To the editor of THE EAGLE:
Russian President Vladimir Putin has published an op-ed piece in The New York Times taking President Obama to task for threatening to disarm the Assad regime of its chemical weapons.
Putin’s op-ed piece is garbage. What really shocked me were the comments by New York Times readers, acting as if this dictator is suddenly a potential Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Is it not clear that the intention of this dictator, and supporter of the Assad regime, is to maintain the momentum of Assad’s forces in defeating the rebels? Any military intervention will likely cripple Assad’s forces. He’s playing the American public for fools, and judging by the comments of Times readers, we have apparently lost our critical thinking skills.
He writes: "No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces." Every reason to believe? How about just one reason to believe? How about the overwhelming evidence now pointing to Assad? Does his motive not become transparent at this point? He continues: "My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust." I’m sorry, are we still talking about Obama and Putin? And readers actually believe this? There is no relationship at all between the two men at this point. They have frozen each other out.
Yes, I believe in freedom of the press, but I am not naive enough to think The Times publishes every op-ed piece submitted to it. This one should have been rejected for the disingenuous garbage that it is. Putin’s editorial is simply a chess move. It appears that most Americans don’t know the game.