Maybe Georgia shouldn't have attacked in the first place. One can claim that Russia's response was disproportionate but the US is in no position to do the criticizing. Attacking Afghanistan was a fairly disproportionate response to 9/11 considering that the Taliban didn't even control the whole country and Iraq was infinitely disproportionate since they had never attacked us such that a response was appropriate. Europe can't say much either since they have effectively forced Serbia to relinquish Kosovo. What is their excuse for preventing "break away provinces" in Georgia from doing the same as Kosovo?

A woman can't be a cuckold. The female equivalent of a cuckold is a cuckquean.

As for the rest of it... as the Brazilian judge said, "Reality tells us that the real seducers are these daughters of Eve. These young women sashay their way through God's world in their mini-skirts, low cut and see through blouses, and tight pants. They wear these clothes to flaunt their curvaceous bodies for the eyes and attentions of men." (This is a quotation from a Brazilian judicial decision)

Of course, Mr. Edwards violated the vows he swore at his wedding (leave us not forget that a vow is a solemn oath). That is dishonorable. The individual is responsible for maintaining their honor; it cannot be passed off to anybody else under any circumstances. That said, Mr. Edwards as the powerful and married man will receive essentially all the opprobrium. His seductress, who is equally culpable, will receive little or none. Nobody said life was going to be fair. It is also my seldom humble opinion that this has no place being bandied about in the popular press. This really is between Mr. Edwards and his spousal unit and what they choose to do is none of your or my goddamn business.

Your interviewee states:

And, let’s be clear: However awful it was, President Saakashvili was using force inside his own country, inside the borders of Georgia that all countries of the world recognize. Russia, when it invaded, was violating the territorial integrity of Georgia, and therefore violating all sorts of treaty obligations and international law that they’ve signed onto.

Of course, it's a good thing this was nothing like what NATO did when they attacked Serbia for using force inside their own country. Furthermore, since this was a coalition of "the good guys" (the US and Europe), there is no need for approbation for violating the territorial integrity of Serbia.

Bullshit.

What's going on here is nothing other than naked power politics. Georgia is an American ally and, therefore, everybody is screaming about Russia doing essentially what we did in Serbia. The UN charter supports the rights of local residents to self determination. That sort of thing would apply to Kosovo as well as Ossetia and, for that matter, Chechnya. So, nobody's following the rules. So let's admit that this is yet another example of "might makes right" and leave your #$%!!@ righteousness at home. I've had almost 8 years of some righteous jerk and I really don't need to hear it. Iraq invaded Kuwait and got its ass kicked for it. The US invaded Iraq and nothing happened. The Europeans didn't band together to kick us out and the only difference between the two invasions is that Kuwait is smaller.

Libertarians object when the Federal government builds local roads, just to be clear about it. The real question is do you want to be ruled by an unresponsive Federal government or by a State government that you have some hope of controlling?

And I really do take offense at the suggestion that the Libertarians would act like Republicans and give the store away to "private interests" as you suggest. Libertarianism is about not giving anything away because you don't have anything to give because you didn't take it from the people in the first place. It's all about creating a level playing field and when you have states (like Missouri) where over half the state budget comes from the Federal Government, you know it ain't level.

By the way, what Mr. Barr is objecting to is a prime example of how and why the two party system has institutionalized itself in this country. Third parties don't have the federal money to blow like the major parties do. Libertarians don't want the money and they don't want the major parties to have the money that gives them such an advantage.

While everything you said is true, leave us not forget that in 1983 under the sainted Reagan the US invaded the tiny island of Grenada because they appeared to be going communist. And again under George I in 1989 we invaded Panama so that we could take their president to the US and charge him with drug offenses under US law.

Oh wait. I forgot. These are countries in the Western Hemisphere. They aren't real countries at all; we only let them think they're real countries. We reserve the right to "adjust" their governments if they make a move of which we disapprove.

This, of course, isn't anything like what Russia did in Georgia.

And forestall the chance of yet another inauguration of a president that lost the actual vote?