General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBoehner: Bush would have punched Putin
House Speaker John Boehner trashes President Obama's foreign policy on the campaign trail by talking up George W. Bush
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/boehner-bush-would-have-punched-putin/vi-BBbBlPd
Un fucking believable - we would be in WWIII if the republicans would have been in charge over the last few years.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Bush, who looked into Putin's eyes...and blinked. Bush didn't see any soul. He understood that Putin was the alpha male in that room and that he wasn't going to challenge him on anything. He was scared.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)we can just look at how he responded to the crisis in Georgia. Bush did not punch Pooty-poot in the nose.
Turbineguy
(37,374 posts)GW Bush getting his ass kicked.
bvf
(6,604 posts)the pretzel mystery.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Mister Nightowl
(396 posts)Cha
(297,799 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)Javaman
(62,534 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)Of course he would have cried after Putin slapped him back!
Frustratedlady
(16,254 posts)Starting early to clean up the Bush image for Jeb for 2016?
It's going to take more than two years to accomplish that.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul. He's a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country..." -Bush, 2001
Herr Vladolf wasn't exactly a man after his own heart, since Putin is actually a competent dictator rather than a mentally retarded child-emperor, but he probably reminded him of his dear chamberlain Cheney.
pampango
(24,692 posts)How Russia's president resembles the American hawks who hate him most.
Ever since Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea, American pundits have strained to understand his view of the world. Putins been called a Nazi; a tsar; a man detached from reality. But theres another, more familiar framework that explains his behavior. In his approach to foreign policy, Vladimir Putin has a lot in common with those very American hawks (or neocons in popular parlance) who revile him most.
1. Putin is obsessed with the threat of appeasement
To Kristol, McCain, and their ilk, the United States is a nation perennially bullied by adversaries who are tougher, nastier, and more resolute than we are. ... In his (Putin's) view, its Russia that has been perennially bullied by tougher and nastier countriesin particular, America and its NATO allies. They have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact, he explained in a speech announcing Russias incorporation of Crimea. They are constantly trying to sweep us into a corner. But now, finally, the era of appeasement is over. Russia found itself in a position it could not retreat from, Putin said. If you compress the spring all the way to its limit, it will snap back hard.
2. Putin is principledso long as those principles enhance national power
For Putin, an anti-Russian government in Kiev is illegitimate regardless of how it takes power. For many American hawks, the same is now true for a pro-Chávez government in Latin America or an Islamist government in the Middle East. ... In the United States, both hawks and doves like to claim that theyre promoting cherished principles like democracy and freedom. The difference is that doves are more willing to acknowledge that these principles can undermine American interests. For most hawks, by contrast, the fight for democratic ideals must serve American power.
3. Putin doesnt understand economic power
This indifference to the economic aspects of statecraft was a defining feature of the Bush administration, where treasury secretaries played a marginal foreign-policy role ... Seeing economics as separate from foreign policy issues is precisely what Clinton decried in the 1990s, and its the weakness in Putins strategy today. But its a weakness that many American hawks share. For decades now, Kristol and McCain have insisted that America relentlessly expand its global military footprint and relentlessly boost its defense budget. Ive never seen either make a serious effort to explain how this should be paid for.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/vladimir-putin-russian-neocon/284602/
Like American hawks Putin sees a strong and assertive military as a symbol of national power. "For Putin, too, overcoming appeasement requires overcoming the soft, unmanly culture that made Russia unwilling to fight. The fall of the Soviet Union, he argued last year, was a devastating blow to our nations cultural and spiritual codes that led to primitive borrowing and attempts to civilize Russia from abroad.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)That was easy.
bullwinkle428
(20,631 posts)in Congress! And he's your fearless leader!
spanone
(135,900 posts)MurrayDelph
(5,301 posts)The only way George would actually punch someone would be if he knew it to be a much, much weaker opponent,
and even then would have two cronies holding her.
11 Bravo
(23,928 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)Junior on Pootie-Poot:
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.
"I was able to get a sense of his soul."