Showing posts with label Georgia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Georgia. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

First Impressions

Governor Sarah Palin was much stronger than I thought she'd be. Problem: I had my bar set pretty low.

  • She attacked on a lot of fronts with a lot of inconsistencies and inaccuracies. I wonder if the McCain camp is hoping to swamp the Obama-Biden camp, the media and the blogs so much with refuting and debunking her speech that they take some time off from digging in her past.

  • What the heck is with the Harry Truman reference? Do you want to remind us that McCain could croak and you might be behind that desk in the Oval Office? Doesn't strike me as a great image to bring up for you, yet.

  • What is this about Russia's objective in Georgia being the pipeline? Yes, that is a valid point if you are a pundit or if you are a politician not in the White House or running for President/Vice President. It is a very dangerous thing for the official nominee of a major American political party, to one of those offices, to publicly state in a very public speech. Tread carefully here.

  • Overall, came across well. Style was well suited for the base that they are aiming for. Chris Matthews said it well when he said that he was not reminded once during the speech of Hillary Clinton. She will not attract those voters. That the McCain camp seems to understand that is all well and good for them.

  • I thought the loss of the mini-movie intro might have been bad but she acquitted herself well.

Some others thoughts:


I'll will, I am sure I will have more thoughts over the next day or sixty.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, August 22, 2008

Cluster Munition Accusations Continue

Russia continues to deny the use of cluster bomb munition in it's operations in Georgia despite continuing and growing evidence to the contrary.



Human Rights Watch is dogging Russia on this but it isn't getting a whole lot of press coverage outside of the occasional NPR mention. That seems rather odd given our media's general record on human rights. Heck, it would seem to be a great opportunity to grill McCain and Obama about their thoughts on the use of such horrible weapons!


I think Russia would do well to fess up and help with the cleanup. It might even help to foster some international goodwill. Of course, Russia is not usually amenable towards ideas that I come up with.




Russia also continues to drag it's feet on withdrawal from Georgian territory but has reportedly finally started to do so, at least from some positions.

As with most conflicts, just about every party here seems to deserve some blame. Georgia for being idiotic enough to use force in South Ossetia. Russia for it over the top reaction and for their own human rights abuses during their 'response.' Even the leaders in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia deserve some blame as they have not helped to defuse anything and seem more intent on fermenting further bad feelings.

The United States seems to deserve some blame here as well. There is some reason that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili seemed to think he would be backed up with his action against South Ossetia. There is some reason why he thought we would come to his aid, militarily, when Russia moved against Georgia. That reason is not simply that Saakashvili suffers from delusions (which is not beyond the realm of possibility.) He was given some type of assurance from someone. Whether it was someone within the government or someone he had reason to believe knew the intentions of the government is the question.

There is a story here that hasn't been told yet. Perhaps the story has started to be told at TPM and the Washington Post? John McCain better hope that this is not the start of the story that will be told. That would work out badly for him.

Look for it though. The rest of the story is coming. It's out there somewhere and it won't be pretty. It is disgraceful that so many had to die and be injured because of it.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, August 21, 2008

McCain decries lobbyists...again

Senator John McCain said in an interview with Politico:

“I would not allow anyone who worked for my administration to go back to lobbying,” McCain said. “They would have to make that pledge.”


That should make things interesting in recruiting quality public servants into the fold. Just a few weeks ago his campaign manager, Rick Davis (normal profession: a lobbyist, by the way) in an interview with Katie Couric, said:

"We don't make it a litmus test for employment at the McCain campaign."


OK. Well, then. I guess...if these people want to go back to their lucrative lobbying jobs....then they won't be working for the administration if he wins?

Josh Marshall has some great posts on McCain and lobbyists. Like the above interview. Recently, with the Georgia - Russia crisis he has several posts on Randy Scheunemann, McCain's chief foreign policy advisor, here, here and here.

I love the whole "you can never be a lobbyist again" idea, but it is rather more idealistic than anything that Barack Obama has said, on any subject. You might even call it naive.

Even if he isn't going beyond cabinet level officials, it is rather ambitious and, possibly, self defeating. That is a lot of money for these people to give up. Forever. Gives a whole new meaning to sacrifice for public service. There are going to be a lot of qualified people who aren't going to be takers in that situation. Prestige or not.

I question, more and more, who the candidate with the sweeping, unrealistic ideas is? Is it really Barack Obama? Are you guys sure this McCain guy is still living in reality? His actions and statements don't always support that he is.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, August 18, 2008

VP Candidates Front and Center

With the Democratic (please note the spelling and pronunciation all you Republic(an)s) National convention rapidly approaching, the Vice Presidency is entering it's brief, and only, shining moment. Never shall these men and women shine so brightly. At least, until their candidates presidency is over and they themselves get nominated.

That said, on Meet the Press, their, unfortunately abbreviated analysis:



And on the Today show, their report:



The skinny?


Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) is the current front runner. Most national security experience. Heck, he just visited Tbilisi at the invitation of the Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to discuss the Russia-Georgia conflict. Great attack dog persona for destroying whomever the Republic(an)s pick in debate. Downside: he is a little long in the tooth. He is in the old white guy to balance the ticket mold that the Obama people may want to avoid. At least he isn't from the south.


Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) is a close second. Safer pick. Less likely to do damage or embarrass with his (lack of) bravado. Has decent foreign chops. Was a governor for eight years. Been in the senate for 10. Downside: He is a little plain vanilla. He isn't the debater Biden is and might have some issues holding his own against certain Republic(an) counterparts. He also suffers some from the 'safe white male' pick that the campaign may be intentionally avoiding.


Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA) would be a great pick, except for his lack of experience. He has the vision, the idealism and the passion but not the credentials. With a candidate that also has a credentialing issue, that is not a particularly good thing. That said, he and Obama have good chemistry and picking him would signal that Obama is confident in his message and would rather have someone who he considers comfortable with rather than someone who would help him shore up his own shorcomings. Whether that is a good thing is debatable.


Former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA). His name keeps popping up. I have no clue why. Serious foreign policy and a defense chops. Not very charismatic. Why you would want to pick a cranky old southern white guy completely baffles me. Credentials smentials (or something like that). This would be an awful pick. Even worse, I have the feeling that if they did want him, he would rebuff them.


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). Yes, I know everyone has her written off. But seriously, she has no weak spots that haven't already been messed with. You know what you are getting. There is some serious potential bonus for the woman candidate. And, after essentially giving her a non-consider for the last two months, you may bring Hillary supporters who have drifted into the nether back into the fold and give the campaign an extra infusion of life. That said, I consider this a long shot, but I don't think the odds are as long as some pundits would have you believe.


Senator Chistopher J. Dodd (D-CT). Chris was the original 'Biden' candidate. Serious foreign policy chops, as well as some super relevant domestic chops (Banking Committee) after 28 years in the Senate. Not quite as ferocious a debater as Biden. Also, apparently, not as interested in campaigning for the position as Biden. Both of which have relegated him to the end of the line. He could still be a dark horse though.


Finally, although I doubt it will happen, I shall mention Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM). A seriously major contender early on, his vice-presidential prospects seem to have mimicked his presidential prospects. He also has some serious chops on issues that Obama is perceived to be weak on. He is not exactly an attack dog though. For reasons that I may never fully understand, I fear this man, whom I respect greatly, may fade into obscurity.

I'd like to see Evan Bayh. Why? Because, intellectually, he is more akin than the vast majority of potentials to my own views. I supported him for president until his very early dropout. I would love to see him as president. I would love to see him as Vice-President.

Likely choice: Sen. Joe Biden. Again, as I said, he is a little long in the tooth but he is the Dems answer (and revenge) for Dick Cheney. I will not be unhappy with this pick. I have been a great fan of his since I started politics. (I thought is was super cool that he was elected at age 29 since he would be 30 before he took office in the senate.) I think he has the right combination for Obama now.

Truth be told I would not be unhappy with any of the above candidates. There are, of course, many not mentioned whom I would be equally happy with but who have no chance.

I don't know that this decision makes that much of a difference in this election. To the extent that it may, Biden will help you the most, particularly since he will be a near slam dunk in the Vice-Presidential debate regardless of his opponent.

We will find out in the next week or so who it is. We will find out in the next 10 weeks or so if it matters.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, August 15, 2008

Why would Saakashvili sign?

Slowly, but surely, more and more stuff comes out in this whole Georgian invasion that just makes you wonder. It is now clear, to a great extent, why the Russians have not removed themselves from Georgian territory.

Why?

They don't think they have to! Indeed, they apparently don't have to according to the peace plan that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is now trying to get Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to sign.

The plan gives the Russians the right to patrol in Georgian territory. Not just South Ossetia, not just Abkhazia but in what is actual, undisputed Georgian territory.

Here is where I should make a politically incorrect joke about how it must have been a Frenchman who negotiated this deal. Unfortunately, this isn't a situation to which humor, in bad or good taste, should be applied.



Comparisons and analogies abound here folks.

The Russians are saying that they are doing nothing different that the United States and Europe did in Kosovo (which was, notably, done against Russian wishes.)

Saakashvili is making comparisons to the Munich Agreement in 1938.

Both sides are leveling charges of genocide.

Meanwhile civilians and reporters are being caught in the crossfire. The video above has footage of a reporter being hit by a sniper as she is going on the air.

I cannot imagine that President Saakashvili will sign the agreement as it is presently constructed. It does not even have any provision for outside oversight or any type of sanctions against Russia if it fails to abide by it's terms.

It is not clear who started this. It is clear who needs the protecting here. I do not say that Georgia is innocent in this. But they, being that their army is already all but destroyed, need to have someone defending their right to exist here. At the very least, the Bush administration seems to be doing their best to achieve that.

That said, their is a lot of blame to go around on why this is happening.

-You can start with Kosovo. But that was still what nearly all in the west would consider a justified action by the United States and Western Europe. Nevertheless, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov are using that as their template here. Ironic really, since we cut into their sphere of influence with that action and this action is, and least partly, about reestablishing their sphere of influence.

-Iraq. To some extent, Afghanistan also. But mostly, Iraq. Unilateral action on a grand scale. This is what really cuts the Bush Administration off at the knees. No matter what they say, the Russians will come back at them with some excuse that they say makes this situation more justifiable that the United States violating Iraqi sovereignty.
I am sure the right wing in the country will have all sorts of arguments on this. The left does not.
Internationally, as we try to mend the burned bridges of said Iraqi campaign, the Bush administration will also find it hard to defend this attack as well.

-Our foreign policy in Eastern Europe in general for the last seven plus years. We have spent the last seven years building our foreign policy in Eastern Europe on a "great personal relationship" with former Russian President and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

That said, Russia itself hasn't felt the relationship has been 'good' or even 'okay' for at least three years. We have done nothing but play nice with countries such as Georgia or Ukraine both of which the Russians consider thorns in their side. Meanwhile NATO and the EU creep ever closer to the Russian border.

Unfortunately, we also have given the Russians no reason to think that we would be reacting as we are right now to such an action as they have taken. They thought we would say something, sure, but they did not beleive we would be so righteous in our rhetoric.

(Take a step back, and think about our governments actions for the last seven years. Objectively, would you think we would have the balls to present such a loud protest about the violation of sovereignty of a country that the other country considered a 'threat to their national security'? That's a WOW in most of the world's eyes.)

All of this leads us to where we are. With a Secretary of State trying to convince the president of a small embattled republic to let the troops of a big, allegedly democratic republic, have free reign on his peoples territory.

Would you sign that agreement? Would you expect the democratically elected leader of another country to?

I wouldn't.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Russians Sticking Around

Increasingly, it is starting to look like the Bush administration is on the right side, even instinctively, for once. They are still standing with Georgia against Russia in South Ossetia. They are still not blindly accepting the claims of Russia about atrocities by Georgia against the Ossetians.

Meanwhile, Russia is not helping it's cause. They have not withdrawn, which they may or may not have interpreted as one of the terms of the ceasefire. They have also advanced which cannot possibly be interpreted as being allowed under the terms of the ceasefire.



I would really like to know, now that the Russian Army has all but destroyed the Georgian Army exactly how much of a threat does it present to them or the Ossetians?

In addition organizations such as Human Rights Watch are both casting some doubt on Russian claims of Georgia atrocities, such as the alleged 2000 Ossetians massacred:

A doctor at Tskhinvali Regional Hospital who was on duty from the afternoon of August 7 told Human Rights Watch that between August 6 to12 the hospital treated 273 wounded, both military and civilians. She said her hospital was the only clinic treating the wounded in Tskhinvali. The doctor said there were more military personnel than civilians among the wounded and added that all of the wounded were later transferred to the Russian Ministry of Emergencies mobile hospitals in South and North Ossetia. As of August 13, there were no wounded left in the Tskhinvali hospital.

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.


and shedding light on ongoing abuses clearly caused by, if not directly effected by, the Russian invasion:

On August 13, Russian forces seemed to be taking measures to prevent the looting of Georgian villages; the road south from the town of Java to Tskhinvali was closed to members of South Ossetian paramilitary groups. Russian officers at the checkpoint told Human Rights Watch that the road closure was due to the massive looting taking place in Georgian villages along the road.

However, moving back from Tskhinvali to Java on the evening of August 13, Human Rights Watch researchers saw, for the second day running, houses that were ablaze in several Georgian villages. They had clearly just been torched. One counterintelligence officer of the South Ossetian forces claimed to Human Rights Watch that: “We burned these houses. We want to make sure that they [the Georgians] can’t come back, because if they do come back, this will be a Georgian enclave again and this should not happen.”

The officer went on to describe events during the fighting, including the execution of a Georgian armed man: “The day before yesterday [August 11, 2008], the Georgians killed two of my soldiers in the village of Tamarasheni. We had been conducting a sweep operation there. We detained three of them. Two of them didn’t do anything to us so we just let them go – we couldn't take them anywhere as I had to take care of my own men first. The third one seemed to be high on something – a normal person would have surrendered, and this one was shooting at us instead. We questioned him and then executed him.”

He expressed concern about the ongoing pillaging: “There are looters everywhere in these villages. ... The looters are now moving to Gori (I went there this morning). The fighting there is over, and now the looters are looting there to profit from this war. Someone has to do something about it.”


Russia continues to come out in this badly. Maybe their orignal intention was to act in a peacekeeping role. Regardless, they are now being seen, and will continue to be seen as aggressors. They need to step back.

The rest of eastern Europe as well as most of the rest of the world will not idly sit by while Russia seems to impose it's will on it's neighbors. We did that in the 50's and 60's. We weren't happy with the consequences of sitting on our hands then. We shall not do so this time.




That being said, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili's 'interesting' assumptions need to come to an end. He is doing a great deal of damage with his rhetoric. Hopefully, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice essentially tells him to 'shut up' and let everyone else speak. Or at least encourages him to get his facts straight before he actually says anything.

I know the man likes President George W. Bush, but come on, you don't have to be as cowboyish in your rhetoric as he has been. Even George W. Bush has learned moderation, especially when speaking on international issues.

We, the United States, as I said in a previous post, don't have either the moral authority we once did, nor do we have the physical authority to affect this situation. Thanks to our actions in Iraq we have been deprived of both. This may be the reason Russian President Dmitri Medvedev seems so comfortable doing as he wishes.

I think, given the fact that nearly all of western and eastern Europe is now united in oppostion to Russia's actions, that may prove the decisive factor. This is not the communist Soviet Union. Russia may not need the United States, but it does need the west.

That is why I am hopeful that eventually this conflict will be resolved. Preferably sooner, rather than later.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Medvedev halts Russian attacks in Georgia

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev announced that he has ordered a halt to the Russian military offensive in Georgia.



Obviously, he would like to appear to be magnanimous in this situation. Since French President Nicolas Sarkozy is already in Moscow to negotiate with Medvedev, it is obvious that the Russian President (and/or Prime Minister Vladimir Putin) does not want to appear to be strong-armed by the European Union. Perhaps he will save the announcement that he is pulling his troops back for after the meeting with Sarkozy?

The Russian demands aren't entirely out of reality but the idea of forcing a democratically elected president of a sovereign nation to resign as one of the terms of a ceasefire and withdrawal will be anathema to the west.

President George W. Bush said yesterday, "Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century." This is true.

MSNBC has this:

Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused the United States of hypocrisy in a tough statement that reflected both the measure of his anger at the West.

This is also true.

See George? This is why, by acting unilaterally throughout the first six years of your presidency, you cut yourself off at the knees on being able to criticize others when something like this happens.

Does that make Medvedev and what Russia has done right? Absolutely not! Nevertheless, Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown and the other European leaders who have similarly low approval ratings will be the ones with the moral authority here. It will not be, nor can it be, given his record, our president.

Doesn't it just make you weep.

Both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain made statements condemning the violence in Georgia over the last few days.



I remain hopeful that regardless of who wins, they will restore our voice in international politics.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content