Originally Posted By gadzuux Sounds preposterous, right? Maybe not. Link to Robert Scheer's current column, with excerpts ... <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/13/EDCD129NI4.DTL&hw=robert+scheer&sn=001&sc=1000" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...&sc=1000</a> Georgia war is a neocon election ploy Robert Scheer, Creators Syndicate, Inc. Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election? Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government, ending his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser. Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the U.S. Iraq invasion. There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, which clearly was expected to produce a Russian counter-reaction. It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate's foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new Cold War, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, it was Putin's Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill. Yes, it sounds diabolical, but that may be the most accurate way to assess the designs of the McCain campaign in matters of war and peace. There is every indication that the candidate's demonization of Putin is an even grander plan than the previous use of Hussein to fuel American militarism with the fearsome enemy that it desperately needs. McCain gets to look tough with a new Cold War to fight while Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, scrambling to make sense of a more measured foreign policy posture, will seem weak in comparison. Meanwhile, the dire consequences of the Bush legacy McCain has inherited, from the disaster of Iraq to the economic meltdown, conveniently will be ignored. But it will provide the military-industrial complex, which has helped bankroll the neoconservatives, with an excuse for ramping up a military budget that is already bigger than that of the rest of the world combined. What is at work here is a neoconservative, self-fulfilling prophecy in which Russia is turned into an enemy that ramps up its largely reduced military, and Putin is cast as the new Joseph Stalin bogeyman, evoking images of the old Soviet Union. McCain has condemned a "revanchist Russia" that should once again be contained For McCain to so fervently embrace Scheunemann's neoconservative line of demonizing Russia in the interest of appearing tough during an election is a reminder that a senator can be old and yet wildly irresponsible. ----------------------------------------- We all already know that there's NOTHING the GOP won't stoop to if they think it will benefit them - including starting unjustified wars. Their recent history at this prevents republican apologists from scoffing at the suggestion. So how preposterous is this really? This is the second time in just the past few months that McCain has had high ranking campaign staff with clear conflicts of interest. The first time it was the lobbyist for Columbia. Now it's the lobbyist for Georgia. Who's interests is this guy looking out for - the US or foreign nations. McCain's campaign is looking like a rats nest of special interests. And is it a coincidence that McCain has been amping up the rhetoric against russia for at least a couple of years now? Maybe it's because he's already bought and paid for. If he gets into the white house, is he going to lead us into a shooting war with russia's military? The same military we've been trying to avoid confrontation with for fifty years? These are the issues - not paris and britney, and not tire gauges.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I think they had something to do with the earthquakes in China also....then those SOB's are going to cause solar flares and a round of hurricanes -- oh brother -- maybe Rosie O'Donnell will recap this for us also.
Originally Posted By DAR So wait it was the GOP that invaded Georgia? I think this writer got his Georgia's mixed up. DVC better be careful.
Originally Posted By gadzuux And this is why you guys would make lousy democrats - you're still not cynical enough. To you, it's just (yet)another coincidence that McCain's "Senior Foreign Policy Advisor" is a shill for Georgia - for the past four years. How about the fact that just yesterday the Georgian president issued a public plea - not the the US, not to the president - but to "Senator McCain" to intervene on his behalf. And you guys think it's obama that's struttin' around above his station. Let's deconstruct what's happened here. Georgia suddenly moves into and militarily occupies two provinces that are in dispute between Georgia and Russia. This president of Georgia - who already has candidate McCain's 'senior foreign policy advisor' in his hip pocket, must have known that his actions would provoke Russia. What he didn't know is how much Russia would overstep in their reaction. But the theory goes that McCain's man - Scheunemann - central to his campaign - prompted the Georgian president into his actions, in the hope that this new unrest would allow candidate McCain to look "presidential". That ain't so far-fetched, especially when you consider Scheunemann's last gig - directing PNAC and cheerleading the bush administration into war with iraq. It's what this guy does - his specialty. So mock all you want, but you also might consider the recent track record of the people you're cozying up to. McCain has been talking smack about the russians for over a year now - he speaks of "containing" them and threatening to have them removed from the G8, which would result in severe economic consequences to russia's stability. He's hitting them in the pocketbook and I think he has their attention. My opinion is that McCain has been deliberately twisting Russia's tale - he's been too strident and too often with his provocative comments. In turn, Russia has now wildly overreacted and sprung a full scale invasion on a country with no significant military capability. Now they're asking us - or actually McCain - to help them. Fortunately, we don't have much military capability either - at least not right this minute. But that could change very soon. With Bush in the white house, and McCain struggling along with a sputtering campaign, we could find ourselves duking it out with the russian military. And over what? Two little balkan booger-burgs? Needless to say, this wouldn't be good. Do YOU trust Bush and McCain to keep us out of needless wars? I certainly don't - especially during a presidential election. And it's looking suspiciously like the Georgians were manipulated by "us" into starting this thing. Who would do such a thing? Hmmm? And why?
Originally Posted By woody >>Georgia war is a neocon election ploy<< With Obama on vacation in Hawaii and virtually out of the debate, it would seem like a Democratic plot to give McCain an opening that Obama is weak on foreign policy. But then again, Obama IS weak on foreign policy. Aloha Obama!!!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>We all already know that there's NOTHING the GOP won't stoop to if they think it will benefit them - including starting unjustified wars. Their recent history at this prevents republican apologists from scoffing at the suggestion.<< Guess I can't comment on this, as this pitilessly accurate analysis of the situation makes it clear that anyone who disagrees is just dead wrong. Never mind. <a href="http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/poisoning_well.htm" target="_blank">http://changingminds.org/disci...well.htm</a>
Originally Posted By Walter Elias Well, first of all this article comes from the San Francisco Chronicle. So,.... Anyway, here are just a few of the comments people had to about the article: I guess our opinions are as important and logical as a columnist. freddyv8/13/2008 7:57:07 AM Wow. I didn't know that people this crazy were given newspaper columns. But then again, this is the San Francisco Chronicle, so... I just have to say again: wow. Recommend: (62)(29)[Report Abuse] pepsiholic8/13/2008 8:20:21 AM Now you know why they call them the looney left. Recommend: (55)(27)[Report Abuse] This comment was left by a user who has been blocked by an SFGate editor. sfburke8/13/2008 9:30:21 AM So a large, repressive, authoritarian regime invades a small democratic country (using "peace-keeping" forces) and the only analysis Sheer can produce is that this must be a neo-con plot? Talk about a blinkered perspective on the world. Of course Sheer can produce no evidence to support his conclusion other than that an aide to McCain once was lobbyist for Georgia. It is interesting to compare Sheer's analysis with the very similar propoganda from the Russian counsulate appearing on the same page. In one sense, Sheer is right about this being a new Cold War conflict; Sheer is once again taking his marching orders from the Kremlin. Recommend: (42)(15)[Report Abuse] drpete8/13/2008 9:48:20 AM It is not a matter of left and right. Fact: The polls will shift towards McCain because of this. Fact: The georgian army attacked first, despite it's being pointless as a military maneuver. Fact: they never would have attacked without U.S. license or encouragement. Fact: Conservatives would do anything to boost McCain and get him elected. We predicted on matrix-evolutions dot com that such would happen weeks ago, though an attack on Iran to goose up the jingoism seemed more probable at the time. The comments on here seem much like a Dana Perino press conference. Bush and company obviously lied about WMD to get us into Iraq. The crazy people are the ones so stupid as to deny this. Would Bush and company deceitfully encourage Saakashvilli to start a war so as to emotionally jigger the elction toward McCain? Only those who delight in adding 2 + 3 and getting 4 would think otherwise. Dr. and Mrs. Peter V. Calabria gekkobear8/13/2008 9:54:32 AM Ok, so Georgia and Russia both are willing to sacrifice (Georgia it's people, economy and freedom; Russia it's world standing) in order to help the Republicans. Well Russia is a big country, since they're willing to do anything for Republicans, why don't we have them clean up Iraq and Afghanistan for us. You know, since we own them, and can persuade them to do things not in their best interest just by asking nicely. Hell, if this is true, and wide swaths of the world are beholden to the Republicans alone for goodwill; and will in fact risk their entire countries for the good of Republicans; then who would rationally vote against them? You know, since they rule the world with the Illuminati and the British Milk Advisory Board, overseeing earth for the good of the triumvirate of advanced alien races (or whatever explanation you have for this bizarre reality denying rant today). Look out, the Republicans are turning on their Hurricane machine and reading your thoughts. AAAARRGHHH Recommend: (31)(8)[Report Abuse] thogwummpy8/13/2008 9:57:13 AM Moonbats unite! Geez, how pathetic. Yet ANOTHER conspiracy theory plopped out by the hateful treasonous Left! Just like the BS canard that "Saddam wasn't Saddam" which underpins their view of the Iraq conflict; when they can't argue on merit, they create fictions and convoluted allegations to construct some delusion...and then they float it as if they themselves attended the backroom cabal they denounce as if it were fact. (yet...these Neo-Comms [new Communists] can't imagine that Obama investing 20 years in a racist church; has any inclinations along the lines of that congregation---in other words, EVERY nutball Leftist conspiracy, is selective in that it must meet a singular requirement: invention of some way to slam conservatives/America/truth; in order to further the collectivist authoritarian agenda bent on demolishing individual liberty and national honor) Scheer is the kind of pin-head full of bile, who will absurdly claim to be "kind and enlightened." Dog-squeeze, sir! Recommend: (39)(16)[Report Abuse] vanderleun8/13/2008 10:11:11 AM Again we find that the only thing that keeps the drool from drenching his keyboard is the classic Scheer beard that masks the receding chin. Recommend: (26)(14)[Report Abuse]
Originally Posted By woody >> I certainly don't - especially during a presidential election. And it's looking suspiciously like the Georgians were manipulated by "us" into starting this thing.<< Nice. No mention of Russia's participation. Russia armed the South Ossetia, who fired on Georgia repeatedly. Blaming the Georgian victims as usual and not stopping to blame the US again and again. This is getting old, but its dangerous to think US is to blame for Russian aggression. No wonder the Human Rights groups and anti-war groups are silent on this Georgian invasion. They see moral equivalence between the Georgia and Iraq Wars. They are not equivalent. It's more equivalent to compare the Kuwait and Georgia Invasions. Or maybe we are back to the beginning of the Europeans wars where things happen again, over and over again, on territorial disputes.
Originally Posted By gadzuux As a point of order, scheer is a syndicated columnist - many major dailies run his column, not just the SF Chronicle. >> Guess I can't comment on this ... << You can comment all you like, dug - just something more than a dismissive "oh brother" would be welcome. >> Nice. No mention of Russia's participation. << Russia was deliberately provoked. It was Georgia who started this fight, not russia. That's like you taking a poke at evander holyfield. And yes - Russia way over-reacted. Best guess is that they had a pre-existing plan already sitting on a shelf somewhere that they instituted at the drop of a hat.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Best guess is that they had a pre-existing plan already sitting on a shelf somewhere that they instituted at the drop of a hat. << I'll bet ten bucks that People for a New Russian Century has something to do with this...
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Sounds preposterous, right? Maybe not. >>> Maybe so. I often agree with what you say gadzuux, but I think you and this article's author are off the deep end on this one. Just my opinion.
