Putin Blasts 'Dangerous' American Exceptionalism, WH Kowtows

[Teh One Who Knocks]

by Ben Shapiro - Breitbart


http://i.imgur.com/inWbkr9.jpg

On Thursday, The New York Times published an op-ed by Russian President Vladimir Putin calling on the United States not to pursue military action in Syria, and blasting American exceptionalism. The Obama administration promptly responded by desperately claiming that the Russians had shown themselves to be “fully invested in Syria’s [chemical weapons] disarmament.”

Putin’s op-ed began by calling on the American people to recognize the value of the United Nations. “Recent events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies,” Putin wrote, before invoking historic American-Russian connections during World War II. “No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.” Putin warned that involvement in Syria by the United States “could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.” He stated, “We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law…The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not.”

Next, Putin made the case that the Syrian rebels are terrorists associated with Al Qaeda. “There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations,” he wrote.

Finally, Putin ripped into the United States’ sense of self-worth: “Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan ‘you’re either with us or against us.’” He concluded with a slam on American exceptionalism:


I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is ‘what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.’ It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

On that, at least, Obama and Putin do agree, given the fact that Obama – before his current round of rah-rah speechifying -- once stated of American exceptionalism, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

Nonetheless, the op-ed was a slap in the face to the Obama administration, an open admission that Putin is trolling America’s foreign policy dundering. If that wasn’t enough, Putin made clear on Wednesday that the Russian government would do everything in its power to prop up its nuclear weapons-developing Islamist ally in Iran, with reports stating that Russia would sell Iran a new nuclear reactor, as well as anti-aircraft missiles. Meanwhile, Syria has renewed its military actions against the rebels.

So, naturally, an Obama administration source promptly informed CNN in response to Putin’s op-ed, “Putin is now fully invested in Syria’s CW (chemical weapons) disarmament.” Putin’s rhetoric on American exceptionalism, the source said, was “all irrelevant. He put this proposal forward and he’s now invested in it. That’s good. That’s the best possible reaction. He’s fully invested in Syria’s CW disarmament and that’s potentially better than a military strike – which would deter and degrade but wouldn’t get rid of all the chemical weapons. He now owns this. He has fully asserted ownership of it and he needs to deliver.”

[RBP]

The full Op Ed:

A Plea for Caution From Russia


By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

[DemonGeminiX]

Point number 1: This coming from a guy who prosecutes the press and anyone else in his country for disagreeing with his policies and point of view? Fuck Putin. He makes me sorry I took Russian as a foreign language back in college.

Point number 2: Yes, we should be very proud of our American exceptionalism as a nation, we have come a long way and have created a very good thing here, but we shouldn't take "American Exceptionalism" to mean that we're all exceptional as individuals. Exceptional people achieve exceptional things. It's the actions and results that make them exceptional. They're not handed these things, they work hard for them. There's too many people holding their hands out in this country thinking they're so damn special and the world owes them something, but they're wrong. We need to get people away from expecting mode and back into achieving mode.

[Muddy]

Who's carrying the football?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Jethro Mullen, CNN


http://i.imgur.com/5qC6n85.jpg

(CNN) -- If Vladimir Putin wanted to get Americans' attention, he seems to have done a pretty good job.

The Russian president's op-ed article arguing against military intervention in Syria, published on The New York Times' website late Wednesday, set off a flurry of reactions -- some outraged, some impressed, and some just plain bemused.

Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez said the piece made him almost want to throw up.

Putin said he had written the opinion piece "to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders."

But he appeared to have raised some peoples' hackles with the last paragraph in which he disputed the idea of American exceptionalism.

It was a reference to President Barack Obama's address Tuesday night, in which he said that while America can't be a global cop, it ought to act when in certain situations.

"That's what makes us exceptional," Obama said. "With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth."

Putin's answer to that?

"It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation," he wrote.

He concluded with the line, "We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

'Hey Putin'

That didn't go down well with everyone.

Hey Putin, next time you wanna write a letter to convince America about something, how about you skip saying we're not exceptional? #rude
— Sarah Rumpf (@rumpfshaker) September 12, 2013

"Hey Putin, next time you wanna write a letter to convince America about something, how about you skip saying we're not exceptional? #rude," tweeted Sarah Rumpf, a political consultant in Florida.

Other social media users suggested Putin's talk of equality didn't chime with his government's treatment of homosexuals.

"In his open letter Putin says 'God created us all equal' - guess he forgot about the gays & his discriminatory laws," tweeted Kristopher Wells, an assistant professor at the University of Alberta.

Earlier this year, Putin signed a law that bans the public discussion of gay rights and relationships where children might hear it. Violators can be fined and, if they are foreigners, deported.

Russia's wars

The Russian president also annoyed some people by warning against military action without U.N. Security Council approval.

"Man who launched military action in Georgia and Chechnya without UN say-so says wars without it are illegal?" tweeted the journalist John Podhoretz.

Russia blames Georgia for starting the war between the two countries in 2008 during which Russian troops occupied two breakaway territories under Georgian control, as well as large parts of Georgia.

And Moscow regards the two wars with separatists in Chechnya as internal conflicts.

Not a word on UN or Pope or Int'l law: MT @AnupKaphle "Why We Must Act": Vladimir Putin's 1999 NYT op-ed on Chechnya. http://t.co/OzZPfCfNZu
— Philip Gourevitch (@PGourevitch) September 12, 2013

Some Twitter users unearthed a previous op-ed that Putin wrote for The New York Times about the first Chechen conflict, in 1999.

Putin, then the prime minister of Russia, struck a different tone in that piece in which he sought to explain Russia's military action.

"No government can stand idly by when terrorism strikes," he wrote. "It is the solemn duty of all governments to protect their citizens from danger."

"Not a word on UN or Pope or Int'l law," Philip Gourevitch, a staff writer at The New Yorker, commented about the 1999 article. (Putin mentions the pope in his op-ed this week as being among those opposed to a U.S. strike against Syria.)

Senator's stomach turns

The overall tone of Putin's latest broadside was too much for Senator Menendez, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who said he read the article at dinner on Wednesday.

Putin made a compelling, though disingenuous, case against military strikes. Its effectiveness shows how badly Pres Obama was outmaneuvered.
— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) September 12, 2013

"I almost wanted to vomit," said Menendez. "I worry when someone who came up through the KGB tells us what is in our national interests, and what is not. It really raises the question of how serious the Russian proposal is."

But plenty of people seemed to think Putin had scored some points against President Barack Obama.

"I think it's sad to see him acting with more common sense and humanity than Obama," said Ashton Blazer.

"Putin made a compelling, though disingenuous, case against military strikes. Its effectiveness shows how badly Pres Obama was outmaneuvered," tweeted Marc Lamont Hill.

Power plays

Others saw it in less subtle terms.

"#Putin diplomatically serves it to Pres. Obama in the last paragraph. Can't believe the #nytimes ran this," wrote Mary F. Mueller.

Putin wrote his Times op-ed on an Underwood, shirtless, with hunting knife nearby.
— Chris Regan (@ChrisRRegan) September 12, 2013

The White House shrugged off the fuss around Putin's jabs at Obama, describing them as "irrelevant."

The important thing, a senior White House official said Wednesday night, is that Putin is "fully invested in Syria's (chemical weapons) disarmament."

For some people, the tensions between the two presidents have become a spectacle in their own right.

"Putin plays his next move on our very own NYTimes. This is almost getting as good as Breaking Bad," wrote Twitter user @MiketheEye.

Others said the tone of the article brought to mind some of the famous photos of Putin in macho poses.

"Putin wrote his Times op-ed on an Underwood, shirtless, with hunting knife nearby," joked Chris Regan.