This McCain ad, which ran last night during Obama's acceptance speech:
Posted by: Mike ||
08/29/2008 12:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"...Tomorrow we'll be back at it." Note the quick, sly smile. I suspect he knew Friday and the week end, possibly the election, would be HIS! Senator Biden, you may wish to begin your intake of spinach.
We all remember how NATO once saved Western Europe from the onslaught of global communism. Its success led to the present European Union. The Soviets were kept at bay. The Americans were engaged, while the postwar German colossus remained peaceful. A resurgent Europe followed, secure enough to prosper while complacent enough to slash defense expenditures and expand entitlements.
After the victory of the Cold War, NATO's raison d'etre became more problematic -- even as its theoretical reach now went all the way to the old borders of the Soviet Union. Yet, without the Soviet menace that had prompted the alliance, what justified the continued need for transatlantic collective defense?
We saw NATO's paralysis in the European inaction over Serbia's ethnic cleansing in the 1990s. When NATO finally acted to remove Slobodan Milosevic in 1999, the much-criticized intervention proved little more than a de facto American air campaign.
Article 5 of NATO's charter requires its members to come to the aid of any fellow nation that is attacked. But when it was evoked after Sept. 11 for the first time, NATO -- other than a few European gestures such as sending surveillance planes to fly above America -- didn't risk much abroad to fight Islamic terrorists.
Australia, a non-NATO member, is doing far more to fight the Taliban than either Germany or Spain. Many Western European countries have national directives that prevent aggressive offensives against the Taliban and other Afghan insurgents, overriding NATO military doctrine.
Take away Canada, the United Kingdom and the U.S. from Afghanistan and the collective NATO force would collapse in hours.
The enemy in Afghanistan knows this. The savvy and sinister Taliban just targeted the French contingent. It figured the loss of 10 French soldiers might have a greater demoralizing effect on French public opinion than Verdun did in 1916, when France suffered nearly a half-million casualties in heroically stopping the German advance. But 90 years ago, France kept on fighting to win a war. Now, the French parliament may meet to discuss withdrawal altogether.
There is much talk that had Georgia been a NATO member, Russia might not have attacked it. The truth is far worse. Even if Georgia had belonged to NATO, no European armed forces would have been willing to die for Tbilisi. Remember the furor in 2003 when some NATO countries -- angry at the United States -- tried to block support to member Turkey should Saddam's Iraq have retaliated against Ankara for the American invasion to remove him.
The well-intended but ossified alliance keeps offering promises to new members that are weaker, poorer and in more dangerous and distant places, but its old smug founding states are ever more unlikely to honor them.
In the last two decades, the safety of a rich Western Europe also spawned a new continental creed of secularism, socialism and anti-Americanism that embraced the untruth that the United Nations kept the peace while the United States endangered it. But if a disarmed continent counted on continued expensive American protection, then it was suicidal to mock its protector.
If NATO dissolves, Europe will at least receive a much-needed reality check. It might even re-learn to invest in its own defense. European relations with America would be more grounded in reality, and the United States could still forge individual ties with countries that wished to be true partners, not loud caricatures of allies.
#1
I wish VDH were right, but Georgia did bring the need for Nato sufficiently to the front that it will not be allowed to dissolve any more than it will be allowed to succeed. If The One were smart, he'd make it an issue.
#2
Europe has a greater combined population than the US and GDP. Has had since the 80s. However, it will not defend itself but will exploit the 'cultural' relation with America to continue pumping billions [trillions over generations] into their military welfare at the expense of the American taxpayer. And no one in the beltway is going to bluntly tell them to stuff it.
#7
What do we know about Georgia? NATO exercises - "Immediate Response 2008" - were completed in Georgia on July 31 (Russia's 58th Army had completed exercises had mirrored the NATO operations). The Georgian President, Saakashvili, claimed that Russian tanks had commenced passing through the Rokia Tunnel at 10 PM on Aug. 7, and that he launched a long rocket and artillery and rocket pre-emption at 11:30 PM that evening. Georgian state TV almost immediately broadcast video of the barrage, with triumphal patriotic music in the background. Satellite damage data reveals that only civilians areas were targeted. A tank blitz followed, and half of Tskhinvali's population was removed to Russia.
During the NATO exercise, over 1000 US troops participated. Only 137 remained at the time of the war. Russians claim that Georgian POWs admitted that they began moving north, at the same time that Saakasvhili was on TV promising "autonomy" to South Ossetia. Further, US regiment websites report training of Georgian troops in artillery and rocket fire; Russians claim - without support evidence - that US advisors controlled the barrage on Tskhinvali. Although the barrage commenced from outside the internal frontier with SO, the immediate US position was: Russians should return home, leaving barrage positions intact. Russians claim that Georgian POWs were told that they were conducting "Operation Clean Fields."
OSCE observers - there were only 9 - have been ordered to maintain silence, but there have been leaks that they confirm Russian claims of Georgian ethnic cleansing. Georgian POWs report that they were told that they were part of "Operation Clean Fields."
Then there is the Georgian tank attacks on Tskhinvali. These were indiscriminate, indicating a purpose other than securing the city. Then there is the fact that there are no recorded attacks on either the Rokia Tunnel or the Russian advance columns. US satellite data could either confirm or deny Russian claims that the first of their tanks entered at 8AM. Media reports record the first presence of same in Tskhinvali at 4PM. A Youtube video of an interview with Georgia's Foreign Minister, reveals a claim of a Georgian attack on a bridge near the tunnel. Independent media reports prove that statement is false. Was the tunnel not attacked because it was needed to advance ethnic cleansing? US Defense Intelligence could effect the US presidential race, by releasing satellite data - or evidence.
Posted by: Fog of War ||
08/29/2008 17:49 Comments ||
Top||
One month from now, the Palin pick has proven a bonanza for the McCain campaign. A large chunk of Hillary's 18 million voters have been won over. Conservatives are unified and energized, and the previously-undiscovered "Maxim magazine vote" is suddenly giving McCain large margins among young males.
Joe Biden will disappear from the campaign trail, and we will later learn it was to see a doctor. A previously-undiscovered, vaguely ominous health issue will be discovered, and Biden will sadly announce that he cannot continue as Obama's running mate. With a sudden need for a new one, Obama will turn... to Hillary Clinton.
Call it the Torricelli gambit.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/29/2008 15:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I don't see it coming. Obama and the Hildebeast despise each other. Obama doesn't want Hilde and Bill anywhere near the White House (a correct assessment), and Hilde sees 'Bamer as someone who stole what was rightfully hers.
But if it happens, watch Saturday Night Live for their version of "The Odd Couple".
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/29/2008 16:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
What's in it for Hillary? She wouldn't get the credit if Obama won, and she'd get the "can you get me some coffee on the way to the copy machine, sweetie?" treatment as VP. I guarantee she wouldn't get any kind of duties except for the occasional trip to some fourth-world dictator's funeral, and would be kept on a very tight leash.
On the flip side, she'd get the blame if he loses (which she might get anyway for not "delivering" her base 100% to the Messiah.)
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
08/29/2008 17:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The only way it benefits Hillary to run as VP is if she can be sure Obama will lose. If Obama wins, the next time she can run for the presidency is 2016. A VP spot is a lousy deal for her. Frank Lautenberg got to become senator (again) in Torricelli's place. Why the heck would Hillary want to help Obama win? It makes no sense.
More like the Eagleton gambit. As though that worked so well the first time. Just remember Joe, when he backs you a 'thousand percent' check the differential fluid when you're under there.
#2
You don't need to register, just choose the "Main Topic" thread from the drop-down menu.
What an eye-opener. The Hillary die-hards are absolutely spewing venom at Obama and showering McCain with endless praise. Hopefully McCain's poll numbers will shoot up next week.
Posted by: abu Chuck al Ameriki ||
08/29/2008 18:18 Comments ||
Top||
Team Obama cannot even say, "Congratulations, Governor Palin, we look forward to a spirited race." Nope, first thing they do is attack, attack, attack:
Barack Obama's campaign is blasting John McCain for putting "the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency."
As opposed to a community organizer with zero foreign policy experience .. and zero executive experience .. and few acomplishments ...
The scathing description of Sarah Palin, from Obama spokesman Bill Burton, comes as Democrats scramble to gather a response to a selection that nobody in the political world expected. Maybe not in their world, but her name's been floating around for months as a potential VP. People wrote articles about her an' everything.
"Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, "She has babies instead of aborting them. Da noive a' dat dame!"
the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same," added Burton.
Democrats will likely push the inexperience line against Palin as they race to comb oppo files from Wasilla to Juneau.
First, after spending the entire campaign talking about how experience isn't everything, Barack Obama, who's never held a full-time job for four years, cannot start hitting her on inexperience.
Rove just called the response "petty and small," and boy, this is going to just further convince the Pumas that sexism drives the Obama campaign.
It also illustrates that these clowns have no class.
The opposite of "no class" is "class."
UPDATE: The guys on Fox News note that the Obama campaign can't even bring themselves to call her "Governor Palin." That response is going to blow up in their faces.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/29/2008 12:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Barack Obama's campaign is blasting John McCain for putting "the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency."
They're swinging wildly. The counter is "a former Illinois state senator with zero foreign policy into the presidency".
Plus, her being "the former mayor of a town of 9,000' actually gives her more executive expierence then Obama.
Honestly? I think they don't know how to deal with this.
#2
Does the Obama campaign really want to compare themselves to Palin's lack of experience? And the VP's duties primarily consists of going to funerals.
Posted by: ed ||
08/29/2008 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
More proof of McCain's shrewdness. They can't attack her lack of experience without highlighting their own. The more they attack her, the more Clinton supporters will support her.
#4
And, of course, Governor Palin has accomplishments. She's a sitting governor. She's gotten things done. She's handled a budget. She's a mover in the National Governors Association.
She's also a true reformer. She stood up to her own party establishment on several occasions, as opposed to Senator Obama who never once took on the Daleys and the Outfit.
And she, like Senator McCain, will have a son serving in Iraq. These folks walk the walk.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/29/2008 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#5
She called out Ted Stevens and didn't want the 'bridge to nowhere'.
Bridge to nowhere
Gov. Sarah Palins decision to drop the $398 million Ketchikan bridge project came as a shock to the congressional delegation.
Aides to all three members of the delegation said their offices were not contacted about the decision prior to the governors announcement. The first time anyone in Washington became aware of it was when an Associated Press story out of Juneau appeared on the Internet on Friday.
#8
Beavis, she actually said, "If we want a brifge, we'll build it ourselves".
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
08/29/2008 19:11 Comments ||
Top||
#9
As an Alaskan who doesn't always see eye-to-eye with Palin...I will say this: she new her last child had Down's well before son was born
Mouse, we had our first child later in life. When my wife was about four months along, the hospital was insistent she come in for an amniocentesis. When she asked why this was so important, their response was, roughly, that because of our relatively advanced ages we might have a Down's Syndrome baby. They just automatically assumed if that was the case we would then want an abortion. I guess lots of people do.
My wife told them she wasn't interested and we'd take whatever we got. They seemed pretty surprised at that attitude.
That she and her husband would know they were having a Down's baby and would keep it anyway speaks volumes about their sense of values. I'm deeply impressed with Sarah Palin and her husband. It's politics, so I'm sure I'll have some quibbles with her policies at some point, but I've got a feeling she's always going to have my respect. Plus, moving from Alaska to DC is no small sacrifice, particularly for her family. It's admirable she was willing to take this job on.
Jimmy Carter's presence at the Democratic National Convention was limited to a blink-of-the-eye moment - as in, blink and you'll miss him. A quick wave of his hand, and he was ushered from the Pepsi Center podium.
But Carter isn't the sort of man to remain in the background, out of the public eye - as Democratic leaders clearly preferred. So he called attention to himself by the cheapest stunt possible - insulting John McCain' service to his country.
The GOP standard-bearer, he whined yesterday, is "milking every possible drop of advantage" from the 5œ years he spent as a POW in Hanoi, undergoing debilitating torture. "John McCain was able to weave in his experience in a Vietnam prison camp, no matter what the question was," said the former president.
That's low, coming from a former commander in chief, himself a Navy veteran.
And it's also uncalled for, given Carter's own abysmal record when it comes to US prisoners - specifically the 52 Americans who were held captive by Iran for 444 days, thanks wholly to his political ineptitude.
John McCain demonstrated strength of character during his imprisonment.
Jimmy Carter's bungling of the Iran crisis demonstrated America's weakness and impotence.
#7
Now, now, settle down, gramps. Here's your pillow...
To smother yourself with.
Posted by: regular joe ||
08/29/2008 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"John McCain was able to weave in his experience in a Vietnam prison camp, no matter what the question was," said the former president.
Um, no....I think you are confusing him with John Kerry, who managed to look at the Grand Canyon and be reminded of Vietnam. (Matter of fact, didn't everything remind Kerry of Vietnam?)
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
08/29/2008 15:13 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"Carter ... is a complete disgrace as a former POTUS."
Fixed that for ya', Darth.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/29/2008 19:30 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The GOP standard-bearer, he whined yesterday, is "milking every possible drop of advantage" from the 5� years he spent as a POW in Hanoi, undergoing debilitating torture.
and what was Nelson Mandela's basis of fame? Once again, one set of standards for me and a separate set of standards for thee.
By DAVID BROOKS Ouch...
My fellow Americans, it is an honor to address the Democratic National Convention at this defining moment in history. We stand at a crossroads at a pivot point, near a fork in the road on the edge of a precipice in the midst of the most consequential election since last years American Idol.
One path before us leads to the past, and the extinction of the human race. The other path leads to the future, when we will all be dead. We must choose wisely.
We must close the book on the bleeding wounds of the old politics of division and sail our ship up a mountain of hope and plant our flag on the sunrise of a thousand tomorrows with an American promise that will never die! For this election isnt about the past or the present, or even the pluperfect conditional. Its about the future, and Barack Obama loves the future because thats where all his accomplishments are.
We meet today to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans, a generation that came of age amidst iced chais and mocha strawberry Frappuccinos®, a generation with a historical memory that doesnt extend back past Coke Zero.
We meet today to heal the divisions that have torn this country. For we are all one country and one American family, whether we are caring and thoughtful Democrats or hate-filled and war-crazed Republicans. We must bring together left and right, marinara and carbonara, John and Elizabeth Edwards. On United we stand, on US Airways, theres a 25-minute delay.
Ladies and gentleman, I never expected to be speaking before you today. Like so many of our speakers at this convention, I come from a hard-working, middle-class family. I was leading a miserable little life, but, nevertheless, overcame great odds to live the American Dream. My great-grandfather fought in Pattons Army, along with Barack Obamas great-grand uncles fourth cousin once removed.
As a child, I was abandoned by my parents and lived with a colony of ants. We didnt have much in the way of material possession, but we did have each other and the ability to carry far more than our own body weights. When I was young, I was temporarily paralyzed in a horrible anteater accident, but I never gave up my dream: the dream of speaking at a national political convention so my speech could be talked over by Wolf Blitzer and a gang of pundits.
And today we Democrats meet in Denver, a suburb of Boulder, a city whose motto is, A Taxi? You Must be Dreaming.
And in Denver, we Democrats showed America that we have cute daughters who will someday provide us with prestigious car-window stickers. We heard Hillary Clintons ringing endorsement of the weak-looking thin guy whos bound to lose.
We heard from Joe Biden, whose 643 years in the Senate make him uniquely qualified to talk to the middle class, whose family has been riding the Acela and before that the Metroliner for generations, who has been given a lifetime ban from the quiet car and who is himself a verbal train wreck waiting to happen.
We got to know Barack and Michelle Obama, two tall, thin, rich, beautiful people who dont perspire, but who nonetheless feel compassion for their squatter and smellier fellow citizens. We know that Barack could have gone to a prestigious law firm, like his big donors in the luxury boxes, but he chose to put his ego aside to become a professional politician, president of the United States and redeemer of the human race. We heard about his time as a community organizer, the three most fulfilling months of his life.
We were thrilled by his speech in front of the Greek columns, which were conscientiously recycled from the concert, Yanni, Live at the Acropolis. We were honored by his pledge, that if elected president, he will serve at least four months before running for higher office. We were moved by his campaign slogan, Vote Obama: Hes better than youll ever be. We were inspired by dozens of Democratic senators who declared their lifelong love of John McCain before denouncing him as a reactionary opportunist who would destroy the country.
No, this country cannot afford to elect John Bushmccain. Under Republican rule, locusts have stripped the land, adults wear crocs in public and M&Ms have lost their flavor. We must instead ride to the uplands of hope!
For as Barack Obama suggested Thursday night, wherever there is a president who needs to tap our natural-gas reserves, Ill be there. Wherever there is a need for a capital-gains readjustment for targeted small businesses, Ill be there. Wherever there is a president committed to direct diplomacy with nuclear proliferators, Ill be there, too! God bless the Democrats, and God Bless America!
#1
The most brilliant political column EVER, truly, I am still holding my sides...don't get the anteater reference but everything else is absolutely deadly accurate and lethal
Freedom of speech is under attack. Let us count the ways. The first and most obvious: Those who criticize militant Islamists from novelist Salman Rushdie to Danish cartoonists to memoirist Ayaan Hirsi Ali are routinely threatened with deadly violence. It would be black humor to say this is having a chilling effect.
The second is political correctness. On campuses and within Western governments it is increasingly taboo to label terrorists who slaughter in the name of Islam "Islamist terrorists." In Canada, "human rights commissions" attempt to enforce this taboo by putting such writers as Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant on trial for the "crime" of expressing opinions that offend Islamic grievance groups and also for quoting Islamists accurately and thereby casting them in an unfavorable light. If thats not Orwellian, what is?
But it is the third approach that could be most consequential for Americans. Its known as "libel tourism" and heres how it works: A book published in the United States names an individual abroad who supports terrorist groups. That individual for the sake of discussion, lets say hes a Saudi petro-billionaire with a home in London goes online and orders a few copies, which arrive in the mail. He takes those books to a British attorney who files a lawsuit complaining that his client has been libeled. The billionaire knows it will be much easier to prevail in the U.K. than it would be in an American court, where the First Amendment and decades of case law provide free-speech protections.
The legal costs are chump change for the billionaire, while few nonfiction writers command similar resources. If the writer chooses not to spend months living in a hotel and fighting it out in court, the case will be forfeited and he will be hit with a "default judgment." If he doesnt pay, hell never again be able to set foot in the U.K. and other countries that enforce British court judgments. But more important is this: The message to journalists, scholars and publishers is that researching and writing about terrorists and those who enable them is verboten even in America.
What can be done to protect Americans from having our speech restricted by foreign terrorist financiers, foreign lawyers, foreign judges and their toadies?
Reps. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., have introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, which would give Americans who find themselves in the situation described above a "federal cause of action" to sue right back and to claim legal fees, costs and significant damage awards as well if a U.S. court concludes that the foreign suit was "a scheme to suppress First Amendment rights." Whats more, the bill would provide "expedited discovery": The plaintiff would be compelled to disclose information and documents relevant to the charges something few investors in terrorist enterprises are eager to do.
On the Senate side, the bill is being shepherded by Sens. Joe Lieberman, DI-Conn., Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. What obstacles are preventing this bill from being passed into law? First, not enough backers so far, at least are from the majority party: Of 10 sponsors on the House side, only one is a Democrat. Second, were deep into the presidential campaign season, a time when very little moves on Capitol Hill. Third, never underestimate the ability of the Saudis, their lobbyists, their allies and their courtiers to kill that which interferes with their interests.
#2
"I didn't call to him, for he gave a sudden intimation that he was content to be alone - he stretched out his arms towards the dark water in a curious way, and, far as I was from him, I could have sworn he was trembling. Involuntarily I glanced seaward - and distinguished nothing except a single green light, minute and far away, that might have been the end of a dock. When I looked once more for Gatsby he had vanished, and I was alone again in the unquiet darkness."
#3
Wrong, Dr. K. The true believers enjoyed their Hollywierd extravaganza. After all, they get most of their significant info from movies. They are perfectly content to form opinions based on shine and polish. As has been said, Bambi's shine is a mile wide and an inch deep. But their pea brains can't penetrate the patina. It really is us against them. Thinkers vs. dreamers. And now we have 50/50 split. When it gets to be 60/40 in their favor we will have BIG problems.
#2
Wow. I always love it when someone is even more cynical than me. And I can always count on g(r)om. But he's wrong and he'd better hope he's wrong. A good article by VDH that actually raises unstated questions about whether the US can successfully conduct less than total wars. Ultimately Bush will be seen as a great wartime leader who persevered to military victory. This election will determine whether we have the will to win the peace as well.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
We all remember how NATO once saved Western Europe from the onslaught of global communism. Its success led to the present European Union. The Soviets were kept at bay. The Americans were engaged, while the postwar German colossus remained peaceful. A resurgent Europe followed, secure enough to prosper while complacent enough to slash defense expenditures and expand entitlements.
Jimmy Carter's presence at the Democratic National Convention was limited to a blink-of-the-eye moment - as in, blink and you'll miss him. A quick wave of his hand, and he was ushered from the Pepsi Center podium. 
Freedom of speech is under attack. Let us count the ways. The first and most obvious: Those who criticize militant Islamists from novelist Salman Rushdie to Danish cartoonists to memoirist Ayaan Hirsi Ali are routinely threatened with deadly violence. It would be black humor to say this is having a chilling effect.
