Open Thread Today – 19 September

2010152147  What is this?  pl

This entry was posted in Open Thread, Ukraine Crisis. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Open Thread Today – 19 September

  1. Jackie says:

    Dana Milbank of the Washington Post?

  2. fasteddiez says:

    It looks like a jackass Gen X reporter usually found on the Talkies. On Olberman he is often in some sort of costumed drag.
    He’s wearing a Tuque and a serape (hard to tell by the small pic). It probably signifies some NAFTA stuff or a visit from/to Obama and his North American “allies.”
    SWAG City

  3. peg says:

    Col Lang — since i highly respect your opinion, what do you think of
    “Russia Scraps Missile Deployment After Obama Cancels Missile Shield”
    reported by VOA News, and Fareed Zakaria’s take on it?
    thank you in advance!

  4. Beaver says:

    This is a “joke” about the Prime Minister of Canada Steve (that’s how Dubya calls him in lieu of Stephen) Harper on his 42 minutes meeting with President Obama (Harper was the laughing stock of the journos during the last election campaign because he was wearing a sweater instead of a suit during the election debate) .

  5. matt says:

    11b40 was right …it was related to dick cheney’s (drunken?) shooting of his friend in the face down at some rod & gun club in south texas…. Interstingly, Dana Milbank went on to do more costumed shenanigans on the WaPo’s web site where they mimicked masterpiece theatre …a total embarrassment. He also lost his cool on air when debating a – dare i say it …blogger! – on TV one day, and called him a “little shit” or something like that ….

  6. jonst says:

    A metaphor. And a damning one.

  7. fasteddiez says:

    Yep, It’s the great white hunter story. I just found a larger image on google images.
    Millbank is still a lightweight though, despite the fact that is insult is spot on.
    He should have sported an Elmer Fudd hunting cap and carried a .410 tweety bird shotgun on the set; but then again, he’s an half-assed SNL wannabe.

  8. par4 says:

    A card carrying member of the WaPo clown car.

  9. Watcher says:

    It is a response we should expect. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, even with the rest of it’s military collapsing, Russia still believed that it’s strategic nuclear forces to be its counterweight to its perception of NATO and American military superiority. So it is not too surprising that us planning to place an anti ballistic missle program right in the middle of their near abroad has been such an irritant to them. The President’s decision to remove it, in my opinion will ultimately play in his favor for a couple of reasons; it puts the onus on Russia to be more pro-active in helping to keep any future Iranian nuclear genie in the bottle. Russia has many fears and paranoias, one of them being a swath that begins in the caucuses and runs south and east through the stans, which has a large muslim population. The map at the link below will help you visualize it.
    They have had a historic fear of another invasion from that area and allowing Iran to become a nuclear power this area plays into that. So I would not be surprised to see Russia become more involved in counter proliferation efforts in that area.
    Also consider that Medvedev-Putin (more Medvedev) have put strong emphasis on recreating the Russian military into a more agile and mobile force, similar to what we have with the US military. Cold War style nuclear stare offs like this only detract from this effort give ammunition to the old hard line generals who are resisting this change that Medvedev rightly wants and needs. While Russia will not go soft on it’s nuclear capabilities any time soon, Medvedev knows that he needs a better military force able to take on challenges that will present themselves on his borders and inside them, and a nuclear force does nothing to deter them.
    Just a thought.

  10. Fred says:

    Watching Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter on CSPAN. Just wondering if Bush will accomplish half in his retirement that Mr. Carter has in his. Just wondering, especially since the mesquite in Crawford seems to be getting less attention lately.

  11. eakens says:

    ZBig in a Daily Beast interview:
    Is the fallout as bad if Israel preemptively strikes Iran?
    Absolutely. That is the way, more importantly, how the Iranians would view it. They really can’t do much to the Israelis, despite all their bluster. The only thing they can do is unify themselves, especially nationalistically, to rally against us, and the mullahs might even think of it as a blessing.
    How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?
    We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?
    What if they fly over anyway?
    Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.

Comments are closed.