CNN wonders: Can Putin be trusted?

posted at 8:41 am on September 12, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The short answer — no. The longer answer is also no.  And pretty much all of the points in between are no as well, for all the reasons CNN lists in this report.  However, just the fact that we have arrived at the position where we have to ask that question means we’re not going to get much choice in it:

TNR’s Julia Ioffe offers the only realistic hope we have that Putin will deliver on what he proposes, which is … that we will have to all kiss his ring (or some other point on his person) from this point forward.  That only happens if Putin succeeds, which will make the US look even more rash and reckless in its rush to intervene militarily in Syria.  Putin has already won on that point, as Ioffe wrote this week and McClatchy notes today:

In one day, with one simply stated proposal, Russian President Vladimir Putin turned a losing position into a winning one.

The Russians had been throwing everything they had into the arguments against military intervention in Syria. They questioned the lack of concrete evidence, and the United States and its allies countered that logic alone made the case. The Russians noted their investigation into a March chemical weapons case had laid responsibility on the rebels, and the United States pushed past without so much as a glance. Putin’s people emphasized the importance of the United Nations and the Security Council, and President Barack Obama’s administration dismissed their need.

And then on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry, in what most interpreted at the time as an almost flippant response, answered a reporter’s question by saying that Syrian President Bashar Assad could avoid a military attack by handing his chemical stockpiles over to the United Nations for destruction. Hours later, the Russians said they’d made that proposal to Syria, and by Tuesday morning the Russian proposal appeared to have headed off a U.S.-led military strike.

Beyond halting the rush to punish the Syrian government for the alleged use of chemical weapons, the development cast Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, as a global peacemaker and – experts say this is not to be overlooked – embarrassed an American administration.

Marcel de Haas, a Russia expert at the Dutch Clingendael Institute, said the importance of this week’s diplomatic coup will last beyond the Syrian crisis.

“The Russians were on the sidelines,” he said. “The Kerry statement didn’t just get them back in the game, it brought them back in a position of strength. Why did Putin push so hard for matters to be determined in the United Nations Security Council? Because there alone, two decades after the collapse of his Soviet Union, was he still a superpower.”

Indeed.  Ioffe put it more efficiently in her TNR piece: Obama and Kerry got played by Putin. And now he’s the only game in town, especially after Obama’s pitch to make war and not diplomacy got overwhelmingly rejected by the American public — so overwhelmingly, in fact, that he couldn’t quite bring himself to stick with that pitch in his prime-time speech on Tuesday but hedged his bet with the Putin gambit instead.

But hey, at least we’ll be rid of Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons, right?  Probably not:

“It’s a smoke screen,” said former U.S. ambassador to Bahrain Adam Ereli of the Russian-backed proposal for international monitors to remove Syria’s chemical weapons. “Nobody knows how many weapons they have, nobody knows where they are. It all depends on the Syrians providing full, accountable transparency.”

Former State Department official Robert Joseph, who helped negotiate Libya’s agreement to give up its nuclear and chemical weapons a decade ago, also said he believes the Syrian offer is a ruse.

“I don’t think for one moment that the Syrians will give up their chemical weapons stocks. They will say they will give it up and they will play the game to undercut any support for a military strike. But they will then start to put conditions on verification and on the foreign presence in Syria,” Joseph said. “Soon, they will start in with Israel; demanding that Israel’s nuclear weapons be put on the table. All of this will lead nowhere for the United States — exactly where Damascus and Moscow want it to go.”

Congress isn’t exactly looking forward to the upcoming inspection regime, either:

Lawmakers on Wednesday raised concerns that a long, complicated effort to secure Syria’s chemical weapons could draw the U.S. into a nightmarish inspection process while Syria is engaged in a brutal civil war.

While they said avoiding U.S. military action is a positive development, some see in Syria a repeat of the drawn-out series of weapons inspections in the 12 years between the first and second Gulf Wars.

“The complexities of enforcing it are going to be massive,” said Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In Iraq, the U.S. faced a recalcitrant dictator in Saddam Hussein who the Bush administration said obstructed efforts to inspect his suspected weapons supplies. Some see a parallel with Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose government has pledged to turn over its chemical weapons.

Running guns to the rebels will complicate our role in an inspection regime, too, won’t it?  Syria isn’t going to let us into their military areas while we’re arming their enemies, no matter how many cruise missiles we threaten to shoot.  That means that our need to trust the Russians and Putin will extend all the way from Turtle Bay to the ground in Syria, a position in which our feckless foreign policy will have us mired for years.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The United States of America, through Barak 0bama and John Kerry, was owned by a soviet.

cozmo on September 12, 2013 at 8:43 AM

The real question……Do you trust Putin more than Obama?

PappyD61 on September 12, 2013 at 8:43 AM

They should’ve wondered if Obama can be trusted. Thats’ what journalists do, but not journ0lists.

Marxism is for dummies on September 12, 2013 at 8:44 AM

The propaganda CNN news is questioning if The king of propaganda can be trusted.

Philo Beddoe on September 12, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Do I trust him, hell no.

But I do respect Putin. It’s refreshing to see effective leadership in action. Even if it is from an adversary. Maybe our crack “smart-power” team will learn something… …okay, ah, I’ve stopped laughing now…

NickelAndDime on September 12, 2013 at 8:46 AM

How do you say Farce in Russian?

workingclass artist on September 12, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Prediction:

America’s underperforming minority hire will continue to fail to meet expectations. Excuses will be made by his peers (co-workers, and those that hired him) and his opponents in other countries will exploit his failures. In fact, they will be emboldened by his weakness and failures.

PappyD61 on September 12, 2013 at 8:48 AM

……….is CNN really just jealous of Putin?

PappyD61 on September 12, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Maybe this administration can make a Syria reset button.

Flange on September 12, 2013 at 8:52 AM

I can see why Putin is held in such high regard by the Russians and much of the rest of the world. Agree with him or not, he is a MAN. As opposed to the chimpanzee (the libs called Bush one and that was not racist) our moronic pseudopeople keep electing. I think we are in a race against time. Will obama destroy The United States before the next election? Will we elect the same-’ol, same-’ol in the next election? Will the dhimpcrapts get our borders open enough for us to be overwhelmed by the banana republic types? Or will we be forced into secession or revolution?

Old Country Boy on September 12, 2013 at 8:52 AM

With Obama and his administration using the IRS, DoJ and NSA against American citizens AND political opponents, it can certainly be argued that Obama and our Federal Gov’t present a much larger threat to America and Americans than Putin.

Let’s Clean up Our Own Backyard before critically observing those of others…

Karmi on September 12, 2013 at 8:53 AM

CNN wonders: Can Putin be trusted?

As an after thought. I wonder, can CNN be trusted?

Old Country Boy on September 12, 2013 at 8:53 AM

CNN wonders: Can Putin be trusted?

Can Obama?

Can anyone in DC?

Can YOU be trusted?

No.

No you can’t.

Gatsu on September 12, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Said the news station that traded journalistic integrity to interview Saddam Hussein for political propaganda purposes.

This is my shocked face.

Skywise on September 12, 2013 at 8:56 AM

CNN posts the Administration’s brain teaser? Isn’t that ‘taunting’ or ‘bullying’, or something? President thin skin might get upset at them and run sobbing to Moochele.

socalcon on September 12, 2013 at 8:56 AM

Never ask a question to which you already know the answer.

DAT60A3 on September 12, 2013 at 8:57 AM

I used to be proud of my country.

Obama has diminished us in every way possible.

Chris of Rights on September 12, 2013 at 8:57 AM

cozmo on September 12, 2013 at 8:43 AM

And, the vodka flows……

socalcon on September 12, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Would Putin do this to his own country?

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration plans to block the construction of new coal-fired power plants unless they are built with novel and expensive technology to capture greenhouse-gas
emissions, according to people familiar with a draft proposal.

The person and others briefed on the rule said such stringent limits would ban new coal plants, which generally release about twice as much carbon dioxide as the proposed limits. Even the newest, most advanced coal-fired power plants in the world would fall far short of that revised standard, they said.

The only way coal plants could comply is to capture carbon-dioxide emissions and stick them underground—a costly process that hasn’t been demonstrated at commercial scale before.

“This shows the administration discounts and does not appreciate the value of coal and how it can serve the country. You’re impairing the backbone of the power grid,” said Hal Quinn, chief executive of the National Mining Association, an industry trade group.

About 39% of electricity in the U.S. came from coal-fired plants in the first half of 2013.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323864604579069550916021262.html

PappyD61 on September 12, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Obama has diminished us in every way possible.

Chris of Rights on September 12, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Please don’t lay out so clear a challenge to JugEars.

socalcon on September 12, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Can Putin be trusted? Stupid question.

Can Obama be trusted? More salient question.

Obama, Hillary, Bill, Harry, Nancy, and so many others in our current crop of leaders are not to be trusted.

coldwarrior on September 12, 2013 at 9:00 AM

We should frack frack frack to impoverish Russia, Iran, Venezuela…

ParisParamus on September 12, 2013 at 9:02 AM

CNN wonders: Can Putin be trusted?

You know that is the kind of question that you can only respond to by staring slack jawed at the sheer idiocy of it all.

Happy Nomad on September 12, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Obama, Hillary, Bill, Harry, Nancy, and so many others in our current crop of leaders are not to be trusted.

coldwarrior on September 12, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Hey, it was just about this time exactly a year ago that Hillary and the thin-skinned rat told us all about what had transpired in Benghazi. It was a tale of YouTube videos, spontaneous protesters, Libyans defending Americans at the consulate, an injured ambassador being carried through the streets to a hospital, and a promise that justice would be swift.

It was all lies. Lies that were maintained for weeks including a full Ginsberg, a UN speech, and a $100K ad campaign apologizing for a YouTube video.

Happy Nomad on September 12, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Please… you can’t trust a Checkist.

Galt2009 on September 12, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Time to invoke the 25 Amendment and rid ourselves of our affirmative action president. Could Biden be worse?

meci on September 12, 2013 at 9:12 AM

If Putin and Assad were smart, they’d quickly get Putin before the UN to propose a schedule for UN inspection and dismantling of Syrias Chembombs and then stick to it. He’d be a hero and the U.S. would not be able to do a damned thing. The U.S. will look even more the blustering ineffectual oaf.

Obama and Kerry – the Left’s best and brightest – got us here.

ROCnPhilly on September 12, 2013 at 9:12 AM

And, for goodness sake, somebody tell Barry that Putin is no slouch.

coldwarrior on September 12, 2013 at 9:12 AM

How do you say Farce in Russian?

workingclass artist on September 12, 2013 at 8:46 AM

I believe it’s pronounced o–bomb–ah

HumpBot Salvation on September 12, 2013 at 9:14 AM

What NickelAndDime said at 0846.

Dingbat63 on September 12, 2013 at 9:14 AM

He willingly jumped into a bear trap of his own creation. In the process, he has damaged his presidency and weakened the nation’s standing in the world. It has been one of the more stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever witnessed.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/11/obama-and-syria-stumbling-toward-damascus/#ixzz2egSNB3y9

When even hard-core lefties like Klein of Time magazine are calling you incompetent, it’s pretty bad.

AZCoyote on September 12, 2013 at 9:16 AM

After how many years of trying to improve on the communist philosophy of governing and the leftists are still put to shame by the original architects. I sure wish they were trying to improve on Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

fourdeucer on September 12, 2013 at 9:16 AM

My previous post was moderated because I used EXACTLY the same term to describe obama that virtually ALL the dhimpcrapts and Hot Air trolls used to describe President Bush. Everybody better take Hot Air with a grain of salt. They ore not for free speech. By the way, HA did not notice that I did not use the term bin the same way, but in a more benign comparative form.

Old Country Boy on September 12, 2013 at 9:17 AM

The real question……Do you trust Putin more than Obama?

PappyD61 on September 12, 2013 at 8:43 AM

I don’t trust either of them as far as I could throw the both of them tied together.

Steve Eggleston on September 12, 2013 at 9:19 AM

. . . probably about as much as CNN can be trusted. Leftist governments, leftist media . . . same value systems.

rplat on September 12, 2013 at 9:19 AM

Eh, even if Pooter can’t be trusted, Dog Eater will flex his spine of steel and bring the man in line.

This is all part of the 74 dimension chess that Bark is playing, you flyover hicks couldn’t even begin to understand the strategy.

Bishop on September 12, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Actually, I trust both of them, Putin and Obama …

To do whatever they can, in their own ways, to bring our country to its knees.

TXUS on September 12, 2013 at 9:21 AM

One of Putin’s strengths is that Putin has no insatiable need to be “loved.”

Obama does.

The entire crop of current leadership here in the US shares the same affliction.

Holding hands, singing Kumbaya, if there were no guns, there’s be lots more unicorns…all of it nonsense.

All of it far far too prevalent.

It is a dangerous world out there, always has been a dangerous world.

Failure to recognize that, and rationally prepare for it, is what gets a lot of innocent people killed…year after year after year.

Want to help keep Putin in check, rational, not a major threat to the United States.

Dump our current standard of leadership.

Give Putin a Nixon.

Even a George W. Bush.

Or, far better, a Reagan.

Someone a Putin can respect, if not fear…at least respect.

Someone who can look a Putin in the eye…and give a solid resolute firm handshake…and say “let’s talk real business.”

coldwarrior on September 12, 2013 at 9:21 AM

As an after thought. I wonder, can CNN be trusted?

Old Country Boy on September 12, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Depends on the definition of “trust”. Do I trust CNN to be anti-American arse-hats? Yes. Do I trust them to tell the news in a straight manner? No.

Steve Eggleston on September 12, 2013 at 9:22 AM

I asked this last night, but want to repeat it here.

How can Putin assert that the rebels used chemical weapons, while simultaneously asking Assad to give them up? And how can Assad agree to turn over something he ostensibly doesn’t have?

We are being played. Anyone who thinks Putin is trustworthy is complicit.

byepartisan on September 12, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Eh, even if Pooter can’t be trusted, Dog Eater will flex his spine of steel and bring the man in line.

This is all part of the 74 dimension chess that Bark is playing, you flyover hicks couldn’t even begin to understand the strategy.

Bishop on September 12, 2013 at 9:21 AM

That ain’t steel in what passes for teh SCOAMT’s spine.

Oh, and I understand the stragedy perfectly.

Steve Eggleston on September 12, 2013 at 9:24 AM

No. And, neither can our president.

My take.

kingsjester on September 12, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Putin can’t be trusted. However, he is really on such a roll here that I am wondering whether Congress could get him to testify what his intelligence agency knows about Benghazi and the weapons running into Syria. He might lie but that’s not such a big deal because that’s all anyone from Obama’s administration is doing anyway.

DaveDief on September 12, 2013 at 9:27 AM

That ain’t steel in what passes for teh SCOAMT’s spine.

Steve Eggleston on September 12, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Yes, it is steel in Bam-Bam’s spine — it’s Putin’s knife.

AZCoyote on September 12, 2013 at 9:28 AM

So now we all know what Barry was referring to when he was caught off mic saying, “he’d have more leeway once he was re-elected”. What he meant to say was, “I can turn all of America’s foreign affairs over to you, once I’m re-elected”.

BettyRuth on September 12, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Putin can be trusted to do what he thinks is best for Russia and for Vladimir Putin. He is no friend to the United States, but on the other hand he’s not really our enemy either. He is ruthless and could give a rat’s ass for whirled peas.

But we could do business with him, if we had a strong, competent leader.

myiq2xu on September 12, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Nothing to worry about here what could go wrong, when we have our very own smart power BIG brain trust on the job. Complete with our own French surrender frog (see comrade Kerry) speaking the international standard language for surrender. See nothing to worry about the Marx brothers got it all covered and remember people there’s a new season of dancing with people who think their stars….Pass the popcorn please

nowhiners on September 12, 2013 at 9:33 AM

But,…but….,….just look into his eyes and you’ll see his soul!

Deafdog on September 12, 2013 at 9:34 AM

I asked this last night, but want to repeat it here.

How can Putin assert that the rebels used chemical weapons, while simultaneously asking Assad to give them up? And how can Assad agree to turn over something he ostensibly doesn’t have?

We are being played. Anyone who thinks Putin is trustworthy is complicit.

byepartisan on September 12, 2013 at 9:23 AM

We are being played…But I’m not convinced by Obama’s case that Assad used the chemical weapons or that Obama could manage his way out of a public urinal without a GPS.

“Two Europeans who were abducted and held hostage for several months in Syria claim they overheard an exchange between their captors which proves that rebels were behind the recent chemical attack.

In a number of interviews to European news outlets, the former hostages – Belgian teacher Pierre Piccinin and Italian journalist Domenico Quiric – said they overheard an English-language Skype conversation between their captors and other men which suggested it was rebel forces, not the government, that used chemical weapons on Syria’s civilian population in an August 21 attack near Damascus.

“It is a moral duty to say this. The government of Bashar al-Assad did not use sarin gas or other types of gas in the outskirts of Damascus,” Piccinin said during an interview with Belgium’s RTL radio station.

Piccinin stressed that while being held captive, he and fellow prisoner Quirico were secluded from the outside world and had no idea that chemical weapons were deployed. But the conversation which both men overheard suggested that the use of the weapons was a strategic move by the opposition, aimed at getting the West to intervene….”

http://rt.com/news/chemical-weapons-rebels-captives-632/

workingclass artist on September 12, 2013 at 9:35 AM

In one day, with one simply stated proposal, Russian President Vladimir Putin turned a losing position into a winning one.

Too much credit. Kerry opened his mouth wide, foot right in front of it, Putin just leaned forward and pushed. You could see from a distance it’d fit.
Obama was just caught then. Too smart to blab all about, he sent his smart power mouth piece: Kerry. Okay that circled around on me.
Barry needed more room for his mulim bros to roam and Assad just wouldn’t lay down. Barry got bold (listening to his own voice again-never fails) and Putin brought about a naval focus forcing B into his own navel focus. That’s what I saw.
Putin’s a tough nut I’m sure, but he just phoned this in. Barry got voted off dancing with the csars. Tripped over Kerry (both thought they were leading-happens). First episode, second season.

onomo on September 12, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Deafdog on September 12, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Can’t look a Putin or anyone else straight in the eye when you are bowing.

coldwarrior on September 12, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I asked this last night, but want to repeat it here.

How can Putin assert that the rebels used chemical weapons, while simultaneously asking Assad to give them up? And how can Assad agree to turn over something he ostensibly doesn’t have?

We are being played. Anyone who thinks Putin is trustworthy is complicit.

byepartisan on September 12, 2013 at 9:23 AM

There is a huge difference between having chemical weapons and using them on your own people.

Why people, including the likes of Neil Cavuto, cannot seem to grasp this is concerning.

I think Putin has the interests of Americans closer to his heart than Obama does.

antisense on September 12, 2013 at 9:37 AM

The US has chemical and nuclear weapons. That doesn’t mean we have used them against Americans yet.

I also love how people are like “Russia bad!” and then try to jingoize us to support the president. Opposing the president in this case is for the betterment of the country. If you disagree… become a Democrat.

antisense on September 12, 2013 at 9:40 AM

As others have noted, Whom can you trust more, Putin or obama?

How tragic that that is a legitimate question.

davidk on September 12, 2013 at 9:41 AM

I think Putin has the interests of Americans closer to his heart than Obama does.

antisense on September 12, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Seriously?

Kasparov let loose on NYT, Putin and Obama…

“Checkmate: Garry Kasparov rips apart ‘pathetic’ NYT for providing Putin a platform for ‘condescending propaganda’…”

http://twitchy.com/2013/09/11/checkmate-garry-kasparov-rips-apart-pathetic-nyt-for-providing-putin-a-platform-for-condescending-propaganda/

workingclass artist on September 12, 2013 at 9:44 AM

In one day, with one simply stated proposal, Russian President Vladimir Putin turned a losing position into a winning one.

Seriously? Russia was not losing. The Resident was about to lose the vote in the House and even the Sentate by 50(!) votes! The American people were against any action.

All of this is simply quick-thinking on the part of Russia to mock BO and show how we are run by a ship of fools!

antisense on September 12, 2013 at 9:44 AM

My apologies to Hot Air. My post has been publish after all. That jumping the gun is what happens when you become a crotchety old man.

Old Country Boy on September 12, 2013 at 9:45 AM

As others have noted, Whom can you trust more, Putin or obama?

How tragic that that is a legitimate question.

davidk on September 12, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Agreed.

And that may be the real victory here…That Putin is the reasonable statesman here and abroad.

The entire Washington DC Establishment in all three branches of government have had a collective meltdown.

workingclass artist on September 12, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Obama and Syria: Stumbling Toward Damascus by JOE KLEIN(!!!)

The President’s uneven Syria response has damaged his office and weakened the nation.

Resist We Much on September 12, 2013 at 9:48 AM

The President’s uneven Syria response has damaged his office and weakened the nation.
Resist We Much on September 12, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Yep.

workingclass artist on September 12, 2013 at 9:52 AM

All of this is simply quick-thinking on the part of Russia to mock BO and show how we are run by a ship of fools!

antisense on September 12, 2013 at 9:44 AM

“Russia’s Moskva missile cruiser, dubbed a “carrier-killer” by NATO, has passed through the Straits of Gibraltar and is now heading toward the eastern Mediterranean to assume command of the Russian naval force there…

Another two vessels, the landing ship Nikolay Filchenkov and the guard ship Smetlivy, will join the Russian naval unit later. They will be pass through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits by September 12-14 and will then head to the eastern Mediterranean.

The recent deployments are aimed at “complex monitoring” of the situation around Syria, military sources told Interfax earlier.

Russia’s standing naval force in the Mediterranean now involves landing craft carriers “Aleksandr Shabalin,” “Admiral Nevelskoy,” “Peresvet,” “Novocherkassk” and “Minsk” of Russia’s Black and Baltic Sea Fleets, as well as escort vessel “Neustrashimy,” and the anti-submarine ship “Admiral Panteleyev.”

Russian naval maneuvers in the Mediterranean come amid growing tension in the region, which sparked speculation that Russia was boosting its naval presence ahead of a possible US strike against Syria.

Previously, Russia’s defense officials cautioned against making connections between the relocation of warships and the Syrian crisis, saying the maneuvers do not depend on the situation and “will continue after it.”

http://rt.com/news/russia-moskva-cruiser-mediterranean-720/

workingclass artist on September 12, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Let me answer your question this way.

I expect Putin to be more rational and more predictable than President Obama. So if by “trust” you mean “expect him to behave in a predictable manner”, then yes. If by “trust” you mean “expect him to tell the truth or not to betray his promises”, then no. He will do what is best for himself and his country, and his machinations from that perspective will unfold with the predictability and regularity of a chess endgame.

With the Americans, I don’t trust us in either category. i don’t trust us to act rationally, I don’t trust us to act in our own best interest. I don’t trust us to keep our word either to our friends or our enemies — remember Kerry eating with the Assads? In short, there’s no telling what we’re going to do from one term to the next, apart from making lots of moralizing hypocritical noise.

pendell2 on September 12, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Would Putin do this to his own country?

PappyD61 on September 12, 2013 at 8:59 AM

No, I don’t believe Putin would purposely set out to destroy the coal industry and take out the power grid. He’s actually planning to expand Russia’s coal capacity. Obama’s regulations on coal use have already hit the utility companies hard, many have laid employees off, closed down operations, etc.

Remember in 2008 when Obama promised this:

“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them. Under my plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Sadly, that is one promise Obama has kept. When our power grid takes a hit, when people do without air conditioning during an extremely hot day, they’ll have this incompetent clown to thank for it.

GrannySunni on September 12, 2013 at 10:00 AM

I don’t trust him and am puzzled as to why President Valerie Jarrett would want to share the American presidency with him. Is President Valerie Jarrett handling domestic concerns while Co-President Putin leads on foreign policy?

Punchenko on September 12, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Russia and China will speed up their naval military upgrades…It will take a few years but they have ready cheap labor and loads of money.

“The US navy deployed an additional destroyer – its fifth – to the eastern Mediterranean at the end of August. The force could launch Tomahawk missiles at targets in Syria if Barack Obama orders an attack.

Retired admiral Vladimir Komoyedov, chairman of the defence committee of the state Duma and the former commander of the Black Sea fleet, told RBC Daily that the increased Russian presence is a demonstration of force that will nonetheless not be able to match US strength in the eastern Mediterranean.

“The fact that we’re building up our forces on the Syrian coast is the normal reaction of a government whose interests there are being interfered with,” Komoyedov said. “But unfortunately, the force we’ve assembled there is made up of pretty aged ships built 30 years ago. To compete with the United States, we need a fresh horse.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/12/russia-sends-ships-mediterranean-syria

workingclass artist on September 12, 2013 at 10:01 AM

I asked this last night, but want to repeat it here.

How can Putin assert that the rebels used chemical weapons, while simultaneously asking Assad to give them up? And how can Assad agree to turn over something he ostensibly doesn’t have?

We are being played. Anyone who thinks Putin is trustworthy is complicit.

byepartisan on September 12, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Assad has chemical weapons. Who said he didn’t?

There are questions as to who used them.

If Assad did, he can avoid being attacked by the U.S. by giving them up. Having the UN clean them up works for him.

If Assad did not use those weapons, then it means he’s lost control of them and would probably like help getting them back under control before they are used again. Having the UN clean them up works for him.

If it seems far-fetched to you that Assad’s weapons were used without his knowledge, keep this in mind: According to German intel, Assad’s generals have asked many times to use chembombs in problem areas. Assad has always refused. Some of those generals now lead the opposition forces. In fact, the largest single rebel group-the very one we are so hot to help- is one of Assad’s former generals.

So maybe Assad is the least of evils in Syria at the moment, which doesn’t matter because we have bound and gagged ourselves so tightly in that arena that we’ve decided to “pivot” and attack our economy instead.

ROCnPhilly on September 12, 2013 at 10:04 AM

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/12/russia-sends-ships-mediterranean-syria

workingclass artist on September 12, 2013 at 10:01 AM

A rational stance…and a clear call to Russia to do what needs to be done in a dangerous world.

Meanwhile, back in DC…we are cutting back our at sea forces in a huge way…in an equally dangerous world.

But, coldwarrior, we can’t afford to keep that large American Navy, what about the children?

Too few Americans have ever heard of Mahan…nor understand sea power and the state.

The Russians do.

As for the children?

Hundreds of millions sent to Hamas, the PLO/Palestinian Authority, to the Moslem Brotherhood, or spent to arm Islamist jihadis….or just handed over to “green energy” Ponzi’s, or to political cronies, or simply frittered away, or lost “somewhere” in a rounding error or a misapplication of software…

Any children deriving benefit from this routine under Obama?

coldwarrior on September 12, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Can Putin be trusted?

Even better question: CAN OBAMA BE TRUSTED?

GarandFan on September 12, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Sure you can trust Putin. And the Syrians and the Iranians. And the Mexican Cartels. You can trust anybody but those right-wing extremists who bitterly cling to their god and guns and old rags like the Constitution. Now those are the ones you wanna watch.

ghostwalker1 on September 12, 2013 at 10:44 AM

How dopey are the dopes at CNN that they even considered asking the question?

stukinIL4now on September 12, 2013 at 10:52 AM

CNN wonders: Can Putin be trusted?

No. But that doesn’t mean he can’t be trusted more than Obama.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 11:01 AM

How do you say Farce in Russian?

workingclass artist on September 12, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Don’t you just add ‘ski’ to the end? So Farce would be Farceski.

Hillary’s button should have been labeled ‘Resetski’. Russian is easy.

slickwillie2001 on September 12, 2013 at 11:06 AM

can CNN be trusted??
what’s that old saying ‘how do you know a politician is lying? their lips are moving.’

Remember listing to Paul Harvey a long time ago, he made the comment “wasn’t it funny Russia and the US passing each other going in the opposite directions” not word for word the best my old memory can do

RonK on September 12, 2013 at 11:08 AM

As others have noted, Whom can you trust more, Putin or obama?

How tragic that that is a legitimate question.

davidk on September 12, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Agreed.

And that may be the real victory here…That Putin is the reasonable statesman here and abroad.

The entire Washington DC Establishment in all three branches of government have had a collective meltdown.

workingclass artist on September 12, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Yep, this is where we are at with the REB.

slickwillie2001 on September 12, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Putin is trolling.
And, sadly, is being fed.

TimBuk3 on September 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Putin’s politics pwns pusses…

equanimous on September 12, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Putin achieved what the domestic and int’l media refused to do – expose obama to his real size.

Suffocate in his azz, most all media. YOU deserve no less and the world/USA are diminished because of your Utopian PC insanities. I hope you all will be destroyed.

Schadenfreude on September 12, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Laurel & Hardy

Schadenfreude on September 12, 2013 at 12:13 PM

When even hard-core lefties like Klein of Time magazine are calling you incompetent, it’s pretty bad.

AZCoyote on September 12, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Even so, the under-current of spin still operated, in the unquestioned manner of normal Leftist discourse.

AesopFan on September 12, 2013 at 12:56 PM

CNN wonders: Can Putin be trusted?

In this case, yes. If Putin’s proposal is accepted, he has everything to gain by removing Assad’s chemical weapons. He gets to keep his buddy in charge of Syria, and Putin elevates his status on the world stage, while at the same time sticking his thumb in Obama’s eye.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Putin wins a Nobel Peace Prize

HarryBackside on September 12, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Putin

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I stole that quote from someone obviously a lot smarter than me but it’s very fitting in this case.

JetBlast on September 12, 2013 at 1:37 PM

I asked this last night, but want to repeat it here.

How can Putin assert that the rebels used chemical weapons, while simultaneously asking Assad to give them up? And how can Assad agree to turn over something he ostensibly doesn’t have?

We are being played. Anyone who thinks Putin is trustworthy is complicit.

byepartisan on September 12, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Huh, quite the ‘analyst’ you are…who the heck ever said that Assad doesn’t have chem weapons, certainly not him/his regime, he just refused to declare them to the UN inspectors, as in numbers, location, number of warheads that they are mounted on, etc… if not for other reasons, you might know that Syria is not a signatory/party of the chem weapons convention, so in strictly technical terms they didn’t have to comply with he UN inspectors request…to your first (rhetorical otherwise) question, Putin is playing a very snart card here, he insists that the the rebeks used the weapons while at he same time agreeing that it’s dangerous to have chem weapons in a volatile environment that Syria is today, where multiple militants, terrorists, etc are fighting each other, and tht it’s best thatnthese chem weapons are secured. On top of it, Putin is presenting it as a good will gesture on Assad’s part, trying to to convince the world that Assad is the good guy (he’s not of course, but Putin managed to get him out of troube by simply turning to his advantage the ineptitude of our leaders) It is not by any means an admission that Assad used them. Now, here’s the sad part for you and actually for all of us: the benefit of Putin’s argument and stance on Syria – even if contrived, manipulative and hypocritical in many ways – is how based in realpolitik it is. We can’t say the same about our leaders’s. Here, our friend Valdimir penned itfor NYT, and aimed at the US public…leave he rhetoric and said hypocrisy aside, and tell me if it does not make more sense than Obladi’s confused speech the other day.

jimver on September 12, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Huh, quite the ‘analyst’ you are…

Now, here’s the sad part for you

Why the snide attitude and condescension? Have you ever read anything I’ve written here?

I’m not the NONpartisan troll.

byepartisan on September 12, 2013 at 2:01 PM

The short answer — no. The longer answer is also no.

The short answer – no. The longer answer – Hell No!

Blaise on September 12, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Putin is sitting back in his big chair pouring Dom Perignon and eating tins of beluga caviar thinking he’s king of he world now. He didnt even have to break a sweat. Actually,I think he’s disappointed it was so easy. A true warrior wants the action.

jaywemm on September 12, 2013 at 2:22 PM