Veteran's can see McCain more clearly. The type of officer who could have gotten us killed
Topic: Politics

SGM Larry A. Myers U.S. Army (Retired) has a blog, The Sergeant Major's Thoughts on That

A veteran of 27 years in the United States Army including combat tours in Vietnam, Myers has written one of the definitive veteran's perspectives on the current legitimacy of John McCain's assertion that he is qualified to lead this country.

His diary of 9/10/08, Honor - To Have And Have Not was cross-posted to KOS and has comments nearing 300 as of this morning.

Myers says what many veterans are thinking but have not publicly acknowledged. Honor and conscience are some of the strongest traits any soldier desires of his commanders. For years most in this country have assumed that these traits were part and parcel of what makes a military officer and a United States Senator.

There was a time in 2000 when I was seriously supportive of McCain and somewhat distrustful of Clinton and Gore. I did not know all I needed to know about McCain back then because he was BUSHwhacked out of the Republican nominating activity and became the McCain we never knew.

The McCain that brazenly stands before the electorate and lies right into our faces seems oblivious to how his image has so severely deteriorated or the vast disgust he generates daily with every public appearance.

Myers:

... once one's honor was compromised it was a permanent and oft never fading blemish. ... I believe that even the most honorable and well intentioned people with the most hard earned sense of honor can fail and that they can be guilty of being dishonorable and I believe that that has happened in the presidential race.

I would go further than Myers. We assumed much about John McCain that was apparently not true and would only be revealed - as has been the case with McCain - when he is under pressure or suspects he won't be held accountable.

If I go thru the pro-forma motion of recognizing his five years POW suffering for his country, I also have the right to declare respectfully that I reject the idea that POW suffering automatically creates excellent presidential material.

Here 40+ years after his POW crucible, McCain is self-revealed as an ordinary or perhaps even typical mediocre Naval officer who did not extinguish himself as a leader of men.

There are other veteran military officers much more capable and preferable to McCain as a CIC. If I were God and able to appoint any veteran of my choosing to be president, John McCain would not even be on my long list, let alone my short list.

Myers seems to agree with me:

... past honorable service and dedication to duty and country does not immunize one against poor judgment, failure or even from doing the wrong thing. I believe that ones honor is not something one does once and then puts it on a shelf where it shines forever. Honor is second by second, minute by minute, hour by hour and year by year. It is only as untarnished and undiminished as ones past and ones last action.

Myers goes on to say that his previously expressed disappointment and sadness with McCain lies in a conclusion that the candidate is not an honorable man today.

In my world of definitions, an honorable man is a man of class, respectful toward women and someone who refuses to be crass. In my world of a veteran's experience, the definition of a military officer as a class act does not include the a poorly thought-out and hasty rashness that sometimes becomes an attribute a fighter jock needs in the middle of aerial combat. As the oft-used asset of a commander of men or the chief national statesman or leader of the free world, poorly thought-ought and hastily rash decisions are to be feared and avoided constantly.

When McCain resorts to good ole boy fighter-jock back bar humor, he fails to be outstanding in his chosen field. He reduces himself, his candidacy, his wife and his running mate to mere props behind which he plays with his saber and pretends that the presidency is nothing more than a game of RISK.

Myers also explains how wrong it is to use lies to get somewhere with the implied promise that once elected you will not lie anymore and return to straight talk.

The reason I say this is because I am observing and hearing reported by every major news organization in this country that he and his running mate are participating in and personally articulating blatant lies. These are not the actions of honorable people. When one is aspiring to the highest and second highest public offices in the land it is incumbent upon one to speak truth and only truth and to communicate about those issues that are vital and of importance to the citizens of the nation. It is not honorable for individuals to speak lies to the citizens and make unproven accusations against those whom they oppose. When one opposes another person in vying for public office it becomes even more important to insure that one speaks the truth and deals with issues and substantive differences and not innuendo and accusation.

Most veterans know full well which officers had class and who had no need to demand respect. They also remember which officers were not classy and who those were who could get them all killed.

Myers continues.

The fact that John McCain is a former Naval Officer and a sitting United States Senator makes this lack of honor horribly reprehensible. But I think what makes this lack of honor so disgusting and even more vile is that he would lose himself to the point of using his own sacrifice and service as a shield to commit such petit dishonorable acts of lying. Conservative, liberal, or Independent, share his beliefs or not, it would be morally reprehensible for anyone to support someone who displays so little honor.

Honor is what has been lacking from the first day of George Bush's presidency and of his Republican dominated congressional support system.

Craven is a more apt description of the Republicans in congress who rubber-stamped the Bush/Cheney/Rove definition of the political abuse and denigration of genuine patriotic American Civic participation in government.

Honor is the last thing we are seeing and have come to expect from the flag-waving pseudo-corporate patriotism sold to American's as Republican snake oil. McCain with the advice of Republican spinners is demonstrating the worst of our society at this significant moment in American History.

Myers concludes with this about honor:

Our honor as a nation is not just blemished but in tatters and we cannot endure another four or eight years of the same. If for no other reason than the fact that John McCain and his vice presidential running mate have publicly lied and continue to lie this nation needs to insure that he does not occupy the office of the president. Our nation needs honor above all else at this crucial point in our history. With honor comes respect and from these come all else.

Enlisted American veterans like me are much more numerous than retired admirals and generals. We have always been most often the first to recognize flaws in their officers primarily because they deal with them at the level of execution rather than chain of command.

These are the truths American veterans need to recognize.

Tags: McCain, commander-in-chief, leadership

Powered by Qumana

Citizens who sustain the Imperial States of America will make of the coming blowback events an ugly reality
Topic: Civic Duty

... or pretend that it's not important or necessary? As I write this, extremely legitimate and quite serious people are looking for ways to set right America's recent global and social criminal history

I seriously doubt that even half the readers here could spontaneously declare who Robert Jackson was.

Two months ago on this very blog Lietta Ruger brought up the same theme. To no one's surprise, the response was essentially "ho hum" and "yea so?" Yet we bloggers really are among the most civically active members of society and I wonder how it is that we got so sophisticatedly wise about political campaign strategy and remain so inept, ignorant and apathetic about genuine civic responsibility? There are duties required by that responsibility when things go wrong or when some among us seriously harm the rest of the world in our name.

There's a notion that the most rapid path toward resolution of all America's faults and mistakes - not to mention restitution and repentence - lies merely in working to elect specific candidates. It is an empty and naive sentiment. Civic responsibility is love of country and not about looking for or appreciating merely doing the least we must.

That's like survivor Guanajuato. Some are voted out and some stay. The game will continue with a new slate of contestants next season.

It's not unlike loving to shop for our favorite foods or things while having no idea about all the processes involved that brought our delectables to market.

We seem to consider the purchase itself a more significant and needful event than the actual creation - the bringing into being of that thing which we desire to possess.

Buyers may know how to cook, use or wear something they can easily obtain repeatedly and casually by mere purchase without any knowledge of the effort and circumstances that make such a purchase possible.

We may even consider ourselves knowledgeable afficionados about that which we glorify but in reality we have no idea.

We may even pooh pooh someone else's concerns because we can persuasively justify our investment of time, energy and emotional resources in our favorite things.

Such in fact is what I'm doing right now in grinding my ax about civics, national reputation, morality and conscience and not paying attention to getting a candidate elected or another defeated.

I admit it

So what's your excuse?

How is it you can get excited or discouraged about the most recent polls, political stupidity, chicanery and deception and how that might cost someone the election without making noise about REAL social global justice?

Will an election loss make for you a disaster that many seem to emotionally equate to your favorite teams's having lost the Super Bowl?

Or perhaps your civic sense is a touch more intense than that. Perhaps losing the election will be result in a vague civic unease that in actuality is mere intellectual awareness while we go about our post-election consumption?

How can we get so lost in the heat and competition of emotional politics but never arouse a mature and wise emotion when we know we ought to?

Are we genuinely moved to care about our future - a future that will be an undeniable consequence of failure to perceive past events honestly and accurately and failure to set them right?

Can Veterans of my generation still make a difference? Hell, I don't know.

I tell my own children and older grandchildren flat out that my generation has greatly and comprehensively screwed up their future; that they absolutely must take back their country in a way they themselves see fit.

How they do that is theirs to figure out. They should not believe that they can be told honestly and truthfully by any political party or church as to who they vote for without question.

They won't take back their country by choosing more of the same thing that brought all this foolishiness to pass.

If we cannot and will not look at the future in that manner then those of us who don't care; those of us who shrug it all off are THE citizens of an imperial nation that continues raping less able societies abroad.

We are the citizens who sustain the Imperial States of America and will make of the coming blowback events an ugly reality.

Tags: war crimes, america, imperialism, torture, invasion, murder, homicide, genocide, justice, honor, core values

Powered by Qumana

This man is not qualified in foreign policy
Topic: Foreign Affairs

Talking Points Memo reporting tonight about McCain doing an interview for a Spanish (from Spain) radio station.

McCain for some reason was unable to narrow his answer down to a discussion of Spain itself and it's President Zapatero.

I am fluent in Spanish and listened to the broadcast via the link. TPM is not exaggerating or making a mountain out of a molehill. McCain is confused in that interview.

It appears that McCain got lost in the questions about Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Raul Castro in Spain none on whom are on his favored nation list.

The next question from the interviewer was about President Zapatero, and she did preface the question by referring to her own country and her own President by name.

McCain apparently did not recognize Zapatero's name or know who he is and seemed to think it was a question about some other Latin American leader hostile to the U.S.

The interviewer tried two more times, explaining to McCain that she was asking about Spain and out and out told him who President Zapatero is before her third attempt.

To no avail. McCain all three times went on about friends and enemies of America, friends would be welcome in his White House, but enemies not welcome.

He did not appear to recognize Zapatero's name nor understand when the interviewer tried to help him out. Tags: and could not effectively speak to a non-English-speaking crowd anywhere outside the USA.

Tags: McCain, Spain, Latin America, foreign policy, unqualified

Powered by Qumana

What are my Utah relatives thinking now?
Now Playing: Mitt Romney talking rude about John McCain
Topic: Politics

 

or Youtube

They wouldn't do that to help McCain ... would they?
Topic: Foreign Affairs

The beauty of conspiracy theories like this one is that on a case-by-case basis they may even be correct. In this particular case, that's entirely within the realm of possibility.

Now a small town old rural fart like me had problems from the git go with the whole Georgia/Russia story. Especially when Bush was talking like Kennedy-of-October-62 when America of 2008 is acutely aware of a weakened military.

I've looked it up, googled the heck out of things and there's something rotten in Georgia and at McBush HQ.

Don't know what it is but I don't trust them.

Watching America: US Hawks as Warmongers

TAZ,Germany

By Robert Misik

Translated By Ron Argentati

13 September 2008

[Excerpt]

Germany - TAZ - Original Article (German)

Did the Bush administration hawks push Georgia's President into an armed confrontation with Russia? Up until now it's only been a theory but a few indications point in that direction.

The world is full of conspiracy theories, one more outlandish than the other. A certain kind of informal "medium" accompanies the conspiracy theory. It's usually presented as a sort of secret truth that's being suppressed by official sources. In the past it often took the form of photocopied or mimeographed flyers.

The latest conspiracy theory has been making the rounds for a couple of weeks and has already attracted a few prominent supporters. Russian President Vladimir Putin says he suspects someone in the United States of having provoked the war in Georgia in order to "give one of the American presidential candidates a campaign advantage."

Could the Georgian war be an intricate scheme to help present John McCain as a battle-hardened commander-in-chief in waiting? Sounds reckless, but the theory is gaining momentum because the Internet is now an alternative and simultaneously a mainstream medium.

The beauty of conspiracy theories like this one is that on a case-by-case basis they may even be correct. In this particular case, that's entirely within the realm of possibility.

Here are the facts: Georgia's President Michael Saakashvili, despite his protests that he is an innocent victim, made a surprise attack against the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia where Russian troops were already stationed.

Certainly, Russia had used imperialistic pressure and provoked Georgia. But ever since the 1992 ceasefire agreement and the stationing of peacekeepers in the disputed province, Russia has been an official observer by mandate from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSZE).

An attack against these troops such as was ordered by Saakashvili was and is, regardless of the context, prohibited by international law. That starting point begs the question of what would posses the leader of a small, militarily hopeless country to attack the military forces of a heavily armed super power?

Two answers are possible: He is either an idiot or he feels confident of help from another super power.

Saakashvili studied at Columbia University and has maintained good contacts in the United States. Among his closest allies in Washington are neo-conservative foreign policy people, close associates of Vice-President Dick Cheney, who now play major roles in John McCain's presidential campaign.

One of Cheney's most experienced advisors, Joseph R. Wood, had visited Georgia shortly before the Georgian army attacked.

Even the German newsmagazine "der Spiegel" suspected that Cheney had "meddled in Georgia as a favor to the Republican candidate for President."

One of the shadiest figures in the drama is Washington lobbyist Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy expert and member of John McCain's closest advisory team. Previously, he and his lobbying firm officially represented Georgia and had lobbied the State Department and Senators - including his future boss, John McCain - 49 times on behalf of his friend Saakashvili to promote Georgia's acceptance into NATO.

Scheunemann received nearly one million dollars for his efforts. He stopped working on behalf of Georgia when he became an official member of McCain's election team, but the last installment of the million was given to him just a few weeks ago.

Tags: McCain, Campaign, Georgia, Russia, Bush

Powered by Qumana

Palin situation glamorizes teen (unwed) pregnancy?
Now Playing: Lietta Ruger at Washblog.com
Topic: Opinion

Palin situation glamorizes teen (unwed) pregnancy? 

So says my daughter, who has a sixteen year old daughter she desires does not get pregnant at this tender age.  My daughter is military spouse -her husband is deployed now in Iraq in his second deployment. A deployment, btw, that Sarah Palin thinks emanates from God's plan.  Not so much what that plan is or even that God by her definitions is the same God of my son-in-law's or daughter's or her children's definitions.  But I digress.  

My daughter calls herself a proud democrat - but most of her military spouse women friends tend towards the authoritarian, follow orders republican bent.  Military itself, being authoritarian, follow orders, patriarchal culture, it follows there would be a more dominance towards the 'supposed' republican tenets.  

 

Oddly, though, my daughters friends have acknowledged they are weary of Bush Adminstration, disappointed with the Republicans in office and sick of the Iraq war (where their spouses have been deployed once, twice or more).  Despite what they have told her, my daughter finds it astounding that after the history of this last six years with Republican Administration failures, her military spouse friends have suddenly converged into joining into a 'lockstep' mentality in support of Palin simply because she is the republican VP pick.

 

In her discussions with her friends, she has said she really doesn't like how the republican handling of the unfolding Sarah Palin situation is seeming to 'glamorize' teen pregnancy.  I'd say that word fits even more so, in light of Palin's support of abstinence taught in schools in lieu of birth control; Palin position against abortion even in cases of rape and incest!  Incest for God's sake - how can anyone force a young woman to carry a child to term given the conditions of that kind of conception.  Hideously cruel!  Both pychologically and physiologically dangerous.  

 

In her acceptance speech, Sarah Palin made reference to Hillary Clinton's 18 million cracks in the ceiling - the inference being Sarah Palin could springboard off Hillary Clinton's imprint.  NOT!! They are entirely different kinds of women.  

 

In as much as population cultures have similarities, they still remain individually unique even among their own populations.  Women are not universal in their qualities any more than men are universal in their qualities.

 

Women may have a sisterhood, born of intuitive understanding of womanhood.  Women also are still working to overcome too many generations of oppression, molding their personalities to fit into a male-dominated patriarchal order.  There is still work to do for women in learning how to fully and successfully embrace our own sisterhood without those 'sisterhood' rivalries that often can erupt.

 

Sarah Palin may have desireable qualities that work for her in  a religious Evangelist culture (a patriarchally ordered culture) that brand her a woman  as defined by Evangelical definitions.  That does not imbue in her universal qualities acceptable to other women who are working hard not to follow a patriarchally ordered culture of women.  Women are still trying to find the female to male balance and tipping the scales backwards is not progress for women anywhere.

 

I love my daughter's choice of description choosing the word 'glamorizing' of teen pregnancy.  It is at this point known that Palin's daughter has an unwed teen pregnancy, not known if it is an unwanted teen pregnancy, but surely it points to why abstinence education only doesn't work any better or worse than birth control education.  Rather than glamorize the fact of Sarah Palin's teen daughter's pregnancy by downplaying all the realities that attach to the facts of teen pregnancies, perhaps a  more authentic discussion - debate about the realities of teen pregnancies, conception, and women's choice or lack thereof regarding pregnancy outcomes.

 

A woman is confined to limited choices once she is pregnant; aborting the pregnancy, keeping the pregnancy and delivering the child; keeping and raising the child herself or offering the child up to a family who can care for it.  No matter the decision, the child (whether embryo or infant) and mother will be directly impacted for the rest of their lives.  For that matter, so will the man who fathered the child.  

 

One could say the Sarah Palin situation opens a dialogue that is not unique to her family but one every family raising children, boys and girls, must face.  I agree with the 'hands off' Sarah's daughter, but that doesn't mean at all hands off the discussion.  It has been ongoing through all generations and continues to be an ongoing and necessary discussion.  

 

Thank you to Carla Axtman for her thoughts in her blog, and thank you to Arthur for opening the discussion at Washblog.    
 
On the Surge in Iraq "--we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point." - Barack Obama
by Lietta Ruger on Sat Sep 06, 2008 

Family values are not tools of the opportunistic
Topic: Politics

For those who have claimed the mantle of "family values"--I hereby question and scoff at your support of Sarah Palin. - Carla Axtman

McCain and his spinners apparently thought they could call forth the 2004 Evangelical Gullible Base back from wherever it faded. I doubt they can ... but they are again trying to poison the country with a fake piety that belittles every parent in the country.

Family values are not tools of the opportunistic - to be summoned when needed and hidden in the closet when expedient.

One of the Pac Northwest's premier bloggers gives us a truth some do not dare bring up.

Carla Axtman at BlueOregon.com

Its not as if I don't understand what its like to have a wonderful and beloved job in politics. I've had that. But when my teenagers (who were not actually in any trouble or crisis) began to show signs of needing their mother's guidance and presence in a more profound way, I gave up that job to do what I knew was right for them.

Isn't that what "family values" is supposed to be all about? Or is being a secular progressive a "family-values" nonstarter in the eyes of conservatives, no matter what? And does being an anti-choice, book-banning, global-climate-change denier mean otherwise, no matter what?

Sarah Palin either deliberately placed her pregnant, 17-year old daughter directly into this ridiculous media scrutiny--putting her in the position of being eaten alive by the rabid tabloid press--or she didn't know that her child was 5 months pregnant. Neither of those scenarios speaks especially well of Ms. Palin as a "family-values" candidate, in my view. All of this for a high-profile, high-power political job.

The hypocrisy of this woman being placed as the standard bearer of social conservatives is staggering. And all of us who sport a uterus are supposed to be able to relate to this woman because...so does she? We're all supposed to be blind to what's going on with her family and embrace her alleged "pro-family" policy stances because its worked out so hunky dory for them...? Seriously?

I don't see how a "family values" man could relate to her either.

Tags: Palin, family values

Powered by Qumana

Republicans: Our emergency supercedes the Gulf's emergency
Topic: Politics
Americablog.com

Last June, when Iowa was inundated with massive floods, Iowa officials asked
the presidential candidates to stay away. Barack Obama did. John McCain
and his entourage arrived to insure he got some photos. George Bush
showed up, too.

Today, John McCain, Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin
are flying to Mississippi for a pre-hurricane photo op. They're meeting
with state officials. The Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, used
to chair the RNC, "invited" them -- so he's letting his staffers be
used for the politicking on the eve of a massive hurricane striking. Do
the McCains and Palin really need to show up with all of the staff,
their security and the press? McCain did it in Iowa during the floods.
Now, he's doing it during Gustav:

Mr.
McCain plans to go to Jackson, Miss., which is inland, with his wife,
Cindy, and his newly-selected running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska,
his campaign said. Mr. McCain will take only a small pool of reporters,
and will tour a hurricane center with Gov. Haley Barbour, the
Mississippi governor.

Senator Barack Obama said that he had
talked to the Louisiana governor and other officials. He added that he
was monitoring the storm, but was planning no tour of the coast because
he wanted to stay out of the way.

Come on. Only "a small
pool of reporters"? Those reporters are the whole point of the visit.
McCain could get this briefing over the phone or as a web conference
(not that he knows what that is). He doesn't want information. He wants
pictures. This is just another example of McCain putting politics first.

Why did the RNC let the candidate choose Ted Stevens' governor?
Topic: Politics
I read somewhere earlier this morning that the Republican Party knows a losing fight when it sees one. Rather than waste a lot of effort squandering whatever remains of a previously positive conservative reputation by making silly defenses of a silly candidate, they have conceded.

They are putting Sarah on the ticket to appease Social Conservatives ... or demonstrate/prove to those S.C.'s that an electoral base needs to be wider and more tolerant than the position where the religious right has McCain tethered.

The Dem convention was extremely powerful and effective. Given the gifted rhetorical abilities of all those prominent speakers who set the table and complemented Obama's special oratorical skill, this contest is a speechifying mismatch.

Make no mistake, the election won't be decided by we Internet intellects who can't get through the day without our own or someone else's analysis that is less than ten minutes old. It will be decided by blocks of voters prompted by rhetoric that capitalizes on outrage more than anger.

The Dem's have a tremendous opportunity with that national outrage just ripe for the picking while Repubs don't have much if anything to rile the nation against the Democrats.

No Republican of prominence can compete with any of the Democratic top-tier orators. Furthermore, Republicans do not have a single position that can be proclaimed and proven as a superior or better alternative to what Democrats are describing and promoting.

Going along with McCain's choice seems to be either an extraordinary demonstration of Republican strategic helplessness or worse.

Perhaps having been unable to field a more universally popular candidate able to combine all the varied conservative concerns, they have conceded. They are leaving all the principal decisions to McCain himself.

Or ... from the pool of stupidity where most available political consultants and spinners swim Republicans netted only from the shallowest end of that pool.

Regarding McCain ... about the second or third time he revealed his mysogynistic (sp?) tendencies combined with such silliness as "Bomb Bomb Iran" and his inability to communicate real humor, I realized that Johnny guns is nothing more than the bottom-tier type officer that most veterans knew at one time or another during their careers;

the kind of officer who thought his collar insignia made him a Patton by osmosis but in reality was not capable of remaining competent as a leader of men or squadrons once out of his cockpit and flight suit.

I've said before that conceding the POW time to Johnny Guns in no way concedes that such an experience alone makes him the equivalent of this country's actual military commanders who rose to the top mostly on their own merits.

From a Commander-in-Chief standpoint based on military background, experience in war, strategy, tactics and an appreciation of the value of diplomacy, McCain truthfully is closer to George Bush on the skill level than he is to Wesley Clark, Colin Powell, Tommy Franks or even those currently serving in the JCS.

I hope that with Obama and Biden talk is not cheap.

If he means what he says, he will voluntarily give back to the people what Cheney and the dumbest class of elected Republicans in Americs's history stole from the people.

He won't try to tell as that since he's wiser and more conscience-driven than the Republican thieves, he will know how best to use the new presidential power.

Right?

Thanks to Hoffmania for this excerpt from a 94-page PDF

We will pursue policies to undermine extremism, recognizing that this contest is also between two competing ideas and visions of the future. A crucial debate is occurring within Islam. The vast majority of Muslims believe in a future of peace, tolerance, development, and democratization. A small minority embrace a rigid and violent intolerance of personal liberty and the world at large. To empower forces of moderation, America must live up to our values, respect civil liberties, reject torture, and lead by example. We will make every effort to export hope and opportunity?access to education, that opens minds to tolerance, not extremism; secure food and water supplies; and health care, trade, capital, and investment. We will provide steady support for political reformers, democratic institutions, and civil society that is necessary to uphold human rights and build respect for the rule of law.

---

We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. We reject torture. We reject sweeping claims of ?inherent? presidential power. We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years. We will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine duly enacted law. And we will ensure that law-abiding Americans of any origin, including Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans, do not become the scapegoats of national security fears.

We believe that our Constitution, our courts, our institutions, and our traditions work.

In its operations overseas, while claiming to spread freedom throughout the world, the current Administration has tragically helped give rise to a new generation of potential adversaries who threaten to make America less secure. We will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools to hunt down and take out terrorists without undermining our Constitution, our freedom, and our privacy.

To build a freer and safer world, we will lead in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. We will not ship away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in faroff countries, or detain without trial or charge prisoners who can and should be brought to justice for their crimes, or maintain a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law. We will respect the time-honored principle of habeas corpus, the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention that was recently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court. We will close the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, the location of so many of the worst constitutional abuses in recent years. With these necessary changes, the attention of the world will be directed where it belongs: on what terrorists have done to us, not on how we treat suspects.

"You're on your own" would be more accurate for Republican economic governance.
Topic: Politics

Candidate Rossi has been running ads in the Pacific County papers declaring himself to be "A fresh voice for Pacific County."

That "fresh voice" deception is easy to see through even out here in the boondocks since there is nothing new in the current state Republican or Rossi's proposals that differs from what they've been offering for the last 20 years.

The transparency in the Rossi ad is its insulting assumption that voters this year are paying little attention to the economy and its financial impact in their individual lives. It also insults us in the same way Republicans ignored our inadequate health coverage two years ago and instead preferred to create a fairy tale about "frivolous lawsuits."

Rossi is also candidate of a national party that truly betrayed the American voter.

But of course no Republican is willing to defend the party's failure in Iraq with any kind of enthusiasm or catch phrase. That party's authorship of the tragic waste of humanity in Iraq and needless placing of our soldiers in harm's way will be remembered as a betrayal of America's core values for as long as there is an American History to be taught.

But I digress. Sticking to state politics, candidate Rossi however, keeps blithely tossing out shallow sentences totally absent specifics to back up his claims. He makes the kind of economic talk that might work in boardrooms but never where workers gather in their communities to examine their options.

To wit:

The incumbent raised taxes and increased spending by 33%, but taxpayers aren't seeing a return on their investment.

What party geniuses came up with that as a marketing plan?

On payday the question is whether or not the earnings will cover the expenses. The next thought is more likely anger at the employer - especially if that employer would rather contribute company profits to associations like the BIAW than consider a wage or benefit increase for workers.

When Washingtonian's pay tax on a new washing machine or set of tires, how many of them actually then stop to ponder whether or not that tax will be used wisely?

Furthermore, how many actually think the governor is the one doing the taxing? By his slogan Rossi would have you believe that the governor dictates to the legislature how they will vote regarding taxes.

Well, maybe Rossi is trying to fool us into thinking that as governor he could do that.

And in this county where Tim Eyeman vehicle licensing tax foolishness cost us adequate bus transportation, how many residents here actually think about increased government spending percentages?

Probably only those who remember the good old days when the buses ran more often on more routs. To restore the good old days would require increased spending for public transportation.

I don't think Dino the CEO who would run state government as a business would have such a memory for the good old days.

"You're on your own" would be more accurate for Republican economic governance.

The assumptions that drive Rossi and his party's strategy truly prove the false economic bubble that constitutes their theoretical world.

Otherwise, the truth revealed by a seemingly oblivious Republican candidate, party and financial support base is that they take Washington voters for suckers - thinking that we are shallow and too dumb to think critically.

The next part of the deceptive ad declares that

DSHS, Department of Ecology are run by Christine Gregoire's appointees. These agencies are unresponsive.

Immediate reaction is a question about appointees.

Is Rossi declaring that he would not appoint the head of those agencies? In Rossi's case that might be good since he has yet to appoint a good and truthful idea as something worth while to promise voters.

Worse for Rossi, during the winter storm that devastated much of SW Washington, while those agencies - particularly DSHS - were responding big time, where was Dino Rossi and what was he doing to help out?

I know first hand what DSHS and Governor Gregoire were doing. I doubled my working hours for 3 solid weeks helping victims in DSHS offices in Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties.

So how RESPONSIVE was candidate Rossi?

Well, I read that he had a visit with a friend - a storm victim in Lewis County - but other than that Dino seemed content to stay high and dry on the sidelines kibbitzing and taking pot shots at Governor Gregoire.

Meanwhile, Governor Gregoire was more than doubling her working hours including lots of time and effort trying to get George Bush (Rossi's Republican Role Model) off his dead ass and declare the counties as disaster areas.

Gregoire was also rallying the State's congressional members to help in the "wake-up-the-President" effort.

But to my knowledge Mr. Rossi did very little to come to the aid of his potential voters.

Talk is cheap. It was cheap last December and it's cheap currently in shallow and meaningless slogans.

"A governor who will make a difference?"

Give me a break. All talk, no substance and an insult to all of us.

That kind of makes of Rossi with his unproven assertions about DSHS and the administration of Chris Gregoire one Republican hypocrite willing to mislead local voters with false rhetoric and unproven declarations.

Finally, let's talk briefly about that puzzling timing of his most recent political ad - the one that aired immediatlely following Senator Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention.

Why did he run his ad at that moment?

The principal suggestion that comes to mind is that it was the only effective way for a Republican to speak to an attentive audience.

Apparently neither the State Republican Party nor its gubernatorial candidate could think of a better way to get the attention of voters.

So their solution was to ride Obama's coat tails.

Doesn't that say more about the weakness and lack of message of the Republican party and its candidate - needing a Democrat to attract voters so they could have an audience?

Tags: Rossi, Republicans, Washington State, Willapa Bay, Pacific County

Powered by Qumana

How civically hep are we?
Survey Report Excerpts from The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

A sizable minority of Americans find themselves at the intersection of these two long-standing trends in news consumption. Integrators, who get the news from both traditional sources and the internet, are a more engaged, sophisticated and demographically sought-after audience segment than those who mostly rely on traditional news sources. Integrators share some characteristics with a smaller, younger, more internet savvy audience segment - Net-Newsers - who principally turn to the web for news, and largely eschew traditional sources.

Like web-oriented news consumers, Integrators are affluent and highly educated. However, they are older, on averagIntegrators also are heavier consumers of national news - especially news about politics and Washington - and are avid sports news consumers. Television is their main news source, but more than a third cite the internet as their primary source of news during the day. This reflects the fact that a relatively large proportion of Integrators log on to the internet from work (45%).e, than those who Net-Newsers are the youngest of the news user segments (median age: 35). They are affluent and even better educated than the News Integrators: More than eight-in-ten have at least attended college. Net-Newsers not only rely primarily on the internet for news, they are leading the way in using new web features and other technologies. Nearly twice as many regularly watch news clips on the internet as regularly watch nightly network news broadcasts (30% vs. 18%).

This web-oriented news segment, perhaps more than the others, underscores the challenges facing traditional news outlets. Fewer than half (47%) watch television news on a typical day. Twice as many read an online newspaper than a printed newspaper on a typical day (17% vs. 8%), while 10% read both.

Television dominates as the favored news source among Traditionalists. And at each time of the day - whether morning, daytime, dinner hour, or late at night - overwhelming majorities who get news at these times cite television as their main source. Unlike the news Integrators, or those who mostly get news from the web, most Traditionalists say that seeing pictures and video, rather than reading or hearing the facts, gives them the best understanding of events.

Most Americans fall into the three core news audiences - Integrators, Traditionalists, or Net-Newsers. The fourth group - the Disengaged - are very much bystanders when it comes to news consumption. They are less educated on average than even the Traditionalists and exhibit extremely low interest in - and knowledge of - current events. Just 55% of the Disengaged get any news on a typical day, and just 20% know that the Democrats have a majority in the House of Representatives.consider the internet their main source of news. Overall, Integrators spend more time with the news on a typical day than do those who rely more on either traditional or internet sources; far more enjoy keeping up with the news a lot than in any other news segment.

That wasn't religious fervor in his eyes last night. That was religious hypocrisy.
Topic: God and Politics
well ... at least until the babies he saves grow old enough to join up. Then all pro-life bets are off. John McCain has also declared that he will be a pro-death guy with a pro-death presidency in mind. His presiding premise is that war is the only foreign policy useful for spreading America's corporate-driven globalization. It's a premise of economic and imperial design masquerading as the perfect form of democracy and democratic freedoms.

Senator John McCain told the conservative evangelical audience Saturday night that if elected, he would be a "pro-life President and have pro-life policies"

Really?

That wasn't religious fervor in his eyes last night. That was religious hypocrisy.

If we are going to incorporate public demonstrations of religious self-righteousness based on literalist Biblical values, let us begin and end with a literalist reading of the Sermon on the Mount, The Prodigal Son and The Good Samaritan.

Those scriptural passages are all we need to know if we want to have a better society than what we have now.

What we have now is a parsing of spiritual values in the same manner as we have parsed America's "core values." We parse our core values in order to justify or look the other way when our country behaves as a self-interested take-no-prisoners global imperialist.

We can't spread love by spreading hate.

We can't spread tolerance by spreading intolerance.

We cannot consciously stop judging and condemning others by spreading judgmental thinking, condemnation and self-righteousness.

But we can transform ourselves by following the real teachings of Jesus and not the lies of morally bankrupt self-bloated hypocrites. You know of whom I speak. Loudly posturing bible-waving moral midgets like John Hagee and CUSI who would have you believe that Jesus applauds when innocent human beings are collaterally killed in order to further foreign-policy stupidity,

Do any of us believe that human beings can be destroyed righteously? Do American Christians in a technologically advanced military society actually assume that God is pleased that airborne bombers can fly in a formation resembling a cross as they kill innocent mothers, fathers and children?

Can we accept this form of global abortion and call it good?

Can we sit in our churches once a week and walk about with a pious smile pretending to be like Jesus?

If you think such brings a smile to the face of the Prince of Peace, you need to stop spending so much time in your churches and more time in the real world.

Where Jesus walked.

Considering that these were standard expectations just 50 years ago, it's a reminder of how fast things can change.
Now Playing: My wife found these yesterday. How to behave wisely.
Topic: Humor Bits & Pieces

LoL  --  What if children today were taught to follow these 'rules for children' from the 1950's?   Oh, they are definitely rules that I was taught!     - Lietta

Here are some etiquette "rules" or "suggestions" addressed to children from the 1950s that I found on a loose sheet from an old handbook, I thought they were interesting to share.

Considering that these were standard expectations just 50 years ago, it's a reminder of how fast things can change.

1. Always greet the members of your family when you enter and always bid them goodbye when you leave.
2. Always rise to a standing position when visitors enter, and greet them after your elders.
3. Never address a visitor until he has started the conversation unless he is a person of your own age or younger.
4. Never interrupt a conversation. Wait until the party talking has finished.
5. Always rise when your visitor or your elders stand.
6. Never let your mother or your father bring you a chair or get one for themselves. Wait on them instead of being waited on.
7. If you leave or cross the room you should say "Excuse me."
8. If a visitor should say, "I am glad to have seen you," you should say, "Thank you."
9. Never run up and down the stairs or across the room.
10. Talk in a low, even voice. It denotes refinement.
11. Always give way to the younger child. It is your duty to look after them instead of fretting them.
12. Never retire without bidding the members of your family good night.

Follow these suggestions and you will assist in making the members of your family happy as well as in benefiting them in many other ways.

Gates is not truth talking, only telling us what he wants us to know.
Topic: Wise Governance

"Russia is showing signs of returning to its authoritarian past and its
invasion of Georgia will require the U.S. to re-evaluate the strategic
relationship between the superpowers, Defense Secretary Robert Gates
said Sunday."

The AP writes,

"Shadows of the Cold War emerged as the Bush administration struggled
for the appropriate response to Russia's aggression against its smaller
U.S.-backed neighbor, which Moscow ruled for most of the two centuries
before the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union."

 

If you take that statement at its face value then you must vote for John McCain. He needs it all to be exactly the way it's portrayed.Otherwise, how can he replace the war president?

I'm not at all convinced that the small neighbor was not egged on byit's Bushco backers and led to believe that it would get away withusing violence to achieve its means.

After all, such has been the foreign policy approach of the U.S.going back to the last months of WWII. That was of course when Japanwas already suing for peace and offering to stop hostilities prior toan American president's inability to resist the temptation to show offmilitary might at the expense of civilians who need not have beenatomically destroyed.

The Georgian attack on the Ossetian capital smells like poor strategic thinking but driven by Bush and Cheney nonsense.

Writers are saying Putin was maneuvered into a mistake, the Georgian president was maneuvered into a mistake, everybody was maneuvered into a mistake but the wide-eyed self-righteously indignant American manipulators.

James Rubin on Huffpo explains it this way:

"But there are still important questions that remain to be debated. Did the Bush administration mislead the Georgian government into thinking support for membership in NATO meant military support in a crisis? What should U.S. policy be toward Russia? And will John McCain be able to score political points out of this tragedy?

Complete answers to these questions may take months. But some conclusions can already be drawn. First and foremost, Georgia has become yet another example of stunning incompetence by the Bush administration. Let's remember it was Chancellor Merkel of Germany who became the power broker when leaders at the NATO summit debated the subject of Georgia this spring. The United States, which has traditionally led NATO on such subjects, failed to push through a so-called Membership Action Plan for Georgia. That failure, as much as anything, gave Moscow a crucial signal that the West could not muster a serious response should it crack down on its troublesome neighbor. And while we don't know exactly what was said by Washington to Georgia's President Saakashvilli, clearly he was not deterred from acting."

Gates' remarks are mis-information start to finish.

Current national broadcast networks besides False News Network continue to think we are all stupid and are not giving us the facts with this one. Gates and Rice are trying to paint paper tiger images on the looking glass and hoping we'll be scared.

Attention all you wide-eyed Bible literalists who John McCain thinks are stupid
The Left Behind fiction writers - LaHaye and Jenkins - do not agree with McCain that Obama might be the antichrist. Authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins don't think Obama is the antichrist.

"I can see by the language he uses why people think he could be the
antichrist," adds LaHaye, "but from my reading of scripture, he doesn't
meet the criteria. There is no indication in the Bible that the
antichrist will be an American."

Jenkins and LaHaye don't take McCain's commercial or the antichrist speculation over Obama too seriously.

Obama's convention protected by Bush/McCain civic governing style
Now that high chain link fences topped with razor wire are considered the norm for anyone who resists the American government's current puppets, we should take in stride the fact that if Cindy Sheehan shouts out at the wrong time or Daniel Ellsburg is quoted saying the wrong thing, the no-smile ear-phone and sun-glass-wearing criminal minders will cart them right off.

Oh, and that of course includes any other of you lesser lights who might be willing to speak out.

God help the ones who dare flash a camera in the wrong direction.
I wouldn't advise taking a picture of an American Flag flying over a stadium.


[Excerpt]
New York Times

Warehouse set to process convention arrests

Video footage of the north Denver warehouse on Denver's KCNC-TV showed coils of razor wire topping chain-link cells. A sign read: ''Electric stun devices used here.''

Gale said each cell will be about 20-by-20 feet. He refused to say how many people could be processed there.

''It's just ridiculous, the thing looks like a dog pound,'' said Mark Cohen of the protest group Recreate-68 Alliance. ''Even if you only put dogs in there, people will be complaining about it. I think you ought to have the Red Cross and Amnesty International come take a look at this thing.''

Lindy Eichenbaum Lent, senior advisor to Mayor John Hickenlooper, said the warehouse was formerly used to store election equipment and construction was still underway to convert it to a processing center. She said the center was an effort to allay fears that those arrested would spend several unnecessary hours waiting to be processed.

Hickenlooper's office said police will ask people to voluntarily comply with their orders before arresting anyone. ''The city does not anticipate the need for widespread arrests,'' the mayor's office statement said. But it noted ''the intention of some organizations to deliberately get arrested.''

The American Civil Liberties Union and the People's Law Project have been talking with the city about giving attorneys access to detainees. The city said attorneys can meet clients in court, not at the facility.

ACLU-Colorado legal director Mark Silverstein said city officials told him detained protesters will be taken by bus to the facility, about two miles northeast of downtown. Those who are unable or refuse to post bail will be taken to a downtown city jail to await a court date.

Silverstein said warehouse cells won't have running water, bathrooms or telephones. Gale said deputies will escort anyone needing those services.

Next question of course is whether or not College Repulbicans outside their party's Minnesota convention will be chauffer-driven to the local Marriott if they get too rowdy.

Famous Hypocritical Declarations of the 21st Century

Presidential Wannabe and former Lt. JG McCain:

"In the 21st century nations do not invade other nations."

President-pretender George W. Bush:

"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century. Only Russia can decide whether it will now put itself back on the path of responsible nations or continue to pursue a policy that promises only confrontation and isolation.

An old out-of-touch candidate who ignores his day job while running for CIC


I've had several conversations with other Vets about McCain as a veteran military officer. Unanimously we perceive him as the kind of jackass Lt. JG who might be able to fly a plane until it hits something, but as a squadron commander or running something much larger, more complicated and needful of experience, John is still a little Lt. JG who needs an enlisted man to tell him what's happening.

In the meantime, he wants us to believe that he pays attention to his day job which of course the citizens of Arizona hired him to do.

[Excerpt]

McCain hasn't missed `any crucial votes - except all the crucial votes

I'?ve mentioned before that I'm willing to cut senators, from both
parties, quite a bit of slack for missing votes during their
presidential campaign. It's tough to hold down a day job while running
for president.

But if a sitting senator is going to miss a lot of time while out on
the campaign trail, he or she should be careful to avoid two things: 1)
complain about others not spending enough time on Capitol Hill; and 2) pretend he/she hasn?t missed a lot of votes.

Accordingly, I don't much care that John McCain is blowing off his Senate duties; I do care that he's being so dumb about it.

Last week, McCain, who hasn't cast a vote in four months and who has
a worse attendance record than Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), who took
months off to recover from a brain hemorrhage, complained that lawmakers shouldn?t take an August recess.

This week, he insisted he hasn't missed key votes.

O yeah?

Click on the story link above

To Cheney & McCain: Regarding Putin? Prove it !!
Now Playing: Washingtontonian Mike Whitney and ICH
Topic: Foreign Affairs

 

 Putin Walks into a Trap

By Mike Whitney

13/08/08 "Information Clearing House" --- - The American-armed and trained Georgian army swarmed into South Ossetia last Thursday, killing an estimated 2,000 civilians, sending 40,000 South Ossetians fleeing over the Russian border, and destroying much of the capital, Tskhinvali. The attack was unprovoked and took place a full 24 hours before even ONE Russian soldier set foot in South Ossetia. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Americans still believe that the Russian army invaded Georgian territory first. The BBC, AP, NPR, the New York Times and the rest of the establishment media has consistently and deliberately misled its readers into believing that the violence in South Ossetia was initiated by the Kremlin. Let's be clear, it wasn't. In truth, there is NO dispute about the facts except among the people who rely the western press for their information. Despite its steady loss of credibility, the corporate media continues to operate as the propaganda-arm of the Pentagon.

Former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev gave a good summary of events in an op-ed in Monday's Washington Post:

"For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground....What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas....Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a "blitzkrieg" in South Ossetia...Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity." ("A Path to Peace in the Caucasus", Mikhail Gorbachev, Washington Post)

The question for Americans is whether they trust Mikhail Gorbachev more than the corporate media?

Russia deployed its tanks and troops to South Ossetia to save the lives of civilians and to reestablish the peace. Period. It has no interest in annexing the former-Soviet country or in expanding its present borders. Now that the Georgian army has been routed, Russian president Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin have expressed a willingness to settle the dispute through normal diplomatic channels at the United Nations. Neither leader is under any illusions about Washington's involvement in the hostilities. They know that Georgian President Mikail Saakashvili is an American stooge who came to power in a CIA-backed coup, the so-called "Rose Revolution", and would never order a major military operation without explicit instructions from his White House puppetmasters. Most likely, the orders to invade came directly from the office of the Vice President, Dick Cheney.

The Georgian army had no chance of winning a war with Russia or any intention of occupying the territory they captured. The real aim was to lure the Russian army into a trap. US planners hope to do what they did so skillfully in Afghanistan; lure their Russian prey into a long and bloody Chechnya-type fiasco that will pit their Russia troops against guerrilla forces armed and trained by US military and intelligence agencies. The war will be waged in the name of liberating Georgia from Russian imperialism and stopping Putin from achieving his alleged ambition to control critical western-owned pipelines around the Caspian Basin. Much of this "think tank" generated narrative has already appeared in the mainstream media or been articulated by American political elites. Meanwhile, the fighting in the Caucasus has diverted attention from the massive US naval armada that is presently sailing towards the Persian Gulf for the long-anticipated confrontation with Iran.

Operation Brimstone, the joint US, UK and French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran, ended just last week. The war games were designed to simulate a naval blockade of Iran and the probable Iranian response.

According to Earl of Stirling on the Global Research web site:

"The war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the "enemy force. The lead American ship in these war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagen (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan."

Stirling adds: "A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The South Ossetia capital has been shelled and a large Georgian tank force has been heading towards the border....American Marines, a thousand of them, have recently been in Georgia training the Georgian military forces... Russia has stated that it will not sit by and allow the Georgians to attack South Ossetia...This could get bad, and remember it is just a strategic diversion....but one that could have horrific effects." ("Massive US Naval Armada Heads for Iran", Earl of Stirling, Global Research)

In June, former foreign policy adviser to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, presented the basic storyline that would be used against Russia two full months before the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. The article appeared on the Kavkazcenter web site. Brzezinski said the United States witnessed "cases of possible threats by Russia, directed at Georgia with the intention of taking control over the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline".

Brzezinski: "Russia actively tends to isolate the Central Asian region from direct access to world economy, especially to energy supplies..If Georgia government is destabilized, western access to Baku, Caspian Sea and further will be limited". http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2008/06/13/9798.shtml


Nonsense. Neither Putin nor newly-elected president Dmitry Medvedev have any such intention. It is absurd to think that Russia, having extracted itself from two pointless wars in Chechnya and Afghanistan, and after years of grinding poverty and social unrest following the fall of the Soviet state, would choose to wage an energy war with the nuclear-armed US military. That would be complete madness. Brzezinski's speculation is part of broader narrative that's been crafted for the western media to provide a rationale for upcoming aggression against Russia. Brzezinski is not only the architect of the mujahadin-led campaign against Russia in Afghanistan in the 1980s, but also, the author of "The Grand Chessboard--American Primacy and it's Geostrategic Imperatives", the operating theory behind the war on terror which involves massive US intervention in Central Asia to control vital resources, fragment Russia, and surround manufacturing giant, China.

"The Grand Chessboard" it is the 21st century's version of the Great Game. The book begins with this revealing statement:

"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power.....The key to controlling Eurasia, says Brzezinski, is controlling the Central Asian Republics."

This is the heart-and-soul of the war on terror. The real braintrust behind "neverending conflict" was actually focussed on Central Asia. It was the pro-Israeli crowd in the Republican Party that pulled the old switcheroo and refocussed on the Middle East rather than Eurasia. Now, powerful members of the US foreign policy establishment (Brzezinski, Albright, Holbrooke) have regrouped behind the populist "cardboard" presidential candidate Barak Obama and are preparing to redirect America's war efforts to the Asian theater. Obama offers voters a choice of wars not a choice against war.

On Sunday, Brzezinski accused Russia of imperial ambitions comparing Putin to "Stalin and Hitler" in an interview with Nathan Gardels.

Gardels: What is the world to make of Russia's invasion of Georgia?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Fundamentally at stake is what kind of role Russia will play in the new international system.(aka: New World Order) Unfortunately, Putin is putting Russia on a course that is ominously similar to Stalin's and Hitler's in the late 1930s. Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt has correctly drawn an analogy between Putin's "justification" for dismembering Georgia -- because of the Russians in South Ossetia -- to Hitler's tactics vis a vis Czechoslovakia to "free" the Sudeten Deutsch. Even more ominous is the analogy of what Putin is doing vis-a-vis Georgia to what Stalin did vis-a-vis Finland: subverting by use of force the sovereignty of a small democratic neighbor. In effect, morally and strategically, Georgia is the Finland of our day.

The question the international community now confronts is how to respond to a Russia that engages in the blatant use of force with larger imperial designs in mind: to reintegrate the former Soviet space under the Kremlin's control and to cut Western access to the Caspian Sea and Central Asia by gaining control over the Baku/Ceyhan pipeline that runs through Georgia.

In brief, the stakes are very significant. At stake is access to oil as that resource grows ever more scarce and expensive and how a major power conducts itself in our newly interdependent world, conduct that should be based on accommodation and consensus, not on brute force.

If Georgia is subverted, not only will the West be cut off from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. We can logically anticipate that Putin, if not resisted, will use the same tactics toward the Ukraine. Putin has already made public threats against Ukraine." ("Brzezinski: Russia's invasion of Georgia is Reminiscent of Stalin's attack on Finland"; Huffington Post)

Brzezinski takes great pride in being a disciplined and rational spokesman for US imperial projects. It is unlike him to use such hysterical rhetoric. Perhaps, the present situation is more tenuous than we know. Could it be that the financial system is closer to meltdown-phase than anyone realizes?

It should be clear by Brzezinski's comments that Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia was not another incoherent exercise in neocon chest-thumping, but part of a larger strategy to drag Russia into an endless conflict that will sap its resources, decrease its prestige on the global stage, weaken its grip on regional power, strengthen frayed alliances between Europe and America, and divert attention from a larger campaign in the Gulf. It is particularly worrisome that Brzezinski appears to be involved in the planning. Brzezinski, Holbrooke and Albright form the "Imperialist A-Team"; these are not the bungling "Keystone Cops" neocons like Feith and Rumsfeld who trip over themselves getting out of bed in the morning. These are cold-blooded Machiavellian imperialists who know how to work the media and the diplomatic channels to conceal their genocidal operations behind a smokescreen of humanitarian mumbo-jumbo. They know what they are doing and they are good at it. They're not fools. They have aligned themselves with the Obama camp and are preparing for the next big outbreak of global trouble-making. This should serve as a sobering wake-up call for voters who still think Obama represents "Change We Can Believe In".

Richard Holbrooke appeared on Tuesday's Jim Lerher News Hour with resident neocon Margaret Warner. Typical of Warner's "even-handed" approach, both of the interviewees were ultra-conservatives from right-wing think tanks: Richard Holbrooke, from the Council on Foreign Relations and Dmiti Simes from the Nixon Center.

According to Holbrooke, "The Russians deliberately provoked (the fighting in South Ossetia) and timed it for the Olympics. This is a long-standing Russian effort to get rid of President Saakashvili."

Right. Is that why Putin was so shocked when he heard the news (while he was in Beijing) that he quickly boarded a plane and headed for Moscow? (after shaking his finger angrily at Bush!)

Holbrooke: "And I want to stress, I'm not a warmonger, and I don't want a new Cold War any more than Dimitri does....The Russians wish to re-establish a historic area of hegemony that includes Ukraine. And it is no accident that the other former Soviet republics are watching this and extraordinarily upset, as Putin progresses with an attempt to re-create a kind of a hegemonic space."

It is impossible to go over all of Holbrooke's distortions, half-truths and lies in one article but, what is important is to recognize that a false narrative is being constructed to demonize Putin and to justify future hostilities against Russia. Holbrooke's bogus assertions are identical to Brzezinski's, and yet, these same lies are already appearing in the mainstream media. The propaganda "bullet points" have already been determined; "Putin is a menace","Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet empire", "Putin is an autocrat". (Unlike our "freedom loving" allies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt!?!) In truth, Putin is simply enjoying Russia's newly acquired energy-wealth and would like to be left alone. But it is impossible to be left alone when the US spends 24 hours a day pestering people. The world deserves a break from an extremely irritating USA.

So why are Brzezinski and his backers in the foreign policy establishment demonizing Putin and threatening Russia with "ostracism, isolation and economic penalties?" What is Putin's crime?

Putin's problems can be traced back to a speech he made in Munich nearly two years ago when he declared unequivocally that he rejected the basic tenets of the Bush Doctrine and US global hegemony. His speech amounted to a Russian Declaration of Independence. That's when western elites, particularly at the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Enterprise Institute put Putin on their "enemies list" along with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Morales, Mugabe and anyone else who refuses to take orders from the Washington Mafia.


Here's what Putin said in Munich:

"The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign---- one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.… What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization.”

“Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves---wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. More are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.”

Every word Putin spoke was true which is why it was not reprinted in the western media.

“Unilateral and illegitimate military actions”, the “uncontained hyper-use of force”, the “disdain for the basic principles of international law”, and most importantly; “No one feels safe!”

Putin's claims are all indisputable, that is why he has entered the neocons crosshairs. He poses a direct challenge to---what Brzezinski calls---the "international system", which is shorthand for the corporate/banking cartel that is controlled by the western oligarchy of racketeers.

South Ossetia was a trap and Putin took the bait. Unfortunately for Bush, the wily Russian prime minister is considerably brighter than anyone in the current administration. Bush's plan will undoubtedly backfire and disrupt the geopolitical balance of power. The world might get that breather from the US after all.