Putin Says U.S. Supports Terrorists

[LegalEagle 22]

Geez. Ain't that a how-dee-doo?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/07...n.us/index.html

We are supportin' "Liberators" not "Occupiers"!!! Is that the party line?

[Tigermike 3,066]

No surprise that Putin would blame the United States. It's our fault for all the problems for the entire world isn't it? By blaming the US, it deflects from his ineptitude.

[CCTAU 3,351]

No surprise that Putin would blame the United States. It's our fault for all the problems for the entire world isn't it? By blaming the US, it deflects from his ineptitude.

And oh yeah, his country lost a lot of money owed them by Sadaam when we invaded. HMMMMM. Do business with an enemy of society and that's the chance you take.....

[BamaGrad03 0]

Yeah dude...Im really not buying this. Everyone wants america to police the world. Send aid where its needed...and mediate between arguing countries. But when we dont bomb who THEY want us to...(see pakistan) they call us EVIL.

screw that guy. He can't excercise proper domestic policy in his country...thats his problem.

[LegalEagle 22]

But this is the same Putin that you trusted so much that you went to war because he thought Iraq had WMD. Geez, now he's a bad guy who can't be trusted? Go figure.

[CCTAU 3,351]

But this is the same Putin that you trusted so much that you went to war because he thought Iraq had WMD. Geez, now he's a bad guy who can't be trusted? Go figure.

That was before we knew he was dealing with Sadaam behind the UN's back. Along with sKerry supporters France and Germany.

[Wishbone 0]

Putin is EXACTLY right. The state department won't even call the chechens terrorists.

Putin could be a huge ally in the war against terror but the US has snubbed them and now we have egg on our face after this school tragedy.

[BamaGrad03 0]

But this is the same Putin that you trusted so much that you went to war because he thought Iraq had WMD. Geez, now he's a bad guy who can't be trusted? Go figure.

Okay...thats fair. Now that you know France was benefitting from keeping us out of Iraq because of their ties to sadaam...dont you think its fair to avoid slamming bush for having France's support?

[Wishbone 0]

You guys don't get it. This has nothing to do with Iraq and even less with Russian-Iraqi business deals. It has to do with a decade long war in Southern Russia. In the beginning it was a war of liberation, the chechens were trying to break away like many of the older soviet provences. However, after Saudi money and resource started backing the chechens, the chechen war turned into Muslim Holy war. Basically, the Russians are battling the same problems as us and we are snubbing them.

Remeber, that we snubbed the Russians in chechnya long before they snubbed us in Iraq. The smart thing would be to forge an alliance with the Russians.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

But this is the same Putin that you trusted so much that you went to war because he thought Iraq had WMD. Geez, now he's a bad guy who can't be trusted? Go figure.

In all seriousness, don't EVER trust Putin or anyone else high up in the Kremlin about anything. Putin is the former head of the KGB and they still run the country so this should be enough said. But trust me, based on personal experience and interface with the Russians, they are not to be trusted. The Russian people are great for the most part and very proud of their country. But put Democrat and Republicans aside and just always remember the Kremlin looks out for itself at the expense of it's own people and anyone else who may be perceived as not supporting their every wish.

[LegalEagle 22]

But this is the same Putin that you trusted so much that you went to war because he thought Iraq had WMD.  Geez, now he's a bad guy who can't be trusted?  Go figure.

In all seriousness, don't EVER trust Putin or anyone else high up in the Kremlin about anything. Putin is the former head of the KGB and they still run the country so this should be enough said. But trust me, based on personal experience and interface with the Russians, they are not to be trusted. The Russian people are great for the most part and very proud of their country. But put Democrat and Republicans aside and just always remember the Kremlin looks out for itself at the expense of it's own people and anyone else who may be perceived as not supporting their every wish.

Wow. Well stated PT. It does kinda irk me that some Repubs have argued that "even Putin thought there were WMDs." Putin could have said that out of convenience for our support in his re-election. Putin may now own Iraq's WMDs.

Anyway, well stated PT, like the independent you used to be! *grin*

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Geez. Ain't that a how-dee-doo?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/07...n.us/index.html

We are supportin' "Liberators" not "Occupiers"!!! Is that the party line?

Well, we all Dubya isn't smart enough to cook up something requiring too much thought. So, our next suspect is V.P. Cheney. Now he could be the one behind all of this crap some are told to call "liberating Iraq" and the "war on terrorism." WMD missing and Osama is still breathing, hmm. I suspect the whole thing is fabricated forcing the ignorant sheep to accept the tyrant pResident and his fascist policies.

"follow the money"

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/economy/dontblink.html

[CCTAU 3,351]

But this is the same Putin that you trusted so much that you went to war because he thought Iraq had WMD.  Geez, now he's a bad guy who can't be trusted?  Go figure.

In all seriousness, don't EVER trust Putin or anyone else high up in the Kremlin about anything. Putin is the former head of the KGB and they still run the country so this should be enough said. But trust me, based on personal experience and interface with the Russians, they are not to be trusted. The Russian people are great for the most part and very proud of their country. But put Democrat and Republicans aside and just always remember the Kremlin looks out for itself at the expense of it's own people and anyone else who may be perceived as not supporting their every wish.

Wow. Well stated PT. It does kinda irk me that some Repubs have argued that "even Putin thought there were WMDs." Putin could have said that out of convenience for our support in his re-election. Putin may now own Iraq's WMDs.

Anyway, well stated PT, like the independent you used to be! *grin*

Note: Skipping the above idiots post and moving right along with the subject at hand.

At the time that Putin gave us info on WMDs in Iraq, we were under the impression that being one of the countries that had veto power in the UN actually meant acting with a higher standard. Since then we have found that 3 of the five had dealing with Sadaam. Nuff said about that.

But as for us snubbing Russia, I feel we shouldn't care what country is being attcked by terrorists, we should throw our support against the terrorists. But we all need to remember that the state department IS NOT PART OF BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION.

The state department acts on its on. Even the head of the state department cannot fire an employeee short of treason. It is sad that they even have a voice at times. They do not change with administrations and do/say what they want. Its time house was cleaned but the courts have protected them.

[channonc 466]

But we all need to remember that the state department IS NOT PART OF BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION.

The state department acts on its on. Even the head of the state department cannot fire an employeee short of treason. It is sad that they even have a voice at times. They do not change with administrations and do/say what they want. Its time house was cleaned but the courts have protected them.

Funny CCTAU, the state department is listed under the Executive Branch and the Secretary is considered a cabinet member. I am confused as to what other administration is in charge of the State Department.

Library of Congress-- List of Executive Branch

[SouthLink02 8]

Putin is EXACTLY right. The state department won't even call the chechens terrorists.

Putin could be a huge ally in the war against terror but the US has snubbed them and now we have egg on our face after this school tragedy.

I could not agree more.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

[

Note: Skipping the above idiots post and moving right along with the subject at hand.

Who elected you as the IQ meter for the board? You better dang well realize that when LegleEagle and I agree you are dealing with with a momentous event and better stay the heck out of the way.

[CCTAU 3,351]

Note: Skipping the above idiots post and moving right along with the subject at hand.

Who elected you as the IQ meter for the board? You better dang well realize that when LegleEagle and I agree you are dealing with with a momentous event and better stay the heck out of the way.

I was referring to BF's post.

And Channon, where have you been? There has been a hoopla here lately about how the state department goes its own way. Back in Clinton's days, the sec of state tried to fire someone for being a felon and he was told that he had no right. I will try to look up the article/docu. But as far as the Bush admin having ANY control over the state dept., it aint happening. The state departments idea of acceptable actions and good diplomacy is by not rocking the boat.

Here is the article pointing out how the state department fears noone since they answer to noone.

Bush's policy goals threatened

By Joel Mowbray

    "Many people at State want to embarrass the president," explains a State Department official — a comment echoed by others at Foggy Bottom, alarmed that some of their colleagues are so brazen as to openly plot against the commander-in-chief. Some of those wishing to politically harm President Bush are now in Iraq, where the president's vision of a free Iraq is being fought by State officials on a regular basis.

    Of course, much of the rhetoric could be nothing more than boastful bravado — particularly, since such comments actually help in a building teeming with people who openly despise Mr. Bush and want him to lose in 2004 — but the State Department's actions have clearly undermined the president, and it is only a matter of time until it takes a political toll. In that vein, the White House would be wise to heed the advice of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who is renewing his calls for a "top-to-bottom transformation" of Foggy Bottom.

    Although Mr. Gingrich's latest critique — an article in Foreign Policy magazine — will no doubt be labeled a "broadside," it is a relatively modest set of concrete proposals. Chief among them is increasing language proficiency of Foreign Service Officers (FSOs), in part by offering generous bonuses — so that FSOs can better communicate with the locals in the countries where they are stationed. Two other "radical" suggestions are more comprehensive: continuing education programs and one-year sabbaticals after the sixth year and two-year hiatuses after the 14th year. The latter recommendation could yield significant results, if for no other reason than than that it would increase the exposure of FSOs to the outside world.

    Though he pared back his original emphasis in the American Enterprise Institute speech on the State Department's incompetence, the title of Mr. Gingrich's article, "The Failure of Diplomacy," implies something about the State Department that probably isn't fair. The natural conclusion one would draw from reading just the headline is that the State Department somehow does not achieve what it sets out to accomplish. The real problem, though, is that the State Department is incredibly effective at accomplishing its objectives. Look at the record.

    The State Department wanted Ba'athists to remain as a significant part of the post-Saddam transitional authority in Iraq, in large part because Foggy Bottom officials believed that those Saddam loyalists were the only ones with the requisite knowledge and skill sets to effectively manage the country. Until new civilian administrator Paul Bremer issued a sweeping de-Ba'athification order last month — banishing some 15,000 to 30,000 former high-ranking party members from any public office — the State Department was successful in installing Saddam loyalists into any number of key positions. One of the most vivid examples was the State Department reinstating as president of Baghdad University Saddam Hussein's personal physician.

    Despite Mr. Bush's inclusion of Iran in the "axis of evil," the State Department managed to initiate talks with the reigning mullahs. This was no small feat. The approved talking points for the meeting were changed from the friendly tone the State Department wanted to a much harsher one endorsed by the so-called "hawks," but having the talks at all with a government that might be on the brink of collapse was a victory in and of itself.

    Proving that they are, in fact, exceedingly skillful bureaucrats, the State Department officials managed to conceal for three weeks North Korea's March 31 admission to them that it was reprocessing plutonium — the first time Pyongyang had conceded that. Had State told the White House and the Pentagon, the talks with North Korea and China slated to start on April 23 in Beijing likely would have been canceled. But because of the State Department's "shielding" of the information, the talks went off as planned.

    Mr. Gingrich's proposed structural fixes of the State Department could have a substantial impact. But it's hard to imagine that organizational reform alone will cure State's corrosive culture. If anything, Mr. Gingrich's modest proposals do not go far enough in reforming Foggy Bottom. There are many talented and dynamic FSOs, but they are outnumbered by those who adhere to State's culture, as Mr. Gingrich puts it, "that props up dictators, coddles the corrupt, and ignores secret police forces."

    It is doubtful, for example, that a better trained and organized State Department would have done anything differently in concocting a "road map" that bears little resemblance to Mr. Bush's outstanding speech on June 24 last year. Instead of the June 24 outline of a Palestinian Authority (PA) free of the interminably corrupt Yasser Arafat, the "road map" is moving forward with Arafat still playing puppetmaster to PA Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, dooming prospects for peace from the start.

    If the White House and Congress fail to act on Mr. Gingrich's recommendations, Mr. Bush's policy goals could be jeopardized. If they fail to go even further by bringing in fresh blood and outside leadership, the president's political goals — namely re-election next year — could be jeopardized as well.

LINK

[channonc 466]

And Channon, where have you been? There has been a hoopla here lately about how the state department goes its own way. Back in Clinton's days, the sec of state tried to fire someone for being a felon and he was told that he had no right. I will try to look up the article/docu. But as far as the Bush admin having ANY control over the state dept., it aint happening. The state departments idea of acceptable actions and good diplomacy is by not rocking the boat.

But that's not what you said. You said that the State Department is not a part of Bush's administration, and you are wrong.

In fact their website states this:

As the lead US foreign affairs agency, the Department of State helps to shape a freer, more secure, and prosperous world through formulating, representing, and implementing the President's foreign policy.

The Secretary of State, the ranking member of the Cabinet and fourth in line of presidental succession, is the President's principal adviser on foreign policy and the person chiefly responsible for US representation abroad.

US Diplomacy helps prevent local conflicts from becoming wider wars that could threaten our allies, embroil American troops and create instability in key regions.

So basically, there mission is to keep war to a minimum, which at times may go against other Departments policies or goals (defense department). However, this is the goal of the department and just b/c their culture is to keep war to a minimum does not mean that they are any less part of his administration. In fact, its good that the President has people in his cabinet with different points of view.

By the way, the article you posted was purely opinion, and doesn't necessarily mean FACT.

Take off the BUSH IS ALWAYS RIGHT glasses and see facts.

State Department

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Just because the SecState is a member of the Bush Admin does NOT mean that the career Foreign Service and Selective Service employees at State are supporters of the Bush Admin - or any other administration for that matter. And truth be told, the career employees of the various executive departments carry much more weight and more power, etc., because they are there FOREVER, unlike the appointed Secretary who is there for only 4-8 years. It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to fire a selective service employee for anything - just like teachers and other protected species.

[channonc 466]

Just because the SecState is a member of the Bush Admin does NOT mean that the career Foreign Service and Selective Service employees at State are supporters of the Bush Admin - or any other administration for that matter.

I understand that, but the same is easily said for any of the Departments under the executive branch. Do you think there are people at the Pentagon that don't support the president? what about the commerce department? what about department of transportation?

I totally understood what he was implying, however, he SAID that they aren't part of the administration. And they are. Whether they voted for their boss or not, the President is still their boss, which ultimately encompasses them into the administration.

[CCTAU 3,351]

Just because the SecState is a member of the Bush Admin does NOT mean that the career Foreign Service and Selective Service employees at State are supporters of the Bush Admin - or any other administration for that matter.

I understand that, but the same is easily said for any of the Departments under the executive branch. Do you think there are people at the Pentagon that don't support the president? what about the commerce department? what about department of transportation?

I totally understood what he was implying, however, he SAID that they aren't part of the administration. And they are. Whether they voted for their boss or not, the President is still their boss, which ultimately encompasses them into the administration.

I didn't mean it in a direct way. I meant that they were not beholding to him even though they supposedly come under his direction.

At any other establishment, if you had cartoons calling your boss an a**hole, you would be fired. Don't get all high and mighty and think you've made a point. The whole gist of the post was that the state department is divisive and has the mantra of "I can't see it from my house."

[channonc 466]

Sorry CCT, if you thought I was getting "high and mighty." But I was simply responding to what you SAID.