Maybe John McCain wanted this crises to be a big deal, and his current top foreign policy advisor helped it along to that very end. Kevin, since you didn't yet use the material about that possibility that I sent you, I will post it right here:

Did McCain and FP adviser Randy Scheunemann help wag the dog for electoral advantage (at least, in part)? Maybe so, maybe not; just asking.

1. Noted progressive commentator Robert Scheer at http://www.truthout.org/article/georgia-war-a-neocon-election-ploy. Maybe such scheming happened, maybe not, and maybe mushy in between (some unconscious or thoughts of kill two birds with one stone), but it ought to be talked about.

2. Even Steve Sailer says such relationships as McCain’s top foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann used to have with Caucasus Georgia should be banned. Now Georgia is conveniently on the burner for McCain to make bellicose noises about.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/08/georgia-paid-400k-to-mccains-top.html

as linked from musing by Sully,

3. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/conflict-of-int.html

who also linked to

4. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks14-2008aug14,0,289750.column

by Rosa Brooks, making a similar point to Scheer’s.

Literal money quote:

Between Jan. 1, 2007, and May 15, 2008, while Scheunemann was also a paid McCain advisor, "Georgia paid his firm $290,000 in lobbying fees."
And what did Georgia get in return? Well, no troops, that's for sure. But they got Scheunemann's (expensive) pledge to garner U.S. support for Georgia's admission to NATO and for its claims to South Ossetia, and his commitment to use his ties to politicians such as McCain to advance Georgia's causes. McCain has sponsored legislation supporting Georgia's claims over South Ossetia, an issue on which he was lobbied by Scheunemann's firm. And as recently as mid-April, Scheunemann was simultaneously taking money from Georgia and actively preparing McCain for supportive calls with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.

!!!

Consider, all the lost lives and property, the wreckage of US-Russian relations for years or really decades to come ...

This is as queer and unsettling as the smelly anthrax affair (which you should also revisit!)

Also see this on McCain’s limitations shown by Georgia:

5. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/mccain-and-geor.html

Finally, the Right is picking on Obama for saying both sides should have shown restraint, but of course Georgia was reckless (stimulated by Mr. RS and McCain’s activities?) to swoop into S. Ossetia at this time.

In any case, once the crisis hit, he didn't do too badly..

The twin Iraq/Afghanistan tar babies have removed his ability to take any meaningful action. (Even the humanitarian aid isn't all that realistic.) And of course, the neocons have largely departed (finding their new home in the McCain camp) meaning he didn't have voices telling him which catastrophically bad choices to make.

Its all very simple:

George W. Bush has his war in Iraq, John McCain want his war with Russia in Georgia.

Elect John McCain and well go head to head with them Russkies

I presume when he says the END of the Cold War was a crisis, that he means for warhawks...

John McCain would rather have the US start a war with Russia rather than have himself lose the Presidential race again.

If the Dems don't hit McCain hard and relentlessly on "the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War" then they have given up. 9/11 is still fresh enough in our memories that for many people this statement is an outrage. Easy to score political points here.

As for Bush's handling of the Georgia incident, the timing of the Poland missile deal is classic Bush incompetence. Couldn't do worse if he tried. Heckuva job, Bushie.

Kevin - I know what you're trying to say, but I don't think its right to say the administration has handled this well. Yes, to the extent they're not rushing in with military might, but not so much to the extent that the president fulminating and making a spectacle of himself by giving orders to Russia he has no ability to enforce makes the US look pretty ridiculous and is providing Russia with something of a publicity coup

How do I get my scatterbrained diatribe to jump to the top like Neil B?

[be the first to comment in a thread and be sure to include a lot of links so the software flags the post until a human can get to it-mod.]

John McCain would rather have the US start a war with Russia rather than have himself lose the Presidential race again.

I agree with JoshA and I think the Obama campaign should produce a campaign ad stating exactly this. If McCain's camp can produce the rubbish that they've spewed against Obama including the "Obama is willing to lose in Iraq to become Prez" filth then I say go for it. Honestly, why the hell not? And don't give me this "Obama is above all that negativity" BS. Obama needs to punch this fucker in the face or risk losing the election. I'm sick of the Obama campaign being on the defensive at every turn. There is too much at stake. McCain and the current batch of neocons need to be sidelined, now. THat's our crisis.

Even Steve Sailer says ...

If Sailer were to post a claim that the sun rises in the east, I would strongly recommend seeking independent confirmation before acting on that claim. If Sailer is criticizing McCain now, there's probably something to be said for McCain.

will be virtually forgotten

The carpet bombing of Lebanon with US made weapons by Israel during the summer of 2006 has been virtually forgotten.

Well, it's a crisis for George Bush, 'cause he's publicly impotent.

And, it's a crisis for John McCain, as an example of how corrupt lobbyist practices can go horribly wrong and get people killed.
.

I've been waiting and waiting for the MSM to form their conventional wisdom, that McCain is a god for being so "strong" and Obama is...on vacation. It's taken awhile, hasn't it? There's been sufficient noise in the system--Randy Scheunemann, McCain's own frightening bellicosity--to prevent that from happening...until..? Michael Falcone's piece in today's times could be signal for the MSM to jump on in with a big wet kiss for McCain, the water's fine..http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/us/politics/15obama.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1218780064-yE2Jb3h4PoLacrfEkAC%2BEA&oref=slogin

Despite polls to the contrary Americans love a good bloodletting, even when a good deal of the blood is their own. Don't shortchange the McCain campaign for intuitively running with this knowledge. I can see Bill Bennett and Charles Krauthammer extolling the need for bomb shelter tax credits and duck-n-cover exercises in grade schools. Once Democrats took the bait and tut-tutted such talk as inflammatory nonsense Coulter and Malkin could make the rounds denouncing The Left as unprepared capitulaters.

JMHO but I don't agree with Kevin regarding the potential insignificance of this event. Whatever goes on in the region has the potential to significantly impact the EU - in terms of energy supply.

The Artistic Mom of Shortstop Formerly Known as a Republican, speaking about this very incident:

"This McCain! A cartoon character! What is wrong with this guy?"

it's remarkable how this campaign is, so far, being driven by truly trivial events.

But as Old Broder reminds us, that's all Obama's fault for spurning McCain's offer of weekly town-hall debates.

Apparently the MSM can't cover what a candidate says about the issues if the candidate says those things in a speech; it only counts if it's in a debate.

Of course, as we remember from 2000, it doesn't even count then if you sigh too much. Or something. (There's always something.)

This is, pretty obviously, factually wrong, since you could trot out the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, the al-Aqsa Intifada, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq at a minimum as other serious international crises since the end of the Cold War.

Well, what about Darfur, the Rwandan genocide, Haiti?

9/11 was pretty bad, but I don't know if I'd call it a crisis, at least for more than New York City, New Jersey, and immediately surrounding areas of New York state and other states-- so, not international. It was pretty clear pretty soon that it was just a one-off event-- if we're using "crisis" as some kind of foreign affairs term of art, which I think we are, instead of as an example to teach elementary school pupils new vocab, I think things like the Berlin airlift and the Cuban missile crisis are things that are more usually called crises- a standoff.

By McCain's standards, it sounds like losing one of our spy planes to China would counts as an international crisis, too.

I guess you could analogize to your own life-- not every problem is a crisis, some problems are just problems that need to be solved.

A crisis is more like a problem that throws the lives of everyone concerned with it through a big loop because it's such a big problem, or a problem that otherwise puts you in a very difficult position or presents huge dilemmas.

*

"What this demonstrates is McCain's urgent, deep-seated desire to believe that he, John McCain, is right smack in the middle of world historical events..."

There's a frightening corollary to this: I've noticed among the elderly a distinct tendency as they near the end of their lives to believe that the world too is coming to an end.

You've heard this lament: the world is going to hell in a hand basket, things are falling apart, the world is coming to an end, etc.

I've pondered this a long time and believe that as people approach the end they can't envision life continuing on without them after they die.

Unconsciously they think that when they die history ends with them, in both the personal sense and in a larger world sense.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I hope if McCain is elected (and I fervently hope he isn't) that he doesn't want to take the rest of us with him.

I'm in my 60s, but I'd like to delay lift-off for as long as possible.

hancock

"9/11 was pretty bad, but I don't know if I'd call it a crisis"
Posted by: Swan on August 15, 2008 at 12:21 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Damn swan, strong stuff. Next you know some deranged commenter might suggest our military is loaded with xenophobic misfits prone to random (or deliberately calculated) acts of violence against civilians and prisoners. What sort of brazen falsehoods are you promoting here?

Doesn't John McCain lately seem a little, well, what's that word....presumptuous? I mean, who does this guy think he is?

When the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993 and the perpetrator Abdel Rahman a Brooklyn sheik and his gang were put on trial, Bill Clinton took the whole thing in stride.

Instead of invading Brooklyn as he should have done.....

Heh Great minds, Stefan.

There's a frightening corollary to this: I've noticed among the elderly a distinct tendency as they near the end of their lives to believe that the world too is coming to an end.

Hmmmm, good point. It's doubly unfortunate that McCain chooses to combine his "Oh noes, the world is ending so let's use up the ammo" foreign policy with his "But domestically, we're in clover!" script.

steve duncan,

If you and Swan want to play together, please do it quietly. Don't get the other patients riled up or you'll both have to get extra Thorazine tonight.

Hon. Sen. McCain has kind of been the President that VP Cheney, et alii wished we had in this. I'm amazed that Cheney's "serious consequences" and "will not go unanswered" didn't garner much attention, even though Senator McCain was using up most of the oxygen with his hyperbole. With the President* muted on this issue, the news hungry hawks have been all talking up Mr. McCain, making any reasonableness exhibited by Mr. Bush largely irrelevant.

I don't see any discussion here of how these events finally put paid to any claims that Sec. Rice has any Russia chops (or is hiding them very well if she does).

I quit Thorazine when I found out my friends were lying about it being a new coffee sweetner. I should've known "The packaging is just for Gen-X appeal" was a bunch of BS. Sheesh!

That's embarrassing for nurse ratched, man, when steve duncan is so much funnier.

Here's the bottom line: McCain would rather start a war than lose a campaign. Of course, the left can't get away with calling it like it is, but that's all that's going here.

I think President Bush has, perhaps miraculously, actually taken roughly the right attitude over the past week: warning Georgia off its invasion, denouncing the Russian response but not making more of it than it deserved, denouncing harder once the Russians crossed the South Ossetian border, quickly sending humanitarian supplies once the fighting was over — an action that's useful both symbolically and as a tripwire to deter further Russian aggression — and then hinting at longer-term problems with U.S.-Russian relations if Russia doesn't withdraw from Georgia quickly.

That's because he doesn't need to interrupt his drinking to stagger to the mike and make whatever pronouncements Gates tells him to make. As long as they don't keep him up there too long, it's ok.

What this demonstrates is McCain's urgent, deep-seated desire to believe that he, John McCain, is right smack in the middle of world historical events, a desire remarkably similar to one we've seen from George Bush since he took office.

Again, it's not a desire; it's pretty clear at this point that Bush isn't even a figurehead at this point, he's a placeholder and McCain is now basically operating as Acting President McCain. (Particularly as far as the political hacks are concerned.) This is helpfully offset by the fact that Gates is clearly In Charge of the military so nothing is going to fucking happen, since Gates is also effectively running foreign policy.

(I think that helps clarify the issue with the neo-cons basically going public with dictating what's going on in R circles. They're iced out by Gates, so they might as well get McCain to run as the last neo-con. It's the only way they can get back in. McCain is contorting himself into being both the Acting President as far as the political people go, and thus the incumbent, and running as an outsider gunning for the establishment, represented by Gates. And so far, he's getting away with it.)

max
['Lieberman is the only possible choice for VP if they really intend to keep rolling on this.']

two-shay. Can't win them all.

I don't like the way Bush has handled this event. Yes, he's promised humanitarian aid...but we will not actually be able to deliver any of it, because we haven't negotiated a path to get aid into Georgia. This is beginning to look like a replay of the Kurds vs. Saddam -- we sided with the Kurds, promised our support, then stood by and did nothing while Saddam slaughtered them.

Not that it matters much. Direct military action is out of the question due to our current employments, and because it would be a really, really bad idea to get into a shooting war with Russia. We need more persuasive diplomacy, and that's something Bush does not have. I doubt McCain has it, either.

It's a sad commentary on the history of Bush's leadership that by restraining himself from nuking Minsk, he's given passing marks for his handling of the Georgia incursion. In the past, we could expect hyperventilated rhetoric and an invasion of Venezuela as a response. With Bush, of course, it ain't over 'til long after "Mission Accomplished." Bush still has the time, arrogance and ineptitude to really screw the pooch.

Were he president, I doubt McCain would do much more than Bush in this case, but in my view, his sudden decision to make Russia/Georgia an interactive campaign stunt is not at all helpful. I hope he gets back to the Spears/Hilton Crisis.

"(anyone remember Quemoy and Matsu?)"

Great Vaudeville team! Them and Steve and Idi Amin.

It's Rice vs. Cheney/McCain, and in this case it appears that Bush listened to Rice, who, bad as she is, does know a thing or two about Russia. But it's likely that all those neocons talking directly to Georgia's government helped to provoke the crisis, by leading Sak..., oh hell, I can't spell the man's name ... to think he could re-take the separatist provinces by force with full US backing.

What's so dangerous about Republicans is that they get elected based on their ability to use military force.

So, if they want to get elected, they start screaming about using military force. Then, if they want to get RE-elected, they have to actually use it.

So if McCain wins, we will be at war somewhere in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, you can count on it. This is one of the only ways they can get their base to the polls. This will be especially true if McCain picks a Pro-Choice VP.

Steve Duncan wrote: Damn swan, strong stuff.

Well, it was a crisis in one sense but not in another. It was a crisis in the sense of being a big problem, but it wasn't a crisis in the sense of being a standoff or being really vexing as to finding a solution. I mean, almost anybody can look at 9/11 and realize that what you have to do is (1) take precautions like ground planes until you figure out what's up (2) rescue people who are still in danger and organize medical care for them (3) clean up the disaster (4) find out who caused the problem and catch them. It's all really common sense stuff that anybody, no matter their ideology, etc., could think of. People call something like the Cuban Missile Crisis a crisis because in those situations, it's really hard to figure out what to do, and a misstep either way could potentially strongly aggravate things.

The Cold War has been over for twenty god-damned years.

No serious international crisis since then?

Pakistan, India, and North Korea all getting the bomb? Iraq? Bosnia? Kosovo? Darfur? Lebanon?

9/11?

The end of the Cold War was so long ago that McCain wasn't even senile then.

Using crisis to just mean "big problem" or "alarming event" just isn't a precise, absolutely corect use of the word-- it's more like a colloquial use of the word. A crisis is little more like a dilemma than it is like a generic problem.

Is it just me, or is my sense that McCain is a blustering, loud-mouthed, fool shared out there anywhere ? This guy has a poorer command of the english language than my six-year old grandson. If this is the best the republican party has to offer, we are all in some very serious shit, my friends. I think we need to stop regarding McCain as a rational personality. There is something very seriously wrong with this guy. With Bush, it was easy: a spoiled drug and alcohol damaged persona, but McCain is a special case of some other sort, unless it something as simple as Alzheimer's.

And anyway, before the media became a shameless propganda machine, I think the news media used to usually use the term "crisis" in a more correct sense, rather than in the #2 dictionary definition, colloquial sense.

But then again, John McCain probably doesn't watch the news, so he probably doesn't know how people beyond casino gamblers and ditzy heiresses use the word "crisis."

Doesn't John McCain lately seem a little, well, what's that word....presumptuous?

I don't know--he seems pretty damn uppity to me.

Someone should pull McCain aside and tell him the Cold War is over. Unless he manages to jump start it that is.

It's not so much that McCain's using the word "crisis" was strictly, absolutely incorrect-- I guess what I'm saying is I just think politicians and media-types should speak in the register (set of vocabulary / meanings) I've come to expect from them, and when they stray from it the way McCain did, it often seems it's like one of the tools (albeit sometimes a minor one) in the toolbox of hype and distortion.

Anyway, even if you disagree with me about the word "crisis" alone, I'm sure it's a lot easier to agree with me about the incompleteness even of Kevin's lists of international crises (I suggested the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin airlift, Darfur, Haiti, and Rwanda), or to agree that John McCain was also kind of wrong to call it an international crisis, since it's more like a border crisis or something like that, and people usually would more tend to say "international crisis" if a lot of countries are getting dragged into it in a meaningful way than if it's just two states fighting and other states making token, for-show statements about the fighting. I'm not sure it isn't a bit of an exagerration even to call the Israeli-Palestinian conflict an international crisis.

I think a better generic label for the media or a politician to use to describe 9/11 than "crisis" would be "disaster" or "terrorist attack."

Don't forget the Minot-->Barksdale AFB loose nukes.

Now, that was a crisis!

All the lefties using the first Gulf War as an example should keep in mind that the DoD puts the official date to the end of the Cold War at December 26, 1991.

In describing 9-11, how many of you people referred to it as a crisis?

Hey Dave Brown, since when should my post be called scatterbrained?: ;-)
Seriously, shouldn't we be looking at those odd "coincidences" about McCain and his top foreign policy advisor?