2008 Election CoverUps
McCain’s Experience Shows Through
August 2008
World events have made it impossible to ignore just how naive and inexperienced barack obama is.
By Andrew Peterson
For CoverUps.com
The civilized world rightly condemns Vladimir Putin’s brutal and bloody invasion of Georgia this past week.
But American voters nevertheless owe Vlad The Invader a small measure of thanks for the clearer understanding he has given us about our presidential candidates.
So says International Business Daily in a recent editorial:
Russia's brutal invasion of Georgia caught America off guard. But it did give voters an idea of what to expect from a President McCain or a President Obama, and right now the differences are stark.
The Russian attack has shed light on how the candidates would likely react in the event of an international crisis.
For his part, McCain responded firmly, and with moral clarity:
John McCain understood just what was happening and called it right on the first shot.
"Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia," he said as the news broke. "The very existence of independent Georgia — and the survival of democratically elected government — are at stake."
He was blasted by pundits as being too extreme, but events now show he was right. McCain grasped the regional implications, too.
"Russia has used violence against Georgia to send a signal to any country that chooses to associate with the West and aspire to our shared political and economic values," he said.
The same cannot be said for Barack Obama:
In contrast, Barack Obama was all over the map, first equivocating Georgia and Russia as equally at fault and calling like a tired parent for all sides to just stop, making no moral distinction between an invader state and a nation invaded.
"Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and avoid escalation into a full scale war," he said. It was a call for peace at any price, and implied that if Georgia should take exception to a foreign invasion, its self-defense was culpable. Jimmy Carter would be so proud.
Obama then lazily called on the U.N. to take care of the problem, which ignores the U.N.'s long record of inaction. All the same, turning it over to the U.N. conveniently extricates the U.S. from any responsibility to an ally and shields Obama from peace lobby criticism.
Obama then shifted to a slightly tougher line with more U.N. involvement, easily done with 300 foreign policy advisers, apparently including Hollywood actor George Clooney.
As the IBD says, McCain has a much firmer grasp of our interests in the world than does Obama:
McCain has a consistently clear reading on America's role in the world. He's seen war up close in Vietnam, and knows the mentality of tyrants and thugs...
He also has focused on foreign affairs for decades, helping found Ronald Reagan's International Republican Institute in 1983, which, along with the National Democratic Institute, has attempted to spread democracy through the world. It's not surprising that he calls for a league of democracies to replace the stagnant U.N. and ineffective multilateral organizations ...
McCain has been calling Russian intentions right since 1999, when he warned that Vladimir Putin was bad news and said Russia's strike at Chechnya would in time spread to Georgia.
Our Take
Now we have proof that an off-the-cuff McCain is better than Obama+300 foreign policy advisors, calibrating and re-calibrating their man’s response under the pressure of events.
How dearly must the tyrants of the world desire an electoral victory for Obama in November. Surely they salivate at the thought of it. Imagine you are China, covetous of Hong Kong, or Al Qaeda, covetous of Pakistan’s nukes, or North Korea, covetous of western aid. Who would you rather have standing between you and your goals? President McCain, or President Obama?
Link to article. 
