October 18, 2004


Putin's Iraq comments back Bush (Jonathan Marcus, 10/18/04, BBC)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that attacks on US forces in Iraq are intended to cause maximum damage to President George W Bush.

He said groups of "international terrorists" in Iraq were aiming to prevent Mr Bush's re-election.

If they succeeded they would celebrate victory over the US, he went on.

Mr Putin said Russia would respect the choice of the US people, but his remarks will be interpreted as a signal that he would prefer a Bush victory.

How is his point even arguable?

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 18, 2004 11:40 AM

Interesting to note how many leaders, like Putin and Koizumi and Blair and Kwasnieski, prefer a President assertive about US power to one who is craven about it and will probably govern like Djhimmi Carter.

Posted by: Andrew X at October 18, 2004 11:45 AM

The US may have no single foreign policy change to make than to be forceful in our support of Putin and what he is trying to do in Russia. He is facing terror just as we are and he trying to revolutionize the society to make it a modern and more decent one than it ever has been. Either is a tall order, and both together are practically Sisyphean.

The cost of his failure in Russia is enormous. Chaos, terror, regional breakdowns, and when it all shakes out, the guy who seizes power there will make Josef Stalin look like Little Orphan Annie.

Posted by: Bart at October 18, 2004 12:21 PM

>Interesting to note how many leaders, like
>Putin ... prefer a President assertive about US

Because the "President assertive" in question is also a "President consistent". Even if you oppose him, you know where he's coming from and where he stands (and have a good estimate of how far you can push him).

"You gotta know when to hold 'em,
Know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away,
Know when to run..."
-- Kenny Rogers, "The Gambler"

Posted by: Ken at October 18, 2004 12:30 PM