I'm completely missing nothing, the vast majority of people upon hearing something like this would automatically assume that it this was an achievement bestowed upon someone for doing something positive and constructive througout the course of the year, not the mastermind behind the one of the worst terrorist attacks in recent years, it's beyond comphrension anyone can think otherwise..
But hopefully, the vast majority of people would then ask the question of their fellow forum members - realise its based upon impact not achievement & say, well yes - to be fair - if the extent of his proposed impact is true (and i aint saying it aint, but there are arguments that the influence of alistair kayeeda is greatly exaggerated) - then he is man of the decade, never mind the year.
And the readers of time, will be well aware of what it is about.
Anyway, we brits (dont worry, not including you!) can hardly talk - BBC team of the year (England) - lost in final. 2nd & 3rd sportsmen of the year (Hatton & Lewis) - lost in final equivelent.
& on to Putin - i'm no Moscow expert of course - BUT in the 1990's it made the wild west seem like Chelsea & Kensingtion on a balmy summers evening. My own, possibly wrong & very generalistic impression is that russians 'need a strong leader' to hold all the sh1t together, otherwise god only knows what would happen.
He is that man & to have done it for the full term & retain popularity, he must be an incredibly capable person. Lesser of two evils perhaps. Not saying he is the 'nicest' man in the world, but with the most 'impact' now Bush/Blair are f**cked? - very maybe.
As Morbyd says very very correctly, lets do battle over economics with russia rather than bombs and at least we appear (excluding the odd uranium milkshake) to be doing this.
