After the death of the Russian ex-KGBagent in the U.K. this week, I started thinking back to November 15, 2001, when our Idiot in Chief made his now famous (or infamous) adoration for the Kremlin's thug, err President, known by stating in high school crush fashion:
"...the more I get to know President Vladimir Putin, the more I get to see his heart and soul, and the more I know we can work together in a positive way."
A year later, around the time Putin took one of his numerous anti-democratic steps in consolidating power (I can't remember if it was taking over the main television or media company - it might have been the oil company - ) but, I remember walking in on a conversation between my mother, Uncle and Grandparents about Putin. My Uncle was going on and on about Putin and how great he was and I jumped in and said, "he's a criminal!"
More below the fold...
I went on for a few seconds about having an ex-KGB agent strong-armed himself into the Presidency (with Boris Yeltsin's help just prior to Chechnya started going too badly and the mere fact the the Idiot had said what he said "about Putin's hearts" should have been to him, as it was certainly proof enough for me, to see Putin was really bad guy. I might be mixing up the dates and specific incidences, but Putin was already proving my point.
Well, my Uncle disagreed, saying that he'll be good for business, (it must have been the oil company now that I think about it) and that I didn't know what I was talking about. Uncle is big "mogul" and knows everything, you see.
So what has happened since then that conversation?
While the Idiot (and our national media & even some of us I suspect) was enthralled with his Iraq adventure, Putin was quite busy subverting his country's fledgling Democracy and in what now seems like the blink of an eye.
He is now on the verge of creating a new and improved, more dangerous union of KGB tactics, high level corruption (in all corners of his government & big business) and the silencing of whatever speech that still remains free.
Let's start with Chechnya. I don't plan on going into Chechnya great detail except to say that Putin comparing Chechen separatists to Osama bin Laden, was pathetic and the only reason he was able to get away with that kind of justification was because of our invasion of Iraq and who we have as our own President.
I believe had it been at any other time in our nation's history, this country, even with the shmuck we have at the helm - would have stood up and said, NO!
But, if you needed a reminder of how apt at twisting reality Vlad is regarding Russia-Chechnya issues, this is how he explained away what he believed was our meeting with Chechen "Terrorists" when we were attempting to get his government to sit down and talk with the Chechen Separatists.
This is from a CNN.com article on Sept 7, 2004 entitled "Russians rally against terrorism" - written just after the massacre of at over 300 hostages at a Russian school:
Putin blamed what he called a "Cold War mentality" on the part of some U.S. officials, but likened their demands that Russia negotiate with the Chechen separatists to the United States talking to al Qaeda. (Full story)
These are not "freedom fighters," Putin said. "Would you talk with Osama bin Laden?" he asked.
"Osama bin Laden attacked the United States saying he was doing it because of polices in the Middle East," Putin said. "Do you call him a freedom fighter?"
This kind of justification in any normal era (by normal I mean where our country didn't have a pathological liar in the oval office using the same tactics as this thug) would never have been tolerated.
Other than this reference, I'm not ensuing on further discussion on Chechyna. We all know this sad story. Not that it's not relevant, it is simply not as relevant to my goal of looking how Putin is killing Democracy in Russia.
As Putin Faces Barrage in Death of Ex-Spy last week, I stared going back to find all other examples of how this menace in waiting had slowly, if not visibly reduced the Democratic dreams of the former Soviet Union. It's reminiscent of how it might be here if Bush hadn't been stop in his track during this past election cycle.
It's pretty extensive, from what I've gather together.
Can you imagine our Idiot in Chief arbitrarily "firing" you Governor or Mayor for breaking Federal Law (which in this case is code for not following the Kremlin's wishes)? This is from a July 7, 2000 article from the BBC:
The lower house of the Russian parliament, the Duma, has approved legislation enabling the president to sack city mayors who break federal laws.
It is the latest of a number of measures by President Putin aimed at strengthening Moscow's authority over the Russian regions.
Remember those old Moscow Military marches in front of the Kremlin (see Pyongyang today)?
On July 13, 2001, Putin took the drastic move of limiting how many political parties there can be. Coming from a country that in its own perverted way, limits how many political parties it can have - there is a difference. Our system was created that way from the beginning and if we wanted to change it, it couldn't be at the stroke of a signing statement. While I'm sure the Idiot would try.
This is from a BBC story entitled, Putin limits number of political parties:
Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed into law measures that will sharply limit the number of political parties and provide state financing for the remaining few.
Mr Putin said the new law would strengthen the political system, by creating a few major parties.
Critics say it will reduce pluralism and increase the Kremlin's control over parliament.
The new law is the latest step in a year-long campaign by the Kremlin to bring back power to the centre, following the dilution of authority under the former president, Boris Yeltsin.
Under the legislation, a political party needs to have at least 10,000 members, spread across the country, in order to be registered.
Private donations will be strictly limited, while a party must receive more than 3% of the vote in elections to qualify for state funding.
By 2002, Vlad seemed to have marshaled similar adoration , as false and produced as ever before, only updated for the 21st century.
This is from a Guardian article on May 10, 2002 entitled, Putin tactics echo communist era:
The May Day holiday featured the usual small crowd of ageing communists on the streets protesting over poverty, but more significantly, and for the first time in the post-communist era, the Kremlin threw open Red Square to an orchestrated demonstration of devotion to the leader.
Tens of thousands of carefully marshalled marchers turned out by the walls of the Kremlin in honour of "our president", bearing aloft pictures of Mr Putin like sacred icons.
Earlier this week, the rent-a-crowd returned to the centre of Moscow for another worship session, this time to mark the second anniversary of Mr Putin's first term as president. And then on Thursday, Mr Putin himself turned up on the Red Square rostrum to take the victory parade as thousands of young soldiers marched past to celebrate the defeat of the Nazis 57 years ago.
The Putin parades are becoming a fixture of Russian political life. The evening news has turned into a deadening recitation of the leader's activities that day.
Russia's richest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was arrested in 2003 for apparently no reason other than using his power and influence to support political activities that were contrary to Putin's.
From an article entitled, Analysis: The Yukos puzzle, from the BBC, why he was arrested was not clear - but there were some theories:
Has Mr Khodorkovsky broken the law? Maybe, but most Russian oligarchs bent the rules when they wheeled and dealed, grabbed assets, and got rich quick in the 1980s and 1990s.
So why are they picking on him?
President Vladimir Putin appeared to offer the oligarchs a deal when he became president in 2000: stay out of politics, and we will not rake over your past misdeeds.
The most widespread explanation for Mr Khodorkovsky's troubles is that he broke the terms of the deal by getting involved in politics.
This seems to have been the reason for the hounding of two other oligarchs, Vladimir Gusinsky and Boris Berezovsky, both now in exile.
Other oligarchs such as Vladimir Potanin, Mikhail Friedman and Roman Abramovich remained politically clean, concentrating on rebuilding their empires after the 1998 economic collapse, and were left alone.
According to this theory, Mr Khodorkovsky's mistake was to start openly funding political parties, with parliamentary elections due in December, and presidential elections next year.
It cannot have helped that his name was floated as a possible future president of Russia in 2008.
Bold was my emphasis.
In another article from the BBC on the same subject and entitled, Profile: Mikhail Khodorkovsky on June 16, 2004, a bit more on Mikhail Khodorkovsky is revealed:
His arrest came hot on the heels of his activities in the political arena, including the acquisition of the rights to publish the prestigious Moskovskiye Novosti newspaper, and his hiring of a leading investigative journalist highly critical of President Vladimir Putin.
Mr Khodorkovsky had also extended his political involvement by giving money to nearly all political parties - including the communists.
It seems his political activism attracted the Kremlin's ire, with Mr Putin apparently feeling threatened. Or at least that is what Mr Khodorkovsky's supporters claim.
They insist his arrest is the Kremlin's way of punishing Mr Khodorkovsky for his political activities and for his failure to toe the Kremlin line - a claim Mr Putin has angrily rejected.
Then on September 14, 2004, this article on Putin's latest steps at consolidating power (in the name of protecting Russia from terrorism) appeared on the BBC.
The article, entitled: Putin reform plans alarm press, was striking. It's not long so I just pasted the entire summary here:
President Vladimir Putin's plans to centralise power dominate today's Russian newspapers.
Izvestia's headline is "September Revolution".
It describes the proposed reforms as "the most radical of Vladimir Putin's presidency".
The idea of appointing regional governors, the paper says, means that the Kremlin leader has finally taken upon himself full responsibility for everything that happens in the country.
Gazeta warns that the reforms will lead to more bureaucracy and to the Kremlin's total control over Russia's political system.
'Effective security'
Novaya Izvestia doubts whether changes in how the Russian parliament is elected will, as Mr Putin predicts, aid the war on terror.
It contrasts the Kremlin's plans with the measures taken by US President George W Bush after 11 September 2001.
Mr Bush, it says, emphasised the need to make the US special services' intelligence and the entire system of security more effective.
It never occurred to President Bush, the paper continues, to think about whether Congress was elected the right way or not.
Comments in Komsomolskaya Pravda warn of chaos, with Kremlin-appointed regional leaders likely to feel themselves above criticism.
"In what country are we going to wake up tomorrow?" it asks.
And the opposition Nezavisimaya Gazeta describes the changes as the biggest mistake of Mr Putin's presidency.
"These reforms," it says, "will make the system of government less efficient and more corrupt."
Bold not my emphasis.
The steps in question refer to Putin's reaction and plans to tighten control of the government and consolidate his authority and power after over 300 children killed when Chechen Separatists bombed the Russian School. European editors chimed in as well (Again, not my emphasis):
The press keeps up the heat on Russian President Vladimir Putin over his plans to tighten government control in response to terrorism, although at least one Russian paper has come out in defence of the move.
From Spain:
Spain's El Pais calls Mr Putin's measures a "surprise raid", and sees his call for a stronger central state as "more an excuse than a justification".
According to the paper, the Russian president's proposal for regional leaders to be nominated by himself signals "a regression to authoritarian rule and a frontal attack on [Russia's] autonomous regions and republics which ill befits a federal state".
"The leader in the Kremlin," it adds, "has taken a dangerous authoritarian course by attacking the media, exacerbating patriotic feelings and persecuting opposition groups and financial oligarchs who stand up to him".
From Czechoslovakia:
The Czech daily Pravo warns against the dangers of sacrificing democratic values in the fight against terrorism, and says it is not just a Russian problem.
"The United States, Israel and Russia," the paper says, "have taken a road at the end of which they may find that their own freedom has been stifled along with the terrorists."
From Finland:
In Russia's next-door neighbour Finland, the Swedish-language daily Helsinki Hufvudstadsbladet describes President Putin's measures as "misguided".
"A more secure Russia will not come about if power becomes even more concentrated than it is today - quite the reverse."
"Russia would be closer to finding a solution," the paper adds, "if the gentlemen in the Kremlin focused on that rather than grabbing more power for themselves."
Again, from Russia's own:
An article in Russia's Izvestiya says the reforms are mistaken in relying solely on Russia's bureaucracy, which it believes "has in recent years shown its complete inability to act in critical situations."
In putting all his money on the one horse, the article adds, "Putin has launched a strike against himself, and exacerbated his political isolation."
And where is our esteemed leader on the subject of Russia's giant leaps backward? Absent.
From a 2005 Washington Post article entitled, Silent on Putin's Slide:
The Bush administration, after some zigs and zags on Russia, seems to have developed a fairly coherent strategy regarding Russia's slide from democracy: Ignore it. The National Security Council apparatus in the White House believes that what happens inside Russia is irrelevant to the United States; that the United States can't do much to influence domestic events in any case; and that dwelling on Putin's authoritarianism would compromise other U.S. interests in bilateral relations.
And judging by Bush's performance during Putin's most recent visit, he doesn't even feel obliged to pretend anymore. He checked off the democracy box in one sentence remarkably divorced from reality, saying that Russia "will be even a stronger partner as the reforms that President Vladimir Putin has talked about are implemented: the rule of law and the ability for people to express themselves in an open way in Russia."
Then Bush made clear that he doesn't really care whether Putin implements these reforms, which Putin has not, in fact, talked about: "And every time I visit and talk with President Putin, I -- our relationship becomes stronger, and I want to thank you for that."
You could argue that what the United States gets from that relationship is worth abandoning Russians who still dream of freedom: cooperation in securing nuclear materials, Moscow making less trouble than it might for the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, as Bush noted, "they've got products that we want, like energy."
In fact, though, Bush doesn't seem to be getting all that much out of the relationship, and the closing of political space in Russia does affect U.S. interests, particularly as Russia's foreign policy becomes more nationalistic and belligerent toward its neighbors.
From a Jan 29, 2006 Telegaph.uk.com Article entitled, Putin 'uses Soviet scare tactics' to silence critics of new Russia:
Yevgeny Ikhlov does not look like a man who is easily frightened. As a long-time peace and human rights activist, he has frequently clashed in the courtroom with Russia's secret services, military and public prosecutors.
"Putin has started his frontal attack on the last remaining segment of society not subordinate to him," warned Mr Ikhlov. "Politics is subordinate to Putin; the mass media and business are on their knees. We are the last part of society that does not get any funding from the state. There is a battle coming to a head and they have already put zelyonka on our foreheads."
By zelyonka he means a near-indelible green antiseptic - the Russian equivalent of TCP - most commonly seen on schoolchildren who have bashed their knees. To dissidents, however, it has a more sinister association - Soviet-era doctors daubed it on the foreheads of prisoners facing firing squads in order to improve the marksmen's aim.
From another article on February 1, 2006 (also at theTelegraph ) entitled, Putin sends a shiver through Europe, when Vlad followed through on his threat and turned off the main as pipeline to the Ukraine:
Russia took Europe to the brink of a winter energy crisis yesterday when it carried out a Cold War-style threat and halted gas deliveries to Ukraine, the main conduit for exports to the West.
Moscow turned off the tap at 10am after Ukraine refused to sign a new contract with the Russian state monopoly Gazprom quadrupling prices.
Critics of the Kremlin say the rise was punishment for the Orange Revolution in 2004 which brought in a westward-leaning government that promised to remove Ukraine from the Kremlin's sphere of influence.
Ukraine has upset Moscow by pushing to join the EU and Nato. However, Russia insists that the price rise merely brings Ukraine in line with the price that most of Europe pays: about $240 per 1,000 cubic metres.
President Vladimir Putin adopted almost warlike terms when he spoke on television as the hours ticked by before the ultimatum expired.
"If no clear response [from Kiev] follows, we will conclude that our proposal has been rejected," he said.
Anna Politkovskaya was an acclaimed investigative journalist who risked her life trying to bring the truth about Chechnya to the world. She was assassinated for her efforts and all roads pointed to the Kremlin, something which Alexander Litvinenko was himself working on proving before his own violent death a few weeks later.
According to her own words, she believed "President Vladimir Putin was killing democracy" in an interview broadcast after he death.
This is from an article at Moscownews.com entitled, Slain Journalist Politkovskaya Accuses Putin of Killing Democracy:
Slain journalist Anna Politkovskaya, whose killing former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko had been reportedly investigating before his death by poisoning last week, had said President Vladimir Putin was killing democracy in an interview broadcast for the first time Friday by the BBC, The Associated Press reports.
Politkovskaya, who exposed killings, torture and abuses against civilians in Chechnya, was gunned down in her Moscow apartment building Oct. 7, and told BBC television that Putin had deliberately provoked acts of terrorism, including the 2002 Dubrovka-theater siege.
“The birth of democracy was hard. But it was born, and he is killing it,” Politkovskaya told the BBC’s “This World” program in an interview recorded in April. “His years in the Kremlin have meant that the next generation will have to do a great deal, take a giant leap, to get out of the problems,” she said.
In her interview, Politkovskaya accused the Kremlin of provoking the 2004 seizure of hostages at the Beslan school. “All his problems, the theater siege, Beslan and the results come from the fact [that] he doesn’t understand that each person has rights, that he is not a cog in a machine,” Politkovskaya said. “Putin doesn’t understand that, he has own logic, it is the logic of a KGB officer in the Soviet Union — the worst type.
Reporters at Politkovskaya's paper today receive threats of their own this past November 7, 2006.
Two employees at the newspaper where journalist Anna Politkovskaya worked until her murder last month have received death threats, one in connection with the investigation of her killing, the paper said on Monday.
"On 24 Nov. 2006, two senior employees of Novaya Gazeta received death threats," the paper said in a statement on its Web site.
"In one case it was in connection with the publication of an article about problems in the North Caucasus and in another in connection with the investigation of the murder of Novaya Gazeta commentator Anna Politkovskaya."
This was the final statement from Alexander Litvinenko, the ex-KGB agenet poisoned by "the effects of polonium 210, a deadly radioactive poison used to trigger nuclear weapons" in a Novemeber 27, 2006 Telegraph.uk.com article entitled, The Kremlin's revenge? (as well as some interesting background):
"You may succeed in silencing me, but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed. You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilised value. You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilised men and women."
Mr Litvinenko died four days after The Sunday Telegraph revealed that he had been poisoned and was fighting for his life in hospital. Within hours, the story was making news around the world as it evoked memories of the death of Georgi Markov, 49, the prize-winning Bulgarian author and broadcaster.
Mr Markov was poisoned on Waterloo Bridge in 1978. He had been shot in the thigh with a tiny pellet containing the poison ricin, fired from a specially adapted umbrella, partly developed by the KGB. Three days after feeling the initial prick of pain, Mr Markov was dead.
Oleg Gordievsky, the former Russian double agent who defected to Britain during the Soviet era, shares Mr Berezovsky's belief that the Kremlin was behind the assassination. Mr Gordievsky, 68, told The Sunday Telegraph: "This murder was carried out by the FSB. The motive is that Alexander has for years been deliberately insulting Putin and the leadership of the FSB. He has been doing this very cleverly and with great sarcasm.
"Alexander was almost asking for retaliation and, sure enough, it has now taken place. The men who did this will now be back in Moscow and they will never be brought to justice."
And from the same article, a description of polonium 210:
One senior source added: "This was the perfect criminal poison. It is safe to carry around but absolutely deadly when fed to someone."
Once inside the body, the radioactive material would have wreaked horrendous damage on Mr Litvinenko's internal organs. High- energy particles, released as radiation by the metal, would have disrupted his cells, destroyed his DNA and caused the tissues of his organs to collapse.
There is also a great article in The Guardian with a lot oh history on the KGB tactics it seems was used to kill Litvinenko and which is now called the FSB.
Different name, same tactics: How the FSB inherited the KGB's legacy. It definitely worth a read. Here are some highlights:
Different name, same old tricks? The near-unanimity with which the world concluded that Russia's security services were behind the poisoning of Aleksander Litvinenko suggests that the reputation of the KGB has not been erased by renaming it the FSB. And there is plenty of historical evidence that, whatever the name, the organisation's tactics change very slowly.
The KGB and its predecessors were careful to cover their tracks, though, and always denied responsibility for crimes abroad, even when their fingerprints were clearly visible. They took 50 years to admit it was one of their agents who murdered Trotsky in 1940.
For 10 years after the fall of Communism in 1991, it seemed the organisation had finally been brought to heel, with Boris Yeltsin announcing it had been reoriented towards commercial purposes. But there were growing signs that the FSB reverted to type soon after Vladimir Putin, a former security officer himself, became president. His post-election speech to his former colleagues was widely reported to have begun with the supposedly joky line, "Congratulations, comrades. Our infiltration of power is now complete!"
So way such focus on Vladimir Putin? Someone has too. While the jackass in our Oval Office led us into a war we had no business waging, the world around us was tearing apart.
This is but one example of what's been happening while and because our emperor was losing his clothes.
All the progress Russia was making in the 1990s has been extinguished by a man who name flaunts his new alliances with China and Iran in our face.
While we have been sticking up thumbs up our asses and RE-ELECTING Madman Bush, our long term national security has been weakened is ways our mass media puppets haven't even begum to anylize with a purity and honesty necassary to get the American public motaivted to do something.
That something?
Get the NEO-CONS and RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS out of political power for good.
Get the loud-mouth FOX no-news PUNDITS, HATE-MONGERS and RIGHT-WING WANNABE CLONES now starting to make their way onto the big 3 networks off the air, out of the boardrooms of our movie studios and burn their think-tanks to the ground (of course I don't mean that literally).
We got real work to do (Iran, Syria, China, Russia, Venezuela and oh, where the fuck is Bin Laden)?!
It's not like I'm asking someone to send Anne the same white powder and poison she provoked others to send to the New York Times, Keith Olbermann or the Supreme Court Justices or anything.
{wink wink}