RICE CRITICIZES RUSSIA FOR DEFENDING RUSSIANS IN SOUTH OSSETIA

Why must the Bush administration, and specifically Condoleeza Rice, continually criticize Russia for defending Russian nationals living in South Ossetia?

Today Rice pompously warned Russia that it faces isolation from the West.

The BBC reports on Rice's speech. Even though for the first time (that I know) that Rice acknowledged that Georgia and its president Mikheil Saakashvili started the conflict, Rice went on to blame Russia for its actions.

""Russia's leaders violated Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity and launched a full-scale invasion across an internationally recognised border," she said, adding that Russia had also violated the terms of a ceasefire negotiated by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy.
Ms Rice said it had been "deeply disconcerting" that Russia had tried to "dismember" Georgia by recognising Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and argued that Russia's actions were part of what she described as a "worsening pattern of behaviour". "

What would the U.S. do if Mexico attacked Tijuana with missiles and artillery and aimed them at civilians, mainly American citizens, who happened to be living there? It would be hard to believe that Bush would not send in several brigades of marines to protect the American ex-patriates from Mexican aggression against a defenseless civilian population.

So why all the condemnation of Russia for doing the exact same thing in South Ossetia after Saakashvili ordered the bombing of Russian civilians living in Tskhinvali, the capital of Ossetia?

Rice and Bush are hypocrites. They know that allowing Georgia to join NATO is a direct threat to Georgia's neighbor, Russia. Suppose Georgia was already a NATO member, other NATO members would have been obligated to join the fighting and fight the Russians. This is insanity and totally irrational.

The world must stop Georgia from becoming a member of NATO and must stop Bush and Rice and Cheney from starting a war with Russia in the last few months of their term.

U.S. - STOP FIRING MISSILES INTO PAKISTANI VILLAGES

The United States under George Bush is making the same catastrophic mistake in Pakistan that it has been making continuously in Afghanistan: bombing villages and houses and schools with war planes and/or unmanned drones.

The BBC reports that at least five Pakistani villagers have died in the latest U.S. air strike with a missile from an unmanned drone.

"The officials said missiles hit the village of Baghar in South Waziristan, close to the Afghan border. . . .

"The incident came as the top US military commander met Pakistani officials to discuss growing tension over US attacks along the border.

"At least six people were injured in the attack, according to BBC correspondent Dilawar Khan in the neighbouring North West Frontier Province.

"Four missiles were reportedly fired at the village of Baghar Cheena, about half a kilometre from the Afghan border."

These attacks from the sky invariably kill local villagers, innocent men, women and children. The very nature of dropping a bomb, even a "smart" bomb, kills ordinary people just happening to be in the vicinity. Children are always vulnerable because the "enemy" here consists of heads of households who happen to be religious jihadists angry at Americans for invading and occupying Islamic countries like Iraq. Bush would have us believe that the "enemy" is an organized group that likes to attack Americans. He forgot to say that this "group" mainly is composed of illiterate villagers and farmers who resent Americans occupying or attacking their country and other Islamic nations.

I call upon the U.S. to stop and desist from any further air raids whether with manned bombers or with unmanned drones. Airplanes should not be used to kill and incinerate people on the ground. Airplanes should perform only peaceful purposes.

Furthermore, I want a United States that does not have "enemies." Otherwise, Americans will find themselves in a state of continuous war, whether with Pakistan, Afghanistan, or whomever.

SAAKASHVILI CLAIMS RUSSIA STARTED WAR

Now Georgian president and Bush protege Mikheil Saakashvili is engaged in a public relations campaign to prove to the world that the Russians attacked first on the night of August 7th.

C. J. Chivers reports in today's The New York Times:

"Georgia has released intercepted telephone calls purporting to show that part of a Russian armored regiment crossed into the separatist enclave of South Ossetia nearly a full day before Georgia’s attack on the capital, Tskhinvali, late on Aug. 7.

"Georgia is trying to counter accusations that the long-simmering standoff over South Ossetia, which borders Russia, tilted to war only after it attacked Tskhinvali. Georgia regards the enclave as its sovereign territory."

But the intercepted phone calls are ambiguous at best. Russia did have troops in South Ossetia before the attack, and the phone calls could easily be interpreted as moving units in and out. So the Georgian claim that Russia was moving in vast quantities of men and arms is without hard evidence.

Even with the presence of Russian troops approved by the EU as peace-keepers, Saakashvili was wrong in ordering the Georgian army to begin shelling the civilian population of South Ossetia and its capital Tskhinvali.

Georgia claims South Ossetia as its own territory but for hundreds of years, the Georgians never got along with or accepted the Ossetians and vice versa. In fact, they despised one another. No wonder that most of the Ossetians rejected Georgian sovereignty.

Saakashvili thought he could bomb the Ossetians enough so that they would capitulate. It reminds me of the U.S. strategy in Vietnam. Destroy this town in order to "save" it. Saakashvili and the Georgians would rather destroy Ossetia than lose it to Russia.

Now Saakashvili is trying to claim the Russians started it all. Little evidence of that in today's NY Times.

FAILURE OF BUSH FOREIGN POLICY: VENEZUELA & BOLOVIA KICK OUT AMERICAN AMBASSADORS

Yesterday both Venezuela and Boliva kicked out the American ambassadors. At the same time Honduras refused to accept the credentials of the new U.S. ambassador. This was a horrible day for U.S. diplomacy and shows the results of the dismal approach of Bush and Condoleeza Rice towards Latin America.

Both Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia are in the process of re-doing their agreements with foreign oil and gas companies for the purpose of keeping more revenues and profits in their own countries from the sale of their indigenous natural resources. Of course many Republicans and neo-cons here in the U.S. see this as "socialism" and a dire threat to the "American way of life." But what Morales and Chavez are doing is exactly the same as what is now happening in Russia under Medvedev and Putin, only the Latinos are not using physical threat and force.

This is no reason for the U.S. under Bush to make the Venezuelans and Bolivians out to be "enemies." And certainly the U.S. should mind its own business and refrain from trying to aid opponents of Chavez and Morales in overthrowing democratically elected governments.

SARAH PALIN'S UNDERSTANDING OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

The Republicans might well win the election and then we will have Sarah Palin as vice president. Last night on ABC, Palin had no idea what Charlie Gibson meant by the infamous and notorious "Bush Doctrine." My question then is, where has she been for the last five years? The lady obviously does not keep up with current events. The Bush Doctrine allows for unlimited, unending war. It used to be a truism of U.S. foreign policy that the U.S. would never start a war. Now with the Bush Doctrine, anything goes. Preemptive wars, preventive wars, wars based on a president's whims. And Palin has no idea of any of that.

Furthermore, her answer to whether the U.S. would go to war with Russia was downright scary. She said, "Perhaps, so." Here we have a case of that hot head, neocon, Bush protege, Mikheil Saakashvili ordering Georgian army to attack a civilian population in South Ossetia. And attack they surely did, with lethal missiles and a heavy barrage of deadly artillery. Enters Russia to defend the many Russians in South Ossetia. Palin thinks this would be a casus belli?

If the Republicans win, and Palin is the next VP, be prepared for more war, more irrational foreign policy, more dumbing down from the new administration. Incredibly, some Republicans say that Palin represents the new face of the Republican Party. They may be right.

BUSH ORDERS SECRET RAIDS INTO PAKISTAN

Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti write in today's The New York Times that President Bush has given secret orders allowing American incursions and attacks on the tribal areas in northwestern Pakistan.

This is outrageous and another example of Bush's flouting of principles of international law. Bush may have the authorization under American law by virtue of the AUMF passed in October 2001, but it is an affront to the rule of law in Pakistan, and will have the certain effect of creating even more animosity of Pakistanis towards Americans.

Report Schmitt and Mazzetti:

"The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s tribal areas. "

No country is allowed to enter another sovereign country without permission or conduct military raids against nationals living in that country. I don't care whether it is done for a good purpose or not. This simply violates all the provisions of international law and the rules of the United Nations.

The alternative is the dark world of Bush and Cheney where everything goes and international law evaporates into just another meaningless platitude. And no, the argument that the world is different after September 11 is not sufficient to create a lawless violent world where the "forces of good" are aligned against the "forces of evil, and the "good guys" can do anything they want outside the realm of law to the "bad guys."

Mazzetti and Schmitt write:

"Pakistan’s top army officer said Wednesday that his forces would not tolerate American incursions like the one that took place last week and that the army would defend the country’s sovereignty “at all costs.” . . ."

"Unilateral action by the American forces does not help the war against terror because it only enrages public opinion,” said Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, during a speech on Friday. “In this particular incident, nothing was gained by the action of the troops.”"

REPUBLICAN ATTACK ON OBAMA FOR LIPSTICK REMINDS ME OF SOUTHERN RACISTS ATTACKING BLACK MEN FOR DISRESPECTING WHITE WOMEN BY LOOKING AT THEM

This tempest in a teapot that the McCain people are stirring about Barack Obama and his remark about lipstick reminds me of the experience of many a black youngster in the deep old South. A young white lady walks by, a black man happens to look her way, and all of a sudden, the white Ku Klux Klan is accusing the man of disrespecting the white woman.

There is little difference between McCain coordinator Steve Schmidt's campaign against Obama and the white domination and denigration of blacks in the South.

The lipstick on a pig comment was clearly not directed against Palin, but what if it was? It is harmless enough. She was the one who originally said that lipstick made the difference between a hockey mom and some mean attack dog.

The Republicans under Schmidt are trying to belittle and embarrass Obama into apologizing. But Obama is right, there is nothing to apologize for. It is John McCain and Sarah Palin who should apologize to Barack Obama.

McCain's people are like the racists in the old South who were always trying to put down the uppity Negro.

BUSH MAKES BIG MISTAKE, SENDS MORE TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN

President George W. Bush's decision to redeploy more troops into Afghanistan is another strategic blunder in his "war on terror." The people who are fighting U.S. troops there are not terrorists but tribesmen like Pastuns who resent the presence in their country of foreign troops, especially when those foreigners drop bombs onto houses in their villages, causing the deaths of countless women and children and civilians.

Nor do Afghanis like it when American forces storm their homes in the middle of the night, search and frisk their women and wives, and otherwise turn their bedrooms into shambles.

The U.S. should not be fighting in Afghanistan. The War in Iraq was a mistake. The war in Afghanistan is just as wrong. The hunt for Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar should be done as a police action, not as a battle involving the U.S. Army or the U.S. Air Force.

The move of Bush to put more American soldiers will just have the effect of increasing American casualties. As history shows, many times in the past foreign armies have invaded and tried to subdue the tribesmen in Afghanistan. Not one foreign army has ever succeeded.

MANY MCCAIN SUPPORTERS WANT "CONSTITUTIONAL DICTATOR"

Sandy Levinson has an intersting analysis on the legal blog Balkinization on why McCain is still considered by many to be more presidential than Barack Obama. Many people want a "constitutional dictator" in the footsteps of Bush who even now assumes dictatorial powers in the "fight against terror."

Writes Levinson:

"[T]he undercurrent of the McCain candidacy, as has been true of the Bush Administration, is that we need a strong-man President, the equivalent at times of a "constitutional dictator," in order to "stand up," which means, among other things, playing fast and loose with legal constraints on the President. (Indeed, the Bush Administration position is basically that there aren't any legal constraints on the President when acting as Commander-in-Chief.)"

Levinson points out that Hillary Clinton's 3 AM ad really was touting herself as more dictatorial and power-arrogating than Obama possibly could be. Levinson writes:

"As I've argued earlier, the tacit message of Clinton's notorious "3AM" ad was the existence of a dictatorial president who would make unilateral (and instantaneous) decisions to respond to America's enemies. A truly serious debate would explore the extent to which McCain (and Obama) agree with such a picture, as against their concession that presidential authority is considerably more limited (though, of course, we might all support the idea of "unlimited" authority in some extreme situations). Followup questions could include whether any of the law-breakers in the Bush Administration will be held accountable, including the possibility of prosecution and punishment upon conviction for participating in war crimes. I would be shocked beyond belief if any of the media stars who will be running the debates will be interested (or capable) of asking such questions. Jim Lehrer wasn't even willing to ask about Abu Ghraib four years ago in the first Bush-Kerry debate, and I see no reason to expect better of him this time around."

Levinson bemoans the mindless way many voters go about choosing their preference, not based on issues but on raw impressions. This is the same point made by George Lakoff about whom I posted several days ago. The race will not be won on issues but on personality impressions and code words and phrases.

So I second Levinson's wish that TV moderators ask the candidates what they think about presidential power and the constitutional limits imposed. The vast body of American voters should not be allowed to form impressions about the candidates without seeing and hearing what Obama and McCain think about Bush's "unitary executive" and whether they judge it in conformity with the U.S. Constitution.

HATRED BETWEEN SOUTH OSSETIANS AND GEORGIANS

Ellen Barry writes a must-read piece in today's The New York Times on life in South Ossetia. Bush and especially Cheney keep saying that Russia must respect the "territorial integrity" of Georgia, but what if the people there don't want to belong to Georgia? Cheney totally ignores the will of the people when he professes support for Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's neo-con American-leaning prime minister. Instead of backing a plebiscite or referendum to let the people there decide, all he does is to foolishly repeat, respect the sovereignty of Georgia.



But the NYTimes article reveals the depth of the animus of South Ossetians towards Georgians, and vice versa. Writes Ellen Barry:

"Over the next three years, Tskhinvali became something like Belfast in Northern Ireland.
The government in Tbilisi established Georgian as the country’s principal language, enraging the Ossetians, whose first two languages were Russian and Ossetian. A few months later, more than 10,000 Georgian demonstrators were transported to Tskhinvali in buses and encircled the city, until they were repelled by Ossetian irregulars and Soviet troops. A true war began in 1991, when thousands of Georgian soldiers entered Tskhinvali. The city was shelled almost nightly from the Georgian-held highlands, and Medeya Alborova recalls holding pillows over her teenage daughters’ heads, as if that could protect them."

No wonder the Ossetians want nothing to do with Saakashvili or the Georgians. Georgians have always looked down upon the people of Ossetia and they even sent in troops back in 1991. It was the Georgian army attacking South Ossetia.

Continues Ellen Barry:

"Even after a cease-fire in 1992, Tskhinvali was isolated from the Georgian territory around it, and accounts of atrocities against Ossetians — rapes and grisly killings — circulated endlessly."

Now place Cheney's support for Georgia's "territorial sovereignty" against this background of discrimination, atrocities and ethnic hatred between the Georgians and the Ossetians. Cheney seems pretty small, doesn't he?