« Foreign Policy: An Entrance Examination | Main | About That "Deployed Troops Favor Obama" numbers... »

A Good Plan

Well, President Bush has gone beyond words in regards to the United States' response to the Russian-Georgian conflict, and taken action that declares just where our sympathies lie: US military forces are heading into Georgia now -- but for purely humanitarian aid.

This, I have to say, is a stroke of genius.

In the past few years, the American military has earned a tremendous reputation for humanitarian relief. Having learned from the disaster that was Somalia (from the CNN live-broadcasted initial landing through the "Blackhawk Down" fiasco), we've gotten considerably better at it. Indeed, it's become de rigeur to see the US Navy and Marines on the ground before international aid organizations get there.

They have quite a few advantages over groups like Doctors Without Borders or the Red Cross. Things like earthquakes and tsunamis tend to devastate infrastructure, and the US military specifically trains to go places where they don't have infrastructure they can depend on -- so they bring and make their own.

This move, as a purely humanitarian action, is a good thing for the people of Georgia.

More importantly, it also puts US forces on the scene, symbolizing our commitment to Georgia.

Most importantly, they are there in a purely non-combatant role, in areas that the Russians themselves have said they have no interest in going to.

It's a balanced, measured, and deliberate move, designed to prevent further escalation. As I said -- genius.

As is normal, Austin Bay has some of the best thoughts on the situation. A lot of what he says makes a lot of sense.

And I'm going to go along with the thoughts others have put forth -- we should seriously consider helping the former Soviet slave states set up a "mini-NATO." They have the common interest -- staying the hell out of Russian domination -- and, together, they can pose a significant challenge to any Russian ambitions.

The danger there is that Russia -- I think they might have invented the concept of paranoia -- might see that as not a defensive alliance, but an offensive one, and react accordingly.

It's an ugly situation, and getting uglier. I don't know what the ideal solution is, or even if there is one.

But I do think that so far, President Bush is taking the right tack. I just hope he's right.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/30982.

Comments (43)

And I'm going to g... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
And I'm going to go along with the thoughts others have put forth -- we should seriously consider helping the former Soviet slave states set up a "mini-NATO." They have the common interest -- staying the hell out of Russian domination -- and, together, they can pose a significant challenge to any Russian ambitions.

These are not backward undeveloped nations like Afghanistan where there's nothing on the ground that's worth as much as the bomb it would take to destroy it. There's only one way to protect the infrastructure of developed nations in a war with Russia and that's air superiority. Without that no mechanized ground force can succeed. The only military force in the world that can dominate the Russian air force is the U.S. air force and that's only true because of the F-22 Raptor. Short of selling our top of the line fighter to these former Soviet slave states you're only motivating Russia to move against them sooner rather than later.

The answer is for the west to immediately extend full NATO membership to nations like the Ukraine or else promise Russia we won't interferer in these nations if they don't. Let them stay unaligned and a buffer between Russia and NATO.

A couple of aircraft carrie... (Below threshold)
Stan25:

A couple of aircraft carriers would be nice too. Strange how a couple of fully combat ready carrier battle group seems to put a damper on the hostile intentions of a beliigerent country.

Mac, to be fair, France's a... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Mac, to be fair, France's air force could stand up to Russia's, as could Israel's and Taiwan's. (Taiwan, only because they have modern French and American fighters. And Israel probably has the best pilots.)

"couple of aircraft carrier... (Below threshold)
Mycroft:

"couple of aircraft carriers would be nice too. Strange how a couple of fully combat ready carrier battle group seems to put a damper on the hostile intentions of a beliigerent country.

by Stan25"

Unfortunately, this is not an option. One might be, but several would stretch us way too thin. Especially with one carrier laid up with fire damage, and the others on station and in the regular training rotation. For every 1 carrier on station, two more are in the cycle. With a 12 carrier fleet, we only ever have 4 on station. With 2 in the middle east, and one damaged, that only leaves one available right now.

We really should have a 15 carrier fleet (plus the training carrier, which is going to be the Kitty Hawk, I think). Place the blame for that squarely on William J. Clinton and the gutting of the military. It takes a long time to build an aircraft carrier.

The French Air Force looks ... (Below threshold)
epador:

The French Air Force looks good on paper. They don't fair so well in head to head match ups. I guess their tailored flight suits and classy sunglasses get in the way of pulling g's.

They don't fair so well ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

They don't fair so well in head to head match ups.

Like what? When? And what's wrong with tailored clothes and snazzy shades? :)

At this point there are rea... (Below threshold)

At this point there are really few good options other than humanitarian aid. But although Georgia is an ally, they managed to invite a military response from Russia because of poor judgement on the part of a young democracy. Georgia assumed that they could engage in some military activity near the Russian border with some allies of Russia and Russia would not respond simply because Georgia has expressed some interest in becoming a NATO member.

The U.S. may have an ally in Georgia, but the government there simply lacks the good judgement to be in charge of serious weapons or full NATO membership at this point. When a little country like this can cause an international crisis because of poor judgement, then they might be an ally. But they're also trouble as well.

Once any country is a full NATO member, then all other NATO members are required to help in a military crisis according to treaties. The states of NATO can't really afford such a risk with Georgia right now until they take more time to better prove they are really fit to be a member.

All of this leaves the U.S. with just the humanitarian aid option.

Joint Military exercises ha... (Below threshold)
epador:

Joint Military exercises happen all the time. I been dere. But if I told you more I'd have to kill you.

Kill me.. <a href="http:... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:
However the Canuck flyers d... (Below threshold)
epador:

However the Canuck flyers do great at Red Flag. Meybe you can send some to Georgia, HB?

Mac, to be fair, F... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Mac, to be fair, France's air force could stand up to Russia's, as could Israel's and Taiwan's. (Taiwan, only because they have modern French and American fighters. And Israel probably has the best pilots.)

Maybe Stand up to in equal numbers, but neither France, Israel, or Taiwan has anywhere near the number of generation 4 fighters as Russia. Besides, I said "dominate". When you only stand up to, then your armored ground forces come under attack and can't move. When you dominate the enemy can't fly and their armored ground forces can't mover or even hide. That's why the U.S. is spending $34 billion on just 183 F-22 Raptors, of which about 120 have been built. These generation 5 fighters are beyond anything Russia can deal with, at least for now.

Got any info on how many of... (Below threshold)
epador:

Got any info on how many of those Russian fighters are really battle ready? The one's I've seen had worn tires and duck tape holding them together.

We do like to fly, epador. ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

We do like to fly, epador. A couple of my great uncles died flying in WW II, one flying a Spitfire over London during the Battle of Britain. This guy in particular was pretty good at air to air combat.

Mac--Taiwan is getting some of those Raptors. I'd be surprised if Israel didn't get their hands on a few as well. France, though... not so much.

The Russians' best bird, th... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

The Russians' best bird, the Flanker-E, is a fourth generation fighter that cannot compete with the F-22. Esp since they have fewer than 10... The MiG 29 is more of a threat (because of #s), but it is well matched by the western Super Hornets and Falcons. The later variants of the Falcon flown by the US and Israel outclass the 29 by a fair margin, as do the Rafale and Typhoon. I expect the new SAAB (Gryphon?) does as well. The Raptor, as it was designed to do, should chew the MiG-29 up.

The Canadian CF-18, while good multi-role fighters, lack the legs to really counter the russians unless they are based fairly close. Given the number of CF-18s Canada has, even with the large volume of space they have to watch, they should be able to spare a few. The question is would they. Is it in the current government's interest to do so?

Got any info on ho... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Got any info on how many of those Russian fighters are really battle ready? The one's I've seen had worn tires and duck tape holding them together.

I think they come that way from the factory.

Mac--Taiwan is get... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Mac--Taiwan is getting some of those Raptors. I'd be surprised if Israel didn't get their hands on a few as well. France, though... not so much.

Japan has asked for some, but currently U.S. law prohibits export of the F-22. That may change as exporting the F-22 to Japan will extend the production run and may allow the U.S. Air force to procure more F-22s of it's own.

Our first generation 6 fighter is now in development, but that will likely come to an end if BO gets elected. Why spend so much money on air dominance when you can solve all problems with talk and bribes.

There is a discussion here ... (Below threshold)

There is a discussion here of the Russian fighter planes, however such weapons are not what makes Russia a serious military opponent. Russia has a total of 1136 various types of ground, sea and air based nuclear missile launchers and a total of 5518 total nuclear warheads. Many of these warheads are on mobile missile launchers that can be moved around and not targeted like many American missiles in known fixed silos.

In addition in the last couple of years, Russia has deployed some new class of Hypersonic cruise missiles that can outfly any American antimissile defenses. Russia also has a number of Sunburn class nuclear antiship missiles designed to destroy American aircraft carriers taking out the entire ship, crew and aircraft. The fact of the matter is that a great deal of the American population and military would not survive a war with Russia, and the same is true for Russia as well.

Avoiding any war with such an opponent is absolutely vital. The Georgia situation is simply not worth ever considering any warfare with Russia. That option should be quickly off the table by anyone.

Hmmm. Anti missle systems ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Hmmm. Anti missle systems make so much sense when you put it that way, Hooson. I wonder where each candidate stands on such things.

However, your attitude is just the kind Putin and company are betting on. The Soviet Russians had a term for that...
Useful something or other...

So what's your attitude, SC... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

So what's your attitude, SCSI? Engage in another 50-some-year-long dick-shaking contest with some irrational nationalists who want to control the oil supply of eastern Europe? Is that how you want your tax dollars spent?

contest with some irr... (Below threshold)

contest with some irrational nationalists who want to control the oil supply of eastern Europe?

HB, I would specualte that they desire to control the entire oil supply of Eurasia.

Then we best be getting off... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Then we best be getting off the black stuff in a hurry, Hugh, before our money starts lining the pockets of authoritarian nationalist lunatics in Russia instead of just authoritarian nationalist lunatics in Venezuela and authoritarian religious lunatics in the Middle East.

Nuclear power is the answer to so many problems, one of which might be Russia.

SCSI, the problem is that i... (Below threshold)

SCSI, the problem is that it is not really known how many of the Russian missiles are equipped with the hypersonic technology like their recent class of cruise missiles. There is currently no American antimissile defenses that can stop missiles flying at these speeds. A decent percentage of the older missiles can be stopped with antimissile defenses, however very few antimissiles exist.

As of 2006, I know of only 10 operational antimissiles set up in Alaska to defend the entire U.S. And the controversial program to set up radar in the Czech Republic and antimissiles in Poland will not be operational before at least 2010.

The fact of the matter is that just 10 operational American antimissiles won't go too far in stopping as many as 5518 Russian nuclear warheads. a substantial portion of the American public and military cannot survive any all-out war with Russia. And even if the U.S. wins, which I'd expect, the country would be reduced to near third world status where many poorer African states would probably exceed the post-nuclear war U.S. in industry strength. The U.S. would probably never ever be a superpower ever again or able to completely rebuild to it's former glory. War of this sort is unthinkable.

Currently America's antimissile defenses could fight off a handful of launches by a nation such as North Korea or even Iran, but certainly would be no match against a large nuclear force from a state such as Russia.

Hyper, odd that when you th... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Hyper, odd that when you think of me, you think of shaking the male sex organs. Also odd that to you, those are the only options. Esp for some that was just bragging on what great air warriors his family and country boasted.

I do do know that failing to stand up to a bully only encourages him. To me, the question is, what is the most effective way to tell said bully that he will not be tolerated without stooping to his level. And if that is the only way, making it very clear that when push comes to shove, we will shove harder than he can imagine.

BTW, Hooson, your info is off again. The Sunburn has been outclassed by SeaRAM. The Russians are marketing the now obsolete system to other nations, so it is getting press. Russia has moved on to Brahmos, if I recall.

Sorry, replace "dick-shakin... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Sorry, replace "dick-shaking" with "sabre-rattling". Sometimes a metaphor is just a metaphor. :)

Personally, refusing to associate with bullies is the best way to deal with them. If they step to you, give them a black eye. If they're wielding a chainsaw, though, and you are too... find a different playground? Go sit on the swings and play with your PSP? I don't know, it's hard to reduce geopolitics to playground semantics.

SCSIwuzzymak... (Below threshold)

SCSIwuzzy

making it very clear that when push comes to shove, we will shove harder than he can imagine.

I couldn't agree more. I'm beginning to form a radical opinion on the required response to this resurgence of KGB intimidation.

The US should strike now against the Iranian nuke program, and make a demonstration of the decimation of the Russian air defense systems Putin sold the mullahs. Concurrently, I would move a division of the 82nd or 101st Airborne to Eglin AFB, and station some destroyers just off the Cuban coast...none of this will go unnoticed by Putin.

This is encouraging and one... (Below threshold)

This is encouraging and one can appreciate the timing.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdNtXPW9-1UZEmhgLC5VZ3dDa25wD92I94T81

The money quote:

Tusk said the agreement was initialed by negotiators late Thursday in Warsaw and includes a "mutual commitment" between the two nations -- beyond that of NATO -- to come to each other's assistance in case of danger.

That was an obvious reference to the force and ferocity with which Russia rolled into Georgia in recent days, taking the key city of Gori and apparently burning and destroying Georgian military outposts and airfields.

Avoiding any war w... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Avoiding any war with such an opponent is absolutely vital. The Georgia situation is simply not worth ever considering any warfare with Russia. That option should be quickly off the table by anyone.

The deterrent works both ways. The U.S. is working on and is close to deploying a flyable laser antimissile system. No physical missile is a match for a directed energy weapon. It's limited now, but thanks to visionary leaders the U.S. is way ahead in such weapons. The idea is to always keep Russia insecure about it's chances of surviving an all out confrontation with the U.S.

Like I have been saying, Georgia is lost. The U.S. is not going to risk an all out confrontation with Russia over this. But the same is true if the west immediately extended full NATO membership to the Ukraine and then moved in troops and tanks and bring our F-22's into the region. Russia wouldn't risk a confrontation with NATO over the Ukraine knowing it's conventional forces would be over matched.

Avoiding any war w... (Below threshold)
Avoiding any war with such an opponent is absolutely vital. The Georgia situation is simply not worth ever considering any warfare with Russia. That option should be quickly off the table by anyone.

Once again, we see Mr. Hooson's eagerness to surrender.

You know what you get when you publicly take the option of "any war" off the table? An emboldened Russia, that knows that it can do whatever it wants without fear of military reprisal. A nation that will have no fear of playing the brinkmanship game, because it knows that we will concede.

"Taking the moral high ground" in cases like this is pretty much a recipe for guaranteeing that you'll die with a clean conscoience -- and in a lot of good company.

For example, see Tibet.

J.

There is currently... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
There is currently no American antimissile defenses that can stop missiles flying at these speeds.

All ICBM's are hypersonic by their nature, even the first ones. Also, the speed of ICBM's is limited by the physics of the trajectory to the target. Too fast and you miss the target or go into orbit. Besides, an interceptor doesn't need to be faster or even as fast as the target missile if it's stationed between the launch point and the target. The interceptor only needs to be fast enough to get in the way.

A hypersonic cruse missile is another story as it's not following a ballistic trajectory. However, the next generations of American carriers are being built with three times the nuclear power output as the current class. That extra power foresees either directed energy or rail gun weapons that will be more than a match for any missile.

It's called an arms race and it's one the U.S. can't afford to get behind in. Electing BO would put the breaks on U.S. efforts to stay ahead. Then we'll be at the mercy of Russia just as Georgia is.

Mac,Notice the only ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Mac,
Notice the only system Hooson mentions by name is one that was outclassed before the previous President Bush left office, if not before he took it.
The Durranty of the Wizbang comments section...

Tonight, in many Wizbang ... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

Tonight, in many Wizbang basements;

Many scale models will leave their on the bookshelves.

Many Kleenex boxes will be emptied.

Jay, even you didn't even a... (Below threshold)

Jay, even you didn't even advocate for military action here either. You advocated for the U.S. providing humanitarian aid to Georgia, which I agreed is just about all that the U.S. can do to show support for Georgia.

I only illustrated why military action with a major nuclear military power like Russia is never an option. Despite spending over $100 billion on various missile defense experiments since the Reagan years the U.S. only has just 10 operational "interceptor" missiles in Alaska. But the story grows even worse when you'd probably need as many as 1600 interceptors stationed in space to stop many solid fuel based missiles that are harder to stop than liquid fuel based missiles which would require 700 or more interceptors to provide a relatively effective shield according to some sources. However the U.S. does not have even one of these in operation. To stop solid fuel based missiles would require at least two for each missile according to many defense experts.

The scary thing is that no nation has ever really won a war with Russia in history that I can find. The Romans, Napoleon, Hitler all lost wars to defeat this country. Oh sure there was one naval defeat by Japan of Russia in the 1800's, but Japan didn't conquer this nation. No one has. Russia has always held enough advantages to win any war.

About all that the U.S. can do is to continue to put diplomatic pressure on Moscow to behave like a democracy if they wish to continue in the G8 and be respected by the Western world community. But because of all their immense new oil wealth they are a difficult nation to deal with.

A nation like Russia with a huge military, nuclear weapons and immense oil wealth holds enough cards that the ability of the U.S. to pressure them to behave better is very limited. I'm very disappointed that Mr. Putin isn't more concerned about his nation's image around the world.

Russia's military might be absolutely awful in a great many ways. But nuclear weapons are the great equalizers here. And look at all the problems our space program has had with Space Shuttle launches, etc. I'm not so sure any U.S. missile defense effort would even work so well as hoped. The more primitive kerosene based Russian rockets just seem to be more reliable for some reason. The Space Shuttle program was so bad off at one point that NASA was actually buying some 1970's vintage computer parts off of Ebay to keep the Shuttle flying. And when the Challenger crew was killed, American recovery teams merely threw the bodies into a back of a pickup truck to transport them back to NASA. For my sake, none of this inspires very much faith in U.S. missile technology, although the U.S. is very good in many other military areas.


Mr. Hooson, no one is advoc... (Below threshold)

Mr. Hooson, no one is advocating "conquering" Russia. Straw man, five-yard penalty. There are plenty of examples of challenging a nation militarily, even in open ocnflict, without the possibility of conquering. Witness the Falkland Islands War.

And I am all too aware of the dangers of a military conflict with a nuclear power. As I recall, I was one of many who openly derided and mocked Senator Obama when he nearly simultaneously pledged to never use nuclear weapons AND pledged to do whatever it takes to get Osama Bin Laden, including going into Pakistan with or without their government's approval. In other words, he was advocating invading a nuclear power after guaranteeing that we would not retaliate in a like manner if they used their nuclear weapons.

The only sensible thing to do when confronting a fellow nuclear power is to keep all options on the table, unless and until both sides agree to concessions and limitations. Under the present circumstances, no, US entry into military conflict is not a viable option in Georgia.

But Russia is HUGE, and there are plenty of places where we could apply military force that would make Russia's continuing to prosecute the conflict very difficult. One suggestion I've seen floated is a cruise missile strike on the Roki Tunnel -- which is one of the few connecting routes from Russia and Georgia, and has been the Russians' main entry point into Georgia -- could seriously hinder the Russian efforts. But that would merely be a short-term effect; as Austin Bay noted, the problem is not the tunnel, but the Russian attitude.

Let's make it simple, Mr. Hooson: let's draw up a list of the various nations around Russia that we won't fight for, won't support if Russia invades, won't do more than say a few words of condemnation if Russia conquers. Then let's give that list to the Russians and see what they do with it.

Might be a good time to write off any investments you have in the Baltics, or any of the other former Soviet slave states...

J.

Now that Bush wants to leav... (Below threshold)
Paul in Miami:

Now that Bush wants to leave office at war with the rest of the world, PLEASE anyone tie him down, gag him and don't let him out until his term is over. This ma's legacy will go down as the worst in US history and the worst for the world peace. Telling the Russians they can't to this after having transgressed all over the world. What a hypocrite!, Moron and incompetent fool.

Paul in Miami,Ok, ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Paul in Miami,

Ok, you don't like Bush, we got that. However, your prediction of how Bush will be viewed by history is just your biased opinion and one based on ignorance. You also have a progressive eye disease if you can't see the difference between the U.S. in Iraq and Russia in Georgia.

Yes he is right in Case of ... (Below threshold)
Samuel Maviso:

Yes he is right in Case of Iraq it was the mass destruction weapons that Sadam owned:) Bush still knows they are there. After he quits presidency will set it as a life target to find them and believe me he will:). Come on pple, Bush is as good as Putin is. I hope soon, honest people with peaceful intention and brave to accept the different will come into power in Rusia, China and US. We have to fight poverty and environmental destruction we need some magic weapons on that war. We need imagination cooperation and unity. Else people will keep creating blogs talking about the magic weapons that can destroy everything and it is for sure that they are coming but be aware that everything includes you too.

I'm sorry, Samuel, but WTF ... (Below threshold)
Tango:

I'm sorry, Samuel, but WTF did you just say?!?!?!

Samuel Maviso,Like... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Samuel Maviso,

Like others you have a progressive brain disorder that wants to simplify complex issues and the human nature that underlies them. To you Iraq is all about WMD, but that was just one issue. You ignore the threat leaving Saddam in power would have posed even now when we know he was close to bribing his way out from under UN sanctions. What do you think a mad man like Saddam would be buying with all that oil money? Are you really so naive as to believe Saddam wouldn't seek to harm the U.S. after his humiliating defeated in the first gulf war? Are you really so naive as to believe that Saddam wouldn't team up with others who seek to harm the U.S.?

What you don't understand is that there are lots of people like Saddam in the world and they don't think like your or care about the things you care about. They are interested in power and wealth, not peace and love. They see negotiations and magnanimity as capitulation and weakness. They use force and the thereat of force to impose their will and rule on others. The only thing they respect is strength and the only thing that stops them is greater strength.

For the world to be free the greatest strength in the world must reside in the hands of free people who want freedom for themselves and others. Without freedom none of the things you care about matter any more than if you were dead. What then are you risking to say the world must be free even if we have to build weapons that would destroy it if ever used? The hope is that we value freedom more than despots value ruling over us. That's what Patrick Henry meant when he said "give me liberty or give me death." Unfortunately the U.S. is becoming progressively more cowardice.

The only question now is ho... (Below threshold)
max:

The only question now is how badly will McCain fuck things up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403332.html

I guess presumptuousness is okay when you're old and white.

I guess presumptuo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I guess presumptuousness is okay when you're old and white.

But of course your link is itself unashamedly biased. Having been criticized for following Obama around on his world tour as if he were president, the main stream media tries to deflect criticism of it's own bias by blaming McCain for the same thing even if they have to manufacture the event.

Gee, Mac, I don't know what... (Below threshold)
max:

Gee, Mac, I don't know what I was thinking citing the Washington Post, that well known ultra-liberal rag.

Have you ever read the story of the boy who cried bias? Can you honestly say that if Obama had sent a "delegation" of his own, you wouldn't be screaming bloody murder right now? I'd have a lot more respect for you if you could show even a smidgen of intellectual honesty.

Gee, Max, did I say the Was... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Gee, Max, did I say the Washington Post was ultra liberal or did I say main stream media? Lets see, yep there it is in the second sentence -- "main stream media". Where did you get the "ultra liberal" from?

Anyway, if you read the article you linked you'll see that they take McCain's hesitations, broken and rephrased sentences and claim they know what McCain almost said. That's not reporting, that's bias pure and simple. As for McCain trying to look presidential, well yes he was, what do they expect from someone running to be the next president?

It's the "main stream media" who went hog wild following Obama on his world tour giving him the kind of coverage that only Presidents get. It's a bit too late to now claim McCain is trying to look like the president by asking some Senators to go to Georgia to get the facts first hand. What, you think he should just rely on rumor?

Can you honestly say that if Obama had sent a "delegation" of his own, you wouldn't be screaming bloody murder right now?

What makes you think Obama is not going to send his own advisors. If he does are you going to say "I guess presumptuousness is okay when you're middle age and black."

I'd have a lot more respect for you if you could show even a smidgen of intellectual honesty.

Have you ever heard of the idiom about the pot calling the kettle black? You should look it up.

Hmmm. Anti missle systems m... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Hmmm. Anti missle systems make so much sense when you put it that way, Hooson. I wonder where each candidate stands on such things.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy