McCain Cuts & Pastes Georgia

[sixdogsmom]

 Cut-and-Paste Foreign Policy
Joe Conason
The discovery that John McCain's remarks on Georgia were derived from Wikipedia, to put it politely, is disturbing and even depressing -- but not surprising. Under the tutelage of the neoconservatives, who revealed their superficial understanding of Iraq both before and after the invasion, he favors bellicose grandstanding over strategic thinking. So why delve deeper than a quick Google search?

Worse still, neither he nor his advisers yet grasp how our misadventure in Mesopotamia has diminished American power and prestige. In fact, the Wikipedia episode -- an awful embarrassment that would have devastated the presidential campaign of Barack Obama or any other Democrat -- revealed an underlying weakness in Sen. McCain's vaunted grasp of foreign policy.

Still enthralled by an exhausted ideology, he seems unable to analyze how we can avoid manipulation by allies or adversaries while advancing our own real interests. Those interests include the cultivation of democracy but also the promotion of regional stability and international security. Pretending to confront Russia from a position of weakness doesn't help.

Frankly, the Arizona Republican's latest foray onto the world stage suggested that he is not quite ready for the responsibilities of the presidency. When he emphasized that Georgia was "one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion," he sounded like a politician who will gladly damage our global influence merely for the sake of pandering to his partisan base.

Certainly the propagandists of Al Qaeda must have been pleased to hear an ally of President Bush confirm that the United States is engaged in a worldwide crusade, for that is how such words are interpreted by Muslims. (And since when does American policy prefer nations for adopting any "official religion," Christian or otherwise?) This was rhetorical blundering worthy of the Bush White House.

Now, Sen. McCain is not alone among politicians and pundits in exploiting the Georgian crisis to promote an exhausted ideology. Nor is he alone in ignoring the impact of Iraq on our ability to defend our allies by means of diplomacy or force. From the editorial page of The Washington Post to the office of the vice president, much sound and fury has emanated, signifying very little except a shared determination to ignore reality. When Dick Cheney threatens the Russians with "serious consequences," what is he talking about? What would the Bush administration or its cheerleaders actually have done if the Russians had pushed on toward the Georgian capital?

Without any prejudice to the cause of Georgia's sovereignty or its democratic aspirations, the true answer is not much, despite the illusions that our policy evidently encouraged among the Georgian leadership and people. Blustering aside, there was never the slightest chance that Europe or the United States would come to their assistance with military force against Russian troops. There are many reasons to avoid such a disaster, notably the enormous Russian nuclear arsenal, the European dependence on Russian energy supplies and the cataclysmic effect on the world economy.

Even if we contemplated the use of force, we scarcely have the capacity after squandering our power in Iraq. We can hardly bring effective diplomatic force to bear, either, beyond the tinny echo of White House blustering. The Russians must have laughed as they watched Georgian troops depart in haste from Iraq -- and cackled when the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations accused them of seeking "regime change" in Tbilisi. Are we telling them they cannot just invade a country they dislike, without international sanction, because they feel threatened?

There can be no doubt that Vladimir Putin's Russia poses a challenge to the West, and to the next administration. It can be argued that Russian ambitions must be checked now to discourage its bullying imperialism. It can also be argued that bringing the former Soviet republics into NATO only provokes the Russians into resisting encirclement by their Cold War enemies, and that we must engage Russia to cope with existential threats like nuclear proliferation and Islamist extremism. What can no longer be sanely argued is that reflexive ideology and confrontational bluster will secure our future.

We desperately need a new foreign policy that combines idealism with realism. And a president who doesn't lift his talking points from Wikipedia.

========

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer (www.observer.com). To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website

[Warph]

OPINION IN BRIEF
"[John McCain] should ask Obama to join him in a town meeting on lessons from Russia's aggression. Both candidates favor NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, perhaps Vladimir Putin's next victim. But does Russia's behavior cause Obama to rethink reliance on 'soft power' —dialogue, disapproval, diplomacy, economic carrots and sticks—which Putin considers almost an oxymoron? Does Russia's resort to military coercion, and its arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles, cause Obama to revise his resistance to missile defense? Obama, unlike McCain, believes Russia belongs in the G-8. Does Obama think Russia should be admitted to the World Trade Organization? Does Obama consider Putin helpful regarding Iran?... McCain must convince voters that Obama's complacent confidence in the taming abilities of soft power is the effect of liberalism's scary sentimentalism about a dangerous thing, human nature, and a fiction, 'the community of nations.' McCain is hardly the change many people have been eagerly waiting for, but Putin is part of the change we must confront. Until Russian tanks rolled into Georgia, it seemed that not even the Democratic Party could lose this election. But it might if McCain can make it turn on the question of who is ornery enough to give Putin a convincing, deterring telephone call at 3 a.m." —George Will

[sixdogsmom]

BBButtt---- Russia was defeated by the great right and Ronald Reagan remember?

[frawin]

BBButtt---- Russia was defeated by the great right and Ronald Reagan remember?

SDM, kind of ironic that Ronald Reagan done more than any President in History to bring Democracy and Capitalism to  the world, including Russia, and you, a Hussein Obama supporter would try to make fun of it when your candidate is trying to bring Communism/Socialism to America.

[pam]

One President has never been solely responsible for what happens in his four years....good or bad. That's what people forget when they get excited about a new candidate. People had been workin for years before George got honors as the "first" president, many many people had been workin against slavery for years before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and Reagan just happened to be President when the wall finally came down. On the flip side Nixon wasn't solely responsible for losing in Vietnam, Carter wasn't solely to blame for the energy crisis and the hostage crisis, and much as it galds me to say it George W. isn't soley resonsible for this mess now. Got to start lookin at the BIG picture y'all. We have had quite a few years of mismanagement, with a few rays of daylight, for about the last 30 or 40 years. The SSDD variety of government we have had is not gonna cut it anymore, we need a HUGE change and I'm not talkin about Obama I'm talkin about a fundamental change in our priorities.

[Jo McDonald]

Thoughts from Champaign, Illinois 
I didn't write this -- but it protrays my thoughts!!
   Jo


Dear Friends:


My name is Joe Porter.  I live in Champaign, Illinois.  I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't considerable myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat.  I don't believe there are "two Americas" - but that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want to be if they'll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities.  I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.

The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation.  I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long.  Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics.  They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life.  They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust.  They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called "news", thinking that what they hear is always spun by whoever is reporting it.  They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending.  They don't want  government handouts.  They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs.

We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders.  It's a privilege to do so.  I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything.  I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time.  So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job.  I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process.   Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?

I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it.  They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it "change."

Change what?, I ask.

Well, we're going to change America, they say.

In what way?  I query.

We want someone new and fresh in the White House, they exclaim.

So, someone who's not a politician?, I press.

Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama, they state.

So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible  amounts of money and dominate the news and win his party's nomination for the White House - that system's all wrong?

No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change.

And so it goes. "Change we can believe in." Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me.  In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting.  I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama.  But no one can really tell me why - only that he's going to change a lot of stuff.  Change, change, change.  I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and  convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth - other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.

We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations.  Let's ignore this for a moment.

Put it all aside.  Then ask yourself, what qualifies this man to be my president?   That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?

CHANGE WHAT?

Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications.  Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected.

Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements?  Name one.
Someone who wants to unite the country?  If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton, look it up on the web.  This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady?  The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.

For me, the choice is clear.  I've looked carefully at the two leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.

Here's a question - where were you five and a half years ago?  Around  Christmas, 2002.  You've had five or six birthdays in that time.  My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate.  Five and a half years is a good chunk of time.  About 2,000 days.  2,000 nights of sleep.  6, 000 meals, give or take.

John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.

When offered early release, he refused it.  He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first.  Did you get that part?  He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down.  A regimen of beatings and torture began.

Do you possess such strength of character?  Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man?  I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.

Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man.  A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.  His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq.  Barack Obama is fond of saying "We honor John McCain's service...BUT...", which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, "Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change."

I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right.  I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind.  He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America, and there's a huge difference.

Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates.  A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in 1981 and elected to the Senate in 1982.

Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new.  Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President.  Maybe "likeability" is a higher priority for them than "trust".   Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.

Dear friends, it is time for us to stand.  It is time for thinking Americans to say, "Enough."  It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line.  It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.

There's a lot of evil in this world.  That should be readily apparent to all of us by now.  And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens.  I want a man who put s my family's interests before any foreign country.

I want a President who's qualified to lead.

I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain.

[pam]

Good one Jo.  My change consists of keepin the original purpose of government, firin all the politicians, ridin the lobbyists out of town on a rail, and startin over with fresh talent LOL I've always thought the people who start the wars should be right there on the front lines with the soldiers they send to fight em not settin back home in an office, they should know the cost up close and personal.

[Teresa]

Bulls Eye Mama... Great post.

[frawin]

Jo, that is a good one and says it all very well.
Frank