Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?

Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government, ending his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser.

Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the U.S. Iraq invasion.

There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, which clearly was expected to produce a Russian counter-reaction. It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain's presidential campaign.

In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia's membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia's Vladimir Putin.

Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate's foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new Cold War, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, it was Putin's Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/12/EDCD129NI4.DTL

I took a quick glance at the Rense site and they seem to have info pointing to the Zionist connection as well.

I wonder if the neo-cons think tossing Bush out of office along with Cheney is a waste of time when they could start WW3? Maybe they won't get it until they see the ICBM's flying overhead..

This all just confirms the fact that the world is a very dangerous place and that isn't going to change.

I'm 100% sure the Russians would rather deal with Obama than McCain. Why? Because Obama will meet their tanks, planes and missles with "talk" rather than force (or threats of force).

The Russians may be evil, but they're not stupid. They know they can push Obama around.

This all just confirms the fact that the world is a very dangerous place and that isn't going to change.

Which is why a foreign policy based on creating democracy at bayonet point worldwide is doomed to fail. And why the Republican strategy for doing so will probably cost them the White House, the Congress and may even sink the party.

I'm 100% sure the Russians would rather deal with Obama than McCain.

I'm 100% sure the US is no position to go to war in Georgia whether the next president is Obama, McCain or Roger Rabbit.

Why? Because Obama will meet their tanks, planes and missles with "talk" rather than force (or threats of force).

Yes, McCain will doubtless throw in a few of those Popeye-like grimaces he's so fond of. But that'll be the only difference. Unless you're advocating a massive pull-out from Iraq, how exactly will McCain meet the Russians any differently? And over what, for god's sake?

The Russians may be evil, but they're not stupid.

Our current Administration may not be evil, but they sure are stupid. Which is why we may yet enter the fray here, though I fervently hope not.

They know they can push Obama around.

What vital American interest is at risk here? And assuming McCain is going to fight, let's here how. As in who is going in, where are they going to come from and how exactly is it going to be paid for?

Randy Scheunemann sounds like your typical neocon – PNACer – lobbyist- McCain advisor up to his neck in dirty money, shady alliances with slime like Chalabi, oil interests and pro-war front organizations

I'm 100% sure the US is no position to go to war in Georgia whether the next president is Obama, McCain or Roger Rabbit.You're wrong. We don't have to march on Moscow to win. All we need to do is decimate their air power, which I'm 100% confident America can do. After that, all the tanks and infantry on the wrong side of the Russian border will be sitting ducks.

What vital American interest is at risk here? And assuming McCain is going to fight, let's here how. As in who is going in, where are they going to come from and how exactly is it going to be paid for?I don't think anyone wants to see the US get involved in another war...but that doesn't mean we should take it off the table as one possible reaction. Once we do, the Russians win because their planes, tanks, and guns are stronger than our words and peaceful sentimients.

What vital interest is at stake? Well, certainly you think we should support our allies...don't you? Georgia has been a good ally to us...and they're in a very nice strategic position.

You're wrong. We don't have to march on Moscow to win. All we need to do is decimate their air power, which I'm 100% confident America can do. After that, all the tanks and infantry on the wrong side of the Russian border will be sitting ducks.

I don't think anyone wants to see the US get involved in another war...but that doesn't mean we should take it off the table as one possible reaction. Once we do, the Russians win because their planes, tanks, and guns are stronger than our words and peaceful sentimients.

What vital interest is at stake? Well, certainly you think we should support our allies...don't you? Georgia has been a good ally to us...and they're in a very nice strategic position.

We can't handle Iraq. What kind of idiot would have us decimate Russia's anything? That would be an act of war, and whether we wanted to follow through with troops that we don't have or not, Russia would be perfectly within their right to unload on us in retaliation.

Then they could shut down our currency, since they own a lot of our debt.

You rah rah tough guys are amazing. What army do you think we have that can kick the whole world in the nuts and then expect them to just take it without kicking back?

This is exactly why McCain shouldn't ever be in command of anything other than the trust fund his wife gave him.

You're wrong. We don't have to march on Moscow to win. All we need to do is decimate their air power, which I'm 100% confident America can do.

I don't think anyone wants to see the US get involved in another war...but that doesn't mean we should take it off the table as one possible reaction.


"All we need to do" ?? .. Are you Dr Strangelove ? LOL

We had major problems subduing an unarmed sandbox .. what makes you think triggering WWIII with the worlds second largest nuclear power is such a hot idea ?

But hey .. with enough shovels and some canned food I'm sure some of us will survive

Un friggin believable

"All we need to do" ?? .. Are you Dr Strangelove ? LOL

We had major problems subduing an unarmed sandbox .. what makes you think triggering WWIII with the worlds second largest nuclear power is such a hot idea ?

But hey .. with enough shovels and some canned food I'm sure some of us will survive

Un friggin believable

Hey now...it worked when he was playing Civilization 4, so there is absolutely nothing to say that it wont work here either.

This all just confirms the fact that the world is a very dangerous place and that isn't going to change.

Thanks to people like Putin and Bush..:mad:


I'm 100% sure the Russians would rather deal with Obama than McCain. Why? Because Obama will meet their tanks, planes and missles with "talk" rather than force (or threats of force).

Have you lost your flucking mind? Nice fear mongering too btw..:rolleyes:

What do you suggest we do? Start WW3 and urn everybody back into their basic elements over something that doesn't involve us?

You're flucking nuts!


The Russians may be evil, but they're not stupid. They know they can push Obama around.


LOL, you are a complete maniac..

Randy Scheunemann sounds like your typical neocon – PNACer – lobbyist- McCain advisor up to his neck in dirty money, shady alliances with slime like Chalabi, oil interests and pro-war front organizations

Isn't it nice how many shady lobbyists McCain has or had working for him that the mainstream media won't talk about?

If these people want this fanatical psycho McCain to be president, they better start living it up because the nukes will be flying if these bastards have their way..

You're wrong. We don't have to march on Moscow to win. All we need to do is decimate their air power, which I'm 100% confident America can do. After that, all the tanks and infantry on the wrong side of the Russian border will be sitting ducks.


You're insane, once again for the record.

Russia isn't Iraq or Grenada! And do you reallythink they would just sit back in a shooting war with us while we "decimated" their military without firing off any of their 10,000 ICBM's to flatten parts of our country?

What a loon you turned out to be..

Are you hoping to speed up the "End Times"?


I don't think anyone wants to see the US get involved in another war...

Everyone except the neo-cons and the military industrial complex which always needs an enemy so they can re-distribute our wealth to the top 1%. Along with rabid war loving conservatives.



but that doesn't mean we should take it off the table as one possible reaction. Once we do, the Russians win because their planes, tanks, and guns are stronger than our words and peaceful sentimients.

WTF are you even talking about? Do you even know?

Did the Russians meddle with us when we attacked Iraq? Why on Earth do you think this is any of our busines?:eek7:


What vital interest is at stake? Well, certainly you think we should support our allies...don't you? Georgia has been a good ally to us...and they're in a very nice strategic position.


LOL!! You're flucking lost...

We can't handle Iraq. What kind of idiot would have us decimate Russia's anything? That would be an act of war, and whether we wanted to follow through with troops that we don't have or not, Russia would be perfectly within their right to unload on us in retaliation.

Then they could shut down our currency, since they own a lot of our debt.

You rah rah tough guys are amazing. What army do you think we have that can kick the whole world in the nuts and then expect them to just take it without kicking back?

This is exactly why McCain shouldn't ever be in command of anything other than the trust fund his wife gave him.


Exactly, these neo-cons think we can do whatever we want, now they actually believe we can be involved in two wars at once, and take on the Russians at the same time? You gotta wonder just what is in their kool-aid!!:eek3:

"All we need to do" ?? .. Are you Dr Strangelove ? LOL

We had major problems subduing an unarmed sandbox .. what makes you think triggering WWIII with the worlds second largest nuclear power is such a hot idea ?

But hey .. with enough shovels and some canned food I'm sure some of us will survive

Un friggin believable


It's hard to believe... Who would have thought anybody could think this way? Can you imagine what some of these neo-cons in Washington are thinking? I hope they don't think the same way SG does or goodbye world, nothing like a few thousand hydrogen bombs to fix all our problems..

Hey now...it worked when he was playing Civilization 4, so there is absolutely nothing to say that it wont work here either.

They'll only nuke the big cities too, radiation being deadly is just a leftist plot to undermine the economy too...:p

Georgia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq anything to muddy the waters and obscure the fact that the rich are getting richer.

Don't think for a second that Obama doesn't have a neocon team pushing their agenda on him.

Big money pushes the neocon agendas. Big money supports both campaigns. Big money supports the interests of big money. The media ignores neoconservatives and their agendas.


Here's the irony of politics in America. Big money supports both campaigns by paying the media hundreds of millions of dollars and the media is owned by big money.

Quite a circle jerk!

Exactly, these neo-cons think we can do whatever we want, now they actually believe we can be involved in two wars at once, and take on the Russians at the same time? You gotta wonder just what is in their kool-aid!!:eek3:

Uh, we're already in two wars. If we got into another one, that would make three.

Uh, we're already in two wars. If we got into another one, that would make three.

Like, that's what I said...

You're wrong. We don't have to march on Moscow to win.

Well, that's a relief. I thought you were going to call it a "cakewalk" or something. So, what exactly are you calling for? Will this include striking at targets inside Russia?

All we need to do is decimate their air power, which I'm 100% confident America can do.

Actually, the one success the Georgians have had is at shooting down some Russian planes. With outdated Russian technology acquired from what appears to be the Ukraine. So, the Russians latest and greatest SAMs, etc., might post some nasty challenges indeed. And please point to ONE example in history where airpower alone carried the day. It didn't in either Gulf War, it didn't in the Balkans, etc. But since you believe in this thesis, doubtless you're aware of numerous examples I'm missing. :rolleyes:

But, hell, all of that's neither here nor there. What I want are the details. You're saying use airpower only, not one set of boots on the ground? Meaning 100,000+ ground troops in Iraq, 25,000 or so in Afghanistan, and an air war vs. Russia? Simultaneously?

After that, all the tanks and infantry on the wrong side of the Russian border will be sitting ducks.

errm, nope. Didn't work that way in the Balkans, though it may have in both Gulf Wars. Besides, the Russians are not viewed as enemies in either South Ossetia or Abkazia, meaning any incursion by Georgians would be met not only by Russian but by local resistance as well. So, you're saying the US should be in the business of supporting the suppression of ethnic minorities?

I don't think anyone wants to see the US get involved in another war...but that doesn't mean we should take it off the table as one possible reaction.

You really are divorced from reality, aren't you? In case you hadn't noticed, the (a) the US is broke (b) we're getting "broker" by the day (c) nobody wants to buy very much that we have to sell, (d) the party that holds most of our debt is likely our biggest challenge in this century ahead. War is ALREADY off the table, unless you advocate our further slide to Third World status.

What vital interest is at stake?

Yup, that's what I asked. And what you didn't answer. So, I'll ask again: What vital interest is at stake?

Well, certainly you think we should support our allies...don't you?

What treaty commitments do we have with Georgia, exactly? I think those should be honored, certainly. I suspect there aren't any, but please enlighten me. Beyond that, I see no national interest at stake, no advantage to involvement and no easy way to win should we become involved. To say nothing of the fact that we cannot afford it, and hell can't even afford what we're now doing.

Georgia has been a good ally to us

Aside from the 2,000 soldiers they included in the Coalition of the Bought and Paid For, I am unaware of anything Georgia has done for the US. Please provide details, here.

...and they're in a very nice strategic position.

For what? Herding goats?

I notice you also didn't even attempt to answer my questions as to how the hell all of this gets paid for. Which makes you smarter than Cheney and his fairy tale $75 billion for Iraq...but means I'm still going to ask again: How much do you think it would cost? How does it get paid for?

Thanks to people like Putin and Bush..:mad:Well, I'm happy to at least hear that you're not a fan of Putin. As far as Bush, you act as though I've supported him unquestionably over the last 8 years.


What do you suggest we do? Start WW3 and urn everybody back into their basic elements over something that doesn't involve us?

You're flucking nuts!

LOL, you are a complete maniac..
Yeah, you're right, it would be better to let Russia re-assemble the USSR and build strength over a few decades before we decide to confront them. Good idea...the same kind of shit that almost had all of Europe speaking German.

You're insane, once again for the record.

Russia isn't Iraq or Grenada! And do you reallythink they would just sit back in a shooting war with us while we "decimated" their military without firing off any of their 10,000 ICBM's to flatten parts of our country?

What a loon you turned out to be..
Of course, an ICBM attack would require an counter attack. The Russians know this and it will make them hold their fire. I don't think the US or Russia would use nukes over this.

Along with rabid war loving conservatives.No one loves war. But, there is a time to stand up for yourself or your friends.


WTF are you even talking about? Do you even know? The point was, that if you disagree with the actions of another nation, at some point you may have to resort to force to make your point. I know that libs love to think that we can all hold hands and sing campfire songs with all the bad guys of this world...but it isn't true. Won't happen. When we do crap like that, they think we're stupid...and weak.

Did the Russians meddle with us when we attacked Iraq? Why on Earth do you think this is any of our busines?:eek7:Perhaps they would have if they could have.

We can't handle Iraq. What kind of idiot would have us decimate Russia's anything?Everyone knows we did handle the conventional war in Iraq in just a few weeks. It was totally text book. The problem has been the insurgents and nutbags. I don't think that would be much of a factor in a conflict with Russia.

That would be an act of war, and whether we wanted to follow through with troops that we don't have or not, Russia would be perfectly within their right to unload on us in retaliation.South O is recognized by the UN as part of Georgia. I'm not advocating any action outside of that region. I'm not advocating the use of any military force of the United States in Russian territory.

Do you believe a nation that asks for our help when their borders have been breached should not recieve help? Just wondering...


You rah rah tough guys are amazing. What army do you think we have that can kick the whole world in the nuts and then expect them to just take it without kicking back? Yeah, you're right...we should just bend over and let Russia **** us in the collective asses.

Will this include striking at targets inside Russia?Nope. Only expelling Russian troops from Georgian territory.

Actually, the one success the Georgians have had is at shooting down some Russian planes. With outdated Russian technology acquired from what appears to be the Ukraine. So, the Russians latest and greatest SAMs, etc., might post some nasty challenges indeed.Russian planes are not equal to ours. Yet, there is always a risk that you'll lose some equipment and personnel.

Perhaps you think we should disband our military?

And please point to ONE example in history where airpower alone carried the day.Of course, I never said it did. Georgia would be reponsible for putting their boots on the ground.

The fact is, without control of the air, Russia could not hope to hold the territory. That would accomplish our goals.


So, you're saying the US should be in the business of supporting the suppression of ethnic minorities?I see. So, you think that if say...Texas...decided it wanted to be part of another country, that would be okay with you?

You really are divorced from reality, aren't you? In case you hadn't noticed, the (a) the US is broke (b) we're getting "broker" by the day (c) nobody wants to buy very much that we have to sell, (d) the party that holds most of our debt is likely our biggest challenge in this century ahead. War is ALREADY off the table, unless you advocate our further slide to Third World status.Yeah, you're right...**** it. We don't have enough money to be right anymore.


What treaty commitments do we have with Georgia, exactly? I think those should be honored, certainly. I suspect there aren't any, but please enlighten me. Beyond that, I see no national interest at stake, no advantage to involvement and no easy way to win should we become involved. To say nothing of the fact that we cannot afford it, and hell can't even afford what we're now doing.

Aside from the 2,000 soldiers they included in the Coalition of the Bought and Paid For, I am unaware of anything Georgia has done for the US. Please provide details, here.I think you said it right. Georgia helped us, it's time we help them.


For what? Herding goats? First, it is right on Russia's doorstep. If you don't see an advantage there, okay. Secondly, there are oil piplines there. While that oil does not come to us, disruption of the flow could cause problems for us and Europe.

I notice you also didn't even attempt to answer my questions as to how the hell all of this gets paid for.You're totally right. Next time you think about whether you want to do the right thing, make sure you check your pocketbook to make sure you can afford it.

Would it have cost us less to stop Hilter when he first started or wait until he's almost engulfed Europe?

Nope. Only expelling Russian troops from Georgian territory.

Russian planes are not equal to ours. Yet, there is always a risk that you'll lose some equipment and personnel.

Perhaps you think we should disband our military?

Of course, I never said it did. Georgia would be reponsible for putting their boots on the ground.

The fact is, without control of the air, Russia could not hope to hold the territory. That would accomplish our goals.

I see. So, you think that if say...Texas...decided it wanted to be part of another country, that would be okay with you?

Yeah, you're right...**** it. We don't have enough money to be right anymore.

I think you said it right. Georgia helped us, it's time we help them.

First, it is right on Russia's doorstep. If you don't see an advantage there, okay. Secondly, there are oil piplines there. While that oil does not come to us, disruption of the flow could cause problems for us and Europe.

You're totally right. Next time you think about whether you want to do the right thing, make sure you check your pocketbook to make sure you can afford it.

Would it have cost us less to stop Hilter when he first started or wait until he's almost engulfed Europe?

It's amazing how some people rationalize the validity of something as dire as "going to war."

Everyone knows we did handle the conventional war in Iraq in just a few weeks. It was totally text book. The problem has been the insurgents and nutbags. I don't think that would be much of a factor in a conflict with Russia.

Why would the Russians use a winning strategy when they can easily adopt a losing strategy?

Only in America do people hide from what everyone else sees:

America spends as much on defense as rest of the world combined, yet our military failed to defend the homeland from an air raid conducted by four commercial jets armed with box cutters, we cannot control the military behavior of Russia, whose defense budget is roughly 10 percent the size of ours, the administration says that the nation that presents our greatest challenge is Iran, whose defense budget is less that one percent of ours, and we've failed to diminish al Qaeda, the terrorist organization that attacked us on September 11, 2001, and whose defense budget is zero percent of ours.

Short of launching a surprise nuclear attack, there is absolutly nothing America can do to Russia, except program Condi Rice to sound even shriller when issuing empty laughable threats.

America spends as much on defense as rest of the world combined, yet our military failed to defend the homeland from an air raid conducted by four commercial jets armed with box cutters, we cannot control the military behavior of Russia, whose defense budget is roughly 10 percent the size of ours, the administration says that the nation that presents our greatest challenge is Iran, whose defense budget is less that one percent of ours, and we've failed to diminish al Qaeda, the terrorist organization that attacked us on September 11, 2001, and whose defense budget is zero percent of ours.



If the VP tells you to stand down, you stand down.
If the Secretary of Defense under staffs and under supports military actions we're ****ed.

There's little America cannot do unless, of course, we're told to stand down or we're getting ****ed.