Yesterday I was watching the Jim Lehrer news hour on PBS and they had a segment on the Georgia/Russia conflict. Then, after that, they had Rich Lowry, from the National Review, and Ruth Marcus, from the Washington Post, substituting for Shields and Brooks, for their regular Friday punditizing. Of course, Brooks and Shields is supposed to be an exchange of a liberal and conservative point of view, but it's more like a middle of the roader and an arch conservative.

Yesterday, with Brooks, and Shields on vacation Lowry and Marcus were the panel. She's more conservative than Shields, which means that it was a very conservative panel - insultingly so, if you ask me.

But during the discussion between Ms. almost conservative and Mr. hard core conservative, the Georgia/Russia conflict was discussed. Both of them seemed to be drooling over McCain's "tough" response to Russia, and how he bettered Obama in responding to the situation.

OK, here is what they showed McCain saying. "But in the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations." Say what? Um, what did we do in Iraq, have a picnic? And then Lowry turns around and says the same thing! And Marcus says, "oh yeah, McCain did better than Obama on this." Of course Lowry was going to agree - it was a softball for the conservatives.

Give me a break! Does Lehrer, Marcus and Lowry think we fell off the turnip truck on the way into town? And Lehrer sat there and never said a word. Shouldn't he have asked, "well, isn't it a little hypocritical for Bush and McCain to be talking about how bad it is to invade another country, considering what we did in Iraq in the 21st century?" He didn't ask anything! They all got away with bashing Obama with impunity.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not crazy about Obama's militarism. He's trying to act tough, and he's going too far. At least he said we need to be talking to both Russia and Georgia.

But come on Mr. Lehrer, Ms. Marcus, and Mr. Lowry. If we are going to get in the face of Russia and "get tough" with them, and that is the absolute correct posture we should be taking with them, then how are we going to back up our words - with nuclear weapons? Is that what you are saying, because there is no way in the world we can take on Russia militarily right now in conventional battle, especially on what is essentially their home court.

I'm not defending Russia's militarism, but let's look at the differences between what the U.S. did in Iraq and what Russia did in Georgia. (1) Russia and Georgia have a common border - Iraq is thousands of miles from the U.S.; (2) Georgia took military action against Russia and killed some of their people - Iraq took no such action against the U.S.; (3) Georgia is actively pursuing NATO membership - Iraq had no such alliances with anti - U.S. coalitions. It goes on and on. So for McCain to make such hollow statements of belligerence against Russia, and then to have these so-called "two sides" of the argument both say that McCain was exactly right in how he responded to this reeks of nothing more than a newscast fronting for U.S. corporate interests of the worst kind. Shame on you Jim Lehrer, for allowing it.

And don't think I'm the only one thinking it. Check this out - http://mwcnews.net/content/view/24643/26/ . This editorial, out of Canada is much tougher than my column on the hypocricy, and I agree with it.