You have not viewed any products recently.
Hopefully, Russians realize that our House of Representatives often passes thunderous resolutions to pander to special interests, which have no bearing on the thinking or actions of the U.S. government.
Last week, the House passed such a resolution 411-10.
As ex-Rep. Ron Paul writes, House Resolution 758 is so "full of war propaganda that it rivals the rhetoric from the chilliest era of the Cold War."
H. R. 758 is a Russophobic rant full of falsehoods and steeped in superpower hypocrisy.
Among the 43 particulars in the House indictment is this gem:
"The Russian Federation invaded the Republic of Georgia in August 2008."
Bullhockey. On Aug. 7-8, 2008, Georgia invaded South Ossetia, a tiny province that had won its independence in the 1990s. Georgian artillery killed Russian peacekeepers, and the Georgian army poured in.
Only then did the Russian army enter South Ossetia and chase the Georgians back into their own country.
The aggressor of the Russo-Georgia war was not Vladimir Putin but President Mikheil Saakashvili, brought to power in 2004 in one of those color-coded revolutions we engineered in the Bush II decade.
H.R. 758 condemns the presence of Russian troops in Abkhazia, which also broke from Georgia in the early 1990s, and in Transnistria, which broke from Moldova. But where is the evidence that the peoples of Transnistria, Abkhazia or South Ossetia want to return to Moldova or Georgia?
We seem to support every ethnic group that secedes from Russia, but no ethnic group that secedes from a successor state.
This is rank Russophobia masquerading as democratic principle.
What do the people of Crimea, Transnistria, Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Luhansk or Donetsk want? Do we really know? Do we care?
And what have the Russians done to support secessionist movements to compare with our 78-day bombing of Serbia to rip away her cradle province of Kosovo, which had been Serbian land before we were a nation?
H.R. 758 charges Russia with an "invasion" of Crimea.
But there was no air, land or sea invasion. The Russians were already there by treaty and the reannexation of Crimea, which had belonged to Russia since Catherine the Great, was effected with no loss of life.
Compare how Putin retrieved Crimea, with the way Lincoln retrieved the seceded states of the Confederacy—a four-year war in which 620,000 Americans perished.
Russia is charged with using "trade barriers to apply economic and political pressure" and interfering in Ukraine's "internal affairs."
This is almost comical.
The U.S. has imposed trade barriers and sanctions on Russia, Belarus, Iran, Cuba, Burma, Congo, Sudan, and a host of other nations.
Economic sanctions are the first recourse of the American Empire.
And agencies like the National Endowment for Democracy and its subsidiaries, our NGOs and Cold War radios, RFE and Radio Liberty, exist to interfere in the internal affairs of countries whose regimes we dislike, with the end goal of "regime change."
Was that not the State Department's Victoria Nuland, along with John McCain, prancing around Kiev, urging insurgents to overthrow the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych?
Was Nuland not caught boasting about how the U.S. had invested $5 billion in the political reorientation of Ukraine, and identifying whom we wanted as prime minister when Yanukovych was overthrown?
H.R. 578 charges Russia with backing Syria's Assad regime and providing it with weapons to use against "the Syrian people."
But Assad's principal enemies are the al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaida affiliate, and ISIS. They are not only his enemies, and Russia's enemies, but our enemies. And we ourselves have become de facto allies of Assad with our air strikes against ISIS in Syria.
And what is Russia doing for its ally in Damascus, by arming it to resist ISIS secessionists, that we are not doing for our ally in Baghdad, also under attack by the Islamic State?
Have we not supported Kurdistan in its drive for autonomy? Have U.S. leaders not talked of a Kurdistan independent of Iraq?
H.R. 758 calls the President of Russia an "authoritarian" ruler of a corrupt regime that came to power through election fraud and rules by way of repression.
Is this fair, just or wise? After all, Putin has twice the approval rating in Russia as President Obama does here, not to mention the approval rating our Congress.
Damning Russian "aggression," the House demands that Russia get out of Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria, calls on Obama to end all military cooperation with Russia, impose "visa bans, targeted asset freezes, sectoral sanctions," and send "lethal . . . defense articles" to Ukraine.
This is the sort of ultimatum that led to Pearl Harbor.
Why would a moral nation arm Ukraine to fight a longer and larger war with Russia that Kiev could not win, but that could end up costing the lives of ten of thousands more Ukrainians?
Those who produced this provocative resolution do not belong in charge of U.S. foreign policy, nor of America's nuclear arsenal.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM
Pat-The House of Representatives is mirroring the stupidity and hypocrisy of their constituents.
I think they are simply doing what they are told to do by their handlers. Constituents are the least of their concerns if prior decisions are any indication. Rove would always grin and say, "If we get the policy right, the politics will follow." Bill Bailey from Las Vegas was very astute when he said last week on this blog about Ferguson, " truth doesn't matter in our politics...." or words to that effect.
President Reagan said this about the projection of American Power Internationally.
"It is not equality in power that reduces hostility and conflict, rather it is power, dominance or submission. Peace is purchased by making yourself stronger than your adversary, or by dismantling power and submitting to one's enemies."
"Power is not only sufficient military strength, but a sound economy, a reliable energy supply and credibility. The belief by any potential enemy that you will not chose surrender as the way to maintain peace."
If we want to project liberty around the world then we must first fix our problems here at home and while fixing them work with our strengths to oppose Vladamir Putin's Russian Expansionist visions in Europe and the Middle East.
This Rant...I mean...resolution authored by Adam Kinzinger goes a long way at establishing rant style diplomacy, which has apparently replaced gun boat diplomacy in our written warfare internet age, as opposed to the level headed, disciplined, and steady strength approach established by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Kinzinger is allowing pride and ego to rule his decision making and his failure at international diplomacy and the continued use of such is going to prove damaging for years to come, especially when we have to deal in strength and discipline with our adversaries. The Russians didn't need a carrot or a stick. They needed a public rebuke that didn't incite them to want to start a war.
These articles within the resolution are threats and should have been stricken.
"Whereas the United States reaffirms its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, especially Article 5 which states that an armed attack against one or more of the treaty signatories shall be considered an attack against them all;"
"urges the President, in consultation with Congress, to conduct a review of the force posture, readiness, and responsibilities of United States Armed Forces and the forces of other members of NATO to determine if the contributions and actions of each are sufficient to meet the obligations of collective self-defense under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and to specify the measures needed to remedy any deficiencies;"
Everyone knows we have treaties with NATO nations. What was the purpose of reiterating this in this resolution? Agitation? Reiteration of this merely seeks to establish a threat posture as opposed to a diplomatic posture in writing.
Buchanan is laughably one-sided if not ignorant. South Ossetia and Abkhazia were never independent of Georgia, any more than the so-called "Donetsk People's Republic" is independent of Ukraine. Crimea was not "retrieved." Nuland and McCain did not orchestrate the Maidan. Buchanan is simply completely blind to Russia's belligerence and propaganda. The same man who argues against gun control argues that Ukraine is better off unarmed? Stunning. Russia is working hard to divide Europe and destroy NATO, and Buchanan is proving to be an excellent ally. What will he have to say when Russia moves on Estonia, or even Poland (why not?) to undo the work done by Pope St. John Paul II, whom Buchanan once lionized?
To comment on this article, please find it on the Chronicles Facebook page.