Barack Obama is fortunate that the conflict in South Ossetia has occurred during the Olympics, depriving it of some of it of the coverage that it otherwise might receive. He is also fortunate that Americans don't have much attention span for foreign affairs outside of matters involving Iraq and Al Qaeda.
That is not to endorse McCain's more hardline stance toward Russia, the particulars of which this blog has no standing to comment upon. I have no doubt, however, that the lingering memory of the Cold War makes an anti-Russian stance an easier sale from the standpoint of electoral politics.
But the unscripted drama in the Caucasus also serves as a thought experiment of sorts, especially as it regards Barack Obama's VP selection. Would Obama be better off if he had, say, General Wesley Clark flanking him right now?
I think absolutely so. The reason does not necessarily have to do with Clark's experience per se. Rather, it is a question of how well positioned Obama is to win arguments about foreign policy on the campaign trail. In this case, it is Obama's position, rather than McCain's, that is closest to the consensus of NATO -- as well as, ironically, the Bush Administration. But in matters of global affairs that Americans don't know very much about -- and again, pretty much everything but Iraq, Al Qaeda, and perhaps Israel qualifies there -- they are more likely to defer to the brand name opinion on foreign policy, which means John McCain's
In this case in particular, the Obama side has some good arguments to make about Georgia -- for instance, that our moral authority to condemn Russia for its actions is undermined by our own invasion of Iraq, and that our tactical position to place our footprint in the Caucasian theater is undermined by the number of troops we have committed to Iraq. But these are big picture, macro-level arguments, and ones that require the right salesperson. Someone like, say, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.
To be clear, while these arguments hold to a certain extent for someone like Joe Biden, they are mainly an argument for Clark in particular. Joe Biden has a lot of credibility on foreign policy, but the aesthetics of what he could do on the stump and in interviews aren't really a match for those of a bona fide, ex-General. Biden might leave Obama better equipped to defend news cycles in which something like the South Ossetia conflict is the central topic; Clark might actually be able to win them.
UPDATE: Chris Bowers points to some other interesting tea leaves on Clark. And Clark is surging on Intrade right now, essentially turning the Big Four (Bayh, Biden, Sebelius, Kaine) into a Big Five.
UPDATE x2: For the record, if I had to rank Obama's potential VP choices -- culling from the quasi-official short list plus a couple of other names that are trading well on Intrade -- my choices would probably look something like this:
1. Clark
2. Schweitzer
3. Sebelius
4. Bayh
5. Clinton
6. Biden
7. Kaine
8. Reed
9. Nunn
10. Hagel
11. Dodd
This is opinion, not analysis.
8.11.2008
The Georgia Conflict and the Case for Clark
@ 3:56 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
167 comments
First!
My money is on either Wesley Clark or Chuck Hagel as Obama's VP pick.
I tend to agree with your analysis, but it seems like it'd apply equally well as an argument for why Obama should be using Clark, or someone like him, as a high-level surrogate -- but not necessarily as VP.
Especially since Clark would be ill-equipped, compared to someone like Biden or Bayh or Sebelius, to speak to voters' domestic concerns, which Obama would certainly like to dominate the election.
There is no evidence that this crisis helps McCain.
He is weak in every sense of the word and hardly projects strength to anybody.
I don't see how McCain can draw a contrast with the inexperienced Obama. In 04 W projected strength by using code language and staying on message. McCain freelances way too much and cannot draw a contrast on security issues.
The polling questionnaires people like to quote about who would you trust in a foreign crisis are general questions and McCain is underperforming even W in these questions.
You are just repeating washington chatter.
An article about an interview given by Barack Obama in Israel demonstrates how Obama is so much more competent than McCain (or President Bush) concerning foreign policy. Please read it:
David Horovitz Exclusive: Obama sets out his Israel vision
Caucasus, not caucuses.
One's a mountain rainge, the other an electoral approach.
With that said, though, South Ossetia- formerly an autonomous oblast declared its independence from Georgia in 1992 with a referendum passing by roughly 95% (and with over 90% voter participation reported), and did so again in 2006 with similar results.
I don't think the Georgian action is a dissimilar parallel to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and we all saw what that triggered.
Its Kaine, Bayh, or Biden. Obama already said "no surprises".
The BEAR is on the prowl once again and is looking to swallow up a neighbor.
Wingedelf are you a Soviet Stooge? Georgia is a Democratic Country, an ally of this country and trying to be a member of NATO. Comparing the Bear's invasion with the Dead Hussein's invasion is absolutly preposterous.
I already read one article today blaming the invasion on George Bush, give me a break.
Putin is on the loose and trying to recreate the old Soviet Union. Everybody better get their head out of their ass and look at reality.
Only one person on the scene today can be trusted on this issue. The one who looked into Putin's eyes and saw the KGB.
Jack-
Please don't confuse "Russia" with "Soviet Union". Thats really stupid. They're two distinct entities.
I have on out of box idea for Veep. Let me throw one more name in the VP hat. General Tony Zinni, a four star retired Marine general has all the foriegn policy gravitas needed. I just read his book, "The Battle for Peace", and was blown away by how intellectual this man is.
With that said, though, South Ossetia- formerly an autonomous oblast declared its independence from Georgia in 1992 with a referendum passing by roughly 95% (and with over 90% voter participation reported), and did so again in 2006 with similar results.
That may be true, however the referendum was carried out after the Georgian were expelled from the area. That said, there is lots of blame to go around here.
Virginia,
You miss the point, Putin is trying to recreate the old Soviet Union. He has said many time it was a mistake to allow the break up of the Soviet Union.
Jack, do you even know what "Soviet" means?
yiannis said...
"There is no evidence that this crisis helps McCain."
Nate Said...
"Barack Obama is fortunate that the conflict in South Ossetia has occurred during the Olympics, depriving it of some of it of the coverage that it otherwise might receive. He is also fortunate that Americans don't have much attention span for foreign affairs outside of matters involving Iraq and Al Qaeda."
Your own guy is scared to death of this and he also says that your party are the ones that are... how did you guys put it?... low information?
The evidence that favor McCain that you seek is in your own fear. You know this will help McCain... I just hope that this Russian invasion of Georgia... that is not just limited to "South Ossetia" does not spin out of control, because it could be very bad.
Jack, i´m afraid but you´re wrong.
Putin is trying to create the old Zarist Russia, not the old Soviet Union.
Putin never was communist, he´s a russian nationalist.
Other than "Wes Clark has shiny medals," is there really a good argument to be made here?
Since 2004, Clark has shown himself to be much less a campaigner than meets his resume (sort of a discount version of Bill Richardson), he's been gaffe-prone, and he was a stalwart Hillary supporter with zero ties to the Obama campaign.
Since Obama clinched the nomination, Clark has made exactly one public appearance on behalf of Obama -- and that resulted in Obama dropping 3 points in the polls. How that translates into vice-president is beyond me.
But I agree: he shore does look purty in that them thar uniform.
Wingedelf,
I typically only comment on more or less technical issues which are germane to this site.
But I feel I must say that it is painful to see how progressives ignore the plight of Georgia. I am not an expert but I know the region at a personal level.
The realities of post-Soviet power are always complex. It is very easy to justify this or that act of aggression; one could produce similar arguments to justify Serb atrocities, as the Serbs of course did.
The basic story here is of Russia turning into a military dictatorship, trying to win easy domestic points by war hysteria and looking to crush would-be Democracies in its vicinity. It is a very sad reality and it should be high on the next president's agenda. Obama could of course work better than McCain to build a European consensus against Russian aggression; I hope he does.
I have a feeling Clark has way too much dirty laundry waiting to be aired.
Also, Darío said: "Putin never was communist, he´s a russian nationalist."
You couldn't be more right.
Anybody read this interesting nugget today regarding McGrinch and his speech on Georgia today?
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/08/did-mccain-plagarize-his-speec.html
I agree with your top 4 VP ranking. Schweitzer is just the kind of dark horse that Obama seems to be hiding up his sleeve. But all things considered, Clark is starting to look like a really good bet, and has a dark horse quality of his own since his name has never been floated.
I think the VP choise is more important in McCain. He´s old and the veep choise is the key for him.
I think a conservative young might help him but no people like Romney or Lieberman (my God!. If he choose Lieberman Obama takes 400 electoral votes).
To me, it seems McCain can pop off with tough guy bluster about Georgia, in the hope of exciting his base, because he is never going to have to back up his words. Attacking Iraq was one awful thing, attacking China over Tibet, or Russia over Georgia is impossibly impractical no matter how you feel about the moral reasons to do it. And as been said, Georgia is hardly the innocent damsel in distress. Like his tax cuts, like the grade school candidate promising to replace the water fountains with free pop dispenses in the primary hall if elected, he knows his base will buy it and he knows he can blame the adults when they don’t allow him to do it.
Virginia,
The Soviet Union was made up of many different countries all under the same flag and known as the Union of Soviet Socialst Republic, run by the Communist Party in Moscow and kept together by torture and murder inflicted by the KGB.( Vladimer Putin)
Russia, the largest country among the Soviet Union was the puppet master and once the Soviet Union broke apart became it's own country.
Yes, Putin is trying to recreate the old Soviet Union, if the west does not stop him here he will be in other countries within the next few years. This was a brazen, well planned attack during the Summer Olympics and a free country is about to be put under the yoke of a brutal dictatorship once again.
Frankly Virginia, I wonder if you are old enough to even know what the USSR was. There was no difference between Russia and the Soviet Union, one could not have been without the other.
This sort of crisis makes me despair about the hopelessly degraded political culture of the U.S.
None of the candidates can possibly make any sense on these sorts of issues without the media going into a frenzy about their LACK of war-mongering.
Aside from saber-rattling, scoring political points from the imbeciles in the media for "talking tough," and shaking his fists, exactly WHAT is McCain actually going to do about Russia? Not one damned thing!
Is he going to start a nuclear war with the world's #2 nuclear power, with thousands of missiles which could easily target the U.S.? No. Nobody, not even Bush or Cheney is that stupid.
Is he going to start another glorious round of "brinksmanship" like that of the 50's? Because that worked so well the last time we narrowly avoided a global nuclear war?
I went to elementary school in the 60's and vividly remember being with all the other school children told by defense department officials how to hide under our desks or troop down to the basement in case of nuclear attack. Do we really need to relive those wonderful days of terror?
Is McCain going to declare an "economic boycott" of Russia? That will be wildly effective since the rest of the world will ignore it. And nations need Russian oil a lot more than Russia needs anything the U.S. has to offer.
Putin's put it bluntly "stay out of it."
This is exactly like the Polish rebellion of 1956, which the war-hawks in the Eisenhower stupidly brought on by seeming to promise aid to the Polish patriots. Of course when the Russian tanks rolled in the U.S. just sat there, because there was nothing else we could do short of starting a war with Russia.
And we're certainly in no position now to start anything either, after having stupidly targeted Georgia for inclusion in NATO. Endless provocations to Russia finally results in a response. The Georgians, bolstered by a false impression that we have their back, start to offend Russia. Russia calls our bluff and rolls in the tanks and air-strikes.
Georgia calls on us for help, which we're in no position to give. 1956 all over again. And a perfect illustration of Cheney administration diplomacy.
Apparently, they never bothered to think what might happen if the Russians were stung into action.
Even if we weren't guilty of invading Iraq for no good reason and staying there flatly ignoring international law and morality we'd hardly have the moral standing to say anything.
Black kettle meet black pot. Now start the finger pointing.
Jack fails.
"Soviet" means "workers council", which means Communist. Russia is not Communist anymore. Russia suffered as much under the Soviet Union as any of the other Republics.
Now, if you want to say hes trying to incorporate (or at least have the most influence in) the parts of the former RUSSIAN Empire you would be making more sense.
Clark is the right choice if Obama reads this site and sincerely believes there's a nearly 2/1 probability that he's going to win the election with a material electoral college victory.
Besides the reasons cited in the post, Clark is an insurance policy for Obama in the event of a terrorist attack or other national security-related event in October that would shift the focus to McCain's (perceived) strengths.
The problem is that Clark doesn't bring a state and he's a lousy campaigner who probably won't bring a single vote. But, if you're convinced that you're going to win and that the greatest threat to your impending success is an exogenous event over which you have absolutely no control, then you pick Clark.
McCain's main foreign policy advisor was a lobbyist for Georgia for years, and while he no longer lobbies for them directly, he co-owns the firm that lobbies for them. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars here.
It sounds pretty clear to me that even if Georgia had invaded Ossetia in the dead of night and shelled their largest city, killing 1500 random civillians, that McCain would still support them.
Which, by interesting coincidence, is exactly what happened.
This all opinion, like everything else in this thread, but Clark has made more than one appearance on behalf of Obama: he made three or four, each time invoking the party line questioning whether McCain was ready to be commander in chief. He was sent on those hit missions, no doubt, because he drew fire after the first time and continued to stay on message. I respect that, in the same way I give grudging respect to Geraldine Ferraro (though I still loathe her.)
I think Obama could do much worse than Clark. It used to be my feeling that he needed someone who emphasized his strengths, not his weaknesses. But I've flipped on that thinking. Does anyone doubt that Obama can handle himself fielding questions on foreign affairs during a debate? He'll do just fine, especially now that he's had 62 to prepare for. Clark also underlies Obama's strengths, being a candidate for change since he's not party of the Washington entrenchment.
Colin Powell for Obama's VP
Disadvantages:
Too black!
Too tied to Bush and Iraq
His wife may not go for it.
Advantages:
Likes Obama's foreign policy.
Independants, Republicicans and many democrats view him as the most trusted name in American Foreign Policy and to protect the US against attack. McCain is viewed as a lightweight compared to him. He will crush McCain every time.
VC-
And then you step up and blow crazy out of the water like a torpedo on a Kilo-class.
What Andrew said. Clark is just way too gaffe-prone. We learned that in 2004.
@jackblack:
No Soviet stooge here, tovarisch. I'm pointing out that aside from the drama and potential hysterics that there are similarities:
1)Georgia was the aggressor here, after ignoring both South Ossetian referenda. Since neither have been recent, it would appear (unless there's some causal undercurrent I've not seen in any press coverage) that this was a calculated act.
2) Without Georgia's initial action, there would have been no maskirovka which Putin could have used as diplomatic cover to assist the Ossentian separatists; but since Tbilisi gave him essential cover to do so, he reacted. I wouldn't frame the Russian reaction as anything past contemporary, Bismarkian Realpolitik, perhaps disguised with a veneer of an interest in the Ossetian people (since North Ossetia is part of Russia).
@humanist:
Much of the failure to recognize the plight of Georgia- and the trans-Caucasus region as a whole- is probably due to the international media. It's difficult to evolve a complex, balanced and informed Weltanschauung in such a fractured region without significant insight and comprehension of the nuances which are applicable, and this area is simply fraught with conflicts from micro to macro.
How many Americans can find the nation of Georgia on a map, or have any degree of understanding of Ossetia, Abhkazia, or Nagorno-Karabakh?
We're a nation of consumers of soundbites, as unfortunate as that is.
I don't know that I agree with your framing as Russia seeking to crush would-be democracies on its borders, but would decidedly agree that we have better hopes with a President Obama than we would with a President McCain to exert diplomatic pressure (the velvet glove, as it were, over the mailled fist) to ensure that such events don't happen.
this seems to suggest its not clark... unless its a head fake
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/11/16046/7584/169/566310
Virginia,
Who gives a #$%^ what Soviet means.
Soviet" means "workers council", which means Communist. Russia is not Communist anymore. Russia suffered as much under the Soviet Union as any of the other Republics
Yes, Virginia Russia is still a communits state, and it was Russian Troops who kept the Soviet Union together and it is Russian troops who are invading a free country. Just like in the old days when the Politburo ran the USSR.
Jeff Walters, Zinni has also been my long time long shot favorite. But I think that Obama is unlikely to go with that much reaching across the aisle (as Zinni is a moderate Republican). Wes Clark already showed he doesn't have what it takes.
No Chet Edwards on your list? That's a surprise.
I agree with many of the comments above: Clark is just not a good politician. There are many fine generals in history who got in trouble when they spoke to the general public. Clark isn't actually bad in that respect, but he's weak enough to turn into a liability.
On the other hand Biden would seem very reassuring to have on the ticket when foreign policy comes up. He has the ability to sound like he knows what he's talking about (and he generally does!).
Quoting Nate: "Joe Biden has a lot of credibility on foreign policy, but the aesthetics of what he could do on the stump and in interviews aren't really a match for those of a bona fide, ex-General. Biden might leave Obama better equipped to defend news cycles in which something like the South Ossetia conflict is the central topic; Clark might actually be able to win them."
Yes, but all Obama needs to be able to do on foreign policy is defend those news cycles. If he wins on the economy, wins on political issues (the "no more politics as usual" stuff), and defuses foreign policy issues, then he wins.
Clark is surging on Intrade because the convention's Wed night/VP theme is titled the same as Clark's PAC. Which ordinarily might indicate that Clark's veep prospects are extremely good - if it wasn't for the fact that Clark has since started soliciting donations for said PAC so that he can go on the road to get Obama elected.
Neither one precludes or substantiates Clark as Veep unfortunately but they do seem to provide conflicting information on the likelihood it.
That said, I think your analysis is correct in substance and for us Obama supporters -even if he isn't the veep, the indication that Clark is gearing up to make some noise on Obama's behalf is encouraging.
After a long period of silence, Wes Clark is suddenly in my in-box again. He's soliciting funds for WesPac. In his message, Clark attacks the "right wing freak machine" and vows "I'm not going away." He also says, "I'm committed to doing everything I can to help Democrats win this November. I've opened up my schedule and am ready to hit the campaign trail across the country. That's why I'm traveling across the country over the coming weeks."
Clark is hitting the road and hitting up donors. Looks like he expects to be busy soon.
Zinni is a military man. I did not know he had a political affiliation. Reading his book, his foreign policy sounds much more Dem than GOP.
And, just like clockwork, in comes Jack Black to parrot McCain's current talking points.
Since you obviously know very little about the region, here's a quick catchup:
South Ossetia is heavily Russian and their citizens Russian passports. They have existed as a quasi-independent state for over a decade. Their formal independence is quite similar to that of Kosovo earlier this year, which, oddly enough, Bush et al strongly supported. Would you care to go into detail about what the difference in these two situations are?
Now, Georgia elected a bellicose president almost entirely because of his promise to "take back" the quasi-autonomous regions that have expressed a desire to either join Russia or become independent. Coincidentally, McCain's advisor was a heavy lobbyist for Georgia. Also coincidentally, there's a major pipeline running through Georgia. Also coincidentally, Cheney of all people is by far the most bellicose in his reaction to these events and sounds like he wants all-out war with Russia.
So, here's what actually happened: Georgia decided to indiscriminately bomb South Ossetia and invaded. Russia saw this coming and had tanks at the border. They promptly rolled in, took it back, and decided to make further gains while they're at it to make sure no other neighboring countries try something similar. They're the original shock and awe guys.
This is somewhat similar to Iraq (Georgia) invading Kuwait (Ossetia) with the US (Russia) defending their quasi-ally. My friends in the region have agreed with this analogy. So, now that you would have been enlightened had you actually read this, go ahead and keep talking about THE BEAR. You will, as usual, look like a buffoon.
Wingedelf,
Love your writing, but better to put it into terms the average Joe can understand. Georgia fell into a trap, plain and simple.
However, I take umbrage with your suggestion about Georgia being the aggressor. This was a well planned operation, planned months in advance.
I don't know if you know anything about Military operations, but u can't move this many armored vehicles and men into war without months of advanced planning and storage of supplies. Timed during the initial beginning of the Olympics, it was a masterful stroke of ADVANCED PLANNING and well thought out strategy. I understand the second front has now opened in Georgia. One front may be a spur of the monment, but two fronts are a planned invasion. Either way the bear is on the loose.
If you ask me this has to be another failure of American Intelligence on a Grand Scale. We had to see the buildup of men and supplies prior to the Olympics. This may go down as as the biggest intelligence blunder since no WMD's in Iraq.
I don't think what Russia is doing is any different than what Israel did in Lebanon in the summer of 2005. They were attacked, they (surprise surprise!) respond. To say this is all part of some evil master plan to conquer all the former parts of the Russian Empire is as nuts as when the moonbats ranted and raved at how Israel is secretly out to conquer the Middle East from the Nile to Baghdad. Give me a break!
I see ADAM is here and doesn't know what he is talking about!! Oh, I forgot, Adam knows everything!
My God Adam, the burden on your shoulders must be great with all the knowledge in the world locked up in your head. Please, Oh great one who sits at the right hand of Obama, impart upon us your great wisdom on why Russia invaded Georgia.
Some how I am sure it will sound just like an Obama press release.
Why so down on Biden, Nate? Worse than Bayh/Clinton?
Adam-
Careful there with your description of "Russifacation" in South Ossetia. In 1979 South Ossetia was ~2% Russian by ethnicity, as it had been for 40 years prior. It was about 66% Ossetian.
I apologize Jack, you showed significantly more knowledge in your last post.
Russia did see this coming months in advance from Georgian rhetoric and planned accordingly for a massive counteroffensive. That being said, they didn't make the first move, at all. They were just sitting there. Georgia chose to attack on the eve of the Opening Ceremonies, presumably out of some sense of hubris (perhaps aided by tough talk from McCain/Cheney) that Russia wouldn't counterattack during the Olympics.
Well, they made a very poor error in judgment. Russia if nothing else is very, very interested in keeping its neighbors docile. Bush's push to try to fast-track Georgia into NATO should have realized this, but they're entirely about securing the oil pipeline. Russia did bait Georgia into starting it, and they're going to crush the whole country in response. In my opinion, we denounce it, but what else can we do? Seriously?
And, as usual, you show a complete inability to keep a conversation civil. Grow up.
JB said -
"If you ask me this has to be another failure of American Intelligence on a Grand Scale. We had to see the buildup of men and supplies prior to the Olympics. This may go down as as the biggest intelligence blunder since no WMD's in Iraq."
Oh, I bet we saw it all right, but what the hell were we going to do about it? The Georgaians tried to conquer a breakaway province and the Russians asked, "Wait. You're going to do what? You and what army? NATO? Americans? They're busy or cuckolded. You're fucked."
"Careful there with your description of "Russifacation" in South Ossetia. In 1979 South Ossetia was ~2% Russian by ethnicity, as it had been for 40 years prior. It was about 66% Ossetian."
You're correct, good call. What I meant to say was that they identify more with Russia (due perhaps to quasi-forced ethnic movement to that region, I couldn't say), what with the Russian passports and all. The main thing I'm looking for really is the difference between Kosovo and Ossetia in terms of their efforts for independence being embraced vs rejected. Are we just drawing a random line?
Just out -- Rasmussen - Obama +10 in Oregon and Obama +5 in Iowa. Numbers are with leaners.
Very good news, good news for Obama -- expands lead in OR; while still maintains lead in IA, albeit by a smaller margin than last month.
If these numbers hold -- especially in IA and NM, Obama needs one state from these to get to at least 269 -- NV, OH, IN, FL, VA or NC. NV plus MT or ND puts him over 269.
McCain's map is shriking day by day -- expect McCain and his camp to get very very nasty pre and post Democratic convention.
Rasmussen: OR O+10
538 Regression: OR O+10.4
Rasmussen: IA O+5
538 Regression: IA O+5.6
Genius, as always.
I disagree with this opinion.
I don't think most Americans care about foreign policy that much.
I'm also afraid to make it an issue. If people are thinking foreign policy, McCain wins.
I'm not sure how much of an issue McCain wants to make over this. I think there is a significant fear with swing voters that McCain will take us into another war in another region that Americans don't care about. I mean taking hardline necessarily means that you are prepared to go to war over it. Taking a harder line than NATO or the UN means that you are prepared to go to war without international backing. I definitely think Americans are scared over this possibility.
Picking Clark means emphasizing foreign policy. If McCain thinks he can get elected by threatening to involve the U.S. in a war in the Caucaucus without allied support, let him try to do that. Obama should just paraphrase the NATO position and get back to talking about domestic issues.
To even have to host this thread shows how weak Obama is perceived on foreign affairs and shows the extent to which he is at a disadvantage in the race.
I found Nate's statement disturbing: "In this case in particular, the Obama side has some good arguments to make about Georgia -- for instance, that our moral authority to condemn Russia for its actions is undermined by our own invasion of Iraq, and that our tactical position to place our footprint in the Caucasian theater is undermined by the number of troops we have committed to Iraq".
While the latter is a debatable point, I find the ready suggestion that there is a moral equivalence between the Russians and their anti-democratic regime and the United States insulting. Keep making those allusions, you folks on the left, and you will see how swiftly public opinion turns against you.
What Nate said is on a par with the Obama's statement on the strife in Georgia attributing McCain’s strong statement in support of our ally, the democratic, independent Georgian Republic to his campaign manager’s former lobbying ties to the government. It was a repellant demonstration of using a crisis for political advantage.
Clark would be a credible VP choice nonetheless. I sat bring him on. His elevation will turn the debate back to Democrat's weakest are and expose the Obama campaign's flank to enemy fire.
Adam,
I'll say it again, you're a know it all, but you know nothing about Georgia or what is going on. Furthermore, you know nothing at all about military operations.
To achieve this attack, Russia must have planned months ahead, stockpiled food, ammunition, medical supplies, spare parts, fuel for the tanks, maps for the soldiers, batteries for the radios and moved tons of bombs and ammuntion to forward operating units. They Created their attack plans and practiced them either on a sand table or in another part of Russia. This invasion was to coordinated not to have been practiced prior to the invasion day.
They are carrying out a sytimatic destruction of the country's military assets, which means they must have created a target list for their air assets something that takes a great deal of planning.
Again, the second front has opened. you don't open two fronts with armoured columns without a lot of planning and preperation.
This was not a spur of the moment attack. Somebody, Putin and his Generals, got together months agao and decided to initiate an attack during the opening ceromony of the Summer Olympics. Then the planning began. I just hope the Russians stop before they get to the Turkish Border.
"Rasmussen: OR O+10
538 Regression: OR O+10.4
Rasmussen: IA O+5
538 Regression: IA O+5.6
Genius, as always."
Part genius, part stability. Nate is able to call the race now - as he did during the Primaries - because there is no race in reality: everyone is fixed in position.
@ jack black:
My degree is in history, and, although modern military history wasn't the primary concentration (mine was medieval Europe to the Napoleonic era), I did do a fair bit of writing on the evolution of military tactics as correlated with the advances in weaponry and technology, so I'm not a complete dilettante with regard to such matters.
I see the Georgian bombardment of Tskhinvali to also parallel the Confederacy firing on Ft. Sumter- whether provoked or not, they fired first- which, at least in my book, qualifies them as aggressors in this instance.
I don't read any Georgian, and fight through Russian, so probably lack a balanced viewpoint here, admittedly.
I think it'd be fascinating to have such insight. My gut says that the Georgian command saw their incursion as a limited war, but the Russian response seems more of rendering the Georgians both politically helpless and militarily overwhelmed. [Damn you, Carl von Clausewitz!] Where the Georgian intelligence failure occurred along the way, we'll probably never know- and it could be as simple as suggested above- that they assumed NATO had their six without ensuring that to be the case.
Jack,
"To achieve this attack, Russia must have planned months ahead, stockpiled food, ammunition, medical supplies, spare parts, fuel for the tanks, maps for the soldiers, batteries for the radios and moved tons of bombs and ammuntion to forward operating units. They Created their attack plans and practiced them either on a sand table or in another part of Russia. This invasion was to coordinated not to have been practiced prior to the invasion day."
I'm not arguing this. I don't think anyone is. Clearly you don't have hundreds of tanks rolling in there hours after the first Georgian bombs without massive preparation.
Clearly Russia had extensive plans for this. The key point is this: they made those plans because they knew Georgia's leader was the kind of Cheney-clone warmonger who apparently campaigned specifically on starting this aggression. It's not hard to look at rhetoric and figure out what's coming.
My assertion is not that Russia planned it for the Opening Ceremonies, but that they knew it was coming sometime soon and were just sitting there ready. Quite the opposite in fact: I think Georgia was arrogant enough to think they could strike first and get away with it using the Opening Ceremonies as cover. Either way, you're correct in saying they got baited into a trap and are going to suffer heavily for it.
Adam said:
"What I meant to say was that they identify more with Russia (due perhaps to quasi-forced ethnic movement to that region, I couldn't say), what with the Russian passports and all. The main thing I'm looking for really is the difference between Kosovo and Ossetia in terms of their efforts for independence being embraced vs rejected. Are we just drawing a random line?"
I wasn't under the impression that the South Ossetian government wanted independence. I thought they wanted annexation by Russia in order to be part of the North Ossetian Federal Subject(Oblast? Orkug? Krai? Autonomous Republic). I think it all depends on who's doing the seceding and where they want to go. My question is what is in SO that is so vital to the Russians or Georgians? The place has a GDP of about $15 MM a year and about two-thirds of the "national" budget comes from Russia. Maybe the Russians just want to get what they paid for?
"our tactical position to place our footprint in the Caucasian theater is undermined by the number of troops we have committed to Iraq."
In other words (and with one eye on Advisor Comrade Brezinski), if we'd not invaded Iraq we would *OWN* the Caucuses right now, bitch!
Obama is just the respectable, liberal face of international Empire - and from the sounds of things, if he were in charge we'd be getting more deeply involved in a war. With Russia. Erk? Anyone?
Where's the condemnation of both sides for using small separatist movements to play The Great Game?
"My question is what is in SO that is so vital to the Russians or Georgians? The place has a GDP of about $15 MM a year and about two-thirds of the "national" budget comes from Russia. Maybe the Russians just want to get what they paid for?"
It seems you know somewhat more than I do on the topic, but it seems to me to be just more about pure nationalism than anything more complicated. Georgia's a breakaway republic with a nice pipeline and ties to the west; one of their provinces wants to rejoin the mother country, and they'd prefer not to lose face by having that happen, so their hard-line politicians use that as an issue.
Russia, on the other hand, would very much like a buffer of powerless countries between themselves and NATO, and are very wary about Georgia's potential entrance and any subsequent American bases that could be built right in their backyard. They probably don't care about SO at all; they just want excuse to destroy a neighbor to keep them weak (and demonstrate to other similar neighbors that US/NATO won't help them if they try to start anything).
Breaking news, guys! Russia's military is competent!
Also, Clark is an idiot with very few tactical chops and a lot of problems (see, eg Pristina).
Whilst the former head of the US's European Garrison network may give a lot of you Donks a hardon, over here in the real world we'd rather have someone who has moral fibre and a thirst for constitutional reform (re- or progressive, either's fine right now)
I've spoken to people who interacted with Clark in a political context back when he was SACEUR, and to a one they get a scared look in their eyes when I bring up VP aspirations.
Clinton and Clark is the reason Georgia and Russia are in this mess. The Kosovo episode gave Russia a great excuse, they also now can play international politics with separatist movements to their own advantage under the pretext of protecting ethnic minorities. Thanks guys!
The idea that the US election is going to turn on an obscure (to Americans) country with a name that is confusingly the same as a state, and is in a region that few of them could find on a map is absurd.
This isn't about American pocketbooks... and domestic economics are the big issue for most voters.
It's not about Mr. Bush's War, which is an albatross around the GOP's neck, anyway.
It's not about health care.
This will have settled down in some manner by the time the Olympics are over, and the voters (and Bush) will come back, shrug, decide nothing can be done by America (and nothing can...) and we'll go on.
I'll bet that the top of the effect range on the election is below 0.05% of the vote.
McCain and Cheney can puff and posture for the benefit of the folks who miss the Cold War, but that's it.
"Obama is just the respectable, liberal face of international Empire - and from the sounds of things, if he were in charge we'd be getting more deeply involved in a war. With Russia. Erk? Anyone?
Where's the condemnation of both sides for using small separatist movements to play The Great Game?"
I think the problem with this is that any kind of wishy-washy response from Obama is just going to be pounced on as being weak on foreign policy, not ready to handle crises, etc. I think we can all agree it's a complex situation with nobody acting in a particularly virtuous manner, but that's not a point that goes well in a soundbite.
The difference Obama would bring here is the soft power necessary for diplomacy to actually, you know, work. We've pretty much abandoned the idea of soft power diplomacy over the past eight years, to the point where Russia now just doesn't care what we think. They know all our troops are bottled up and we don't have the resources to deal with this even if we wanted to.
Now, on the other hand, if we weren't fighting useless wars and had those resources available? It seems to me there's a much better chance of being able to say to Putin, "Take your renegade province and get out. If you head for Tbilisi there's going to be trouble, and you know we can back it up." You know, something like that. Right now we can't say that at all, they'd just laugh at us. But if we could, that'd be more effective in limiting the scope of the conflict and still avoiding any US involvement, don't you think?
Wingedelf,
We have come a long way since Napoleon. Regardless on who fired first. This invasion was planned long ago and was timed for the opening of the Olympics. One way or the other, Russia was atttacking Georgia. What their ultimate aim is only time will tell.
Again, you cannot move 500 tanks into battle without massive prep. Russia was attacking no matter what.
Jack, they were prepped because Russian intelligence knew Georgia was planning an attack.
Marv. Ape -
Hey! Ours is competent, too. We did ship them around the world and conq.... liberate a country. They did do a pretty good job of it, too. Since SO is right next door, Russia is cheating. We could invade Tijuana really easily if we wanted it.
It is simple fact that under international law both South Ossetia and Abkhazia are within Georgia's sovereign boundaries, just as they were "autonomies" within the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic before the Soviet Union was dissolved. Russia has no "right" to move in there militarily; there was no threat to Russian territory.
This doesn't mean that Georgia was smart to launch this military attempt to assert its control over these "breakaway" regions. Yes, the Russians set down a tripwire, so to speak, and the Georgians hit it. And Russia invaded. Georgia loses, Russia wins.
Russia was looking for a pretext to do this, because of its strategic economic and security interest in the Transcaucasian region and its sense that the Georgians in particular were trying to go the way of the Baltic states by joining NATO and the European Union (EU).
That said, many Georgians have a very strong "integral nationalist" impulse, a sense of mission as a Christian people surrounded by Muslims (except for the Armenians who are Christians), and have been working for many years to "cleanse" South Ossetia through forced deportations (to North Ossetia) and by other means. They have long resented the fact that S. Ossetia was invented in the first place as an Autonomous Province within Georgia several decades ago at a time when there were, in fact, few ethnic Ossetians in the region.
The situation in Abkhazia is very different. Abkhazians are basically just Muslim Georgians. They've long felt underappreciated and underrepresented in Georgia, even when they had the status of an "autonomous republic" within Georgia.
The Russians are taking this opportunity to beat up on Georgia by championing the minorities (and with the bogus claim in South Ossetia that they are protecting the interests of Russian citizens abroad -- a citizenship that they only just conferred on those people, when in fact they were already Georgian citizens).
The "game" here is really serious, and has implications as well for other former Soviet countries that have a sizeable ethnic Russian population about whom Russia claims a protective status.
In particular, Russians can play the same Georgian-type game in Moldova, Ukraine, and the Baltic States. The last group (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) are now, however, in NATO and the EU. Don't put it past the Russians to continue to provoke unrest, especially in Estonia and Latvia. But presumably being under the NATO-EU umbrella puts those countries in a different situation from the others.
Putin has made clear that he doesn't want more EU or NATO expansion in the "greater post-Soviet space." And that means above all in Ukraine.
So Georgia has to be looked at in this broader context of Russia's calculation of its strategic interests. (Russians don't give a damn about Abkhazia or Abkhazians, or about South Ossetia or South Ossetians -- except for military, economic strategic reasons.)
Is now a good time to mention that McCain supports Georgia's inclusion into NATO, which means that the US would have a treaty obligation to defend Georgia and its borders? Meaning the US would be at war with Russian. Isn't this something that voters might care about? That McCain thinks we should be at war with Russian? And, Iraq, of course. And, Iran while we're at it. Not exactly sure how'd we pay for it. China may be unwilling to bank roll our wars with Russia and Iran, as well.
So depressing.
Nate,
Based on what Americans seem to regard as the most important issue, I think that "Securing America's Future" will be about Obama's energy plan, since our future will be much more secure when we have energy independence from unreliable foreign sources.
If anything, I think that solidifies a case for Schweitzer, given his credibility on energy issues. I think Clark is better as a surrogate, and he would make a good choice for SecDef in an Obama administration.
As far as the situation in Georgia, Russia always had the edge in foreign intelligence during the cold war, so it should not surprise anyone that the Russian foreign intelligence services were aware of Georgian intentions (and probably knew the exact time that Georgia would commence operations). Georgia blundered into a classic "Pearl Harbor" gambit, and the US and NATO are in no position to render assistance.
The cold reality is that Georgia's blundering gave Russia the perfect excuse for its operations, and all the US can do is sit on the sidelines and bitch about it.
Meg @ August 11, 2008 3:06 PM said...
My money is on either Wesley Clark or Chuck Hagel as Obama's VP pick.
************
From your mouth to God's ears. I know it's not popular to like Chuck Hagel, and Hagel is not progressive on bunches of issues, but I like him, and I think he'd be a good choice. I like Clark better because he wouldn't cause defections among democrats.
Juris,
Great post. I think that's the best summary I've seen anywhere.
BTW - there was no polling analysis yesterday and so far none today, but I know there have been polls out today... will we be hearing about them?
QT
Juris-
Its a simple fact under international law that Kosovo was in Serbia's boundaries in 1999.
Juris-
Very nice.
I've discounted all the governor talk from the get-go because Obama still is fighting his newness to the national stage and we have too many international challenges. Picking Kaine or Sebelius or another state pol would just emphasize a potential weakness and give fodder to the inexperience charge.
The assumption that people are less aware of political news because of the Olympics is faulty.
The Olympics is a substitute for general entertainment not news.
If anything, the population is probably watching more news. It may all be coming from their NBC affiliates, but they still do news. Besides, the people that spend hours watching CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News have probably decided whom they will vote for.
Nate, thank you for your wonderful site. So far, Obama has shown excellent judgment, so one might extrapolate the same will occur regarding his VP choice.
That said, Dem, Rep, and Ind alike seem to have one or two names offered as THE correct choice.
Okay...disclaimer made. In order of personal preference, I like Schweitzer (blue collar and environmental appeal), Reed (military experience and general knowledge depth), or Hagel (military and bipartisan). Clark is acceptable.
"I've discounted all the governor talk from the get-go because Obama still is fighting his newness to the national stage and we have too many international challenges. Picking Kaine or Sebelius or another state pol would just emphasize a potential weakness and give fodder to the inexperience charge."
I don't think it's quite as bad as you make it out to be. If he picks a Biden or Dodd, a career Washington politician like McCain, he's in danger of losing his appeal as a Washington outsider. Someone like a governor outside the establishment (particularly a deep-red state one like Sebelius or Schweitzer) really emphasizes his candicacy as an opportunity to change the Washington culture. Also, it gives him claim to executive experience on the ticket, something a plain Senator wouldn't do.
Of course, a relative newcomer does open himself up for the accusations you mentioned, that he doesn't have the experience necessary for the position. It'll be interesting to see whether, if he goes this route, he'll be able to flip that on its head and convince voters that you want someone who hasn't been corrupted by Washington.
"Take your renegade province and get out. If you head for Tbilisi there's going to be trouble, and you know we can back it up." You know, something like that. Right now we can't say that at all, they'd just laugh at us. But if we could, that'd be more effective in limiting the scope of the conflict and still avoiding any US involvement, don't you think?
---
I heard Cheney quoted today on the radio, being his usual bellicose self - take it from me, a new Cold war is exactly what these guys want and it scares me what may happen between now and Jan 20th to bring that about. Islamic extremism has proven to be an unworthy opponent in terms of the Plan B boys, so we're back to partying like it's 1959 again.
As for "Russia has no "right" to move in there militarily; there was no threat to Russian territory.", you're forgetting about the peacekeepers!
Ossetia is Putin's Kosovo, that's all this is. If Georgia were on the wrong side of Russia, away from all that oil, gas and all those pipelines we'd hear as much about this as we do about the Genocide (under any definition) in Chechnya.
It's going to be Sebelius. The Obama campaign says the theme of Wednesday night is not a hint that the VP choice will be have a military background or be a national security pick and I'm going to take them at their word. I think the hint may be in who layed out the details of Wednesday's program. Could Kathleen Sebelius laying out the program be a hint that she's the VP pick? Doesn't the "Respect" ad she ran in her campaign for Governor match the national security theme? (see the ad at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPfxOtq5AIg ). And, wouldn't it be something if Hillary Clinton made the announcement on Tuesday as the convention is celebrating the anniversary of women's suffrage and then have Sebelius speaking the following evening? Check out some of the pro-Sebelius reasoning at http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/08/a_veep_convention_hint.html#comments
Since Plouffe said yesterday Obama is about to make his choice of veep known, I think this is really a question of whether Clark was Obama's choice before today's chapter in the Georgia-Russia drama.
I highly doubt it.
VC-
Yes, it was. We supported Kosovo's attempts to break away from Serbia. This irritated the Russians, who at the time, said that the allowance of independence to breakaway provinces such as Kosovo could have wide-reaching implications.
Doesn't this logic directly contradict your earlier post, arguing that even increasing Obama's credibility on national security could lend an advantage to McCain by increasing its prominence in the election?
Clark does lend Obama instant credibility on national security, but it also raises the importance of foreign policy credentials. It becomes harder for Obama to keep the focus of the election on the economy if his potential successor is defined solely by his military experience.
On Georgia: I don't see that they have a strong moral claim on S Ossetia -- as I understand it, most of the people who live there don't want to be a part of Georgia, and drove out the Georgian army in the nineties with guerilla tactics. Yes, the Russians were prepared for this (I'm sure they had plans drawn up, so when the day came they just dusted off "Operation X"), but Georgia clearly provoked it, in what has got to be one of the dumbest military moves ever.
That said, the Russians are now going too far by attacking Georgian cities outside of the disputed region. The analogy would be if we had driven the Serbian army out of Kosovo, they were asking for a ceasefire, and we continued to send armored columns into Serbia proper to assault their cities.
What are Russia's motives? Not to re-conquer and assimilate all of Georgia. But to (1) break the Georgian army so that they don't have to have this fight again, (2) discredit Saakashvili (did I spell that right?) so that his government will collapse, and (3) send a message to other neighboring states that they're still the regional super-power. My guess is they'll keep at it until they feel the diplomatic costs outweigh the benefits, then withdraw to S Ossetia and say, "We're defending this place until they have a referendum on independence and/or joining Russia, and the results of that referendum will stand." And I don't see much anyone can realistically do about it besides raising the diplomatic pressure as quickly as possible to get to that point.
On Clark: I like the guy a lot, and I've commented before about his merits as VP. That said, I have some doubts. He pushes the conversation towards foreign policy, which is the only sort-of strong point McCain has (besides "I'm not Obama, whom you should loathe and fear"). Whatever his role, I definitely want him as a campaign surrogate, and I definitely want him to have President Obama's ear. He's well worth listening to.
It won`t be Hagel. He is a straight down the line conservative on social issues. He probably voted with Bush 90% of the time except for the war,
I see a job in an Obama adm. but if he was vice president it would cause a mutiny .
If something was to ever happen to Obama a conservative republican would be president. If it`s military i`d say Biden or Clark,
Don`t be surprised if it ends up being Webb, I know he ruled it out but maybe that was to throw people off the trail.
Mason-
And we, like idiots, refused to take them seriously. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
I say tell Putin he can have Georgia if Ukraine gets to join NATO. Withdraw from Georgia, and he gets a promise Ukraine remains neutral forever, like Finland.
"I say tell Putin he can have Georgia if Ukraine gets to join NATO. Withdraw from Georgia, and he gets a promise Ukraine remains neutral forever, like Finland."
To be honest, I don't think he goes for that. Why would he? He could just say no and take Georgia anyway; we don't have any troops available to stop it with. Putin seems to me sufficiently hardline as to never allow Ukraine in NATO, especially over something this small.
John McCain is on television again today, talking tough about the situation in Georgia. The Vice President has taken a hard line against this Russian aggression, indicating that there will be consequences; that such blatant Russian aggression cannot go unanswered. Again, what would your proposed answer be, Mr. Cheney? What should we do, Mr. Maverick? Old men who love to talk tough, and have no concern for the reality of the situation. To cut to the point, we cannot afford World War III. We cannot afford any more damage to our already strained relationship with Russia. In fact, the best thing America can do, after stating that they find Russia's reaction a bit extreme, is shut up. Was Russia's harsh response entirely disproportionate? Yes. Is this whole thing Russia's fault, as the mainstream media is making it out to be? Hardly.
A few days back, Georgia began shelling the capital of South Ossetia. Yes, South Ossetia is technically still a part of Georgia, but has been controlling its own internal affairs since the early nineties. Sure, the Russians have been meddling in Georgian business, giving passports to South Ossetians, and generally stoking the fires of discontent. All this aside, Georgia bombing the capital of South Ossetia, killing hundreds of civilians, and shelling refugees who are on their way to Russia seems like a really dumb idea. Apparently, given the chummy relationship between Georgia and the United States, the architects of this brilliant strategy to "reintegrate" South Ossetia were counting on American support in the event of such a conflict with Russia. Come again? You're expecting America to butt in and help you fight Russia when our military is depleted, we're fighting two wars, and our economy is in the tank?
So here we have it. South Ossetia. The closest thing to a proxy war between Washington and Moscow since the Cold War ended. Georgia escalates the situation, bites off more than it can chew, and Russia hits back hard... very hard... terribly hard. Yes, Russia is using this as an excuse to beat up on Georgia, and probably seize South Ossetia. Yes, that's an unfortunate development. But it's not like Georgia didn't screw up royally and give Russia this wonderful opportunity.
What should we do? Nothing. What can we do? Nothing. Why? Because we're broke. Because we're morally bankrupt. Because we have a prior engagement in Iraq on our hands. We've said our piece. Now its time for us to keep our mouths shut, let this thing play out, and avoid starting World War III.
Hello Ray... I won't call you any names like you guys would do to us right leaners but...
If Georgia was in NATO, Russia would be at war with all the countries in NATO... not just the U.S.
As you were soldiers :)
I am actually rather shocked that Nate would suggest that Clark is a better choice for Obama now with this war underway.
Given that the Kremlin has repeatedly linked its role in Georgia to the US/NATO role in the former Yugoslavia, taking a running mate whose whole potential candidacy is based on experience forged in the war on Serbia would hardly buttress Obama's 'security' credentials.
"
To be honest, I don't think he goes for that. Why would he? He could just say no and take Georgia anyway"
If he refuses either exchange (I don't think he would, the man is a nationalist but not a mad-man) let him know in explicit terms thats a very hostile act and the US will begin to treat Russia as an enemy rather than a strategic competitor.
A neutral Ukraine would be similar to how Finland was handled in the Cold War.
Jack Black -
So then, what, SPECIFICALLY, should be the US response to the situation in Georgia?
Specifically. Not blather like "get tough". Not weasel words like that imply but can be ambiguous. Seriously, what do you think the US should do?
"That said, the Russians are now going too far by attacking Georgian cities outside of the disputed region. The analogy would be if we had driven the Serbian army out of Kosovo, they were asking for a ceasefire, and we continued to send armored columns into Serbia proper to assault their cities."
Jesus H Christ, reading shit like this drives me insane.
Bill Clinton (no doubt your HERO, *swoons*) bombed Serbian power stations, ports, airports and industrial and civilian infrastructure (including a radio station) into dust and you Donks just suffer amnesia and cry 'humanitarian intervention' whenever something like this happens.
I'm with you on Clark. Would be a great trump card versus McCain.
Here's Clark's email that I received today. Make of it what you will.
============
Dear ****,
I'm ready to "hit the road" and help Democrats across the country. But I need your help to do it. Click here to donate towards our $25,000 goal by Friday's deadline!
A little over a month ago, following my appearance on Face the Nation, the right wing freak machine took me out of context, attacked me, and just wanted me to "hit the road."
Well, I'm here to tell you: I'm not going away.
We simply have too much to do in these final three months. We have to elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States. And we have to give him a working majority in Congress. So let's give the right wing what they asked for. I'm ready to "hit the road" and help Democrats across the country!
Contribute to WesPAC's "Hit The Road Fund!" Help us raise $25,000 by this Friday.
I'm committed to doing everything I can to help Democrats win this November. I've opened up my schedule and am ready to hit the campaign trail across the country. That's why I'm traveling across the country over the coming weeks.
I can only do this if WesPAC has the financial resources to keep me on the road these final three months. That's why we started the "Hit The Road Fund." I need your help to make sure I can stay on the campaign trail to help folks like Charlie Brown (CA-4), Eric Massa (NY-29), and Bob Tuke (TN-Sen).
I've set a goal of raising $25,000 by this Friday. Make a contribution to our "Hit The Road Fund" today!
When people hit you, you have to hit back. I won't back away from a fight, and over the years we've gotten to know each other, I know you won't either. Please contribute to our "Hit The Road Fund" today!
Electing the right people this November will be critical to securing America's future. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Wes Clark
Just for the record.
The argument for Georgia joining NATO before this conflict broke out was that it would make the cost of going to war with Georgia unacceptable for Russia. So for those of you saying that if Georgia were in NATO we would be at war, no, no we wouldn't. They might have been able to get away with invading South Ossetia and Abkhazia, citing those regions' de facto independence, but they would not dare assault cities in Georgia proper as they are doing now.
Somebody said something to the effect of "if the debate becomes about foreign policy, McCain wins."
I don't know about that. The guy doesn't even know his geography (thinking the Czech republic still exists, or that Pakistan borders Iraq, or that... Jesus, the gaffes just go on and on). I think Obama wins foreign policy in a walk.
However, I do think it's a perceived weakness for Obama, which makes it a great thing for him to run on. A corollary of the Rovian "attack the other guy's strengths" ploy is "run on your perceived weaknesses." Hence the McCain campaign memo about painting Obama as a "job killing machine," when W. Bush and the policies McCain supported & would continue have in fact destroyed more jobs and wealth than anything since the Great Depression.
DarienCrow,
I won't be calling any right-leaners names. And, your point is well-taken, but Mr. McCain has reiterated his support of Georgia's inclusion into NATO post-conflict with Russia. To me, this is saying that he supports, at this moment, going to war with Russia because of the Georgia conflict. The first point is, this is simply impossible. We do not have the resources to fight a conflict with Russia. NATO is mainly the US, as far as military resources go, so, I'm not really sure how we'd fight any conflict with Russia. Plus, the current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan has basically bankrupted the US, with the off-budget spending being entirely supported by selling debt to China.
Now, whether or not right-leaners support McCain's position on this, I think it should be pointed out that supporting Georgia's inclusion in NATO - right now - means war with Russia (or more technically a treaty obligation to intervene on Georgia's behalf in any armed conflict). Given that most people (including right-leaners) do not support the war in Iraq or a further war with Iran, I assume that it's material to them to know that McCain is advocating for war with Russia. That's all.
"A little over a month ago, following my appearance on Face the Nation, the right wing freak machine took me out of context, attacked me, and just wanted me to "hit the road.""
---
Yeah, and Obama joined in - or has everyone forgotten this?
Jesus H Christ, reading shit like this drives me insane.
Bill Clinton (no doubt your HERO, *swoons*) bombed Serbian power stations, ports, airports and industrial and civilian infrastructure (including a radio station) into dust and you Donks just suffer amnesia and cry 'humanitarian intervention' whenever something like this happens.
As I recall, all of that bombing took place while the Serbs were occupying Kosovo. Once they agreed to leave, we stopped bombing. Now, the Georgian army is out of S. Ossetia, they're asking for a ceasefire, but the Russians are continuing to prosecute the war into Georgian territory. See the difference?
Also, I tend to give more credence to posters who are civil, whether I agree with them or not. Just a suggestion.
I'm sorry, my civility is directly proportional to the amount of insane bullshit and war apologists I run into..
So, committing war crimes is OK as long as your cover story holds? Is that your point - that it's OK to attack civilian infrastructure, as long as it's in a good cause? War Crimes: It's OK If You Are An American?
This Georgian-Russian conflict is a lot like Japan and the US during World War II. In both cases, a much lager and powerful nation (Russia, US) did pretty much everything in it's power to get the weaker nation (Georgia, Japan) to attack it, then retaliated with absolute brutal and uncalled for force, and tried to excuse it by claiming they were defending themselves.
I'm all for Clark, for this and other reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel
lilnev:
As I recall, all of that bombing took place while the Serbs were occupying Kosovo. Once they agreed to leave, we stopped bombing. Now, the Georgian army is out of S. Ossetia, they're asking for a ceasefire, but the Russians are continuing to prosecute the war into Georgian territory. See the difference?
It's the middle of the night there now, but as of a few hours ago the Georgian army was still in Ossetia.
Do you agree that if the Georgians are still in Ossetia, that the only real difference between this and Kosovo is that Ossetia borders Russia and most of its people are former Russian citizens?
I don't see any way for Georgia to get out of this that doesn't invove formally ceding any claim to S. Ossetia. Until they do so, the Russians will continue, and I'm not sure that we SHOULD do anything about it, much less can.
OK, I know no one cares what I think. And no one should. My foreign policy experience consists of an internship at CSIS 20-plus years ago and reading quasi-intellectual books because I can't understand the fully intellectual ones.
Nevertheless, I feel vindicated because for the first time since the Bob Schieffer interview about one month ago, someone is saying the obvious -- Wesley Clark should be the VP nominee.
Below is part of a post I wrote on this very here Web site last week. I'm really not repeating myself because who read the first one?
"Here is my advice on what Obama should do:
1. Announce who some of his top-level Cabinet officers will be before the Democratic
Convention. He should pick people like Sam Nunn, Chuck Hagel and, even, Dick Lugar for
important foreign policy positions.
2. Bolster his foreign policy team by selecting a vice presidential nominee with national security credentials like Wesley Clark or Jim Webb."
Back to real-time blog. Going for a conventional politician for VP like the governor of Virginia, who has ZERO foreign policy experience, or Birch Bayh, who supported the Iraq war, would be stupid beyond belief.
As stupid as writing Birch when I meant Evan. I'm stuck in a time warp.
Shalom,
ZWrite
As for Wesley Clark - you are forgetting what his central accomplishment as Nato Commander was - the liberation of Kosovo. As much as I think moral equivalency arguments are overly simplistic, but the press loves them. Clark's tenure had a lot to do with supporting a free Kosovo. That puts him in a tough spot to push for the opposite in Georgia (ie. that South Ossetia is the rightful territory of Georgia). To push for South Ossetian independence, however, would be extremely unpopular, and would look like appeasement of a cynical and aggressive Russia.
Nick, that is an idiotic historical analogy. First-off the Japanese were a great power - not as strong as the US - but still a force to be reckoned with. They attacked the US because they thought they could win.
Georgia was suppressing a domestic rebellion, and assuming the Russians wouldn't act. Georgia is nowhere near as strong as Japan was in WWII, either. Moreover, the American response to Pearl Harbour (a surprise attack that destroyed the US navy) was hardly "uncalled for". Even the dropping of the atomic bomb ultimately saved lives relative to the state of affairs if the US had attacked the Japanese home island.
The problem would folks today is that they essentially have two historical analogies - WWII and Vietnam. If they are right-wingers, they will use WWII, if they are lefties they will use Vietnam.
The following are decent historical analogies to the situation in Georgia (they involve a great power attacking a minor power, but at a historical moment when the leading power was unable or unwilling to respond):
-Italy's invasion of Abyssinia
-Japan's war with China in the 30's
-The start of World War I (Austrians respond to terrorism by attacking Serbia, Russia intervenes) - although without fixed alliance blocs this conflict won't become a world war
But the ultimate winner are the Russo-Turkic war of 1877. The Balkans broke out in a rebellion against the Ottoman Empire, which the Ottamans sought to quell. However, the Russians intervened on behalf of their fellow slavs. Britain was prevented from intervening as Disraeli lost the 1877 election to Gladstone, who criticized Britain's alliance with the Turks on human rights grounds (the only difference here is that the human rights case is for intervention and the national interest case is against).
Moreover, Russia and Britain both occupied similar positions in the international system that Russia and the US occupy today. Russia was and is a military power but an economic dwarf unlikely to challenge the US, but still an important player. The US like Britain is the world's strongest power, but is declining rapidly vis a vis China (Germany was the China of the 19th century).
The main difference I see is that the realist Disraeli turned out to be wrong, while the idealist Gladstone turned out to be right about Britain's long-term interests. Aligning with Russia was the right thing to do in the 19th century. Today the realists that want to let Russia have Georgia are right, while the interventionists are clearly wrong (though that position is unpopular). The US needs a strong and friendly Russia to help counter-balance the rise of China. Russia is not a threat to the US - it has a smaller population, 1 third America's GDP per capita, and is a technological laggard. The US needs to make friends with the Chinese threat in mind.
While we are talking foreign policy, watch this please and remind yourselves why he cannot become president. Do you really want "other" wars?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w
Ray you bad boy.
"NATO is mainly the US, as far as military resources go, so, I'm not really sure how we'd fight any conflict with Russia."
Are you calling Britain, France, Germany, ect. ect. ect. wimps?
They might be a little pissed at your conclusion that they just can't do a thing without our supreme assistance.
Still pounding the whine drum on the "we are just too overwhelmed to handle anything more" BS. We have not even scratched the surface of American capability. We are all still eating all we want, dancing in the clubs, watching American Idol, everything else we all take for granted.
You think we are in a war? You don't know what war is my friend. Watch "Band of Brothers", "Schindler's List", or "Gettysburg". They are just representations of war but you get the idea.
So, now we know what we have always suspected: the source of the wisdom of DarienCrow. Some old movies about bygone wars, and a capacity to babble endlessly. Finally, a Republican even less qualified than John McCain!
Oh man, Darien, way to play the tough guy.
Yeah, if only we were rationing again and had the draft, then we'd be a real country! And only McCain can start enough wars to *really* stretch us to our limits!
Jesus, you scare me. To think people actually think like that.
Obama is coming across poorly on the cable news. The visuals of he being on vacation and the observed shift in his position to the point where he has co-opted McCain's diminshes him.
He had better hope georgia retreats from the headlines or he will see his swollen lead in the Gallup tracker start to retreat once more.
Without publicity his candidacy seems to deflate.
Pete Kent, if you have been right all this time Obama should have worse approval ratings than Lucifer.
Good thing everything you say is totally wrong.
The same Pete that said on Saturday that McCain's sudden lead in the Rasmussen tracker was entirely due to the Georgia situation.
If I didn't know better, I'd say you were *trying* to make every single prediction incorrect.
McCain is talking about Georgia.
My God, a man who said that Pakistan limits Iraq. No thanks.
Clark will be moving into the top-attack-top position. But he won´t be on the ticket, in my opinion. I also agree with the poster above who said that the current crisis came too late for Clark to make a difference. I am totally sure Obama knows who he will pick for VP - he made that decision last week at latest, probably a long time before that. He is now in Hawaii writing his convention speech. The party is scheduling the convention. The Obama campaign is building hype with oh-so-secret meetings and SMS newsletters - the VP pick is done... its just not official.
Obama will let his surrogates do the attacking, as usual. Clark made the strongest attack against McCain in this whole campaign so far, but I also think Obama does not want his ticket to be composed that way. I think Clark will be an excellent Secretary of Defense.
Regarding the crisis itself, I am not ready to put the blame on Russia, but I think their timing of escalation was very vile - on the day of the olympic opening ceremony. It almost makes them guilty in my eyes.
"I think Clark will be an excellent Secretary of Defense".
First, he´ll win the election.
I love number 2 and I believe that Gov Schweitzer is going to be President someday. Maybe 2016?
His thoughs on energy are totally cutting edge and I believe that most americans would agree with his energy policies.
"Are you calling Britain, France, Germany, ect. ect. ect. wimps?
They might be a little pissed at your conclusion that they just can't do a thing without our supreme assistance."
France left NATO decades ago, and Germany and Britain together could do nothing on a global stage without copious US support.
NATO == The US. End of story. It's crazy to think otherwise, just as crazy as saying that the Eastern Bloc was anything more than Russia.
dariencrow - good flame. You had me going for awhile.
Now, on the off-chance that you aren't flaming, I understand your point to be that the US has the theoretical capability to fight a larger war with Russia. At this point there's really no troops in reserve. I suppose we could institute a draft, but that's not even the main problem. The problem is that our financial resources are becoming exhausted. The Chinese will not bankroll our spending indefinitely. Without resorting to nuclear weapons, we do not have the capacity, as a country to fight another war.
Now, you point out that American civilian life hasn't been disrupted much by the "war" in Iraq. That's true, but certainly our economy has been greatly impacted. No doubt the overall inflation, including the sky-rocketing oil prices, are linked to our government's reckless spending. The devaluation of our currency abroad cannot be understated and the impact will not be short term. So, unless the gov't cuts back on spending rapidly (by cutting many, many programs) and institutes a draft, we are not fighting any more wars.
Also, at some point, one would imagine that China will tire of lending of money. Maybe they'll even begin to call in some of our t-bills, given the decline of the underlying currency. Then what? I wonder if the troops will continue fighting when they're no longer being paid?
It's like the whole paradigm has shifted and the neo-cons didn't get the memo or just don't care. You cannot have a wrecked economy (that's getting worse) and still expect to run roughshod over the rest of the world. The US can barely impose its will on Iraq and Afghanistan, much less Russia. And China, please.
But whatever, I just read that Obama is talking up including Georgia in NATO. So there goes that. War for all.
ray, escalation need not require war - but rather a credible threat of some negative consequence for Russia that makes it unprofitable for Russia to continue attacking Georgia (I'm okay with the attack on Georgia so long as Putin is America's friend myself but to each their own).
1. Nixon/Kissinger's raising the defcon level during the Yom Kippur war effectively deterred the Soviets from their threat to intervene in the war (the Egyptians were pinned down, and the Israelis were largely ignoring what was supposed to be a ceasefire). After deterring the Soviets, the Egyptians realized that they could not count on the USSR, and entered American clienthood, while ending their ambitions of driving Israel into the sea.
2. Sanctions on Russia would be painful for the EU and US (because Russia is an oil exporter), but far more painful for Russia, whose economic recovery has hinged on oil exports. Targeted sanctions might be even more effective, with less of a cost.
3. Clandestine aid to Chechnya or other rebellious minorities in Russia would also probably make Putin think twice about seizing Georgia (not to mention that Georgia itself would be a sore spot for Russia).
The west has options if they want to deal with Russia sternly, without war.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13285
"The War Party has been running on some pretty low energy lately, and this revival of the Cold War will no doubt recharge its batteries. The warmongers need a new enemy, a fresh face in their rogues' gallery, to get the masses excited again, and Putin's Russia fits the bill."
hosertohoosier,
What you say is mostly true. But, if Georgia were a member of NATO, I understand we'd be required to view the attack on them, just as we would an attack on the US and forced/required to retaliate militarily. I could be wrong, but that's what I've been reading.
Also, I don't really see sanctions working that well, especially given Russia's oil.
I guess my real problem is that I'm just sick of the US's entire role in the world. Maybe I'm too naive, but I can't figure out why the US nees to be involved in everything. It looks like we were encouraging Georgia to provoke Russia. Why? I'm so tired of hearing about "the US's interests" abroad. It appears that the US Government's role is simply making sure the world is safe for transnational corporation, through force if necessary, at the expense of the rest of us. Now, this is done so explicitly that it is hard to believe. Go to Iraq for oil. Protect Georgia because they have an oil pipeline that is set to hook up with one of Israel's oil pipeline. I mean, c'mon, is that really all that our goverment cares about? If so, then why do we still allow ourselves to be governed by these individuals?
Was it Tolstoy that said the Russian people get the rulers that they deserve? Whether it was Tolstoy or not, I feel the same way about us Americans.
Matthew H: What's your source that the Georgians are still in S. Ossetia? The news I've seen said they pulled out a day or two ago (or were driven out).
In general, my view is that the sanctity of sovereignity is based on the consent of the governed. Kosovo didn't want to be a part of Serbia, East Timor didn't want to be a part of Indonesia, South Ossetia doesn't want to be a part of Georgia -- fine, let 'em leave. A true liberal democracy would be OK with that, as Canada let Quebec hold a referendum on secession.
That doesn't mean we should get involved with every region that wants to secede. It does mean that "sovereign territory" doesn't carry a lot of weight with me when it's claimed over regions whose people don't want to be claimed.
So, were we "right" to intervene in Kosovo? I'm OK with it. I don't accept the legitimacy of Sebia's claim to it, and the information we had (from refugees, as the borders were sealed) was that large numbers of Serbian troops were egregiously abusing the population -- forced evacuations of entire villages, in some cases mass murder, probably hundreds of thousands displaced. Should we have bombed civilian infrastructure (bridges, electric grids, radio towers) throughout Serbia in response? Somewhat grayer, and if the urgency was lower maybe not. But bombing civilian infrastructure is not the same as bombing civilians. And remember those hundreds of thousands displaced? Winter was coming, and winter is no time to be homeless in Kosovo. So yes, I'm OK with the air war as conducted. And I'm OK with the long-term result, of pushing through independence even if the Serbs don't like it.
Now, Georgia: Again, I don't care much for Georgia's claim to South Ossetia as "sovereign territory". So I have no objection to the Russians kicking the Georgians out. If South Ossetia wants to join Russia, by all means, let them. My objection is that the Russians are going further. From what I've read anyway, the Georgians are out of South Ossetia, and they're asking for a cease-fire. If Russia's motivation was simply to defend the South Ossetians and/or ensure their right to decide their own political future, there would be no need to drive into Georgia proper and attack Gori. Gori does want to be Georgian, therefore qualifies as "sovereign Georgian territory." Pressing the attack into Georgia at this point is an unjust action.
How should we respond? We should be telling Russia (privately perhaps) that we're fine with South Ossetia breaking away from Georgia and/or joining Russia if that's what the people there want e.g. in a UN monitored and certified referendum, and that we're fine with the Russians keeping the Georgians out until the South Ossetians give their answer. And we should tell the Russians that, now that South Ossetia is under their control and a cease-fire has been offered, they need to stop shooting and withdraw from Georgian territory (excluding the disputed areas) or there will be diplomatic consequences. (About the only military threat we could credibly make would be to contest air superiority, and I'm wary of going there. If things continue to deteriorate in coming days, maybe. But very wary.)
My problem with Obama on this issue is that, having visited 11 former Soviet republics in the last 2 years (including Georgia and, of course, Russia), and with Donald Tusk now in power in Poland, I could see the "Joint Declaration" by the Baltics and Poland on Georgia coming from a mile away. McCain jumped on it immediately to "strongly support" it. Obama, on the other hand, gave what I'd call the textbook answer. The Russians have now threatened the Baltics, saying they will "pay" for supporting Georgia as strongly as they have (more strongly than any other countries in the world). It's this angle that I think will be a problem for Obama if McCain plays it up. Obama might still say something that shows that he understands the perspective of the eastern Europeans, but if he does he may be coming to it too lately.
The eastern Europeans are huge for the USA, and disappointing them is going to create problems. The Georgians have already pulled out 2000 troops from Iraq, and the real concern is what if the Poles pull out of Afghanistan etc because they feel afraid of Russia? The US needs to show that it understands their fears.
Brian Dell,
Nice comment. I'll take that a step further and just flat out say that my problem with Obama is that if he's elected president, we will wind up as a third world backwater and economically worse off than most of those eastern European nations that were part of the old Soviet republic. Of course, McCain won't do much better.
Obama presidency = USA as Third World Nation
McCain presidency = USA as Third World Nation (only slower getting there)
1. Clark - if he must
2. Schweitzer - yes
3. Sebelius - yes
4. Bayh - if he must
5. Clinton - unacceptable
6. Biden - if he must
7. Kaine - yes
8. Reed - meh
9. Nunn - unacceptable
10. Hagel - no
11. Dodd - no
I have always wanted an Obama/Clark ticket but when that broo haha about Clark's comments I knew politically it was poison for Clark and crossed the one line a VP should not do, cause trouble.
I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd place my bets thusly:
Win: Schweitzer
Place: Webb
Show: Bayh
The reason Obama will pick Schweitzer is his stand on issues, ethics, experience, wit, but most of all his AGE.
He is young enough to not be too old to run for president in 2016. In eight years, he will be sixty years young and eight years proven.
I disagree that the outbreak of military conflict poses a problem for Obama. What it does is show what a load of rubbish the "3 AM phone call" carping actually was.
What is McCain's response to this crisis, with the benefit of his million years of experience? Denunciation of the Russian incursion, and determination to forge a common diplomatic front with traditional allies, through the auspices of international organizations designed to promote same. What is the "inexperienced" Obama's position? The same thing.
If McCain wants to fight the election on the Georgian conflict, more power to him. He can then prepare for a steady diet of "It's the economy, stupid" until November.
Needless to say, I don't think this increases Clark's, Hagel's, or Zinni's chances to be veep.
ray,
I do agree with you on one point: we seem to be stuck in a 90's mindset when it comes to foreign policy. In other words, by becoming involved in many parts of the world in which we do not have immediate interest, we are assuming we're still the world's sole superpower. This is simply no longer the case, and in the case of a resurgent Russia we are receiving a lot of pushback for this perceived attitude.
It in no way excuses the actions of Russia, but it helps provide reasoning behind their newfound bellicosity.
I like Clark a lot for Obama too. But unless he's playing a serious game of poker he's shown no interest in Clark. But these are political animals and if this will blunt some problem or create a big one for McCain, he will get the nod in a flash.
Mr X on your point about McCain basing the election on Georgia, I think his manager being a lobbyist will leave him pants-down on that stage. It takes the whole thing back to McCain owned by special interests.
If he's willing to do it, I think Colin Powell would make a brilliant surprise choice for VP. He's got the military expertise of Wesley Clark, the foreign policy experience of Biden or Richardson, the bipartisan appeal of Chuck Hagel, the popularity in red states like Sebelius or Bayh, the name recognition of Hillary Clinton or Al Gore, and the brains of Brian Schweitzer. Let me add to the lists posted by Benjamin Spector above:
Disadvantages:
Too black!
- Yes, but the advantage of choosing a black VP is that it's probably the best way to prevent the racists out there from attempting an assassination.
Too tied to Bush and Iraq
- Yes, if Powell joined Obama he would have to throw Bush "under the bus"... which I think many people could relate to: Powell can tell voters he was betrayed by Bush, just like they were.
His wife may not go for it.
- True, his wife may not go for it. He may not either, although it seems he supports Obama and has said he's still willing to serve in government.
- Another disadvantage is the fact that he wouldn't have major sway in any single swing state, although I can imagine a veteran-rich state like Virginia going for him.
Advantages:
Likes Obama's foreign policy.
Independants, Republicicans and many democrats view him as the most trusted name in American Foreign Policy and to protect the US against attack. McCain is viewed as a lightweight compared to him. He will crush McCain every time.
More advantages include:
- Surprise choice, would make big news.
- Moderate on social issues, pro-choice.
- Vetted, presumably no skeletons lurking in the closet.
- Highly intelligent, well spoken, not prone to gaffes.
- Well known, widely respected.
- Not really viewed as a politician, which reinforces Obama's "post-partisan" message.
- Or, for those who view him as a Republican, picking him can be seen as Obama reaching across the aisle.
- Military experience.
- Hard to smear as an elitist, or a radical, or an empty celebrity, which would be reassuring for people who fear Obama may be one of those.
- Having been away from government for the past 4 years, he feels like an outsider as well as an insider.
- At the convention, Bill Clinton is going to speak just before the VP nominee. You need a really good act to follow Bill Clinton. ;-)
- Old enough that he wouldn't run after Obama, leaving 2016 wide open for Hillary or other Dems.
ok. im gonna risk commenting before reading all 136 comments before me. Fact is, i think selecting Clark sends the wrong message. Obama's strength is his foreign policy vision. But because he hasn't been around for long, he's not breaking through all the mccain noise.
1. Selecting Clark- and i think Clark is potentially well qualified- means that he's not confident in his judgment and foreign policy view and opens him up for a ready made attack on Obama being like bush (cheney) which could really undermine the main narrative against mccain.
2. I have difficulty imagining Clark playing second fiddle to anyone. i seriously don't think he could follow a script, nor would he be willing to.
3. Clark is imminently qualified to lead the Armed Forces. And because of his extensive experience in all things foreign policy, his strategic vision is very sound. But im afraid that governing with Clark could be as difficult or even more difficult than Clinton. I don't think he could silently suffer his opinion being challenged too much by someone with less experience. But it's just perception on my part. so i do't wanna expand on it unless im not the only getting this feeling.
4. Obama can't afford to leave an open flank on the economy. That has got to be his electoral strength even though his real strength is foreign policy. And Obama can be very detailed but for some reason he's been very reluctant to being a policy wonk. He's more like a visionary leader who understands the issues, knows what the problems are and has a solution to solve it, but rather than getting to the meat and potatoes of his plan will rather walk you through the moral content and the practical need of the program. Not what. but why and how. So, he needs a solid boring but wonky chief operating officer who'll roll up his/her sleeves and get to work. Clark is no such guy. he's a military pick. And Clark doesn't just provide a cushion or a springboard for obama to spell out his foreign vision. he provides a mouth as well. one that may contradict obama very often during the campaign and one that may be hard to accept that he doesn't own the monopoly on foreign policy.
McCain should be so lucky that Obama would choose Clark. The Republicans would have a field day trashing Clark's incompetent prior positions, placing far more focus on Obama's weak suit rather than burnishing his foreign policy credentials.
He should stick to the domestic unhappiness theme that wins him the malcontent vote, and go with Sebelius, which would also help rein in more of the Hillary defectors.
and i don't think that making a conflict-specific-pick is the way to choose the vp.
Powell --> Interesting...
hmmm...
I was very inspired by this article and I wanted to share it.
Courtesy of: National (Canadian News) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080613.BCPOWELL13/TPStory/National
Powell tells B.C. crowd he might vote for Obama
IAN BAILEY, June 13, 2008
VANCOUVER -- Colin Powell, the former Republican secretary of state, says he is not ruling out a vote for Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee for president.
While Mr. Powell served in the administrations of two Republican presidents, he suggested yesterday his support for presumed Republican nominee John McCain is not a forgone conclusion.
He noted that although both he and Mr. Obama are black, he would not cast a vote for the Illinois senator on the basis of race. "I will vote for the individual I think that brings the best set of tools to the problems of 21st-century America and the 21st-century world regardless of party, regardless of anything else other than the most qualified candidate," Mr. Powell said at a news conference before delivering a speech to about 800 people attending a leadership forum at the Vancouver Convention Centre.
"Both of them certainly have the qualifications to be the president of the United States, but both of them cannot be," he said.
Mr. Powell has been supportive of Mr. Obama's successes, but was commenting after the senator recently clinched the Democratic nomination.
A 35-year veteran of the U.S. Army, Mr. Powell also noted he would not necessarily support Mr. McCain because of his extensive military service.
Asked whether he thought it was a difficult choice, he said: "I think so. Yes."
ray,
If Georgia were in NATO the US wouldn't be obligated to intervene, though there would be a larger cost to not intervening. When you play around with the data on alliances, you find some interesting things (there is a published article showing allies are more likely to attack each other). Often allies ignore their alliances when it is in their interests. If China attacked Taiwan or South Korea today, it is not hard to imagine the US not stepping in.
lilnev,
the Quebec analogy is a poor example - any liberal democracy is perfectly within its rights to refuse to allow a referendum on secession (as Spain and Britain have long done). Based on the Quebec reference case (separatists argued that under international law Quebec had a right to secede) the Canadian supreme court argued that because Canada was a liberal democracy that already protected the rights of its citizens. Secession could happen, but only if Canada allowed it, and if the three pillars of Canadian government: democracy, federalism and the charter of rights and freedoms were respected. I think that decision offers a good set of principles for looking at other cases.
Democracy (South Ossetia would probably vote to secede) would probably favour secession, but would individual rights? Georgia is a fairly decent (and rapidly improving) democracy, while Russia is not. That might be find for South Ossetians, but won't be for other minorities on the losing side of a referendum on joining Russia.
So in this case national self-determination is the LESS democratic option. And one really has to ask why a group of people would want to secede or join a less democratic country, when their individual rights are already protected, and they have considerable autonomy from Georgia. The answer is almost always because there are minorities they would like to screw around with (that is most definitely the aim of Quebec separatists). The problem with national self-determination arguments, of course, is that if Georgia is divisible, so is Russia, and so is South Ossetia, for that matter.
I like the sound of Schweitzer.
I'm not really sold on the Clark idea... I think it may backfire a bit.
In my opinion, your analysis about voters' perceptions is right on. In reality, however, generals are not inherently qualified in terms of international politics. Just look at Eisenhower who allowed secretary of state Dulles to agitate the Hungarians into revolt only to abandon them in 1956.
In terms of skills and experience, Richardson's experience would be a better asset in this crisis but that is, of course, a different matter than electability.
Georgia conflict continues to boil, Obama continues to broil (in the sun, that is) . . .
Schweitzer looks like an oaf and comes from a marginal state. He is another nobody that will impress no one.
The problem here is that so many of you (myself included!) live and die by the polls and are hungering for some break out move that will launch the Obama wave that you have all been waiting for and that has been so long delayed.
Face it, it is not coming.
Obama is not going to sweep the West or the South or the Farm states. At best, he will marginally outperfrom Kerry and win.
Only McCain has the chance to really run the table by making Obama an unacceptable choice -- Nate's much vaunted simulations be damned!
Powell? POWELL??
Excuse me while I go change my pants into a dry pair...
Lemme guess, you were all KERRY/MCCAIN!!!in 2004?
I'd like to see him pick Sibelius but my head says Kaine.
Virginia has 13 ECVs..
Also - doesn't ObamaKaine sound like a really, really good painkiller?
I've been thinking the same thing Gridlock (about the painkiller I mean). There are so many ludicrous comments on this thread I don't even know where to start. First of all, what exactly is wrong with trying to rein in a province that thinks they can go join your neighbor or secede? The U.S. did the same thing after the Civil War. The fact that Nate doesn't think we have the right to condemn Russia for invading an ally of ours because we invaded Iraq is ridiculous. Russia is the aggressor here. South Ossetia is recognized by the international community as an autonomous region of Georgia. Therefore Georgia has the right to claim it.
Good for you, James, on calling out Nate for his misguided notion of moral equivalence bw Russia and the US. it is that sort of thinking when it is expressed in public by a politican that iscalled a "gaffe". It is the reason why left wing dems lose elections. They don't get it: America first people. let's not air our dirty laundry in public.
*****
The long knives are out for Bayh. read today's NYTs. OMG he suported the War! Toast! Finished! maoveon.org is taking a cautious view at the moment.
Who's left? Nova Kaine? My anti-pick for y'all!
clark was my fave about a month and a half ago, but then he had his tryout and he bombed. he made his little comment about "just because mccain got shot down in a plane doesn't make him qualified" which, while technically true - made him look like a sore sport.
he then proceeded to step all over obama's patriotism week with his explanations.
i do think the best choice should have some foreign policy gravitas - bayh or biden - but if he doesn't have message discipline, i can't see him as a VP.
@Gridlock...
Powell? POWELL??
Excuse me while I go change my pants into a dry pair...
Lemme guess, you were all KERRY/MCCAIN!!!in 2004?
Hmm... perhaps you supported Edwards as VP in 2004 to get NC's 15 electoral votes? Remember how well that turned out? In retrospect, McCain might have been a better pick for Kerry... he was much more independent back then... and as a war hero himself he would have been an excellent VP "attack dog" to forcefully denounce the Swift Boat allegations.
I'd like to see him pick Sibelius but my head says Kaine.
Virginia has 13 ECVs..
Don't count on Kaine making much of a difference in VA; his approval ratings there are nothing special.
Also - doesn't ObamaKaine sound like a really, really good painkiller?
ObamaKaine sounds more like "Oba-McCain" to me. ;-) While Powell was working behind the scenes to avoid the Iraq invasion (and resigned as soon as he thought it was appropriate to do so), Kaine was publicly praising it as akin to the American Revolution.
Clark has denounced "New York money men" who support Israel--a not so subtle attack on the American Jewish community. With many of the plausible choices for VP, Obama could receive 75% of the Jewish vote (comparable to what Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc. received). But choosing Clark as VP would drive Obama's share of the Jewish vote down to lower levels than any Democrat other than Jimmy Carter has received in the past 48 years.
Huge democracy rally going on in Tiblisi, Georgia, right now. 1000s waving American flags.
Edwards fading from the news.
Will there be a McCain surge in tonight's polling?
U and Schweitzer need to get a room, N-boy! Go Sebster!
Pete Kent: South Ossetia actually wants to break away from Georgia and join Russia. Georgia tried to bully S.O. and woke a bear up. Russia actually has a bit of right on its side here while 'the West' post-Afghanistan/Iraq has zero moral authority to do anything apart from the odd hypocritical tut-tut. Obviously, neocons like your good self don't believe in the right for peoples to self-determination (qv Afghanistan, Iraq).
Olberove:
Nice try on that. All ready appeasing the Russians. You are dupe. Fooled by the pretext that Putin is using to threaten the only Democracy standing bw Russia and all of Europe's oil.
Read the Steve Huntley in today’s Chicago Sun Times Very good statement of the state of play re Georgia. http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/1102552,CST-EDT-hunt12.article Pick it up off Real Clear Politics.
On the Georgian War, Obama showed no leadership. He basically followed the lead of the President Bush and John McCain.
McCain in particular showed leadership on this. While Bush seemed to squander the opportunity to confront Putin in Beijing, McCain got out in front and condemned the Russians for their naked act of aggression against our democratic ally and vowed to make them pay, a sentiment echoed at the Bush administration. And a couple of days later by the Obama campaign.
Obama was lead by McCain on this.
He got himself schooled.
Ready to lead?
Very interesting discussion on Russia.
As Churchill said, "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Forget the "Soviet Union". Forget "Communism". Russia is Russia. Since Czarist days, it has always been Russia.
To me the key is "paranoia". If you draw a map and put Russia in the middle you see Russia surrounded by USA and Canada (across the North Pole, Western Europe (NATO) to the west, and Japan and China to the East. Russia, since the beginning of recorded time, thinks it is surrounded by enemies. With a lot of the former eastern European block countries thinking of joining NATO, Russia feels even more paranoid than usual. Putin, a nationalist, feels it is necessary for "Russian self-interest" to flex its muscles to bully the Czech Republic and other former block nations to refrain from joining their enemies, building a "nuclear shield" and threaten Russian security.
I am for democracy, but after an eternity under the Czars, I don't think Russia is ready for it. Remember, democracy as we know it is only 200 years old and many are ready to substitute "security" for "liberty".
Clark would be a disaster. His star lost a lot of shine in his performance where he attacked McCain on a pretty hypocritical rationale. His own candidacy was based on his military service, and McCain's is based on that plus a legislative record.
Clark's comments diminished him as a credible figure, and his Foreign Policy commentary on CNN and other venues is rife with miscalculation. There is a veritable treasure trove of material to eviscerate him with.
On top of that his is a known flake. He basically got fired as NATO Commander for insubordination, held unofficial press conferences regarding operations he was not in command of, and none of the military brass has much respect for the guy. They see him as a self-aggrandizing figure with not a lot of horsepower in the brains department, not that he is dumb, just glib.
Not a good choice.
"He is weak in every sense of the word and hardly projects strength to anybody."
You know when you have an Obamabot on the hook when they say comments lkes this.
My friend every poll disagrees with you, so either you are blind, dumb, stupid or brain-washed.
Obama trails in the Pew poll leadership metrics by a wide margin.
When you make comments like that, you are wasting your time, critical observation renders your time wasted...and you make Obama look as the worse to the informed voter who knows otherwise.
I am tired of Obamabots make the rest of us Obama supporters look like complete morons by association.
Jerry Brown for VP
Here is a smart guy. A truth teller.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/videos/detail/jerry-brown-1992-democratic-convention/
A catholic, former Gov., former Mayor, important State AG, worked with Mother Theresa. Quit as Chair of CA Dem Party because he saw it was corrupted by money and special interests.
He can be an attack dog both in English and in Spanish and has a great name for OHIO.
Don't you think that he his thematically more in tune with Obama's forward looking campaign.
Brown was ahead of the curve on the environment, on balanced budgets, on the use of technology, on the the corrupting influence of special interest money, and on what a slime ball Bill Clinton was.
Wesley Clark OMGoodness Why Why Why.
Where there is no vision, the people perish.
Beside Agnew, what was the last winning Ticket which didn't win the home states of both the VP and P?
O is not going to win GA unless it is a lanslide and I don't see any evidence for that.
Given the historical record, maybe we ought to totally recalibrate the VP possibilities for a winning O campaign.
Jerry Brown for VP
http://tiny.cc/jerrybrown
Because the link got cut off in the post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrCiAj6u4fc
Watch the above Youtube video. Apparent 'insider' information regarding Barack's VP choice. What do people think?
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ very nice
徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
Post a Comment