The Occasional Observer

This really explains why the man needs to be President. A great statement from beginning to end. The first half of the statment contains McCain's understanding of the history. The second half has Mac's action steps:

-Continue efforts to have the UN Security Council condemn the attack, despite Russian veto attempts.
-NATO should consider sending peacekeepers to South Ossetia
-NATO should revisit its decision to withold membership from Georgia
-We should work with other nearby nations (Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Turkey) to ensure that regional security is maintained (I'm guessing that's code for prepare a military response should Ukraine or Azerbaijan be attacked).

"Our united purpose should be to persuade the Russian government to cease its attacks, withdraw its troops, and enter into negotiations with Georgia. We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world. World history is often made in remote, obscure countries. It is being made in Georgia today. It is the responsibility of the leading nations of the world to ensure that history continues to be a record of humanity's progress toward respecting the values and security of free people.

FWIW, if you'd like to contrast the take of Obama & McCain on this situation, check out this ABC News story from Aug 10:

"Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," he [McCain] said in a morning statement.

Obama also condemned the Russian invasion. But he cast a wider net for advice -- including Hadley, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and his foreign policy advisors. When he spoke, he was characteristically circumspect.

"I think it is important at this point for all sides to show restraint and to stop this armed conflict," Obama said. The candidates' responses reveal a stark difference in governing style, and both seem carefully calibrated to appeal to American voters.

Which politican knew the situation well enough, intuitively, despite conflicting information coming in from the wires and sources on the ground, to know who was at fault and who was not? And which politician gave a mealy-mouthed response, and refused to take sides in his initial statment, so that he could buy time, and be told what to think so he could give his "full opinion" later?

This may be the best example yet to show the difference between "ready to lead" and "not ready to lead."

P.S. I like how Lowry summed up Obama's initial response:

Obama declared that "now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint."

In their implied moral equivalence, these reactions were a little like urging the Kuwaitis to de-escalate with Saddam's Iraq in August 1990.