Putin and Xi Outrank Trump in Global Confidence Poll

ROBBIE GRAMER via FOREIGN POLICY

Global opinion of U.S. President Donald Trump has sunk so low that the world now appears to have more confidence in the leadership of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of some 26,000 people across 25 countries.  

The survey showcases the sharp decline in America’s image and standing abroad since Trump took office nearly two years ago and began a series of unilateral trade wars and a campaign of harsh criticism of global institutions, including the United Nations.

When asked about their confidence in specific world leaders to “do the right thing regarding world affairs,” a median of 30 percent of respondents across the surveyed countries expressed confidence in Putin, compared to only 27 percent who had confidence in Trump.

Both Trump and Putin lagged behind Xi, who came in at 34 percent. And other prominent world leaders ranked far ahead of those three, among them French President Emmanuel Macron, who was rated favorably by a median of 46 percent of respondents, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in whom 52 percent expressed confidence.

A median of 70 percent of respondents across the 25 countries surveyed said they have no confidence in Trump. Strikingly, however, that has not translated directly into a lack of support for the United States. A median of 63 percent among all countries preferred the United States as the world leader, while only 19 percent preferred China.

The poll comes as Trump nears his two-year mark in the Oval Office, an era defined by a U.S. retreat from multilateralism abroad and dramatic chaos within, from top advisors being indicted on criminal charges to Cabinet members being sacked on Twitter. As he grows more comfortable in the role of president, Trump also appears to be doubling down on controversial stances on trade and defense that have alienated some allies, as well as leaning more heavily on foreign-policy aides who reinforce his own instincts—such as National Security Advisor John Bolton and policy advisor Stephen Miller—rather than ones who put a check on them, namely former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Trump’s performance last week at the U.N. General Assembly, an annual meeting of the world’s top leaders and diplomats, exemplified many of the results of the survey. Macron, Merkel, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, and other Western leaders panned Trump’s fiery speech before the U.N. in which he outlined his world vision, bashing multilateral institutions, a rigged global trade system, and “globalism.” At one point during the speech, when Trump bragged he accomplished more in his first two years than any other U.S. president in history, the audience of foreign diplomats erupted into laughter.

All the while, the world was watching.

According to the Pew poll, U.S. standing has taken hits across the world. But the decline is most stark in Canada and Europe, which have borne the brunt of Trump’s brash public tirades and fierce diplomatic fights including trade policies and the Iran nuclear deal. In Germany, for example, 80 percent of respondents said bilateral relations with the United States have gotten worse over the past year, and only 4 percent believed they have improved. Among the 10 European Union countries surveyed, a median of 82 percent said they have no confidence in Trump to “do the right thing regarding world affairs.”

Plummeting U.S. popularity in Europe is music to Putin’s ears, said Andrea Kendall-Taylor of the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank. She noted that some countries in Central Europe, such as the Czech Republic and Hungary, have begun cozying up to Russia as U.S. influence and stature in Europe wanes. “This is exactly what the Russians and President Putin would hope for,” she said.

One distinct outlier in the poll is Israel, where confidence in the U.S. president’s leadership has shot up from 49 percent in 2015 under then-President Barack Obama to 69 percent in 2018 under Trump. Over half of Israelis said the United States is doing more to address global challenges, even while much of the rest of the world, particularly Canada and Western Europe, believe the United States is doing less.

Since he has taken office, Trump has elicited Israeli support by moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and cutting aid to the Palestinians, among other moves.

Despite a plunge in confidence for the United States, other countries are still pushing through major foreign-policy measures with Trump. Canada and Mexico are case in point: On Monday, Trump announced the three countries reached a deal to revamp NAFTA in a breakthrough after over a year of grinding negotiations. But the deal came after Trump spent the 2016 campaign and much of his presidency criticizing both Mexico and Canada; in Canada, favorability of the U.S. president has plummeted from 83 percent under Obama in 2016 to 25 percent under Trump in 2018, and in Mexico it dropped from 49 percent to 6 percent.

The 25 countries surveyed were: Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Russia, Australia, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Israel, Tunisia, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico.

Richard Wike, the director of global attitudes research at Pew, said in a phone interview that the polling process took roughly a year and the questions were fielded to participants over the summer, from May through August.

Besides the low favorability ratings for Trump, another clear trend line emerged from the poll: As favorability of the United States under Trump dwindles, China’s power and prominence is on the rise. A median of 70 percent of the survey respondents said Beijing plays a more important role in the world than 10 years ago, while only 8 percent believed the United States does.

China’s rising power “is something that registering with average citizens around the world pretty clearly,” Wike said. “It isn’t only registering with elites and those who follow on foreign policy anymore.”

Putin echoes Trump talking point to deflect hacking allegations

Aaron Rupar/Think Progess 

Collusion can happen right out in the open.

During a forum hosted by NBC’s Megyn Kelly on Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin adopted a talking point from President Donald Trump to dismiss the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russian hackers attacked Democratic targets as part of a state-orchestrated effort to meddle in the presidential election on Trump’s behalf.

“Your girl that is 3-years-old can perpetrate such an attack,” Putin told Kelly (via a translator). “These specialists can invent anything, and then they will blame someone else… The problem is inside the American policy. The Trump team [was] more efficient during the electoral campaign.”

Putin tells @megynkelly "a 3-year-old can perpetrate such an attack" on US election hacking allegations https://t.co/u0OhmosP7H

— NBC News (@NBCNews) June 2, 2017

Putin’s comment about a child being just as capable of carrying out hacks as a “specialist” echoes what Trump himself said about cyberattacks during the first presidential debate with Hillary Clinton.In response to Clinton’s claim that “there’s no doubt now that Russia has used cyberattacks against all kinds of organizations in our country, and I am deeply concerned about this,” Trump said it actually could’ve been “someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.”

Putin’s comments on Friday weren’t the first time he and Trump shared talking points this week. During an interview with a French newspaper that took place Monday, Putin said the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusions about Russia-orchestrated cyberattacks and election meddling are a “fiction” motivated by the “desire of those who lost the U.S. elections to improve their standing by accusing Russia of interfering.”

Hours later, Trump posted this tweet:

Russian officials must be laughing at the U.S. & how a lame excuse for why the Dems lost the election has taken over the Fake News.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 30, 2017

Last month, FBI Director James Comey told Congress that Russian officials, emboldened by Trump’s election, are still actively trying to influence U.S. politics. Trump fired Comey days later despite an ongoing FBI investigation into Trump’s campaign for possible collusion with Russia.

On Thursday, Putin came closer than he ever has to admitting the Kremlin’s role in meddling in Trump’s election. While he denied direct Kremlin involvement in cyberattacks on Clinton and other Democratic targets, he told reporters that “patriotically minded” hackers might have acted on their own.

“If they are patriotically minded, they start making their contributions — which are right, from their point of view — to the fight against those who say bad things about Russia,” Putin said.

Trump has similarly denied direct involvement in Russian collusion, while refusing to rule out that his associates might have been involved.

Kelly’s forum with Putin followed the former Fox News host’s disastrous first interview for for NBC. During a person-on-the-street segment from Saint Petersburg, Russia, Kelly got played by a Russian propagandist she introduced to viewers as merely a “Russian broadcaster.”

Asked about Russian election meddling, that propagandist — whose views Kelly portrayed as representing those of everyday Russians—said, “[t]here is a lot of kindergartenish stuff going on.”

“It’s humiliating — self-humiliating for such a great country as the United States of America to think that your election was decided in Moscow,” he added.

Progressives Are Dangerously Wrong to Downplay the Implication of the Russian Hacks

By Eric Shapiro/Paste

The framers of the U.S. Constitution famously warned against America getting involved in foreign entanglements, understood in George Washington’s farewell address to mean that the young nation should avoid getting bogged down in foreign conflicts. Less known, but equally critical, was their fear that foreign powers would attempt to influence the elections of their fledgling democratic republic. Indeed, James Madison quoted Alexander Hamilton as warning that: “Foreign powers also will not be idle spectators. They will interpose, the confusion will increase, and a dissolution of the Union will ensue.”

Numerous quotes from the various Founders offer similar warnings. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the Constitutional convention and James Madison’s vice president, expressed similar concerns: “Foreign powers will intermeddle in our affairs, and spare no expense to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be sent among us, and insinuated into our councils, in order to be made instruments for their purposes.” The Federalist Papers are replete with references to foreign powers nefariously injecting themselves into U.S. elections.

Centuries later, the framers’ fears are manifested like never before in the form of technology that they could not possibly have imagined. In her 2009 essay titled “Extraterritorial Electioneering and the Globalization of American Elections,” Fordham University law professor and former Democratic Congressional candidate (not to mention Bernie Sanders supporter) Zephyr Teachout warned: “because of the Internet, governments, corporations, and citizens of other countries can now meaningfully participate in United States elections. They can phone bank, editorialize, and organize in ways that impact a candidate’s image, the narrative structure of a campaign, and the mobilization of base support.” Although she did not explicitly mention hacking, Teachout’s point was quite prescient.

Given the intensely private content of their own letters (many of which betrayed evidence of differing public and private views), the Founders would likely be appalled by a foreign power’s use of 21st-century technology to influence a U.S. election. Men of the 18th century, they were primarily concerned with meddling on the part of England and France, but their warnings apply just as well to Vladimir Putin, someone with a history of undermining liberal democracies to further Russia’s geopolitical interests.

It is tempting to view the alleged (at this point, highly likely) Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s emails, as well as the Obama administration’s belated response, through the lens of contemporary domestic politics. It is not surprising that Republicans, Trump supporters in particular, would seek to play down the significance of a cyber attack that further deprives their candidate, who lost the popular vote by almost 3 million, of a mandate.

More surprising is the apathy on the other end of the political spectrum.. Some on the left view the Russian hacks—to the extent that they acknowledge their occurrence—with skepticism, if not outright hostility. Rather than focusing on the bigger picture, in which a foreign power likely stole private information from one of America’s two major parties to use as ammunition against a candidate it didn’t like, they quibble over semantics, seizing upon minor discrepancies or word choices among 19 largely concurring intelligence agencies to cast doubt on their assessment. This, in spite of a 13-page joint report by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI last week explicitly linking groups affiliated with Russian intelligence agencies to the DNC and Podesta hacks. The report described: “an ongoing campaign of cyber-enabled operations directed at the U.S. government and its citizens… In some cases, (the Russian intelligence services’) actors masqueraded as third parties, hiding behind false online personas designed to cause the victim to misattribute the source of the attack.”

Despite attempts by some on the right and the left to muddy the waters, the only real uncertainty surrounding the Russian hacks is whether they were explicitly conducted on Trump’s behalf or just benefited him by coincidence (Occam’s razor, for its part, supports the former conclusion, especially considering the Trump administration’s ties to Russia). In the grand scheme of things, this is a relatively meaningless distinction. Whether the Russians intended to hurt Hillary Clinton, boost Donald Trump, discredit U.S. democracy in general or some combination of the three, their actions constitute an unacceptable assault on an electoral system expressly designed to discourage foreign interference. Allowing a politically motivated cyber attack to go unpunished, regardless of what it revealed, opens up a perilous Pandora’s box in which foreign powers can feel free to meddle in U.S. elections with impunity.

This is not to say greater government transparency is a worthy goal (although it is one that must be weighed against the prerogative of public figures to enjoy some degree of privacy). However, the necessary reforms should derive from the American people and their chosen representatives, not hostile foreign powers selectively leaking damaging information about particular candidates while leaving the reputations of others untouched. It’s not just about Hillary Clinton. In a political environment in which norms against foreign interference are weak, all public figures are at the mercy of states equipped with the capacity to launch cyber attacks. Which begs the questions: Would Trump supporters have been so quick to “move on” had it been their candidate targeted? Would the far left be so quick to downplay the significance of a cyber attack on, say, Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein?

The dangerous precedent set by the Russian hacks far outweighs any public benefit. A small portion of the hacked emails are problematic in that they suggest inappropriate coordination between the DNC and the Clinton campaign. The vast majority of the emails, however, provide a glimpse under the hood of politics as usual, with all the accompanying warts and tumors. The fact is, opposition research and trash talking of the kind contained in the Clinton emails, while not pretty, represents the political process as it currently and has long existed. The same goes for frank conversations with wealthy donors and even attempts to obtain favorable media coverage.

The Clinton campaign’s conduct was not commendable, but it wasn’t singularly awful either. In fact, much of it was rather mundane. There is nothing remotely shocking, for instance, about the notion expressed by Hillary Clinton that politicians must maintain both a “public and private” negotiating position. This is Politics 101, applying to such beloved figures as the framers of the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan and even Bernie Sanders. Many politicians with private and public positions achieved great things precisely because they were willing to court multiple constituencies with different, even contradictory rhetoric and policy proposals.

And yet, in the heat of a presidential campaign, such quotes, taken out of context, furthered an unflattering narrative about Hillary Clinton. The hacks, in the broader context of the 2016 election, distorted the public view of the race far more than they illuminated it. They encouraged the media, with its tendency toward false equivalency, to cover relatively mundane examples of Clinton malfeasance as if they ascended to the same level of egregiousness as Trump’s truly unprecedented scandals. Real transparency on the part of Russia and Wikileaks would have revealed that Donald Trump was worse than Hillary Clinton according to every conceivable progressive standard: Wall Street regulation, climate change, universal healthcare, corruption, etc. And yet, the Russian hacks shined a black light on Clinton at a crucial moment of the 2016 campaign and helped Trump to avoid accountability for scandals that made Hillary Clinton look like a paragon of ethics by comparison. The Russian did not offer “transparency” by any honest definition of the term; rather, they were likely attempting to weaponize information for the sake of boosting Donald Trump, a candidate with pro-Russian sympathies.

It is difficult to determine the extent to which the leaked DNC and Podesta emails discouraged support for Hillary Clinton among key demographics; perhaps they never would have voted for her anyway. Democrats would be foolish to use the Russian hacks as an excuse to ignore other factors that led to Clinton’s defeat: poor messaging, insufficient attention to key states and demographics and, of course, Hillary Clinton’s impressive collection of baggage amassed over decades in the public eye. By the same token, leftists should not dismiss the impact or implications of Russian hacking simply because they would prefer a more ideologically convenient explanation (likely revolving around the failures of neoliberalism) for what went wrong. If anything, reforming the electoral primary process and protecting U.S. elections against foreign interference serve the same end of restoring faith in the democratic process. Progressives need not choose between acknowledging the reality of Russian hacks and moving the country in a more progressive direction. We can and should do both.

In the meantime, President Obama was absolutely justified in mounting a proportional response to Russia’s hacks, which included the imposition of sanctions and the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats, for the purpose of deterring future interference in our elections. Defending American democracy, currently under assault on multiple fronts from within (in the form of voter suppression) and without, should be a priority for the American people. If we allow our partisan and ideological enmities to shift the focus away from external threats to our most sacred civic traditions, America could be well on the road to becoming a democratic republic in name only, an illiberal democracy presided over by foreign-backed authoritarian demagogues like Donald Trump.

How The Drudge Report Became Vladimir Putin’s Top Media Cheerleader

OLIVER WILLIS/Media Matters:

On Labor Day, visitors to the Drudge Report, the conservative news aggregator operated by Matt Drudge, were greeted by an above-the-fold story about the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Obama at the G20 Summit in China. Drudge’s headline for the story was “Lion And The Pussycat”:

The Drudge headline is part of a larger pattern from the site of consistently promoting Putin and his strongman style of leadership (the “Lion”), which Drudge has often contrasted with President Obama, whom he characterizes as a weaker leader (the “Pussycat”). Drudge has also consistently promoted pro-Russian news and information, repeatedly harping on the idea that American power is weakening and in decline.

Matt Drudge has extolled the virtues of Vladimir Putin for some time. In 2013, Drudge declared that “Putin is the leader of the free world,” adding to a chorus of conservatives backing the Russian leader. Around the same time, Drudge featured Putin at the top of his site as “Putin To The Rescue” (a headline he would re-use two years later) as the leader began discussing a possible military role for Russia in Syria.

Over the past few years, Drudge has used his site to promote a steady stream of stories favorable to Putin, often while denigrating President Obama and the United States.

Drudge’s boosterism of Putin has continued even as the FBI and other investigative services have alleged that hackers working at the behest of Russian intelligence have compromised American computer systems, including via an intrusion at the Democratic National Committee.

The U.S. director of national intelligence has also recently testified that an inquiry is currently underway to see whether Russians are attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election.

Drudge Makes A Putin/Trump Connection

Drudge has couched some of his stories about Putin with accompanying articles and headlines comparing his leadership style to that of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

In December, Drudge highlighted a Financial Times piece that compared Putin to Trump using the text, “Russian president offers glimpse of strong leader.” This was paired with an article describing Putin as part of a “strongman revival” showing a “global trend.”

During the Republican primaries, Drudge spotlighted a comment from Putin describing Donald Trump as a “very talented man.”

Drudge Hypes Putin As A Strongman

The Drudge Report has repeatedly highlighted stories focusing on Putin as a strong or tough world leader, often in a military context.

The Drudge Report placed an above-the-fold link to a threat from Putin that he could use nuclear weapons against ISIS.

Putin made it above-the-fold in a link to a Breitbart News article referring to ongoing negotiations over Syrian chemical weapons. The headline was “Hand ‘Em Over,” with a photo of Putin.

Drudge hailed Putin for “flex[ing] muscle” as elections approached in Russia, bundling that link with others offering defenses of Putin against American criticism:

Drudge gave above-fold treatment to a story asking if Russian airstrikes had killed the leader of ISIS (they hadn’t) with the headline “Did Putin Kill ISIS Leader?” The report linked did not name Putin or even reference Russian forces and their activities in the Middle East at the time. It appears Drudge invoked Putin’s involvement on his own.

As Putin moved to annex Crimea, Drudge put the headline “Putin Promises ‘Aid’ For Ukraine” above-the-fold.

As the annexation progressed, Drudge labeled the campaign as “Putin In Control.”

Hailing Putin, Attacking Obama

In addition to articles promoting Putin as a strongman, Drudge has also sought to use those stories as a contrast to President Obama and United States policy.

When Putin wrote a New York Times op-ed questioning the concept of American exceptionalism, it wasfeatured at the top of the Drudge Report.

While linking to a New York Post story claiming that Obama has turned Putin into the most powerful leader in the world, Drudge used the headline “Red Planet: Putin Snubs Obama.”

Drudge promoted a Chinese claim that “Putin Humiliated USA.”

He also highlighted a story about a “Putin cafe” that “has Obama toilet paper.”

Drudge linked to a story purporting to tell “how Putin beat Obama in Syria.” The original headline referred to “monstrous Putin,” but Drudge removed the adjective once he aggregated the story.

After Russia engaged in airstrikes in Syria, Drudge juxtaposed a news link of that action with another story in which Putin called America “weak.”

After the November 2015 terrorist attack in Paris, Drudge led his site with a headline asking if Putin would be the one to “rescue” the world from ISIS

Defending Putin

When Putin has been involved in international controversies, the Drudge Report has been a part of his administration’s pushback, often with links to official Russian news outlets, or those with state sponsorship.

The Drudge Report highlighted a story from the state-financed Russian news outlet RT in which Putinclaimed that he would neutralize a purported “missile shield threat” coming from America.

When leaked files showing international efforts to move money offshore to avoid taxes referenced Putin, Drudgelinked to an official denying Putin’s involvement.

Putin Chronicler

Drudge has also used his platform to chronicle Putin’s day-to-day activities as leader of Russia.

He made a note of a Putin visit to Iran, which for some reason was featured above-the-fold.

When Putin said he was considering running for a fourth presidential term, Drudge compared him to Stalin, and it was meant in a positive light.

A story from the official Russian news agency Tass speculating that Elton John might meet with Putin while in Russia for a concert received a Drudge link.

Drudge headlined photos of Putin working out “Ripped Putin Hits The Gym.”

When Russian planes bombed targets in Syria, Drudge headlined the story above-the-fold as “Putin Blitz.”

When world leaders attended a meeting of the G20 in Russia, Drudge posted photos of Putin greeting them along with the headline, “World Into The Arms of Putin.” He also wrote that “Obama shows up late -- and alone -- to dinner with Putin.”

A story about the Russian Defense Ministry purchasing dolphins was paired with an article headlined “Fighter Jets Sent To Watch Putin.”

An announcement that a state media agency in Russia was dissolving also made it above-the-fold on Drudge.

Drudge linked to a report from the Russian news agency Tass about a meeting between Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping with a picture captioned “Putin Courts Xi.”

When Putin played in a hockey game, that made the Drudge Report too.

Drudge illustrated an ABC News story on Putin’s exercise regimen with a photo of the president.

.

Drudge took note of a Putin encounter with leopard cubs in Sochi, Russia.

After the 2014 Olympics in Russia had concluded, Drudge put “Games Over: Putin Ready to Take Off Gloves?” above-the-fold.

A Right-Wing Media Star Is Born: Vladimir Putin

ERIC BOEHLERT/Media Matters For America:

Casting a wide net and always willing to promote whoever will mount attacks against President Obama, conservative commentators have recently reached out all the way to Moscow to embrace their latest champion, Russian president Vladimir Putin. The more he criticizes Obama for wanting to mount military strikes against the Syrian government for gassing its own citizens, the more Putin's comments are cheered by conservatives here.

The newfound affection is downright bizarre considering Russia, and the former Soviet Union, has for decades been the epicenter of right wing suspicion and hostility; the proverbial Evil Empire. And in terms of the current debate regarding Syria, Putin is isolating himself from the international community. As USA Today noted this week, "Russian President Vladimir Putin's strident defense of a Syrian regime that has killed tens of thousands of its people in a civil war that has divided him from many world powers viewing Syria as a humanitarian disaster that demands intervention."

Putin's an outlier with very little international leverage or power. But because he's publicly opposing Obama he's treated as a right-wing folk hero in America. That's how deep the hatred for Obama runs in today's conservative media circles.

Note that late last moth, just hours before Obama addressed the nation regarding Syria, Matt Drudge bizarrelytweeted that "Putin is the leader of the free world."

Putin is the leader of the free world...

-- MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) August 31, 2013

More recently, the Putin admiration society has been on full display all across the right-wing media landscape. On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh also seemed to side with Putin:

Now, you know, Vladimir Putin is saying that Obama and Kerry are lying.  And I don't know about you, but I find myself to be in a really curious situation.  Who do I believe, Vladimir Putin or Barack Obama and John Kerry?

Limbaugh appeared to be impressed by the fact Russia had compiled a 100-page report blaming Syrian rebels for the chemical weapons attack, not Russia's longtime ally, President Bashar al-Assad. Limbaugh told his listeners: "Now, I don't know about you, but what does it feel like to have to agree with a former KGB agent?"

Meanwhile on Fox News, hard-right military analyst Ralph Peters was in full Putin swoon mode yesterday, insisting that "the world is on Vladimir Putin's side about Syria." According to Peters: "He's a thug, but he's defending the Christians and the other minorities in Syria."

More:

I don't like Putin, but I respect that guy. He is tough. He delivers what he says he'll deliver. He knows his people. He presents himself as a real He-Man....But he lives up to it! Our president talks tough, but in the clinch he's gutless.

Putin, the right wing's anti-Obama.

The Putin admiration has been growing for weeks now. In August, when the leader helped cracked down on gays in Russia by banning the positive depiction of homosexuality as well as the adoption of Russian children by any foreign couples from countries with marriage equality, the American conservative mediacheered the former KGB agent as a righteous champion.

Syndicated columnist Patrick Buchanan toasted Putin's move and praised him for trying to restore Russia's "moral compass" by implementing anti-gay policies. (Limbaugh had previously praised Putin's stance on gay adoption, conceding it was "ironic" for him to be agreeing with a Russian leader.)

At this rate, if Putin ever gets tired of running Russia he can always sign on as a Fox News contributor.