Ensign Ed is always too quick on the trigger with his bipartisan praise:

Last April, I complimented Barack Obama for his principled stand against the corrupt practice of providing “street money” to political organizers in Philadelphia.  He insisted that his new kind of politics didn’t allow for the cash-on-demand tradition in Philadelphia, and that his organization would remain voluntary.  Even with ward bosses playing the race card against him in response — claiming that Obama spent his money at “white” television stations instead of on black volunteers through street money — Obama held firm.

Strangely enough, the Chief Stumbling Block has now changed his tune on the grassrootiest mode of buying - and fabricating - votes:

According to U.S. Representative Bob Brady, the local Democratic Party chairman, Senator Barack Obama’s general-election presidential campaign in Philadelphia will be run differently from his primary operation, which relied more on volunteers than on Democratic ward leaders and did not provide street money on Election Day.

“We’re not going to pay for votes or pay for turnout,” Obama said before the Pennsylvania primary.

But Brady said that the campaign has promised street money to pump up turnout in November. And now that Obama is the official nominee, his campaign will team up with the city’s Democratic ward leaders, who traditionally help get out votes.

Yeah, it's another flip-flop. Yeah, it's another of Lucifer's lofty, high-falutin' principles heaved overboard like a corpse into a cold, isolated, murky lake.  But did you really expect him to hold to that impossible idealism if he wasn't at least twenty-five points ahead in the polls?

Here's all you need to know to understand this latest reversal:

1) In April, Obama held firm on not sullying his campaign with cash-wad-armed street hustlers;

2) Obama lost the Pennsylvania Donk primary to Hillary Clinton by double-digits, sparking a nominating season-closing losing streak that only the ubiquity of the Democrats' proportional representation delegate rules prevented from becoming a total collapse;

3) Obama - assuming that Hillary doesn't succeed in submarining the nomination away from him - is in a general election dog-fight with John Sith McCain instead of the landslide cakewalk everybody expected;

4) Unless he pulls some miracle surge out of his nether regions, another loss in Pennsylvania will almost certainly cost BO the election.

There's only one principle, and one principle only, that Barack Hussein Obama will not abandon: He'll do ANYTHING to win.

Come to think of it, that's most of why he isn't winning....

UPDATE: 'nother case in point:

Every time I grow weary of the fight, every time I slide toward the temptation to think that maybe the Democrats aren't completely despicable after all, they vomit up fresh evidence of the vileness that so indellibly defines them.

Case in point #1: America is in "extreme distress," and only Barack Hussein Obama can save it:

An upside-down flag IS the international symbol for extreme distress.  The rather obvious thematic implication on this holographic credential for BO's Nuremburgesque acceptance speech rally-cum-golden-calf-in-more-ways-than-one is that, just as he told that little girl at a recent appearance when she asked him why he's running for president, America is "not what it once was," and only he, the Pocket Savior, can redeem it.

Obamanoids weren't quite stupid enough to come out and admit it, but their lame-ass explanation/demurral more than succeeded in making them look like they thought their listeners were:

Matt Chandler with the Obama campaign says the flag is not upside down. He says it is a stylized flag designed to blend the stars on Senator Obama's shirt with the flag blowing in the wind.

Natalie Wyeth with the Democratic National Convention Committee sent 9NEWS the following statement Saturday night:"The DNCC community credentials incorporate patriotic design elements. They do not depict an actual American flag. The DNCC has full and complete respect for the flag and all rules of display."

Typical Obamarrhea.  Don't believe the clear evidence of your eyes, believe what we tell you that flagrantly defies it.

Check out the pic again.  There are two objects in it; one is a profile of Lucifer; the other is an American flag.  And it is f'ing upside-down.

I don't know why they didn't just say that to show Old Glory right-side up with the blue field in the upper-left as it is supposed to be, Obama would look like he was hanging upside-down like Toby Maguire when he first kissed Kirsten Dunst in the first Spiderman.  That would just make them look incompetent, something to which you'd think they'd have grown accustomed by now, as opposed to equal measures of arrogant, contemptuous, and borderline insane.

But of course we know why they didn't shrug sheepishly and concede the point: Because they are the children of Barack, and Barack is god, and gods don't make mistakes.

Perhaps that helps explain their twisted concept of law & order:

In 2003, a CBS4 investigation named Lauricella, a 29-year police veteran, as one of three top commanders in the Denver Police Department’s Crimes Against Persons Bureau who were routinely leaving their posts in the middle of the afternoon to work an outside job as a $30 an hour crossing guard for a private school. The revelation triggered a criminal investigation, reforms in DPD off-duty policies and hefty fines and suspensions for the other two commanders. One was suspended for thirty days for his conduct and fined another ten days pay. Denver’s Manager of Safety ordered another lieutenant suspended for twenty days and he was fined thirteen days pay.

However, Lauricella’s case was even more egregious. After he was confronted about working an outside job in the middle of his normal work day, someone immediately doctored Lauricella’s time records, changing dozens of days to try to make it appear he had been doing nothing wrong. A special prosecutor appointed to examine the case, ruled no criminal charges should be filed, but said the tampering with Lauricella’s time records was “suspicious … inappropriate” and concluded it was “highly unlikely” anyone other than Lauricella had falsified his work records.

Lauricella was suspended for seven months during the investigation but resigned in August 2003 rather than face disciplinary measures, which could have included termination.

Say hello to one of the DNCC's security consultants for next week's First Coming.

It couldn't have happened any other way, could it?

Holy hardball, Batman, I didn't think the National Republican Senatorial Committee had this level of production skill and partisan ruthlessness in them:

Mark Udall - the son of the eminently forgettable Morris Udall, whose claim to fame is that he couldn't beat Jimmy Carter in the 1976 Democrat presidential primaries - is seeking the Colorado senate seat being vacated by the retiring GOPer Wayne Allard.  Mark Udall is also, like his historical footnote of a father, an environmental extremist who has obstructed domestic energy development ever since he's been in the House of Representatives.

All of which means that no matter which way he slices it, his ass is hanging out to the skyrocketing energy prices wind no matter what he does.

Anybody who is surprised by the following story, stand on your head:

Udall, one of the House’s preeminent environmentalists and the Democratic nominee in a closely contested Colorado Senate race, came out in favor of a bipartisan, comprehensive energy plan that would permit additional offshore drilling — a striking departure from his past opposition to such measures.

He also aired a television ad featuring oil workers on a derrick, with Udall saying, “We’ve got to produce our own oil and gas here in our country and keep it here to power America’s economy. …

But Udall — whose Senate campaign has renamed his GOP opponent, Bob Schaffer, “Big Oil Bob” — is certainly one of the least likely proponents of offshore drilling.

His family name is closely tied with the protection of natural resources and conservation, consistent with the approach that he has advocated in the House. In Congress, Udall opposed offshore drilling on numerous occasions, and voted against expanding refinery capacity six times.

And now he's donning a cowboy hat and pretending to be J.R. Ewing.  Which lends Udall all the credibility of nudist running a Men's Warehouse.

You have to love that shot of Udall skulking behind that airport partition.  Nothing else could be more emblematic of the jam the Democrats find themselves in on energy policy, trapped between their greenstremist fundies and a pissed-off public now wise to the whole "save the planet" swindle - and how it is exposing their true cockroach natures for the entire electorate to see.

From The Campaign Spot blog over at NRO:

8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. I then, as Paul — an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus — 10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus,^[a] who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.

12 I am sending him — who is my very heart — back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the Gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good — 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the LORD.

17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back — not to mention that you owe me your very self.

-Philemon 1:8-19

There are certainly the highly humorous aspects of Barack Hussein Obama's whirling-dervish finger-pointing and flip-floppery.  These are a blessing as a psychological bulwark against its tiresome, and viler, shades.

Let's revisit the Hussein Cash Machine, shall we?

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama raised more than $51 million in July and the Democratic National Committee reported $27.7 million in donations last month, putting Obama in a strong position for the fall campaign.

Obama began August with $65.8 million on hand and the DNC had $28.5 million available, according to statements released Saturday. His July total was slightly less than the $52 million he raised in June.

Obama’s Internet-powered fundraising efforts have shattered all previous records for a presidential campaign, bringing in a total of $390 million so far. The Illinois senator has announced he will forgo public financing for the general election, giving up $84 million in taxpayer money for the final two months of the campaign and committing himself to a steady pace of fundraising.

By contrast, Republican candidate John McCain has raised just $140 million and has agreed to accept public financing for the general election and the spending restraints that come with it. McCain has remained competitive, however, because of the fundraising success of the Republican National Committee.

Sounds great at first blush, doesn't it?  But when the fundraising totals of the respective candidates and their national party committees are aggregated, the heretofore bankrupt, sadsack GOP is actually in parity with or even a little bit ahead of its Democrat counterpart.  This reflects the much greater "bang for the buck" that Team Sith is getting versus Team Messiah, a function of how current events have reshuffled election issues to the fore that weigh heavily in McCain's favor and to Obama's distinct disadvantage, in addition to Lucifer's insatiable gaffery, hauteur, smearmongering, and extremism.  Indeed, he's doing as much or more than Lord Queeg himself to sell the Arizona senator to the electorate as the better choice for president of the United States.  It's almost like an in-kind contribution of his campaign resources to McCain.

Expenditures are always the other side of the budget from income.  There are a lot of people who make more money than I do, but whose net worth is probably a lot less than mine, because they "spend to their income" and beyond, whereas I'm so tight I squeak.  BO, unsurprisingly, has that same problem vis-a-vie his "senior" opponent.  Given that McCain kept his promise to take the $84 million in public financing for the fall home stretch - dough he doesn't have to spend a dime to collect - while Obama has to "earn" his as a consequence of his treacherous decision to abandon his own public financing promise, his nearly three-to-one fundraising edge over Sailor from the beginning of the cycle will prove a lot smaller than it looks.

Particularly in light of how little all that lucre has purchased (via Newsmax Insider):

Predictions of a landslide victory by Democrat Barack Obama in the November election may be off base, according to a historical analysis.

In five of the six post-World War II landslides — defined as a victory of ten percentage points or more — the eventual winner was ahead by at least ten percentage points in the polls at the end of August, according to the analysis of Gallup Polls by Politico.

But recent Gallup tracking polls put Obama ahead of his Republican rival John McCain by a margin of only two to five points.

One landslide winner, Lyndon Johnson, was ahead of Barry Goldwater in a late August 1964 Gallup Poll by a huge margin — 67%-26%. Johnson went on to win the election with 61% of the vote.

In 1972, incumbent Richard Nixon was ahead of George McGovern by about twenty points in August. He won by twenty-three points.

Incumbent Ronald Reagan was ahead of Walter Mondale by ten points in 1984, and won by nearly twice that margin.

Dwight Eisenhower was ahead of Adlai Stevenson by at least fifteen points in two late August 1952 Gallup Polls. Ike won by eleven points.

“There was a definite cockiness that Democrats felt once they regained control of Congress, and I’ve felt it was a misplaced cockiness,” pollster John Zogby said.

And political analyst Charlie Cook told Politico: “I don’t think you see leads in presidential races over five points in this day and age. [Obama has] averaged leads of three points since spring. The key is that Obama hasn’t closed the sale.

“The question is, Does Obama ever close the sale?”

The answer is that Obama thought he "closed the sale" the day he announced his candidacy, insofar as he ever considered such a thing to be necessary at all.  And yet it is precisely that unmerited "cockiness" that is eating his campaign alive like the cancer it is.  At the rate his callow ego is metastasizing, it may not matter how much cash Team Hussein hoovers up.

That isn't the only fiscal drain the Golden Child is encountering, either.

There is a reason why I try never to have cash on my person.  If I do, and somebody hits me up for a loan, I can't turn them down by begging localized illiquidity.  In much the same way, Barry O's well-earned rain-making reputation - and equally infamous penchant for heaving so-called "principles" overboard at the slightest inconvenience - has made him his party's surrogate teat:

Facing a large deficit in the Democratic National Convention budget, officials from Barack Obama’s campaign have begun personally soliciting labor unions and others for contributions of up to $1 million. In exchange, donors could get stadium skyboxes for Obama’s acceptance speech and other perks.

Obama has regularly criticized politicians seeking large donations outside the framework of campaign finance regulations — so-called soft money — while touting the virtues of relying on small donations.

But campaign officials last month reluctantly decided they had to take a hand in raising large donations from individuals, unions and corporations. Some of the donors get special bundles of perks, including use of the party suites at Denver’s Invesco Field, as well as special policy briefings by Obama advisors, choice hotel rooms and party invitations.

What caused the shift was evidence that the Denver Host Committee was having trouble raising the estimated $60 million in cash and in-kind contributions needed to fund the convention, which runs August 24-29.

The resulting shortfall of which was, in large part, a product of the Idol's compulsive lust to be worshipped by an unparalleled multitude of supplicants and sychophants all at the same time.

And so out went this thunderous declaration....

....and in came the special interests - DEMOCRAT special interests (Big Labor, mercenary corporations, and, yes, "fatcats") - to which False Messiah somehow extended the hand unnailed from his self-hoisted petard.

Behold, the god who loves money, the Unifier who will apparently unload anything he can get his hands on and everything he purports to hold dear for another thirty pieces of silver.

In short, just another liberal Democrat.  But one all the more intolerably insufferable for the hypermoralistic sanctimony that drenches each and every one of the phony commandments he issues.

As to his sincere commandments - well, sometimes the old adage is true: You can run, but you cannot hide:

The presumptive Democratic nominee responded sharply in an interview Saturday night with the Christian Broadcast Network, saying anti-abortion groups were "lying" about his record.

"They have not been telling the truth," Mr. Obama said. "And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."

He added that it was "ridiculous" to suggest he had ever supported withholding lifesaving treatment for an infant. "It defies common sense and it defies imagination, and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive," he said in the CBN interview.

Wait for it....wait for it....

Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version [of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act] he supported “was not the bill that was presented at the state level.”

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.

In 2005, the campaign noted, a “Born Alive” bill passed the Illinois Legislature after another clause had been added that explicitly stated that the legislation would have no effect on existing state abortion laws.

So let's tally this up: (1) Obama lied about the BAIPA he killed at the state level in order to cover the lie that he'd have voted for the federal version; (2) he smeared the pro-life opponents who exposed his lies and called him on them; (3) within a day he feinted fessing up and then (4) doubled-down even further into the bowels of despicable absurdity by claiming that even though the Illinois version of the BAIPA he buried had the identical neutrality provisions regarding existing abortion law that the federal version had, it "still wasn't good enough."

This goes to great redundant lengths to show what an f'ing liar this man is.  But in this case it's not about his money-grubbing or his oceanic conceit, but rather a topic that Light-Bringer and his opponent were confronted with this past Saturday:

“Evil does exist,” Obama began acknowledging the premise of the question as he ticked off the evils of genocide in Darfur, inner-city crime and child abuse. “I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals erase evil from the world. That is God’s task. but we can be soldiers in that process and we can confront it when we see it.”

I'll let Ensign Ed lower the closing boom:

If child abuse is an evil that must be confronted, then infanticide is even more evil.  What did Obama do when he saw this evil?  Did he confront it, as one of God’s soldiers?  Or did he facilitate it?

The answer now from the Obama campaign is clear.  Obama facilitated evil in order to protect abortion on demand, which was never threatened by S.1082 in the first place.

That much apparently wasn’t above his pay grade.

And this man claims to be a Christian?

National Review and Strategic Forecasting advance two divergent and yet compelling takes on what is going through the mind of Russian Czar Vladimir Putin.

NR argues that Russia had achieved all its tactical and immediate strategic aims from its invasion of Georgia....:

It had subdued its fractious, independent neighbor. All but one of the energy pipelines between Central Asia and Western Europe were under its direct control — and the single exception was but a few hours away by tank. A stern lesson had been sent to former Soviet possessions, inside and outside the Commonwealth of Independent States, that they live in Russia’s zone of influence and must conform to Russian foreign policy. The European Union had forsworn any criticism of Moscow’s open aggression to protect its own status as a “mediator.” The U.S. had failed to offer any real succor to Georgia.

....but then "overplayed a very strong hand" by failing to quit while it was ahead, sending its troops "roving around Georgia destroying any property, including railway bridges and docks, that might conceivably have a military use."  An action technically allowed and actively encouraged by the first ceasefire "brokered" by the French.  These excesses "provoked" a show of solidarity in Tbilisi between Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and his counterparts from the ex-Soviet provinces of Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia; a slightly reduced level of punchless flaccidity from the Bush Administration in the form of humanitarian aid and a more balanced ceasefire not-quite-ultimatum delivered by SecState Condi Rice; expansion of the Western anti-missile shield to include new bases in Poland and Ukriane; and renewed momentum for extending NATO membership to Ukraine and what's left of Georgia.

NR's editors draw a parallel between Russia's attack on Georgia and the Soviet "invasion" of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and contend that because Russian tanks haven't (yet) captured Tbilisi and Russian troops haven't dragged President Saakashvili away in chains to a Siberian labor camp, and because the former Soviet provinces on Russia's western border haven't fallen into line behind Moscow in backing its giant neighbor's rape of the tiny Caucasus state, and because the Western reaction this time was nominally less feckless than the one forty years ago, today's crisis is far less of a triumph for the Russkies.

The flaw in that argument is rather obvious: the Red Army's crushing of the "Prague Spring" was an internal security matter of the Empire, not one soveriegn nation-state invading another.  The Warsaw Pact's endorsement was provincial governors following orders from Moscow.  The West's lack of response mattered far less then than it does now, because the rape of Georgia is the first overt step back toward the reconstruction of the dreaded USSR.

To be fair, NR caveatizes its overly sunny conclusion with several significant "ifs" whose fulfillment is not overly likely, particularly given the likely winner of the U.S. presidential election.  Said "ifs" do not appear to have even occurred to StratFor's George Friedman, who is far more focused on the realpolitik of the great power realities of what he calls "The REAL World Order".

Point #1: Despite being the unchallenged planetary hegemon, the U.S. is having to field national security threats faster than even its resources can keep up with:

Its ground forces and the bulk of its logistical capability are committed to the Middle East, particularly Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States also is threatening on occasion to go to war with Iran, which would tie down most of its air power, and it is facing a destabilizing Pakistan. Therefore, there is this paradox: The United States is so powerful that, in the long run, it has created an imbalance in the global system. In the short run, however, it is so off balance that it has few, if any, military resources to deal with challenges elsewhere. That means that the United States remains the dominant power in the long run but it cannot exercise that power in the short run. This creates a window of opportunity for other countries to act.

Point #2: The reason we can't keep all these brushfire plates spinning any more is because we spent too long dicking around in Iraq:

The outcome of the Iraq war can be seen emerging. The United States has succeeded in creating the foundations for a political settlement among the main Iraqi factions that will create a relatively stable government. In that sense, U.S. policy has succeeded. But the problem the United States has is the length of time it took to achieve this success. Had it occurred in 2003, the United States would not suffer its current imbalance. But this is 2008, more than five years after the invasion. The United States never expected a war of this duration, nor did it plan for it. In order to fight the war, it had to inject a major portion of its ground fighting capability into it. The length of the war was the problem. U.S. ground forces are either in Iraq, recovering from a tour or preparing for a deployment. What strategic reserves are available are tasked into Afghanistan. Little is left over.

Point #3: We did not take care of business a lot sooner in Iraq, as well as liberate Iran and Syria, while the window of opportunity was open five years ago.  Yet we pursued President Bush's Wilsonian democracy fetish in Russia's "near abroad" without taking into account a negative Russian reaction to it that, if it materialized - as it now has in Georgia - we would have little or no means of counteracting.  Call it "potential overextension" that got realized, leaving us with no other direction to go except in reverse:

In spite of diminishing military options outside of the Middle East, the United States did not modify its policy in the former Soviet Union. It continued to aggressively attempt to influence countries in the region, and it became particularly committed to integrating Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, in spite of the fact that both were of overwhelming strategic interest to the Russians. Ukraine dominated Russia’s southwestern flank, without any natural boundaries protecting them. Georgia was seen as a constant irritant in Chechnya as well as a barrier to Russian interests in the Caucasus.

Moving rapidly to consolidate U.S. control over these and other countries in the former Soviet Union made strategic sense. Russia was weak, divided and poorly governed. It could make no response. Continuing this policy in the 2000s, when the Russians were getting stronger, more united and better governed and while U.S. forces were no longer available, made much less sense. The United States continued to irritate the Russians without having, in the short run, the forces needed to act decisively.

The combination of #2 and #3 meant that Moscow had its own window of opportunity to begin rebuilding its empire before we could finish the job in Iraq and free up forces for "redeployment" elsewhere - such as the Caucasus.  Unlike us, they seized their opportunity while they could, and now the entire template of global alignments has irretrievably changed.

But we all know what the real unfinished business for the U.S. is in the Middle East, and it's several hundred miles to the south:

[T]he Russians had an additional lever for use on the Americans: Iran.

The United States had been playing a complex game with Iran for years, threatening to attack while trying to negotiate. The Americans needed the Russians. Sanctions against Iran would have no meaning if the Russians did not participate, and the United States did not want Russia selling advance air defense systems to Iran. (Such systems, which American analysts had warned were quite capable, were not present in Syria on September 6, 2007, when the Israelis struck a nuclear facility there.) As the United States re-evaluates the Russian military, it does not want to be surprised by Russian technology. Therefore, the more aggressive the United States becomes toward Russia, the greater the difficulties it will have in Iran. This further encouraged the Russians to act sooner rather than later.

Thus leading to Friedman's novel conclusion/recommendation: a Russo-American grand bargain:

The Russians have now proven two things. First, contrary to the reality of the 1990s, they can execute a competent military operation. Second, contrary to regional perception, the United States cannot intervene....

We would expect the Russians to get traction. But if they don’t, the Russians are aware that they are, in the long run, much weaker than the Americans, and that they will retain their regional position of strength only while the United States is off balance in Iraq. If the lesson isn’t absorbed, the Russians are capable of more direct action, and they will not let this chance slip away. This is their chance to redefine their sphere of influence. They will not get another.

....[T]he Russians are waiting for the Americans to calm down and get serious. If the Americans plan to take meaningful action against them, they will respond in Iran. But the Americans have no meaningful actions they can take; they need to get out of Iraq and they need help against Iran. The quid pro quo here is obvious. The United States acquiesces to Russian actions (which it can’t do anything about), while the Russians cooperate with the United States against Iran getting nuclear weapons (something Russia does not want to see).

Throw Georgia - and by implication the rest of the former Soviet "republics," who will inevitably knuckle under to Czar Vlad sooner or later regardless - under the bus in exchange for Russian "assistance" in neutralizing Iran.

While Friedman's supporting arguments are sound, his conclusion is quasi-Obamaesque in its wishful thinking quotient.  It is illogical to suggest that Russia does not want to see a nuclear Iran when Russia has been Iran's principle nuclear technology and fuel supplier for over a decade.  Why would they want to cooperate with us in shutting down the mullahgarchy's visions of Armageddon and the return of the Twelfth Imam when the only conceivable strategic purpose of nuclearizing Iran in the first place was to tie us down so they could have a free hand in "Prime Minister" Putin's neoSovietization?

Friedman's quid pro quo sounds to me like three more magic beans.  We would be endorsing our borderline humiliation in Georgia, admitting weakness on Iran, in exchange for the "promise" of "assistance" from a man who has already lied repeatedly and flagrantly ever since his tanks crossed the Georgian border and against whose own strategic interests he would be acting.  The mullahs would become even more emboldened to produce and "deploy" their nukes, as well as reignite chaos in Iraq, keeping us tied down there even longer, or more likely forcing our retreat from there, and eventually from Afghanistan and that entire part of the world.

In the end, our options vis-a-vie the Caucasus are indeed slim and none.  We're not going to go to war with Russia over Georgia, Iraq or no Iraq.  We can only apply what "soft power" measures we can and hope it stalls Putin's imperialism long enough for us to "regain our balance."

Similarly, the Russians are going to fight us indirectly in and with Iran no matter what we do.  We therefore have to "disarm" Iran anyway.  That is the most immediate and mortal national security threat we face.  Whether or not we "need help" - and I don't think we do - succor will never come from Tehran's principle nuclear vendor and protector on the UN Security Council.

Meanwhile, back in Russian-occupied Georgia, Czar Vlad has ordered the ethnic cleansing of Georgian cities, sent his forces to close in on the capital of Tbilisi with reinforcements pouring in right behind them - all after not one, but two cease-fires were supposed to have the Russians withdrawing to their own territory.  His "Sudetenland strategy" is marking the Baltic states, Ukraine, Kazakhstan for similar "protection."

And he may be making a prophet out of me yet again:

President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday that Russian President Dimitri Medvedev wants to send a Russian naval fleet to visit Venezuela.

“Russia has informed us they intend to visit Venezuela, that is, the intention that a Russian fleet should come to the Caribbean,” Chavez said on his weekly radio program.

“I told the president (Medvedev), ‘If you’re coming to the Caribbean, we’ll welcome you,’” Chavez said, adding that the Russian naval fleet would pay “a friendly and working” visit to Venezuela…

“We very much need them here,” Chavez said of the Russian weapons. “We’ve got the helicopters, the Sukoi fighters and we’re now considering buying some Russian submarines to patrol our territorial waters,” Chavez said.

A "working" visit, hmm?  Russian submarines to "patrol their territorial waters," or ours?  Just what other hardware might that fleet be delivering?

Doesn't look to me like that seriously crazed-up fruit loop is aware he's overplayed his hand.  So who's going to convince him - and how?

1 How lovely is your dwelling place, O LORD Almighty!

2 My soul yearns, even faints, for the courts of the LORD; my heart and my flesh cry out for the living God.

3 Even the sparrow has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may have her young — a place near Your altar, O LORD Almighty, my King and my God.

4 Blessed are those who dwell in Your house; they are ever praising You. 

5 Blessed are those whose strength is in You, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage.

6 As they pass through the Valley of Baca, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools. ^[b]

7 They go from strength to strength, till each appears before God in Zion.

8 Hear my prayer, O LORD God Almighty; listen to me, O God of Jacob. 

9 Look upon our shield, ^[c] O God; look with favor on Your anointed one.

10 Better is one day in Your courts than a thousand elsewhere; I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked.

11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield; the LORD bestows favor and honor; no good thing does He withhold from those whose walk is blameless.

12 O LORD Almighty, blessed is the man who trusts in You.

-Psalm 84