enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Didn't Georgia draw first blood?
by MadderHattie
-1 Reply

I know that the US is probably the second most propagandized nation, next to Myanmar, in the world, but didn't Georgia start this conflict? A cursory view, given the past few years of what I wince to call "history," may offer the following clues.

First, the CIA is all over Georgia, pulling a hasty and embarassing covert retreat not witnessed perhaps since the Bay of Pigs. Second, the Bush administration, like so many monsterous infants playing clumsily with blocks lettered "A, B, C" probably figured, in that way that the "reality-based community" would not, that if they throw some shit at the wall--the wall being the problem of a resurgent Russia, flush with petroleum weath--then something might stick. I am imagining the Cheney-Feith-Bolton-Rice foreign policy hacks figuring they might try a Brzezinski move and get Russia bogged down in some interminable conflict akin to the war with Afghanistan back in the late 70s/early 80s (whatever you believe from "Charlie Wilson's War," put it in your Christmas stocking).

But of course, Afghanistan in '78-'79 is not Georgia in '08. George "I hit the Trifecta" Bush, wouldn't know the difference, especially since he is busy getting plastered at the Olympics these days.

Regardless, I could really give a fig. What I figure is this: the Bush administration couldn't find its balls with a mag-light and two doberman pincers. These latest inept and feeble attempts to staunch the rapidly flowing blood of American empire is about as inspired and thought-out as anything we've seen from these criminal and malign bunglers in teh past 7 years. 911 being their coup d' grace, it's been all way down hill from there.

Furthermore, the American people who, through ignorance, apathy, or sheer greedy depravity, deserve whatever world catastrophe should welcome them at this point, are probably more concerned about the NFL draft anyway. Well, about the only good thing in this is that Bush's aspirations to be the next "1000 year reich" through some martial law imbroglio have probably been set back enough by this latest folly that we can all sleep well in the assurance that the next corporate sponsored thief, whether Obama or McCain, will replace him as "president" without the greatly feared false flag trigger incident that would otherwise negate further elections. Enjoy your dessert. I'll gurantee it's just.

Re: Didn't Georgia draw first blood?
by RalphS

MadderHattie:
Furthermore, the American people who, through ignorance, apathy, or sheer greedy depravity, deserve whatever world catastrophe should welcome them at this point, are probably more concerned about the NFL draft anyway.

Thank you for enlightening me. Before reading your post, I might have complained if some catastrophe befell my country - especially if it resulted in the deaths of family or friends, but thanks to your brilliant insight, if something like that does happen I'll be content in the knowledge that we Americans deserved it.

Yes, and were gambling on Bush to either
by steelbucket

back them up if Russia responded or deter Putin from doing anything in the first place.

It obviously backfired.

The Bush admin has been pouring money, military equipment and men into Georgia whilst also dangling the carrot of Georgia joining NATO (despite Europe vetoing the idea).

In return Georgia has delcared itself to be pro USA and anti Russia at every opportunity whilst shipping 2000 soldiers to Iraq.

All of which has seriously pissed off Putin.

Its not quite the Cuba missile crisis in reverse but you can see Russia's point of view.

Re: Didn't Georgia draw first blood?
by screwjack2008

great line:

"What I figure is this: the Bush administration couldn't find its balls with a mag-light and two doberman pincers..."

Re: Didn't Georgia draw first blood?
by FirstInLastOut
screwjack2008:

great line:

"What I figure is this: the Bush administration couldn't find its balls with a mag-light and two doberman pincers..."

yeah, too bad it makes absolutely no sense. Hasn't the complaint all along been that Bush has been too agressive? I've done my own share of Bush bashing, but it seems we've gotten to the point where anything negative said about Bush must be true, regardless of whether it's self-contradictory.

Kaplan's entire piece does the same thing as well. Next Kaplan will probably start blaming Bush for his hemmoroid flare-ups.

Re: Didn't Georgia draw first blood?
by bsharporflat
I'm sure Bush would like to be more aggressive here. The simple fact is, he can't. His hand has been forced and it's been shown to be essentially empty. Afghanistan and Iraq snarfed up all our trump and what is left?
View as RSS news feed in XML