What a campaign McCain’s running! Everything he does is designed to be just like the Holy Bush would do it. “You like Iraq? I’ll keep it going! Like the economy? Won’t change under my watch! Want some more random wars with people we can’t beat? I’ll bring ‘em on!”

It’s depressing that so many people think more Bush is a good thing.  :/

Even George W. Bush didn’t go as far as McCain did with that statement.

A president… a conservative blogger… what’s the difference? It’s like trying to find the less-stinky part of the sewer. No matter what you do, you’re still covered in shit.

Let me pass this link along, Jesse:

http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2008/8/9/164938/8032

I just got chills.

“The US should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course it has chosen.  Oh, and… Wolverines!” - John McCain

Thanks for the link, Jesse!

Regards, C

There are about a dozen links in this 2005 post about the geopolitical significance of Georgia- and how we’ve been meddling in that area (militarily, politically and economically) for quite some time.

An oil pipeline; potential NATO involvement;the EU; Turkey; US and UK Oil Companies; Iraq/Iran;  Central Asian US military bases (many, many bases).

I’m surprised Russia waited as long as it did to assert its power in Georgia (we’ve been pulling levers- and pushing buttons- since 2001).

This is huge—more Cheney Energy Task Force shenanigans territory.  Whoever is president- we’ll be militarily involved in this area for years.

Study up everyone- our brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews—and children—will be fighting in that part of the world next- with or without Iran’s involvement.

And don’t think Democrats are incapable of instituting a draft.  Do you think all the focus on youth loyalty to the Party is only about getting votes? It will also be about “serving your country” - to protect “our freedom” (i.e., economic interests).

but of course, I’m more cynical than most…

Do you think all the focus on youth loyalty to the Party is only about getting votes?

Um, yes?

Well, that and the fact that if you get someone to vote for your party early and often, they frequently come to identify with it and keep pulling that lever for the rest of their lives. Which is…again, about getting votes.

Hey look, Obama threw Jesse under the bus, and came around to blaming Russia (you know, the Nation that began bombing another and sending tanks and artillery across an Internationally recognized border):

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Condemning_Russia.html

I suppose the takeaway from pandagon is that bombing other sovereign nations isn’y really all that awful unless it is the United States doing the bombing .  .  .

MikeEss - your response is the 85 year old Bob Dole cock of blog comments.

“Fortunately, most of us Pandagonian don’t give a damn”

Don’t give a damn that your Candidate, lauded for being “Presidential,” takes notes from McCain (whose position was described as that of a “Right Wing Blogger), reformulates his position in the image of McCain’s, and you now support it, because it has the O! Imprimatur?

How do you know McCain’s approach to foreign policy in this case wasn’t based on “actual impacts and outcomes of world events?”  Say, for example, we thought Russia may be planning to take territories from other neighboring countries after Georgia.  Then why wouldn’t an aggressive statement to Russia’s action in Georgia be correct, as the course most likely to make Russia think twice about using its military against other neighbors, instead of simply asking them to negotiate which could make Russia think that there will be no actual consequence from its actions?

Also, while purely “which country we like better” may be a bad criterion for support, which country we have closer ties with, are friendly with, is more likely to support us in foreign events, and so forth all are legitimate issues to consider for a response.

The arguments in this post seemed highly questionable even before Obama adopted McCain’s position.

lisa:

If you look at U.S.-manufactured elections abroad (by organizations like the Global Strategy Group- in Belgrade, in Georgia…), you see development of large youth movements as a central strategy.  For voting, yes- but also (in every case) for intimidation when necessary; for fundraising; for quick mobilization when large crowds are needed; and ultimately for government service- including both military and civil service.

(A group might be a list of signatures- or bank account numbers; an online social network; a stadium full of people; or the endless streams of reinforcing commentary found in forums and on blogs.)

Groups are even called to protest- civil disobedience- when election outcomes are not as desired.  (Georgia was a coup by crowd intimidation.)  In our own election in 2000- on a smaller scale- we saw this tactic used in Florida.

There are strategies developed and implemented-  around the world- by coalitions made up of U.S. government agencies, members of BOTH major political parties,  and organizations from the Right and the Left.

The SAME PLAYERS who work to “influence” elections internationally also run America’s domestic elections.

Other features- used internationally:  mobilization of the Internet- and control of the messages getting out; coordination of cell phones/text messaging; and the constant repetition and display of one word slogans (in every case)—posters, hats, t-shirts, billboards.  In one country it might be “Resist”-  in another “Hope” or “Change.” 

I have believed since the beginning of the Obama Movement- and it is a coordinated movement- that the outcome of this election will be affected, if not wholly determined, by the same playbook we use in foreign elections.

Read the articles about Belgrade and Georgia.  Then consider that we are being manipulated like we’ve never been manipulated before—as if we were citizens in a foreign country—manipulated by the same operatives and organizations that design and influence   foreign elections.

That’s why Obama is moving to the right on some issues, and McCain is moving to the left on others.

There is an intentional blurring of left and right so that whichever candidate wins, global plans will not be affected.

They’re both even talking about the possibility of having running mates from the “opposing” party!

All the advisors- at the highest levels- are working toward broad geopolitical goals that have very little to do with domestic policy (which will be centrist at best no matter who is elected).

As a nation, we’re broke! Don’t expect non-military spending increases from anyone without sacrifice.

This election has gone on- literally- for YEARS now.  The longer the elections last (by design) the greater the chance of achieving desired outcomes.  And as soon as this election is decided, the next one will begin.

And the average person won’t pay much attention to anything that’s happening on the military bases, at the oil fields and pipelines, in secret prisons… 

It’s all global now; but if you like, you can pretend that it’s 1858 (when the debates mattered) or 1968 (when conventions last mattered).  It might even be comforting- to pretend that nothing’s changed.  Most of my family is like that, and I don’t talk about global politics with them.

But it might help to be aware of what’s being done in our name- TO us - if we want to save what’s left of our 18th century political ideals (of democracy!)

And don’t be surprised- I know I won’t be- when Obama’s foreign policy disappoints you.  The chess pieces will be moved around a little- but the Empire will carry on—for as long as it is able to survive. 

Obama’s “people” are the same old guys who’ve been moving the chess pieces around for years.

On a positive note, I believe that the “desired outcome” for this election is for Obama to win.  I believe that it was already decided - in 2004 - when he charmed us with “the speech.”

Everything since has been theatre.

three to read.

one.

two.

three.

(and I just want to add- because I’m sure it’s not clear- I want Obama to win; I just don’t have a lot of faith that the U.S. is going to radically change directions under his leadership.)