August 11, 2008

Aug 11 00:32 Where We Stand On Energy
Aug 11 06:54 Highlighting the Democrats' Tired Arguments
Aug 11 08:18 Tinklenberg Write Now Posted
Aug 11 11:44 The War Against America's Ally
Aug 11 12:10 McCain's Statement
Aug 11 14:51 Top 10 Energy Questions For Speaker Pelosi
Aug 11 16:36 Ya Gotta Love This

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Prior Years: 2006 2007

Where We Stand On Energy

It's been 10 days since Speaker Nancy Pelosi shut off the lights in the House chamber and the power to the microphones without allowing a vote on any pro-drilling amendments. While it's true that most Americans aren't partisan, it's equally true that they know when someone's acting like a tyrant. In this case, the tyrant's name is Nancy Pelosi.

Before we villify her as the sole culprit, let's set the record straight. Ms. Pelosi is the 'Culprit-in-Chief' but she's had lots of help in obstructing legislation that would lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

First, it's important to understand that every Democrat that voted to shut down for their August recess was a Pelosi enabler. Several Democrats joined every Republican in voting against adjournment. The motion to adjourn passed by a single vote. Had more of the so-called pro-drilling Democrats walked the walk, Speaker Pelosi wouldn't have been able to adjourn.

Let's not gloss over this point because it's a huge point. If the so-called pro-drilling Democrats stood up to her, it would've put alot of pressure on Speaker Pelosi. It likely would've forced her to grant an up-or-down vote on Republicans' American Energy Act.

The entire point of calling the August recess was to avoid dealing with that legislation. Speaker Pelosi wants to avoid that legislation like a vampire wants to avoid making contact with wooden stakes.

I suspect that the Democrats will be forced to cave on this issue because facts are undercutting their arguments. A perfect example is the Democrats' oft-repeated argument that "We can't drill our way out of this crisis." Every Democrat that's argued that point has pointed to the EIA's report. That will hurt their credibility because an Institute for Energy Research report discredits the EIA's report:

Recently, for example, some have pointed an Energy Information Administration (EIA) report that estimated the amount of oil we could produce on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) if the drilling ban were lifted. EIA estimated this to be approximately 200,000 barrels per day.

To think that we'd only get 200,000 barrels of oil from the OCS is absurd. The only way Democrats could make that argument was because it was 'verified' by an official government report. Unfortunately for them, the IER has more accurate information:

The Thunder Horse oil production facility, which will be on line this year, is designed to produce 250,000 barrels per day. The Atlantis oil platform currently producing in the Gulf of Mexico has a production capacity of 200,000 barrels per day.

IER makes another important point in their study:

"The EIA assumed that technically recoverable undiscovered oil resources in off-limits areas of the OCS total 18.2 billion barrels, based on the Department of Interior's Mineral Management Service's Report to Congress (February 2006). But technically recoverable resources are based on current technology and economics."

What thoughtful person thinks it's wise to base an opinion or a policy on current technology? While that makes for an acceptable starting point, it isn't wise to think of that as a hard and fast rule that will never be broken. It isn't a stretch to think that new technologies would be developed with the first 12-18 months that would increase the amount of recoverable oil.

Another argument that Pelosi's Democrats have dismissed is harvesting shale oil in the Green River Formation in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. Many question whether it's possible to havest it. This recent AP article should put that speculation to rest forever:

"Negotiations with Shell to sign a deal to process oil shale in Jordan are nearing an end," said Maher Hjazin, head of the state-run Natural Resources Authority.

"If our plans succeed, it would be one of the country's largest projects to help the Jordan become energy self-sufficient, with a possibility to export oil in the future."

At minimum, this information puts presure on Speaker Pelosi to lift the moratoria on shale oil exploration. Once that happens, it's Katie bar the door time because there's, at minimum, 800 billion barrels of shale oil in that formation alone. Considering the fact that we used approximately 19.6 million barrels per day last month, the Green River Formation would supply all of the United States needs for the next century and beyond based on current usage patterns.

Speaking of which, that's a risky proposition since the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandates a 40 percent improvement in CAFE standards by 2020.

As is frequently the case, science and facts are eliminating political arguments.

Still, it's important to consider another political factor. Politico.com undercut Nancy Pelosi's strategy by revealing this strategy:

"California Democrat Nancy Pelosi may be trying to save the planet, but the rank and file in her party increasingly are just trying to save their political hides when it comes to gas prices as Republicans apply more and more rhetorical muscle. But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she's encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill."

To his credit, John Boehner pounced on this the instant he got word of it. He issued a statement calling the Democrats' bluff, saying that Democrats could prove their sincerity about drilling by signing the discharge petition that would force an immediate up-or-down vote in the House on the American Energy Act. That's precisely what Speaker Pelosi and the House Majority leadership were trying to avoid at all costs.

The reason they tried avoiding it was because they've characterized Republican bills as only being about drilling. Here are a few of the bill's provisions:

To improve energy conservation and efficiency, the legislation will:
Provide tax incentives for businesses and families that purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, as proposed in H.R. 1618 and H.R. 765 by Reps. Dave Camp (R-MI) and Jerry Weller (R-IL);
Provide a monetary prize for developing the first economically feasible, super-fuel-efficient vehicle reaching 100 miles-per-gallon, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT); and
Provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency, as proposed in H.R. 5984 by Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Phil English (R-PA), and Zach Wamp (R-TN), and in H.R. 778 by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL).

The Democrats are put in an untenable position the minute these provisions are made public. That's why Speaker Pelosi doesn't want the bill debated. She'd rather demagogue the issue, casting Republicans as slaves to 'Big Oil'.

Unless my political instincts are totally off, I'd bet the proverbial house that the NRCC will run advertisements featuring this information in every swing district across America. I'm betting that I'm right because John Yarmnuth, who defeated Anne Northup in Kentucky in 2006, is already spinning the issue, saying "I understand why the Republicans think they have that issue, but the vast majority of the American people blame George Bush and the oil companies for high gas prices," Yarmuth told PolitickerKY.com on Wednesday. "So, I think that is an issue that ultimately will not help them."

I'm betting that Rep. Yarmuth is wrong. I'm betting that he's scared to death of the issue. I'm betting that he's trying to convince as many people as possible that it isn't a big deal.

That won't work because voters are reminded that it's a big deal each time they pull into a gas station.

While I can't predict how much impact this issue will have without seeing the polling in various swing districts, I know that it's changing the shape of one race here in Minnesota. Dr. Brian Davis has tied himself to this issue in his attempt to unseat Democrat Rep. Tim Walz. Here's what you need to know about that race:

A significant portion of that district are farmers who will be picking crops a week or two before the election. If gas prices are still high, that spells trouble for Rep. Walz. It's trouble because it's a safe bet that Brian Davis will wear out the airwaves with commercials talking about how Rep. Walz would rather side with K Street environmental lobbyists than with Main Street citizens.

I'd bet that they'll run the same type of ads against Nancy Boyda in Kansas. I'd bet that that's just the tip of the iceberg, too.

The thing with icebergs is that you can't judge how much damage they're going to do because so much of their mass is hidden from the naked eye.

Personally, I'd hate to be in the Democrats' position. Thanks to their obedience to Speaker Pelosi, they're on the wrong side of the most important issue of the election. Worse yet, they're on the 30 percent side of a 70 percent- 30 percent issue.

Personally, I'd rather taunt a cobra than be in the Democrats' position. At least with the cobra, death is swift and relatively painless.

Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 12:36 AM

No comments.

Highlighting the Democrats' Tired Arguments

This article does a great job of highlighting the Democrats' tired arguments. Check out these arguments from Rep. Gwen Moore, (D-Milwaukee):

Wisconsin's Democrats, however, say Republicans have repeatedly blocked energy proposals that could lower the price of gas. They also say offshore drilling would not do enough to bring gas prices down, while risking the environment and the tourism and fishing industries that rely on the ocean.

"There's absolutely nothing we're going to discuss in August that will bring prices down tomorrow except what we've already done," said Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee).

Moore notes the House has passed a number of energy bills over Republican objections, including one to increase fuel-efficiency standards in vehicles and another to temporarily suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an attempt to lower gas prices.

"What is it they want to vote on?" she asks, ticking off a series of Democratic proposals that have met GOP opposition.

Those include rolling back tax breaks for Big Oil, requiring oil companies to drill on lands they have already leased from the federal government and cracking down on price gouging. The recent Republican campaign in the House is nothing but "high drama," Moore said.

"This is just hype," she said. "They don't have the silver bullet."

I'd first like to ask Rep. Moore why Democrats won't consider Republican amendments to the Democrats' bills. Is Rep. Moore certain that the Republicans' amendments are without merit? If she does, why does she think that?

More important, look at the boogeyman list of 'cures' to our oil woes Rep. Moore listed:

Tax increases on Big Oil, telling Big Oil how to conduct their business and finally, bringing up the ever-lurking price gouging capitalist pigs.

Good grief, Charlie Brown. Rep. Moore just laid out the Democrats' tired energy plan. Lo and behold, there isn't a thing in it that will produce a drop of new oil (or much-needed natural gas, for that matter) or increase energy efficiency or suggest new conservation measures. The Democrats bills don't say anything about nuclear power, either.

That's the Democrats energy plan?

One of the best lines from the 2004 presidential debate was President Bush responding to Sen. Kerry. Sen. Kerry was asked how he'd fix Iraq. Instead of answering, he listed a litany of criticisms of Bush policy. When it was his turn, President Bush summed it up perfectly by saying "A laundry list of complaints isn't an agenda."

That applies perfectly to the Democrats' energy plans today. There isn't a thing in their agenda that addresses fundamental needs. It's a glorified laundry list of attacks on the Democrats' boogeyman list.

Ask yourself this: When haven't Democrats whined about either Big Oil or Halliburton? Then ask yourself this: Aren't you getting tired of hearing complaints about the Democrats' boogeymen? Wouldn't you love hearing real plans that provide real solutions to this important problem?

If you said yes to that last question, isn't it time to start looking for people who offer such a solution? The good news is that Republicans have that plan. It's called the American Energy Act .

In other words, Democrats are doing everything except working on the root causes of the problem. Here's what's included in the Republican bill:

To increase the supply American-made energy in environmentally sound ways, the legislation will:

Open our deep water ocean resources, which will provide an additional three million barrels of oil per day, as well as 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as proposed in H.R. 6108 by Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC). Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) has also worked tirelessly on this issue.
Open the Arctic coastal plain, which will provide an additional one million barrels of oil per day, as proposed in H.R. 6107 by Rep. Don Young (R-AK);
Allow development of our nation's shale oil resources, which could provide an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, as proposed in H.R. 6138 by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI); and
Increase the supply of gas at the pump by cutting bureaucratic red tape that essentially blocks construction of new refineries, as proposed in H.R. 6139 by Reps. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Joe Pitts (R-PA).

Those are the increased production provisions. Next, there's this:

To improve energy conservation and efficiency , the legislation will:

Provide tax incentives for businesses and families that purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, as proposed in H.R. 1618 and H.R. 765 by Reps. Dave Camp (R-MI) and Jerry Weller (R-IL);
Provide a monetary prize for developing the first economically feasible, super-fuel-efficient vehicle reaching 100 miles-per-gallon, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT); and
Provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency, as proposed in H.R. 5984 by Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Phil English (R-PA), and Zach Wamp (R-TN), and in H.R. 778 by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL).

To promote renewable and alternative energy technologies , the legislation will:

Spur the development of alternative fuels through government contracting by repealing the "Section 526" prohibition on government purchasing of alternative energy and promoting coal-to-liquids technology, as proposed in H.R. 5656 by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), in H.R. 6384 by Rob Bishop (R-UT), and in H.R. 2208 by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL);
Establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in the deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain, as proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA);
Permanently extend the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen, as proposed in H.R. 2652 by Rep. Phil English (R-PA) and in H.R. 5984 by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD); and
Eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT).

How many people don't know about this legislation? I suspect few people know about it because that's the goal of Ms. Pelosi's Democrats. They voted to adjourn so that people wouldn't hear about this legislation. That's because the Republicans' bill is the Democrats' worst nightmare.

Democrats want to be able to tell voters that Republicans don't care about the average guy, that Republicans are in the pockets of Big Oil lobbyists. The minute that the public knows about the Republicans' bill is the minute that the Democrats' arguments lose effectiveness.

The bad news for Democrats is that they can't prevent the public from finding out about this. Don't think for a split-second that this won't be the subject of Republican campaign commercials all across the land all fall long.

As bad of news as that is for Democrats, it gets worse:

With gas prices at nearly $4 a gallon, Republicans are working to capitalize on voter frustration with Congress for failing to do something about high energy costs. House Minority Leader John Boehner has dubbed this the "drill-nothing Congress."

The message might be resonating with voters across the country. A majority of Americans now say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports offshore drilling, according to a new USA Today/Gallup Poll .

Yesterday, I included this quote from Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth:

"I understand why the Republicans think they have that issue, but the vast majority of the American people blame George Bush and the oil companies for high gas prices," Yarmuth told PolitickerKY.com on Wednesday. "So, I think that is an issue that ultimately will not help them."

Those poll numbers say that Rep. Yarmuth, like other Democrats attempting to spin this issue, is wrong. This issue isn't an issue you can triangulate on. It's a binary choice: You're either for increasing oil production to lower prices or you're opposed to such measures.

As I pointed out earlier with the Democrats' list of legislation, Democrats do nothing to increase oil, natural gas or nuclear production. Democrats made their choice. Now it's the voters' choice if they want to wait a couple of decades before alternative energy sources become reliable and viable economically. I'm betting the voters will pick increased energy production while researching viable alternative energy sources and inventing more efficient appliances.

Most importantly, I'm betting that voters will choose the Republicans' substantive, comprehensive plan over the Democrats' laundry list of complaints by a fairly decisive margin.

That's why I'm betting Democrats are very nervous right now.

Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 7:04 AM

No comments.

Tinklenberg Write Now Posted

Randy at the St. Cloud Times has posted my Write Now editorial , in which I question Mr. Tinklenberg's sincerity. Here's a snippet of my Write Now:

In his Your Turn on Sunday, Elwyn Tinklenberg says that we should "drill domestically for more oil." On his energy issues Web page, though, he says "America must reduce its dependence on the coal and petroleum products that contribute to global warming." He also says on that issues page that he's for "implementation of a revenue-neutral carbon tax."

It's a polite way of questioning Mr. Tinklenberg's sincerity. I strongly recommend you follow the link to read my substantive challenge to Mr. Tinklenberg.

Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 8:19 AM

No comments.

The War Against America's Ally

Over the weekend, some bizarre things happened in connection to Russia's military invasion of Georgia. There are lots of things to be learned from this weekend's developments. The biggest lesson to be re-inforced is that we shouldn't abandon our democratic allies. That's essentially what President Saakhashvili's op-ed reminds us of. What's eye-opening about President Saakhashvilil's op-ed is the provocative language contained in it. Here's what I'm talking about:

The Kremlin designed this war. Earlier this year, Russia tried to provoke Georgia by effectively annexing another of our separatist territories, Abkhazia. When we responded with restraint, Moscow brought the fight to South Ossetia.

Ostensibly, this war is about an unresolved separatist conflict. Yet in reality, it is a war about the independence and the future of Georgia. And above all, it is a war over the kind of Europe our children will live in. Let us be frank: This conflict is about the future of freedom in Europe.

No country of the former Soviet Union has made more progress toward consolidating democracy, eradicating corruption and building an independent foreign policy than Georgia. This is precisely what Russia seeks to crush.

This conflict is therefore about our common trans-Atlantic values of liberty and democracy. It is about the right of small nations to live freely and determine their own future. It is about the great power struggles for influence of the 20th century, versus the path of integration and unity defined by the European Union of the 21st. Georgia has made its choice.

Russia has sought to control its former 'colonies' throughout Putin's time in office. Let's remember how he tried installing a pro-Moscow candidate in the Ukraine through fraud in 2004. The thought of Ukraine having its own foreign policy threatened Putin.

Don't think that it's coincidence that Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned during the campaign. But I digress.

Putin's Russia has sought to control each of the former Soviet bloc countries. It's obvious that he can't stand the thought of losing control of those nations.

What's important now is for the United States, working in concert with the EU and NATO, to exert forceful diplomatic and economic pressure on Russia. Putin must be told in no uncertain terms that their military incursion into Georgia is an act of war that won't be tolerated.

Another bizarre lesson from this weekend is how quickly Putin switches into propaganda mode, as evidenced by this video:

Russia's first military action was in South Ossetia. That's since escalated by Russia's bombing of Tbilisi, which is far removed from South Ossetia. Putin calling Russia the "true victims" while they're bombing Tbilisi is insulting and it shouldn't be tolerated.

Putin is also criticizing the U.S. :

Moscow, 11th August - Vladimir Putin has pointed a finger of blame at the United States. Washington, said the Russian Premier, is trying to intervene in Russian operations in Georgia, transporting Georgian troops to the conflict zone by air. "In fact, some of our partners, far from assisting us, are attempting to impede us: I refer to Georgian soldiers based in Iraq, transferred on board US aircraft directly to the conflict zone". Around one thousand Georgian troops were deployed in Iraq. Already in the opening hours of the conflict in South Ossetia, Tbilisi called on Washington for assistance in returning them home.

Mr. Putin better get used to the U.S. siding with Georgia. We haven't sided with military aggressors that invade sovereign nations.

Meanwhile, John McCain is showing who the adult is during this crisis, issuing the following remarks:

What the people of Georgia have accomplished in terms of democratic governance, a Western orientation, and domestic reform is nothing short of remarkable. That makes Russia's recent actions against the Georgians all the more alarming. In the face of Russian aggression, the very existence of independent Georgia and the survival of its democratically-elected government are at stake.
In recent days Moscow has sent its tanks and troops across the internationally recognized border into the Georgian region of South Ossetia. Statements by Moscow that it was merely aiding the Ossetians are belied by reports of Russian troops in the region of Abkhazia, repeated Russian bombing raids across Georgia, and reports of a de facto Russian naval blockade of the Georgian coast. ...

The implications of Russian actions go beyond their threat to the territorial integrity and independence of a democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors such as Ukraine for choosing to associate with the West and adhering to Western political and economic values. As such, the fate of Georgia should be of grave concern to Americans and all people who welcomed the end of a divided of Europe, and the independence of former Soviet republics. The international response to this crisis will determine how Russia manages its relationships with other neighbors.

We have other important strategic interests at stake in Georgia, especially the continued flow of oil through the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which Russia attempted to bomb in recent days; the operation of a critical communication and trade route from Georgia through Azerbaijan and Central Asia; and the integrity and influence of NATO, whose members reaffirmed last April the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Georgia.

NATO's North Atlantic Council should convene in emergency session to demand a ceasefire and begin discussions on both the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia and the implications for NATO's future relationship with Russia, a Partnership for Peace nation. NATO's decision to withhold a Membership Action Plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision. ...

Working with allied partners, the U.S. should immediately consult with the Ukrainian government and other concerned countries on steps to secure their continued independence. This is particularly important as a number of Russian Black Sea fleet vessels currently in Georgian territorial waters are stationed at Russia's base in the Ukrainian Crimea.

The U.S. should work with Azerbaijan and Turkey, and other interested friends, to develop plans to strengthen the security of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.

The best that Sen. Obama has done thus far is to urge restraint on both parties. Not only is it apparent that he isn't ready to lead; it's also becoming apparent that he's too pacifistic to ever be a leader.

Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 11:45 AM

Comment 1 by Winston Smith at 11-Aug-08 01:49 PM

Three questions, Gary:

Do you want to go to war with Russia to protect Georgia?

Do you really think that anything short of military intervention by the U.S. would cause Russia to cease fire?

Who fired the first shot?

Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 11-Aug-08 02:21 PM

1) No

2) Yes. I think sustained economic pressure will get Russia's undivided attention. It might take awhile but it will work.

3) I just know that Russia crossed a sovereign nation's border, imposed a naval blockade & has invaded parts of the country not involved in the initial invasion.

Each of these are acts of war. What happens now? I don't know but I'll be watching.

McCain's Statement

Here's the text of Sen. McCain's statement on the Georgian-Russian War as reported in the NY Times :

"Americans wishing to spend August vacationing with their families or watching the Olympics may wonder why their newspapers and television screens are filled with images of war in the small country of Georgia.

Concerns about what occurs there might seem distant and unrelated to the many other interests America has around the world. And yet Russian aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America. Georgia is an ancient country at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion. After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991.

But its early years were marked by instability, corruption and economic crises. Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful Democratic revolution took place. Led by the US educated lawyer, Mikheil Saakashvili, the Rose revolution changed things dramatically and following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide ranging and successful reforms. I've met with President Saakashvili many times, including several trips to Georgia. What the people of Georgia have accomplished in terms of Democratic governance, Western orientation and domestic reform, is nothing short of remarkable. That makes Russia's recent actions against the Georgians all the more alarming. In the face of Russian aggression, the very existence of independent Georgia and the survival of its democratically elected government are at stake. In recent days Moscow has sent its tanks and troops across the internationally recognized border into the Georgian region of South Ossetia. Statements by Moscow that it was merely aiding the Ossetians are belied by reports of Russian troops in the region of Abkhazia, repeated Russian bombing raids across Georgia, and reports of a de facto Russian naval blockade of the Georgian coast. Whatever tensions and hostilities might have existed between Georgians and Ossetians, they in no way justify Moscow's path of violent aggression. Russian actions in clear violation of international law have no place in 21st century Europe.

The implications of Russian actions go beyond their threat to the territorial integrity and independence of a Democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia in part to intimidate other neighbors such as Ukraine for choosing to associate with the west and adhering to Western political and economic values. As such, the fate of Georgia should be of grave concern to Americans and all people who welcome the end of a divided Europe and the independence of former Soviet Republics.

The international response to this crisis will determine how Russia manages its relationships with other neighbors. We have other important interests, strategic interests, at stake in Georgia, especially the continued flow of oil through the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which Russia attempted to bomb in recent days. The operation of a critical communication and trade route from Georgia through Azerbaijan and Central Asia, and the integrity and influence of NATO, whose members reaffirmed last April the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Georgia. Yesterday, Georgia withdrew its troops from South Ossetia, and offered a ceasefire. The Russians responded by bombing a civilian airport in Georgia's capital, Tblisi, and by stepping up its offensive in Abkhazia. This pattern of attack appears aimed not at restoring any status quo ante in South Ossetia, but rather toppling the Democratically elected government of Georgia. This would be unacceptable to all the Democratic countries of the world, and should draw us together in universal condemnation of Russian aggression. Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe long-term negative consequences that their government's actions will have for Russia's relationship with the United States and Europe.

It is time we moved forward with a number of steps. The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the United Nations Security Council condemning Russian aggression, noting the withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia, and calling for an immediate ceasefire and a withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory. We should move ahead with a resolution despite Russian veto threats and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion. NATO's North Atlantic Council should convene in emergency session to demand a ceasefire and begin discussions on both the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia and the implications for NATO's future relationship with Russia, a partnership for peace nation. NATO's decision to withhold a membership action plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision. The secretary of state should begin high level diplomacy, including visiting Europe to establish a common Euro-Atlantic position aimed at ending the war and supporting the independence of Georgia. With the same aim, the United States should coordinate with our partners in Germany, France and Britain to seek an emergency meeting of the G-7 foreign ministers to discuss the current crisis. The visit of French president Sarkozy to Moscow this week is a welcome expression of trans-Atlantic activism. Working with allied partners, the U.S. should immediately consult with the Ukrainian government and other concerned countries on steps to secure their continued independence. This is particularly important as a number of Russian Black Sea Fleet vessels currently in Georgian territorial waters are stationed at Russia's base in the Ukrainian Crimea. The U.S. should work with Azerbaijan and Turkey and other interested friends to develop plans to strengthen the security of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. The U.S. should send immediate economic and humanitarian assistance to help mitigate the impact the invasion has had on the Georgian people. Our united purpose should be to persuade the Russian government to cease its attack, withdraw its troops, and enter into negotiations with Georgia. We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of the world.

World history is often made in remote, obscure countries. It is being made in Georgia today. It is the responsibility of the leading nations of the world to ensure that history continues to be a record of humanity's progress toward respecting the values and security of free people. Thank you. This is the total of my recommendations for right now."

Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 12:11 PM

No comments.

Ya Gotta Love This

This afternoon, I was channel surfing when I came upon a Hillary supporter on Neil Cavuto's show. This Hillary supporter said that she'd be voting for John McCain because McCain's values were much closer to Hillary's than were The One's. I thought "Ok. We're always willing to accept disenchanted Democrats if it helps us win." Then she mentioned an organization that she co-founded called Real Democrats. Here's what the blog entry at the top of the page says:

Real Democrats is a grassroots initiative whose primary purpose is to inform and educate. Groups in all 50 states are forming for this worthy endeavor. You can be part of this important effort by contacting us through your state coordinator to take direct action. [See Contact Us] This website was founded to reveal the corruption and distortions of the liberal and biased media as well as others who prohibited the free flow of ideas and truth. We invite you to peruse this website, join in the conversation, and become involved. It is only by banding together will we get the word out that the treatment of Senator Clinton by the media and the tactics of the Democratic Party are completely unacceptable.

I never thought I'd see the day when a Democrat would complain about the "corruption and distortions of the liberal and biased media", much less hear Hillary Clinton's supporters saying that.

This proves, yet again, that fact is stranger than fiction.

Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 4:43 PM

No comments.

Search This Blog

LFR 15 YEARS!

August 11, 2008

Where We Stand On Energy

Highlighting the Democrats' Tired Arguments

Tinklenberg Write Now Posted

The War Against America's Ally

McCain's Statement

Top 10 Energy Questions For Speaker Pelosi

Ya Gotta Love This

Popular posts from this blog

March 21-24, 2016

October 31, 2007

January 19-20, 2012