Dumb Da-Dumb Dumb

(Cartoon by Lee Judge/Kansas City Star (3/4/14) and featured at McClatchy DC. Click on image to enlarge.)

Vladimir Putin's sudden move into Crimea took most of the world by surprise.  Since the tanks and troops moved in to take over the airport, world leaders and their governments have sat on the edge of their seats, waiting for the next move.  So far, no shots have been fired and those troops and tanks have remained at the airport, neither moving into the western areas of the Ukraine nor giving any indication of returning to Russia itself.

President Putin's excuse for this rather precipitous move was that with the turmoil in the Ukraine and a new government taking power in Kiev under what he considered to be suspicious circumstances he wanted to ensure the safety of Russians in the Ukraine and wanted to protect the Russian fort which was allowed to accompany access to the Crimean Sea.  Some analysts suggest that the real reason for the move was to show the world and the Russian people that Russia was still a world power.

Although some foolish people in this country have suggested some kind of serious sabre rattling in response to President Putin's actions, up to this point wiser heads have prevailed.  David Horsey's March 4, 2014 column suggests that economic sanctions would be a much better and a more effective course.

Russia’s current autocrat, Vladimir Putin, may be thinking his easy capture of Crimea from the fledgling government of Ukraine is a bold and clever move. Under the pretext of protecting Russians, he may have plans to snatch Ukraine’s Russian-speaking eastern industrial region. And he can act with the certain knowledge that, unlike the 1850s, Western powers have no stomach for war.

But that only proves Western leaders have learned the lessons of history. In the intertwined world of the 21st century, the power that really counts is economic power. Sure, the United States and the European Union have no inclination to send troops to defend Ukraine, but they have economic weapons that could severely undermine Russia’s tottering economy.  [Emphasis added]

Of course, the United States could simply sit back and do nothing, allowing the Ukraine's European neighbors to respond in some fashion.  I doubt, however, that either our European allies or our Congress will give President Obama that luxury.

The next few weeks are going to be interesting.

Been Down So Long

The news has been dreadful for months, at least from this liberal's perspective, but I read something this morning which caused me to smile a little. Unfortunately, the news came in an AP article, which means I won't be quoting from the article itself.

Unnamed sources in Poland and the Czech Republic told the AP that President Obama has called leaders in both countries to advise he would be pulling out of the Defense Missile Program agreements with them made by the Bush administration. The plans were for US missiles to be placed in Poland and a radar site to be placed in the Czech Republic, both on Russia's door step. Russian leaders were understandably infuriated by the plan, and this has complicated US-Russian relations since the Bush administration announced the agreements.

Now, as far as I can tell, the Missile Defense System still hasn't been shown to be workable, even when the tests are designed so heavily in favor of the system that failure would seem impossible. The whole idea was based on President Reagan's "Star Wars" fantasy program, sold to him by the military industrial complex decades ago, but as designed it just doesn't work. That didn't stop George W. Bush, by golly, and he pressed forward, ratcheting up tensions with Russia unnecessarily.

One Russian official quoted in the AP article has suggested that the Obama administration's actions are designed to elicit more support from Russia in dealing with Iran. If that is the case, well, then, bravo! We need Russia's help with Iran. Giving up a fantasy system that will probably never work and has cost us billions to get that support sounds like a splendid idea.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is scheduled to give a press conference today, and the anticipated subject is the Missile Defense System. Hopefully Secretary Gates will announce at least the cancellation of these two aspects of the project, if not the shelving of the whole mess.

That would be change I could believe in.

Your Brother's Keeper

Not long ago, the U.S. was pushing for NATO membership for the Ukraine and Georgia. Russia opposed it, and Europe agreed to a delay in considering the membership issue. Now the battles between Russia and Georgia remind us that NATO membership means a mutual defense pact. Either NATO membership would have prevented Russia from invading, or it could have meant the entire continent would now be at war.

You might think we dodged one. Just as easily you might think Georgia lost one. The editors at Dallas Morning News reflect that a change in balance of power makes our loss in the NATO choices a piece of good fortune.

Consider that if President Bush had gotten his way over European objections, Georgia would already be a NATO member country. The recent Russian invasion would have committed NATO to go to war with Russia – which, despite its weakened state, still has a sizable army and thousands of nuclear missiles – to defend Georgia.

Are Americans willing to engage in a shooting war with Russia over this former Soviet republic? What is the vital U.S. interest at stake worth paying that kind of price?

Others say that were Georgia in NATO, Russia never would have invaded. Maybe. Maybe not. Is that a chance worth taking? If the U.S. is not prepared to fight for Georgia, it has no business extending security guarantees to it.

Balance of power has shifted

Nearly six years ago, when NATO was on the verge of expanding into former Soviet Baltic republics, this newspaper praised the move. Those who predicted that bringing in former Warsaw Pact nations Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in 1999 would antagonize Russia were wrong, we said.

In retrospect, Russia's economic and military weakness at the time prevented Moscow from doing anything about NATO expansion. Times have changed. Russia is now flush with oil and natural gas money and, under Vladimir Putin's hard-nosed leadership, has greatly strengthened its hand. Plus, the U.S. military has become bogged down in seemingly endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The balance of power has shifted.

In April, Mr. Putin demonstrated Russia's new clout by driving a wedge between the U.S. and Europe over the issue of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. The Europeans, who depend on Russian natural gas, punted membership for those Russian border states into the future. Now, having masterminded Russia's invasion of Georgia, Mr. Putin is making clear that Russia will not allow itself to be surrounded by an alliance founded to contain Moscow. (Emphasis added.)

The damage that the occupied White House has done to this country is massive. We have lost the influence that would quite likely have kept the present situation in Georgia from occurring. The friendships of this country have become tenuous, and our alliances not so attractive as they once were.

The loss of power internationally, under the present warmongering elements, might be a benefit to the world, which is not so inclined to jump into wars as our executive branch is. In the next administration, it may be possible to make this country one that appeals to other countries more as an ally. For now, it is probably to humanity's advantage that the rest of the world is giving U.S. militarism a wide berth. There is enough of that to go around in other countries.

Cooler heads have prevailed in the use of NATO to commit the western world to wars. At once that is sobering, and saddening. Once, we could depend on cool heads at the helm here. Now, we owe Europe for heading us off at the pass.

High Noon At G8 Corral

All over my teebee screen last night I had pundits claiming the fight went to McCain because Obama presented a balanced and fair approach to the Russia/Georgia situation while McAyn shot from the hip and accused Russia of being the bad guy. Russia made his day.

From the things Ruth Marcus, (who recently claimed that McAyn hadn't flipped on campaign financing by going back on his early use of public financing, but Obama had), and company said, McAyn is being credited by the commenters on several public affairs show with getting it right. Obama, in their view, was wrong to be diplomatic.

Let's see, what we want in a President is some one who jumps into a battle to accuse one party of being the aggressor? That one party of course, just happens to be the same one that the American voters have associated with the Other Side for most of our lifetimes. If the media were running the U.S., we would be slamming that Iron Curtain down again, and just daring the Russkies to keep going to the G8 meetings and negotiating like wimps.

Does anyone else think this is insane? We try for eons to get a reclusive nation to talk out differences, and the winning candidate is the one who wants to call a halt to all that diplomatic stuff?

McCain and Democratic rival Barack Obama have traded fire over the crisis in Georgia since hostilities erupted there last week. Obama issued a measured call for restraint on both sides, while the Republican nominee was quick to condemn Russia for its aggression - a response that began to appear prescient as Moscow escalated the conflict.

McCain seized on the conflict again today during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania, remarking that Nato's decision to delay Georgian membership in the alliance this year "might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks".

"I urge Nato allies to revisit the decision," McCain said. Echoing his past support for removing Russia from the G8, he urged the US to convene an emergency meeting of G7 foreign ministers.

The decision to critique Moscow is a risky one for McCain, whose senior foreign policy adviser has profited from lobbying contracts with the Tbilisi government of Mikheil Saakashvili.

But the gamble looks to be paying off. When the Obama camp cited McCain's Georgia-connected adviser, Randy Scheunemann, as proof that the candidate is too close to lobbyists, the Republican fired back.

McCain accused his opponent of being "bizarrely in sync with Moscow," angering Obama backers who perceived the dig as a subtle invocation of communism.

The long hard work that dragged the East out from behind that Iron Curtain so recently is threatened by the kind of ignorance McAyn has displayed. It can only be the end to years of promising negotiation to make a High Noon out of every international event. I don't ignore that destruction by Russia in its attack on Georgia is horrible. Still, when we have been doing that very thing to Iraq for seven years, we don't gain any credit internationally by being shocked, shocked, that another nation might send in the tanks too.

It is our rotten example that has created the climate Russia has taken advantage of, our precedent they are following. Georgia is on Russia's doorstep, and its forces took on the Russians who were inside their boundaries. We have less claim to being threatened by Iraq than Russia has to the same with Georgia.

I cannot see that McAyn's belligerence is an improvement, after the years it has taken to regain ground since the cretin in chief pounced on the Axis of Evil. Is McAyn's stance that we need to rant and rave, that will make them respect us? I think events to date have proved that stance wrong, and harmful.

Thoughtful and considered approaches to foreign policy would be a great improvement in our nation's executive branch.

Hi Ho, Silver

The occupied White House went from sabre rattling yesterday to action that courts disaster, sending in 'humanitarian' aid that includes military assistance. There is a growing speculation that candidate McAyn spurred the lame ducks to hobble along faster, in tune with his militant stance.

"The Pentagon emphasized that its initial concern would be providing relief supplies, but announced Wednesday that it would also begin efforts to rebuild the Georgian military," they write.

"'Our focus right now is on delivering humanitarian aid and taking care of the immediate needs of those who are caught in this conflict,' said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell. 'When the dust settles, I am sure that we will help this sovereign nation and ally rebuild its military.' . . .

"Since 1997, the U.S. military has spent approximately $277 million in military aid to Georgia on uniforms, ammunition, communications equipment and vehicles.

"A senior military officer involved in planning the mission said the new military assistance under consideration for Georgia could include more joint exercises, stepped-up military training, closer ties to the Georgian military command, and sales of equipment to replace vehicles and weapons destroyed in the five days of fighting before the cease-fire agreement.

"The official acknowledged that there were risks to sending additional U.S. military equipment and personnel into the war-torn region. But the official said U.S. European Command, the Belgium-based headquarters responsible for organizing the mission, had determined that because Russia acquiesced to U.S. military flights bringing Georgian troops back to Tbilisi from Iraq, the chances of conflict were minimal.

"'It's never zero risk, but I think it will be OK,' said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the mission."

At a morning press conference, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that "the mission the president has given us at this point is humanitarian." And he declared: "I don't see any prospect of the use of military force by the United States on this mission."

Richard Beeston writes in a Times of London commentary: "Sending US forces into Georgia, albeit to deliver humanitarian supplies, represents the most serious military escalation between Washington and Moscow since the end of the Cold War.
(snip)
"So what prompted Mr Bush to come out with such a tough response against his erstwhile ally, after six days of dithering? One clue could be the sabre-rattling by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who said at the weekend that the Kremlin's move would not go unanswered. Mr Cheney may have persuaded Mr Bush that a more robust response was needed. The White House may have felt the need to reimpose its authority after the tough stand taken by John McCain, the Republican nominee for the presidency, who has used the crisis to demonstrate his leadership on national security matters."

Those hundred years of war don't have to be in Iraq, after all. Since the government there is hanging on by its fingernails only as long as it insists the U.S. is being sent packing, going back to the Cold War may have a lot of promise for continued war profiteering.

There is about 20% that seem to go along with whatever promises more war, more bloodshed. Without that war, of course, war powers will be harder to insist are justified. The constitution would be feasible again even to the hardcore militarists. That would risk a return to the rule of law, and many members of this administration feel quite threatened by that.

Rotten Policy

There is massive dismay at the Georgia/Russian conflict, although the U.S. encouragement of fledgling Georgian democracy made much of that tentative outcropping from Russia. The deterioration of relations between the occupied White House and Putin has been obvious, and lamentable as so many of the administration's policies are.

That reassurances from this war profiteering crew have made the Saakashvili government think we would be there for them is pretty obvious. Tragically, now, Georgians have been expressing their dismay that we have abandoned them.

"Pentagon officials said that despite having 130 trainers assigned to Georgia, they had no advance notice of Georgia's sudden move last Thursday to send thousands of Georgian troops into South Ossetia to capture that province's capital, Tskhinvali."

But consider this: "At the same time, U.S. officials said that they believed they had an understanding with Russia that any response to Georgian military action would be limited to South Ossetia.

"'We knew they were going to go crack heads. We told them again and again not to do this,' [a] State Department official said. 'We thought we had an understanding with the Russians that any response would be South Ossetia-focused. Clearly it's not.'"
ad_icon
Click here!

Either way, one big question is why U.S. intelligence wasn't up to speed. Surely the kinds of troop movements involved -- on both sides -- should have set off some alarms?

Well, not if everyone was looking the other way.

Landay writes: "One problem in under-estimating the Russian response, another U.S. official said, was 'a dearth of intelligence assets in the region.'

"U.S. 'national technical means,' the official name for spy satellites and other technology, are 'pretty well consumed by Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan,' the official said, and there was only limited monitoring of Russian military movements toward the Georgian border.

"Additionally, the United States had lost access to vital information when Russia dropped out of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty in December to protest U.S. plans to build missile defense sites in Europe.

"Under the treaty, Russia had been required to exchange reports on troop, armor and aircraft deployments with the United States and other members on a monthly basis. But once Russia dropped out, that information was no longer available."

Disaster follows disaster caused by the ignorant arrogance of the war criminals. They ought to be ashamed. That, however, would take powers of reflection that they lack. At least other nations have seen unequivocally demonstrated that they are all hat, no cattle.

Will we make it until January 20, 2009? It is with increasingly diminished powers that this country limps through the last days of disrepute.

Our Ms. Brooks: Bush And Putin

Rosa Brooks' latest column takes a look at the relationship between President Bush and his counterpart in Russia, Vladimir Putin, and likens it to a marriage that has soured. In the earliest stage, President Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw a kindred soul, as he so famously told us. Well, in retrospect, it appears that our president was right, but not in the way he would have has us believe. Mr. Putin, like Mr. Bush, said all the right things, but then went off and did what he wanted both at home and on the world stage to consolidate his personal power, much to the detriment of Russian democracy and the rest of the world. Mr. Putin turned out not to be the ideal partner Mr. Bush thought he had.

But like most marriages of convenience, it soon frayed. Putin refused to support the Iraq war in 2003, and by 2005, his government had launched a rollback of Russian democratic reforms. Bush was left helplessly on the sidelines, insisting that "Vladimir" had privately assured him of his commitment to democracy, and "when he tells you something, he means it."

Even so, U.S.-Russia relations got worse. By 2006, when Bush spoke of his hope that Russia would someday be "like Iraq, where there's a free press and free religion," Putin was openly mocking: "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq." By February 2007, Putin was denouncing U.S. foreign policy as having "nothing in common with democracy." Rather, he said, it was "an almost uncontained hyper-use of force ... in international relations." By summer 2007, Putin was threatening to point missiles at Poland if the U.S. deployed a planned European missile defense system.

Was this a simple case of naivete by BushCo? Well, to some extent it was, but more was involved in the deterioration of the relationship.

If U.S.-Russia relations have soured, much of the blame lies with the Bush administration. Despite Bush's claims of friendship, the U.S. has generally treated Russia as a washed-up power, eager to learn at our feet and grateful for the occasional crumb of U.S. attention.

The Bush administration arrogance is certainly a major source of the problem. Who could have imagined that Russia would take offense at the deployment of US missiles in parts of Europe close to its borders? Well, most of us figured that out early on, and I'm sure there were plenty of people in our government who could see the potential problems, but their concerns (and ours) were brushed aside.

So now Mr. Bush is on his way to Russia for meetings with his good friend, ostensibly to try to save the relationship, and Ms. Brooks has a suggestion on how he can succeed:

In a universe run on fact-based pragmatism, not ideology, Bush would use his visit to Russia to accept the offer Putin put forward last summer: to open up an American-European-Russian dialogue about missile defense, one that might include intelligence sharing, technological cooperation and jointly operated missile defense installations -- some in locations offered by Moscow. We'd gain Russian goodwill and retain the freedom to try to develop missile defense systems that actually work. Russia would gain reassurance that no U.S. missiles are pointed its way -- and lose an excuse for bullying its neighbors.

Yeah, right. As if George W. Bush is capable of fact-based anything, especially when he's just gotten a stinging rebuke from NATO members who didn't want further expansion by adding more of the former Soviet Union countries.

Personally, I think taking away Bush's passport for the duration might be a more sensible way to ease world tensions.

290 days.

Overtime Call Due On Played Out Presidency

Watching the rise of Russia is disconcerting for our media, and I for one am waiting for more attention to the Putin persona in face of his obvious success with the Russian public.

We were all delighted when the Soviet Union collapsed, and sure that democracy would give us congenial leaders who joined in such jolly fun as letting WalMarts spring up to underpay and not insure their employees. But no! we have Strontium 90 and the cancelling of elections for regional posts. All the while, the Russian economy is booming with high prices of oil, and Putin makes his disdain for our idiot chief executive quite plain.

While I don't agree with all of his premises, a professed expert on Islam has a piece that I think is worthwhile for some of its views.

Russia, on the other hand, has natural conflicts built-in with Iran. For one, Iran is so close to Russia that it would be immediately threatened by Tehran’s nuclear weapons, far more so than the far-away America (or even Israel would be if the radical Ayatollahs lose power). Long term, Iranian nukes are a greater threat to Russia than to anyone else.

Kremlin also has a dispute over the oil under the Caspian with Iran, where Moscow is arguing (correctly) that the Caspian is legally defined as the world’s largest lake (which would grant Russia the right to most of the Caspian oil) and not a sea, as it is commonly called, which would grant the right to much of the Caspian oil to Iran and Muslim countries in the south of the former Soviet Union.

Russia also has been challenged to its south in six Muslim countries where Iran (and Turkey) tried to promote an Islamic alliance dominated by Tehran (or Ankara) at the expense of Russian interests there.

Kremlin pretends to help Tehran inside and outside the United Nations only to play Washington for a fool. Americans are paying Russians to do exactly what they want to do anyway, while at the same time making Moscow seem like a major player on the world scene.

Thus, just as in Afghanistan, in Iran too Moscow’s interests are in line those of Washington.

Where Moscow’s interests diverge with Washington’s is once again in Kosovo. But this time Russia is no longer a weak state, with a dysfunctional military and a destroyed economy that face a real threat of disintegration like 10 years ago.

Rather than the joke it was in the late 1990s, Putin’s Russia of 2008 is a country that matters. It matters in terms of global economy, oil and gas, United Nations, War on Terror and just about every other international issue.

CNN and other Western media likes to portray the Russian people as fools who blindly support Putin and his semi-dictatorial tendencies. But they are not fools. They know that today they are wealthier than ever before in Russian history, and Putin has been their leader responsible for the economic rise. Surely the rise in oil prices helped, but rather than stealing the newly-found wealth (like, for example, Nigerian leaders do) or squandering it on useless government programs that support degenerate behavior (as is done in the West), Putin used it to lower taxes and pay off the debt. Paying back the country’s debt is not particularly popular because citizens do not see any immediate benefit, and it would’ve been far more fashionable for Putin to engage in American-style populism where politicians spike their personal poll numbers by engaging in fiscal child abuse by borrowing and then wasting money that will have to be paid by later generations.

But more than economics, what truly makes Russians support Putin is a restored sense of pride, a sense that their country matters once again for the first time in a generation. (Emphasis added.)

There are no surprises to readers in the opinion that our occupied White House has absolutley no command over foreign relationships. Their stance against diplomacy has decidedly revealed the lack of ability for diplomacy in high office. Cronyism run rampant will do that to a government.

While it was running around the Middle East trying to get some one else to join in its grudge match against Iran, the lame ducks in the executive branch made it obvious to all observers that they were rudderless as they are mindless.

Russia is headed by a nationalist Putin who has struggled out of severe deprivation and won loyalty from his countrymen. The spectacle of our motley crew being totally outplayed by him, not a pretty sight, is becoming too obvious to be ignored any longer.

The interests of the U.S. have never been important to the cretin in chief. His malfeasance in office has left this country's resources severely depleted, and its place in the world hugely diminished.

On January 20, 2009, we can start climbing out of the hole we've been left in.

Going Back In Time and Place to Cold War Relations

Did you think this was going to be a nostalgia trip? Well, if Cold War relationships are to your taste, it is. Sec'y of State Rice has just called for 'activists' in Russia to start working against the Duma, in the interests of democracy. Can Cuba be next?

Yesterday, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave the visiting delegation from the U.S. a really nasty surprise when he announced that he wasn't letting us put weapons into Eastern Europe on his doorstep without a fight.

Through his representative in the talks, Putin asked for a freeze on the fatuously named 'defense shield', and we refused to halt while we discussed the planned armament. Putin will travel to Iran next week, and further showed his disregard for U.S. foreign relations by pointing out through Lavrov, his delegate, that sanctions are not improving the prospects for Iran to eschew nuclear arms.

Way to go, Brownies of the executive branch. Cretin-1 announcing that he was seeing his soul sure has given Putin the measure of our diplomatic skills, and it would appear he thinks as much of them as do the North Koreans.

While the U.S. under the executive branch's belligerence gave up all the gains that President Clinton had made in relations with North Korea, recently an agreement has been reached that N. Korea will 'dismantle' its nuclear facilities and the U.S. will remove it from the "axis of evil' designation and lift sanctions. This has met with general skepticism from around the world. Of course, no definition of 'dismantling' has been given, and previous experience shows that meeting deadlines is not the practice of the late great 'evil axis' nation. We have already acceeded to demands from N.Korea to release the funds we had ordered held up in Macao because of rampant counterfeiting by the former evil axis land - and all the concessions we asked for in exchange were foregone. At that time, U.S. spokesman Christopher Hill thought we would begin talks "after shutdown begins." As we all know, the talks went on, and now we have ... N. Korea's word that this time it really, truly, for sure, will shut down its nuclear facilities.

The return to Cold War relationships has broken out with India, because the U.S. has offered to forget its former demand that nuclear powers join in the denuclearization agreement only if we can impose the conditions of that agreement on them. Of course, without inspection rights this is nothing but word games, but word games matter in these relationships. Indian opposition centers around the control exercised by the U.S., which would not allow testing by India although we would retain the option of running our own tests. A little matter of pride seems to be overlooked here by the usual war machine in the White House. The turmoil inside India is large enough that it is possible new elections may need to be held.

We made a lasting impression on a whole lot of nations recently too, by keeping our 'anti-dumping' penalties which are collected from other nations and then distributed to our domestic industries.

It goes on and on. The cabal in the White House gained its voters by appealing to the basest elements, the kind that Michelle Malkin has aroused to attack a horribly injured 12-year-old, the kind that claims Al Gore doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize (which is probably sour anyway), the kind that wants detainees tortured, everyone's phone tapped and death penalties for those not 'lawyered-up' enough to avoid getting the penalty. This is not a nuanced base, remember, it is the one that wants to see the other side of every issue mugged. Appealing to the right calls for a show of nasty chauvinism. That's what we've got in foreign relations these days.

Welcome back to the era of Ugle Americanism. It's with us until January 20, 2009. I sure hope we all survive.

Soulmates?

We are facing a regime in power that violates our laws in its treatment of opponents, and that condones use of torture. This administration violates the laws because it sees them as hindering its ability to conduct its operations, which include unprovoked war and ferreting out 'the terrorists' it has denominated its enemies. I see parallels in the increasingly blatant persecution of its opponents by w's friend Putin, with whom he recently conducted a cozy little chat which ignored the Russian state's authoritarian, and murderous, conduct of its affairs.

I admit to being bothered that enemies of the state in Russia are dying in really shadey killings. The latest, a poisoned Russian spy Litvinenko who was investigating evidence in the recent murder inside Russia of journalist Anna Politkovskaya. This follows not too many years after the poisoning of anti-Russian dissident and later successful candidate for president of the Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko.

What is our country's reaction? Has anyone heard or seen one? During the recent trip to see five minutes of Vietnam our leader met with Putin, Russia's increasingly iron curtain style leader, en famille, in a friendly little chat while Air Force One refilled in his country. Needless to say, 'seeing his soul in his eyes' has characterized our country's erstwhile president as sympatico with and showing total approval for the KGB character who has kept free elections from being held in the provinces, and presides over an increasingly repressive government.

"The general political climate among the Russian elites has become immensely depressing in recent times," according to the prominent Moscow journalist Mikhail Rostovskii. He insists that the authorities, who have "only instincts but no strategies," are involved in ludicrous endeavors, such as the cancellation of the holiday celebrating the October (Bolshevik) Revolution, meaningless or dangerous undertakings, such as the decision to abandon the election of provincial governors, or even stupid actions, such as the destruction of Yukos.7 The authors of a report produced by Stanislav Belkovsky's Council on National Strategy accuses the state of "lacking a strategy and goals." The report focuses on the Kremlin's chaotic economic policy.8 Even Expert, a probusiness weekly, which is usually friendly toward the Kremlin, declared on the eve of the new year in an editorial with the sarcastic title, "We Do Not Rebel against the Authorities," that the current persecution of one company after another (for instance, the mobile telephone firm Vympelkom and the bank Russian Standards) "puts in doubt the survival of the country."9

These policies remind me awfully of the very ones this country's leadership condemned rather than condoned during the Cold War, when the U.S. still strictly supported the Geneva conventions and a Rule of Law. A president breaking laws and proclaiming that he had a philosophy such as the unitary executive theory which allowed him to violate the Constitution he had sworn to uphold would not have been tolerated.

It would appear that we have slipped from this country's former moral leadership and I see chillingly significant that this president claims a firm companionship with a leader whose lawlessness is increasingly apparent.

'Pragmatic' behavior is the description increasingly applied to violation of basic standards of universally approved decency. Making war on an unoffending country, which prevents us from fully prosecuting the war on al Quaeda, seems to be the ultimate pragmatic act. It is also the most counterproductive one undertaken by any American government in my lifetime.

In Afghanistan, where the war began , NATO and U.S. forces are struggling to cope with a resurgent Taliban whose guerrillas have killed some two dozen western troops, including two U.S. soldiers in a suicide bombing in Kabul Friday, since Sep. 1.

NATO's U.S. commander, Gen. James L. Jones, admitted Thursday that the alliance was going through a "difficult period" and needs as many as 2,500 more troops, as well as additional aircraft, to bolster ongoing operations in southern Afghanistan, significant parts of which have reportedly fallen under the effective -- if not yet permanent -- control of the Taliban.

The government of neighbouring Pakistan, meanwhile, has agreed to withdraw its troops from northern Waziristan, effectively returning full control of the region -- as it did in southern Waziristan last year -- to tribal militias dominated by close allies of the Taliban.

As you will note, I point to the Cretin in Chief's identification with the ruthless leadership of Putin as symptomatic of his disregard for our own laws. I admit I am not a student of psychology or pathology. However, I do think that our C-i-C is not fit to lead a free country, and has proved it.

This congress is going to need to deal with the leadership realistically, and it seems that one role forced on our elected congressional representatives will be to prevent the Constitution, and the rule of law, from being overthrown by the practices of this administration.

I hope you will give them your complete support. This country has reached a new low and hopefully can only go upward. It is in peril of going downwards.