Putin Reflected Churchill's Sentiments
It's interesting to contrast the sentiments in 2007 with the respect some had for democratic values and institutions.
I was struck by a comment of the NATO leadership, and thought of Churchill.
After Putin correctly chastised America for its arrogance in spreading instability, the NATO leadership asked the world to embrace a myth some Kings of England would never approach.
It is incorrect to equate America's government of 2007 to a monarchy. America in 2007, whose President defies the law, has less respect for rights than a King.
The King was wise enough to avoid a direct assault, for he knew, as the Conqueror had known, that to lay a finger upon the sanctity of customary rights would provoke disaster.
-- Churchill, The Birth of Britain, p. 216, 1956
This concern of a King in 1154 was before the Magna Charta was written in 1215.
Today, the concern is not with democracy, but the additional tyranny required to impose an unworkable idea, bringing more grief than the original tyranny.
Who can be worried that democracy and the rule of law are coming closer to somebody's border?
-- Japp de Hoop Scheffer, NATO Secretary General, Feb 2007
There is a reasonable basis to be worried with American power approaching new borders. America does not bring the legacy of a rule of law, but tyranny not seen since Hitler.
NATO leaders delude themselves when they believe that something advancing to another border is prudent. NATO is not designed to export ideas, but was crafted to defend physical space.
Arguing NATO should or should not be linked with an expanding ideology is one thing; to stand on a false ideology and export instability can hardly be called reassuring but a direct assault which English Kings knew could be fatal.
The end of the Cold War meant Russia was expected to transform into a peaceful democratic, capitalist system.
America's reaction to Putin's comments spring from the reality of the Magna Charta:
The leaders of the barons in 1215 groped into the dim light toward a fundamental principle. Government must henceforward mean something more than the arbitrary rule of any man, and custom and law must stand even above the King. [Churchill, p. 253]
This President started the confrontation at home and has exported this illegal war of aggression.
Putin Appropriately Commenting On Illegal American Confrontation
There is no basis for McCain, Lieberman, or Gates to suggest Putin was off base, or starting a confrontation. Recall it was McCain who made a disingenuous request for benchmarks to continue his denial about his reckless Congressional leadership. McCain isn't part of the solution but the problem: Illegal apologies for illegal American confrontations.
McCain is a contemptible man who brings discredit upon his name, service, and service in Vietnam, especially egregious in that he rests on his decision to remain a POW in Vietnam as his excuse in the 21st Century to remain complicit with violations of the laws of war. [ Ref ]
Putin reminds America of the founding principles in the Magna Charta which this President, McCain, and Lieberman detest: All men are below the law, regardless their ideology, objectives, or excuses.
Refusing to end what is illegal while one has the power to end this illegality as Members of Congress do, is, by definition, complicity with war crimes. Public security is measured in terms of whether our rights are respected. We have the right to expect our leadership to assent to the laws of war, not make excuses to expand illegal warfare. Congress has a job to do:
But these precautions, great as they are, are not the only ones which the plan of the convention has provided in favor of the public security. In the only instances in which the abuse of the executive authority was materially to be feared, the Chief Magistrate of the United States would, by that plan, be subjected to the control of a branch of the legislative body. [ Fed 77 ]
The world is not waiting for Congress to act. Leaders are talking and preparing. Putin is correctly sewing the seeds to do what Congress refuses, but has the requirement to do: Lawfully checking, constraining, controlling, and ending the abuse of American power.
The American government shall submit freely to the rule of law; or it shall be forced to transform into something that has no choice.
Putin and other world leaders stand ready to assist. His words alone have caused an uproar because he reminds America's leaders of a core principle supposedly being exported into Iraq: Accountability to the law, not denial about reality.
America's leaders must choose whether they will freely assent to this principle, or be compelled to assent through continued combat losses on the battlefield.
Putin is on the right side of the law and he may legally lead a world campaign to restore America to the principles upon which it was built.
America's leaders should heed Putin's words. The law stands behind the Russian leader's permissible use of deadly force to enforce the rule of law against the American government and its failed leaders.
The words of one can ignite a world to do what is right and must be done.
How do I know? For this is what I have done: Ref Ref
Putin is giving fair warning to the United States that it needs to clean up its act, cross back across the lines it should not have crossed; or Russia will lead others to use force to compel American to assent to the rule of law.
American shall have brought this military confrontation with the world upon itself for recklessly listening to the buffoons like McCain, Gates, and Lieberman who are lapdogs for Cheney's poodle.
Time for America to wake up. It's leadership's incompetence, laziness, and stupidity is impermissibly letting the US Constitution slide into disrepair, and taking the nation to a needed military confrontation -- to restore the rule of law to the District of Columbia.
Tyranny is ultimately destroyed, as it should be by the voters when they cast their ballot. America's problem is that the tyranny, despite the voter rebuke, is impermissibly expanding.
The world has been inspired by America's historical example to compel American tyranny to end. The world is willing to fight, engage in combat operations, and even suffer catastrophic losses. To do anything less would ask the world to assent to tyranny which the Founding Fathers thought detestable enough to risk their lives.
The world is no different, especially when the risk means possibly improving their lives. America's leadership and military commanders should not be surprised by what motivates the world to oppose American brutality. American leaders heeded the Founder's example: It is better to stand and fight with the prospect of improvement, than to grovel and live with the fear of crushing tyranny.
Putin has nothing to fear -- the law is his foundation. It is the American leadership -- in both parties -- that is running out of time, options, and legal maneuvering room.
Putin repeated the message the voters in November 2006 stated: Change, as painful as it might be, is on the way for America's leadership. America's leaders can either freely embrace the needed changes and reform; or that required transformation shall be imposed through law or battle.