Another genius from teh Corner
Over at teh Corner, Larry Kudlow thinks John McCain should link his empty threat to unleash NATO’s Army Group Steiner on the Rooskies with his demand to drill, drill, drill so that gas will go down 5 cents a gallon in the next 10-15 years, figuring the coupling of those two issues will produce a sure winner.
Will John McCain turn Tsar Putin’s invasion of Georgia into a drill, drill, drill issue? He should. It will throw Democrats even more on the defensive — especially Sen. Obama whose weak response to Putin’s neo-Soviet actions have already put him way behind the eight ball on Russia.
~~~
But global strategist Thomas Barnett has the energy angle on Russia’s invasion of Georgia exactly right. He says, “Now we all have clarity about the nasty nature of Putin’s Russia,” and this gives us clarity on the need to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He asks: Why would the U.S. want to expose the American economy to the potential risk of being held hostage by a couple of oil pipelines that run through the old Soviet empire? He goes on to say, “It’s all-of-the-above time, gang — domestic drilling, nukes, concentrated solar, deep geothermal, clean coal, and whatever else Silicon Valley and heroic capitalists everywhere can dream up as we conduct a market-driven transition to a post-hydrocarbon economy.” (Hat tip to Jimmy Pethokoukis.)
Barnett is exactly right. I simply call it drill, drill, drill — total deregulation and decontrol of the great American energy sector. Unleash all manner of energy for an America First energy policy that not only will fuel our economy but will create millions of high-paying jobs in the future.
Absofuckinglutely brilliant. McCain can not only threaten Putin with troops NATO and the US doesn’t have available, he can also threaten action which might knock a few dollars off the price of a barrel of oil 15 years from now. Expect the American people to be cheering in the streets after all that. . .
That’s really hitting those Rooskies where it hurts.
Corner expert Larry Kudlow plans anti-Russian counteroffensive.
“McCain can not only threaten Putin with troops NATO and the US doesn’t have available,…”
I’ve been following all this very closely. When did McCain threaten anyone, let alone Putin, with troops?
Steve,
If you read further down our main page to this post, where Derbyshire expresses his exasperation at McCain’s empty blustering and I link to an analysis of McCain’s call to bring NATO into Georgia to “stabilize” the situation.
Uh huh. I read the Derbyshire bit. I wasn’t impressed by it. So forget trying to sell your claim with that.
Additionally, the opinion of a lefty at The Nation trying to make people believe McCain is bent on sending troops to threaten Putin impresses me even less than Derbyshire’s comment.
You made the claim; show me the proof McCain is threatening Putin with troops. That’s first.
Second, both Abkhazia and South Ossetia are still part of Georgia; no international organization, nation, not even Russia, recognizes either as independent states. What Russia did was invade Georgia while it (Georgia) was involved in an internal dispute (that the Russians helped precipitate). I notice that nothing in either of your posts or in the link to the article in The Nation bother mentioning this little fact.
Third, there is a link in The Nation piece to “images of dead Russian peacekeepers and of frightened Ossetian refugees” at the New York Times. Except that the link is BS, and images at the NYT from that time show no “dead Russian peacekeepers”. Now, if those images do actually exist, then maybe an update is needed. But until then, the assertion is nothing more than pro-Russian propaganda being used to bash McCain.
Fourth, I didn’t realize the only way to “stabilize” a situation required military intervention. Except that it doesn’t. There’s plenty that NATO can do without having to fire a gun (and it’s being done now). And it isn’t the appeasement that would be the hallmark of a “President” Obama.
*Homer Simpson whisper*
Derbyshire is one of YOURS, Steve!
“Derbyshire is one of YOURS, Steve!”
OK. And your point is…
We don’t all walk in lockstep with each other, despite the propaganda that says we do. Hell, I’m one of those who has been very hard on McCain, and was not (and still not) happy he is the Republican nominee. But here, on this, McCain was on the money.
By the way, Derbyshire was quoting Pat Buchanan, whom I have a serious problem with these days in relation to that recent book he wrote (in which Derbyshire quotes).
Steve,
If you cannot comprehend how threatening to bring NATO (which cannot meet current commitments) in to “stabilize” Georgia might be viewed as a threat, then consider how a Russian politician urging bringing Warsaw Pact forces (if they still existed) into Mexico to “stabilize” that country might be viewed by the US.
So forget trying to sell your claim with that.
I’m not trying to sell anything. I can explain it , but I can’t comprehend it for you.
And it isn’t the appeasement that would be the hallmark of a “President” Obama.
I wish you wingnuts wouldn’t use words like “appeasement” when you don’t have clue fucking one what they mean. Rumsfeld started a horrible trend towards stoopid, and Bush lowered global IQ when he followed him.
There’s plenty that NATO can do without having to fire a gun
Such as?? NATO is a military alliance, pure and simple. It was forged in the cold war as a military threat to counterbalance to Russia’s bloated military. Trying to pretend it is UNICEF really won’t advance any dialog.
And after all that, there is still nothing on the fact that Russia illegally invaded sovereign Georgian territory. What Russia did was far different than how the U.S. went about justifying the invasion of Iraq (which was not based on a lie). If anything, what Russia is doing is more akin to “blood for oil” than anything the U.S. is doing. How come there isn’t any screaming of “No blood for oil” from you guys?
I can explain it, but I can’t comprehend it for you.
I do get what Derbyshire was saying. He was complaining that Bush wasn’t being as decisive as Putin. Despite the propaganda to the contrary, Bush isn’t leading the U.S. government like the autocratic Putin is leading the Russian government; Bush still has to go through Congress. Derbyshire is comparing apples to oranges, which is why I dismissed his comment.
I wish you wingnuts wouldn’t use words like “appeasement” when you don’t have clue fucking one what they mean.
And if Obama actually knew what was going on in the world, he wouldn’t have come out with foreign policy platform that isn’t appeasement, because that is what he did.
And as far as NATO, it is a military alliance, but calling in a military alliance doesn’t mean mobilization. I’m still waiting to see actual proof that McCain called for the use of troops to threaten Putin.
I do get what Derbyshire was saying. He was complaining that Bush wasn’t being as decisive as Putin.
You don’t get it at all, because Derbyshire was also complaining that McCain was blowing empty, bellicose rhetoric he had no way of backing up, and making an embarassment of himself.
And if Obama actually knew what was going on in the world, he wouldn’t have come out with foreign policy platform that isn’t appeasement, because that is what he did.
Like I said, you shouldn’t use words like “appeasement” when you don’t have clue fucking one what they mean.
Munich and Czechoslovakia may seem like a perfect analogy to Georgia — if you’re gifted with a large measure of historical ignorance.
It’s a perfect analogy, except for the fact that Hitler’s vivisection of Czechoslovakia didn’t involve any actual military conflict at all, let alone the Czechs rolling tanks and launching airstrikes into the Sudeten to suppress uppity Germans.
Even if you apply the Derbyshire comments to McCain, Derbyshire is still comparing apples to oranges. I got it, I get it, move on.
Speaking of not knowing what one is talking about:
It’s a perfect analogy, except for the fact that Hitler’s vivisection of Czechoslovakia didn’t involve any actual military conflict at all, let alone the Czechs rolling tanks and launching airstrikes into the Sudeten to suppress uppity Germans.
And those “uppity Germans” weren’t firing at Czech villages, unlike the Ossetians.
It is obvious you haven’t bothered trying to read up on how the Putin regime goaded Georgia into this. But the fact of the matter is that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are still part of Georgian territory, and the pseudo-governments of those two areas weren’t even recognized by the Russian government when all this started.
This whole episode just highlights the notion that there isn’t an anti-war movement in this country, and there never was.
Even if you apply the Derbyshire comments to McCain, Derbyshire is still comparing apples to oranges.
What do you mean, “even if?” He calls out McCain by name. And you keep saying “apples and oranges” only emphasizing that you don’t grasp the point. The reason McCain’s rhetoric is embarassing is because Bush’s fecklessness has deprived the US of the resources, political and military, which McCain’s empty tough talk would require. The Surge ended because we couldn’t maintain the force levels past this summer, and NATO can’t find the forces needed for Afghanistan, let alone to “stabilize” Georgia.
Speaking of not knowing what one is talking about. . . . And those “uppity Germans” weren’t firing at Czech villages, unlike the Ossetians.
Actually, the Sudeten Germans, led by Nazi agent provacateurs including the leader of the SDP, himself taking orders directly from Hitler, engaged in numerous provocations against Czech neighbors and officials, trying to spark an incident to provide a pretext for a German military attack which never occured.
This whole episode just highlights the notion that there isn’t an anti-war movement in this country and there never was.
Gawd, where’d you get that load from? The fact that people don’t want to enter a war with Russia that Georgia started and which we don’t have the resources to engage in proves there isn’t an anti-war movement in this country?
Um, sure. Next you’ll be telling me that demanding an immediate ceasefire and a return by both parties to status quo ante is “appeasement.” No, wait — you already have.
We don’t all walk in lockstep with each other, despite the propaganda that says we do.
Yea. Of course not. *wink wink*
I’ve been to the meetings at the Manhattan Institute, the ones where you guys all unmask and look like those protoplasmic creatures from a bad Twilight Zone episode…
The fact that people don’t want to enter a war with Russia that Georgia started and which we don’t have the resources to engage in proves there isn’t an anti-war movement in this country?
No, the fact that you will pass along the propaganda I highlighted above proves there is no anti-war movement in this country, and that there never was, at least not in the last 40 years.
No, the fact that you will pass along the propaganda I highlighted above proves
That’s not propaganda, it’s simple fact. Georgia moved its troops into Ossetia first, no matter how much RightWing crack you have smoked. The Russians moved into Ossetia the following day, a move which was so predictable our Secretary of State was supposed to have warned the Georgians not to make their move.
Saying “there is no anti-war movement in this country” because you cannot concede an obvious fact is just plain idiotic. I could just as well claim your inability to acknowledge that Georgia’s assault on Ossetia precipitated their defeat proves that the Right worships Satan and endorses pedophilia.
Excuse me, but South Ossetia is still sovereign Georgian territory, not an independent nation. Russia didn’t move into Ossetia after that; they invaded Georgia. All one has to do is to look at a map to see this. South Ossetia (and Abkhazia) was never recognized as independent; according to the Wikipedia entry for it, not even the Russians have asserted it is an independent nation. Therefore, by deductive reasoning, South Ossetia is still part of Georgia, Georgia responded militarily into South Ossetia (its own territory) to stop the violence being committed by South Ossetian “fighters”, and Russia illegally invaded Georgia, a UN member nation, to “help” the South Ossetians. It is nearly the same justification Saddam Hussein used when he illegally invaded another UN member nation, Kuwait (no, I’m not calling for a similar response on the part of the U.S.).
I stand by what I said that there is no anti-war movement in this country. If the anti-war movement was so against war, they would be outside the Russian embassy on a daily basis with “No blood for oil” signs, instead of spending all this time justifying what Russia has done. I used the above Iraq-Kuwait reference because this is exactly what the “anti-war” crowd did then; condemned any potential U.S. military response before it occurred, yet never chastising Saddam Hussein.
Excuse me, but South Ossetia is still sovereign Georgian territory, not an independent nation.
It was “sovereign Georgian territory” over which Georgia had exerted little authority and which was demilitarized and run in a largely autonomous manner by the Ossetians, and which was secured by Russian “peacekeepers” for years. In a similar way to that in which the Kurdish region within “sovereign Iraq territory” was managed prior to 2003. Any guess what our response have been if Saddam had launched an all out military response on Kurdistan in the late 90’s??
Georgia conducted a military assault which disturbed the status quo which had existed for years. The Russians reacted exactly as one would predict. You can rationalize it all you want and claim they were within their rights launching and all out assault against an autonomous enclave, but the fact remains that they were the ones who rolled tanks and major ground forces into Ossetia, and launched air strikes, which altered the status quo and precipitated the conflict. They started the war, regardless of whether you believe they were 100% justified in so doing.
I stand by what I said that there is no anti-war movement in this country. If the anti-war movement was so against war
You can stand by it, but it’s still asinine and unsupported by your reasoning. And in response I will stand by what I said about the Right being Satan worshippers and pedophiles.
I can’t remember which rightwing twit coined that “no anti-war movement” (only anti-US) bullshit — was it Rog Simon? Pantload? Rush?
In a similar way to that in which the Kurdish region within “sovereign Iraq territory” was managed prior to 2003. Any guess what our response have been if Saddam had launched an all out military response on Kurdistan in the late 90’s??
No sir, it wasn’t. Hussein was under UN and U.S. sanctions. Georgia wasn’t under any such cloud except by the Russians; and nobody (outside of the Russian government) was real thrilled with the way that was anyway. And nobody ever thought Iraqi Kurdistan was in any way autonomous in the way the South Ossetians thought their area was; the U.S. kept the Kurds from breaking away because of the potential Turkish response (to their own Kurdish population wanting independence).
And in response I will stand by what I said about the Right being Satan worshippers and pedophiles.
Since you haven’t yet made a rational argument as to why Russia was the aggressor, and have resorted to the above, I bid you adieu.
No sir, it wasn’t. Hussein was under UN and U.S. sanctions. Georgia wasn’t under any such cloud except by the Russians; and nobody (outside of the Russian government) was real thrilled with the way that was anyway
You miss the point entirely. The point is that braying “sovereign territory” as a way of sticking your head into the sand as to who militarized the dispute is a bunch of crap.
And nobody ever thought Iraqi Kurdistan was in any way autonomous in the way the South Ossetians thought their area was
You’re kidding, right? Nobody? Ever heard of the Peshmerga? Or how about the PKK. It seems your ignorance on Kurdistan is also boundless.
Since you haven’t yet made a rational argument as to why Russia was the aggressor
You frankly wouldn’t know a rational argument if it bit you in the ass; you repeatedly fail to grasp fairly simple points.
For example, my assertion about Satan worship and pedophilia wasn’t serious, it was a parodic imitation of your “there is no anti-war movement” bullshit, by making an absurd conclusion and purporting to base it on facts which don’t support it.
And unless I’m very much mistaken, YOU were the one trying to argue that Russia was the aggressor.
My point was simply that the Georgian assault on Ossetia set off the tinderbox, a simple factual point which you refuse to concede, irrespective of whose claim to the territory was legally correct.
And nobody ever thought Iraqi Kurdistan was in any way autonomous in the way the South Ossetians thought their area was
You’re kidding, right? Nobody? Ever heard of the Peshmerga? Or how about the PKK. It seems your ignorance on Kurdistan is also boundless.