A 3 a.m. Moment

One question that needs to be asked, is how did we even get to this point, and who is best to lead our country, so that our future policies change America's place in the world for positive outcomes.

From what happened with the Georgian Crisis, I would say it was NOT McCain. His irresponsible comments, and presumptiousness to speak on what the policy should be, before even Bush has had a chance to comment, has made America look stupid on the world stage. His rhetoric, and eagerness to appear like a "commander-in-chief" made a hawkish bluff, which the world, and Russia knew we weren't ready to commit to. George Bush's continued policies to push Russia on Poland and putting missile's in Russia's backyard will not go unanswered by the Russians. What do you think our natural response would be if they tried the same? Oh wait - that already happened with the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Georgia made a fatal error to push on disputed territory and they were punished by Russia, too much by decent standards, but in major way that Russia wanted to get the message across - don't think you can get away with it. Bush failed his big promises to Georgia, and they are left with disallusionments and bitterness toward "democracy". McCain's idiotic statement of "we are all Georgians" is just big talk - and of little value to the Georgians who are suffering because of Bush and his administration's failure to have a real policy for Russia.

Obama is our chance to break from the old guard and shed our negative baggage of the failed Bush Administration's policies to reach out to the World, and reconnect and ensure our American image can once again shine and be held up as an example of true democracy.

McCain is running on negativity and what's pathetic, is that he feels he can't get elected on his own merits, and the only way he can do this is to put fear and negative smears against Obama. Some maverick he turned out to be. The man is essentially the emperor with no clothes on!

Johnny 'shoot first and ask questions later' McCain would have no problem going to war anywhere at any time. Like many Republicans of his generation he equates picking fights with courage. He would never resort to diplomacy to settle a dispute if the military option was available. He knows that war Presidents have more power than peace Presidents. Something the Democrats have yet to understand.He sees war as the natural role of a leader; much like the past and present leaders mentioned in your article. If and when he gets his shot , McCain will prove that he is a tough guy at every opportunity. Republicans have always been willing to sacrifice American lives to prove their manhood. As you point out , once a war is started every politician knows it is suicide to try to stop it . At least until the polls begin to show high levels of opposition. Even then, no politican can survive being called a weakling who would dishonor the troops by giving up. The war drums already pound out the message that Obama is that weakling. I think it is working for McCain, and he will beat Obama because of it. That and the fact that Obama is unwhite mean our next President will be ready to 'rumble' from day one.

Forum with McCain and Obama moderated by Rick Warren will focus on ethics and values and will air on CNN at 8pm tonight.

The Los Angeles Times said Bush Shares Blame for South Ossetia Bloodshed

Published August 14, 2008

"Oh, it's got to be somewhere on this paper!" A Russian caricature by Sergei Elkin.

One of America's leading newspapers said that President George W. Bush is one of those who must answer for the disastrous consequences of Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia. The Los Angeles Times says the Georgian leadership was so stupid that they believed that the USA would give them aid if they got involved in a war with Russia in South Ossetia.


First of all, America is busy handling crises in Afghanistan and Iraq, and, secondly, the US cannot engage in conflict with Russia, as it is the world's second-largest nuclear power.



The newspaper puts part of the blame also on Republican presidential candidate John McCain, as he has been actively lobbying for Georgian interests in Washington. However, the main blame is on President Bush, whose anti-Russian record includes support for the so-called "colour revolutions" in the Russian backyard, condemnation of so-called anti-democratic crackdowns in Russia, whilst ignoring crimes committed by America's authoritarian friends, and also Washington's support for Georgia's bid to join NATO and its planned deployment of missile defence elements in Poland and the Czech Republic, right on the doorstep of Russia.

BBC & REUTERS: GEORGIA MADE A GRAVE ERROR IN ATTACKING S. OSETTIA..



Source: www.reuters.com & www.bbc.co.uk



In the meantime, Russia has made similar allegations against Georgia, some of which may be backed up by witness reports.

Despite Western governments' public statements of support for Saakashvili, some Western diplomats now privately say that the Georgian leadership or military made a serious and possibly criminal mistake last week by launching a massive barrage against the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali, which inevitably led to major civilian deaths and casualties.


Russian officials have said 2,000 people were killed in the Georgian offensive, a figure that has not been confirmed independently. But it is indisputable that large numbers of civilians were killed in and around Tskhinvali.(Reuters)
We're Americans.

We like to divide up opponents in any conflict into Good Guys and Bad Guys. Since reality tends to be more complicated than that, we can easily be misled by politicians and media pundits whose personal agendas are served by telling us which are the Good Guys and which the Bad Guys.

Russia has agreed to "stand down" (NYT); and Georgia has apparently filed a lawsuit against Russia in in the International Court of Justice for ethnic cleansing. (Newsmeat; Examiner.com) But Russia made similar claims against Georgia when it went into South Ossetia. Is either side telling the truth? Are both?

Both sides have traded accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Russia has accused Georgia of killing more than 2,000 people, mostly civilians??? The claim couldn't be independently confirmed, but witnesses who fled the area over the weekend said hundreds had died. (Examiner.com)
During the course of trying to fit together the pieces of the media jig-saw (speaking of trust, lack of), a number of quotes snagged my attention.

Yesterday, Vladimir Putin said:

"The Ferocity in which the actions of the Georgian side were carried out cannot be called anything else but genocide, because they acquired a mass character and were directed against individuals, the civilian population, peacekeepers who carried out their functions of maintaining peace." (BBC News Key Statements)

let's see. george bush was in china trying to duck the spit aimed at his eyes by putin. bush must have seen it coming in putins eyes because there are no reports of the prez taking a hit. so we know where he is/was.
and as usual when a crisis arises bush did not rush back to d.c. but where i our v.p.? we have hardly seen his re-assuring puss in weeks in the media(maybe on fox but i do not watch)? maybe, as post-911, cowering in an un-disclosed location no doubt. where is the co-prez? why is he not assuring the base we will bomb the russian forces back to their borders(because we are lone superpower remember). because i believe the russians are in possession of W M D's, this time for rea, and that means war ! we went to war over iraqi aggression/oil, why not this time? putin is a repressor of his people, like sadam, but no rush to war? if anyone has seen the veep please let us know what he is up to - thanks. bush just said he is not an appeaser like chamberlin and obama, so why are we not at def con 1? may be it is a D's girly response like in cuba and berlin crisis' bush does not want to look week? bush is a manly man, he must have something more up his sleeve than his tepid call for peace and sanctions ? no? because the cons always say they do not work and are a cowards way out! so lead us mr prez. after 1/20/09 you will be free to lead the first combat mission, you are about the same age as some reserves you sent to iraq afterall.

this article said nothing

www.bbc.co.uk & www.reuters.com

Saashaskavilli started this Mess and he got his Ass kicked for his Manaical Ambitions.

In the meantime, Russia has made similar allegations against Georgia, some of which may be backed up by witness reports.

Despite Western governments' public statements of support for Saakashvili, some Western diplomats now privately say that the Georgian leadership or military made a serious and possibly criminal mistake last week by launching a massive barrage against the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali, which inevitably led to major civilian deaths and casualties.


Russian officials have said 2,000 people were killed in the Georgian offensive, a figure that has not been confirmed independently. But it is indisputable that large numbers of civilians were killed in and around Tskhinvali.(Reuters)
We're Americans.

We like to divide up opponents in any conflict into Good Guys and Bad Guys. Since reality tends to be more complicated than that, we can easily be misled by politicians and media pundits whose personal agendas are served by telling us which are the Good Guys and which the Bad Guys.

Russia has agreed to "stand down" (NYT); and Georgia has apparently filed a lawsuit against Russia in in the International Court of Justice for ethnic cleansing. (Newsmeat; Examiner.com) But Russia made similar claims against Georgia when it went into South Ossetia. Is either side telling the truth? Are both?

Both sides have traded accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Russia has accused Georgia of killing more than 2,000 people, mostly civilians??? The claim couldn't be independently confirmed, but witnesses who fled the area over the weekend said hundreds had died. (Examiner.com)
During the course of trying to fit together the pieces of the media jig-saw (speaking of trust, lack of), a number of quotes snagged my attention.

Yesterday, Vladimir Putin said:

"The Ferocity in which the actions of the Georgian side were carried out cannot be called anything else but genocide, because they acquired a mass character and were directed against individuals, the civilian population, peacekeepers who carried out their functions of maintaining peace." (BBC News Key Statements)

If we are all Georgians, does that mean that Randy Scheunemann works for all of us, too? Oh, great, that's all we need is to start dancing to the drumbeat for another war of nonnecessity complements of the boyz from PNAC (the folks who brought you Operation Iraqi Freedom) . And shame on you, Evan Thomas, for your "3AM crap"! How 'bout committing some journalism and research, or even just going to http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav042308f.shtml, and reading a freaking article to give the voters the information resources they need to understand this insane situation. Ultimately, we are the ones who are going to be asked to throw money and lives at this in the worst possible scenario. Give us the tools--Give us the information! Quit feeding this beast of our vapidness!

Evan Thomas doesn't quite get it. Russia's invasion of Georgia is merely a copy of our own policies. If you were to read a recent article by Martin Cruz Smith on Moscow appearing in the National Geographic, you'd know that Moscow has more billionaires than any other place in the world, including Dubai. It is a-wash with petro-dollars. The government is of the rich, for the rich, and by the rich. It's the very neo-con paradise that McCain wants to establish in the United States.
We decided to invade Iraq as a reponse to 9.11. Russia decided to invate George simply to avenge the terrorists attacks in Chechen. They want to show the world that they mean business. Bush and McCain both trumpet pre-emptive war. McCain off and on has been advocating bombing Iran, invading Syria, and liberating Cuba. The Russias believe in pre-emptive warfare too. That's the reason for their behavior n both George and Poland.
Bush decries spheres of influence, but what is he setting up in the Middle East? McCain advocates remaining in Iraq for 100 years and using that to extend American influence over Iran, Syria, and other Middle East Countries. The Monroe Doctrine, a unilateral declaration, puts the entire Western Hemisphere in our sphere of influence. Yet we are denying Russia the same privilege.
To the Russians, Bush and McCain represent en epitome of American hypocrisy. These words do not justify Russia's behavior, but we can't criticize Russia when we behave the same way.

Evan Thomas, like all journalists, does not get all the facts. If he checked out Obama's statements, he'd notice that months ago, Obama warned about trouble spots like George. He stressed the need for internatinal mediation. And, what is Bush trying to do? Excatly what Obama advocated - except of course that Bush and McCain have worked so hard to ensure that we can't have enough enemies and have spent so much time sneering at international cooperation that their credibility is non-existent.

As a recently retired teacher from an innercity high school in Los Angeles, in the middle of gang territory, I can give you some straight-talking, common sense wisdom that McCain and Bush cannot. As a teacher, the last thing you want is the 3 AM moment. In the case of my school, that 3 AM moment would would be a fight.
To prevent the fight, which could easily escalate into a school wide melee (It did once while I was there), you evolve a whole system of crisis detection radar that defuses potentially dangerous situations before they explode. This an important part of Obama's defense and foreign policy - a pro-active policy that de-fuses the crisis before it starts. It's not a perfect system - but furn superior that the reactionary system that we have now. (If you read Michael Hirsh's excellent article, you'd know that Bush and McCain should have predicted this crisis and prevented it.)

I am sick and tired of war presidents and presidents that flaunt their wartime credentials. As a patriotic American, I want our country to represent the best - not the worst. I want our country to get a reputation of preventing wars rather than starting them. If your read Jonathan Alder's article, you'll notice that Obama is already assembling a core of intelligent foreign policy advisors. In contract McCain relies on the same K-Street lobbyists that got us into Iraq. His chief campaign advisor, Charlie Black was once a lobbyist for Ahmed Chalabi, whose lies started the Iraq war, and who later turned out to be an Iranian agent. If we want a regime change in super-capitalist Russia, we need a regime change here. That's the reason for voting for Obama.

Bambi has shown he would first listen to John McCain's response and then go into double secret conference with his political advisers. After this conference he would find a microphone with a teleprompter and repeat, "I think both sides should work this out towards peace."

There, now don't we all feel better :O)

ONCE AGAIN, JOHN McCAIN HAS SHOWN HIS TRUE FEAR MONGERING, WAR MONGERING COLORS. DOES THIS MAN EVEN REALIZE THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS TOUGH DIPLOMACY?