“Did Dick Cheney. . . purposely tell me things he knew to be untrue?..I seriously feel that may be the case. . . Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening.”
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?
The first ad is the "Hands" that is airing during the Olympics:
Nice. Refreshing. Positive. Makes me actually not hate this election. Amazing.
And now, to paraphrase (or more precisely, to quote) John Cleese, for something completely different:
Now here is something that I actually disagree with the Barack Obama on. Vehemently. Of course, it is only airing in Nevada. If you asked the average non-Nevadan what his position on Yucca Mountain is, you would probably get a shrug.
I can only assume we are to leave the waste in the rapidly filling containment pools that they are currently in indefinitely? Perhaps we shall wait until a foolproof way to launch the waste into space toward the sun in a space vehicle that cannot possibly fail during launch and spread radioactive waste across the Atlantic Ocean and beyond before we deal with the problem. Indeed he has NO long term plan. From a letter to the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
I want every Nevadan to know that I have always opposed using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository, and I want to explain the many reasons why I've held that view.
In my state of Illinois, we have faced our own issues of nuclear waste management. There are some who believe that Illinois should serve as a repository for nuclear waste from other states. My view on this subject was made clear in a 2006 letter to Sen. Pete Domenici, who at the time was chairman of the Senate Energy Committee. "States should not be unfairly burdened with waste from other states," I wrote. "Every state should be afforded the opportunity to chart a course that addresses its own interim waste storage in a manner that makes sense for that state."
That is a position I hold to this day when it comes to both Illinois and Nevada.
After spending billions of dollars on the Yucca Mountain Project, there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there. I believe a better short-term solution is to store nuclear waste on-site at the reactors where it is produced, or at a designated facility in the state where it is produced, until we find a safe, long-term disposal solution that is based on sound science.
In the meantime, I believe all spending on Yucca Mountain should be redirected to other uses, such as improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites around the country and exploring other long-term disposal options.
There is no doubt that this is a difficult issue. But I believe our approach must be based on sound science above all else. I do not do the bidding of any special interest or industry, including the nuclear industry, which has a major presence in my state.
In my own campaign, I have not accepted donations from political action committees or Washington lobbyists. In fact, I've often taken positions at odds with special interests. When I learned that radioactive tritium had leaked out of an Exelon nuclear plant in Illinois, I led an effort in the Senate to require utilities to notify the public of any unplanned release of radioactive substances.
All Nevadans should know that as president, I will bring to this issue not just independent judgment and careful deliberation, but a personal appreciation that comes from my own experience of living in the back yard of hazardous nuclear materials. The safety and security of Nevadans and all Americans requires nothing less.
Barack Obama
WASHINGTON, D.C.
You see. NO long term plan. Just let's not put in all in one safe place. 50 different not as safe places is much better.
Continuing on, we have our most recent ad:
Not bad. A little negative early on. Got a little less negative as it when on.
I would like to see Barack Obama's campaign hold fire on the "George W. Bush Guns" until the final weeks of the campaign. You know the "Do you really want another four years of George W. Bush?" stuff to push the undecided independents, if not into his column, at least out of John McCain's column.
Using this stuff with nearly three months left will lessen the effect it might have at the end. Obama isn't desperate yet is he? If his campaign is, well, that is a real problem. I personally think they are just unintentionally desensitizing people by using this stuff at this point.
Overall the commercials are definitely less negative than that which his "I won't go negative" opponent's campaign has been spewing of late. Still, I would like to see more of the "Hands" type commercials.
Of course, that's what we all say. What we actually respond to is the negative. Or at least that is what all the research shows. I wish they were less correct.
In the second of what may be a number of post by me on this subject we grieve for the fifth anniversary of the speech, then alledgedly, President George W. Bush made under the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003.
I actually am finding the lack of coverage on this thus far today rather amazing. Perhaps the press is tired of bashing Bush. That is a pastime that I will force myself to do, even if I ever tire, because the man thoroughly deserves it.
If only it had really been the end of the war, or truly of major operations, U.S. military casualties would have stood at 139 dead and 524 wounded, according to the independent Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. Today, Americans have suffered the staggering loss of 4,051 killed and 29,780 wounded.
In case you too had been desensitized, that one paragraph should be a wake up call. Perhaps I will have more on this as the day goes on. Or maybe enough has already been said.
Adm. William J. Fallon, whose views on Iran and other issues have seemed to put him at odds with the Bush administration, is retiring early, the Pentagon said.
The ranks of those who are in the administration and opposing it's more egregious policies just got a little thinner. On the other hand, could you stay on?
