Reply With Quote
Or he could have said this:
"In the 21st century nations don't invade other nations." -- John McCain on Russia's military action against Georgia, Birmingham, Mich., Aug. 13, 2008
lolololol...?
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=151953
Yep. These Georgians are just ing heroes of democracy.
Or he could have said this:
"In the 21st century nations don't invade other nations." -- John McCain on Russia's military action against Georgia, Birmingham, Mich., Aug. 13, 2008
lolololol...?
Or this:
"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."
"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book."
"I'm running for president of the United States, because I want to help with family values. And I think that family values are important, when we have two parent -- families that are of parents that are the traditional family." --interview on "This Week," July 27, 2008
I put out designs like that when I pee in snow.
You make a terrorist piss lump?
Getting back on subject, looks like even Europe is starting to second guess how much they really want Obama as president:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../15/dl1502.xmlCrisis in Georgia highlights John McCain's strengths
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 15/08/2008
If the world turns anywhere in an international crisis, it is to the one remaining superpower: America. That has been the case with the Russian invasion of Georgia. George W. Bush has expressed his support for what he has called a "beacon of liberty" by sending Condoleezza Rice to Tbilisi and flying in humanitarian aid. But his presidency is drawing to a close.
As much interest has been shown in the reaction of the two men who would succeed him, John McCain and Barack Obama. Here the Republican candidate has scored more strongly, quickly issuing a tough statement that stole a march on both the White House and his Democratic rival.
Given the West's rejection of military engagement on Georgia's behalf, its reaction to this latest incidence of Russian revanchism has been almost entirely rhetorical. Nevertheless, the crisis has played to Mr McCain's strength as a seasoned politician with a hawkish view of Russia.
After all, it was he who looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes and found not a soul mate, as Mr Bush had initially done, but the letters KGB. By contrast, Mr Obama, who, perhaps unfortunately for him, was on holiday at the time, first issued a flaccid statement on the need for restraint, only later making it more pointed.
Georgia has not had a decisive impact on the presidential race. If there is to be any change to the current level-pegging, it will come, rather, from the two parties' conventions and their aftermaths.
But a foreign policy agenda that encompasses Iraq, Iran and the Indian sub-continent, as well as Russian designs on its neighbours, is likely to favour a war hero and long-serving senator over a relative neophyte whose main exposure to the international limelight has been his recent nine-day tour of Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe.
Last edited by Gino; 08-15-2008 at 01:23 PM.
It sounds to me like Bush conspired with his buddy Putin on the invasion in order to boost McCain's prospects...
Dangit, I forgot to log in as Nbadan before I posted that.
McLiar running on and promising to continue dubya's great achievements as War President?
I'm just wondering, if Israel could really do whatever they want as you say, why haven't they just removed all the palestinians by force or go over to lebanon and dismantle the whole country for allowing hezbollah fighters? If they could do as they please why haven't they just run roughshod over the middle east after decade of every arab country supporting the insurgent Palestinian attacks on Israel.
Are you saying that Israel doesn't need the backing of a superpower to do this?
Yes, i'm quite aware that Israel has american grade technology, that's not the issue.
The issue is quite frankly about political protection after the action of war.
To act as if Israel never asked for backing of the US during the recent lebanese invasion is silly.
To think because Israel has all the millitary hardware that they still don't need the backing of america, is naive and anyone who thinks so hasn't been paying attention.
To believe that in the future with oil revenues and Russian backing that iran wont militarize to shorten the gap with the israelis, is wishful thinking.
The day Iran launches attacks on Israel, the world will ask Israel for restraint or else threaten trade sanctions. Iran knows this, every country in the world knows this.
Iran could if they wanted to launch attacks, not invasions, but attacks through proxy, which they already do. If the proxy organizations were to commit a huge attack on the Israeli homeland, The prime minister would have to get backing from washington to ease the political fallout.
that's why obama's awnser is important.
and if you care, Israel has asked us to remove the iranian nucleaur power plants through airstrikes before.
Really?
Because that editorial mentioned ONE thing Obama said, and spent the rest of it sucking McCain's .
It was more of a propaganda peice pumping up McCain than a reasonable critique of Obama's position.
If that says it better than you can, then you must suck at original thinking.
Obama, McCain On South Ossetia
By Cernig
The Politico's Ben Smith writes that the conflict in the Caucusus presents a true “3 a.m. moment,” and notes the marked differences in Obama and McCain's responses.
McCain's campaign says Obama wanting both sides to negotiate is "appeasement" - an interesting charge to level at Bush, Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown et al, who have alll also called for the same thing. But John "Cotton Hill" McCain doesn't care for pantywaist effete elitism - no negotiations for him. He's got a Cold War hate on for Russia, as evidenced by his previous calls to expel Russia from the G-8.While Obama offered a response largely in line with statements issued by democratically elected world leaders, including President Bush, first calling on both sides to negotiate, John McCain took a remarkably—and uniquely—more aggressive stance, siding clearly with Georgia’s pro-Western leaders and placing the blame for the conflict entirely on Russia.
The abrupt crisis in an obscure hotspot had the features of the real foreign policy situations presidents face—not the clean hypotheticals of candidates’ white papers and debating points.
Russia, has long attempted to reclaim now sovereign parts of the former Soviet Union, stoking conflicts in the enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which are universally recognized to be Georgian soil. They’ve also used the ensuing military tensions to set back Georgia’s bid to enter NATO.
But Georgia appears to have sparked the conflict by marching on the South Ossetian capital as Russia’s powerful Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, headed to Beijing for the Olympic Games. Russia, in turn, welcomed the conflict, launching a large-scale attack on its smaller neighbor and sending tanks across its border.
Both American candidates back Georgia’s sovereignty and its turn toward the West. But their first statements on the crisis revealed differences of substance and style.
Obama’s statement put him in line with the White House, the European Union, NATO, and a series of European powers, while McCain’s initial statement—which he delivered in Iowa and ran on a blog on his Web site under the le “McCain Statement on Russian Invasion of Georgia,”—put him more closely in line with the moral clarity and American exceptionalism projected by President Bush’s first term.
But as McCain backs "freedom loving" little Georgia (and his neocon/lobbyist senior advisor Randy Scheunemann, who until march was working for gGeorgia) and accuses Russia of trampling all over its sovereignty, he's neglecting a couple of major factors. For one, Russia is in South Ossetia with a CIS mandate for peacekeeping. For a second, tiny freedom-loving South Ossetia has voted several times for independence from it's bigger neighbour, which won't let it go.
James Joyner discusses the notion of small-state sovereignty today in relation to South Ossetia and quotes Daniel Larison writing for American Conservative magazine.
McCain doesn't want to understand the Russian response. If he was the one taking those 3am phone cals on this conflict, there would be American armed might on its way to Georgia to confront Russia right now and the world would be listening to the ticking clock of holocaust. That's far too dangerous a man to allow into the Oval Office.To understand the Russian response, imagine how Americans would respond if Serbia launched an attack into Kosovo while our KFOR troops were still there, and then imagine how much stronger the U.S. response would be if, in the course of the attack to retake the province, our troops took casualties because of that attack. These are the unfortunate, ruinous things that happen when state sovereignty is reduced to a meaningless phrase by past interventions and par ions, and the governments that attacked Yugoslavia over its internal affairs and par ioned Kosovo have no authority to find fault with what Russia is doing now.
One editorial deserves another.
LOL at Gino expecting people to believe he was an Obama supporter up and until McCain told the children on his front yard to get the off of it and tried to chase them off with a walking stick while Obama asked the kids to respect his home and not trespass on it in a kinder tone.
lol
Yeah, that would make anyone switches sides and bash the other to no end.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Team Obama Calls McCain's Georgia Stance 'Belligerent,' Yet 'Roughly The Same' As Theirs
Sometimes on Obama's campaign, the left hand...
Obama backer and former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, appearing on CNN: "John [Roberts], with all due respect, I would dispute what you just said. Senator McCain and Senator Obama have roughly the same positions. it's the Bush administration that was behind the curve. "
...doesn't know what the further left hand is doing.
Obama adviser Susan Rice, appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball" Tuesday night, accused McCain of responding irresponsibly. "Barack Obama, the administration and the NATO allies took a measured, reasoned approach," she said. "We were dealing with the facts as we knew them. John McCain shot from the hip, very aggressive, belligerent statement. He may or may not have complicated the situation."
So... Obama's response was the same as the Bush administration's, which was behind the curve.
Does that make it an admission that their own response was behind the curve? Well, later on in that interview, Holbrooke said, "The situation was evolving, Obama's statement, which came immeidately was a place holder statement as the situation moved. He was on the plane, out of touch on his way to Hawaii. As the situation developed, he clarified, moved his position forward."
This dude won't even stand up to Hillary:
Barack Obama blinks in Hillary face-off
Thursday, August 14th 2008, 8:13 PM
Hong/AP
Hillary Clinton may not get her party's nomination, but her roll call at the convention means she's stealing the show from its presumtive star, Barack Obama (below).
Russia rolls over Georgia, Hillary Clinton does the same to Barack Obama. Now we know who's boss.
Obama blinked and stands guilty of appeasing Clinton by agreeing to a roll call vote for her nomination. That he might not have had much choice if he wanted peace only proves the point that he's playing defense at his own convention.
What does he get out of it? Not much and not for long.
The fleeting sense that he is a magnanimous nominee won't get him a single vote he wouldn't get anyway. Ditto for the idea that he's going the extra mile to unify the party. Those who refuse to accept him as the legitimate winner aren't likely to do so just because he caves into her demands.
It makes him look weak and ratifies Clinton's sense of en lement to share party leadership and the convention spotlight. The substantive problem for Obama is that he is already underperforming against John McCain. He limped across the finish line in the primaries and, since Clinton conceded in June, his poll numbers have flat-lined.
In the face of that lackluster showing, his choices have been curious. The time spent in Europe and now in Hawaii might have been better spent courting the white, working-class voters who have proved immune to his charms.
Trying to bring them into the tent by agreeing to Clinton's growing demands is a poor subs ute for direct appeals. She might not be able to deliver them, even if she tries.
Yet already the list of what Hillary wants and what Hillary gets is unprecedented for somebody who lost the nomination. She gets a prime-time address where she will be introduced by daughter Chelsea. She gets her own team to produce a hagiographic video of her.
Hubby Bubba gets a prime-time speech on Wednesday night. And Hillary gets a platform plank that uses "glass ceiling" language right out of her speech to suggest she would be the nominee if not for sexism.
A few more big-ticket items and she'll be the co-nominee. Maybe that's the point.
It reminds me of a Cold War joke about how the Russians view a compromise. They come to the table and announce the rules: What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.
How would President Obama respond?
I think we just found out.
I'm still voting for Obama. I used to like McCain but his ideas and lack of remembering crucial things has turned me against him. , no I don't want him in the White House.
Oh geez.
You mean like McCain has stood up again Phil Gramm?
Now that is just wrong.
I never said that and you know it. I love debating serious issues honestly, but all you do is misquote statements and add your own twist to them to benefit your argument. My position is that the USA officially denying knowledge of Israel's nuclear capability is disingenuous and it is this dishonesty that makes other countries angry. That's it./thread
Maybe you should talk to Tully, apparently he thinks it's not fair the Israelis have nukes and would use them should the SHTF.
Manny, I don't care what anyone says about your ears, you're alright
Dude, shut the already. It was asinine of you to come in here claiming to have been an Obama supporter when in reality you are a right wing republican masquerading as someone who switched sides with one of the most minute and plain ing stupid reasons ever. Quit pushing your "Obama sucks" agenda because we're not stupid, we know better than to think Old Fart McElderly would make a good President.
, wow you need to get a life.
Wow, genius.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
