by bacalove, Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:24:15 AM EDT
John McCain, "who, despite the hype, doesn't seem to know as much about foreign affairs as they want us to believe!
McCain recently talked at length about problems on the "Iraq/Pakistan border" - the countries are a thousand miles apart. Asked how to deal with Darfur, he mused about "bringing pressure on the government of Somalia". Uh - it's Sudan, Senator McCain. And he keeps expressing his desire to build up US relations with Czechoslovakia, a country that hasn't existed for 15 years." These statements are not made by a man knoweledgeable about foreign affairs!
Those of us who care deeply about the Truth need to debunk this myth that John McCain is knowledegeable about foreign affairs, because it is another lie they want us to swallow. Just because McCain spent five years (5) as a POW prisoner, does not make him an expert on foreign affairs, what it does make him an expert on is on how to survive as a prisoner. Let us not be fooled again, because saying its so, does not make it so.
by Shaun Appleby, Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:01:24 AM EDT
There has been a lot of virtual ink spilled on the subject of the recent Russian incursion in Georgia, and the domestic political ramifications of same, but rarely so succinctly as this:
For years, the Bush foreign policy team has tilted heavily toward Georgia in its ongoing disputes with Russia, clearly leaving the impression (at least in the minds of Georgians) that the U.S. would come to Georgia's aid if the two nations clashed militarily. Bush told Georgia, during a 2005 visit, that "the path of freedom you have chosen is not easy, but you will not travel it alone." Bush has sent American military advisors to build up the Georgian troops - who reportedly staged a joint exercise last month with 1,000 American soldiers. Bush has also urged bringing Georgia into NATO, a move long supported by McCain. The president has not been successful in fast-tracking membership, but here's the thing: Under the NATO treaty, members are required to defend other members. All for one and one for all. Which means that if Georgia was currently a member of NATO, we'd be warring militarily with Russia.
It gets more complicated. Georgia has long been in conflict with two breakaway regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia - both of which want independence, both of which are supported by Russia. Georgia has sought to quell the separatist movements in those regions, and apparently assumed that the U.S. would come to its aid in any showdown with Russia. McCain has also fed that impression; last April, he got on the phone with the president of Georgia and expressed his solidarity - after a briefing with top foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann, a neoconservative whose private lobbying firm signed a contract this spring to provide Georgia with strategic advice.
Obama, it must be noted, has also supported NATO membership for Georgia; however, in July he publicly urged Georgia not to launch any military attacks in the breakaway regions. But Georgia, apparently fortified with what it viewed to be sufficient American solidarity, overreached late last week and launched a military attack in South Ossetia. Which in turn triggered the massive Russian response. Which in turn triggered McCain's outrage about "Russian aggression," and his warning of "negative consequences" for Russia (all of which was echoed by Dick Cheney, who warned darkly, "Russian aggression must not go unanswered"). Then, on the radio yesterday, McCain took his statements up a notch, declaring: "I think it's very clear that Russian ambitions are to restore the old Russian empire." Then, at a fundraising lunch today, McCain (who now says he speaks daily with Georgia's president) warned again that the Russians are thirsting for empire, and said that he is dispatching two of his top campaign surrogates, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, off to Georgia.
Rhetorically, at the very least, a certain somebody needs to take a chill pill.
Dick Polman - Toughness and bellicosity Philidelphia Inquirer 13 Aug 08
I'll say. And those inclined toward a shallow 1938 Munich Agreement 'appeasement' analogy will gladly look no further than the relationship between politically Russian Ossetia and the ethnically German Sudetenland in the Czechoslavokia of 1938, framing Russia as the oppressor and hegemon. The Western 'allies,' incidentally, were in no position, in 1938, to make any belligerent opposition stick at the time, and their leaders knew it. A familiar situation perhaps to our current predicament as a consequence of our 'nation building' and alliance damaging exercises already under way. And the analogists would be wrong as well, Ossetians, a distinct ethnic and linguistic minority, are only slightly less dubious of Russian political suzerainty than Georgian. It's all about leverage.
by durendal, Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:06:04 PM EDT
"I don't want Bush-Cheney lite," he told reporters yesterday. "I want a fundamental change."
Sen. Barack Obama, NYT, July 26, 2007 referring to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Oh, really? Let's explore this a bit as we stroll down memory lane...
I`m sure many of you recall the NYT Magazine article by Ron Suskind,  excerpted from his book, "The Price of Loyalty:
George W. Bush, the White House and Paul O'Neill." One passage in particular that I remember is President George W. Bush's confusion of Sweden and Switzerland in regards to a standing army and neutrality. Here is the passage:
by Paradox13, Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:15:44 PM EST
The world is a little bit scarier today than when President Bush took office. And it's not because of 9/11, it is because the seeds planted in the aftermath of that tragedy have come to fruition. The Bush Doctrine adopted as our national security posture in 2002 creates a right for nations to interfere in each others affairs if something in one nation might, in some imaginable future, threaten another nation.
With the United States' actions in invading Iraq, without U.N. approval, other states now have a strong precedent to go interfering with each other and ignoring the wishes of the international community. After all, the United States did it, and what's good for the U.S. should be good for all. As a result, we are starting to see simmering international conflicts beginning to boil, with only ourselves and the precedent set in 2002 to blame.
by durendal, Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:25:54 AM EST
Kosovo recently independence from Serbia and despite joyous celebrations of its newfound status, she faces an uphill climb. The economy is devastated - unemployment is rampant and skyrocketing. Crime and corruption - including human trafficking is widespread. Kosovo's suffering has taken its toll. And having a primarily Muslim populace has not endeared it to its neighbors.
Countries such as Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, China and most notably Russia and Serbia, refuse to recognize Kosovo's independence.
When the US and NATO intervened in 1999, they were not without their detractors.
From the US left, Noam Chomsky, Justin Raimondo, Matt Taibbi and the Nation magazine were among those voices that clearly opposed NATO intervention. From the right, the GOP - including then Texas Gov. George W. Bush and now disgraced former congressman Tom DeLay, accused the US of nation building and the use of force without an exit strategy.