Replies

The only thing we might grudgingly admit is that Putin defends his country, and we'd like our President to do likewise. But so did Stalin, Hitler & Mao Tse-Tung defend their countries, and nobody suggests they are admired today.

I'm curious, oh Great Conservative, how many millions has Putin killed? I mean since you compare him to an assortment of men who murdered in the millions. But you left out Pol Pot.

ML/NJ

ml/nj: "I'm curious, oh Great Conservative, how many millions has Putin killed?"

Chengdu54 : "I don’t admire Putin, but he’s not my enemy. Putin hasn’t murdered millions of people."

So, I see where you fellows went to the same school of indoctrination -- where any dictator who hasn't killed millions of people is A-OK by you guys, right?

I would point out that President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill quickly allied with Comrade Stalin (who did kill millions), when they had a common enemy to defeat, so that is not the issue here.
Rather, the issue is the article's opening sentences:

"Vladimir Putin is a powerful ideological symbol and a highly effective ideological litmus test.
He is a hero to populist conservatives around the world and anathema to progressives..."

It's one thing to say: "sure, let's partner-up with Putin in the War on Terror, if possible", but it's very different to say: "Putin is our ideological hero, whom we respect more than, oh, say, Senator McCain"!

I'm saying: let's not get carried away here.
Putin is a dangerous man, not to be trusted any more than absolutely necessary.