Filed under: Uncategorized
Putin accused the US of encouraging the Georgian war to help the candidacy of John McCain. Now, Putin doesn’t offer any evidence — and he might not have any — so I’m not taking this to the bank. He’s a liar, liar, pants on fire when it serves his purposes.
What pisses me off is that under a better administration, I’d be able to immediately call bullshit on this. Unfortunately, even though it would be stupid, unlikely to work to the advantage of McCain, murderously cynical, and would be an action that only entangled the US with some unsavory anti-democratic characters for the sake of winning an election…why doesn’t this sound completely unthinkable?
I mean, it would be a stupid action to take. And I want to believe that we don’t have idiots running our foreign policy. But I can’t entirely rule it out.
10 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Obama didn’t help matters, with his initial “naughty, naughty, tusk, tusk” statement about the conflict. It could only help McCain if Obama appeared weak. Was Bush smart enough to know Obama would be meely-mouthed about it? He was initially, and he subsequently changed his stance; he had no choice, it was killing him.
You remind me of something that’s really been bugging me during this convention. Obama last night spoke of Democrats and Republicans coming together to do the things he wants to do.
If your side wins, how is that possible, when 90% of the speeches at the convention had a tone that made people like me seem evil? We weren’t refered to as fellow Americans who happen to have a disagreement about the proper role of government – we were portayed as an evil occupying foreign power that you need to “take the country back” from.
I understand red meat, but I can guarantee you, there’s going to be a lot of “not my president” sentiment going around amongst half the electorate if your side wins. And it’s going to be the fault of partisans who went too far.
Comment by Slartibartfast August 29, 2008 @ 10:00 amYou know, I didn’t hear that. Here’s what I heard him say (and I take this from the delivered text, which I found on the NYT website):
“But what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes, because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and each other’s patriotism.
The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain.
The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and independents, but they have fought together, and bled together, and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a red America or a blue America; they have served the United States of America.
So I’ve got news for you, John McCain: We all put our country first.
America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices. And Democrats, as well as Republicans, will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past, for part of what has been lost these past eight years can’t just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose, and that’s what we have to restore.
We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.
The — the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.
I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.
You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.
But this, too, is part of America’s promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.”
I don’t see that as doing the things HE wants to do, but rather the statement of someone committed to doing the things WE want to do. Most people of good will, even when they disagree ideologically, can find pragmatic pieces of common ground on which to stand together. Politics may be an argument without end (that’s why they call it a political process), but it is one that concedes that incremental progress is better than none at all. While I don’t doubt that there’s a lot of angry Democrats (the party who unleashed Atwater and Rove shouldn’t be surprised that they now have to reap what they carelessly sowed), I don’t think that it characterizes the mood of the electorate as a whole.
Maybe I’m just being a Pollyanna.
Comment by bridgett August 29, 2008 @ 10:25 amBridgett:
“I mean, it would be a stupid action to take. And I want to believe that we don’t have idiots running our foreign policy. But I can’t entirely rule it out.”
When has Mr. Bush (Party of One) NOT been an idiot on foreign policy? Condoleeza Rice’s “special concentration” in foreign policy is supposed to be on Russia. She’s at least as bad at dealing with the russians as she has been at everything else. A reasonably intelligent HS civics teacher knows more about the business than I’ve seen demonstrated by either party in the last three or four administration.
Comment by democommie August 29, 2008 @ 12:34 pmActually, I wasn’t speaking of Obama’s speech – I thought it was wonderful. I’m talking about Richardson, Pelosi and so many others who really did make it sound like we were living under foreign occupation.
I wish Obama well, and of course I will support him as commander in chief, but the red meat speeches by the others just turned me off.
Comment by Slartibartfast August 29, 2008 @ 12:49 pmSlarti, how do you suggest that those of us who think (and have evidence that we think demonstrates) that Bush’s policies have harmed this country point out that those policies have harmed this country? Is there a way of rejecting those policies that wouldn’t affect you so negatively?
Comment by nm August 29, 2008 @ 1:22 pmI think what makes this seem plausible is that – in a less Machiavellian fashion – Putin is probably right.
Despite the fact that is the equivalent of poking a staving bear with a stick we have continued to push NATO expansion right up to Russian borders. Even without their established paranoia, how would the Russians NOT see this as a threat?
We rammed sovereignty for Kosovo down Russian throats despite their long ties to Serbia. We chastised Moscow for forcing Russian sovereignty on Chechnya. Then we said that the same notions of self-determination didn’t apply when it came to Georgian territories that wanted to join Russia.
We pushed for pipeline development that would skirt Russian borders to minimize their influence in the area.
We summarily dismissed the ABM Treaty and pushed ahead with missile defense. Sure, that system isn’t capable of shooting down Russia’s ICBMs, but the countries it is ostensibly aimed at don’t even HAVE ICBMs yet. Is it shocking that Russia sees this as just another way to push American influence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia? Isn’t that what it is?
So with all of this background, with all of these signals, with all of the friendly rhetoric, is it at all impossible to believe that Saakashvilli was assuming he would have more overt support from the US than he did? That his incursion into South Ossetia was based on a mistaken perception of the depth of American commitment to Georgia? I don’t think so. I don’t buy the “August Surprise” theory Putin is selling, but I do think that the totality of American policy in the region since the end of the Cold War could easily be taken by Saakashvilli as a tacit green light for a very unwise action.
Comment by Gerald August 29, 2008 @ 2:08 pmnm, the way Obama handled it in his speech would suffice. I give him much credit – maybe he is a new kind of candidate. And, you can be sure, I will criticise the red meat republicans just as much.
Gerald, what you say makes sense. I tend to believe that Putin has designs on eastern Europe (while holding western Europe hostage with oil/ng access). Dangerous stuff. However, Saakashvilli gave Putin his opening, probably because he assumed the US would back him up.
Comment by Slartibartfast August 29, 2008 @ 4:29 pmYou mean, Obama was cool because in most of his speech he wasn’t specific. OK, but how do you craft a party platform without being specific? How do you make laws? That was a fine speech, but “can’t we all just get along?” isn’t a complete political campaign. Political campaigns by definition must include direct disagreement on important issues, unless you want to reduce them to “who I’d like to have a beer with” popularity contests. And I don’t see how to have those disagreements without, you know, stating that one’s opponent is wrong. Saying “this is what I want to do” doesn’t work unless the listener knows what is being done now.
Comment by nm August 29, 2008 @ 5:39 pmSo which is it?
Is it Bush The Stupid and Incompetent?
Or Bush the Machiavelli Genius?
I find people who promote both caricatures amusing.
Comment by theflatwhite August 30, 2008 @ 7:40 amBush is a stupid incompotent who is well handled by Machiavellian geniuses.
Comment by democommie August 30, 2008 @ 2:03 pm