STOP TRAVESTY TRIAL OF PUSSY RIOT IN RUSSIA!

Three young ladies from Pussy Riot are on trial today in Moscow for "desecrating" the cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church.  What did they do?  They sang a ribald song by the high altar mocking President Vladimir Putin.  And for that, they could be in jail a very long time.

This legal action is a travesty and a blot against justice.

Where is the concept of free speech in Russia today?  It appears not to exist.  Say something in church against the ruling ecclesiastical or political authorities and you could wind up like members of the Pussy Riot facing a sentence of seven years.

GOOD NEWS: U.S. AGREES TO DIRECT TALKS WITH IRAN

At last we get some intelligent and sane approach to foreign policy. High-level representatives of the U.S. are to meet with their Iranian counterparts face-to-face. After eight years of a dangerous rejection by George Bush of talks with the Iranians, they are finally about to happen.

David E. Sanger and Mark Landler report in today's The New York Times:

"The Obama administration said Friday that the United States would accept Iran’s offer to meet, fulfilling President Obama’s pledge to hold unconditional talks despite the Iranian government’s insistence that it would not negotiate over the future of its nuclear program.

"The decision to engage directly with Iran would put a senior representative of the Obama administration at the bargaining table, along with emissaries from five other nations, for the first time since Mr. Obama took office."

Talks with the Iranians are far superior to the direction that Bush and Dick Cheney wanted to go: all-out war with Iran, bombing Iranian installations, perhaps even invading and occupying Teheran with hopes of downing the Islamic government.

And American involvement with Iranian leaders around a discussion table do a lot towards stopping Israel and the Netanyahu government from taking unilateral military action against Iran.

Up till now, it has been Russia led by Putin/Medvedev which has cautioned against military action. Witness the rumored secret trip of Netanyahu to Moscow this past Monday, reportedly to demand action against supplying Iran with defensive missile systems. Putin came out and warned against any attack against Iran.

Juan Cole in his Informed Comment has an interesting observation:

"Meanwhile, Russian PM Vladimir Putin warned against any attack on Iran, which he called "unacceptable" and said it would produce an explosion of terrorism. (Note: Russia is very close to Iran in the Caucasus). He even went so far as to reject any tightening of sanctions on Iran. These are the strongest words I've seen from Russia on the issue of an Israeli or American attack on Iran. I take it Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu's recent secret visit to Moscow went badly."

Some of the stalwart Bushian supporters are sure to rant and weep at U.S. talks with Iran. They will say that President Ahmadinejad is a dictator and ruthless in putting down peaceful Iranian protesters. And that the Supreme Leader Khamenei has no concept of individual liberty in a modern state like Iran. This is all no doubt true.

Nevertheless, the U.S. government must deal with whoever is in charge, and that means Ahmadi and Khamenei. The alternative - war - would result in at least 500 years of animosity and hostilities between Iran and the West, resulting in tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost. This must not be allowed to happen.

PUTIN SAYS EUROPEANS REALIZE GEORGIA STARTED SHELLING OF SOUTH OSSETIA LAST YEAR

Ellen Barry writes for The New York Times web page today that Vladimir Putin believes that European governments commonly blame Georgia for starting the war a year ago but are afraid to speak their convictions. I agree with Putin. It is clear to all who have followed the contretemps closely that Georgia and its president Mikheil Saakashvili deliberately started the shelling of South Ossetia and its capital Tskhinvali.

Writes Ellen Barry:

"Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said Wednesday that Europeans increasingly hold Georgia responsible for last year’s war in the Caucasus but are afraid to admit it publicly because of pressure from the United States."

What surprises me is that Putin thinks that Europeans are under pressure from Obama and the U.S. not to publicly blame Georgia. I know that V.P. Joe Biden said some sill things last month during his visit with Saaakashvili, how the U.S. stands behind him and Georgia, but I just attributed Biden's comments to his habit of making mindless remarks that have not been cleared. Putin must believe that Bidens remarks were cleared by Obama beforehand.

Reports Barry:

"The war’s anniversary has revived mutual recriminations between Russia and Georgia over who was responsible for its outbreak, with both countries saying they acted defensively when they sent troops into South Ossetia. Both are waiting for a European Union fact-finding mission’s report on the war’s origins. The release was delayed from July until late September after new material became available.

"Mr. Putin said world opinion has turned in Russia’s favor since last year, and that “practically all of international society” has acknowledged that Georgia was the aggressor in the conflict."

The BBC did a multi-segment report several months ago on the Georgia/Russia war and found that there was no evidence of Russia's taking the first shot, even though there has been plenty of evidence that it was Georgia that started shelling South Ossetia. "Shelling South Ossetia" must be understood as indiscriminate firing of shells into the civilian areas of the capital. Again here, we have a sterling example of what is commonly recognized as a war crime, and evidence all points to the culpability of Saakashvili and Georgia.

Ellen Barry writes:

"Mr. Putin said world opinion has turned in Russia’s favor since last year, and that “practically all of international society” has acknowledged that Georgia was the aggressor in the conflict.

"“In the West, what is called the West, we have plenty of supporters,” he said, in remarks to Abkhaz journalists. “They are all under a certain pressure from NATO’s leading country, the United States. And, to put it bluntly, many of them don’t publicly state their positions, because they would then diverge from the U.S. position.”

"Mr. Putin said that American leaders, in the aftermath of the cold war, “came under the impression that they could act without any rules — as they wanted, as it pleased them.” But he said that time had passed, and that European countries were becoming gradually more willing to express their support for Russia."

BIDEN INSULTS RUSSIA, INSISTS U.S. HAS NO INTENTION OF ABANDONING GEORGIA, UKRAINE IN BETTERING RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA

This is my third post in as many days on the strange sayings of VP Biden. This time, Biden talks about Russia, how its leaders are mired in the past. Of course, the Russian government reacted angrily to these assertions, and all this within 15 days of Pres. Barack Obama's cordial visit to Moscow to meet the Russian leaders including President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin.

Andrew E. Kramer writes in today's The New York Times:

"Just weeks after a summit meeting intended to show a thawing in relations between the United States and Russia, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. made blistering references to Russia’s failing economy, loss of face and a leadership that is “clinging to something in the past,” in an interview published on Saturday.

"Speaking on the heels of his trip to Georgia and Ukraine, Mr. Biden said flatly that the Obama administration would make no deals and accept no compromises with the Kremlin in exchange for better relations.

"Russia itself, he said, should find it in its own interest to repair relations."

Biden's comments make an observer wonder whose foreign policy is being followed. Is this Obama's policy and Biden is just the mouthpiece? Or is this Joe Biden going out on his own and expressing his own opinions and prejudices?

Writes Kramer:

"Calling the criticism “perplexing” in light of the diplomatic overtures initiated by the United States and described as “pressing the reset button,” the chief foreign policy adviser to President Dmitri A. Medvedev told the Interfax news agency, “The question is: who is shaping the U.S. foreign policy, the president or respectable members of his team?”

"The adviser, Sergei Prikhodko, said the atmosphere between the countries had improved since Mr. Obama’s visit early this month.

"“If some members of Obama’s team and government do not like this atmosphere, why don’t they say so?” Interfax reported him as saying. “If they disagree with the course of their president, we just need to know this.”"

Biden's comments complicate the approach that Obama took when he was in Russia. Avoid the put-downs and the insults. Instead concentrate on negotiation, discussion and diplomacy. Making Russian leaders mad appears counter-productive and destructive to the gains Obama seems to have made with Medvedev and Putin.

Kramer reports:

"Mr. Biden rejected recent Russian assertions of a restored sphere of privileged interests in the former Soviet Union, made after the war in Georgia. He said he understood that the Russians would not embrace the American stance, but added, “I do expect them to understand we don’t accept” the Russian claims.

"“It’s a very difficult thing to deal with, loss of empire,” he said at another point."

I can only imagine what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must think of Biden's comments. Why is he shooting off his mouth about relations between the U.S. and Russia given that these things are clearly part of her portfolio? And I cannot fathom how Biden's views represent the Obama foreign policy so centered on diplomacy. Someone please explain what is going on in the mind of VP Joe Biden.

NO EXTRA TERMS FOR BLOOMBERG, URIBE, PUTIN OR CHAVEZ

I am against Michael Bloomberg's quest for a third term as Mayor of New York City just as I was against Rudy Giuliani's attempt to portray himself as indispensable to the safety of New Yorkers after September 11, 2001.

For the same reason I am totally against Vladimir Putin trying to re-install himself as president of Russia. And I am against Alvaro Uribe's similar tactics to change the Colombian constitution so that he can run for a third six-year term.

I heard today on BBC Radio News that Hugo Chavez is pursuing a similar change to Venezuela's constitution. I am disappointed. Citizens of their respective countries should not allow any of these guys to make an end run around term limitations prescribed by the various national or state constitutions.

BUSH PLEDGES AMERICAN AID TO SAAKASHVILI OF 1 BILLION, EU KICKS IN ANOTHER 3 BILLION

The U.S. and the European Union have decided to pledge some 4.5 billion dollars to Georgia for aid in rebuilding the infrastructure destroyed in its foolish war with Russia this past August.

So it seems that if a former Soviet-bloc country starts a war with Russia and then gets trounced, it can rest assure that the Western World will bail it out and extend it aid. This seems a dangerous precedent and a moral hazard.

Furthermore, even though he ordered the war and the shelling of Russian civilians in South Ossetia, Georgian president Saakashvili receives praise from world leaders like Bush who have used him as a front man against Putin, Medvedev and Russia. Saakashvili has it made. Of the 4.5 billion in aid, how much do you think his cut will be?

Forget about Saakasvili's crackdown on Georgian newspapers and dissidents who wanted more freedom of the press and more democratic protections of civil rights. The world does not give a care about these things or lack of civil protections in Georgia, only that Saakashvili has provoked the great Russian bear.

One last point. How come there is no pledging of aid for the civilians in South Ossetia who were on the receiving end of Georgia's unprovoked shelling and lethal missiles?

FAILURE OF BUSH FOREIGN POLICY: VENEZUELA & BOLOVIA KICK OUT AMERICAN AMBASSADORS

Yesterday both Venezuela and Boliva kicked out the American ambassadors. At the same time Honduras refused to accept the credentials of the new U.S. ambassador. This was a horrible day for U.S. diplomacy and shows the results of the dismal approach of Bush and Condoleeza Rice towards Latin America.

Both Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia are in the process of re-doing their agreements with foreign oil and gas companies for the purpose of keeping more revenues and profits in their own countries from the sale of their indigenous natural resources. Of course many Republicans and neo-cons here in the U.S. see this as "socialism" and a dire threat to the "American way of life." But what Morales and Chavez are doing is exactly the same as what is now happening in Russia under Medvedev and Putin, only the Latinos are not using physical threat and force.

This is no reason for the U.S. under Bush to make the Venezuelans and Bolivians out to be "enemies." And certainly the U.S. should mind its own business and refrain from trying to aid opponents of Chavez and Morales in overthrowing democratically elected governments.

WHERE IS BUSH'S "DEMOCRACY" IN CONFLICT IN GEORGIA?

I get the impression that the West's condemnation of Russia for recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abhkazia has more to do with deep seated fears that almost any country in the West could be subject to independence movements by their own minorities wanting to break away. Here Russia has signaled that it will recognize such movements, at least in other countries, maybe not in its own. All the huffing and puffing of Bush, Cheney and Rice seems totally unrelated to spreading "democracy," one of Bush's favorite words.

If Bush wanted to pursue democracy, instead of telling Russia it had to recognize Georgia's "territorial sovereignty," Bush would be pressing both Putin and Saakashvili to sponsor a referendum in both Abhkazia and South Ossetia for the purpose of ascertaining the will of the people. That would be true democracy in action. But Bush and his cronies send in war ships carrying "relief" cargo to Georgia's ports, obviously intending to show Russia that Bush is not afraid to use military force.

There are still some five months left in Bush's term, so anything can happen between now and then. But don't underestimate the Bush danger. Bush could stumble into a serious shooting confrontation with Russia just as he and the other European leaders who support him stumbled into the Georgia mess by failing to understand the repercussions of Russia's concern about the West recognizing the independence of Kosovo a few months ago. Bush also bears responsibility for Georgia's initiation of the conflict by telling that hot head Saakashvili that the U.S. would back him up vis-a-vis Russia, the implication being with war planes and tanks.

BUSH POLICY TOWARDS RUSSIA HYPOCRITICAL OVER SO. OSSETIA

Why is Bush ratcheting up the tension with Putin, Medvedev and Russia over Russia's recognition of Independence for South Ossetia and Abhkazia?

Someone please tell me the difference between recognizing sovereignty for South Ossetia and recognizing sovereignty for Kosovo. In both cases, the inhabitants have an entirely different culture from the "mother country." The Kosovans are Muslim whereas Serbia is mostly slavic and Orthodox. People in South Ossetia are not Georgian and speak an entirely different language.

So how can Bush and Rice say it is illegal for Russia to recognize South Ossetia when the United States early on this year recognized the independence of Kosovo from Serbia? Rice says Russia's actions violate U.N. resolutions but she never quotes chapter and verse or gives any cites. And anyway, if recognition of South Ossetia is against international law, certainly the Kosovo recognition also has to be. Yet neither Bush nor Rice nor Cheney protested on behalf of Serbia. Why are they protesting now on behalf of Georgia and that hot head Saakashvili?

Here's what Saakashvili did to start this whole mess. On August 7th, he ordered the Georgian army, armed with the latest in American produced lethal missiles to fire upon civilians in South Ossetia's capital Tskhinvali. Instead of working through diplomacy to see if the Ossetians would consent to holding a referendum to see what they preferred in terms of sovereignty, Saakashvili decided to attack the Ossetians and kill them unless they agreed to be part of Georgia. It would be like the U.S. federal government firing missiles against the civilian population of Texas in the event of some federal-state disagreement. Civilized nations don't do this.

BARACK OBAMA NEEDS TO RE-THINK BLIND APPROVAL OF SAAKASHVILI AND CONDEMNATION OF RUSSIA

Now that Joe Biden is selected as VP candidate for the Democrats, I call upon Barack to give us a more realistic policy towards Russia, Georgia and South Ossetia. As Ellen Barry reports in today's Sunday The New York Times, the languages of the Caucasus are varied and unrelated. Why is this important? Because it shows that Georgia cannot validly claim that South Ossetia "belongs" to it culturally or linguistically.

The Ossetians apparently prefer to have nothing to do with Georgians. Their languages and their cultures and their histories are totally different.

So instead of supporting that hot head Georgian Saakashvili in his military quest to re-take South Ossetia, Barack should have a more nuanced approach. First condemn Saakashvili for starting this silly bloody conflict. Second, personally confer with Putin and Medvedev on holding a referendum for the people in South Ossetia and also in Abhkazia to decide if they want independence or if they want to associate with Georgia, and get firm commitments that both Georgia and Russia will abide by the results.

To blindly support Saakashvili and Georgia in their quest to subjugate South Ossetia and Abhkazia is simplistic and undemocratic. The peoples of those regions should have the determining voice. Don't go along with Bush and the culturally insensitive Republicans who support Saakashvili because he speaks good English and is thought to pro-American.

STOP MINDLESS CONDEMNATION OF RUSSIA IN PROTECTING CITIZENS OF SOUTH OSSETIA

I see that almost all of the U.S. foreign policy establishment including the main street media favors censuring Russia and Vladimir Putin for crossing over into Georgia and sticking around to destroy Georgia's military arsenals.

How come these Bushies don't outright condemn Georgia for starting a war against civilians in South Ossetia the night of August 7th. It was not Russia which attacked first, precipitating the conflict. It was Georgia which shot missiles and that hot head Saakashvili who decided that if the citizens of South Ossetia refused to accept Georgia's sovereignty, he would attack them with guns and tanks.

Imagine if the citizens of Texas wished to belong to Mexico instead of to the United States. At which point, George Bush orders the army and air force to bomb Dalles, Austin and other Texas centers of population. This is what Saakashvili, the darling of the Republican social circuit in D.C., has done with South Ossetia.

If Georgia and Saakashvili are such strong examples of democracy in action, why didn't they propose a referendum for the Ossetian citizens to see what they wanted. Then if they voted to belong to Russia, let them go. But don't bomb them!

Bush, Cheney and Rice are quick to condemn Russia for sending in troops and tanks to defend the Russian-leaning occupants of South Ossetia. Yet they did not condemn Israel when Israel and Olmert attacked Lebanon with cluster bombs and tanks two years ago in the July War of 2006. In fact, they opposed a cease fire for a full 30 days to allow Israel to destroy much of Lebanon's infrastructure.

So stop the wholesale mindless condemnation of Russia in this conflict.

UBER-BULLY GEORGE BUSH CALLS RUSSIA "BULLY" FOR REACTING TO ATTACK BY GEORGIA ON CIVILIANS IN SOUTH OSSETIA

Of all people to call Vladimir Putin and Russia "bullies" for entering Georgia to protect Russians in South Ossetia, George W. Bush, the super-bully, actually used those words, pompously stating that that's not the way to operate foreign policy in the 21st Century.

Does the uber-bully Bush realize what a hypocrite he is? Do Americans have any idea of how people in other countries view George Bush and the United States? As the bully par excellence. Why? Just look at Iraq and what Bush has done there. Consider his treatment of Iran. Then move to North Korea, then to Venezuela, then to Bolivia, then to Cuba.

The more Bush talks, threatens, cajoles and warns on Georgia, the more ridiculous and transparently hypocritical he becomes.

BUSH'S POLICY TOWARDS RUSSIA/GEORGIA HIGHLIGHTS AMERICAN HYPOCRISY

This whole episode with Russia and Georgia throws a bright light upon the incredibly messed up and hypocritical Bush foreign policy.

Bush warns Putin not to think of "regime change," but that is exactly what Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld did in Iraq. Bush and Cheney say Russia's "aggression" will not go unanswered, but this is the very same aspiration shared by the Islamic street about the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bush tells Russia to pull out of Georgia and South Ossetia, but says U.S. troops will stay indefinitely in Iraq.

Bush warns Putin not to overthrow a democratically elected government in Tbilisi but that's what Bush wants to do in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez and in Boliva with Evo Morales and in Ecuador with Rafael Correa.

Bush says that Russia must respect the territorial sovereignty of Georgia with regard to the enclaves and mini-states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia where the majority are Russians or want to be Russian. But just a few months ago, Bush and Cheney wholeheartedly supported the independence of Kosovo, torn from the territorial sovereignty of Serbia which regarded Kosovo as "holy ground."

So in view of all these oppositional positions on the part of Bush & Co., where is the consistency and rationality of the Bush foreign policy? The answer is, there is none. These guys are dangerous and they have five more months in office.

BUSH/CHENEY/RICE PUT U.S. IN DIRECT DANGEROUS CONFRONTATION WITH PUTIN AND RUSSIA

This whole fiasco of Bush foreign policy with regard to Russia and Georgia reemphasizes how inept and incompetent the Bush people are, and I mean Bush himself, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice.

Having encouraged Georgian president Mikheil Saskhasvili sub rosa to oppose Russia in South Ossetia, the Americans have placed themselves face to face against Vladimir Putin and his new president Medvedev.

That Russia and the U.S. are on different sides of this Georgia conflict reduces the possibility of Bush mounting an attack against Iran, but opens the very real possibility that Bush and Cheney, being shown the losers in their bankrupt policy towards Saakashvili, will lash out and get themselves and the U.S. into a much more serious military confrontation with Putin and Russia.

Bush and Cheney have less than six months left, but these guys are capable of all sorts of mayhem and mischief. The questions must be, what would they not do to rescue their tattered legacy in foreign affairs? Starting another world war is not out of the question for those guys.

PUTIN SHOULD NOT AGREE TO BUSH'S GRANDIOSE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM

The BBC reports that Bush is now in the Black Sea town of Sochi meeting with Vladimir Putin at his seaside resort dacha. Writes the BBC:

"US President George W Bush has arrived in the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi for the last in a series of talks with President Vladimir Putin.

"The two are not expected to clinch agreement on a planned US missile defence system in Europe during this weekend's talks, the White House said."

If Putin is smart, he will not agree to Bush's grandiose plans to put up a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. First of all, Bush wants the system in order to be able to shoot down an attacking Iranian missile. This is pure science fiction. Iran does not have missiles that fire into Europe, and even if it did, Iran has made no threats against any of its neighbors, not even against Israel.

Secondly, Bush's missile system could easily be turned into an offensive weapon pointed at Moscow and other Russian cities. If Putin agrees to allow Bush to install it, he has endangered the whole Russian nation against a nuclear attack from the West.

Thirdly, Putin should do the United States a favor and absolutely reject the missile defense system. It has not been proved that it will work, and it will cost multiple billions of dollars. Bush does not care how much he spends. His sole motivation is his "legacy." So that he can pretend he was a great American patriot and saved the nation from Iranian and other enemy missiles. No matter that the system is not needed. No matter that there is no Iranian threat. No matter that its cost will add to the hundreds of billions in deficit spending.

Please, Mr. Putin, do us all a favor. Don't agree with Bush and don't permit him to go ahead with this crazy, dangerous, necessary, spendthrift scheme.

DON'T LET BUSH WIN ON EXPANDING NATO TO UKRAINE & GEORGIA

George Bush wants NATO to take in Georgia and Ukraine as members. This should not be allowed. Good relations between Russia and the rest of the Western world are the reason NATO members should not follow Bush's arguments. Both Georgia and Ukraine are Slavic nations like Russia, united by a common language base as well as by their religious Orthodoxy.

Bush's attempt to enroll them in NATO is merely a political move by Bush to embarrass Russia and Vladimir Putin. Bush has this compulsion to show how much he is in charge of the world order and how more powerful he is than Putin. By taking Georgia and Ukraine away from Russia's influence and by enrolling them in NATO which was designed to militarily oppose the Soviet Union - this would be part of George Bush's legacy about which Americans would never hear the end of from Bush supporters.

SOME OF GEORGE BUSH 'S CLOSEST ALLIES ARE TYRANTS AND DICTATORS WHO DENY HUMAN RIGHTS

George Bush is quick to condemn Barack Obama for saying that he would sit down with world leaders, especially with those with whom the previous U.S. government has had unpleasant relations. Bush warned that such meetings would lend an air of credibility and legitimacy to those leaders who abused their own people and denied them basic rights.

Here's the White House transcript of Bush's words.

"What's lost by embracing a tyrant who puts his people in prison because of their political beliefs? What's lost is it will send the wrong message. It will send a discouraging message to those who wonder whether America will continue to work for the freedom of prisoners. It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity.

"I'm not suggesting there's never a time to talk, but I'm suggesting now is not the time -- not to talk with Raul Castro. He's nothing more than an extension of what his brother did, which was to ruin an island, and imprison people because of their beliefs. . . .

"Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, look at me, I'm now recognized by the President of the United States. "

But wait! Don't we have fotos of George Bush himself sitting down and hugging tyrants like Vladimir Putin, the King of Saudi Arabia who believes in 200 lashes for rape victims, Islam Karimov, the tyrannical president of Uzbekistan, and Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Take Musharraf. He dismissed the Pakistani Supreme Court, put the chief justice under house arrest, and sent the police out to beat up the peaceful Pakistani lawyers who were protesting Musharraf's disdain for the rule of law. Yet Bush considers him a friend and an ally.

So what gives with Bush's animosity to Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The answer is a hypocritical hostility towards those leaders who don't bow down before George W. Bush.

For the fotos, take a look at Think Progress here.

PUTIN WARNS U.S. AGAINST ATTACKING IRAN

Vladimir Putin might be a dictator and an authoritarian, but he is right in saying that countries like the United States should not use military force against Iran. George Bush and Dick Cheney are itching to lob some missiles at Iran before they leave office. The result of such militaristic foolishness would destroy world peace and order for at least the next 500 years. At least Putin has some common sense.



Nazila Fathi and C.J. Chivers report in today's The New York Times on Putin's speech in Teheran:



"President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia told a summit meeting of five Caspian Sea nations in Iran today that any use of military force in the region was unacceptable and in a declaration the countries agreed that none of them would allow their territories to be used as a base for launching military strikes against any of the others.


"“We should not even think of making use of force in this region,” Mr. Putin said.


"Mr. Putin’s comments and the declaration come at a time when France and the United States have refused to rule out military action to halt Iran’s nuclear energy program, which they believe masks a desire to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says its program is solely for peaceful purposes."

CONDI RICE CRITICIZES PUTIN BUT HER WORDS APPLY MORE TO GEORGE BUSH

As reported in The New York Times today by Thom Shanker and Steven Lee Myers, here is the most ridiculous and hypocritical statement from the mouth of Condoleeza Rice.

"Ms. Rice met with civic and human rights advocates at the American ambassador’s residence here and then, meeting with reporters, indirectly chided Mr. Putin for overseeing a steady erosion of the independent media, the courts and the legislative branch.

"“In any country, if you don’t have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development,” she said."

By the way, how did Condi Rice ever deserve to become Secretary of State? It is mystifying. She is way in above her head. Oh, yeah, I forgot, she is a friend of W's.

Now to her statement. Forget about Putin's power. Condi's statement rings more true when we consider the power of George W. Bush. For the first six years of Bush's presidency, there has been no "countervailing institutions." The Republicans controlled both House and Senate, and just rubber-stamped Bush's violations of the U.S. Constitution. Truly the excesses of George Bush were "problematic," as Condi says "for democratic development."

Bush has established torture as the way to interrogate prisoners, established Guantanamo to take prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq and deposit them in no man's land half way around the world, encouraged practices such as went on in Abu Ghraib, spied on citizens without obtaining warrants, initiated an unjustified and illegal war in Iraq that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, politicized the U.S. Justice Department, and on and on.

George Bush is a disaster for American democracy.

CONDI RICE COMPLAINS THAT RUSSIA AND PUTIN HAVE TOO MUCH POWER

Condi Rice is complaining that the Kremlin has too much power, according to a BBC report.

"US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has voiced concern about Russia's direction by saying too much power is concentrated within the Kremlin. Her comments, made during a visit to Moscow, will be seen as a thinly veiled criticism of President Vladimir Putin."

How about Condi taking a look at the U.S. hegemony under George W. Bush if she wants to see dictatorial absolute power! The danger to world peace and stability is not Russia and Putin but the United States and George Bush.

Look at what Bush has done to Iraq. The country is a shambles. There is no effective civil authority, there are no services, there is no infrastructure. And all because of Bush's illegal and unjustified preventive war and occupation.

So Condi, stop complaining and whining about Putin. You yourself are part of a government that works havoc throughout the world. Look to George Bush if you want to single out the number one danger to world peace and stability.