The United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?

The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power | Stratfor

Vicken Cheterian, a journalist and political analysts who works for Geneva's Cimera group, warns that Georgia's 40-fold increase in military spending is targeted against Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Georgia in US-financed arms race for war on Abkhazia, South Ossetia

Republican John McCain’s warning that Barack Obama isn’t ready for the awesome job of commander-in-chief may not be registering with a key constituency: the American military.troops.jpg

According to a study released by the Washington watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics, U.S. troops, and especially those deployed abroad, are talking with their wallets and saying they want Democrat Obama as the next president.

Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than McCain and the “fiercely anti-war Ron Paul,” another Republican presidential candidate, CRP said.

Through June 31, CRP said contributions from all U.S. military personnel netted Obama $335,536, compared with $280,513 for McCain.

Support the troops. Support Obama.

Tales from the Trail » Blog Archive » American troops put their money on Obama | Blogs | Reuters.com

Bush said evidence suggests Russia may be preparing to depose Georgia's democratically elected government.

"Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century," he said.

Yeah I mean, where did they get the idea that in this day and age they can just go around taking over other countries just because they CAN?

Bush to Russia: Reverse course in Georgia - CNN.com

Remember the total, hideous, inexcusable absence of oversight that has been the great hallmark of George Bush's America for almost eight years now? Well, now we're getting to see that same regulatory malfeasance applied to yet another cornerstone of our political system. The Federal Election Commission — the body that supposedly enforces campaign-finance laws in this country — has been out of business for more than six months. That's because Congress was dragging its feet over confirmation hearings for new FEC commissioners, leaving the agency without a quorum. The commission just started work again for the first time on July 10th under its new chairman, Donald McGahn, a classic Republican Party yahoo whose chief qualifications include representing Tom DeLay, the corrupt ex-speaker of the House, in matters of campaign finance.

Apart from the obvious absurdity of not having a functioning election-policing mechanism in an election year in the world's richest democracy, the late start by the FEC makes it almost impossible for the agency to do its job. The commission has a long-standing reluctance to take action in the last months before a vote, a policy designed to help prevent federal regulators from influencing election outcomes. Normally, the FEC tries to root out infractions and loopholes — fining campaigns for incomplete reporting, or for taking shortcuts around spending limits — in the early months of a campaign season. But that ship sailed way too long ago to take the stink off the 2008 race.

Candidates for Sale: Big Business Is Making Sure It Wins the Presidency | The Smirking Chimp

This evidence offers three important lessons.

First, widespread conservative complaints about “liberal judicial activism” should be taken with many grains of salt. If we ask how often the justices vote to strike down agency decisions, Scalia and Thomas, the most conservative members of the Supreme Court, show the most activist voting patterns. By contrast, the justices commonly described as “liberal” are the least activist.

Of course, there are other measures of what makes a judge “activist,” and I do not claim that our method cannot be challenged, but it is useful to offer some statistical tests, which can ensure that critics are not building their conclusions into their definitions.

Second, partisan voting is a serious problem in the federal judiciary. If the EPA issues a regulation that is aggressive in cleaning the air, or if the National Labor Relations Board resolves a dispute in favor of a union, a panel that consists solely of Republican appointees is unusually inclined to strike it down. That’s indefensible. No one should approve of a situation in which the fate of an environmental regulation depends on whether a lower court panel consists of one, two or three Republican appointees.

Third and perhaps most important, federal agencies in an Obama or McCain administration are likely to make a number of decisions that are more liberal than those of the Bush administration. Many decisions will ultimately be challenged in federal court -- and the Republican-appointed judges who dominate the federal bench could well prove to be a big obstacle. On the Supreme Court, for example, Scalia and Thomas might be joined, much of the time, by Roberts and Alito. On key occasions, Kennedy might probably join them as well.

The lower federal courts could prove an even more serious barrier. Those courts have been stocked with appointees of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. The voting behavior of appointees has been clear: They show a distinctive tendency to strike down agency decisions that do not follow a conservative line.

Here, then, is a major warning for the next administration – and a potential problem for democracy itself.null

Judicial Partisanship Awards - The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

The researchers found that rising home prices up to 2003 could be explained by economic fundamentals, such as low unemployment rates, expanding household incomes and population growth. These factors fueled housing demand and, in turn, increased U.S. home prices. During this time, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actively issued and purchased conventional, conforming mortgage-backed securities.

But in 2003, political, regulatory and economic factors – including accounting irregularities that led to their senior officers’ resignations and the capping of their retained loan portfolios – forced the two entities to significantly slow their lending volume. Private funding in the form of asset-backed securities and residential mortgage-backed securities replaced conventional, conforming mortgage-backed securities as the prevalent source of mortgage capital.

The new credit environment allowed looser underwriting standards and increased tolerance for riskier, high-yield loan products. Such products included adjustable-rate mortgages with low initial “teaser” rates, Alt-A loans that did not require income verification and nonowner-occupied investor products. This borrowing climate provided previously marginal borrowers with additional access to credit. The credit market shift led to a record increase in total mortgage volume and pushed up home prices with momentum characteristic of a bubble.

The researchers also determined that interest rates did not significantly affect house prices. The finding defied conventional wisdom that ties interest rates directly to the monthly cost of housing and assumes an effect on purchase prices.

“These findings help us understand that the government can have a major role in affecting the mortgage and housing markets,” Vandell said. “It’s important policymakers consider this influence when they attempt to shape the markets in the future.”

Subprime lending not main trigger of real estate bubble

I find this article somewhat amazing. On the one-hand, you have a DEA agent who is clearly trying to do his best to combat the opium crop in Afghanistan. He wants to do good by the world. He has many trials and tribulations, and his mission to eradicate opium from Afghanistan is ultimately a failure due to narco-corruption at the highest levels of Afghani government. Up to and including the current president. And a good dose of American bureaucracy and political infighting.

On the other hand, you have everyone, including the government of Afghanistan, much of the US government, and most of the US Military, EVERYONE except this guy refusing to do anything about the opium crop because they know it will hurt the poor Afghan farmer and destabilize the government. He does not believe this. He goes on and on about how they aren't growing the plant because they are poor, but because they are rich, and he has some UN report that agrees with him.

But in the end I find him unconvincing on that point, and so his entire argument breaks down. He is a DEA agent, and by definition they do not care about hurting the poor to enforce drug policy. War on poor addicts is DEA policy back home, and he has no trouble applying it to Afghanistan and writing off the suffering of the Afghan farmer wholesale. In fact, he expresses moral outrage that the military objects to our extending the same kind of poverty-persecution that we have in American cities to the poppy fields of rural Afghanistan. Its just the rich guys farming, he says. We need to really show Afghanistan who is boss and eradicate the poppies.

So they can grow some place else. Personally, I think it shows HOPE that Afghanistan is not repeating our mistakes and I wish them well on their poppy capitalism. I only hope that we achieve a sane drug policy that will drive the price down enough that they will grow enough wheat to be self sufficient.

Is Afghanistan a Narco-State? - NYTimes.com

Here's the thing about John McCain, and it's never easy to tell whether this is a good quality or a bad one. He's a shitty liar. He may be willing to change his position on anything from immigration to torture to campaign finance at the drop of a hat to win votes, and he may have no problem aiming below the belt — below the knees even — to impugn an opponent's patriotism. But this is not a guy who can get up in front of a churchgoing crowd in Asscrack, Arkansas, and start weeping to Jesus. In fact, he appears to deeply resent the implication that he needs to genuflect to the baby savior at all. As in, "Hell, I already lived through five years of torture! You want me to do more?"null

John McCain can't stand sucking up to the Christian right. Is this the end of the GOP's unholy alliance? | The Smirking Chimp

W. is directed by Oliver Stone (Platoon, Wall Street, JFK, Nixon, Alexander) with a screenplay written by Stanley Weiser (Project X, Wall Street). Lionsgate recently picked up the distribution rights to W. and will be releasing it on October 17th just before the election.

Hahahaha

Must Watch: Oliver Stone's W. Teaser Trailer � FirstShowing.net