I'd like some help editing/refining my letter to my local paper

Here is the original editorial...

IN RESPONDING to Russian President Vladimir Putin's sharp criticisms of American unilateralism at a conference on security in Munich over the weekend, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was suitably unperturbed. Gates said that he, like Putin, has "a background in the spy business. And I think that old intelligence agents have a habit of talking tough." Gates then extended an offer of cooperation with Russia and, speaking as a former CIA chief to a former KGB colonel, he observed: "One Cold War was quite enough."

Given the forum, it would be hard to imagine a more tactful response to Putin's critique. But a more disinterested observer than Gates, in a less constraining setting, could have pointed out the irony of Putin denouncing the Bush administration's efforts to shape and sustain "a unipolar world." Putin described that world as one "in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within the system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within."

No doubt there were listeners in Munich -- and not merely in the Russian delegation -- who recognized as obvious the damage done to global security and US interests alike by the Bush administration's proclivity for ignoring the United Nations, solving conflicts by military means, and disdaining international treaties. Those listeners only had to consider the disastrous occupation of Iraq, the administration's hesitance to negotiate with North Korea, the deliberate delaying of a Security Council resolution to end last summer's war in Lebanon, President Bush's refusal to deal with Iran and Syria, and the administration's hostility to the Kyoto protocol and several arms-control treaties and conventions.

But even the most ardent European critic of Bush's unipolar delusion could not ignore Putin's hypocrisy. The Putin who decried the use of force in Munich is the Kremlin boss behind Russia's brutal, scorched-earth war in Chechnya. His castigation of interference in the internal affairs of other states came from a Russian leader backing secessionist movements in two provinces of Georgia and one in Moldova. His critique of unilateral bullying was delivered by the president who shut off gas supplies to Ukraine last winter and to Belarus this winter.

Then there is the irony of Putin complaining about "one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making." There could hardly be a more apt description of the power system Putin has built in Russia. His inner circle of KGB veterans controls the energy and banking conglomerates, the major media, the provincial governors, the judiciary, and the Russian legislature. If there is anybody in the modern world who understands what it means to rule a unipolar system, it is Putin.


Here's my response so far

In regards to "Putin's Hypocrisy", the auther chooses Chechnya to make a weak point. The editorial suggests that Putin is calling the kettle black because according to Putin or "Ostrich Legs" as our Statesman in Chief called him during their first meeting, the United States is pursuing an empirical approach to world politics.

Regardless of the Iraq war, and most likely the Iran war, the US has recently gone far beyond the former Soviet States in extending pressure and launching military actions throughout the world. We sent our Special Forces after Manuel Noriega, we sent a Marine rescue team to Grenada, we've sent troops into Haiti and Somalia. Those last two are admitted humanitarian missions, but while troops were going into Grenada, secret deals were being cut where the US was selling arms to Iran who were fighting our then main ally Iraq. We sold Iraq all sorts of munitions, and Donald Rumsfeld still has the receipts for the chemical and biologial munitions we sold to Saddam. Of course, we sold them under the condition that he'd never use them, wink wink, much like an Iraq War resolution politicians voted for but never meant for our President to actually use.

Is Putin hypocritical in suggesting the United States is becoming empirical? If you apply same argument about the United States doing all the things I listed above, then I'd say no.

Seems to be substantially worse than *'s.

It would appear, from all that I've read about Putin, that he is behind the murder of journalists, ex colleagues and anyone who opposes him - Chechen's, et al. I would be careful about defending someone whose record is as besmirched as Putin's appears to be.

burning bush. They have similar actions, possibly, with similar results, possibly, but with differing responses due to media concentration.

Thanks for the visual!

http://www.answers.com/topic/empirical

Empirical does not refer to empires (e.g. Roman Empire); it is sometimes used erroneously in this fashion. See Imperial as an adjective for empire.