It’s been so long I almost forgot how fond the American left is of “blaming America first” for anything bad that happens in the world.
Bush sneezes in Beijing and it’s America’s fault a typhoon erupts in Bangladesh. We send a couple of hundred advisors to Georgia in order to help them re-organize and train their minuscule 26,000 man army while giving them advice and encouragement in building a democracy and, POOF! It’s our fault that Vladamir Putin chose to invade the sovereign territory of a tiny, nearly defenseless neighbor, burn villages, bomb cities, and generally cause a lot of mayhem.
The argument being advanced – that we pissed Putin off by aiding Georgia – is ludicrous. It presupposes that we should have turned our back on what by any stretch of the imagination is a friend in a part of the world where having countries friendly to the US is absolutely vital to our security and the security of the west. Of course we assisted Georgia in readying itself to resist Russian aggression. Of course we tried to help them in building a democracy. They’re an ally. We will also help the Ukraine fend off Russia as we will Poland and other formerly captive eastern bloc nations if they wish it. This is what the United States is supposed to do. And if it pisses Vladamir Putin off that nations formerly under Russia’s thumb do not wish to return to that arrangement, let him hang.
No doubt it is important to consider how Russia views our assistance to Georgia, the Ukraine, the Baltic states, and former Warsaw Pact countries. But there seems to be a nearly universal belief on the left that Russia’s feelings in the matter should be the overarching consideration and not our own interests nor the desires of these now independent states to remain free of Russian domination. By in effect, taking Russia’s side in this matter (or at the very least accepting their rationale), the left is telling the ex-captive nations to go hang rather than Putin.
I would hesitate to bring up Yalta given that a lot of revisionist history has been churned up about that fateful conference except even the revisionists recognize our miscalculation of Stalin’s intentions. Short of war, there was probably nothing we could have done to prevent the Red Army from dominating eastern Europe. But this time around, we do indeed have options that put the onus of conflict right smack in the Russian’s lap.
Our meager assistance to the formerly captive nations of the old Soviet Union do not threaten Russia in any way. We are not building million man armies or huge military bases with massive numbers of aircraft and material. We are not asking for permanent bases in the Black Sea. Our military assistance to those nations has been small and defensive in nature.
And the fear that these nations have of Russia that drives them to seek alliances with powerful friends should elicit the support and sympathy of the left, not condemnation for getting Vladamir Putin angry.
Assisting smaller nations with their wish to live an independent existence is an option we didn’t have at the end of World War II. Now that it’s there, we have rightly seized it and in perfect accordance with our tradition as a protector of democracies and our national interests which benefit by having friends in a vital part of the world, we are assisting nations who do not fear domination by us but do fear what a resurgent Russia might do to re-establish their hegemony.
Of course, all of this is as plain as the nose on your face – which is why the left is twisting itself into pretzels trying to ignore it. Our assistance to Georgia was “provocative,” we are told – as was sponsoring their membership into NATO. This despite the fact that we insisted that before Georgia was accepted as a NATO member, the status of both breakaway provinces must be resolved peacefully which is hardly “provocative” and more along the lines of “incredibly reasonable.” And how less than 1,000 military advisors and a few hundred civilian contractors is “provocative” to anyone except someone seeking to make excuses for Russian aggression is beyond me.
Ah but we are “encircling Russia” by offering NATO membership to Georgia and the Ukraine thus threatening them. The excuse of Russian encirclement was the Soviet’s rationale for enslaving Warsaw Pact countries back in the day so perhaps it is not entirely a surprise that this old canard would be pulled out of mothballs to justify the unjustifiable.
In order to accept that as an excuse, you must posit that NATO threatens to invade Russia someday or that the alliance would build forward bases in the Caucasus with massive amounts of men and material. NATO doctrine has always been defensive in nature; that is, the alliance’s reason for existence was to respond to Soviet aggression in western Europe, not start World War III. The “encirclement” excuse shows that the left believes NATO is an offensive threat to Russia, a preposterous notion that no one outside of the most anti-American of bigots could possibly think is true.
Given the paucity of support on the left for Georgia and, presumably the Ukraine in resisting Russian aggression, one can legitimately ask which allies we should be supporting? No doubt our support of Israel is “provocative.” Maybe we should pull the rug from under our friends in Tel Aviv. Have we asked China lately how they feel about us supporting the right of Taiwan to determine its own future? Sheesh! Talk about “provocative”...
In fact, using the rationale the left is using with Georgia, there are precious few friends outside of western Europe we should be assisting. If whether or not our assistance is “provocative” is the new benchmark for helping our allies, we will become very lonely very quickly. That’s because someone is always going to be mad at us no matter who we help. Syria was upset we were assisting Lebanon. Iran is mad we’re in Iraq. The Arab world is livid because we help Israel. Chavez is pissed at us because we’re helping Colombia. And on and on and on…
Building a foreign policy based on not pissing off your enemies (or friends for that matter) by subsuming your vital interests to theirs is wacky. But I suppose this is the Winnie the Pooh foreign policy we must come to expect when Obama takes office.
It’s not only in our actions that the left finds fault but also in our words. And it is here that the real cognitive dissonance takes hold and off we fly into La-La-Land for a lesson in “Why everything said about Georgia is warmongering and belligerent unless you act as if it is your fault the crisis ensued in the first place.”
Indeed, calling those who favor a strong, straight from the shoulder response to Russia “warmongers” without threatening war or even hinting at war shows just what kind of war the left would be willing to wage if it ever came to that. It is not “warmongering” to state the obvious – that the invasion of Georgia fundamentally alters the relationship between the US and Russia. It will not be “business as usual.” And telling the Russians that is not being provocative, or warmongering, or belligerent, it is simply stating a fact. Nor is it “warmongering” to strongly condemn, in no uncertain terms and without using weasel words the aggression perpetrated by the Russians on Georgia.
How standing up in the international arena for a friend being systematically taken apart by a hugely more powerful country and calling it “bullying” can be construed as McCain or Bush being “belligerent” is beyond belief. Words do matter, I would say to my friends on the left. And couching a response in diplomatic niceties and sentiments reflecting the idea that both sides are somehow at fault while Georgia is being ripped to shreds by an enemy 20 times its size is, to my mind, worse than cowardice.
Blatant aggression requires the use of language equally naked, stripped of its silly pretensions and delivered with the force of a Joe Frazier right hook. Diplomacy failed folks. The question of whether allowing the Russians respite from international pressure by using soothing, meaningless, soporific language instead of a roaring denunciation that makes Putin feel it and makes the autocrat cringe all the way back in Moscow is what was needed. And McCain delivered it while Obama didn’t. McCain’s instincts were correct. Obama’s were not.
It was Obama who, after an extraordinarily mild statement on Friday, August 8 which politely asked the Russians to please respect the territorial integrity of Georgia (while Russian tanks were already many miles beyond the border of South Ossetia and engaging Georgian troops on Georgian soil) eventually came around to McCain’s more assertive and indeed, courageous stance which condemned the Russians outright and called on pressure to be placed on Russia by the EU in addition to the United Nations.
Only later did Obama forthrightly condemn the Russians – after polls showed the voters instinctively approving McCain’s response over Obamas. That says a lot about both candidates, don’t ya think?
It is not a question of “fear.” This has always driven me up a wall when the left has accused those wishing to confront evil as being fearful. We confront Russia, al-Qaeda. and the rest of the world’s bad guys because it is the right thing to do. Armed with that knowledge and in the basic goodness of the US - if not always in practice – we can face the evil with a clear mind and stout heart – exactly the opposite of being fearful.
But for more political reasons than having anything to do with reality, the left insists on calling those who seek an aggressive war on terror or a tough stand against Russian belligerency as “fearful.” Perhaps for their own self image it makes them feel good to call those who think Russia is being beastly to the Georgians or those who advocate an aggressive war against al-Qaeda “fearful” – fearful of terrorism, fearful of Russia. That fear certainly isn’t present in the words spoken so far in this crisis by either Bush or McCain nor in any previous pronouncements on al-Qaeda can I glean any “fear” being spoken by either of those two.
Yes words matter – which is why in this case, the response of the left to Russian aggression and their unwarranted criticism of McCain and the Administration for speaking frankly, strongly, and realistically about this crisis shows how easily they wilt in the face of aggression. From the polls published so far, it appears the American people agree.
2:43 pm
Wow. Your framing of this is epic.
4:27 pm
Boy, did this need to be said. It makes us realize which of our two presidential candidates will speak up in the presence of a bully and which will draw lines in the sand, only to retreat to another position and draw another line, repeatedly, and doing nothing more. In fact, one of them won’t say anything. Not even “that’s unacceptable.”
5:30 pm
[...] LC & IB Rick Moran has some excellent commentary on the Georgian war and the reactions from both sides, particularly the idiotic reaction of the left. [...]
7:47 pm
My own 2 cents about the whole McCain-Obama difference in their responses to the Georgia crisis is quite simple… DUH
Isn’t Obama the “anti-war” candidate? Didn’t McCain bet the farm on the “surge” in Iraq? Their actions are quite meaningless since they are only Senators. Yet both candidates are acting just any politically aware person suspected they would. This does not qualify as a “3am moment”, nor do I believe is it an indicator of how either man would act as president. It’s all about playing to what their bases expect.
5:00 am
I think this is mostly nonsense, Rick.
First: McCain is wrong, Obama (and Bush) is right. McCain was running a bluff—talking tough with no capacity to back it up. How does it advance the cause of America’s interests to take shots at the Russians in this circumstance? Do you think our impotent bluster will somehow dissuade them from their longstanding interest in extending Russian hegemony along their borders?
I’m all for doing something when there is something to be done. In this case American bellicosity would do little but highlight our impotence. An impotence born of geography and history.
And while we’re at it, I thought we had one president at a time. Where does McCain get off posturing in a way that drew derisive sneers from Saakashvili? Is this justified because he got a tiny poll bump? That’s how we run or foreign policy now?
Second, the one writer I’ve seen so far who really fits your indictment is that wacky liberal Pat Bucahanan.
It never ceases to amaze me the power that liberals have. The GOP has the White House and for Bush’s first term the Congress. BUsh has never been denied a single man or a single gun or a single meaningful appointee. And yet, somehow, two dozen “liberals” in Berkeley and the Upper West Side manage to thwart all the GOP’s best intentions.
McCain’s wrong. He’s made an ass of himself on this. He’s blustering and bluffing and proposing solutions that do nothing to advance American interests. It’s amateur hour, and McCain is the amateur.
McCain has proposed nothing that would entail American troops or military aid. His “bluster” as you call it was calling a spade a spade. His statements have been realistic, honest, with the necessary strong condemnatory language that was given without weasel words or wiggle room for misunderstanding. Sakashvili’s “sneers” were hardly that – that is a characterization without merit, proof, or logic.
In f act, it was, as has been the entire response I have seen from the left, pure unadulterated political spin. You characterize Saakashvili’s response the way you wish in order to make a political point not because it is based on any perceptive or intelligent reading of what he said.
If what you say is correct, why did Obama’s statements on the crisis change to reflect those statements made by McCain? The original response of both Obama and Bush was shameful and both men adjusted their responses more toward McCain’s initial gut reaction over the course of the next few days. This shows pretty cleraly who the “amateur” is and who the neophyte is.
ed.
5:33 am
Surabaya, if this doesn’t even remind you of a 3Am moment you are on major drugs or something.
McCain ain’t my perfect pick as a Conservative but you said he bet the farm on the “surge”, are you seriously trying to say that didn’t work—oh really, pass around another joint to your hippe friends cuz it did work and Iraq is finally getting better and good heavens McCain runs circles round obama when it comes to anything that has to do with agression from our neighbors.
This is just my humble opinion so please don’t post anything too bad about me.
8:44 am
Idealistically, the affair bugs me because the world has now seen the value of being an ally of the United States. You can be confident if you make an alliance with the U.S.A. that if your sovereign territory is invaded, your civilians bombed, and your nation nibbled off piece by piece, you will get Condi Rice on a plane on the scene within a week or so to cluck her disapproval loudly.
Realistically, we do not want to be at war with Russia, have no logistical way to wage war with Russia even if all our troops had been sitting around idle next to transports in Seattle and Boston, and let’s face it, the Russians ran a pretty good campaign to quickly seize their objectives because they, unlike us, have infrastructure right there. So I understand that clucking our disapproval loudly is all we could have done in the short term.
I did not see McCain threatening an immediate military response or indeed a military response at all. Had he been in the White House, his rhetoric would have led to the imposition of economic sanctions as a form of diplomatic pressure to return to the status quo ante; sanctions which may or may not have worked but would have let diplomacy draw out for long enough to get us something back for our allies in Tlbisi.
9:56 am
TL:
There is zero chance the EU or Japan would join us in sanctions. Also zero chance they’ll back an effort to toss Russia out of the G-8 or WTO. Russia owns the light switch for Europe, and the EU’s not known for boldness and resolve even when they aren’t dealing with the guy who can turn off their central heating.
We were never going to do anything. Which is why Obama wanted to kick it to the UN —because that’s where you go for nothing. It’s why Bush didn’t come home from China and Condi stayed on vacation. If Russia wants Georgia it will have Georgia.
If McCain had been president, and had tried to impose sanctions on Russia he’d have been a fool. And by threatening same—an empty threat—he spotlights our impotence. It was emotional and reckless and would have harmed our interests.
9:56 am
Who cares what liberals think, they are not the ones in power. This situation has nothing to do with liberals, other than it is easy to bash them instead of confronting the reality of what the Russians have done and how a supposedly Conservative government let them get away with it.
Problem one is that Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and was charmed into believing that Russia would be a wonderful, peaceful partner in Europe and be satisfied with the new reality of the post cold war world. How anyone could believe this ex KGB officer was a partner in peace is beyond me, and Putin quickly showed his true colors when he jailed or assassinated dissidents and sized control of the media. We should have pushed for an international peacekeeping force to replace the Russians from the very beginning, Russians occupying Georgian territory was a disaster waiting to happen.
Problem two was that we realized that we were not getting out of Iraq any time soon and Russian-American relations were deteriorating. We warned the Georgian government not to provoke the Russians, knowing full well that we could not do anything if the Russians reacted. The recent events show we were absolutely right. The scale and swiftness of he operation was something planned well in advance. Putin only need an excuse and the Georgians provided it on a silver platter. Yes Georgia sent troops to Iraq and has been a good ally, but that does not let them off the hook for not heeding our warnings about Russia.
You can bash liberals all you want , but for Conservatism to survive there needs to be a understanding in the movement that denouncing he other side for every ill known to mankind is a Kool Aid drinking cult, not a political philosophy on a better way to run the government.
1:39 pm
To believe this mess doesn’t revolve around Bush’s push to get unstable Georgia into NATO and to base his missile defense system there is to believe Russia invaded for humanitarian reasons. According to Russia, 2,000 South Ossetian civilians were murdered and 40,000 fled to Russia during Georgia’s unprovoked attack.
The BBC interviewed a non-partisan human rights agency investigating claims of genocide that could only document about 300 people being treated in hospital, most military combatants. 40,000 refugees would mean over half the province’s population fled. In other words, it looks like the Russians are back to their old tricks of dreaming up ridiculous propaganda to cover their true intentions.
Going back a step, is there any doubt Georgia invaded South Ossetia believing it had the protection of the West? The message from opponents to their bid for NATO membership said it wasn’t a matter of if, but when. Saakshvili’s timing is no coincidence.
Not mentioned in your lengthy editorial is the fact nations in the shadow of Russia aren’t lost on Putin’s (and his sock puppet Medvedev’s) real intention. Leaders from Estonia, Latvia, Poland, etc. showed up in Tiblisi expressing their support of Georgia. Not soon thereafter, if I recall, a column of Russian armor made a feint for Tiblisi. Counter-debate Putin style?
Poland is an interesting case because, in the midst of this crisis, they signed onto Bush’s missile defense system. In response, the Russians publicly announced they were adding the nation to their first strike list.
Obviously, we don’t question our own motives. Sure, we know we have we have no intention of invading Russia and are acting purely in a defensive manner. But to ignore or misinterpret Russia’s perceptions is misguided and dangerous.
Even forgetting the Georgia-South Ossetia-Abkhazia-Russia connection, Bush’s push for NATO membership never made sense because Georgia has been unstable since its independence in 1991.
So it looks like our ever inept president helped create another foreign policy mess. To apologize for this while bashing Obama because his rhetoric isn’t as heated as McCain’s is less than helpful because Russia has put an end to political rhetoric and posturing. While McCain and Bush were mouthing off the rhetoric that makes conservative hearts go pitter patter, France quietly and efficiently brokered a ceasefire.
For example, Bush lamely threatened to toss Russia out of the G8. American nationalists cheer! What a tough leader we have! What courage! One problem. He simply can’t do it so it’s a hollow threat. A fact not lost on the Russians. The empty threat does nothing but antagonize Russia to no purpose.
The only thing in our favor is, IMHO, Putin miscalculated. He hoped to embarrass America and NATO as inept and impotent in the face of action. That he accomplished. However, Putin’s brutally crude action only reinforces the need of nations in Russia’s shadow to embrace the West to maintain true independence.
A resurgent, oil rich Russia can flex its muscles punking puny Georgia and indirectly thumb its nose at the West. However, Putin knows he hasn’t rebuilt his military to Soviet era levels which is to say he’s no threat to NATO and can’t punk its members. The folks he’s trying to send a message to like Ukraine will redouble their efforts to join the NATO club.
Saakashvili was warned repeatedly – and not just by us – that Putin was preparing to invade on any pretext. He was also told that until the situation with both breakaway provinces was resolved through international mediators, Georgia would not be invited into NATO. People who speculate that he invaded expecting NATO help either don’t know that condition or ignore it because it doesn’t make any sense to say Saakashvili was expecting western help if he was forcibly trying to retake the province.
What happened was stupidity. Saakashvili responded to a provacation by the separatists – a bombing that killed 7 Georgians. He took the opportunity to try an end run around the peacekeepers and failed. The rest is history.
Now we’ll see if he pays with Georgian independence.
ed.
2:08 pm
Ah Drewsmom, where do I even begin? Apparently, “This is just my humble opinion so please don’t post anything too bad about me”, yet without knowing me, I am a pot-sharing hippie who is on major drugs. Heh Heh heh…you crack me up! I am a political moderate, who is turned off by ranting and raving on both sides of the spectrum. Now calm down, and stop reading in between the lines of dissenting commentators.
The main point of my earlier post was not only do Obama and McCain have barely more authority in this as do you and I, but that both of them responded to the situation exactly as anybody could have predicted. That’s all. Both of them were right about being “anti-war” and “pro-surge”, respectively. Their entire campaigns revolve around them being right about those positions. One can debate who is right or wrong, but nobody can say that their replies were unexpected.
At any rate, how can the Georgia crisis count as a “3am moment” when our own president didn’t feel the need to cut short his happy time in Beijing? (Remember, he spent 3 days hanging out at the Olympics after the invasion started.) Does he know things about that we don’t? Can we really question his intelengence on this? Hey, he’s the boss, so he knows what’s right! Or is he on major drugs?
4:48 pm
Great post, Rick – i just have one small thing to add – its not just liberals but paleo-cons like Daniel Larison as well, who say that the US/Georgia had this coming – what else could they expect, goes the argument.
Obama came around to McCain’s position simply because he was advised to (my guess would be that it was Richard Holbrooke) – his first reaction was his most genuine – he thought that Georgia needed to stop the conflict when the Russians were hammering them !
There is never a time that the US did not get blamed in some way or other when an international crisis happens – this country is such an easy whipping boy for leftists all over the world.
and for all those “realists” and “moderates” who think that it is plain silly to even think about barring Russia from the G-8 or WTO, i would like to ask a very simple question – what is your approach to this issue ? Send a little humanitarian aid and then forget Georgia like this war never happened ?
It is always easy to criticize what other people are doing instead of provding some constructive thoughts on US policy should be. Other than suggestions to let Russia have its fiefdom ( also known as “the roll over and play dead” play) and not antagonize it, I have heard nothing else.
I’d also like to know what these “moderates/realists” think about the role US should be playing in Afghanistan – after all, the Pakistan military sees this country as its personal fiefdom and has pretty much treated it as one – so why is the US now trying to build Afghanistan and bring in more troops – should this not antagonize the Pakistanis ?
After all, America is supposed to care for what other countries “feel” even if it is against its own interests – so would you realists support a US withdrawal from Afghanistan – its after all pakistan’s “near abroad”. and they dont really seem to like the US presence a lot there, to put it mildly.
Cannot wait for the “realists” to take over foreign policy.
8:03 pm
[...] MORE: Hot Air; Flopping Aces; Little Green Footballs; Neoconservative? Moi?; Political Pistachio; Right Wing Nut House [...]
9:38 pm
I guess you could look at it in the framing that McCain and Bush are no-shit-taking tough talking American badasses who understand what America needs to do in order to remain on top. Because, hey, everyone knows that Democrats are pussies who want to lose in Iraq and everywhere else they can lose. Hell, you remember Carter? Biggest pussy ever. No foresight on energy policy whatsoever. Pathetic.
OR, you could follow the money. It’s no wonder McCain is beating his chest and talking the talk. Hell, you can pay these losers to say anything you want, and shortly after the pundits amplify and spread the toughness around. Trickle down toughness.
What’s really amazing (still following the money here) is how Obama is getting so much more of the corporate cash these days. The big money donors are puking cash onto the Obama campaign like drunken barflies. The same corporations that I used to think were in love with the Right.
Nothing surprises me anymore.
1:21 pm
For the libs who claim we provoked Russia to invade Ukraine because they are an ally, and thus it was justified. Where were they when the Sandinistas openly allied with Russia, and thus offended the USA with such alliance? Or where were they when the Russians allied with Cuba and sought to influence against the interests of the USA? And now, would they be in favor of our invading Venezuela because its dictator allies with the Russians against USA’s interests? To even ask these questions rhetorically against leftards is to answer them. Russia can do no wrong to these leftidiots, whereas the USA can do no right.
5:24 pm
Heads up! Russia is redeploying its forces in preparation for its next offensive operations against Georgia. Desultory Russian efforts have already been made to incite and provoke another lethal confrontation and incident with Georgia’s military and police forces, without success so far.
Russian armored colums are now in movement down the road towards the border with Turkey, effectively cutting off a line of communications between Georgia and Turkey. Once the right flank of the Russian forces have blocked communications across the Turkish border, the Russian 76th Guards Airborne Division has reached their assigned assembly areas after resupplying, and the Russian 19th Motorized Rifle Regiment has completed the displacement of its ammunition supply points to the assembly areas within 35km of Tbilisi; the next phase of the campaign will be ready to commence in the next 24 to 72 hours, if approved.
Approval for the next offensive awaits developments at the NATO conference on Tuesday, 18 August 2008. In anticipation that NATO must act to “punish” Russia’s invasion of Georgia, Russia plans to conduct a “punishing” lethal attack upon Georgian police and/or military units in the area along the road to Tbilisi. Russia will then claim the need to punish the “criminal” violators of the ceasefire who took the lives of Russian soldiers and use the manufactured incident as an excuse to resume the offensive to capture and occupy the remainder of Georgia.
The new offensive operations will aim to bring the Vasiani military headquarters, military base, and airbase under heavy air and missile bombardment. A column of Russian heavy armored forces will aim to breakthrough the Georgian mainline of resistance across the main road to Tbilisi under the cover of air attacks using precision guided weapons to deny Georgian forces the ability to maneuver. Elements of the VDV will flank the main spearhead of the Russin attack to the north, threatening Georgian forces with encirclement from the north side of Tbilisi. A brigade size VDV force equipped with armor will then establish an airhead southeast of Vasiani to block the line of communications from Tbilisi and Vasiani to the border of Azerbaijan. They will then maneuver to fix Georgian defenses in Tbilisi and link to other Russian forces maneuvering to encircle Tbilisi and establish a line of communications between the airhead and the main body of Russian forces coming down the road from Gori.
The Russian objective is to occupy Georgia and change its government, while also demonstrating to the other former Soviet Rupublics that NATO cannot and will not defend their independence from Russia. If, however, NATO proves to be too inconveniently uncooperative and reactionary on Tuesday, the offensive operation may be postponed to see if diplomatic efforts can chill EU cooperation long enough for the offensive to resume. If the diplomatic efforts fail to gain enough EU hesitancy to hinder a NATO deployment in the next week to 10 days, the decision will have to be made under the then current NATO order of battle whether to proceed with the offensive or begin a stubborn and repeatedly delayed withdrawal to Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
8:51 pm
I’m not at all convinced that worrying about the border of South Ossetia and Russia is as important as securing our own borders.
This issue is folly for Americans and an utter waste of time.
I wish people would stop saying that this Georgia government was an “ally” or that it was some shining beacon of “democracy”.
Let’s not lose sight of the facts:
1) Georgia started the war.
2) Abkhazia regards itself as independent of Georgia and did not take part in the 2004 elections, while South Ossetia favors union with its northern counterpart in Russia!!
Come on America, get some context and sense of proportion. We have bigger issues that Bush, Obama, Paul, and McCain should be focusing on.
9:01 pm
There is an old saying: “If you play with fire and you get burned.”
As for young Mr. Saakashvili, he’s probably toast in Tbilisi after this aggressive stunt. Let the neocons find him an endowed chair at the American Enterprise Institute!
Looks like yet another failed plan cooked up by Neocons, yet another plan that has nothing to do with the American citizen.
4:54 am
Surabaya, maybe I misunderstand you.
You kinda come across as liberal, am I wrong, plz set me straight if I am.
As far as Bush “hanging out at the Olympics’, I had no problem seeing him there to cheer on our athletes and he did come back soon enough for this poster. No, I DO NOT THINK HE KNEW SOMETHING THAT WE DID NOT, thats BS and just another way to blame the man for every damn thing that goes on in the freaking world.
As far as him being on major drugs, he used to do coke and drink but stopped for the sake of his marriage and for his family so PLEASE DON’T GO THERE.
I’m just reading alot of leftist loon commnts in your post but like I said, if I’m wrong, enlighten me.
11:41 am
“17Jeff M. Said:
8:51 pm
[....]
Let’s not lose sight of the facts:
1) Georgia started the war.
[....]”
No, Georgia did not start the war. You are simply repeating the lies used by the Russians as false propaganda. The Russians and Soviets have trotted out this same old tired lie before each and every one of its previous invasions of its neighbors.
Georgia counterattacked the illegally possessed 122mm heavy artillery batteries very recently supplied by the Russians for the purpose, because the illegal heavy artillery was systematically demolishing Georgian villages and communities one by one to deliberately provoke a response from Georgia. The only practical way to stop the 122mm artillery bombardments that was destroying the Georgian civilian communities was by a ground attack. Georgia did not advance into Tschkinvali to silence the heavy artillery batteries until August 8th. The Russian 58th Army was already passing an invading column of about 150 armored and other vehicles across the border through the Roki Tunnel the night of August 7th and the morning of August 8th.