this your definition:

            A centrifuge is a piece of equipment, generally driven by an electric motor (or, in some older models, by hand), that puts an object in rotation around a fixed axis,

            The thirty year old ‘melting pot’ would coincide with the Coca Cola ad: ” We’d like to teach the world to sing…..” and the vast array of rainbow coloured people sitting on a hill and all, presumably, advocating intermarriage.

            Lovely thought but it doesn’t always work, does it?

            It’s hard enough keeping a marriage together with someone from your own clan. Throwing your lot in with a foreign partner who brings her entire extended family to live with you and be supported by you following the romantic honeymoon does not bode well for future bliss for a westerner in need of personal space.

          • pfbonney

            Great observation, Edward E.

            I hadn’t picked up on that before.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            A Socialist Manchurian Candidate.

            Carefully selected.
            Carefully groomed.
            Carefully programmed..
            Carefully presented.

          • BagLady

            Or any political wannabe, regardless of party.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Thank G-D for Term Limits.

        Too bad socialist hellholes don’t have Term Limits.

        Hence Cuba, Syria, North Korea. Putin was in charge during puppet Medvedev reign too.

        • BagLady

          Hands up anyone that was ever scared by Cuba, Syria or N Korea.

          • pfbonney

            Obama was. He actually reinstated a ballistic-missile weapon system he personally had previously scrapped.

            And as for Cuba, you may want to qualify your statement.

            Perhaps not lately, but it sure scared a lot of people during the Kennedy Administration.

          • BagLady

            Yea? So how come Jamaicans weren’t scared and they live next door? The difference between then and now is the internet. Americans believed what they were told to believe. Sad to see that many do not utilize the facility and still fall for the propaganda.

            The only one on the list that continually threatens the west is North Korea and yet we are not concerned with their nuclear backed madness and pat them on the head and send in a shipment of finest champagne.

          • pfbonney

            At one point during the (recent) Bush Administration, I heard one US military flag officer (General or Admiral, I don’t remember which) laughing at North Korea’s antics (must have been Admiral, I was in the Navy Reserve at the time, and I’ve never heard any officer laughing at N. Korea on television).

            He had been stationed in that area (S. Korea or Japan) for some time, previously, and said that North Korea will, from time to time, rattle its sabers and do its best to scare the US, and the US responds with food aid and the like, then N. Korea kind of goes away for a period of time. Then goes at it again.

            I don’t believe they got anything from Obama last time. As I remember, some other news event eclipsed N. Korea at that time.

      • AntiLeftist

        “Good looks”???? Really?

        • bigjulie

          Admittedly very subjective…nevertheless still an opinion held by many and fostered by his media handlers.

          • MLCBLOG

            You are correct. I was visiting an old chum yesterday, a mildly leftie person, and she has a pix of O on her board like on a frig that she can moon over and how wonderful he is and how wonderful it is that he is Pres!! Reminded me of pix she had posted of Marlon Brando when we were teens.

            Rather than throw up, I deliberately hold my opinions until I can make a point now and then.

          • BagLady

            OK but I too saw a family man with an educated sensible wife and two lovely daughters. Surely such a man would choose a political position with his children and their future in mind.

      • BagLady

        “…end racial divisions, clean up the environment and launch an era of
        kindness and sharing that would make America the perfect place to live,
        forever….”

        Spot on there. Remember all those shots of weeping Americans who believed they had witnessed a tremendous stride forward and that everything was to change for the better.

        • bigjulie

          Worse…he is able to blame it all on BUSH! And get away with it!!

          • BagLady

            They all do that, regardless of country. It’s their excuse for failure, except in the financial department. I expect your IRS is the most efficient of all government departments, just as the British Tax Collector is far more on the ball than, say the Pensions Department or, disaster of all disasters, the NHS.

          • bigjulie

            Worse! Our Tax system is so complex, even the tax people do not understand it. Nearly 74,000 pages of tax regulations citizens are supposed to know about…(don’t get me started!!) But…at least we still have guns (over 300,000,000 of them!) to revolt with, if we need them!

        • pfbonney

          Knowing what I knew about Saul Alinsky, and Obama’s association with his beliefs, I knew that Obama would be bad news for the USA.

          But I did hope that I was wrong, somehow. (See? Obama even got ME on his hope & change gimmick!)

          Instead, we not only did not experience that tremendous slide forward, it has pretty much been a serious slide back.

          And THAT doesn’t address all of the damage done on all of the other fronts that Obama was going to reset, as mentioned in the article.

          • BagLady

            I was on the road when Obama was fighting for the Presidency. I recall his catch phrase very well: YES WE CAN. I never did discover what this was based on. Did he ever explain?

          • pfbonney

            If he did, I missed it.

            I was working many hours of overtime in those days. And I’ve never heard it addressed since.

    • TienBing

      Excellent. I see you have found your bearings.

      • truebearing

        Occasionally I make it out of the fog and spot a lighthouse.

    • BagLady

      What else can we expect of a political cult that is so delusional that it believes it can tear down US power,”

      GULP! A couple of months ago Russia rarely made it to the front page. Suddenly you see them as yet another deadly enemy that you must annahilate before they get you first.

      “The Left hated Bush because he would (ab)use American power,” My parentheses.

      Gee TrueBearing, I imagine a horse between your legs and gun in your holster.

  • UCSPanther

    Lefties don’t live in the real world. They live in a fantasy world where talking nicely and unicorns will get you somewhere.

    It does not work in the real world, and in fact, it just drips with weakness.

    Can you imagine Obama or Kerry trying to stand before prominent historical rulers/conquerors like William of Normandy, Genghis Khan, Catherine the Great and Napoleon?

    All would write them off as weaklings and have a laugh at their expense.

  • Maurice

    Will economic sanctions work? Will recession and capital outflows cause Putin and by extension Russia to halt and reverse?

    By number there are 196 countries in the world. But many of those are postage stamp countries like the Vatican, Andorra, Fiji and others with small populations and little economic trade. You might as well reduce that number by the number of postage stamp countries. When you get down to it, if you can trade with 10 to 25 countries with decent GDO or populations, you are not isolated. So it begs the question, Will sanctions work against Russia. Will they isolate Russia and cause them to come to the bargaining table?

    How many trading partners do you need until you are no longer considered isolated? Russia can count on China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua, North Korea and Cuba. You might as well count Mongolia into. They almost have to trade with China and Russia. India also just inked a deal with Russia. That is 9 countries with sizable amount of the world’s population and GDP.

    You might sneeze at the GDP. Just consider Germany went to war in 1939 with 16% of the world’s industrial capacity. They could have won.

    Russia is also trading with. Europe is going to trade Russia not matter what. They need the oil. They need the natural gas. They trade with north Vietnam during the Vietnam war and oinked like stick pigs when the U.S. mined Haiphong harbor and their ship were bottled up. Europe (read Germany) has found out that solar panels, wind farms and unicorns do not run a country. They are going back to nuclear, coal and oil. In the short term it will be Russian oil and natural gas.

    So Russia is going into a recession. The U.S. probably is too. David Stockman suspects as much.

    America’s Consumers Are Dropping, Not Shopping

    http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-27/americas-consumers-are-dropping-not-shopping
    Point is that saying Russia is going into recession, because it is a mismanaged economy and more so now because of sanctions isn’t saying much. The U.S. is a mismanaged economy and we are going into recession. If we were not how come the U3 unemployment number, the CPI and so many other statistics are cooked?
    The Russian economy will bottom out level out and Putin will still be riding a wave of patriotic fervor as he brings Russian speaking part of Ukraine into Russia. By the time that fades, Russia will be on the rebound. So what will sanctions be doing?
    And the answer is: The sanctions will help Putin’s propaganda efforts.
    Sanctions should be like military operation, short, sharp, concentrated with a lot of mass. You don’t feed troops into a battle piece meal so they can be ground up and killed in detail. Similarly, sanctions should not be dribbled out. they need to be overwhelming. Sanctions should be like war plans. They should always be researched, planned and on the shelf. If the foreign service officers do not have sanction plans on the shelf and have not researched it with the corporate world and the military, then they have failed. It is one of their duties just like it is for the military to conduct QDRs. I don’t like the ideal of contemplating war or sanctions, but since when have we not had bad actors on the world stage?

    • NeoconNightmare

      Russia also has Brazil and India and South Africa on its side, in other words the BRICS with most of the world’s population who are developing their own payment system and alternative to Visa and Mastercard. Full sanctions will ultimately backfire on the USA and it is clear that Obama wants this to happen because he won’t agree to splitting Ukraine with Russia via federalilzation (states’ rights as opposed to centralized government based in Kiev where the CIA controls the national police at the moment by threatening their families via the nationalists).

      Obama is weak for not compromising with Russia after a US backed coup succeeded beyond neocons’ wildest dreams. Neocons are only being greedy now as they say we should go to war with Russia or do the full sector sanctions when Russia effectively controls most of the eastern provinces via their current or direct tactics.

      Obama is basically being as obtuse as he was in the Obamacare debate when he didn’t care that the majority of Americans didn’t like his new law. Obama is obtuse over the Bundy ranch issue which is the exact same issue as Slavyansk (locals fighting a centralized gov).

      Obama is not weak for not going to war or threatening war (which is the same thing because the Russians are determined about not allowing NATO on their doorstep).

      • NeoconNightmare

        Admittedly, if the eastern Ukr provinces get “states’ rights” they will be able to starve out the western provinces and leave Kiev a basket place because the east has been paying most of the taxes.

        Remember that Russia has a 13% federal income tax and remember that, in helping a country write a new constition, any true American conservative would advise them not to have anything like our 16th Amendment which allows a federal income tax at all.

      • Maurice

        NATO was on the doorstep of the Soviet Union 1949 to 1991. Recall if you will that Norway was a member of NATO and shared a border with the old USSR and with the new Russia.
        During that time were their any plans to invade USSR/Russia?
        Were their any plans to wage aggressive war unprovoked and take Murmansk?
        Were their any plans to open up with a steel rain from the artillery and invade East Germany and roll onto Warsaw and beyond?
        Most of the time NATO forces were outnumbered in tanks and artillery.

      • alericKong

        Brazil = Petrobas bomb
        Russia = Organized crime
        India = Rapidly ageing starving population ruled by horrible corruption

        China = See above but with hyperinflation
        South Africa = Soon to be Zimbabwe

        There’s a reason third world resources stay under-developed. They are either all based in inaccessible geography or once development starts cave dwelling thieves kill everyone and steal everything.

        Replacing “the Russians” with a few dozen gangsters who kill journalists in their homes and send in the spetsnazs to steal foreign capital investment will increase the accuracy of your post.

  • Immigrant_from_Socialism7

    The very fact that Obama was outlining what he was going to do next in apress conference in Malaysia sums EVERYTHING up…strong leaders ACT…weak leaders TELL you what their going to do…in advance.

  • bob smith

    “…it wasn’t the Russian end of the arrangement that was being reset”…

    “Putin had been running the country through various offices all along. Despite his change of title, nothing significant was going to change in Moscow”

    Now, edited for the sake of clarity regarding the future optics for US strategy…

    “…it will not be the American end of the arrangement that is being reset”…

    “Obama will be running the country through various offices after the end of his ‘legitimate’ presidency. Despite his change of title, nothing significant is going to change in Washington”

    • NeoconNightmare

      After 9-11 and long before the Perezagruzka (reset) Russia did everything it could to be friends with the US and has been participating fully in the war on terror. It still provides the land route and gateway to Afghanistan (that Obama’s behavior might close soon) and Russia really did warn us about the Tsarnaev brothers (the FBI stupidly failed to act because they, not the Russians, transliterated the spelling of that last name wrongly).

      Bush was stupid in expanding NATO to include Estonia and the other Baltics and even dumber to entertain the idea that Georgia and Ukraine would enter NATO. One could argue that Russia did not annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia because Georgia now officially has disputed captured territory which precludes it from ever entering NATO due to NATO rules.

      NATO could stupidly take Ukraine into its fold (this would start Ww3 for real) by recognizing Crimea is part of Russia and saying “We will defend the rest”. So that would be one very big reason why Russia is making sure Donetsk is also disputed territory. NATO rules say they cannot take a country that has disupted captured territory.

      In other words, none of this would be happening if NATO wasn’t trying to stupidly expand. Russia is only reacting to a US backed coup hostile to Russia as it reacted to a US backed coup in Georgia before. Give Ukraine states’ rights now and forget about this part of the world that is not in the US sphere of influence like Panama, Grenada, Cuba and Nicaragua were. Or, if you want to meddle far from home, concentrate on making Kiev and western Ukraine better off than the east over time.

      • PD

        Yes, Russia is blessed by God. Lol, you clown

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Who is “us”?

        You’re a Russian propagandist commenting from abroad.

        • gwsmith

          Daniel, why don’t you counter his claims?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            His claim to be a US veteran and neo-conservative that he makes while posting Russian propaganda from Ukraine?

          • gwsmith

            Why just attack the messenger because of who he is, or may be? I respect you. I’d like to see the holes in his argument, and you’re dodging it. If you hadn’t responded to him in the first place it would make no difference, but since you did, you’re leaving us all hear waiting to hear a logical response, from you.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Because the messenger is operating under false pretenses.

            If you launch an argument while claiming that you’re an American conservative, when you’re neither of those things, that’s not attacking the messenger, it’s exposing a lie.

          • rubber stamp

            Precisely right ! P.S. Thank you for exposing the truth on every turn.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            thanks

          • gwsmith

            Sorry, Daniel, that’s a cop out. You’re essentially admitting your reasons can’t beat his. And you write for a living! Pathetic! You have sunk in my opinion.

        • TienBing

          You know the sad thing is that there are supposed “conservatives” making comments very similar to NeoconNightmare’s. Their hatred of Obama and disgust with Bush’s “nation building” makes them suckers for the lies and distortions of agent provocateurs.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Russia’s intel services have a great deal of expertise in manipulating Westerners. And while we would like to think that we’re immune to it, we’re not.

      • bigjulie

        Still haven’t got that Ex-Lax yet? I don’t know what the Russian equivalent is, but you are in serious need of it. I’ll bet you have brown eyes, too!

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Ex-Pax – For the FAKE “anti-war” “pacifist”.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        NeoCommieNightmare,

        You should get a job as a presenter on RT.

      • Chances R

        Russia starting WW3 would be as detrimental to its’ integrity as WW1 and WW2 were to Germany.
        Roll the dice Dude. Take a chance.

  • bob smith

    “Had the Democrats been able to let go of their obsession with Bush, they would have been able to head off the crisis in Ukraine.”

    NONSENSE!

    It is virtually impossible for any democrat weaned on socialist values/principles with a totalitarian bent to assess anything resembling themselves, be it Russian or Islamic.

    Free markets, free speech, the right to bear arms and defend oneself, capitalism, smaller government…these are the ‘things’ the left is obsessed with curtailing.

    What is most often missed, even by you herein Daniel is that on the very first occasion ala Reagan and the Poland solidarity movement, Obummer’s first chance occurred early his first term, 2009 I believe to back the uprising in Iran among University students no less who were crying out for American support; in the very least, American encouragement. What did Obummer do, NOTHING!

    No, the left will NEVER free itself of its obsession that everything doesn’t belong to anyone unless they say so and then dole it out be it wealth transfer and nanny state rule.

    • CapitalistPig

      Wasn’t that whole Iranian fiasco sad? Those people really were living under a totalitarian theocracy & were explicitly wanting western style democracy, up to & including symbolic Statue of Liberty icons in their protests. They sit smack dab between Afghanistan & Iraq—& Obama sat on his hands & wouldn’t so much as give those people one syllable of support from the US.
      Can you imagine what Reagan’s response would have been given those circumstances?

      • bob smith

        Precisely. It would become the defining moment for The Republic in learning who and what this charlatan was all about, thereafter. It would also become the defining moment for The Republic in learning that the media was officially dead, posthumously of course.

  • mtnhikerdude

    I find it hypocritical that none of the Bush Haters did not follow up on their promise to leave America if he got elected , A one way ticket to Fallujah or Detroit would have been appropiate for all of them .

    • nimbii

      Right, why is Robert Redford still here.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Canada is better off for it.

      • mtnhikerdude

        LOL

      • pfbonney

        That country is so leftist and anti-American, the Bush Haters would fit right in, in Canada. I lived there for 7 years.

        Canadians are really nice people. Just don’t let them find out you’re American. They’ll bend your ear as they tell you how bigoted Americans are, while simultaneously demonstrating how bigoted they are against Americans. (But that is “good” bigotry, apparently).

        Newfoundlanders were much better in that regard, I’ve found. They are amazingly and pleasantly naive, in such matters.

  • NeoconNightmare

    Mark my words as a veteran and recent Neocon who never met a war I didn’t approve of until now: no Neocon GOP candidate will ever again take the presidency in our lifetime. Ukraine is none of our business. Period. Any Cold War vet will tell you it’s in Russia’s backyard, actually their back porch. Anyone who implies that they would have started WW3 over Ukraine will be touching the third rail of politics. Everyone knows Obama and McCain (why did they work together when we were supposed to be voting for one or the other in 2008? Doesn’t their collaboration on this mean we’re run by an oligarchy and we’re not in a democracy?) started the nonsense in Ukraine by supporting a violent overthrow of an elected leader who had just called for new elections in December 2014. So, for instance, if Rand Paul loses to a Neocon for the GOP nomination, he will just run third party or someone will run third party who makes it clear that he or she would not have started WW3 over Ukraine. Period.

    • WhiteHunter

      No sane person wants WW III over Ukraine, or any sort of direct, armed confrontation with the Russians; so let’s drop that straw-man non-argument, if you don’t mind.

      Daniel’s point, I believe, is that the Democrats’ (particularly Obama’s and Hillary’s) visceral hatred of Bush and of the U.S.A. in general, and their stubborn insistence on being ashamed of, and “apologizing” for both, send a loud, clear signal to our enemies around the world that they have little to fear from a Party, and a regime, focused on weakening us as a nation and slandering and destroying those it sees as its domestic political adversaries while ignoring existential threats from overseas.

      Moreover, the Dems’ perverse admiration for communists or “NeoCom” dictatorships, and for bearded, raving ayatollahs brandishing the Koran in one hand and a nuclear warhead in the other as they snarl “Death to America!” reinforces our enemies’ completely reasonable conviction that they can get away with anything, and rub Obama’s nose in it at the same time.

      If we were still the economically and militarily strong, unabashedly proud, solidly united country we were under Reagan, instead of the divided, polarized, weakened one we are now under a corrupt, America-hating, organized crime syndicate masquerading as an “administration,” it’s far less likely that our enemies around the world would risk provoking us as they are now. Most of our adversaries had a very healthy fear of President Reagan and worried what he might do to them. A few (like Gorbachev) became warm personal friends. Compare that to how they treat the Community Agitator and his team of amateurs, like Biden, Kerry, and Hagel.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Sure, you were a neocon. You’re not a career Ron Paul supporter or Russian propagandist.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Please define “Neoconservatism”. Then, define “Neocon”. The two terms do not mean the same thing …

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      The rain in Ukraine
      Stays mainly on the plain

  • Gee

    They also believe that peace will finally happen all over the Middle East will be solved if the Dumbacrats can just get us to commit suicide

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    Even before the dread cowboy became President, American exceptionalism was under attack in the schools and in the media, thanks to the rise of Popular Front politics and then the New Left. See http://clarespark.com/2013/02/27/american-exceptionalism-retold/. “American exceptionalism retold.”

  • nimbii

    Well said Daniel Greenfield, as usual. Your analysis just about covers the scope and depth of leftist foreign policy: Bush bashing.

    I know this gross oversimplification lacks the nuance and innuendo that keep
    beltway consultants, think tanks, lobbyists and legislators at the federal feed trough, but what would happen if we just pull our troops out of Europe and stop printing dollars to support the EU?

    Then Putin can print rubles the EU will in-turn use to buy his energy?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Then the EU can collapse

      • nimbii

        The downside to this???

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          War – that the US will inevitably have to clean up.

          • nimbii

            They’ll have to think of a way to bring us into the fray:
            - Lusitania?
            - Pearl Harbor?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Gotta be something more deadly and destructive than 9/11.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s theoretically possible for the national sovereigns to form a consensus that the EU needs to go. Without war. But war could come anyway.

            The EU is simply holding back small tensions and creating the more significant tensions that lead to larger wars.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Depends on the aftermath. I would like to see the EU gone.

  • glissando

    YES, SO TRUE LEFTIES…NOTHING IMPORTANT HAPPENED BEFORE BUSH AND NOTHING IMPORTANT HAPPENED AFTER HIM…NO GOD DAMNED LEADERSHIP AT ALL !!!!!

  • danhoch

    If you want to know where the problem is, you only have to look at our illustrious (non) leader that is good at drawing red lines, and the Hillary who is a criminal herself. I wish she had been in BEngazi when the attack took place. Then she could have become a martyr and slick willie could continue uninterrupted with his young gals, demoralizing the children of the U.S. as a role model. Bush may not have been the best President, but in comparison to these other jokers, I’d take him TODAY over what has been going on the past 5 years. I can only hope an impending impeachment is on the horizon…to save America.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    It’s funny that a Russian propagandist is such a fan of Rand Paul.

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    Daniel, you have this knack for provoking the most comments of anyone at FPM. Kudos, to you!

    When I started, in this thread, there were 40 comments. That was about 20 minutes, ago. As of this comments, there’s 59 …

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I would like to take the credit, but Moscow did its part.

  • marvin nubwaxer

    putin stopped the USA from making another catastrophic blunder when he intervened in syria to push assad into handing over his chemical weapons. putin has probably overplayed his hand in crimea and ukraine where the USA has no real national security interests.
    obama black. obama bad. blame obama. thanks obama.

  • SDLakeshore

    Apparently some time ago, the Russians placed an order in the US for a million condoms and asked that the packages all be marked as – length: 16″. Later the shipment arrived in Russia loaded with packages of condoms which were all stamped:
    Size: (small). True story, I think.

    • carpe diem 36

      hillarious!!

  • kazzer66

    Blame Bush is more of a symptom than a cause for the Left. Liberals fail because they are incapable of seeing past their unicorns and rainbows ideals, to how the world really is.

    Peopled by human beings. Humans with their own hopes and dreams, but also with their own prejudices, greeds and perversions. Hating America is also a symptom, and a rallying cry. There are as many reasons to hate America as there are world leaders to blame us for all their ills.

    The fact that Obama and his administration also blame America, earns them no respect on the world stage. I think they see them as a cowards, fools and traitors to their own country. Even the most decadent of the worlds dictators don’t belittle their homelands, the way Obama has done.

    But the Left will never ‘get it,’ they still see rainbows and unicorns, where there be dragons and witches.

  • Ellman48

    “President Bush’s alienation of the international community by riding through Baghdad like a unilateral cowboy on a pale horse.”

    Since Vietnam the Left has expressed profound scorn and condemnation for the use of military might. I don’t pretend to understand their aversion for the “Shock and Awe” our military demonstrated in Iraq or the lighting defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The image of the US as a technologically superior power, overwhelming third world enemies seems totally unacceptable and despicable to the Left. Note how it finds Obama’s sanctions regime much more to its liking, regardless of the atrocities and human rights violations committed by certain powers.

    Yet the Left seemed curiously tolerant when the US and Europe launched an unprovoked and inexplicable attack on Libya, accompanied by numerous attempts to assassinate Omar Qaddafi; or when the Muslim Brotherhood launched a coup against Hosni Mubarack of Egypt. Yet the Left remains passive with regard to Assad’s genocidal actions in Syria, including the use of chemical weapons. There is no criticism of Obama for sending GI rations to Ukrainian troops instead of formidable weapons.

    One has to wonder if the Obama regime’s foreign policy consists only of doing the exact opposite of what George Bush did. At least this hypothesis offers a rationalization of what seems otherwise to be a totally incoherent and unmistakeably incompetent foreign policy. But then, why would we expect more from a community organizer, a dishonorable swift boat traitor, and a former first lady?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “I don’t pretend to understand their aversion for the “Shock and Awe” our military demonstrated in Iraq or the lighting defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan.”

      They spend a lot of time pointing out that “shock and awe” is part of marketing extended in to their theories about the “Military Industrial Complex.” Not just in the use of hyperbole, but actually “shocking” people in to submission around the world.

    • pfbonney

      “One has to wonder if the Obama regime’s foreign policy consists only of doing the exact opposite of what George Bush did.”

      The only thing the left is consistent in, is in its desire for the accumulation of power. Period. (“Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.”)

      In about everything else, they are just being disagreeable, with no core values to guide them, whatsoever.

      That’s why the the word “reactionaries” follows them around so often.

      • Ellman48

        It is difficult to rationalize the irrational foreign policies of the Left. I will make a feeble attempt: the Left believes that most of the world’s problems were and are caused by the US. Unlike you and I they see the US as a bully, an imperialist, war-mongering, aggressive, hostile, etc. They think they can build a better, more peaceful world by disarming the US military, using diplomacy, pushing globalism, creating transnational institutions to issue international laws and regulations, and other nonsense which has never worked and never will, unless we have a global dictatorship akin to Orwell’s “1984″. Human nature refused to submit to the laws of God. Why would they submit to those of man? It’s human nature that the Left does not understand or thinks can be remade into a “new man”, an experiment that failed under Stalin and Mao but which also cost millions of lives in the process. The Left will never change. They must be defeated or eliminated politically or otherwise.

        • pfbonney

          “They must be defeated or eliminated politically or otherwise.”

          Truer words were never spoken.

  • Ellman48

    Of course, Bush was not only to blame for all of Obama’s international failures, but his domestic ones as well. It’s reminiscent of Hitler blaming the Jews for all of the problems Germany experienced after WWI. Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews but that didn’t help him to win WWII. Obama sought to annihilate Bush but that didn’t help him avoid monumental domestic and international failures for his entire time in office, nor will it rehabilitate his pathetic legacy for 8 wasted and contentious years in the WH.

    • pfbonney

      Good observations, worth remembering.

  • BagLady

    Instead Putin, Chavez and Ahmadinejad became extensions of their
    political grudge match with the President of the United States. Their
    petty geopolitical view reduced the affairs of the world to a world that
    shared their hatred for Bush.”

    But Bush ‘hated’ them first.

    “Had the Democrats been able to let go of their obsession with Bush, they
    would have been able to head off the crisis in Ukraine.”

    Go on. How would they have done that without backing off? Not something the West seems to consider as a possibility.

    Now we have Obama phoning Putin demanding he reins in his Russian fans in East and South Ukraine and ‘force’ them to toe the Kyiv party line. Oh please, how pathetic can it get. The man is no saint but stupid he ain’t.

  • carpe diem 36

    didn’t obama whisper in Medvedev’s ear that after “his election he will be more flexible”? so it is Obama’s fault, not Bush’s fault, as it is true of every one of his failures, be it in the economy, on Iran or Syria with his stupid red line.

  • pfbonney

    “Blinded by their hatred for Bush, they assumed that the world’s worst villains also hated Bush. It didn’t occur to them that they might hate America. Instead … Chavez … became [an extension] of their political grudge match with the President of the United States. Their petty geopolitical view reduced the affairs of the world to a world that shared their hatred for Bush.

    That would explain the odd mismatch I remember seeing between the harsh anti-American rhetoric I heard coming from Chavez, and the praise for Chavez I heard coming from Obama.

    Obama saw Chavez Anti-American rhetoric as really being simply anti-Bush rhetoric. Obama didn’t realize that fact that he was representing the United States as overriding the fact that he was sympathetic to Chavez’s rhetoric, and Chavez couldn’t have cared less.

    Plus, I’m sure Chavez needed someone to fill the imperialist boogeyman spot, and Obama would do.