more left vs right paradigm - putin/romeny/bush/obama - 03.24.2014

Clearly, this entire Russia vs America thing is scripted, remember this?

==============

Was Mitt Romney right about Russia (and everything else)? A look back at his campaign predictions.

    By Jaime Fuller   
    March 20 at 8:45 am

Ever since the United States got involved in the dispute over Ukraine -- and ended up in a challenging place with Russia over it -- people have been quietly reviving statements that former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made during the 2012 election about his foreign policy concerns. When Russia decided they'd like to annex Crimea this week, the dig into the Romney archive began anew, with consensus from his co-partiers -- and from some people who would never admit to liking him -- generally falling along the lines of "oh my dear lord, Mitt was right all along!"



Mitt Romney arrives on stage to concede the election to President Barack Obama on November 7, 2012 in Boston.  (AFP PHOTO/Don EMMERTDON EMMERT/AFP/Getty Images)

    First of all, Russia I indicated is a geopolitical foe. Not... excuse me. It's a geopolitical foe, and I said in the same -- in the same paragraph I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I'm not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin.

This is the Romney prediction that has been getting the most press lately. Over the course of the 2012 campaign, Romney repeatedly called Russia “our number one geopolitical foe.” However, when Obama pushed back against that statement in the Oct. 22, 2012, debate, Romney downgraded Russia to a geopolitical foe, as David Weigel pointed out last September. Romney decided in the end that he wasn't set on casting the former Soviet Union as the big baddie of his hypothetical administration. He just saw Russia as a foe for all geopolitical generations.

Was Romney right?

context, and more here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/20/was-romney-right-a-look-back-at-his-campaign-predictions/


==============

Vladimir Putin, Russian Neocon
How Russia's president resembles the American hawks who hate him most.
PETER BEINARTMAR 24 2014, 10:22 AM ET



Ever since Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea, American pundits have strained to understand his view of the world. Putin’s been called a Nazi; a tsar; a man detached from reality. But there’s another, more familiar framework that explains his behavior. In his approach to foreign policy, Vladimir Putin has a lot in common with those very American hawks (or “neocons” in popular parlance) who revile him most.

1. Putin is obsessed with the threat of appeasement

From Irving Kristol’s “The Politics of Appeasement” (Wall Street Journal, 1975) to Norman Podhoretz’s  “Appeasement by Any Other Name” (Commentary, 1983) to William Kristol and Robert Kagan’s “The Appeasement Gamble” (Weekly Standard, 2000) to Charles Krauthammer’s “The Wages of Appeasement” (Washington Post, 2011), hawks have attributed virtually every foreign-policy crisis of the last 40 years to America’s supposed habit of knuckling under to our foes. In 1975, Irving Kristol called America’s withdrawal from South Vietnam an act of “appeasement” that “to those of us who have even the vaguest memories of the 1930s … is all too chillingly reminiscent.” A generation later, his son, William Kristol, chalked up the September 11 attacks to “two decades of American weakness in the face of terror.” Last week, in The New York Times, John McCain explained Putin’s move on Crimea as the result of a global “perception that the United States is weak.” To Kristol, McCain, and their ilk, the United States is a nation perennially bullied by adversaries who are tougher, nastier, and more resolute than we are.

2. Putin is principled—so long as those principles enhance national power

In recent days, Putin has talked a lot about “democracy,” “freedom,” “self-determination” and “international law.” And conveniently for him, he insists that Russia’s annexation of Crimea scrupulously adheres to those principles while America’s behavior in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya violated them brazenly.

Sound familiar? In the United States, both hawks and doves like to claim that they’re promoting cherished principles like democracy and freedom. The difference is that doves are more willing to acknowledge that these principles can undermine American interests. For most hawks, by contrast, the fight for democratic ideals must serve American power. If it doesn’t, then what’s being spread isn’t really democracy at all.

3. Putin doesn’t understand economic power

Last week, Bill Clinton shrewdly noted that Putin is “deeply patriotic in terms of Russia, but he sees it more in terms of the greatness of the state and the country than what happens to ordinary Russians.” The Russian president’s maneuvers abroad have everything to do with the geopolitical glory of Russia and almost nothing to do with the economic welfare of Russians. In the wake of his takeover of Crimea, Standard & Poor’s is threatening to downgrade Russian bonds and Russia’s own deputy economy minister is warning of a growing economic “crisis.” Yet Putin has never looked happier.

Look closely at the way hawks write about American foreign policy, and you see something similar. In the early 1990s, Clinton argued that although America had won the Cold War, ordinary Americans, in their daily lives, were losing. The answer, he declared in 1994, was to “put our economic competitiveness at the heart of our foreign policy.” For large stretches during his presidency, Clinton’s most influential foreign-policy advisor was his treasury secretary.

the rest of each section, here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/vladimir-putin-russian-neocon/284602/

===========================================

earlier this month....

Mar 7, 2014 9:24AM ET / The Daily Show
'The Daily Show' Examines Fox News' Obsession with Putin's 'Leadership'
Ben Cosman



If the world had a super-villain this week, it was Russian President Vladimir Putin. He continued to avoid questions of exactly what Russian soldiers were doing in Crimea, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that she thought he had lost touch with reality. Yet there were a few loyal stalwarts who weren't afraid to heap praise upon Putin, despite his recent antics. "Who would be fooled by this guy's bullshit?" Stewart asked. Oh right – Fox News.

Here's how Stewart explained the current situation: "Much of the world sees Putin now for what he is: A semi-delusional autocrat who views the dissolution of the Soviet Union as one of the greatest tragedies of the late 20th century and has confused his own political propaganda for reality."

"Much of the world" does not, however, include Fox News.

First there was "Strategic Analyst" Ralph Peters who said, "Russia has a real leader, and our president is just incapable." Then there was Fox News Anchor Bill O'Reilly who said, "In a way, you got to hand it to Putin." And finally we had Rudy Giulianni, really laying it on: "Putin decides what he wants to do and he does it in half-a-day, he makes a decision and executes it quickly, then everybody reacts. That's what you call a leader."

Of course Putin deserves our praise. He's being a leader! He doesn't bother to think about his decisions! Only a feckless imbecile would do that. Except, not. Someone who acts without thinking? As Stewart explained: "That's not what you call a leader, that's what you call a toddler."

The real reason Fox News seems to admire Putin? Their ardent belief that President Obama is weak and incompetent. 

Here are some things Fox News had to say about Putin: "Putin likes to hang out with his shirt off," "People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears," "This is a guy that wrestles tigers." You know, like a real man.
What did they have to say about Obama? "Obama wears mom jeans."

Except when Obama does act, they call him "Emperor Obama" and label him a dictator.

There has to be some sort of psychological explanation for "this love-hate relationship with authoritarian figures." Let's see what Ralph Peters had to say: "Putin actually reminds me in a peculiar way of my mother."

That's it, pack it in.

watch the video here:
http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2014/03/daily-show-examines-fox-news-obsession-putins-leadership/358927/

===========================================

It's already been on my mind to do an in-depth study into this term: "appeasement", which is clearly a code word.

from 2011:

cnn - barack obama: "ask bin laden about appeasement" - like a boss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G8gWAE641s

cnn - rick santorum: barack obama's foreign policy is appeasement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mwu-lTxhPw

cnn - rick santorum: barack obama's foreign policy is appeasement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Bnd3fIcY8s