Putin: Bush triggered Georgia to benefit McCain

[jk]

maybe it's time for a tinfoil hat, but the same thought had occurred to me...




Putin Suggests U.S. Provocation in Georgia Clash

By ANDREW E. KRAMER
Published: August 28, 2008
MOSCOW — As Russia struggled to rally international support for its military action in Georgia, Vladimir V. Putin, the country’s paramount leader, lashed out at the United States on Thursday, contending that the White House may have orchestrated the conflict to benefit one of the candidates in the American presidential election.
etc


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/wo...9putin.html?hp

[phirang]

Re: putin: bush triggered georgia to benefit mccain

and then China gets Iraqi oil deals when it blows off Russia?

[Slimprofits]

Re: Putin: Bush triggered Georgia to benefit McCain

“Why hold years of difficult talks and seek complex compromise solutions in interethnic conflicts? It’s easier to arm one of the sides and push it into the murder of the other side, and it’s over. It seemed like an easy solution. The thing is, it turns out that it’s not always so.”

Indeed. Even if he is lying, Putin is still 100x more badass and intelligent than anyone in the current U.S. Senate or White House.

We (U.S.) are governed by planetary village idiots that are only disguised as wolves.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Putin: Bush triggered Georgia to benefit McCain

Indeed. Even if he is lying, Putin is still 100x more badass and intelligent than anyone in the current U.S. Senate or White House.

We (U.S.) are governed by planetary village idiots that are only disguised as wolves.

So, babbittd, are you a committed voter playing his part in the American democratic process?

[Slimprofits]

Re: Putin: Bush triggered Georgia to benefit McCain

So, babbittd, are you a committed voter playing his part in the American democratic process?

I'm writing in a ticket that includes Kimbo Slice and the very fictional Ralph Wiggum. Just haven't decided on the order yet.

[marvenger]

Re: Putin: Bush triggered Georgia to benefit McCain

IMO the current incumbents of the whitehouse are more categorical puppets than normal.

Obama on the otherhand seems to have had quite a remarkable rise against the odds in what seems to be a fairly independent manner. As far as I know he doesn't have direct family set to benefit from contracts awarded in the next war etc. Although I have heard that he does have some relation to past presidential bloodlines, but I think it's pretty distant.

So I have some hope that he's put himself there to do more than serve the vested interests. Hopefully he's been listening to a bit of Ron Paul and secretly planning some policy along his lines He does seem to talk about the founding fathers a lot.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Putin: Bush triggered Georgia to benefit McCain

a pessimist, I see Obama as a new cover for more of the same.

Just three years ago, not ten or fifteen as if time had passed and lessons were learned, Obama either asked for and received a rather large favor from an alleged Illinois StateGov kickback-hustler.

and how about this?

"Nuclear leaks, response tested Obama in Senate"

...A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks... Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

but most importantly of all:

"Obama doesn't take PAC money or money from federal registered lobbyists."

That is all well and good as a soundbite.

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.

Goldman Sachs	$653,030
University of California	$576,839
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$414,760
Citigroup Inc	$408,299
Harvard University	$407,219
Google Inc	$404,191
UBS AG	$389,294
Lehman Brothers	$361,482
National Amusements Inc	$360,703
Moveon.org	$347,463
Sidley Austin LLP	$329,776
Microsoft Corp	$326,847
Skadden, Arps et al	$320,550
Morgan Stanley	$307,221
Time Warner	$305,538
WilmerHale	$275,132
Jones Day	$272,755
Latham & Watkins	$270,595
University of Chicago	$268,285
Stanford University	$258,388

source: OpenSecrets.org

[marvenger]

Re: Putin: Bush triggered Georgia to benefit McCain

Ok yeah I didn't think he was going to be a total revelation or he would not have been elected in these still relatively benign times. But, I thought that he was less reliant on donations from vested interests than other canditates, he does have a much higher level of support and financial support from the grassroots level.

I think it was the grassroots support that got him the nomination and the vested interests would rather have someone else there, so I think that's got to be a positive. But yeah you're right its probably only a matter of degrees.

[jimmygu3]

Re: Putin: Bush triggered Georgia to benefit McCain

but most importantly of all:

"Obama doesn't take PAC money or money from federal registered lobbyists."

That is all well and good as a soundbite.
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.

Goldman Sachs	$653,030
University of California	$576,839
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$414,760
Citigroup Inc	$408,299
Harvard University	$407,219
Google Inc	$404,191
UBS AG	$389,294
Lehman Brothers	$361,482
National Amusements Inc	$360,703
Moveon.org	$347,463
Sidley Austin LLP	$329,776
Microsoft Corp	$326,847
Skadden, Arps et al	$320,550
Morgan Stanley	$307,221
Time Warner	$305,538
WilmerHale	$275,132
Jones Day	$272,755
Latham & Watkins	$270,595
University of Chicago	$268,285
Stanford University	$258,388

source: OpenSecrets.org

Oh my goodness! He accepts donations from employees of enormous corporations?!? Shame on him. He may as well be Barack Cheney. :p

These organizations each have tens if not hundreds of thousands of "individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families". I actually fall into that class twice, based on this list alone. A few hundred grand from a pool that big is nothing. And the fact remains that he does not accept PAC or lobbyist money, which is a step in the right direction.

I can't blame you for your cynicism, but I am cautiously optimistic about Obama. I think he'll do what Bill Clinton did initially- bite off more than he can chew with an issue like healthcare or global warming, get less than full cooperation from the congress and the public, then scale back and take a more moderate, bipartisan approach. I think your example about the nuclear bill shows that he is more pragmatic than the idealist his detractors paint him to be.

The notion that the candidates are all the same and that voting doesn't matter is a cop out. Did the Carter vs Reagan election matter in '80? How about Bush vs. Clinton in '92? Would we have had the same experience this decade under president Gore? Of course not. Elections matter and this one is no exception. Barack Obama is not the messiah but he is my candidate.

Perhaps he'll appoint your Ralphie Wiggum as Secretary of Boogers.

Jimmy

[swgprop]

Re: Putin: Bush triggered Georgia to benefit McCain

Barack Obama’s rightward sprint is nowhere more obvious than in his betrayal on the FISA bill.
This bill allows the President to grab all incoming and outgoing international communications without a warrant.
The ACLU says it represents “an unprecedented extension of governmental surveillance over Americans.”
Obama, sounding on Friday a lot like Bush, said: “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay.” ...



http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx0602408


I too was hoping that Obama offered some deviation from the kleptocracy, but his position on FISA put an end to that.

Babbittd: I'm writing in a ticket that includes Kimbo Slice and the very fictional Ralph Wiggum. Just haven't decided on the order yet.

Yes, Kimbo has the look, but I'd have to support Bas Rutten for true badassness, though technically ineligible to run.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Putin: Bush triggered Georgia to benefit McCain

Oh my goodness! He accepts donations from employees of enormous corporations?!? Shame on him. He may as well be Barack Cheney. :p

These organizations each have tens if not hundreds of thousands of "individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families". I actually fall into that class twice, based on this list alone. A few hundred grand from a pool that big is nothing. And the fact remains that he does not accept PAC or lobbyist money, which is a step in the right direction.

I can't blame you for your cynicism, but I am cautiously optimistic about Obama. I think he'll do what Bill Clinton did initially- bite off more than he can chew with an issue like healthcare or global warming, get less than full cooperation from the congress and the public, then scale back and take a more moderate, bipartisan approach. I think your example about the nuclear bill shows that he is more pragmatic than the idealist his detractors paint him to be.

The notion that the candidates are all the same and that voting doesn't matter is a cop out. Did the Carter vs Reagan election matter in '80? How about Bush vs. Clinton in '92? Would we have had the same experience this decade under president Gore? Of course not. Elections matter and this one is no exception. Barack Obama is not the messiah but he is my candidate.

Perhaps he'll appoint your Ralphie Wiggum as Secretary of Boogers.

Jimmy

Jimmy, you may be correct: voting may matter; however, I disagree.

There are unending macro views put forth here, and my macro view of the US going back 45 years of having been of voting age is that it hasn't made two cents worth of difference who got elected in any election (which undoubtedly is too sweeping an assessment when considering city to national elections). The US has continued to grow government at the cost to the taxpayer if not in overt taxation at least in the hidden cost of inflation.

I think many of us go or went to school to get educated in something, find a job, hopefully try to earn what we are paid, marry, raise a family, vote with the hope that those elected will continue to make the US the number one country in the world, and in so doing allow us to live the good life. From top to bottom in the socio-economic ladder, I don't see where that has happened. Saving money has been reduced to a poor investment choice. People have been made more dependent upon government programs and living off loans.

Even the dumbest among us probably come to realize that one cannot ultimately survive with any degree of happiness living off credit cards and other sources of borrowed money. Despite that, which seem as an absolute fact to me, the government has and appears oriented toward ignoring that fact.

You, and many others I asssume, right now have a hope that the next guy elected will change something. I doubt it. Things will begin to change when you and others are so pressed that going to work to earn your pay to feed and care for your family now and prepare for its future takes a back seat to missing work and getting out into the streets and demonstrating for a demand for change.

Are we there yet? We haven't even cranked the engine.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Putin: Bush triggered Georgia to benefit McCain

The notion that the candidates are all the same and that voting doesn't matter is a cop out.

The notion that the parties further pretty the same overall program (albeit with minor differences) is a fact, not a cop out. We are just dealing with the fact in different ways. I lost the ability to be a true believer immediately after 9/11, when they decided together that a national ID program and a un-read (accept by perhaps one member of Congress) PATRIOT ACT was the best response on the domestic front.

And as someone that has never staked out residency in a swing state (only Massachusetts and California so far), personal voting preferences have never mattered towards the actual results in an election for the Presidency.

I think he'll do what Bill Clinton did initially- bite off more than he can chew with an issue like healthcare or global warming, get less than full cooperation from the congress and the public, then scale back and take a more moderate, bipartisan approach.

The great (sic) Clinton White House brought us Greenspan, the repeal of Glass-Steagal, the tech bubble, the foundations layed for the housing bubble, the serbia/kosovo episode, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. I'm 99.9% sure that a Gore White House would have invaded Iraq too.

I would love for Obama or anyone else to prove me wrong in that one would have to be completely bought, sold and paid for to get this far in the election, but am prepared once again for dissapointment.

[D-Mack]

Re: Putin: Bush triggered Georgia to benefit McCain

Is there any connection with Russia loosing 7 billion on it's stock market,
and the Dollar going straight up on the same day ?

South Ossetia conflict wipes $7bln off Russian market - Kudrin

...

According to Kudrin, capital outflow hit $6 billion on August 8 and another $1 billion on August 11.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080817/116091756.html

[metalman]

Re: Putin: Bush triggered Georgia to benefit McCain

Is there any connection with Russia loosing 7 billion on it's stock market,
and the Dollar going straight up on the same day ?

can you say 'flight capital'?

gotta be pretty scary anyplace for money to run TOO the usa given recent events.

[c1ue]

Re: Putin: Bush triggered Georgia to benefit McCain

Well, there is a lot of investment money going into Russia - no doubt from the US as well as elsewhere.

But the prospects of a possible shooting war between the US and Russia is more than enough to get many people covering their...assets...

It is enough to get me sniffing around for nice investors looking to divest.

For the right price, of course.