Libs hate it when you point out their hypocrisy.
Putin does not understand that it's because Bush is overtly christian that the libs hate him with such venom. They will find any PC reason to hate him except coming out and telling the truth.


Putin Takes Bush's Side Against Democrats on Iraq

Thu Jun 10, 8:41 PM ET Add Politics to My Yahoo!



SEA ISLAND, Ga (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) stepped into the U.S. political campaign on Thursday, saying the Democrats had "no moral right" to criticize President Bush (news - web sites) over Iraq (news - web sites).


Reuters Photo



Latest headlines:
· Campaigns Drawn to Political Labels
AP - 19 minutes ago

· Nader Submits Signatures for Ariz. Ballot
AP - 35 minutes ago

· Survey: Bush Gets Little Credit on Jobs
AP - 36 minutes ago






The Kremlin leader, answering a reporter's question in Sea Island, Georgia, suggested that the Democrats were two-faced in criticizing Bush on Iraq since it had been the Clinton administration that authorized the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia by U.S. and NATO (news - web sites) forces.


The reporter had asked Putin to respond to U.S. press articles questioning Russia's place at the G8 feast of leading industrial countries.


Putin brushed these off, saying such articles were part of an internal U.S. political debate.


He went on: "I am deeply convinced that President Bush's political adversaries have no moral right to attack him over Iraq because they did exactly the same.


"It suffices to recall Yugoslavia. Now look at them. They don't like what President Bush is doing in Iraq."


Russia was adamantly opposed to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, as it has been to the U.S.-led military operation Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).


At the same time, Putin forged a strong friendship with Bush by offering immediate support in the global fight against terrorism. Both men go out of their way now to avoid criticizing each other publicly.

So Putin backs Bush huh? Dang! I'll bet Kerry is gonna lose sleep over that

Too bad Putin can't vote in November huh?

Kerry leads by 7:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-10-pres-poll_x.htm

I think kerry has more to worry about than Putin. He is in a statisitcal dead heat with a guy that is fighting a war tha the avg. person does not understand with the popular press bashing him at every turn , an economy trying to recover from a downturn complicated by terrorist attacks and the Islamic world manipulating oil prices to effect the economy and the elections. A democratic party ralling behind a candidate that maintains he is viable only because "he sucks less than the other guy" Kerry could not beat his way out of a wet paper bag on his own.

REAGAN-LIKE LANDSLIDE EYED

By DEBORAH ORIN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- June 10, 2004 -- NOW is a good time to look back at the landslide win that sent Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, because lots of analysts think 2004 could turn out the same way — close for a long time and then suddenly breaking wide open.

In 1980, the break came just days before the vote, when Democrat Jimmy Carter finally agreed to debate. Reagan came off as sunny instead of scary and when he admonished Carter with a smile, "There you go again," it was all over.

Like President Bush, Carter faced voters nervous over both the economy and foreign policy and wondering whether it's time for a change — in Carter's case, skyrocketing inflation at home plus the endless Iran hostage crisis.

But there's a big difference, since Carter kept getting bad news on both fronts, while Bush is starting to get good news on both the economy, with a surge in new jobs, and Iraq, with international support for the June 30 transfer of power.

Asked how John Kerry will deal with the fact that Bush now has broad international support on Iraq, U.S. casualties are down and the new government seems pro-American and grateful, a Kerry adviser tried to claim credit — for Kerry.

"This is all because Bush is finally adopting John Kerry's strategy of reaching out to the international community," insisted this adviser. With a straight face.

All of this could explain why the Iowa political futures market — an intriguing online measure that lets anyone buy "stock" in a candidate and has a solid record in predicting elections — is bullish on Bush.

The Iowa market (www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem) has predicted a Bush victory ever since Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination last winter — yesterday it was predicting a Bush win with 51.9 percent of the vote to Kerry's 47.4.

"tha the avg. person does not understand "

TK, isn't calling yourself average a little boastful?

You are sure setting yourself up for a big let down in November.

Stlhd,

Nope! 4 more years of Bush deal with it!

Great, we start taking foreign policy advice from Russia now? Why, because they are such masters at it?

Ahem....

Refresh my memory.....what kind of student was Dubya again? Average....

I think I've got it now.....our own President doesn't understand his own war.

Good point, Elvis.

When I need Vladimir Putin to keep me in touch with reality, I'll go find a bridge to jump off.


Most definitely a swing and a miss.

Typical. So when a foreign leader has something critical to say about the Dems, it's dismissed and laughed off. But if a foreign leader says something critical about Bush, the Dems cheer and say we should take notice.... So does 'world opinion' matter? Only if it is in synch with your ideas?

Notice how you all missed the point. You supported Clinton in the same action that you castigate Bush. Who cares who points out the hypocrisy it is still hypocrisy.

There's that four letter word called NATO. See, another four letter word named Bush didn't feel the need to develop a consensus with NATO or the UN. Big difference.

Hello pot.........meet the kettle.

Apparently it doesn't matter to Bush does it?

Dan,

You really need to pick a side for the sake of the argument

Are you kidding? And miss the fun of messing with both sides?

Am I the only one around who thinks we're getting a stooge on both sides to pick from?

I'd take Clinton OR Reagan in a heartbeat before either of these clowns.

I'd take Clinton over Reagan. Times weren't too good under Reagan....I know, I know...it was Carters fault.

Things weren't too good under Reagan?....

Your true colors are shining through today. I just got done watching Reagan's funeral service....Oh I know it had that God stuff in it so you probably didn't want to watch it for fear of melting or something....Anyway it was one of the most inspirational things I have seen. Right now I am watching a huge procession rolling towards the Reagan library for the final burial. The hundreds of thousands of people paying respect to Reagan from all across the USA and the world would disagree with you as I do.

Things were far better under Reagan than under Carter or Clinton. The optimism of Reagan brought pride back to Americans. We could use much less of your pessimistic vitriol and alot more of the kind of joy and hope and pride that Reagan brought to us. I am so glad and proud to be on the side with those who respected and admired Reagan as a man and as a great leader and appreciated what he did for the world. I am so thankful I am not on your pessimistic side of the world with that big black cloud of doom over your head.

Don't know what to say GP. I speak my mind and no, life wasn't dandy under Reagan...rest his sole. He was a likeable guy though. I voted for him the first time, regretted doing so and voted against him the second time.
RR is in a better place now and free of his bonds.