US reconsidering Georgia leader

This is not the first time that the US has prematurely taken sides only to later find out that they were on the wrong side of a war.  Spiegel Online reports that the US gave too much credit to President Saakashvili of Georgia. Though “a friend and ally, (he) could in fact be a gambler — someone who triggered the bloody five-day war and then told the West bold-faced lies.” This of course is nothing new to Justin Raimondo and Patrick Buchanan who foresaw such a scenario. Neo-Conservatives are quick to judge mother Russia, but slow to look at herself:

The attempt to reconstruct the five-day war in August continues to revolve around one key question: Which side was the first to launch military strikes? Information coming from NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) now paints a different picture than the one that prevailed during the first days of the battle for the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali — and is fueling the doubts of Western politicians.

John McCain, seeking to gain political points, wasted no time in calling “my fellow Americans” to embrace the Georgian flag against the evil Russian empire. But once again this has proven to be a presumptous move from the war party who glories in fear. If Western politicians are doubtful about the brief blood bath in the Caucasus, shouldn’t this cause skepticism when America supports a nation over another.

Quote, On Iraq War

The perception in the US that the tide has turned in Iraq is in part because of a change in the attitude of the foreign, largely American, media. The war in Iraq has now been going on for five years, longer than the First World War, and the world is bored with it. US television networks maintain expensive bureaux in Baghdad, but little of what they produce gets on the air. When it does, viewers turn off. US newspaper bureaux are being cut in size. The result of all this is that the American voter hears less of violence in Iraq and can suppose that America’s military adventure there is finally coming good.–Patrick Cockburn

This is not a Hobson’s Choice

A Hobson’s choice is a choice without an alternative. Many first-time voters are treating this election as if it were one. The lesser of two-evils argument has begun to circulate again as it did in late 2003 before the elections that placed George W. Bush in the oval office for another four years. I dealt with some of these issues in a post in 2004.

In 2004, the Bush/Cheney ticket seemed bearable when compared to the Kerry/Edwards ticket. Back then the war still had some support and there were still many questions unanswered. As a result of the skepticism of the population and the fear imposed by the Bush Administration on the population, Kerry and Edwards fell short and Bush regained the confidence of the people in the war on terror. As some have suggested the election of 2004 was one based on fear. So what is the election of 2008 based on?  The answer once again is fear. The context, however, of this election is diametrically different than the previous one. In 2004 Bush was still somewhat popular. Some viewed his actions after 9-11 heroic. His 90% approval ratings in 2001 held well until his re-election in 2004 where his approval ratings were at 50%. But now his ratings are an abysmal 20% or less. In 2004 the economy was re-bounding to the applause of George Will. In 2008, we are closer than ever to Ron Paul’s predictions of a major recession (not just a minor recession). The war continues to be a catastrophic failure, and the war party continues to hail their decision to go to war. Of course, their arguments today are much more subtle since no one dares make the same arguments of 2003…well, Bill Kristol is. One wonders why the Republican Party still allows Kristol to be a voice of reason to their candidates. So once again fear reigns over the corridors of Washington and throughout the United States, and Republicans continue to erect and resurrect the 9-11 towers, reiterating once again the same propaganda that led us into war in the first place.

But what about the Democrats? Are they a better option? Any Biblical Christian knows they are not. They speak of murder in the womb as if it were another day at the park. They advocate feminism that has led to millions of broken homes, they stand on their welfare programs that perpetuate hunger and poverty, they oppose the free-market thinking that taxing the rich will balance out society, they say they oppose war, but in reality they oppose only one war. Their leaders can’t wait to have the military in their hands to send them to the far reaches of this world: Darfur, Haiti, and every other place under the sun for “humanitarian reasons.” Once again, they borrow the Neo-Conservative slogan of “bringing democracy to the world via militaristic adventures.” Democrats do not oppose war, they oppose Bush’s war.

What are we to do in light of this absurd dilemma? Should we not vote, write-in, or succumb to the pressures of a major party? There are a few ideas to consider before one casts their votes in less than two months:

a) The first thing we are to realize is that there are no perfect parties. All parties–major or third parties–are sinful parties. They are flawed options to achieve what we as Christians desire: a nation where God is honored.

b) Though all parties are flawed, it does not mean that they are all worthless. Just as churches are flawed, they are not worthless. God uses men in both spheres to accomplish His purposes.

c) Christ is Lord over all things, including the political sphere. Therefore, it is unbiblical to say that if we do not vote for the Republican Party we will be handing our future over to evil forces. Just as when Bill Clinton was in office, Christ was, is, and will continue to be Lord. Likewise, if Obama wins, Christ is still Lord and He will bring justice to the nations in due time (Psalm 2).

d) In a Republic such as this one, we have the honor of considering other options beyond the major parties. Third Parties have been a tremendous force in American politics. After all, the two big parties were once small parties.

This is not a Hobson’s Choice. In the end, the lesser of two evils is still evil. As the Scriptures say: Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter (Isaiah 5:20)!

Quote, On Palin’s Interview with Charlie Gibson

The London Telegraph reports:

“Comments by the governor of Alaska in her first television interview, in which she said NATO may have to go to war with Russia and took a tough line on Iran’s nuclear program, were the result of two weeks of briefings by neoconservatives.”

“Sources in the McCain camp, the Republican Party, and Washington think tanks say Mrs. Palin was identified as a potential future leader of the neoconservative cause in June 2007. That was when the annual summer cruise organized by the right-of-center Weekly Standard magazine docked in Juneau, the Alaskan state capital, and the pundits on board took tea with Governor Palin.”

Sarah Palin: The New McCain

If invading Russia is an option, I guess so is Iran and Venezuela. Bill Kristol must be proud.

When Gibson said if under the NATO treaty, the United States would have to go to war if Russia again invaded Georgia, Palin responded: “Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

“And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable,” she told Gibson.

Palin and Democrats…

Two quick points:

a) The challenging of Palin over the experience issue is absurd; even Arianna Huffington agrees. Palin will always be surrounded by the greatest intellects and military strategists in the country before she makes a decision on any issue–whether for good or bad.

b) The Democratic Party is falling apart. I wonder if Obama is re-considering his Biden pick. Why not Hillary? That’s a question even Biden wonders.

Olbermann and Matthews say adios…

According to Stephen Spruiell:

Liberal bloggers are attributing the network’s decision to the fact that “the right complained enough,” and while I’d love to take some credit here, I think it had a lot more to do with Keith Olbermann’s outrageous behavior toward his colleagues during the week of the Democratic convention. What is most objectionable about Olbermann is not his politics but his attitude. He has to be a jerk about everything. By all accounts, his rising popularity went to his head and he started pulling the same stunts he is notorious for pulling at every other place he has worked: treating everyone around him like dirt and pushing the envelope further and further on the air.

Yes, I’d like to say conservatives had something to do with it, but the truth is probably closer to what a longtime MSNBC employee told me when I spoke to him for this NR cover story (I didn’t end up using the quote, but it’s a great one): “Sooner or later, Keith is going to collapse under the weight of his own insanity.” This isn’t a total collapse, of course — he’ll still have Countdown — but it’s a big setback for the man who nakedly aspires to be this generation’s Edward R. Murrow. And it happened a lot sooner than anyone thought.

A Neo-Con is a Neo-Con is a Neo-Con

Let us be frank. I think there is a good case to be made for Sarah Palin, as I have done in my previous post. And as Douglas Wilson has pointed out the issue of abortion is the first one that needs to be dealt with before we focus our attention on anything else. If we cannot deal with murder first, it is hard to proceed to other significant moral issues. Palin is indeed remarkable on the issue of life.  She is to be applauded and encouraged to pursue by all means necessary to overturn all laws giving legitimacy to the taking of the unborn life at any stage. But let us not be overly encouraged: she is a neo-con.

From the Jerusalem Post:

“The Jewish community should be very excited that Sarah was selected. She has been very conscious of the Jewish community here in Alaska and now with the opportunity of her new position, she’ll have the opportunity to look at the Jewish community globally,” said Alaskan Republican Jewish Coalition member Terry Gorlick, who knows Palin well and has worked with her on several issues…

“Sarah’s absolutely pro-Israel,” he said, referring to conversations with her and comments she’s made about Israel’s security and its importance to the United States. He noted that as governor she signed a resolution honoring Israel for its 60th birthday…

“She has ties and interests in the Holy Land,” said Gottstein, who described her as someone who could be effective across party lines, noting that he worked well with her despite being a Democrat…

And she received praise from other Jewish quarters, including from Anchorage Chabad Rabbi Yosef Greenberg. He recalled Palin’s support for a Jewish museum he is building there and her hora lessons at the annual Jewish gala she has attended the last two years…

Greenberg also spoke of her reaction to giving birth to a child with special needs. “She said, ‘God doesn’t give you something you can’t handle,'” he said. “It was straight out of the Lubavitch book.”

(Thanks to my friend Chris Ortiz)