Cramming Bush's "democracy" down the throat of the world
 

With yesterday's meeting between Bush and Putin, a new gruff, and unsure relationship shift has happened between Bush and the Russian leader. With increasing pressure from members of the US Congress, Putin has become agravated with the US stance on his country's progress towards democracy. This type of revelry has to end. We are not the last word on what "democracy" is. This type of neo-con rhetoric is harming arms agreements and negotiations to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which is obviously more essential to world security than shoving American conventions of goverance in the face of a emerging free state. Bush has found his broken record, one that doesn't make him look so much like a bumbler and has set off on it like a school boy. What we need now is hard nosed pragmatic foriegn policy to limit the spread of weaponry. This is a foriegn policy disaster waiting to happen, I hope someone in the adminstration can take this Russian version of democracy at face value and start to get to work on getting them integrated into the WTO and become full partner in the effort to limit the proliferation of arms.

-Walrus

I read that this morning. Its becoming eye-rollingly obvious that Bush fancies himself a new Ronald Reagan. Bush, on his absolute best day, couldn't carry Reagan's jock strap.

Reagan!?, yeah right!
 

Reagan had PR savy, Bush has nothing except the advice of others. He is not a purvyeor like Reagan was, he is just a store minder. Accordingly, Reagan's principles were clearer and more pragmatic. Bush's mamsy-pamsy approach to this freedom bull shit is going to far.

-Walrus

So, just to clarify, Bush says to Putin:

"Hey, here's a thought - it would be a good idea if maybe you didn't seize dictatorial control of the Duma in a bloodless coup, shut down any dissenting voices in the media, and nationalize the most successful companies in your country. It's just this crazy-ass notion I have that balance of power, freedom to dissent, and free markets are essential for democratic institutions to succeed."

This has your panties in a wad how? Seriously, what is it that's bugging you? Either you think:

1) Putin's actions are insignificant or appropriate, and don't warrant comment, or
2) Putin's actions are dangerous and ultimately destabilizing to Russia, but we shouldn't point this out in any way because then they might not like us.

I think Bush's actions were measured and well delivered. It mirrors the interaction we've established with China; measured comments against human rights violations, but progressive movement toward stabilized economic relationships and international cooperation.

-sm

I think humiliating Putin in a Press Conference setting is a collossaly stupid thing to do. He's an insecure man who needs to be publicly supported and privately rebuked. And you never criticise the leader himself when attempting to bridge gaps, you criticise the policies. Bush is giving everyone a clinic in how not to hold negotiations with other world leaders.

Sure, Bush needs to tell him those things and he's man enough to tell him to his face. But you don't do it on national television unless you have no idea who you are dealing with.

Bush's diplomatic skills are pitiful. My point wasn't that W should keep quiet about these important issues. I was comparing how remarkably effective Reagan was at getting results in similar theatres and how god-forsakingly awful W is.

Hogwash, moniker
 

For Bush to deliver a lecture to Putin on American style tennants is ridiculous and ill-timed. Setting about finishing some Clinton era arms agreements, and limiting the spread of AK-47's and shoulder rockets should be the talk of the day. Bush's little lecture constitued nothing more than the furtherance of a PR startegy hammered out towards the end of his 1st term. It's plain disrespectful, insulting, and brazen. Even Reagan stepped back from scenes like this, resorting to speeches to dispense his freedom rhetoric, ie "tear down this wall" etc. Accordingly, this mirrors our relationship with China how? We allow them to hold currency and pound us with the yen, with no response, but we'll pay lip service to "human rights abuses", spare me. I think a relationship with the Russians at this point needs to be managed with more caution. It's not about if they like us or not, but pick your battles. IF the US gets on its high horse we risk loosing the ablity to solidfy ongoing non-proliferatinon agreements, to jeapordize this right now, is plain stupidity, to think that giving US style freedom to regular Russians is the key to security is foolish. Working with the leadership is far more important than a stupid speech on American civics. This was just another way for Bush to stick to his guns, appease Republican critics in the US Senate, and further the rhetoric mentioned in his innagural speech.

-Walrus

You don't think it's sad that free speech, free enterprise, and freely elected officials are "American-style" tennets, and not universal mandates?

Chinese currency is the yuan. Japanse currency is the yen.

Sorry professor
 

Yuan, sometimes my fingers are a little too fast, still, regardless this hasn't been properly addressed.

-Yuan, duly noted

-Walrus

I basically agree with the Bush crowd on this one, with the glaring exception of painting America as a bastion of free enterprise. That is bullshit.

Taking democracy advice from Bush is like taking financial advice from someone who owes you money. There ain't a grain of salt that's big enough.

True, he may accidentally taint his bullshit with truth once in a while... but as they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

That's a tough, since everybody in the world has one, already. :skull:

These posts about the American Russian relationship remain invalid or myopic without first taking the other perspective. What does Putin see? Has anyone taken notice of what Putin now has to fear? Americans are now on or close to Russia's western borders. Major American military units sit just off the Russian east coast. And now Americans are building a chain of military bases from Bulgaria to Tajikistan as well as meddling in the politics of so many Russian 'satellite' nations such as Georgia, South Oddessa, Uzbekistan - only partly because the pipeline from the Caspian sea to the Black Sea requires 'stable' governments. This is new American presence on Russia's southern borders.

From Russian perspectives, US military power is surrounding Russia. It is completely irrelevant what you think. This is what Putin's people see. It does not help that the new American foreign policy is to see everything in only black and white. Historically this eventually leads to intolerance and war. You don't have to be Russian to see that part.

What is Putin doing? When a nation is threatened from outside, then its government becomes dictatorial inside. Russia has very good reason to be fearful since the US has demonstrated that it will invade anyone without any justification (other than religious extremist reasoning) and can do so even with world wide objection. The US no longer acts as an honest friend.

You tell me. What has Tony Blair gotten in return for his support of America? Nothing. What has Russia gotten after working with the US to end to cold war. The US then unilaterally declares all previous treaties null and void.

Again, did you ask first, what is Putin's perspective?

Putin's perspective is exactly the point
 

Putin's perspective is exactly what makes Bush's comments so pitifully ill-timed. Of course you have to ask yourself that, its why one can become alarmed with the Bush approach on this one. But from an American foriegn policy perspective, acknowledging Putin's view point, should only be for the purposes of greater world stability and US geo-political strategy. You shoot for the top, the ideal, but when a country isn't exactly like us, you have to keep watch, but don't go about humilating necessary allies in the effort to thwart arms proliferation, this should be a bigger policy objective. Both us and Russia need to have an understanding at this crucial period to manage arm issues effectively.

-Walrus

Bush lecturing Putin on freedom and democracy would be a bit more understandable if he actually believed in it himself. Or could convincingly fake it. Reagan fell into one of those two categories; Bush sure doesn't.

Rather ironic that the man who would criticize Putin for diminishing freedom in Russia is the same man who threatens American freedom with the Patriot Acts.

They can enter your house, secretly. If they find something, then they can now go to a judge, get a search warrant, come back, and claim they found that evidence. Without violating the Fourth Amendment? This same man who so threatens American civil rights would criticize Putin? This same president who authorizes torture and denies due process in Guantanamo (where most every prisioner is now admittedly innocent) would criticize the Russians? This same man who lies to the world so that he can unilaterally attack another sovereign nation would criticize Putin for actions in the Caucuses?

Does not matter. Anyone, such as Europeans or the NY Times, who would note these glaring discontinuities must be anti-American. God's chosen president could not be wrong.

The glare of patriotism, the cloud of fear and the gloss of of the "free" press
 

To be fair, the cracking down on civil liberties and the acceptance by much of the press in the US, and more moderate Republicans is a huge factor in the control that Bush exerts on the US. Fear and patrotism keeps the present system afloat. It's only when the populace tires of such tactics, and the government truly goes too far as in the case of the Cold War domestic intelligence efforts that any of this will be addressed, that is if we last long enough to see 2010. A good inidcator of a lightening of intelligence tactics will be a cooling down of a percieved threat. In the 70's Nixon's detente, including his arm limitations agreements with the Soviets, his visit to China, and the end of the Vietnam conflict signaled a cooling down of tensions in the cold war, not to mention the general tiredness of the American public for such a framework. These events parsed with a Democrat controlled Congress, great social change, and Watergate signaled the death toll of that era of the national security state, at least for awhile. The mid to late 70's represented one of the freer periods in this country's history, as well as the most recent reconsideration of national security efforts in the name of America's protection. It stands to reason that simliar multi-prong changes in the framework will be the prelude to the airing out of current abuses, now shrouded in fear and loyalty. The time will come, but for now we are in the midst of the build up, the reconsideration, is some time to come. After the deaths of many more service people, and continuing intelligence abuses, and the unveiling of scandals no longer tolerated in the name of national security.

-Walrus

We can only hope that there is a middle ground somewhere between imprisoning innocent people and allowing the worst living convicted terrorists in the US to write letters extolling terrorism to other terrorists while in maximum security federal prisons.

Why not? Convicted murders can have their own websites....

Not if the website is promoting terrorism. :)

They have to be able to break the code before proof of promoting terror.
Codes can sometimes be quite difficult to break..... :)

Don't be so naive. All they have to do is suspect something. They are many ways to kill a website without tipping your hand. :)

Just because they wrote letters promoting terrorism, therefore people were killed? Does UT fear free speech? Free speech killed American? Nonsense.

Instead, we should encourage those prisoners to write more letters. It identifies their compatriots. Those letters were not the problem. Remember why the second WTC attack could happen. Top law enforcement management conspired to assist those terrorists by not doing their job AND by stifling Federal agents from doing their job. Two Chicago agents were even loudly yelled at, "You will not open a criminal investigation!" Find your enemy. Name that FBI supervisor who did the yelling.

Those letters from imprisoned terrorists did nothing dangerous. But what did make terrorism possible were Justice Department managers - many without field experience - who would let information from those correspondences go to waste. Managers with the classic MBA mentality - they just knew what was better and did not need dirty fingernails to be law enforcement managers.

Need we be reminded of the translator ordered to stop working so fast even when Federal field agents literally called and begged for expedited translations? Who discovered a peer was translating FBI surveillance of what was that peer's boyfriend. Who reported all this and instead was made the victim. I don't see UT complaining about this manager who is clearly a greater threat to all Americans.

Do we fear letters from Federal prisoners to their Spanish peers? Or do we fear the real threat - top management in the Justice Department who even stifle four separate FBI investigations on what became known as 11 September attacks. Those letters from imprisoned terrorists should have been the best thing to happen to law enforcement - if Justice Department top management was doing its job.

Free speech is not the problem. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management - who have access to those prisoner's letters and could not even bother to comprehend facts. We are blaming the wrong threat. This discussion should be citing, by name, Federal officials failed in their job. Who did not even learn with whom terrorism prisoners were corresponding?

Free speech is not the threat. Incompetent bosses of those Federal agents are getting away, again, without being blamed.