NY Times editorial on Russia's move on Ukraine

The New York Times has a ridiculous editorial on President Obama and the crisis involving Ukraine and Russia.  This paragraph was of course essential -- Russia bad, Obama good (for not being happy about Russia).  But as indicated in last sentence,  his unhappiness means nothing:

 President Obama, speaking at the White House, was right to warn Russia against any military move and to indicate that the United States would join the world in condemning a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. He also said that “there will be costs” for any intervention in Ukraine, though it was not clear what, if realistically anything, that might involve.

Is there anyone outside of Russia who approves of what Putin just did?  So we are all on the right side.  I feel better.

Unbelievably pathetic. It is as if there is a requirement to applaud Obama.

The New York Times has a ridiculous editorial on President Obama and the crisis involving Ukraine and Russia.  This paragraph was of course essential -- Russia bad, Obama good (for not being happy about Russia).  But as indicated in last sentence,  his unhappiness means nothing:

 President Obama, speaking at the White House, was right to warn Russia against any military move and to indicate that the United States would join the world in condemning a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. He also said that “there will be costs” for any intervention in Ukraine, though it was not clear what, if realistically anything, that might involve.

Is there anyone outside of Russia who approves of what Putin just did?  So we are all on the right side.  I feel better.

Unbelievably pathetic. It is as if there is a requirement to applaud Obama.

RECENT VIDEOS