Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Sore losers
Still trying to rationalize your boy Barry's bad showing??
Did McCain whisper into his ear to make him say that making a decision on when life begins= one of the chief moral questions of our time- an issue that he has been involved in legislation on- is " ABOVE HIS PAY GRADE " ?????
If that's true, then he doesn't belong in the oval office
Couple that with the lie he was caught in regarding killing babies who manage to survive abortion made it a very poor night for Barry
Do you really think whining about the cone of silence is a winning argument??
I hope they continue on that tack
Keeping an eye on Georgia
Posted by: McQ
One of the questions I've been asking since the Russian invasion of Georgia is how the necessary buildup and staging of troops by Russia could have been missed by Georgia. As I've noted before, unless troops are prepared and staged to go on order, an army cannot react in the time the Russians did. That means there were signs and indicators that such a move was forthcoming. The NYT provides us with a list of those signs:
If the rapidly unfolding events caught much of the world off guard, that kind of coordination of the old and the new did not look accidental to military professionals.
"They seem to have harnessed all their instruments of national power - military, diplomatic, information - in a very disciplined way," said one Pentagon official, who like others interviewed for this article disclosed details of the operation under ground rules that called for anonymity. "It appears this was well thought out and planned in advance, and suggests a level of coordination in the Russian government between the military and the other civilian agencies and departments that we are striving for today."
In fact, Pentagon and military officials say Russia held a major ground exercise in July just north of Georgia's border, called Caucasus 2008, that played out a chain of events like the one carried out over recent days.
"This exercise was exactly what they executed in Georgia just a few weeks later," said Dale Herspring, an expert on Russian military affairs at Kansas State University. "This exercise was a complete dress rehearsal."
So, as suspected, this was no spontaneous or spur of the moment reaction by Russia, but instead a preplanned invasion of Georgia. While not exactly like the Nazi contrivance of an attack by Poland on a German position in 1939, they had the very same aim - provide cover, regardless of how thin, for the invasion. Of course South Ossetian insurgent forces provided the planned provocation and Russia responded just like they had planned.
Other indicators were also evident:
Russia prepared the battlefield in the months leading up to the outbreak of fighting.
In April, Russia reinforced its peacekeeping force in Abkhazia with advanced artillery, and in May it sent construction troops to fix a railroad line linking that area with Russia.
So any reasonably competent intelligence agency would have known, at a minimum, that Russia was planning something.
Meanwhile, the 1,000 American advisers and trainers were conducting counter-insurgency training while 1/4 of the Georgian army remained in Iraq and the rest were deployed in the western part of the country.
One interesting and militarily bright spot during the invasion had to do with Georgian airdefense.
To the surprise of American military officers, an impaired Georgian air-defense system was able to down at least six Russian jets. The Sukhoi-25, an aging ground attack plane, appeared to be the most vulnerable.
Georgia never has fielded an integrated, nationwide air defense system, and those ground-to-air weapons that survived early Russian shelling operated without any central control - and some without battle-command radars, as they were destroyed by Russian strikes.
That they bloodied the Russian air wing was taken as a clear sign of poor aircraft maintenance, poor piloting skills - or, most likely, years of insufficient funds for adequate flight training.
That will most likely be noted by Russia and attempts to improve their maintenance and piloting skills will be undertaken. But it is an indicator that, at least in the near future, should there be a confrontation between the US and Russia that the US would most likely be able to establish air superiority because of its superiority in both of those areas.
That should be enough to keep Russia from attempting the same sort of thing in areas where such a confrontation would be likely. Air superiority by one side means defeat for the other, and Russia knows that very well. So understanding that we most likely enjoy that edge is very important. Maintaining it is even more important.
Final thought: while it took only a few days for Russian forces to push into Georgia, I would guess that it will take months to see them withdraw. There's much work to do in South Ossetia in terms of ethnic cleansing (in the most benign take on the term, moving ethnic Georgians out of that area for good). Russia wants no residual threat of insurgents in South Ossetia. That means any insurgency would have to operate out of Georgia in the future, leading to another perfect "provocation" requiring Russian action.
So I expect the Russian military to remain in or around Gori until it feels reasonably assured it has deported most ethnic Georgians from that area. They will then pull back to a buffer area around South Ossetia as permitted by the ceasefire agreement. Of course the size of that buffer area is most likely going to be interpreted generously by Russia.
This dustup isn't at all over by any stretch, and may get worse before it gets any better.
Arab world fears an Iran war may be impending
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
August 18, 2008, 1:05 PM (GMT+02:00)
USS Ronald Reagan
USS Ronald Reagan
DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources report that the Iranian satellite carrier space launch Sunday, Aug. 17, was prompted by a joint caution to Tehran from Saudi King Abdullah and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.
After their meeting Saturday, the spokesman of the presidential palace in Cairo, Suleiman Awwad, said: Iran should not present on a silver platter the “justifications and pretexts for those [US and Israel] who want to drag the region down a dangerous slope.”
This warning was interpreted by the London Arabic daily Al Quds as a warning to Tehran that an attack is impending by the US, some European nations and Israel.
The article recalled the fate of Saddam Hussein “who didn't adequately refute claims over Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction.”
Tehran immediately responded to the warning by launching the Safir satellite carrier into orbit, thereby exhibiting a ballistic missile capable of reaching outside the Middle East, as far as Britain and France, should they decide to join an American attack on Iran, as well as US military installations on that continent.
Our military sources report that the war scare in Cairo and Riyadh also infected Kuwait.
Last week, the small oil emirate placed its military on “war alert,” to avoid being caught off-guard by a possible conflict in the region. On Saturday, Kuwait boosted its naval force in the Persian Gulf to ward off a possible Iranian reprisal against its oil installations if attacked.
The scare was fed by the impending arrival of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, the USS Ronald Reagan, and the USS Iwo Jima in the Persian Gulf to reinforce the US strike forces in the region, as first revealed by DEBKAfile on August 11.
They are to join the USS Abraham Lincoln, which is patrolling the Arabian Sea opposite Iran, and the USS Peleliu, on beat in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. This deployment would be the largest naval task force the US and its allies had massed in the region since the 1991 Gulf War.
A US Pentagon spokesman last week denied that these forces were gathering to impose a partial naval blockade on Iran, but declined to disclose their mission. The denial apparently failed to convince the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait.
Print Print Send by e-mail Send to Friend Close window Close window Home Page
Copyright 2000-2008 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.
More whining by the labials and Barry because he came out second best in the debate
Get used to it
Hmm, moral authority- a dem talking point being parroted by the Pegbot???
Go figure
"There's No Excusing Russia's Attack
By Trudy Rubin
I've received a lot of angry e-mail about my last column, which harshly criticized Russia for invading Georgia.
Many of the writers argue the Bush administration has no "moral authority" to condemn Russia because we invaded Iraq. One wrote: "We lost our moral high ground and set a precedent that invites any country on Earth to do exactly the same thing." Some also ask why we don't support South Ossetia's independence when we did support Kosovo's.
Some writers also believe that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili "started" the crisis by "invading" South Ossetia. Or they contend that the White House put the Georgian leader up to his attack.
I want to respond to these e-mails, which reflect a widespread and understandable confusion about the Georgian crisis. This crisis represents a turning point in U.S. and European relations with Russia, and it's important for Americans to understand the issues at stake.
First, the moral issue. No matter what mistakes Bush made in Iraq, they don't excuse Russia's brutal behavior in Georgia or toward its other neighbors, behavior that began long before Bush took office. America's "moral standing" is irrelevant in judging Russia's actions.
I opposed Bush's broad doctrine of preemption - the right to invade another nation on the assumption that it might threaten us sometime in the future, even if it poses no threat in the short term. I also criticized Bush policy on Iraq. But there is no parallel between the cases of Iraq and Georgia.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant under U.N. sanction for invading Kuwait and using weapons of mass destruction against his own people (not to mention against neighboring Iran). He was a continuing threat to his neighbors. Saakashvili may have acted rashly, and he may have flaws as a leader, but he's the elected president of a tiny nation next to a giant nuclear power.
As for Kosovo, I believe it was a mistake, in principle, for the United States and Europe to recognize the independence of this breakaway region of Serbia. Given the number of ethnic ink spots within European and other states, I thought this endorsement was an invitation to more civil wars. This move infuriated Vladimir Putin, an ally of the Serbs, who made clear he would retaliate.
Now, however, Russia presents itself as a champion of Ossetian self-determination. That's absurd. Russia has brutally repressed separatist movements inside its territory, particularly in Chechnya, where Russian artillery and bombs have killed untold thousands of civilians.
Equally off-base are Russian charges that Georgia indulged in "ethnic cleansing" of South Ossetia. (No evidence has emerged to back up Moscow's claim that Georgian troops killed 2,000 Ossetians; a Human Rights Watch report indicated the number is probably under 100.)
Yes, Saakashvili sent troops into South Ossetia, but this followed a decade of Russian provocations and military occupation of the enclave. Moscow used the enclave as a weapon against Georgia.
Putin has been clear about wanting to restore the Kremlin's former empire, calling the Soviet breakup the "greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century."
Given what has happened to Georgia, other former Soviet Republics now have good reason to worry. Putin has threatened to target Russia's nuclear weapons against Ukraine if that country continues efforts to join NATO (and a Russian general just warned that Poland could face attack over a missile-defense deal with Washington).
Russia has cut gasoline supplies to Ukraine and waged cyberwar against Baltic states. Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko believes Moscow was behind an assassination attempt by poison that nearly killed him. Etc. Etc.
So it doesn't matter who "started" the crisis in Georgia. It has little to do with Ossetian rights and everything to do with Putin's drive to restore Russian power. Had Saakashvili not sent troops into Ossetia, Russia would have found another excuse to attack.
Despite a cease-fire, and despite the Russians' denials, their troops remain in force outside South Ossetia, dividing Georgia in half. The Kremlin will no doubt try to force Saakashvili to resign in favor of a pro-Moscow puppet.
The West is in no position to, nor should it, wage war over Georgia or invite Tbilisi to join NATO. But it is crucial for Western republics to understand whom they are dealing with in Moscow. Iraq angst should not blur the picture.
Russia is entitled to a sphere of influence built by diplomacy and economic ties, but Putin is aiming at something more sinister. The next U.S. president will need to devise a united policy with Europe to confront a Russia indifferent to European norms.
trubin@phillynews.com "
McCain follows Clinton lead with '3 a.m.' approach
By Byron York
How many times have you heard commentators refer to Russia's invasion of Georgia as a "3 a.m. moment" for the presidential candidates?
The pundits are referring, of course, to Hillary Clinton's famous TV ad arguing that Barack Obama doesn't have the experience to handle a middle-of-the-night, out-of-nowhere national security crisis. Now, the thinking goes, the situation in Georgia gives John McCain an opportunity to claim an advantage over Obama in foreign affairs. And he's doing it — with a script drawn straight from Clinton.
(Photo - Clinton: 3 a.m. concept lives on / Getty Images)
It might not seem smart to model a key aspect of your campaign on a candidate who lost — to the same guy you're running against, no less. But that is exactly what Team McCain is doing.
"Clinton's campaign was a fabulous real-time laboratory in how you run against a movement candidate," Nicolle Wallace, a McCain adviser and spokeswoman, told me a few days ago. The McCainiacs have studied the New York senator's losing effort very, very carefully, and they've drawn some lessons from it.
Lesson No. 1 is that the "3 a.m." ad worked.
"The 'Is he ready to lead?' question in our Celebrity ad is the same question that the 3 a.m. ad asked," Wallace said. Clinton portrayed a blissfully sleeping child threatened by unspecified world events, while McCain went over the top with images of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, but the message was the same: Obama is not ready.
It appears to be working, at least for now. Although still behind in most nationwide polls, McCain is inching toward Obama in a number of surveys, including those in key battleground states.
And the reason the 3 a.m. strategy is a smart one for McCain is because it worked for Clinton. Although she lost the overall campaign, Clinton beat Obama soundly down the stretch — after the 3 a.m. ad's release.
In the Democratic race from Iowa in early January through the Super Tuesday contests on Feb. 5, Obama, who began far behind, caught up with Clinton. Then, in a 10-day stretch from Feb. 9-19, he went on a tear, defeating her in nine straight contests, racking up nearly 900,000 more votes and erasing Clinton's delegate lead.
It seemed the contest was over. But there was a two-week gap before the next primaries, and in that period, on Feb. 29, Clinton unveiled the 3 a.m. ad.
It set off a huge debate about Obama's readiness — and about Clinton's tactics. But it also changed the direction of the race.
Beginning in March and continuing through to the last primary in June, Clinton roared back, winning 500,000 more votes than Obama and setting off talk of "buyer's remorse" among Democrats who had already effectively handed the nomination to Obama. The 3 a.m. strategy was a winner. Clinton just came to it too late.
It seemed to work especially well among those working-class white voters who played such an important role in Clinton's victories in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky.
Covering the race in Pennsylvania, for example, I asked many Clinton voters whether they would vote for Obama if he won. Most said no. He's just not ready, voter after voter told me.
Now, McCain is looking to exploit those same concerns, in some of the same places.
In Ohio, for example, Obama is clinging to a tiny, half-percentage-point lead, according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls. The voters who were concerned about him a few months ago are still concerned.
So don't be surprised if McCain continues to borrow from Clinton. For McCain's strategists, the lesson of the 3 a.m. ad is that Obama can be beaten — and McCain is betting he can do it.
Byron York is White House correspondent for National Review.
Posted at 12:15 AM/ET, August 18, 2008 in Forum commentary, Politics - Forum | Permalink
USA TODAY welcomes your views and encourages lively -- but civil -- discussions. Comments are unedited, but submissions reported as abusive may be removed. By posting a comment, you affirm that you are 13 years of age or older.
Go directly to the comment form.
Subscribe Today: Home Delivery of USA TODAY - Save 35%
So any law preventing murder is " big brother "
And you're calling others dumb?
Life Lies
Barack Obama and Born-Alive.
By David Freddoso
In 2001, Senator Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois senate to speak against a bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as “persons.” The bill was in response to a Chicago-area hospital that was leaving such babies to die. Obama voted “present” on the bill after denouncing it. It passed the state Senate but died in a state house committee.
In 2003, a similar bill came before Obama’s health committee. He voted against it. But this time, the legislation was slightly different. This latter version was identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which by then had already passed the U.S. Senate unanimously (with a hearty endorsement even from abortion advocate Sen. Barbara Boxer) and had been signed into law by President Bush.
↓
Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.
Obama’s work against the bill to protect premature babies represents one of two times in his political career, along with his speech against the Iraq war, that he really stuck out his neck for something that might hurt him politically. Unlike his Iraq speech, Obama is deeply embarrassed about this one — so embarrassed that he is offering a demonstrable falsehood in explanation for his actions. Fortunately, the documents showing the truth are now available.
At the end of last week, Obama gave an interview to CBN’s David Brody in which he repeated the false claim that the born-alive bills he worked, spoke, and voted against on this topic between 2001 and 2003 would have negatively affected Roe v. Wade. This has always been untrue, but, until last week, it appeared to be a debatable point that depended on one’s interpretation of the bill language. Every single version of the bill was neutral on Roe. Each one affected only babies already born, not ones in the womb.
But in 2003, in the health committee which he chaired, Obama voted against a version of the bill that contained the specific “neutrality” language — redundant language affirming that the bill only applied to infants already born and granted no rights to the unborn. You can visit the Illinois legislature’s website here to see the language of the “Senate Amendment 1,” which was added in a unanimous 10-0 vote in the committee before Obama helped kill it. This is the so-called “neutrality clause” on Roe that everyone is talking about:
1 AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 1082
2 AMENDMENT NO. . Amend Senate Bill 1082 on page 1, by
3 replacing lines 24 through 26 with the following:
4 “(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to
5 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal
6 right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at
7 any point prior to being born alive as defined in this
8 Section.”.
The addition of this amendment made the bill identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.
This Committee Action Report, dug up in Springfield by the National Right to Life Committee and revealed last week, shows two different votes. In the left column, under the heading “DP#1”(or “Do Pass” Amendment 1), we see that Obama’s committee voted 10-0 to add this neutrality language to the bill. In the right column, we see that the committee then voted 6-4 to kill the bill. Obama was among the six “No” votes.
A write-up from the time by a Republican staffer on the committee further explains:
CA #1 was adopted on a “Be Adopted” motion (Righter/Syverson) by an attendance roll call (10-0-0).
CA #1 (Winkel) to SB 1082 (Winkel) adds to the underlying bill.
Deletes language, which states that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
Inserts language, which states that nothing in the bill shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or right applicable to any member of the homo sapien species at any point prior to being born alive as defined under this legislation.
↓
So again: after the above amendment was added to change the original bill, making it identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Obama and five other Democrats voted to kill it. They killed the same bill that the U.S. Senate had passed unanimously. Here is the interview in which Sen. Obama offers his false explanation once again, which is contradicted not only by eyewitnesses but also by the records of his own committee:
...I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say — that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.
The senator is right. Someone is lying.
— David Freddoso is a National Review Online staff reporter and author of The Case Against Barack Obama.
Assuming that you are against abortion because you think it is the taking of a life, don't you see the contradiction in not wanting to allow someone else to commit that act??
So, in your mind making someone not commit murder is a good thing?
Ehtical logic for obnoxious dummies
Umm, maybe it's because he actually has thought out positions and doesn't have to triangulate and run through all the consequences before he comes up with the answer he calculates will offend the least amount of people
This is why Barry is scared to do town hall debates. He's awful w/o a prepared script and where he is asked specific controversial questions
EMPTY SUIT
A Purpose Driven Obama on Justice Thomas
In tonight’s Rick Warren interview, I don’t know why Obama chooses to insult a Supreme Court Justice at a religious forum, but his comments that Justice Thomas was not qualified to be on the Court were revealing. Why would Obama think, given his own credentials, that he was better qualified for President than Clarence Thomas was for the Supreme Court?
As far as working at University of Chicago Law School, the real question is how is it that Obama, without any major publications, would be qualified to teach law at Chicago? There were literally thousands of law professors who would not be hired at Chicago, even as adjuncts, who had far more impressive records of scholarship than did Barack Obama. His other comments on the Court were incoherent: Roberts gave away too much power to the executive branch—but no examples follow as evidence (especially not the FISA laws!). Scalia is bright (after all, he taught at Obama’s Chicago, we are told), but he too shouldn’t have been appointed.
More on the Warren Interview—St. Nuance
One is struck by Obama’s postmodern worldview. There are no absolutes, just nuances and contexts that preclude certainty. Evil for Obama: “A lot of evil’s been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil.” Could he be specific where we have perpetrated “a lot of evil?”
Again, the gut instinct for Obama—whether talking about our “tragic history”, or the need for more “oppression studies” or evoking our sins in front of the Germans—is always to start out with the premise of a flawed America, rather than appreciation of the vast difference between us and the alternative. Never a word here about evil abroad, or bin Laden or Dr. Zawahiri. No, instead, we need humility about that “lot of evil” perpetrated by you know whom.
Somehow he is pro-choice, but anti-abortion, for man/woman marriage, but not in the legal sense, not for merit pay, but for rewarding good teachers—all this is in the manner he was against the Russians and for them while for and against the Georgians. His mushy responses were emblematic of the therapeutic style—empathy with everyone, judgment on no-one. We may soon be back to Jimmy Carter, paralyzed how to divvy up the White House Tennis Courts among feuding subordinates. He can’t say much pro or con on abortion, other than there is an ethical and moral element to the issue. And any of you who deny that, well are just darn wrong. He is against late-term abortion— but only if the mother’s life is in danger. And so on.
After watching some of this, I don’t think Obama will be having many town hall debates with McCain. However undeniable his calm and presence, he is simply incapable of extemporizing. A written transcript of this interview would be embarrassing, since it would be largely streams of meandering—and, but that, ah, you know, that, and, with uh, uh, I don’t think, ah, ah, that, that, I think, that, that, on, on, an issue…”
The Obama Effect
When Obama is asked a question he has not prepped for, he sort of goes into the spinning-eyes mode that one used to associate with the young Dan Quayle in his first weeks on the campaign trail. He knows he should not mouth his postmodern banalities, pauses, and then says something he knows simply won’t work. The wisest three people he knows? The first, of course, is his “raise the bar”, “downright mean” America, and “no pride in America” spouse Michelle. The second? His grandmother, whom he once told American was a “typical white person,” as he exposed her supposed racism. I’ll stop there.
America’s greatest moral failure for Obama? Poverty, racism, sexism—the same old race/class/gender mantra. As someone who just minutes ago walked out of the jammed-packed Selma Wal-Mart, in the poorest sector of a rather poor Fresno County, I would say a more likely moral failure is a sort of unthinking consumerism, where people buy things they don’t need with money they don’t have. I didn’t see poverty in the store there today, but a real poverty of the spirit, if the contents of the stuffed shopping carts are any indication.
Obama’s most gut-wrenching decision? Apparently as a state-legislator in a far left-wing district in Illinois, he opposed the war in Iraq! In fact, his “decision” had zero influence on anything other than his political livelihood in a ward of Chicago, where being anti-war was easy for a liberal politician in the Democratic Party.
Read bullet | (74) Comments bullet
Comment DiggDigg This Delicious del.
How McCain Won Saddleback
In an unusual setting, his experience overwhelmed Obama.
The idea was for Warren to question Obama for an hour — they tossed a coin to see who would go first — and then ask the same questions of McCain, who was not allowed to hear what Obama had answered before him. Not a few people in the press thought it was a bad idea. Asking each man the same questions meant Warren couldn’t tailor his queries to each man; sure, he could ask Obama about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but what sense would it make to ask McCain, too? It seemed like a recipe for nothing much at all.
But Pastor Rick hasn’t built a huge church and sold more than 25 million copies of The Purpose-Driven Life for nothing. By the time Warren finished questioning Obama, people were eager to hear how McCain would handle the same subjects. In a debate, candidates are often asked the same question, but the second guy has always heard what the first guy said and tailors his answer accordingly. At Saddleback, there was something much different — and more revealing — going on.
The contrast was striking throughout each man’s one-hour time on stage. When Warren asked Obama, “What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve ever had to make?” Obama answered that opposing the war in Iraq was “as tough a decision that I’ve had to make, not only because there were political consequences but also because Saddam Hussein was a bad person and there was no doubt he meant America ill.” But Obama was a state senator in Illinois when Congress authorized the president to use force in Iraq. He didn’t have to make a decision on the war. That fact was a recurring issue in the Democratic primaries, when candidates Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, and John Edwards argued that they, as senators, had to make a choice Obama didn’t have to make. And now he says it’s his toughest call.
When McCain got the question, he was able to tell an old story with a sense of gravity and poignancy that he seldom shows in public. He described his time as a prisoner of war, when he was offered a chance for early release because his father was a top naval officer. “I was in rather bad physical shape,” McCain told Warren, but “we had a code of conduct that said you only leave by order of capture.” So McCain refused to go. He made the telling even more forceful when he added that, “in the spirit of full disclosure, I’m very happy I didn’t know the war was going to last for another three years or so.” In one moment, he showed a sense of pride and a hint of regret, too; he came across as a man who did the right thing but not without the temptation to take an easy out. In any event, the message was very clear: John McCain has had to make bigger, more momentous decisions in his life than has Barack Obama.
McCain bested Obama again when Warren asked for an example of a time in which he “went against party loyalty and maybe even against your own best interest for the good of America.”
“Well, I’ll give you an example that in fact I worked with John McCain on,” Obama said, “and that was the issue of campaign ethics reform and finance reform.” But it turned out that was an issue on which Obama had briefly allied with McCain and then jumped back to the Democratic mother ship, causing McCain to write Obama an angry note about the abandonment of what had been a principled position. As far as bucking your party goes, it wasn’t very big stuff.
CONTINUED 1 2 Next >
When McCain got the question, everyone in the room thought he would bring up campaign-finance reform, the issue on which he has alienated the Republican base for years. But he didn’t. “Climate change, out-of-control spending, torture,” he said. “The list goes on.” McCain’s prime example, though, was his story of opposing Ronald Reagan’s decision to send a contingent of Marines to Lebanon as a peacekeeping force. “My knowledge and my background told me that a few hundred Marines in a situation like that could not successfully carry out any kind of peacekeeping mission, and I thought they were going into harm’s way,” McCain said. But he deeply admired Reagan, and wanted to be loyal to the party; it was a difficult decision.
McCain answered the whole question without touching on campaign finance; he had so much more life experience to draw on that he could swamp Obama without using everything he had.
Russian Fairy Tales
Posted by: MichaelW
Expanding on what McQ noted earlier, the Washington Post takes a sharp knife to Russian excuses for invading Georgia, and in particular shredding the genocide claims:
Georgia committed genocide against the people of South Ossetia. This charge was initially leveled by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and has been taken up by others, including President Dmitry Medvedev, who on Thursday came up with the interesting formulation that South Ossetians "had lived through a genocide." Mr. Medvedev has referred to "thousands" killed, and Russian officials frequently have cited 2,000 South Ossetians killed (out of a population of 70,000). They have said Georgia razed the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. These purported depredations are given as the main motivation for Russian military intervention.
A researcher for Human Rights Watch who visited Tskhinvali reported as follows: "A doctor at Tskhinvali Regional Hospital who was on duty from the afternoon of August 7 told Human Rights Watch that between August 6 to 12 the hospital treated 273 wounded, both military and civilians. . . . The doctor also said that 44 bodies had been brought to the hospital since the fighting began, of both military and civilians. The figure reflects only those killed in the city of Tskhinvali. But the doctor was adamant that the majority of people killed in the city had been brought to the hospital before being buried, because the city morgue was not functioning due to the lack of electricity in the city."
Independent journalists back up the account provided by Human Rights Watch. The Wall Street Journal, for example, yesterday reported finding Tskhinvali, where most of the fighting took place, mostly intact and with "little evidence of a high death toll."
I've heard numerous reports from South Ossetia from reporters having a difficult time verifying any deaths, much less genocide. Meanwhile, Russian troops have had no qualms about threatening reporters, and allegedly shot one. Strange behavior for "peacekeepers" eager to show how they are preventing further atrocities, don't you think?
Speaking of peacekeeping and ethnic cleansing, as it turns out the Russians decided to get some cleansing of their own done in Georgia. How do we know this? Because the puppet tells us so:
Remarkably, the Russian-allied "president" of South Ossetia acknowledged the ethnic cleansing yesterday in an interview with the Russian newspaper Kommersant, although he did not acknowledge the killings of Georgian civilians that others have documented. Eduard Kokoity said that his forces "offered them a corridor and gave the peaceful population the chance to leave" and that "we do not intend to allow" their return.
A war crime, yes; but at least he was honest about it.
I've written about Kokoity and his cabal before, and needless to say they are about as corrupt as former Soviet officials can possibly be. There are also reports that it was Kokoity and his minions who precipitated Saakshvili's military assault on South Ossetia by shelling the predominately Georgian populated towns surrounding Tskhinvali.
In any case, Kokoity is a nasty bugger, and his participation in war atrocities with Russian aid or complicity is nothing surprising. What is surprising is that the Washington Post let loose with both barrels at the Muscovite mendacity.
Permalink | Comments ( 2 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Foreign Affairs
QandO
There are a lot of things above Obama’s “pay grade”
posted at 8:30 am on August 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly
I’ll credit Rick Warren with asking both John McCain and Barack Obama about abortion. I skipped the Saddleback Church non-debate, but Jim at Gateway Pundit captured what has to be the quote of the election. When asked the point when a human embryo achieves personhood, Obama said that the question is “above my pay grade”:
Q. Now, let’s deal with abortion. 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. you know, as a pastor I have to deal with this all of the time. \Aall of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. 40 million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?
A. Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.
But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I’m pro abortion, but because ultimately I don’t think women make these decisions casually. They wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or spouses or their doctors and their family members.
And so for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground and by the way I have now inserted this into the democrat party platform is how do we reduce the number of abortions because the fact is that although we’ve had a president who is opposed to abortions over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down.
Q. Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?
A. I am in favor, for example, of limits on late term abortions if there is an exception for the mother’s health. Now from the perspective of those who, you know, are pro life, I think they would consider that inadequate. and I respect their views. I mean one of the things that I’ve always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then — and you are consistent in that belief, then I can’t argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you.
What I can do is say are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions, and as an example of that, one of the things that I’ve talked about is how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child. You know, have we given them the health care that they need. have we given them the support services that they need. Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary. That I think can make a genuine difference.
First, the entire issue of abortion involves determining when a baby becomes a person. If Obama thinks this is above his pay grade, then he probably shouldn’t be running for political office. If a baby is a person at conception, then abortion is murder. If Obama doesn’t believe that abortion is murder, then he can’t believe in the personhood, the humanity, of an embryo or fetus — not unless he’s some kind of monster.
As President — even as Senator — Obama is expected to have an answer for this. Quite literally, there is no higher pay grade in the US government, and abortion is one of the issues he has to face. If he can’t face it, then he should go back to community organization and leave politics for people who can. John McCain had no trouble answering the same question. Obama dodged it — and for good reason: his answer would have exposed his radical views.
Even in his equivocations, though, Obama can’t be honest. His reference to the Democratic platform on abortion is laughable. He insists that it represents an effort to reduce abortions, but Obamas’ language pledges to oppose all efforts to limit abortion on demand while providing public financing for abortions. That language actually strengthens the pro-abortion position over the 2004 position, while paying lip service to reducing abortions through nore government-funded programs.
Has Barack Obama ever voted to reduce abortions? Obama never answered that question, but he hasn’t. He voted against the ban on partial-birth abortions, a bill that passed Congress on a bipartisan basis three times before finally becoming law. In Illinois, he voted to kill a bill that would have stopped Christ Hospital and other medical facilities from abandoning live infants from unsuccessful abortions so that they would die of neglect. Obama lied about this, too, in an interview on CBN with David Brody last night:
As the NRLC has discovered, the Illinois bill did have the “neutrality clause” attached as an amendment to S.1082 in the same committee session in which Obama later killed the bill, on a party-line vote. That goes beyond abortion to infanticide, which makes Obama’s position on the personhood of a fetus even more nebulous. He’s moved into Peter Singer territory — the most radically pro-abortion candidate ever to carry a major-party nomination for President.
Unless, of course, voters buy the notion that the issue is above Obama’s pay grade, and that he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about. In that case, they’d still be better off supporting the candidate who understands the pay grade he’s already at and the pay grade of the job for which he’s campaigning.
Update: I didn’t think about this at the time, but isn’t Barack Obama a Constitutional law scholar? Isn’t a question of personhood supposed to be in that “pay grade”?
The only thing I/m convinced of is that you never answer a direct question
I'm convinced I waste my time attempting you to answer one
The question was how our involvement affects an entirely different situation
Your non answer speaks volumes
Get back to me when you've been programmed to answer that one
TIA
So, you're saying that if the US hadn't gone into Iraq, they'd have moral authority and just telling Russia not to go into Gerogia would have stopped them dead in their tracks??
Even for you that's a laugher.
Their incursion into Georgia had nothing to do with us being in Iraq. The situation has been developing for years due to local factors
The fact that we're not going to put troops in Georgia has nothing to do with anything other than that particular situation
Russia is growing, the West is dying
Seems like we might have heard that before
They have had those same resources for centuries and still ended up a shell of their former size
They're feeling their oats now because of the oil bubble cash infusion
When new technoligies are fully developed ( oil from biomass, ameba producing oil etc ) they'll be under pressure.
They'll have to develop a market system- something their structure doesn't allow. ANy society will progress in proportion to their freedom.
Do you really think they will be able to jsut walk back in and take back Ukraine ( with a much better equipped and trained military than Georgia )
The Russians tried world domination and failed. Nothing has changed except a temporary cash bonanza
Obama campaign breaks anti-soft-money commitments
How many commitments does he have to break?
Posted by: Soren Dayton
Saturday, August 16, 2008 at 10:51AM
0 Comments
The LA times has exposed a nice little bit of hypocrisy from Barack Obama's campaign. His campaign is now directly soliciting high-six-figure checks from unions:
In an example of the campaign's late-innings effort, a very senior Obama campaign official called the political director of one of the largest labor unions about two weeks ago and asked for a $500,000 contribution on top of a similar amount that had been committed just a few weeks before, according to the union official.
The campaign, further more, refuses to deny whether Obama is doing it directly:
A spokesman for the campaign, Hari Sevugan, declined to say whether Obama himself had become involved in these fundraising efforts or to confirm any details of work done by others from the campaign.
Now, my problem here isn't that he is doing it. It is the hypocrisy of attacking it and then doing and claiming that he is clean. This "say Mister Clean, do Mr. Washington" pattern is the pattern of his campaign. Read on for details.
First he says that he will take public financing. Then he doesn't. His argument is that he gets most of his money from small donors. It's not true, as noted by Open Secrets.
In the primary, he attacked outside groups for attacking him, but thought it was fine that they attacked Obama. He also invoked Republican outside groups -- and there are none this year -- when he dropped out of public financing. At the same time, AFL-CIO is dropping $54m, and just last week the the Obama campaign started sending signals to outside groups that they should turn it on.
Indeed, as a comical exercise, just google "obama outside groups". Here's what you get:
*
Obama Aide Warns Against "Shadowy Outside Groups" in Fundraising Pitch
*
Outside Groups Aid Obama, Their Vocal Critic
*
Obama: Don't Fund the Outside Groups
*
Obama favorite of outside groups
*
Source: Obama To Start Looking The Other Way On 527s
The only "Change I Can Believe In" there is the changing on the dime for his own political advantage.
Category: Barack Obama, Democratic National Convention Committee, Fundraising, Hypocrisy
Russia's history of aiding and abetting the rogue regime in Teheran shows its desire for conflict with the West
Posted by: Jeff Emanuel
Friday, August 15, 2008 at 03:29PM
0 Comments
Ross Douthat at The Atlantic posits that our current obligations in the War on Terror should at very least cause policymakers and military authorities to think very carefully before wading into the Russo-Georgian conflict in any meaningful way.
One side effect of entering into a "proxy war with Russia," says Douthat, is that we would run the risk of the Bear "mak[ing] things harder for us where Tehran's quest for nukes is concerned."
With all respect to Mr. Douthat, it would be very difficult for Russia to be even less helpful to us vis-à-vis Iran -- or to be more helpful to the Persian state -- than they are already being, with regard both to the nuclear situation and to Iran's conventional buildup.
In fact, moving to counter Russia's latest attempt to expand its sphere of influence and dominion once again would not ignite a new conflict, but would demostrate our acknowledgment of Russia's proxy efforts to work against the U.S. worldwide, which have been ongoing for years, including in the Middle East.
More detail below the fold.
Russia has been providing conventional and unconventional assistance to Teheran for years, including undertaking the construction of the light-water reactor in Bushehr (and, despite officially announcing it would do no more, offering under the table to build four more reactors), to the provision of nuclear fuel to the Iranians.
Russia has given cover to the Iranian regime in its battles with the IAEA, as well, in 2005 refusing to vote on resolutions finding Teheran to be in a state of "non-compliance due to "many failures and breaches" over nuclear safeguards" and abstaining from voting to refer the Iranian regime to the UNSC (they voted in favor in 2006, but had the languaged changed to reflect the action as being a simple report to the UNSC, rather than a referral for action). Russia has continued, throughout the diplomatic farce surrounding the Iranian nuclear program, to offer assistance to the Persians on uranium enrichment and conversion.
Russia has given Iran assistance and technology in the Shahab-2 and Shahab-3 missile programs, which Russia and North Korea provided together (the Shahab was largely based on theDPRK's Nodong missile; further, the Shahab-3 was tested for upgrade as recently as 2005, when a solid-fuel motor was experimentally added). In April 2005, it was reported that Iran had acquired at least some number of the Russian nuclear capable 3000km range strategic air-launched cruise missile known as the KH-55 Granat. Further, as recently as 2000 the CIA reported that "Russian entities remain a significant source of biotechnology and chemicals for Iran" -- in other words, Russia has helped Iran maintain at least some semblance of a Chem/Bio stockpile (though there is no international knowledge whatsoever about Iran's biological program, if indeed it has one).
Last year, Russian officials peddled talking points about an impending American attack on Iran to take place in early April 2007, preparations for which "Russian intelligence" said were "nearly completed," and bragged that the Russian-made air defenses employed by Iran were "strong enough" to "tackle U.S. combat aircraft."
America's 2003 invasion of Iraq, another country sporting Russian-made air defense equipment, demonstrated the U.S.'s superiority to the Bear's equipment (we lost nearly as many aircraft to our own Patriot missile batteries as we did to enemy fire). Russia has now moved to shore up the weaknesses in Iran's air defenses, agreeing in December of last year to provide an even more modern and sophisticated strategic air defense system, the S-300PMU1, to the Persians -- a move that "could portend a shift in the air-defense environment across the region."
All this to say, Russia has continued to aid and abet in myriad ways the rogue regime in Teheran, which has been and continues to be actively waging a low-intensity war against the U.S. in Iraq and which is actively in pursuit of weaponized nuclear technology despite all of the diplomacy in the non-Russian-and-Chinese world being waged against it.
Now, it is true that in Afghanistan, Russia is one of three nations that have agreed to allow us to transport materiél overland into the theater of operations (thereby bypassing the growing problem of Pakistan, which has now become the true central focus of Islamist terror and of our war on such). This agreement, though, is not in the least a result of a desire on the part of the Russians to cooperate with the U.S. on anything; rather, it comes in large part as a result of the resurgence of the Taliban, and the growing problem of Islamist extremism in Russia proper and her outlying "territories"; in other words, they see value in helping us prosecute that central GWOT front, and are unlikely to change their minds on that simply because we refuse to allow them to invade an ally unmolested.
As Max Boot wrote in Commentary:
It is...important to give Georgia the wherewithal to defend itself. It has a small but capable military which has received lots of American training and equipment in recent years (and has paid us back by sending a sizable contingent to Iraq). But it may not have two key weapons that would enable it to wreak havoc on the Russian advance. I am thinking of the Stinger and the Javelin. Both are relatively small, inexpensive, handheld missiles. The former is designed for attacking aircraft, the latter for attacking armored vehicles. The Stinger, as we know, has already been used with devastating effectiveness against the Russian air force once before-in Afghanistan. The Javelin is newer, and the Russians haven't yet seen its abilities demonstrated. But there is little doubt that it could do a great deal to bog down the Russians as their vehicles advance down narrow mountain roads into Georgia.
If Russia doesn't call off its offensive right away, the Pentagon should rush deliveries of Javelins and Stingers to Georgia. If the Russians insist on committing acts of aggression, at least let their victims defend themselves properly-and make the Russians pay the kind of price they paid once before in Afghanistan. As we've learned recently, with Iran supporting anti-American attacks in Iraq, proxy warfare is a fiendishly powerful way of fighting. If it is used against us, it should also be used by us.
Stingers and Javelins are a great start in Georgia. I don't advocate an invasion or actual shooting war between the U.S. and Russia -- we shouldn't be sending CAS aircraft or ground troops (outside, perhaps, a solid SOF or OGA contingent), but simply helping our ally to defend itself is neither an act of war on our part, nor a legitimate provocation to the emaciated Bear that is trying so hard to awake itself and its millions of imperialistically/nationalistically-motivated citizens to conquest once again
The gang of ten and the "bipartisan" sell-out
Posted by: McQ
I've mostly been out of the loop while all of the "gang of 10" nonsense was developing, but I have to say, as usual, the Republican members (to include my two senators from GA) have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again on an issue they owned.
I'll have to admit either not being smart enough or nuanced enough to understand why a group of Republican senators would decide to compromise on an issue on which compromise just wasn't necessary. On the issue of drilling, the country was with the Republicans all the way. Democrats were nervous (and beginning to switch sides or making noises about switching sides) and the Democratic leadership looked foolish and out of touch.
And 5 Republican senators decided, apparently, that was too much of an advantage to own and handed it all back.
I simply do not understand political stupidity such as that, but I guess I should get used to it since it seems fairly de rigeur for this crop of Reps.
To review, the public call was for the ban on offshore drilling to be lifted, ANWR to be opened up and leases let for oil shale in the west.
What did these 5 senators settle for? Punitive taxes on oil companies, very limited drilling in a small area offshore, ANWR remains closed as do the oil shale finds in the west.
Well done!
Red Cavaney of the American Petroleum Industry sums up nicely what this bunch has managed to do:
The proposal's approach to access to federal oil and natural gas resources is far too limited in its scope. And, it is unfortunately paired with the imposition of at least $30 billion in new taxes on the oil and natural gas industry that would have the effect of limiting needed oil and gas investment. A lesson learned well in the 1970-80 period. These measures create an environment that will virtually assure a future with less, not more, domestic production.
While this new proposal would expand access in the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf, it unfortunately limits any expansion over current law to the eastern Gulf of Mexico and waters off four Atlantic Coast states in the South. Even in these areas, development in federal waters less than 50 miles offshore would be banned - despite the fact that offshore facilities would need to be 12 or fewer miles from shore to be visible from land. Leasing in the North Atlantic and off the Pacific Coast would be banned and plentiful hydrocarbon resources in Alaska would remain off limits. Significant regulatory burdens on new development would remain in place. The imposition of $30 billion in clearly discriminatory new taxes, to pay for federal investment in alternatives and renewables, ignores the fact that the industry already provides more than 70 percent of all North American investment in research and development in emerging energy technologies.
I have to tell you, I sometimes wonder what happens to politicians when they cross inside that beltway which surrounds Washington DC. If this is an example, it is a disease badly in need of a cure. Instead of a plan which would offer a way toward breaking our dependence on foreign oil, they've offered one which punishes domestic oil companies with taxes, ignores the vast resources available off the Pacific coast, North Atlantic coast, Alaska and in our west, and accepts a pittance in return (which will really do nothing toward bringing on line the supply of oil and gas necessary to cut our dependence on foreign oil).
Or said another way, they managed to give the Democrats everything they wanted without a single shot being fired.
Boobs like that deserve to lose elections. Hell, I can get a Democrat to come up with that sort of garbage. What do I need Republicans for?
as if he speaks for the US
Yep, very unlike Barry's Euro vacation where he wanted to give a speech at the Brandenburg gate and had photo op after photo op w/ leaders but refused to see out injured troops because the photogs couldn't come along
McCain has been familiar with the Russian threat for years along with the Georgian situation. HE recognizes the threat unlike Barry who wants to end all new weapon system development and disarm our nukes
Too funny
Kinda nuanced like Kerry, but really reminiscent of Jimmeh Carter. We all remember how effective his foreign policy was, no?
IN his next speech he came around to McCains view of the situation
The really hysterical thing is hearing the labials on the board all taking Russia's side when they invaded another sovereign nation
And all along for 5 years we;ve been hearing them rant about it being a horrible thing to do
They should qualify that it;s wrong only when someone who they don't like does it
Liberal hypocrisy, of only it could be used to propel cars, there's never be a shortage of fuel again
And he's licking his chops hoping your boy Barry is elected
The same Barry who wants to scrap all new weapons systems because the world is so much safer and the Russians aren't a threat.
YOU really think that naive idiot is more threatening than a person who has already gone to war?
Russia Threatens to Use Nukes Against Poland
Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 9:59:32 am PDT
Barack Obama has vowed to cut funding of missile defense systems, and recently pledged to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world because, according to him, we just don’t need them any more:
CHICAGO - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for ridding the world of nuclear weapons, arguing that U.S. policy is still focused on the defunct Soviet Union instead of combatting the nuclear threat from rogue nations and terrorists.
Today, following the US-Polish agreement on missile defense, Russia is threatening to use nuclear weapons against Poland.
MOSCOW - A top Russian general said Friday that Poland’s agreement to accept a U.S. missile interceptor base exposes the ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons, the Interfax news agency reported. ...
“Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent,” Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.
He added, in clear reference to the agreement, that Russia’s military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons “against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them.” Nogovitsyn that would include elements of strategic deterrence systems, he said, according to Interfax.
16
118 commen
Three massive US naval strike forces are due this week in Persian Gulf
DEBKAfile Special Report
11 Aug.: DEBKAfile’s military sources note that the arrival of the three new American flotillas will raise the number of US strike forces in Middle East waters to five.
This vast naval and air strength consists of more than 40 warships and submarines, some of the latter nuclear-armed, opposite the Islamic Republic, a concentration last seen just before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Our military sources postulate the objects of this show of American muscle:
1. The US, aided also by France, Britain and Canada, is finalizing preparations for a partial naval blockade to deny Iran imports of benzene and other refined oil products.
2. The fleet will be ready in case Iran retaliates by shutting the Strait of Hormuz oil route.
3. As back-up for a possible Israeli military attack on Iran’s nuclear installations.
DEBKAfile’s military sources name the three US strike forces en route to the Gulf as the USS Theodore Roosevelt, the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS Iwo Jima. Already in place are the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea opposite Iranian shores and the USS Peleliui which is cruising in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.
Action, reaction
Posted by: McQ
Well, one of the first bits of fall-out from the Russian invasion of Georgia has Poland inking a deal with the US to move defensive missile systems into that country:
Poland and the United States struck a deal Thursday that will strengthen military ties and put an American missile interceptor base in Poland, a plan that has infuriated Moscow and sparked fears in Europe of a new arms race.
"We have crossed the Rubicon," Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said, referring to U.S. consent to Poland's demands after more than 18 months of negotiations.
Note that it is a bilateral agreement. Also included in that agreement is this statement:
He said the deal also includes a "mutual commitment" between the two nations to come to each other's assistance "in case of trouble."
That clause appeared to be a direct reference to Russia, which has threatened to aim its nuclear-armed missiles at Poland _ a former Soviet satellite _ if it hosts the U.S. site.
You'd better believe it is a direct reference to Russia. Poland has "been there and done that" with Russia before. Unlike Georgia though, US forces are positioned to be able to come to the assistance of Poland if necessary (and if the Rumsfeldian repositioning of forward deployed forces is ever acted upon, we could see US forces eventually stationed in Poland).
Poland has no allusions about Russia being a peaceful or trustworthy regional neighbor. And after finally gaining their freedom with the collapse of the USSR, they're not about to play games with it by pretending Russia won't gobble them up if an opportunity presented itself (like Georgia).
Given the action in Georgia by Russia, Poland's reaction was to demand more security guarantees from the US before it would sign the deal. As for NATO?
Talking about the "mutual commitment" part of the agreement, Tusk said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would be too slow in coming to Poland's defense if threatened and that the bloc would take "days, weeks to start that machinery."
"Poland and the Poles do not want to be in alliances in which assistance comes at some point later _ it is no good when assistance comes to dead people. Poland wants to be in alliances where assistance comes in the very first hours of _ knock on wood _ any possible conflict," Tusk said.
So this partially answers MichaelW's question about whether the dissolution of NATO would mean Europe would have to pay for more of its defense. That seemingly would only happen if the US pulled out of bilateral defense agreements like this one with Poland, and with a resurgent Russia, that seems unlikely.
Why?
Posted by: McQ
Kate Snow of ABC tells us:
A deal has been brokered between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that will allow Clinton's name to be placed in nomination at next week's Democratic nominating convention, sources close to the Clinton camp told ABC News. "Both sides agree that it is in the best interest of party unity and making sure that everyone's voice and vote is honored to make sure her name is put into nomination," a person close the negotiations said.
Why is that in the best interest of the Democratic party? I'm just asking.
Michael Goodwin of the NY Post says:
"Russia rolls over Georgia, Hillary Clinton does the same to Barack Obama. Now we know who's boss. ... Obama blinked and stands guilty of appeasing Clinton by agreeing to a roll call vote for her nomination. ... It was supposed to be his party. Now it's theirs. His and hers."
It would seem to me that it puts Hillary in a position to steal the show (I don't think she can steal the nomination, but stranger things have happened). And I am desperately trying to figure out why placing her name in nomination knowing she's not going to be nominated is in the best interest of the party.
Do they think replaying the primaries on the convention floor is going to heal the supposed rift that exists between Clinton and Obama supporters? How? Couldn't it just as easily reopen what one would assume was a wound that was healing.
And should Obama really trust the Clintons? According to party rules, 300 delegates must sign a petition to place the name of a candidate in nomination. And such an application must also be signed by the candidate in question. So I find this from Mark Ambinder to be a bit of spin:
Although Clinton had resisted pressure from donors, allies and supporters to accept demands to allow her name placed in nomination, she and aides to Obama seemed to realize independently that doing so would be the best way to incorporate and welcome Clinton's supporters into Obama's general election campaign, both symbolically and practically.
The offical line is they all said, "hey, let's do this because she's such a great gal and deserves the nod from all of us for her effort".
So I don't buy into this as a magnanimous party unity move on the part of the Obama camp to placate Clinton. I see it a move by Clinton supporters who aren't at all happy with the outcome of the primary process to actually make a run at the nomination. I don't think it is going to succeed, but my guess is they followed the rules and the Dems had no option but to allow it and are now doing a little preconvention spinning to hide the disunity.
Why else would the Obama camp allow such at thing if it could prevent it?
I can't wait to watch this process as it unfolds in Denver. My guess is, far from unifying the party, this will end up splintering off a significant faction which is slavishly dedicated to the Clintons by again reminding them that their candidate (at least in their world) got screwed.
So, you see no ethical problem with invading another sovereign nation, you just want your guys to win.
Iran and Russia are OK when they do what you think is exact;y the same thing as you say the US is doing.
Fine- you pick the Pals and I pick the Israelis and hope they win in that conflict
Please don't ever use any type or moral imperative to justify your desire to see the US lose in every ares they are involved in.
It's clear now your hatred of the US is not a rational decision as when Russia does the same things you accuse the US of doing, you applaud them
Of course. But didn't Georgia start by invading South Ossetia?
Please, even you are not stupid enough to believe that nonsense. It's clear Russia has been planing this for a while- look at how their response was so rapid and planned. Just like the woman who was raped was asking for it, right? Also interesting that you hypocritically can't even condemn their further incursions into Georgia. I thought it was illegal to take land as a victor of a war, right???? Won't you protest that exactly like you do the Israelis ?
The problem you have is that Georgia and Ukraine and many others actually see the benefits of Western society and chose of their own free will to align themselves that way. In your hatred of the US you just can't understand that.
So, to you national pride makes it OK to invade another sovereign country??
The hypocrisy here is amazing
Barry the Unready and Putin the Poisoner
By James Lewis
Leaders were once named after their most (in)famous acts. In the 10th century Ethelred, king of England, was called "the Unready" after he panicked at the prospect of Viking pirates coming to raid his shores; he was forever after known as "Ethelred the Redeless" --- the king who was bereft of counsel in the face of barbarian attack.
Well, here we are a thousand years later, and our vaunted leader-to-be Barry O is about as ready as Ethelred was in the year 1000 CE. Because we are still threatened by barbarians today. Check the headlines if you don't believe it.
Vladimir Putin should be known throughout the world as "Putin the Poisoner." His signature act -- the action that defined Putin's character for all the world to see -- was the radioactive poisoning of KGB turncoat Alexander Litvinenko in London, using polonium-210. The kicker is that you can't just buy polonium-210 at your local chemical supply store. You can only get it if you have a nuclear weapons industry, because there you need it to start a nuclear chain reaction. It's a super-tricky substance to control. Putin's assassins left their traces all over London. Chemically, Po-210 is 250,000 times more toxic than hydrogen cyanide. But the Russians have always favored overkill.
Vladimir Putin had ordered the assassination of Russian journalists and capitalists before Litvinenko, of course. But the Litvinenko murder defined him for the world -- or at least the sane and sensible fraction of the world --- just as Don Corleone in the Godfather ordered the decapitated horse's head to be placed in Jack Woltz' bedroom. Like the bloody horse head, Polonium poisoning signaled a public but deniable threat to Putin's enemies: Defy me, and I can use the rarest poison in the world to kill you anywhere I choose. And I will get away with it, because everybody else is cowed.
Which is exactly what happened. Putin never paid a price, and in the manner of bullies everywhere, he was emboldened when the Brits failed to respond to Litvinenko's assassination in the middle of London. That is why Putin's invasion of the small, free, and democratic Republic of Georgia was predictable. Today the Russian threat to the Ukraine is just as obvious. So the issue is not just the Republic of Georgia: It is the Ukraine, the Baltics, Eastern Europe, and even the Middle East.
So what about Barry O, vacationing back in Hawaii? How is he holding up against a future in which he might have to face Vlad the Poisoner and Russia's reversion to barbarism? To say it kindly, Barry is Unready -- redeless just like Ethelred, and already signaling weakness. According to his official advisor, Susan Rice, John McCain was just too nasty to the raging Bear. This might pass muster in the Disney World of the Left, where you just wish upon a star to make it come true, but in Putin's mafiocracy they are toasting Obama in vodka. Down the hatch, Barry!
By failing to warn Putin, Obama is inviting more aggression -- look for it as soon as he gets elected. Jimmy Carter invited Brezhnev to invade Afghanistan, and Barry O is doing the same with the former Soviet satellites.
The Bush Administration's much saner response is modeled after the Berlin Airlift, a time when Stalin and Truman were testing each other while teetering on the brink of a nuclear exchange. After sixty years of experience with the Russians, we have a history of relations to fall back on -- but that's only true if you know that history. Barry O has given no indication so far that he's read up on all that Cold War stuff lately. Fortunately, Bush's cabinet has a good historical memory; Condi Rice is a Soviet scholar, and Cheney was SecDef at the end of the Cold War. Nobody appears to be in denial, thank goodness. They will navigate this confrontation based on what we know about Russia and Putin. And no, George W. Bush is not as naive about Putin as conservatives sometimes fear.
Just as the Polonium assassination was designed to send a message to bully the world, the Georgia invasion used a lot of over-the-top violence -- Russia having 146 million people, and George 4-5 million. Putin went so far as to send in Cossack and Chechen irregulars, a deliberate throwback to the Czars. Back then, the Cossacks were no better than the Vikings; they killed, plundered and raped civilians. They were the battlefield scavengers of dead and wounded soldiers. Even the Prussian von Clausewitz was appalled and shamed by the Cossacks, who had no sense of military honor as he understood it.
Well, Putin has sent the Cossacks and Chechens in again after the Russian army. This is a signal to Eastern Europe where people have long memories. Russia is back to barbarism.
Under its current KGB Mafia, Moscow will act purely by Machtpolitik, unrestrained by world opinion or civilized values. Meanwhile, the Germans have put themselves at the mercy of Putin by giving him a monopoly over their natural gas supplies. Russia's Gazprom even hired the last (and worst) German Chancellor, Gerhardt Schroeder, after he passed a concessionary gas agreement with Russia through the German parliament. Europe is governed by fools or cowards, who hope to buy the friendship of the KGB Mafia in Moscow. But as soon as the Russians bare their teeth, Europe looks to the United States again for help.
Pathetic.
So we're the world's Good Cop again. We don't have to like it, in the face of unreliable ‘allies' and treacherous foes. But who else would you trust to resist thugs like Putin the Poisoner?
Right.
They are also acting as Irans proxies
Do you dispute that they are funded and armed by Iran?
Their interference comes when the essentialy take away the power from an elected government
Again, do you condemn Russias invasion of another sovereign nation?
Oh yeah... I'm sure that's just what Ukraine wants to do, fight a proxy war against the Russians for you
No, I'd say their goal would be to prevent being invaded like the Russians did in Georgia. Do you think they want to give up the freedoms they have fought so hard for?
I'm not reading you wrong, it's just your denial surfacing
Again, it's OK for you if Hezbollah interferes with the elected government in Lebanon, right?
Selective ethics is no ethics
No but we can supply Ukraine with any type of arms they need to defend themselves
Again, amusing that you seem to be happy with Russia invading another country while damning the same actions you perceive in Iraq and Israel
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Email a Friend Email to a Friend
Advertisement
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama attracting 43% of the vote while John McCain earns 42%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 47% and McCain 46% (see recent daily results). Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day.
The race for the White House remains remarkably stable. With leaners, Obama’s support has stayed between 46% and 48% every day for the past two weeks. During that same time frame, McCain has been at 46% or 47% every day.
Data released yesterday afternoon shows that both Virginia and Nevada remain too close to call. Other data shows that 61% of voters nationwide want Congress to return immediately and vote on allowing offshore oil drilling. Sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) and we will keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
Obama leads among voters who make less than $40,000 a year or more than $100,000 annually. McCain leads above those in between. Among Investors, McCain leads 50% to 45% while Obama leads among non-Investors 53% to 40% (more demographic data for Premium Members via the Daily Snapshot).
McCain is now viewed favorably by 55% of the nation’s voters, Obama by 54% (see trends). Other key stats of Election 2008 are updated daily at Obama-McCain: By the Numbers.
At noon Eastern today, new data will be released on the Fairness Doctrine and the Virginia Senate race. At 3:00 p.m. Eastern today, the latest data for the Minnesota Senate race and the Colorado Senate race will be released. At 5:00 p.m. Eastern, the latest numbers will be released on the Presidential race in Minnesota and Colorado.
The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator currently shows now Obama leading in states with 210 Electoral College votes while McCain leads in states with 165 votes. When leaners are included, it’s Obama 273, McCain 227. Rasmussen Markets data gives Obama a % chance of winning the White House.
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 1,000 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 3,000 Likely Voters--is +/- 2 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for the full-week results are available for Premium Members.
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large. Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. Our baseline targets are established based upon survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews). For the month of August, the targets are 40.6% Democrat, 31.6% Republican, and 27.8% unaffiliated. For July, the targets were 41.4% Democrat, 31.5% Republican, and 27.1% unaffiliated (see party trends and analysis).
A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.
Accent the negative
Aug. 13, 2008 | When in tarnation will those blasted presidential debates arrive? This excruciatingly long hiatus between the end of the primary season and the national conventions feels like running in mud. The electorate desperately needs to see and compare the two major candidates operating together in an issues-oriented forum. Both Barack Obama and John McCain are being diminished by their helter-skelter jumping around like grasshoppers. And campaign ads on both sides have seemed rote, slick or silly.
As a supporter of Barack Obama, I've been alarmed by the steady tightening of the polls. And as a longtime listener of talk radio who witnessed the ruthless whittling down of John Kerry in the 2004 campaign, I have an increasing sense of foreboding. Obama is twisting slowly, slowly in the wind like a tempting piñata for right-wing cudgels. Given how new he is as a national figure (despite his bestselling books), this protracted summer delay is allowing opponents to fill the gap with a grotesquely distorted caricature of him. A tap-dancing Rockette line of mutually contradictory Obamas has been trotted out to scare the public -- the secret Muslim traitor; the radical leftist with a bag of bombs; the snobby, out-of-touch elitist; the magical Messiah with healing hands; the Peter Pan naif who can't sharpen a pencil. But here's the bad news -- it's working. Who would ever vote for the menacing or ridiculous shadow Obama of talk radio?
I've also been troubled by how the Obama campaign, after a nearly flawless primary performance, has been playing its cards. It was too easy for conservative critics to dismiss Obama's international junket as a series of exploitative photo ops because he did indeed spend so little time in each place. A genuine fact-finding mission would have looked more substantive and considered. However, I was certainly delighted with the dazzling crop of pix -- Obama holding his own with class and grace among foreign leaders. True, that sketch of his potential presidency felt a bit coercively premature -- but what an improvement from the embarrassments of the last eight years, as the provincial George Bush clownishly strutted his cowboy way across the European stage.
Enjoy this story?
Thanks for your support.
A major gaffe this summer has been that, in trying to act more casual and folksy to appeal to working-class white voters, Obama has resorted to a cringe-making use of inner-city black intonations and jokey phrasings -- exactly the wrong tactic.
(Example below:)
One of the major doubts those very voters have about him is to what extent he is an agent for the 1960s black power radicalism espoused by his former minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It does seem to be the case that Obama, raised in multicultural and tourist-oriented Hawaii, lacks direct experience of any working-class enclave aside from the black one. But so what? In remaking her campaign at the end, Hillary Clinton mimicked the metallic accent of her father's coal-country Scranton origins. Yet nothing in her inexorable climb toward multimillionaire status has ever indicated that Hillary prefers jawing with the humble proles to her favorite company of glitzy celebs, fast-track power players, and slippery, brainiac lawyers.
Furthermore, the Obama campaign's constant chaining of the Bush anchor on the grouchy, maverick McCain is getting stale. Save that for the post-convention push. The attitude toward Bush of most working-class conservatives is, "He may be a bastard, but he's OUR bastard!" If that nativizing idea gets transferred to McCain, it could be fatal for the Dems in November. And Obama's tire gauge mini-crusade was a mortifying misfire with those same voters -- a shiny little gadget specializing in the literally lightweight issue of air versus the greasy, brawny push for massive, phallic drilling into the seabed of mother earth. Symbols matter!
Meanwhile, the legions of journalists who thought the defeated Hillary was going to skulk away brightly smiling like Pollyanna should have their press credentials revoked. It was obvious for months, even before the primaries were over, that she has no intention of leaving the field, now or ever. Those 18 million votes she's claiming (really 17) contain significant numbers of Republicans who voted satirically for her during Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos, designed to prolong the Democratic primary and damage the candidates. Furthermore, only a fraction of the legitimately Democratic votes that she won belonged to Hillary die-hards anyhow. Many voters preferred other candidates who had dropped out, or they were temporarily unsure about Obama. It's utter nonsense for Hillary to imply that the alleged 18 million form a solid, lardlike block sworn to her, as in some fascist regime, and that if they aren't "heard" at the convention, they will swarm like lemmings to the edge of a cliff and fling themselves off.
The Clintons and their surrogates have clearly been encouraging and fomenting resentment and rebellion, even while angelically maintaining deniability. Conventions aren't the place for "catharsis" -- how absurd. Let all those dizzy dames go off on a spa week for a bout of Arthur Janov's primal scream therapy. (Remember that? John Lennon bawling for mom on the "Plastic Ono Band" album.) Hillary is setting feminism back -- defining women as petulant brats driven by emotion rather than logic and fair play. This entire election wasn't about gender and sexism -- until the profligate, mismanaging Hillary began losing and grasping at straws. For Minerva's sake, let's move on to a fresh new generation of female leadership!
Obama's Foreign Donors: The media averts its eyes
By Pamela Geller
I have been researching, documenting and studying thousands upon thousands of Obama's campaign donations for the past month. Egregious abuse was immediately evident and I published the results of my ongoing investigation. Each subsequent post built a more damning case against Obama's illegal contribution activity.
The media took little notice of what I was substantiating. I went so far as to upload the documents so that anyone could do their own research. I asked readers to download the documents and a number of folks pitched in.
Despite dropping the groundbreaking bombshell story of "Palestinian" brothers from the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza who donated $33,000 to Obama's campaign, no big media picked up the story. Jihadis donating to Obama from Gaza? Could there be a bigger story? Foreign donations are illegal, but this story was all that and so much more. The "Palestinian" brothers were proud and vocal of their "love" for Obama. Their vocal support on behalf of "Palestinians" spoke volumes to Obama's campaign.
And yet still no media.
But Obama pricked up his ears. He smelled trouble and while no media asked, he answered anyway. Sen. Obama's campaign immediately scrambled and contended they had returned the $33,500 in illegal contributions from Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza, despite the fact that records do not show that it was returned and the brothers said they have not received any money. Having gone through all of Obama's refunds redesignations etc, no refund was made to Osama, Hossam, or Edwan Monir in the Rafah refugee camp. And still no media.
One of the Gazan brothers, Monir Edwan (identified here), claimed he bought "Obama for President" T-shirts off Obama's website and then sold the T-shirts in Gaza for a profit. All purchases on the Barack Obama website are considered contributions.
The Palestinians allegedly claimed "they were American citizens", so said Obama's people. They listed their address -- zip code 972 (ironically the area code for Israel) and they input "GA"the state abbreviation for Georgia (screen shot here) They actually lived in a Hamas controlled refugee camp. So if Obama's people thought it was "Georgia" why did they ship the tee shirts to the correct address in Gaza? Shipping overseas to a Gaza refugee camp is vastly different than the state next door.
Still no media.
"Some young men even bought the T-shirts for 60 shekel ($17.29), which is a lot to spend in Gaza on a T-shirt, but that is how much Gazans like Obama," Edwan claimed in a follow up article in the conservative websiet WorldNetDaily. And Hamas has publicly endorsed Obama.
And still no media.
Obama's campaign said the Palestinian brothers in the Middle East made $33,000 in illegal donations to the campaign via the internet.
The donations came in between Sept. 20 and Dec. 6 and virtually all of the money, about $33,500, was returned by December 6. But the refunds weren't reported to the Federal Election Commission due to a technical error, campaign officials said.
If McCain had been involved with something so dark and nefarious, taking money from Islamic jihad, his candidacy would never withstand the media blowback.
But it was the son of hope, the agent of change, the one we have been waiting for , so the media yawned.
The jihad donations were hardly the only bloody red flags. The first in my series of posts ran July 19th. The documents were so unwieldy, readers like John, Doc, and Cathy (who discovered Rafah) were working furiously to cross check our findings at the FEC site and then mine the data.
Obama's overseas (foreign) contributors are making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others are aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up. The countries and major cities from which contributions have been received France, Virgin Islands, Planegg, Vienna, Hague, Madrid, London, AE, IR, Geneva,Tokyo, Bangkok, Turin, Paris, Munich, Madrid, Roma, Zurich, Netherlands, Moscow, Ireland, Milan, Singapore, Bejing, Switzerland, Toronto, Vancouver, La Creche, Pak Chong, Dublin, Panama, Krabi, Berlin, Geneva, Buenos Aires, Prague, Nagoya, Budapest, Barcelona, Sweden, Taipei, Hong Kong, Rio de Janeiro, Sydney, Zurich, Ragusa, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Uganda, Mumbia, Nagoya, Tunis, Zacatecas, St, Croix, Mississiauga, Laval, Nadi, Behchoko, Ragusa, DUBIA, Lima, Copenhagen, Quaama, Jeddah, Kabul, Cairo, Nassau(not the county on Long Island,lol), Luxembourg (Auchi's stomping grounds), etc,etc,etc,
Half a million dollars had been donated from overseas by unidentified people "not employed".
Digging deeper, all sorts of very bizarre activity jumped at us. Dr and JJ continued to break it down and pull data from various sources. We found Rebecca Kurth contributed $3,137.38 to the Obama Campaign in 112 donations, including 34 separate donations recorded in one day,
How about this gibberish donor on the 30th of April in 2008.
A donor named Hbkjb, jkbkj
City: Jkbjnj Works for: Kuman Bank (doesn't exist)
Occupation: Balanon Jalalan Amount: $1,077.23
or the donor Doodad, The # of transactions = 1,044
The $ contributed = $10,780.00
This Doodad character works for FDGFDGF and occupation is DFGFDG
The more questions we answered the more questions we discovered.
Thousands of Obama's foreign donations ended in cents. The "cents" did not make sense. And we compared McCain donation documentss to Obama's. McCain's records are nothing like Obama's. McCain's are so clean. No cents, all even dollar amounts. But Obama's contained thousands of strange, odd amounts -- evidence of foreign contributors, since Americans living overseas would almost uniformly be able to contribute dollars. Still no media.
Julia Gorin told me a funny story two months ago. Her husband's co-worker wanted to see what would happen if he tried giving a contribution to the Obama campaign via a credit card. He used his Macy's card. The system accepted it. He tried the same with McCain's campaign, and the transaction wouldn't go through. Now, obviously, down the line, the Obama transaction would fail as well, but it goes to the point that there is no safety system in place -- it'll just accept any and all money, which helps explain how his campaign raised so much more money than everyone else's.
Despite the evidence of dirty campaign donations, crickets chirped in newsrooms across the country. The moment my Gaza story started to get some chatter on talk radio, the left and their supplicant handmaidens in the media sprang into action and created a McCain illegal campaign contribution "scandal". The Washington Post published an inaccurate allegation and then retracted not a day later, at the risk of looking stupid. They are jeopardizing the little credibility that they have left.
....a Washington Post story detailing some suspicious looking contributions to the McCain campaign bundled by Harry Sargeant III. Shortly after posting, a correction appeared in the original report, as follows:
An earlier version of this story about campaign donations that Florida businessman Harry Sargeant III raised for Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton incorrectly identified three individuals as being among the donors Sargeant solicited on behalf of McCain. Those donors -- Rite Aid manager Ibrahim Marabeh, and lounge owners Nadia and Shawn Abdalla -- wrote checks to Giuliani and Clinton, not McCain. Also, the first name of Faisal Abdullah, a McCain donor, was misspelled in some versions of the story (noted by Amanda Carpenter).
So here an intrepid blogger finds a keg of dynamite of dirty dollar donations to Obama and what does the media do? They ignore it. And when forced to confront it by the sheer newsworthiness of the story, what happens? They go after McCain. They punish McCain.
And that is meant to be a lesson to all of us, Whatever you find, whatever you discover about the Candidate of Mystery, they will blow it back in your face. And they did. Almost immediately.
The irony and the upshot of all this. John McCain is reviewing contributions. Ain't that a kick in the head. I can tell him he needn't bother. Been there, done that. Nothing to see, keep moving.
Obama's out there raising millions, some in illegal donations and the Washington Post jumps on McCain for a $50k, which hasn't been shown to be illegal, but merely "inappropriate." The left and their handmaidens, the mani stream media, were so quick to deflect this hit, it seems we have hit a raw nerve. I intend to keep digging. Stay tuned.,
Too funny
So, the millions of times you parroted " 33%33%335 " was all a waste of time???
And like if the polls were showing a move towards Barry, you wouldn't be filling us in on those
The Cards in America's Hands
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- The Russia-Georgia cease-fire brokered by France's president is less than meets the eye. Its terms keep moving as the Russian army keeps moving. Russia has since occupied Gori (appropriately, Stalin's birthplace), effectively cutting Georgia in two. The road to the capital, Tbilisi, is open, but apparently Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has temporarily chosen to seek his objectives through military pressure and Western acquiescence rather than by naked occupation.
His objectives are clear. They go beyond detaching South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia and absorbing them into Russia. They go beyond destroying the Georgian army, leaving the country at Russia's mercy.
The real objective is the Finlandization of Georgia through the removal of President Mikheil Saakashvili and his replacement by a Russian puppet.
Which explains Putin stopping the Russian army (for now) short of Tbilisi. What everyone overlooks in the cease-fire terms is that all future steps -- troop withdrawals, territorial arrangements, peacekeeping forces -- will have to be negotiated between Russia and Georgia. But Russia says it will not talk to Saakashvili. Thus regime change becomes the first requirement for any movement on any front. This will be Putin's refrain in the coming days. He is counting on Europe to pressure Saakashvili to resign and/or flee to "give peace a chance."
The Finlandization of Georgia would give Russia control of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which is the only significant European-bound route for Caspian Sea oil and gas that does not go through Russia. Pipelines are the economic lifelines of such former Soviet republics as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan that live off energy exports. Moscow would become master of the Caspian basin.
Subduing Georgia has an additional effect. It warns Russia's former Baltic and East European satellites what happens if you get too close to the West. It is the first step to re-establishing Russian hegemony in the region.
What is to be done? Let's be real. There's nothing to be done militarily. What we can do is alter Putin's cost-benefit calculations.
We are not without resources. There are a range of measures to be deployed if Russia does not live up to its cease-fire commitments:
1. Suspend the NATO-Russia Council established in 2002 to help bring Russia closer to the West. Make clear that dissolution will follow suspension. The council gives Russia a seat at the NATO table. Message: Invading neighboring democracies forfeits the seat.
2. Bar Russian entry to the World Trade Organization.
3. Dissolve the G-8. Putin's dictatorial presence long made it a farce but no one wanted to upset the bear by expelling it. No need to. The seven democracies simply withdraw. Then immediately announce the reconstitution of the original G-7.
4. Announce a U.S.-European boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics at Sochi. To do otherwise would be obscene. Sochi is 15 miles from Abkhazia, the other Georgian province just invaded by Russia. The Games will become a riveting contest between the Russian, Belarusian and Jamaican bobsled teams.
All of these steps (except dissolution of the G-8, which should be irreversible) would be subject to reconsideration depending upon Russian action -- most importantly and minimally, its withdrawal of troops from Georgia proper to South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
The most crucial and unconditional measure, however, is this: Reaffirm support for the Saakashvili government and declare that its removal by the Russians would lead to recognition of a government-in-exile. This would instantly be understood as providing us the legal basis for supplying and supporting a Georgian resistance to any Russian-installed regime.
President Bush could cash in on his close personal relationship with Putin by sending him a copy of the highly entertaining (and highly fictionalized) film "Charlie Wilson's War" to remind Vlad of our capacity to make Russia bleed. Putin would need no reminders of the Georgians' capacity and long history of doing likewise to invaders.
President Bush needs to make up for his mini-Katrina moment when he lingered in Beijing yukking it up with our beach volleyball team while Putin flew to North Ossetia to direct the invasion of a neighboring country. Bush is dispatching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to France and Georgia. Not a moment too soon. Her task must be to present these sanctions, get European agreement on as many as possible and begin imposing them, calibrated to Russian behavior. And most important of all, to prevent any Euro-wobbliness on the survival of Georgia's democratically elected government.
We have cards. We should play them. Much is at stake.
LOL
Translation: Peg will ignore every poll till and if they show Barry with a lead.
At that point she will be parroting the results like the good bot she is
When exactly do the polls start counting Peggy?
Let's see, it was Rasmussen, the Zogby, now Pew
I'm sure Pew is a part of the vast right wing conspiracy also, right Peggy??
"From Pew Research:
With less than two weeks to go before the start of the presidential nominating conventions, Barack Obama’s lead over John McCain has disappeared. Pew’s latest survey finds 46% of registered voters saying they favor or lean to the putative Democratic candidate, while 43% back his likely Republican rival. In late June, Obama held a comfortable 48%-to-40% margin over McCain, which narrowed in mid-July to 47% to 42%.
Two factors appear to be at play in shifting voter sentiment. First, McCain is garnering more support from his base – including Republicans and white evangelical Protestants – than he was in June, and he also has steadily gained backing from white working class voters over this period. Secondly and more generally, the Arizona senator has made gains on his leadership image. An even greater percentage of voters than in June now see McCain as the candidate who would use the best judgment in a crisis, and an increasing percentage see him as the candidate who can get things done. "
, August 7, 2008
Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran
Operation Brimstone ended only one week ago. This was the joint US/UK/French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran and the likely resulting war in the Persian Gulf area. The massive war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the "enemy force".
The lead American ship in these war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagon (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan.
They are joining two existing USN battle groups in the Gulf area: the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) with its Carrier Strike Group Nine (CCSG-9); and the USS Peleliu (LHA-5) with its expeditionary strike group.
Likely also under way towards the Persian Gulf is the USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) and its expeditionary strike group, the UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal (R07) carrier battle group, assorted French naval assets including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine Amethyste and French Naval Rafale fighter jets on-board the USS Theodore Roosevelt. These ships took part in the just completed Operation Brimstone.
The build up of naval forces in the Gulf will be one of the largest multi-national naval armadas since the First and Second Gulf Wars. The intent is to create a US/EU naval blockade (which is an Act of War under international law) around Iran (with supporting air and land elements) to prevent the shipment of benzene and certain other refined oil products headed to Iranian ports. Iran has limited domestic oil refining capacity and imports 40% of its benzene. Cutting off benzene and other key products would cripple the Iranian economy. The neo-cons are counting on such a blockade launching a war with Iran.
The US Naval forces being assembled include the following:
Carrier Strike Group Nine
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Two
Destroyer Squadron Nine:
USS Mobile Bay (CG53) guided missile cruiser
USS Russell (DDG59) guided missile destroyer
USS Momsen (DDG92) guided missile destroyer
USS Shoup (DDG86) guided missile destroyer
USS Ford (FFG54) guided missile frigate
USS Ingraham (FFG61) guided missile frigate
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG60) guided missile frigate
USS Curts (FFG38) guided missile frigate
Plus one or more nuclear hunter-killer submarines
Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Peleliu (LHA-5) a Tarawa-class amphibious assault carrier
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD52) assult ship
USS Dubuque (LPD8) assult ship/landing dock
USS Cape St. George (CG71) guided missile cruiser
USS Halsey (DDG97) guided missile destroyer
USS Benfold (DDG65) guided missile destroyer
Carrier Strike Group Two
USS Theodore Roosevelt (DVN71) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Eight
Destroyer Squadron 22
USS Monterey (CG61) guided missile cruiser
USS Mason (DDG87) guided missile destroyer
USS Nitze (DDG94) guided missile destroyer
USS Sullivans (DDG68) guided missile destroyer
USS Springfield (SSN761) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine
IWO ESG ~ Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) amphibious assault carrier
with its Amphibious Squadron Four
and with its 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
USS San Antonio (LPD17) assault ship
USS Velia Gulf (CG72) guided missile cruiser
USS Ramage (DDG61) guided missile destroyer
USS Carter Hall (LSD50) assault ship
USS Roosevelt (DDG80) guided missile destroyer
USS Hartfore (SSN768) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine
Carrier Strike Group Seven
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing 14
Destroyer Squadron 7
USS Chancellorsville (CG62) guided missile cruiser
USS Howard (DDG83) guided missile destroyer
USS Gridley (DDG101) guided missile destroyer
USS Decatur (DDG73) guided missile destroyer
USS Thach (FFG43) guided missile frigate
USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) fast combat support ship
Also likely to join the battle armada:
UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal Carrier Strike Group with assorted guided missile destroyers and frigates, nuclear hunter-killer submarines and support ships
French Navy nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines (likely the Amethyste and perhaps others), plus French Naval Rafale fighter jets operating off of the USS Theodore Roosevelt as the French Carrier Charles de Gaulle is in dry dock, and assorted surface warships
Various other US Navy warships and submarines and support ships. The following USN ships took part (as the "enemy" forces) in Operation Brimstone and several may join in:
USS San Jacinto (CG56) guided missile cruiser
USS Anzio (CG68) guided missile cruiser
USS Normandy (CG60) guided missile cruiser
USS Carney (DDG64) guided missile destroyer
USS Oscar Austin (DDG79) guided missile destroyer
USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG81) guided missile destroyer
USS Carr (FFG52) guided missile frigate
The USS Iwo Jima and USS Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Groups have USMC Harrier jump jets and an assortment of assault and attack helicopters. The Expeditionary Strike Groups have powerful USMC Expeditionary Units with amphibious armor and ground forces trained for operating in shallow waters and in seizures of land assets, such as Qeshm Island (a 50 mile long island off of Bandar Abbas in the Gulf of Hormuz and headquarters of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps).
The large and very advanced nature of the US Naval warships is not only directed at Iran. There is a great fear that Russia and China may oppose the naval and air/land blockade of Iran. If Russian and perhaps Chinese naval warships escort commercial tankers to Iran in violation of the blockade it could be the most dangerous at-sea confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US and allied Navies, by front loading a Naval blockade force with very powerful guided missile warships and strike carriers is attempting to have a force so powerful that Russia and China will not be tempted to mess with. This is a most serious game of military brinkmanship with major nuclear armed powers that have profound objections to the neo-con grand strategy and to western control of all of the Middle East's oil supply.
The Russian Navy this spring sent a major battle fleet into the Mediterranean headed by the modern aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov and the flagship of its Black Sea Fleet, the Guided Missile Heavy Cruiser Moskva. This powerful fleet has at least 11 surface ships and unknown numbers of subs and can use the Russian naval facility at Syria's Tartous port for resupply. The Admiral Kuznetsov carries approximately 47 warplanes and 10 helicopters. The warplanes are mostly the powerful Su-33, a naval version (with mid-air refueling capability) of the Su-27 family. While the Su-33 is a very powerful warplane it lacks the power of the stealth USAF F-22. However, the Russians insist that they have developed a plasma based system that allows them to stealth any aircraft and a recent incident where Russian fighters were able to appear unannounced over a US Navy carrier battle group tends to confirm their claims. The Su-33 can be armed with the 3M82 Moskit sea-skimming missile (NATO code name SS-N-22 Sunburn) and the even more powerful P-800 Oniks (also named Yakhonts; NATO code name SS-N-26 Onyx). Both missiles are designed to kill US Navy supercarriers by getting past the cruiser/destroyer screen and the USN point-defense Phalanx system by using high supersonic speeds and violent end maneuvers. Russian subs currently use the underwater rocket VA-111 Shkval (Squall), which is fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes and reaches a speed of 360kph (230mph) underwater. There is no effective countermeasures to this system and no western counterpart.
A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The Republic of Georgia, with US backing, is actively preparing for war on South Ossetia. The South Ossetia capital has been shelled and a large Georgian tank force has been heading towards the border. Russia has stated that it will not sit by and allow the Georgians to attack South Ossetia. The Russians are great chess players and this game may not turn out so well for the neo-cons. UPDATE 8 August 2008 ~ War has broken out between Georgia and South Ossetia. At least 10 Russian troops have been killed and 30 wounded and 2 Russian fighter jets downed. American Marines, a thousand of them, have recently been in Georgia training the Georgian military forces. Several European nations stopped Bush and others from allowing Georgia into NATO. Russia is moving a large military force with armor towards the area. This could get bad, and remember it is just a strategic diversion....but one that could have horrific effects. Link to story "Russia sends forces into Georgia rebel conflict". FURTHER UPDATE ~ Russian military forces in active combat; now total of four Russian fighter jets reported downed. ADDITIONAL UPDATE ~ Georgia calls for US help; Russian Air Force bombs Georgian air bases. DEBKA, the Israeli strategy and military site, states that Israeli military officers are advising the Georgian armed forces in combat operations and that 1,000 Israelis are in-combat on the side of Georgia at this time.
Kuwait has activated its "Emergency War Plan" as it and other Gulf nations prepare for the likelihood of a major regional war in the Middle East involving weapons of mass destruction.
The two-ton elephant in the living room of the neo-con strategy is the advanced biowar (ABW) that Iran, and to a lessor extent Syria, has. This places the motherlands of the major neo-con nations (America, France, the United Kingdom), as well as Israel, in grave danger. When the Soviet Union fell the Iranians hired as many out-of-work former Soviet advanced biowar experts as possible. In the last 15 or so years they have helped to develop a truly world class ABW program utilizing recombination DNA genetic engineering technology to create a large number of man made killer viruses. This form of weapon system does not require high tech military delivery systems. The viruses are sub-microscopic and once seeded in a population use the population itself as vectors. Seeding can be done without notice in shopping malls, churches, and other public places. The only real defense to an advanced global strategic biowar attack is to lock down the population as rapidly as possible and let those infected die off.
Unless the public gets it act together and forces the neo-cons to stop the march to yet another war in the Middle East we are apt to see a truly horrific nightmare unfold in OUR COUNTRIES.
Stirling