Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
One thing I do like about Vladimir Putin is the fact that he's bold enough to point out the hypocrisy inherent in any comment Dubya makes about Russia needing to be democratic.
The day before a meeting and dinner with Mr. Putin, Mr. Bush warned him once again about retreating on democracy, saying that "all free and successful countries have some common characteristics - freedom of worship, freedom of the press, economic liberty, the rule of law and the limitation of power through checks and balances."
In the last year the United States has grown concerned over Mr. Putin's prosecution of business leaders, his increasing control over the press and his involvement in the affairs of Georgia and other neighbors.
Mr. Putin has not reacted positively to such criticism from Mr. Bush in the past, and this week he told the CBS News program "60 Minutes" that Mr. Bush had little business lecturing him about democracy when the 2000 presidential election in the United States was decided by the Supreme Court.
Heh heh.
Also, for the record, I'd like to point out that, while meddling in the affairs of any sovereign nation is something not to be done lightly, if at all, becoming involved in the affairs of countries with which you share a physical border is a far cry from invading countries halfway round the world in the name of homeland security. The former has more legitimacy in terms of state norms and international affairs (after all, it's not like there's a whole ocean and a couple of continents separating Russia from, say, Georgia).
Now, it's one thing if you want to invoke these security concerns to take action against a demonstrably rogue state (or at least a state with a demonstrably batty dear leader) with a proven nuclear weapons program and potentially the missile technology to actually send one of those warheads into your territory. Folks might find "involvement" in the affairs of such a country a bit more justified.
Not that there isn't precedent for this double standard. Compare the deployment of medium-range U.S. nuclear missiles (under the aegis of NATO) into Europe in the late 1970s/early 1980s to how bonkers the world went when Khrushchev tried to station ICBMs in allied Cuba in the early 1960s. Nikita didn't get to keep his missiles (or make good on his threat to take off his shoe and bludgeon Kennedy with it), but that whole nuclear missiles in Western Europe thing, that didn't get resolved so favorably for Gorbachev.
The day before a meeting and dinner with Mr. Putin, Mr. Bush warned him once again about retreating on democracy, saying that "all free and successful countries have some common characteristics - freedom of worship, freedom of the press, economic liberty, the rule of law and the limitation of power through checks and balances."
In the last year the United States has grown concerned over Mr. Putin's prosecution of business leaders, his increasing control over the press and his involvement in the affairs of Georgia and other neighbors.
Mr. Putin has not reacted positively to such criticism from Mr. Bush in the past, and this week he told the CBS News program "60 Minutes" that Mr. Bush had little business lecturing him about democracy when the 2000 presidential election in the United States was decided by the Supreme Court.
Heh heh.
Also, for the record, I'd like to point out that, while meddling in the affairs of any sovereign nation is something not to be done lightly, if at all, becoming involved in the affairs of countries with which you share a physical border is a far cry from invading countries halfway round the world in the name of homeland security. The former has more legitimacy in terms of state norms and international affairs (after all, it's not like there's a whole ocean and a couple of continents separating Russia from, say, Georgia).
Now, it's one thing if you want to invoke these security concerns to take action against a demonstrably rogue state (or at least a state with a demonstrably batty dear leader) with a proven nuclear weapons program and potentially the missile technology to actually send one of those warheads into your territory. Folks might find "involvement" in the affairs of such a country a bit more justified.
Not that there isn't precedent for this double standard. Compare the deployment of medium-range U.S. nuclear missiles (under the aegis of NATO) into Europe in the late 1970s/early 1980s to how bonkers the world went when Khrushchev tried to station ICBMs in allied Cuba in the early 1960s. Nikita didn't get to keep his missiles (or make good on his threat to take off his shoe and bludgeon Kennedy with it), but that whole nuclear missiles in Western Europe thing, that didn't get resolved so favorably for Gorbachev.
posted by Alexander Dubcek | 12:00
1 Comments:
Depends on which Georgia you want to meddle in . . .
Okomentovat
<< Home