But six months after Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) ended his long-shot presidential campaign, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee appears to be in serious competition to be Barack Obama’s running mate. A rather interesting choice - considering Biden got less than 1% of the vote in Iowa, and although a permanent Presidential candidate (beginning back in 1988), he rarely gets more than 5% of the vote nationally.

But as I and others have pointed out - electoral “prowess” is rarely a characteristic of vice presidential hopefuls. The only VP choice to actually deliver any delegates was Lyndon Johnson. Instead, Obama’s calculus in choosing Biden (if indeed he does chose him) may lie in the calculus about his ability to campaign, and is experience and persona having been the 6th longest serving Senator in the United States.

I understand the appeal of picking “Joe” from a campaign stance. During the primaries, Obama had a difficult time winning over white Catholic voters, garnering only 34 percent support from this group in Ohio and only 28 percent in Pennsylvania, according to exit polls. Biden is not the only Catholic frequently mentioned as a VP possibility, but Biden comes across as a “just-plain-Joe” political style and a heart-rending personal history — his wife and infant daughter died in a car crash just a month after he was elected to the Senate in 1972. As a senator, Biden took the train to Wilmington virtually every night to be with his two surviving sons. He often talks about, on shows like Meet the Press, conversations he has with Delaware citizens while waiting for the train.

Biden is plain spoken, and outspoken. A routine feature on Meet the Press, Biden has been all over the place in terms of policy (supporting Democrats and Republicans, and criticizing them when it pleases him). Biden is for Democrats what Newt was for Republicans - the ideas man, and the guy who would (and usually did) tell you what was on his mind.

Biden is also thought to plug the “hole” in Obama’s ability to understand and effectively manage foreign policy. While I think this is ultimately a killer issue - for some, Biden’s nomination will be seen as providing balance in this regard to the ticket. I’d argue that if Obama were elected President, nothing would have prohibited him from consulting with Biden even as a Senator; further, Vice Presidents rarely conduct substantive foreign policy. That said, I will say that it would be hard, if not impossible, to find someone who knows more about foreign policy, than Joe Biden. Thus, if the goal was to find someone with Foreign Policy experience - Biden is the top of the list.

Biden is not without his problems. In 1987, Biden quit the Democratic primary race early after the revelation that he had delivered, without attribution, passages from a speech by British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock. A barrage of subsidiary revelations by the press also hammered Biden’s image: a serious plagiarism incident from his law-school years, boastful exaggerations of his academic record at a New Hampshire campaign event, and the discovery of other quotations in Biden’s speeches pilfered from past Democratic politicians.

In the post-Clinton era, plagiarism may seem like small potatoes. Obama had is own “Biden Moment” (as it was called) with respect to some of his speeches and it hardly registered. However, with Biden, is a recurring theme that has given both comedians and the Press ample fodder for making fun of him and it has been a character issue that has dogged Biden since 1988. Obama may not want to have his first nomination pick be someone who has any real “hot button” issues. It is hard to find someone with Biden’s experience, who doesn’t have some problems with his past. Biden is an interesting mix of both tribulation and triumph.

In his 30 years in the Senate, Biden has established a reputation for being a vocal, pften funny (I usually have laughed watching him), reliable Democratic partisan, with an almost obsessive enthusiasm for train travel. At times, his shoot-from-the-hip style can look direct and bold, like in 1992, when Biden reportedly told Slobodan Milosevic to his face that he was “a damned war criminal and should be tried as one.”

Of course, at other times, it also can make Biden look like a lunatic. According to The New Republic, in October 2001, Biden encountered a group of airline pilots and flight attendants who wanted his help in passing emergency benefits for laid-off airline workers. “I hope you will support my work on Amtrak as much as I have supported you,” Biden told them. “If not, I will screw you badly.” Or similarly, in response to a question on the campaign trail in 2006, Biden was videotaped saying, “In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

Choosing Biden for Obama may ultimately boil down to a logic that Bush used in choosing Cheney. Ultimately, the best and most successful Vice President seems to be one who is capable of doing the job of President, but doesn’t necessarily want to (or can’t otherwise become) President. Cheney had no intention of succeeding Bush, thus, he could march lock-step with him in terms of policy management, without having to worry about the political ramifications for a run after 8 years. Similarly, Biden has reached the end of his political career. He can either stay in the Senate or retire - but it is unlikely he will ever ascend to the Presidency in his own right. Another run for Joe Biden in 2012 seems unlikely, as he will be 77 (older than McCain is now - the oldest person to seek the office). Thus, if Obama is looking for “his Cheney,” Biden is probably as good as it will get.

I can also see other reasons why he may want to pick Biden. The reality is, whoever the next President is, Congress is going to want to drive the train faster on many issues than the President. Even if Obama is facing a Democrat majority Congress, he may not agree to the Pelosi plan of when and how to do it. Obama will learn what every President eventually learns - the last guy before you wasn’t a complete moron, there were some real problems you just can’t escape as President, and the campaign isn’t the same as governing. Thus, having a guy like Biden, who can legitimately put the breaks on Congress the way Cheney did, would probably be in Obama’s interest.

Finally, unless you’ve been living under a rock for 30 years - chances are you know Joe Biden. In terms of appointing someone who has been at the national level - it would be hard for Obama to find someone more qualified.

I personally think that the Biden “advantage” that pundits are talking up is overplayed. Biden will be debating the other Vice Presidential candidate, and not McCain. The reality is Obama will have to show he can function on the world stage - not Joe Biden. For Biden, however, this appointment probably will be the cherry on the whipped cream of a rather long and distinguished career - thus, I suspect he’s likely to take the opportunity.

… so Joe Joe… if the call comes, will you say yes? We’ll probably know in the next 24-48 hours.

The buzz this week is all about who Sen. Obama will chose as his Vice Presidential nominee. I have been talking with friends and the question keeps coming up, “How important is the pick?” The answer - it is one of those choices in life you can only “screw up”; getting it right often has little to no impact on the candidate’s chances of winning the White House. Additionally, trying to guess who the President is going to choose - is like trying to predict where lighting is going to strike - it’s nearly impossible.

The Vice President pick is the Presidential candidate’s first political appointment. It is often the first “decision” the Presidential candidate makes of any consequence. Because of those facts, the choice of who is the VP is placed under significant scrutiny by the media and the electorate. I remember when Quayle was nominated, people went “Who?” Bush’s credibility took a hit, because, the appointment was understood by pundits and partisans alike that Quayle’s choice was a “bolt out of the blue,” of a guy who wasn’t really qualified to be President if the situation ever arose. Events such as the famous “Potatoe” incident didn’t exactly inspire confidence in Mr. Quayle after taking office.

And we all remember Admiral Stockdale’s “Who am I? Why am I here?” Not that Perot ever had a real chance of being elected - but his choice for VP in Admiral Stockdale was a disaster because of the perception that Stockdale was an incompetent bumbling moron.

Perceptions about the VP are almost more important than the reality. The idea is that the Vice Presidential pick will help the Presidential candidate win the general election - so the choice is often based on an electoral calculus. A northerner should pick a southerner - and vice-versa. A west coast candidate needs an east-coast candidate. The funny thing about these “balances” is - it rarely works out that way in the general election. For example, Edwards did absolutely nothing for Kerry. Bush did very little for Reagan. Cheney did absolutely nothing for Bush. Mondale did nothing for Carter. Perhaps the only situation where the VP calculus in terms of electoral math made sense was Kennedy’s choice of Johnson - Johnson did deliver Texas and probably a few votes to boot!

Lately the trend is to balance positions. I don’t know how important that really is in terms of picking the VP. I don’t think the voters are so retarded as to be unable to understand that the Vice President has few legal responsibilities and is the second fiddle on the ticket. Thus, one has to wonder if Kemp’s pro-business, pragmatic views, really kept Republicans in line with Dole as the nominee. Did people vote for Kerry because Edwards was the guy on the ticket in the number two spot? Probably not.

Again - the only place where this calculus could actually work out would be if Obama chose Hillary. The Hillary voting block seems quite cohesive. Having her as the #2 could go along way to getting those people to the polls. There is considerable reason to believe a large number of the Hillary supporters are going to go to McCain if Obama ultimately doesn’t pick Hillary. How real that threat is remains to be seen.

Finally, another theory is that President’s pick people whom compliment their weaknesses. The thrust of Obama picking Biden is the alleged foreign policy gap. The choice for Gov. Tim Kaine is looking for someone with domestic policy experience (makes me wonder what Obama’s experience is then if he’s weak on both foreign and domestic policy)? This strategy seems to me to be an interesting pundit factor - but I don’t think it factors in much for the choice of the candidate nor the electorate. Rarely do voters view the President/Vice President as a “team” of “co-equals.” Perhaps as a result of Vice President Cheney, people are starting to appreciate the power that can be wielded by a VP with close presidential ties and an effective staff for working Capitol Hill, however, few VP picks will match Cheney’s deft in handling these issues.

It was actually Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale turned the vice presidency around and made it something where there was some “teeth” to it. Mondale had offices and staffers in the West Wing, regular one-on-one meetings with the president, and access to top appointees. Their example has been followed since.

And presidential nominees have not waited until the very last minute at the convention to pick their nominees since Ronald Reagan did in 1980.  Which leads me to believe, Obama is doing this purposefully to avoid two problems - a mounting attack against whomever is chosen (the “Swift Boat” problem). Second, and perhaps more shallowly, avoiding the “Phelps” problem - where everyone is galvanized by the Olympics. Nevertheless, if one was evaluating Obama’s ability to be decisive - hard to justify why he waited to so long.

I think it is nearly impossible to predict, unless one is privy to the conversations, the logic of how the Vice Presidential candidate is chosen. For example, no one could have predicted, from the outside, the choice of George H.W. Bush’s nomination of Sen. Dan Quayle. Moreover, consider situations like Ford choosing Rockefeller, over Bush or Reagan. In such a case, all three choices made logical sense - but picking any one over the others relies entirely on understanding (and being privy to) the internal calculus of the campaign and how the Presidential candidate understands the dynamics of the election, the dynamics of his campaign, and the belief that the Vice President will reach out to some constituency or supplant some weakness. Moreover, one has to understand the internal party calculus at play. Again, using Ford as an example, Ford’s political adviser Melvin Laird believes Rockefeller is the only Republican who can deliver enough political punch to help Ford win the 1976 presidential election. Ford’s first choice, Senator Barry Goldwater, refuses consideration, saying that he is too old. When asked who he would recommend, Goldwater names George H.W. Bush. Bush and his supporters mount a strong internal campaign for the job. Rockefeller is much more ambivalent about his possible selection; he has presidential ambitions of his own, but at age 66 knows that if he ever intends to run for the White House, his time is at hand. The idea of spending four years as Ford’s vice president does not necessarily appeal to him. Republican party conservatives, lead at the time by Senator Jesse Helms, attack Rockefeller at every opportunity. However, Ford’s chief of staff, Donald Rumsfeld, works behind the scenes to promote Rockefeller’s nomination over Bush’s within the RNC. Rumsfeld’s support of Rockefeller is not along ideological lines, instead he feels Ford will have a better shot at the 1980 presidential nomination with Rockefeller as vice president than he will with Bush. Ultimately, Rumsfeld prevails in bolstering Rockefeller, and Rockefeller agrees to be the Vice President.

In short - the Byzantine process that results in a Vice President pick - is about as complicated as trying to determine how a raindrop will fall down a pane of glass. It is possible to make such calculations, but, the chances of navigating it successfully is relatively low. The path is obvious only after it has played its course. So I don’t get all that excited about trying to see into the future and guess who Senator Obama or McCain will pick as their Vice President. Bottom line - it’s based on factors I can’t necessarily see or predict.

Who wants to be Vice President anyways? Depends on who you ask. For example, John Nance Garner spent his entire adult life working his way up to Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and then gave it up to become Vice President. He later said it was the “worst damn fool mistake I ever made.” Being “second fiddle” is a tough job for some people. It definitely was for “Cactus Jack” Garner.

The problem was that everyone knew vice presidents had little to do. Presiding over the Senate is a clerk’s job, and opportunities to break ties there seldom arise. As late as the 1950s, vice presidents did business from an office in the Capitol and had little occasion to visit the White House. When Harry Truman was summoned there on April 12, 1945, and told of Franklin Roosevelt’s death, he did not know that the president was out of the city; he had met with him just twice in his eighty-two days as vice president. After Truman’s first cabinet meeting, Secretary of War Henry Stimson took him aside and told him the government was developing a weapon of enormous power. This was the first time Truman had heard about the atomic bomb.

Truman’s unpreparedness may have prompted some later presidents to give vice presidents useful things to do. Dwight Eisenhower sent Richard Nixon on important foreign trips. John Kennedy gave Lyndon Johnson responsibility for the space program. Gerald Ford gave Rockefeller some assignments, then dropped him from the ticket.

In short - being the VP is a job that, as Cactus Jack said, “is not worth a bucket of warm piss.” Well, he wasn’t called “Cactus Jack” for nothing….

And as for the President’s choice of VP - unless he really screws it up… it rarely matters.

I was on the VP list before I I was off…

Former Democratic nominee for the presidency Senator John Kerry is a top contender for Barack Obama’s VP, according to some Boston news sources.

Oh please… please pick him.

I want to hear about the three purple hearts again.

I want to see the Salute again at the DNC convention.

I want to see him square “I voted for the Iraq war before I voted against it,” against Obama’s “the war should never have been fought” remarks.

I don’t think we (Republicans) can be that lucky!

I just don’t.

Back on June 23, I wrote a piece entitled “Why is Crude Oil (and gasoline) so expensive?” Since then, I’ve received quite a few emalis and comments to that piece - many of which essentially chastising me for not adopting the “drill here, drill now” framework as being the main lynchpin to solving US oil crisis and high gas prices.

Well - the fact of the matter is - the drop in prices can be better explained by the factors I identified than a statement by the President to remove the ban on off-shore drilling, or the current political storm in the House about getting the Speaker to allow a vote on drilling.

Put simply, supplies world wide have remained essentially constant (there has not been a change or increase in supply) - but US demand is falling and the ability to take up the slack demand of countries like India and China is temporarily maxed out; the US dollar is stabilizing, brought about by a belief that the Federal Reserve will have to raise short term interest rates, lessened concerns about a US recession (which would place pressure on the Fed to lower interest rates, even with inflationary pressures), increased concerned about US inflation rates (even with energy removed from the calculus), and that the United States is about to dramatically halt its borrowing because of the costs of issuing new debt; political instability has become less of a variable as it now appears a major conflict in an oil producing zone seems less likely; and finally, price speculation has been accelorating this decline because they are primarily attune to US economic factors, and thus, have been withdrawing money from the oil sector to put it into other investment activities that look more lucrative for the long term.

However, I believe all of this is only temporary in the long-term. In the short term, however, prices may drop considerably.  How low will gasoline go? I don’t know. I felt that gasoline would peak at about 4.15 a gallon for regular - and it did nearly that, topping out at 4.12 I believe. I now believe that gasoline will fall to as low perhaps as 3.30 a gallon, through the winter driving season in the United States. I would expect to see gas fall to about 3.50 a gallon for regular unleaded and oil remain close to or at about $100 a gallon (trading in the $90-110 range). The current forecast is for there to be ample supply of oil in the world market. I also expect OPEC won’t change policies in production ahead of the US elections. Saudi Arabia - the largest OPEC producer - was battered pretty hard politically for looking like it was profiting from the pain of US consumers. I think it will wait until after the US elections to gauge the political environment before adopting a change in production policy. Thus, oil output should remain globally pretty high (and stable) for the next several months. This means that the US and other countries will get an opportunity to develop oil inventories and that will also keep the prices lower.

The main reason why oil will remain at $100 a gallon will be the value of the dollar and the US economy. If the US economy improves in the first half of 2009, we could see prices drop rather quickly - perhaps as low as $60 a barrel again - if the US were to dramatically experience rocketing growth and the US dollar shoot back up to 2004 values. I don’t think that is going to happen, but, it illustrates would could happen.

The long-term, however, is less favorable. OPEC will eventually cut back production and prices will begin to rise. Moreover, India and China will increase their demand over time. Combine these factors with what is likely to be a tepid growth rate in the US, continuing credit problems in world markets, and an expansion of the credit collapse to hit Europe and Asia countries hard, and oil is under considerable pressures to stay at or above $100 a barrel.

There are some other factors that people need to also realize. First, the ability to refine oil into other products is probably going to be static FOREVER. Before you say that’s impossible - just follow the logic for am moment. In order to justify the investment of a refinery, the oil company has to be able to demonstrate that it can make that refinery profitable for a long enough period of time that the returns are worth the investment. For oil refineries, that can mean a time horizon of 30 to 40 years. Considering it takes several years to build the refinery, build the infrastructure to the refinery, and then begin distribution of the refined products, the lag time may be 35-45 years. That means essentially it takes a generation to get the benefits of the refinery where its operating costs are reflected only in the marginal costs of operation. Put simply - we may not have that much oil left such that we will need the excess capacity to refine compared to now.

For example, places like Prudhoe Bay, have seen their refining pumping drop from 1.6 million barrels a day at its height in 1998 to 400,000 (roughly 100,000 barrels a day now as a result of a pipeline problem, but it could be pumping no more than 400,000 barrels a day). If we open places like ANWR, we can increase that amount perhaps back up to 1998 levels for another 10-15 years.

But, the reality is, in terms of refining ability, it is hard to justify a new refinery for Prudhoe Bay’s output, if by opening new wellheads you only bring it back to the capacity you had in 1998. Further, in terms of crude refining capacity, in 1998, the US could refine about 15M barrels a day. Now the US can refine about 17M barrels a day. That is an increase of about 14% in the last 20 years. It is hard to imagine that with declining utilization (93% in 1998 to 88% today) that building new refining capacity is in the long-term interest of oil companies.

Which is why even though their coffers are stuffed with cash - none of it is going into building new refining capacity. Much of the money spend on refineries is in modernization, repair, and expansion. I’m not aware of any new refining plants.

The second thing people may need to come to terms with is the idea that we may be at peak oil. This is a concept I’ve resisted for some time - but I’m now starting to rethink. While ANWR, Bakken fields, etc., are things we should be tapping, the reality is, oil may be in (to quote the Vice President) “it’s final deathrows.” The long-slide from peak oil may take 50-100 years, but it is likely that we have seen the end of large new easily pumped fields. While there can always be technological breakthroughs, and incredible new finds, the reality is, we can really only get oil levels back up to 1988 levels perhaps, through drilling.

That means of course we should drill, and drill now, to bring that oil online to provide the US more time to develop alternatives and to keep our enemies/adversaries from tapping those reserves (and our cash). But it also means in the long-term, oil-as-usual isn’t a viable solution.

I am not as pessimistic as many that the collapse of oil will mean the collapse of civilized society. However, whether peak oil happened in 1980 (as some claim), is happening now (as many seem to think), or may happen in the near future (as I think), the reality is - we need to understand that as a finite resource, oil is being pumped out of the ground at a rate faster than it ever has been, and we’re going to eventually run out.

On the other hand, I could be entirely wrong. Some people are very optimistic: Abdullah S. Jum’ah, President, Director and CEO of Aramco states that the world has adequate reserves of conventional and non-conventional oil sources that will last for more than a century.As recently as 2008 he pronounced “We have grossly underestimated mankind’s ability to find new reserves of petroleum, as well as our capacity to raise recovery rates and tap fields once thought inaccessible or impossible to produce.” Jum’ah believes that in-place conventional and non-conventional liquid resources may ultimately total between 13 trillion and 16 trillion barrels and that only a small fraction (1.1 trillion) has been extracted to date.

Even if Jum’ah is correct, the price of oil may not necessarily be low - even if supplies are adequate - because of long-term demand pressures as the world’s population increases.

So, going back to the original question - has the oil bubble burst? Probably, for the time being, but the really big bubble - the dependence on oil - is still growing. When it pops - we may all be wearing suds.

While the recent events in Russian invading Georgia are not exactly the same as the invasion in Poland in 1939, unfortunately, there are too many similarities. Russia is bullying Georgia and attempting to reconstitute its empire of satellite states. Georgia matters to the United States because, put simply, as the only world’s Super Power, how America reacts to this naked aggression can either continue general peace and stability in the world, or alternatively, encourage aggression by the Russians, the Chinese, and other powers looking to “settle old scores, and renew old empires” around the world. Unfortunately, we’re not off to a very good start it seems. We either act decisively now, or, as Chamberlain did in 1939, look the other way while a bully beats the crap out of an ally.

What does Russia want? (What’s this all about anyways?)

The conflict between Russia and Georgia isn’t all that complicated in my view. What the Russians want is simple - they’re out playing “Risk” again, and they’re looking to collect another “green” territory (you’ll need to have played risk to get the sarcasm). You can look at an old Risk game-map here. Russia’s goals are quite simple:

• End Georgian sovereignty through expulsion of Georgian troops and termination of Georgian control in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
• Remove President Mikheil Saakashvili (a democratically elected and pro-West, pro-US, leader) and install a more pro-Russian leadership in Tbilisi.
• Prevent Georgia from joining NATO
• Send a strong message to Ukraine that its insistence on NATO membership will lead to war and/or its dismemberment, just like Georgia.
• Shift control of the Caucasus, and especially over strategic energy pipelines, to Russia.
• Restore the sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union states, by the use of force if necessary.

If you accept Russia as a rational state - it is difficult to otherwise conclude these are not their goals since there is no logical reason otherwise for Russia, a powerful state, to attack its neighbor, who was incapable of threatening it.

Let me state briefly, that there is a logical and legitimate “beef” that the Ossetians may have with the Georgian government. They have been trying to break away for awhile, and there have been several vicious periods of fighting since Georgia declared independence back in 1991. Georgia’s deployment of troops in repsonse to the South Ossetian “break away” move last week was perhaps heavy-handed. However, to put what has happened into some context, it would be equivalent of the United States invading Canada because it deployed troops to put down seperatist movement of the Quebeciose, and flattening the Canadian military in response to a perceived injustice against Quebec for Canada deploying its troops within its borders. That would not be acceptable behavior, and the world would clamor for sanctions against the United States if that were to happen. That is, in a nutshell, what happened in this case - Russia invaded the sovereign state of Georgia over an internal dispute between separatists in South Ossetia and the Georgian Republic.

Russia’s actions are in direct contravention of international law. Casus belli under international law is rather explicit. Essentially, there are two broad frameworks for lawful conflict - either the Security Council can declare a breach of the peace and forces are committed to stop the “aggressor,” or, as was the case of the United States in Afghanistan, the United States exercised its inherent right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Critics who are equivocating US action in Iraq and Russia’s invasion of South Ossetia are significantly misguided in their comparison. US action in Iraq is lawful and justifiable on the basis of enforcement of UNSCR (United Nations Security Council Resolution) 1441, a resolution that explicitly stated that the sanction for non-compliance with prior resolutions, “it [Iraq] will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of it obligations[.]” Further, under Article 51, the United States reasonably argued that Iraq’s support for al Qaida, and one of three known state supporters of international terrorist regimes such as Hezbollah and Hamas, placed it in conflict with the United States and represented a threat to its national security. While I grant you that with hindsight now, these arguments might have been evaluated differently, both in the context of when they took place, are lawful and legitimate. Those who quote equivocate US action in Iraq as being “the same” as Russia’s invasion of Georgia misstate the legal context for both actions.

Georgia is a democratic state that is pro-US and pro-West. They have modernized and flourished since leaving the Communist sphere in 1991. It is a prospering nation that, up until the Russians decided to flatten it, controlled significant gas and oil wealth, had access to international shipping, and was a candidate for NATO membership. Georgia’s democratically-elected government has instituted far-reaching reforms and ended the endemic corruption that defined life under Soviet rule. It has a burgeoning economy that grew 12 percent last year alone.

Russia wants to destroy all of that. That’s why this matters.

Even if you accept the criticisms of Iraq - this isn’t Iraq. Georgia is an ally. They are Democratic. Russia is our enemy. They are beating the snot out of our ally. If we don’t back our friends - then our credibility will be shot - and we will encourage tyranny.

No WMD. No nonsense. I’m not saying the Russians will be standing on our doorsteps tomorrow. But just as Czechoslovakia was the opening gambit in 1939, Georgia is Russia’s opening gambit in 2008. What stewards of world peace can we claim to be if, like Europe did in 1939, we stand by idly while peace and democracy dies in a former Soviet state?

I believe in what I have called the “jail house” model of international politics. In the jail house yard, if you want to prove you’re tough and control others, you find the biggest guy in the yard, and beat the snot out of him. That demonstration puts on notice everyone else that you are so tough, you just beat the crap out of the bully that everyone was sure was strong. Georgia is being made an example of - the strongest of the breakaway republics, Russia intends to beat the crap out of them as warning to others not to interfere in its new “sphere” of influence, and to warn states like Ukraine - if you even think about cozying up to the West anymore, robbery, rape, beatings, murder, and T72’s standing on your house are in the near future for you.

Just as President Bush in 1990 understood, I am hoping President Bush today understands, such naked aggression cannot go unchallenged. It is time to ratchet up the pressure on Russia. I would recommend the following:

• Reaffirm support for the Saakashvili government and declare that its removal by the Russians would lead to recognition of a government-in-exile.
• Embarrass the Russians by disbanding the G8 and reconstituting it as the G7.
• Seek immediate condemnation and sanction by the UNSC against Russia’s violation of international law by invading Georgia.
• Convene NATO to disband the NATO/Russia working groups.
• Declare our intention to begin immediately obstructing Russia’s accession into the WTO (the equivalent of blocking their full membership into the WTO)

And if that doesn’t get their attention:

• Request the Congress to immediately tariff 100% all Russian goods entering the United States.
• Stop all flows of money out of the United States to the Russia federation
• Seize Russian assets that may be located in US banks
• Withdraw the United States from the 2014 Olympic Games and encourage others to follow, hosting a Pan-democracy games in either the US or Europe.

And if that doesn’t get their attention:

• Provide foreign military assistance to Georgia on an emergency basis
• Provide the Georgian government with intelligence and weapons support for their forces to fight the Russians until they withdraw

And if that doesn’t work and they still don’t get it:

• PNG the Russian Ambassador to the US.
• Seek a UNSCR resolution that a state of war exists in Georgia and that it calls upon the allied powers of the US-EU to restore order and security.
• Put in “advisers” and deploy covert forces to “interrupt” Soviet efforts.

Do not be fooled that because Russians are making nice on TV that the reality is they are withdrawing. There are continuing reports of serious human rights violations and breaches of the law of war. Moreover, there are also reports of the Russians arming militias and then letting them run wild through Georgian cities, raping, pillaging, and stealing.

Hopefully some of you have seen with your own eyes the video of the reporter being sniped, or have read about the UNHCR incident where the Russian troops stole their vehicles and fired on them as they fled with reporters from the Wall Street Journal.

Bush may have looked into the eyes of Putin and found he had a good heart…

… but I’ll stick with the facts that Putin’s demonstrated himself to be nothing more than a classic commie in Stalin style.

The failure for us to act now and decisively will be far reaching. While Putin and Bush are sitting next together at the Olympics, Russian tanks were mowing down Georgia. What does it say to the rest of the world, to our allies, when America will not stand up for Democracy or for its allies?

How do you think the Chinese viewed what happened - with their ever wandering eye towards “one China” in Tiawan, or the Spratly Islands?

How do you think Ukraine understood what’s going on?

And what does it say to the world when Sarkozy is the voice of reason and stability? The cease-fire was a joke. Essentially, the French said, “okay - um - will you agree to stop shooting when you’ve killed all the Georgian military assets?” And the Russians said, “sure, okay!”

If we do not want the re-emergence of dangerous state empires - the US must act now, and decisively, to ensure that as we said in 1990, “this will not stand!” Otherwise, our national security is directly threatened by thinking we can somehow bargain it away through hollow agreements.

All that is missing  from 1939 analogy is if Sarko had come back from Moscow and proclaimed, “Mes bons amis, pour la deuxième fois dedans notre histoire, la France est retournés de Moscou apportant la paix avec l’honneur. Je crois que c’est paix pendant notre temps.”

Peace in our time indeed.