Posted on 08/15/2008 2:29:26 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The phone may not have rung at 3 a.m., but when word came of Russia's brutal invasion of neighboring Georgia, one of the two presidential candidates instinctively understood the adventure's long-range implications.
And one did not.
Indeed, the crisis in the Caucasus is giving voters real insight into how John McCain and Barack Obama might handle a foreign-policy emergency.
In his first public reaction, Obama merely called on "Georgia and Russia to show restraint" - a reflexive exercise in what Sen. Joe Lieberman rightly labeled "moral neutrality."
Then Obama called for a UN Security Council resolution condemning Russia - apparently unaware that Moscow, a permanent Security Council member, can veto any such resolution.
He also suggested sending an international force under "an appropriate UN mandate" to South Ossetia. (See above, Security Council veto.)
Obama's initial reaction was that only Georgia's territorial sovereignty was at stake - and that the way to resolve that issue was to negotiate.
But McCain immediately understood that the real issue wasn't just a Georgian territory violation, but Vladimir Putin's premeditated effort to let Eastern Europe know that Russia intends thoroughly to dominate what it terms its "near abroad."
And, belligerently, to let the world know that Moscow again considers itself a player on the global stage.
"World history is often made in remote, obscure countries," McCain said. "It is being made in Georgia today."
Translation: Small regional clashes can have ominous wider implications.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
It’s still a major New York City paper that lots of people read. As a matter of fact, what is their readership compared to the Grey Lady these days?
I’ve always said at this point in time/history, with world events as they are, SCREW the McCain Derangement Syndrone people and the horse they rode in on. He will be a really tough, gritty, AMERICA FIRST POTUS and that is what we need now.
Believe it or not, early this morning someone posted an article in the NY Times that basically agreed with this article. Not quite as forceful but they at least acknowledged the difference.
“the crisis in the Caucasus is giving voters real insight into how John McCain and Barack Obama might handle a foreign-policy emergency.”
Obama is totally consumed by Dr. Corsi’s book “Obama Nation”. He lacks the maturity to understand what’s happening to the little country on the Black Sea, and what it means to the Free World. If he wins the election, you may as well buy stock in the ‘New and Improved Soviet Empire,’ which will be rebuilding the Iron Curtain. While Obama fiddles.
Obama’s reaction is just like the CNN reporter asking the Georgian Prime Minister if they tried opening a ‘dialogue’ with the Russians while bombs are falling and tanks are rolling through Georgia.
So? They are usually more correct in their reporting than the big Lib papers. What is it that you suspect might not be accurate? Because all of what's in the excerpt is true, from what I've read, particularly these two below that the article pointed out...
In his first public reaction, Obama merely called on "Georgia and Russia to show restraint" - a reflexive exercise in what Sen. Joe Lieberman rightly labeled "moral neutrality."
Then Obama called for a UN Security Council resolution condemning Russia - apparently unaware that Moscow, a permanent Security Council member, can veto any such resolution.
It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, so I'm off to have a wonderful weekend. Truly hope all of you do, too.
ummmm....errrr.....I’ve heard reports that Georgians were slaughtering South Ossetians, hence the Russian intervention..........true or false???????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.