EDITORIAL: Kasparov lets Obama have It


Kasparov lets Obama have It

At last, a leader of the Russian opposition — Garry Kasparov, writing in the Wall Street Journal — has openly declared what everyone has known for months now, that U.S. President Barack Obama is coward and a traitor to the democratic cause.

Kasparov writes:

The first meeting of the loftily named U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission’s Civil Society Working Group took place in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 27. Russian presidential first deputy Vladislav Surkov is the group’s co-chair—despite a letter of protest signed by 71 GOP members of the U.S. Congress pointing out that Mr. Surkov is “one of the masterminds behind Russia’s authoritarian course.”  The letter urged President Obama (in vain, as it turned out) to boycott the meetings until Mr. Surkov was replaced, perhaps by someone who hasn’t spent his career actively destroying the sort of civil society this working group is intended to promote.

New York Times columnist David Brooks explains that Obama’s attempt to ignore the Republican party and ram a socialist agenda down the throats of the American public in the manner of an FDR or LBJ has come to nothing:

Obama is still admired personally, but every major proposal — from the stimulus to health care — is quite unpopular. Independent voters have swung against the administration. Voters are not reacting to the particulars of each bill. They are reacting against the total activist onslaught.  A president can’t lead a social transformation without a visceral bond with the center of the electorate and without being in step with the rhythm of the times. Obama is lacking these things. As a result, the original Obama project, the third Democratic wave, is dead.

Just as Obama is out of touch with what Americans want in his domestic agenda, he has lost sight — if he ever had it — of basic American values in foreign policy.  LBJ, for all his diabolical socialist ideology, was still willing to sacrifice his presidency to an all-out struggle against the Soviet menace in Vietnam.

And last, a member of the opposition — Kasparov, always Kasparov — has made this plain:

Mr. Obama’s speech in Russia last July raised expectations that his administration would look at the Kremlin’s record of brutality at home and transgressions abroad and attempt to ally itself with the beleaguered Russian people. He said, “governments which serve their own people survive and thrive; governments which serve only their own power do not.” Instead of lines in the sand we have had words in the air, with dozens of these commissions established on the American president’s initiative, each more pathetic than the last. This one on civil society is simply insulting.

Obama has insulted the Russian opposition with his patronizing doubletalk, with an attitude that treats them as if they were foolish children easily buffaloed by his sophistication, with empty promises and dashed hopes.  In do doing, he has contributed to the demise of democracy and human rights in Russia and to the growth of a new cold war.

Kasparov points out the awesome power that the U.S. economy wields over Russia, power that Obama is letting go utterly to waste:  “Massive U.S. borrowing, and the false sense of liquidity it produces, is currently all that is supporting large swaths of the debt-ridden Russian economy by providing cheap credit to the overextended oligarchs.”

It is a modern American tragedy. The first black president has the chance to write an entirely new chapter in Russo-US relations, one that could change history. Instead, he’s part of the problem.

19 responses to “EDITORIAL: Kasparov lets Obama have It

  1. Kasparov is wasting his breath. Obama is not well and has no idea what Kasparov is talking about.

  2. Kasparov has spoken out to clarify things for the opposition everywhere people want democratic rule and control government abuse.

    I would even go further and say that the war in Afghanistan is another example of where the US is trying to finish the job for the immoral Rooskis, and is having the same result on people who just want to be left alone, in their lands they way they decide to live. Colonization and exploitation, no matter who does it is not going to go smoothly. Probably the excuse is not to let the Chinese do the same.

    The idea of Oligarchs in the US and the Ex Soviet space linking up, eliminating any opposition to the “New World Order” is something that should rankle all. Especially because it is being done by any means possible and will soon haunt us with the “tought police” under the guise of Homeland Security and disorder at home to keep us too busy to restore our rights.

    I never understood why a poverty pimp lawyer with government funds to give out, like Obama, who not having any worthwhile experience other than with subversives, should be president.

    Just being black, and not particularly bright or knowledgeable. He was foisted on the people as being some kind of a genius by the media. However in his presentations he said nothing that would make him make him stand out as a fighter for the people’s interests.

    I sympathize with the fact that blacks do not get a choice to even pick their own leaders. They get the same paid clowns that we all do.

  3. Obama’s “patronizing doubletalk,” is not limited to the Russian opposition.

    And his attitude is that he treats everyone if they were foolish children easily buffaloed by his sophistication, with empty promises and dashed hopes.

    Examples – “I want that bill on my desk in a week” – to Congress.

    “My Vice-President” – he thinks he’s running a private corporation, and “his” vice-president is part of the “corporate team.” A corporation is not a democracy, of course.

    And my personal trite favorite – the repeated use of “not now.”

    His “hope” is really “hype.”

    In short, Obama is yet another Harvard Law School dufus, who is full of himself, and the praise heaped on him by other Harvard Law School dufuses.

    But those Harvard Law School dufuses are so busy being self-important and “helping everyone,” that they help noone.

    If the Russian opposition is looking to Obama for help – well, you’d get more help from an earthquake than you would from Obama and his band of so-called “European socialists”.

    • @diabolical socialist ideology


      @so-called “European socialists”.

      Hello there.

      • Dear old garry,

        He’s still puttering along. It must be quite nice, living in D.C., writing the ocassional article about how Russia is evil for whichever Republic think tank he works for and putting on the occasional show of screaming for mercy in English when he and his goons are taken away around election time in Russia for breaking store windows, tossing rocks and other sorts of irresponsible behavior.

  4. @It is a modern American tragedy. The first black president has the chance to write an entirely new chapter in Russo-US relations, one that could change history. Instead, he’s part of the problem.

    In regards to his beleguered domestic agenda, it’s only to be expected that any attempts at reform in a country that is ruled by corporate executives wold come to naught. And how could it come to anything, when what he proposed would literally create a competitive environment for Insurance agencies, forcing them to stop killing people. It’s a big NO NO in America to put people before money. We could even hazard a guess and say that it as a key tenet of free market
    culture to always look out for the shareholders first, even if it means killing people.

    As for writing a new chapter in US-Russian relations, that is going considerably better. He has, at the very least, begun the process of rolling back the neo-globalist agenda of encircling and containing Russia that was so popular during the Bush years. That is already a breath of fresh air. Then of course, whether it was by his will or not, US agencies did not intervene covertly in the Ukrainian elections, allowing the people there to actually elect a leader they wanted. In short, he realized that the US cannot dictate to Russia when it comes to foreign policy and that its interests must be respected. However, with the missile “defense” issue again on the table, it appears that hawkish neo-conservative heads have pravailed, and this venture to will fail.

    By the way, I don’t think you get an editorial page in the WSJ unless your politics are somewhere to the right of Augusto Pinochet. You ever thought of the novel idea of bringing in differing views on a topic, or is that very concept completely foreign to LR ?

  5. It is not an American tragedy. It is the usual Russian criminal government. If business were allowed to flourish in Russia the people would have a place to work and earn money. It is as simple as that.

  6. Also Augusto Pinochet was a genuine hero in my view. He killed off left wing criminals by the score and he tried to leave a decent government behind that was free of monopolistic unions.

    • Then you should be happy to find out that Putin also considers Augusto Pinochet his role model.

      It is interesting that Pimochet, who was a dictator and killed an enormous number of people without any trial, is the role model for you, Ron, for Bogdan the Bandurist, and as I suspect, for most other russophobes. Next time you accuse Putin of restricting the freedom of speech, imprisoning an oligarch or banning a demonstration, I’ll point it out.

      • @who was a dictator and killed an enormous number of people without any trial

        If this is “enormous”, how can you call the figure of Putin’s victims? “Humongous”?

        @Next time you accuse Putin of restricting the freedom of speech, imprisoning an oligarch or banning a demonstration

        How about mass murders, mass graves, war crimes, and crimes against humanity?

        Also the crime of genocide, according to his own (Putin’s) definition.

  7. Bogdan from Australia

    BRAVO Ron!!! That is exactly how I perceive Pinochet. He was undoubtedly one of the bravest and and toughest of the so called Western leaders. If he hasn’t acted, Chile would resemble Cuba.

    Equally, if Franco stayed iddle in the thirties of the previous century and allowed STALINISTS to consolidate their power in Spain that country would be like Albania today.

    He shamed himself with his brief colaboration with Nazi Germany, but one has to bear in mind that in 1936, Hitler’s regime could be perceived as a relatively benign by comparison with Stalinist Soviet Union, whose unspeakable crimes were well known for anyone who wanted to know.

    Both Pinochet and Franco have been ferociously demonised by the European socialists for the reasons that are not that difficult to grasp…

    • Yeah. The both were so “brave” to make people “disappear” after secretly murdering them in captivity. It’s like a texbook definition of bravery!

      • Yep, Robert, you see here, our friends Ron think’s burying 40,000 people in mass graves and overthowing elected government throught brutal CIA sponsored military juntas is the definition of bravery. Let’s bear with them. They are, after all, convinced that Putin is Hitler and that unicorns fly in the sky. lol

    • Franco also actively contributed to saving thousands of Jews during the Holocaust. Every Jew who managed to cross the Pyrenees from France, or to otherwise reach the Spanish shores was allowed to remain in safety in Spain or to continue their journey to Portugal. Not many people remember this now

      • Well, another Franco trivia: Spanish volunteers at the Eastern Front were very well remembered by the civilian population. Including fraternizing with the Russian peasants and even defending them from the Germans and such.

        (To much of the Wehrmacht command’s annoyance, as for Wilhelm Keitel’s OKW it was not only idological but also racial struggle. But they couln’t do anything about it, because Spaniards were not governed by the German military law.)

  8. It wasn’t 40,000 people. It was just enough, probably less than a hundred, to keep me happy.

  9. More like up to 2,000 including the official executions and acknowledged other deaths in custody.

    But Franco “disappeared” many more. Especially during the last phases of the civil war and its immediate aftermath.


    Nikta: Putin “disappeared” thousands. And he did it in my (and yours) lifetime.

    • OK.The figure is total of almost 1,200 Chilean “disappearences”:

      Official lists put the number of victims of the military dictatorship at 3,195, of which 1,183 are listed as “disappeared”.


      Meanwhile, in much, much (many times) smaller Chechnya by 2005:

      Local human rights groups estimate that between 3,000 and 5,000 people have “disappeared” since the beginning of the conflict in 1999. Russian governmental statistics put the figure at 2,090 persons. All of these people are either civilians or otherwise unarmed when taken into custody. Russian authorities deny all responsibility for their fate or whereabouts.


      But shhh. No one tell “Arthur”.

      • Enforced disappearances in Chechnya are so widespread and systematic that they constitute crimes against humanity. Human Rights Watch urges the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to take urgent measures commensurate with the extreme gravity of the phenomenon. With between 3,000 and 5,000 “disappeared” since 1999, Russia has the inglorious distinction of being a world leader in enforced disappearances.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s