I have to run but I wanted to post this interesting piece from Breitbart for those who have not seen it.

While Putin has his own motives, and conveniently forgets parts of history, e.g. it was Nazi and Soviet agents and finance that resurrected violent Jihad in the early 1900's he makes some very valid, very un-PC observations about US foreign policy, in particular Obama's foreign policy in the ME.

Note 1: Putin shows the world a very different image than Zero does.
Note 2: This article is in contrast to reports of Russia and the Saudis backing the 'rebels':
Don't Show Obama This Report About Who Really Is Behind The Syrian Chemical Attacks
t119f5-Prince-Bandar-Saudi-Power-Broker-Seeks-to-Bring-Down-Syria-s-Assad.html#msg

Let’s Join One Another to Crush the Unholy, Unruly, Jihadi Muslims
by Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin 3 Sep 2013



"How do I put this politely? You Americans are dumb. Today, Russia and America are fighting each other over fighting the Muslim radicals. Instead, we should be uniting to crush these violent Islamists, once and for all.

You Americans want to remove my ally, the Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad. To borrow a phrase from your John F. Kennedy, Assad may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s my son-of-a-bitch.

So if you want to destroy him, what are you going to give me in return? If your answer is, “We will give you nothing,” well, why would I ever agree to that? That’s not negotiation, that’s dictation; it’s a return to the bad Yeltsin days, when Holy Mother Russia was pushed into the mud like a used whore.

Look, I’ll be the first to say that Obama’s “red line” comment was dumb. It’s obvious he hadn’t thought it through; one can see it in the words he used to express his policy. He said that the “red line” would be crossed if “a whole bunch” of chemical weapons were used. What kind of language is that? How does one quantify a “whole bunch”? This is the President of the High-and-Mighty United States, and he’s talking like a schoolboy? All for this silliness over sarin in Syria?

Do I think that Assad did it? Gassed those people? I don’t know; I’ve never asked him. He’s certainly capable of it, and yet only the Americans think that the case against Assad is a “slam dunk.” Everyone else agrees that the case is murky. Everyone else follows the first rule of intelligence-gathering: Consider the source--namely, the pro-rebel media. In this instance, the rebels were losing, and then they got “gassed”--and now Uncle Sam is rushing to their side. How convenient.

The Romans, who knew something about both imperialism and trickery, always asked, cui bono--who benefits? Well, the beneficiaries in this episode are the rebels--also known as Al Qaeda. Way to go, Americans!
. . .
One Western journalist who at least begins to understand where I’m coming from is The New York Times’ Steven Lee Myers. In his report of August 28, Myers accurately describes the Putin view of what’s been going on in the Middle East:
“In his view, the United States and its partners have unleashed the forces of extremism in country after country in the Middle East by forcing or advocating change in leadership — from Iraq to Libya, Egypt to Syria.”

That’s right. Over the last 15 years, from Clinton to Bush 43 to Obama, America has stirred up all the hornet-nests in the Middle East. For the most part, those angry hornets are far away from the US, but those insects are on Russia’s southern border--starting with those lousy Chechens.
. . ."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/...-the-mind-putin

Correction:
Note 2: This article is in contrast to reports of Russia and the Saudis backing the 'rebels':

should have read
Note 2: This article is in contrast to reports of the Saudis backing the 'rebels'.

[I never stood on the line for proof reading skills and when in a hurry tend to see what I planned to type not what I actually typed Sorry]