Wednesday, August 13, 2008

The Russo-Georgian War: Putin re-defines the status quo

Bottom line?

Russia has now fully returned to the Great National Power club.


"This is not something that just happened — it has been unfolding ever since Putin took power, and with growing intensity in the past five years. Part of it has to do with the increase of Russian power, but a great deal of it has to do with the fact that the Middle Eastern wars have left the United States off-balance and short on resources. As we have written, this conflict created a window of opportunity. The Russian goal is to use that window to assert a new reality throughout the region while the Americans are tied down elsewhere and dependent on the Russians.

The war was far from a surprise; it has been building for months. But the geopolitical foundations of the war have been building since 1992. Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified."

Observation: the Middle East is still far more important to US interests that the Caucasus.

Oh, one more thing........Bob Dole is right.

The Russo-Georgian War does not portend good things for Barry O'Bama on election day.


  1. Too funny. The post blames the current position of the US military as caused by Bush's Folly and cheered by John McCain. And that's bad news for Obama? Only if you are unable to think.

  2. You're not having a very good day, are you, little buddy?

    First, you embarrass yourself over at Joe Guarino's, then you come right over here and repeat your mindless prattle.

    The post DOES NOT say anything like what you want it to say.

    I was going to laugh at your nonsense, but I see Everest and Joe have already put you in your place as our resident asshole.

    Keep up the good work.

  3. Was Roch over in Russia again with his Commie buddies giving breakfast speeches???

    "Russians were told over breakfast yesterday what really happened in Georgia: the conflict in South Ossetia was part of a plot by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to stop Barack Obama being elected president of the United States."

  4. He must be reading a different post than what I am. But then Roch can always imagine the darnedest things and call them fact.

  5. I know it's hard for the narrow-minded to engage in abstract reasoning, but the original post does indeed say that the situation is one that has developed over the past several years and then the blog's author asserts the silly notion that this is bad news for Obama.

    If you head-in-the-sand partisans cannot or will not connect the past several years to the policies of W, you know, the guy in power while this was developing, and wish instead to hopefully imagine that this will somehow be construed as bad for Obama, well, have at it. It's a way of thinking that exposes a true lack of seriousness and a retarded development of the mind.

  6. ?"head-in-the-sand partisans"?

    HAH! I may be a "whack-job", but there's a pot calling kettles black.

  7. The roots of the Russian/Georgian conflict go back decades and have little to do with President Bush.
    Bush inherited a military decimated by Bill Clinton. Along with a Justice Dept., economy, and foreign policy also gone to hell in a handbasket under Clinton. Bush has had to fight a war on several fronts as well as rebuild the above disasters at the same time. I doubt few other men could accomplish what Bush has done given the bucket of crap Bill Clinton left him.

  8. Uh, huh. I'm sure you believe that because I've read where you attribute Clinton's shortcomings to George H. W. Bush and Carter's shortcomings to Nixon and Ford and I suspect you'll attribute the next president's shortcomings to W. Uh, huh.

  9. Roch, if I owned a house for 8 years and didn't take care of it and let it get run down and then you bought it, would you be responsible for it's condition?
    Don't insult our intelligence.

  10. I'm just observing your blind partisan situational ethics, Jaycee. That, if you are a Republican, you are not responsible for the condition of the house you inherit, but if you are a Democrat, you are.

  11. Roch, I think you have the terms "situational ethics" and "reality" mixed up.
    Clinton inherited a great economy, which he managed to squander by the end of his reign.
    Clinton inherited a robust military, which he reduced and alienated.
    Clinton inherited a good Justice Dept., which he mismanaged through Janet Reno until it was a laughing stock.
    Clinton failed to act when US citizen were killed by Al Qaeda on six separate occasions thereby emboldening bin Laden and AQ which resulted in the 9/11 attacks.
    President Bush was left to clean up a horrendous mess. By all accounts, he's succeeded.
    Your opinion may vary.

  12. "Clinton inherited a great economy, which he managed to squander by the end of his reign."

    Jaycee, let me know when the drugs wear off, I can't have a discussion with someone who fabricates their own reality.

  13. Roch, you'd better go back and look at the market for the last year of Clinton's Reign As Supreme King. We were nose-diving for a year before Bush took office and turned it around in spite of the 9/11 attacks.

  14. "I can't have a discussion with someone who fabricates their own reality."

    In other words, you have nothing of value with which to rebut the points made by jaycee.

    It's just Standard Operating Procedure for one of the most usual of Usual Suspects, of which we are NEVER surprised.

  15. "In other words, you have nothing of value with which to rebut the points made by jaycee."

    Yeah, I do: Reality.

    But I'll let you guys look it up. You insignificant old codgers are becoming a waste of time with your proud ignorance.

  16. Roch, your knowledge of "reality" ranks right up there with the depth of Barack Obama's "experience."
    Feel free to refute my opinions on the disaster that was Bill Clinton's presidency and the mess George Bush inherited.

  17. Jaycee,

    Look at the growth of the stock market over Clinton's term versus Bush's term. Look at the shrinking of the deficit under Clinton versus its mammoth growth under Bush. Look at the shrinking of unemployment under Clinton to historic lows versus its increase under Bush. Look at the growth of median income under Clinton versus its stagnation under Bush.

    Just check in with reality, then get back with me on the ways the Clinton economy was a "disaster."

    (And this is what makes you guys so laughably unworthy of serious consideration -- you don't even have a grasp of the most basic facts of reality. You'd rather apply a partisan position than deal with facts. You'd think men of your age would have achieved a little intellectual maturity, at least enough to know when you are sacrificing reason for make believe.)

  18. Stock market growth under Clinton was largely a result of the presidents before him, you know that. He inherited a bed of roses planted by Republicans, and he squandered it. It was typical of everything he and co-president Hillary did while in our White House.
    The myth of the Clinton surplus:
    "The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration."
    What's laughable is that your ilk seeks to lay everything on George Bush as if nothing ever happened before he took office. I'll be you blame the 9/11 attacks on Bush, too, don't you?

  19. True or false:

    1. When Clinton took office, he inherited an unemployment rate of over 7.3%. When he left office, unemployment was 4.2%, a 43% decrease.

    2. When Bush took office, unemployment was at 4.2%. Today it is at 5.7%, an increase of 36%.

    3. When Clinton took office, the federal budget deficit was $320B. When he left office, it was $32B, a 90% decrease.

    4. When Bush took office, the federal deficit was $32B, it is projected by the CBO to be $482B this fiscal year. (And that's with the war being "off the books"), a 1,500% increase.

    5. When Clinton took office, the DOW was at 2,700. When he left office, it had grown to 10,800, an increase of 300%.

    6. When Bush took office, the DOW was at 10,800. Today it is at 11,600, an increase of 7%.

    7. When Clinton took office, per capita income (in 2006 dollars) was $21,000. When he left office, it was $26,000, an increase of 24%.

    8. When Bush took office, per capita income was $26,000. Today it is $26,300, an increase of 1%.

    It's gotta be tough living in a fog.

  20. OK, Roch, you got me.
    I made all of it up.
    Nothing I said is the truth.
    I long for the days of a draft-dodging, adulterous president who destroys the military, makes our Justice Dept. a joke, has no national drug policy, lies every time he opens his mouth, sexually assaults women in our White House, and let's his wife tell him which foreign countries to bomb. I strongly desire another president who will stand idly by while our citizens are murdered by terrorists in the US and foreign countries. I sincerely wish for a president who will facilitate the moral decay of our society as badly as Clinton did. I want a sociopathic sexual deviate in the White House who has only his interests at heart and not those of our country.
    Happy now?

  21. Your sources, please?

    Bush vs. Clinton: The Economic Verdict

    "I checked the employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and found that 60 months into the Clinton expansion, the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent vs. 4.5 percent for Bush. The last time the jobless rate was as high as 5.3 percent under Clinton was January 1997, 49 months into the Clinton expansion."

    The Republicans forced it:
    "The U.S. economy was already expanding, and the disintegration of the Soviet Union seemingly meant that defense spending could come down–which encouraged Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to cut interest rates. Then Clinton got a Republican Congress in 1995 that was also eager to bring the budget into balance."

    Economic growth:
    "Now, one way to statistically compare the two economic records is by looking at the Bush expansion vs. the Clinton expansion. And 21 quarters into each, the economy has grown 16.6 percent under Bush vs. 19.9 percent under Clinton–advantage No. 42. And the unemployment rate 22 quarters into each expansion–jobs numbers come out more frequently – show that the current unemployment rate is 4.4 percent vs. 4.5 percent under Clinton."

    It was handed to Clinton, he didn't work for it:
    "The Clinton administration clearly benefited from an expansion that began well before the election and well before they ever passed a single piece of economic legislation."

  22. My point, Roch, in case you missed it, is that economic folks more expert than you or I have pretty much opined that the president is not responsible for the economy during their term. By and large, they merely play the hand they’re dealt.
    Clinton was dealt a sweet hand, and managed to squander it while worrying about nothing more than his personal peccadilloes. Bush was dealt a crappy hand by Clinton and managed to sustain it in spite of fighting a major war and many smaller ones against the Islamic terrorists that Clinton was too busy to fight. (Those under-the-desk activities take up a LOT of time, don’t ya know!)