Russia's Invasion of Georgia, Not John Edwards's Love Life, Is an Important News Story
The story dominating the Saturday headlines—former Sen. John Edwards's admission of an extramarital affair and his continued denial of fathering an out-of-wedlock child—is a distraction, not true political news.
It is a story full of ego (mainly Edwards's) and pathos (poor Elizabeth Edwards). But John Edwards is not on the Democratic ticket, and his permanently besmirched reputation will have no impact on Sen. Barack Obama's run.
What is critically important is Russia's incursion into Georgia, reminiscent of Hitler's invasion of Poland. What most Americans do not realize is there's been a huge movement to include Georgia in NATO and both presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, have gone on record as supporting Georgia's inclusion. McCain even cosponsored a resolution expressing strong support for NATO to "enter into a Membership Action Plan with Georgia and Ukraine." Plus, as it turns out, Obama has apparently already flip-flopped on the Georgia invasion, first issuing a noncommittal statement that condemned the violence but not Russia's creation of it, then one day later strongly condemning Russia directly.
NATO binds all its members to come to the aid of a member country that is attacked. An attack on one member nation is considered an attack on all NATO members. Would McCain and Obama, through their support of Georgia's efforts to join NATO, like to have seen the United States engaged in a third war: this time with Russia? Or, conversely, if Georgia had already been granted membership, would Russia have refrained from invading, knowing full well such an invasion would prompt international retaliation?
These are the questions the American public wants answered: not whether John Edwards fathered a so-called love child. They want answers to issues facing them in real life: Do we want or can we afford another war? What are the presidential candidates going to do about the economy? What are they going to do about the home mortgage crisis? Precious media time spent discussing the Edwards story is a slap in the face to an American public that craves workable solutions to real-life problems.
Tags: Russia | NATO | media | John Edwards | Georgia (country)
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (35) | Print
Reader Comments
georgian conflict
I've read the comments - how can you all be so naive. This conflict didn't start on August 7, Russia has been planning this for many years. I am Georgian from Abkhazia and was displaced in 1992 - kicked out of my home, watched my friends and family butchered by the Russians. Most people in the So. Ossetia are Georgians as were most of the residents of Abkhazia. One hundred thousand plus were thrown out of Abkhazia. These "people" have been living there peacefully for a long time. The Russians don't want an indepent Georgia, period. If you watch the Parliament of Russia discussing the future of Georgia, I quote "Georgia doesn't need a government - only Russia to tell it what to do."
So for all you people out there - THINK!!!! I don't know where you get your news but don't form your bias opinions until you really have found out what happened. Russia has its heart set on establishing a new "Soviet Union", so watch out world. Learn from the early years of the Hitler "era". WAKE PEOPLE!!!!
Russia/Georgia---Edwards/hanky-panky
It is not that people want to know about has-been politician's indescretions.
It is that on that Friday night while the Russian bombs were falling, tanks rolling, troops marching invading Georgia, CNN went on hour after hour repeating over and over all they could dig up about the John Edwards affair---and did not mention what was happening that could involve the U.S. in a new U.S./Russia conflict of some sort.
Equal coverage was at least what a "news" organization should have been expected to report.
Priority of importance vs gutter interest should have trumped.
obama's background.
No president or potential president goes into the office with an encyclopedia of knowledge as to all world issues in his head.
The important thing in electing a president is his attitude towards world issues and the advisors which he surrounds himself.
George Bush is a weak anti intellectual man who surrounded himself with retreaads from his father's administration who were ill suited to lead the country.
Barak Obama is a man of today. He is intelligent and doesn't try to hide that fact......This is the type of President we need.
advertisement
