Bush Fiddled while Ossetia Burned (formerly: "Russian tanks enter South Ossetia")

[iNow]

Any thoughts from those with more insight than I have?

Russia is dipping its toe in the water to gauge the response from the US and Europe to see how (if) they react to a Russian attempt to reassert their former dominance.

 

Part of the challenge is that this is more than mere threat or sable rattling. They are in the country, with tanks and missiles and soldiers, and they are killing people. They're heading toward the Georgian capital as I type this.

 

Europeans are nervous, and justifiably so. They've seen this before. Putin has gone back to Russia to lead the attack, but unfortunatly, our president is too busy playing volleyball in Beijing to try correcting the failures he's allowed to ripple outward for all this time ("I looked into his soul and I liked what I saw." GMAB...)

 

It's too bad. I'm sure most of us had hoped we were done with this type of aggression after WWII. It's also a tough challenge to our current candidates, since isolationism isn't going to fix this, but also talks and negotiation with Putin seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

[Pangloss]

I read somewhere that 70% of the population of that region carry Russian passports. I don't really know if that means they see themselves as Russians more than Georgians, though.

 

Putin has gone back to Russia to lead the attack, but unfortunatly, our president is too busy playing volleyball in Beijing to try correcting the failures he's allowed to ripple outward for all this time ("I looked into his soul and I liked what I saw." GMAB...)

 

Oh please, what a cheap shot. I think our adventure in Iraq has caused us to have less international influence over situations like this one. But I don't see where the president's visit has had any impact on the situation whatsoever.

[iNow]

Cheap shot or not, I was making the point that the administration doesn't seem to be taking this too seriously.

[Pangloss]

Okay, what would be "Bush taking it seriously" in your mind?

 

This situation is complex, and let me clue you in on something, iNow: Putin didn't return to Russia in order to "lead the attack". That was a political move, and so is it political that Bush remains in Beijing.

 

From today's Christian Science Monitor, which always has an interesting take on international politics:

 

Regardless of the conflict's origins, the West must continue to act diplomatically to push Georgia and Russia back to the pre-attacks status quo. The United States should make it clear that Saakashvili has seriously miscalculated the meaning of his partnership with Washington, and that Georgia and Russia must step back before they do irreparable damage to their relations with the US, NATO, and the European Union.

 

Russia must be condemned for its unsanctioned intervention. But the war began as an ill-considered move by Georgia to retake South Ossetia by force. Saakashvili's larger goal was to lead his country into war as a form of calculated self-sacrifice, hoping that Russia's predictable overreaction would convince the West of exactly the narrative that many commentators have now taken up.

 

For Georgia, this war has been a disastrous miscalculation. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are now completely lost. It is almost impossible to imagine a scenario under which these places – home to perhaps 200,000 people – would ever consent to coming back into a Georgian state they perceive as an aggressor.

 

Europe doesn't WANT Bush making dramatic statements towards Russian right now. Frankly they want him to keep his nose out of it. As I say, this situation is complex. Georgia is one of the few countries that still has troops in Iraq. The international consensus is that Georgian leadership has been acting as it has been because it believes it can count on the United States to push Russian back to the bargaining table no matter what it does.

 

It's wrong. And Russia is explaining that fact to them right now in rather dramatic and inexcusable fashion.

 

You're not wrong in laying some of the blame for the situation at the feet of the Bush administration. But focusing on beach volleyball, suggesting that he's ignoring the situation -- in my opinion that kind of superficial, partisan slur just perpetuates problems. It doesn't resolve them.

 

---

line[/hr]

Related Addition: Almost as if to underscore my point, the Georgian President is today begging for US diplomatic intervention. I think I can actually hear European leaders wincing from here in South Florida.

 

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-08-10-voa30.cfm

Edited August 10, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[iNow]

I'm not sure how any of that counters my point, nor how my joke about his screwing around at the Olympics instead of focussing heavily on this important issue (as expressly requested by Georgia) was partisan instead of poignant.

[Pangloss]

K.

 

I was making the point that the administration doesn't seem to be taking this too seriously.

 

What would be "Bush taking it seriously"? What would that look like?

[iNow]

Not this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which is way too reminiscent of this for my taste:

 

 

 

and this:

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just sayin', I'm not happy with how ridiculous he's making us all look, and how this is playing on the rest of the planet. This Georgia/Russia thing is a big deal...

Edited August 11, 2008 by iNow

[Pangloss]

In that case, iNow, yes, I would call your comments partisan rather than "poignant".

 

For one thing, his visit to the American beach volleyball gold medalists (shown in the first picture above) took place before the Russian troops moved into Ossetia, and the move being depicted there is a beach volleyball tradition, which the president deliberately declined to participate in, tapping Ms. May's lower back instead of her derriere. But it's not at all surprising that that photo has already hit all the far-left blogs. Good job perpetuating a new, inaccurate, partisan meme.

 

When the Russians did move in, he made a statement to the press and diplomats were dispatched to the region almost immediately. He has since visited two Olympic events that I know of, the US-China basketball game and Michael Phelps' first gold medal swim. (The third image above is from the basketball game.) No dancing was involved, though certainly a fair amount of respectful cheering and congratulating in both cases.

 

Congratulations on lowering the discussing to the absolute partisan dregs. Nice going.

 

Oy. Of course there's not really anything the United States can do that won't make things worse, besides voice disapproval towards all parties, and lend support to the mediators (who probably shouldn't be us). The more I read about it, the more that CSM article you quoted seems right. The best that can be hoped for at this point is a return to the status quo. Well, almost. Georgia is learning the hard way that being friendly with the United States is not enough to make us automatically back them up in any conflict, even if its half their own fault. And Russia, very unfortunately, is learning that it can use military force in neighboring countries without consequence. Unless the rest of the world, led probably by the EU, can make sure there are consequences (without escalating the conflict), then I sure wouldn't want to be Ukraine right now.

 

Thanks for re-elevating the discourse. That sounds right to me, though I admit my understanding of the underlying issues of the region is pretty dim.

 

It's my understanding from that article I cited earlier that Georgia actually flies EU flags on all of its government buildings. They're pulling those strings too, trying to get the EU to step in (though of course they knew whom to ask first -- we invaded Iraq, after all). Just another good reason for Bush to stay out of it.

 

Most likely the Bush administration will have to withdraw all or part of its support for Georgian membership in NATO (or slow the pace, etc). This threat is no doubt being communicated to Georgia right now, in kind of a "oh, you thought we'd only be angry with the Russians?" kind of move. Watch for Georgia to declare the removal of all of its troops from Iraq if that happens. (Not that they were really needed, nor is their presence there really important diplomatically anymore, what with the success of the surge.)

 

The US can put pressure on Russia as well, but it seems logical that we would largely defer to the UN and EU on that pressure, and play the Georgian pressure card instead, in the interest of overall peace.

 

Exactly how foreign affairs SHOULD go, when people are playing smart and sensible. Of course, smart foreign affairs hasn't exactly been a highlight of this administration, so I guess we'll have to see how it goes.

[iNow]

It's my opinion, Pangloss. No need to try shaming me publically for voicing it.

 

 

I really couldn't care less if our leader is Republican or Democrat or Independent or Whig... This is a huge big situation, and I'd be admonishing any leader of the free world acting so carelessly during such a troubling time. Hence, your calls to my being partisan and propogating leftwing "dregs" is laughable.

 

I've told you this before. I don't care about party. I don't care about sides on the aisle. I care about principle and doing what's right, and trying to improve things.

 

 

Sipping on some beer and BBQ while watching basketball is hardly a presidential response, so go on and keep defending him. My points have nothing to do with the fact that he's republican, and everything to do with the fact that he's a poor leader who consistently acts inappropriately in the international arena.

 

To be fair to your point, I suppose hanging out in Beijing and having lots of fun watching basketball and swimming for several days is not quite as bad as

to even flinch after being told the country was under attack.

 

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j3b6xoPSXQAc5AoJwqPQit9OtitgD92FPIFO0

 

White House officials refused to indicate what recourse the United States might have if the military onslaught continues.

 

A Russian official said more than 2,000 people had been killed in South Ossetia since Friday; the figure could not be confirmed independently.

 

The president was to end his weeklong stay to Asia by attending a baseball game and other events Monday at the Beijing Olympics. The trip was meant mostly for fun and games — there have been plenty of both. But the fast-moving conflict in Georgia has grabbed his attention.

 

 

Well, golly... I sure as hell hope so.

Edited August 11, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

To be fair to your point, I suppose hanging out in Beijing and having lots of fun watching basketball and swimming for several days is not quite as bad as waiting seven minutes to even flinch after being told the country was under attack.

 

Yeah, well, while you're incongruously wagging your finger at Bush again, the rest of the world seems focused on more productive analysis. From the New York Times:

 

The unfolding conflict in Georgia set off a flurry of diplomacy. Ms. Rice and other officials at the State Department and the Pentagon have been on the telephone with Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and other Russian counterparts, as well as with officials in Georgia, urging both sides to return to peace talks.

 

The European Union — and Germany, in particular, with its strong ties to Russia — called on both sides to stand down and scheduled meetings to press their concerns. At the United Nations, members of the Security Council met informally to discuss a possible response, but one Security Council diplomat said it remained uncertain whether much could be done.

 

Had Bush gone home and made more forceful statements condemning Russia, the UN would now be in the position of having to hold its hands up in THREE directions, and the international press would be screaming "Iran off, Russia on!" And the EU would be positively beside itself. A second tier response was exactly the right call.

 

And apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so:

 

“We’ve placed ourselves in a position that globally we don’t have the wherewithal to do anything,” Mr. Friedman of Stratfor said. “One would think under those circumstances, we’d shut up.”

 

One senior administration official, when told of that quote, laughed. “Well, maybe we’re learning to shut up now,” he said. He asked that his name not be used because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.

 

Gee. Maybe they are. But no, there's a silly picture of him slapping the rears of female beach volleyball players, so I guess that's impossible.

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Anyway, these other bits from the NYT article seemed relevant to the issue:

 

“Strategically, the Russians have been sending signals that they really wanted to flex their muscles, and they’re upset about Kosovo,” the diplomat said. He was alluding to Russia’s anger at the West for recognizing Kosovo’s independence from Serbia.

 

Indeed, the decision by the United States and Europe to recognize Kosovo may well have paved the way for Russia’s lightning-fast decision to send troops to back the separatists in South Ossetia. During one meeting on Kosovo in Brussels this year, Mr. Lavrov, the foreign minister, warned Ms. Rice and European diplomats that if they recognized Kosovo, they would be setting a precedent for South Ossetia and other breakaway provinces.

 

And State Department officials made it clear on Saturday that there was no chance the United States would intervene militarily.

 

Mr. Bush did use tough language, demanding that Russia stop bombing. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanded that Russia “respect Georgia’s territorial integrity.”

 

And Bush administration officials acknowledged that the outside world, and the United States in particular, had little leverage over Russian actions.

 

“There is no possibility of drawing NATO or the international community into this,” said a senior State Department official in a conference call with reporters.

 

One United Nations diplomat joked on Saturday that “if someone went to the Russians and said, ‘OK, Kosovo for Iran,’ we’d have a deal.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10diplo.html?_r=1&ref=asia&oref=slogin

[iNow]

Am I not allowed to be angry over the fact that we're not even capable of responding due to our consistent mistakes and the way we've over-extended ourselves elsewhere? Am I not allowed to be disgusted that he's more interested in having fun and jacking around than being the executive of our country? Am I not allowed to comment on the ridiculousness of the public image he is presenting the world during this time? Am I not allowed to recognize and accept all of those facts you pointed out and still be disappointed?

 

Because, I am all of those things.

[iNow]

Well, it's about damned time:

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7554507.stm

Speaking moments after he arrived back in the US from the Beijing Olympics, President Bush said he was deeply concerned about reports of Russian intentions.

 

He said he had seen reports that Russia might soon attack the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, which would, he said, represent a "dramatic and brutal escalation" of the conflict.

 

"Russia's government must respect Georgia's territorial integrity and sovereignty," he said.

 

"The Russian government must reverse the course it appears to be on."

 

Russia's actions, Mr Bush added, were "jeopardising" its relations with the US and EU.

 

He urged Moscow to accept an EU-brokered peace agreement that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has already signed.

 

This was the strongest statement yet from President Bush and appeared to be aimed at drawing a line in the sand, preventing Russia from overthrowing the Georgian government, the BBC's Justin Webb reports from Washington.

 

 

VIDEO of GWBush statement: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7555248.stm

 

"US President George W Bush has denounced what he called Russia's "dramatic and brutal escalation" of the conflict with Georgia.

 

He called for an immediate ceasefire and a withdrawal of Russian troops from the conflict zone. "

[Pangloss]

"About damned time"? Only if you ignore the fact that he's already commented saying the exact same things several times. Isn't that the same sort of thing you're constantly harassing SkepticLance about doing -- ignoring people's posts and not responding when they answer you on point? Do you really think that nobody else will notice all my posts in this thread?

 

I've already linked articles in which he condemned the invasion several days ago and even spoke to Putin in person before Putin even left Beijing. Several hundred MILLION Americans watched Bush interviewed by Bob Costas on the very subject the other night, in which he made the exact same statements.

 

As for the idea of staying too long in Beijing (if that's your complaint), I would point out that while he was there he spoke several times with the Chinese government, expressing the same human rights concerns that got Joey Cheek ejected (Darfur), amongst others. You may not find that very productive, but had he not done so then that "failure" would be at the very top of every anti-Bush partisan's list of complaints. They'd say "oh he just went there to bump rears with the volleyball players and didn't even tell the Chinese what our concerns are!"

 

The very definition of partisanship is when you find fault with the guy regardless of what he does.

Edited August 12, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[iNow]

The very definition of partisanship is when you find fault with the guy regardless of what he does.

 

What dictionary are YOU using?

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partisanship

 

Main Entry: 1par·ti·san

Variant(s): also par·ti·zan \pär-te-zen, -sen, -,zan,

chiefly British

pär-te-'zan\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French partisan, from north Italian dialect partiźan, from part part, party, from Latin part-, pars part

Date: 1555

1. a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
   
   
2. a: a member of a body of detached light troops making forays and harassing an enemy b: a member of a guerrilla band operating within enemy lines
   
   

 

 

As I said. I found his response embarrassing. That's a simple statement of opinion, not an adherence to a party, faction, cause, or person.

 

 

And, I give SkepticLance a hard time for a lack of detail, exaggerations to the point of inaccuracy, and blatant misrpresentations of the positions of others, including the science he often tries to suggest supports his claims. However, Lance hasn't posted in this thread, so that's more than a red herring on your part.

 

 

I'd read Bush's remarks prior to commenting in this thread. Twenty second photo ops were not what I was hoping for. I may be being hard on him, but I found his lack of seriousness distressing, his decision to keep playing at the Olympics misguided, and his blatant lack of leadership on this appalling. Let's just say it ripped the scab off of old wounds for me, okay?

 

---

line[/hr]

 

I just thought of a decent analogy to describe my feelings on this. I'm let down and disappointed because our president seems to have "Senioritis." He knows school is about to be over, and he doesn't really care about his grades or his finals or what he will do when his last semester ends. He's just focussed on having fun at spring break and going to the next kegger and I expect better from the highest office in the land. This all coupled with the moronic attack ads from the McCain campaign have me a bit miffed lately about how our "country is headed in the wrong direction." I'm embarrassed, that's really it.

 

</context>

 

 

Now, maybe you and I can end this or continue it elsewhere and let this thread get back on track? I accept my share of the responsibility for putting it off on a tangent, and I apologize to ecoli for that.

Edited August 12, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

As I said. I found his response embarrassing. That's a simple statement of opinion, not an adherence to a party, faction, cause, or person.

 

Twenty second photo ops were not what I was hoping for. I may be being hard on him, but I found his lack of seriousness distressing, his decision to keep playing at the Olympics misguided, and his blatant lack of leadership on this appalling. Let's just say it ripped the scab off of old wounds for me, okay?

 

Okay. To be blunt, I don't really see how today's 2:25 statement is any more substantive, since it is actually a lot shorter than his Ossetia-related comments over the weekend and contains the same points, including a demand for immediate cease fire, withdrawal, and return to the 8/6 status quo.

 

But I can definitely understand how it "ripped the scab off old wounds". I can also see how you've touched on something relevant there, in terms of how a lot of people might see it.

 

My only point is, whether you (and/or others) realize it or not, if there's nothing the guy can do that will rub you the right way, you really have to ask yourself if you're being fair. And if you're not being fair, others won't be fair either, and then how will we break the cycle of partisanship with this next president?

 

But in fairness, sometimes I get a little caught up in my zeal for pointing out partisanship. Just because someone posts something that Rush Limbaugh has been saying doesn't mean they're pushing Rush Limbaugh's agenda -- they may be just PO'd. I'm cool with that, and I don't mind being reminded of that fact.

[iNow]

My only point is, whether you (and/or others) realize it or not, if there's nothing the guy can do that will rub you the right way, you really have to ask yourself if you're being fair.

 

Doesn't matter. That's not my position. I didn't say that there was nothing the guy could do that would rub me the right way. I said this particular event rubbed me wrong. That is a difference that's important to note.

 

 

Either way, CDarwin hits on a good point. The event seems indicative of something larger going on in Russia.

[ParanoiA]

If Bush had stayed home with his head buried in his hands, giving speeches and busying himself about the globe concerning himself with this crisis he would then be beaten up for always being ready for matters of war and hegemony, but no time at all for our fine athletes that have put aside their political and cultural differences in an event that gathers the entire world and their leaders.

 

Bush doesn't get, nor give himself, many opportunities to remind people that he's a pretty jovial guy and america could sure use some positive exposure that shows our leader in a more positive, relaxed role - as opposed to a pent up, war fever that he seems to emanate.

Edited August 13, 2008 by ParanoiA
spelling errors

[iNow]

Oh dear... This doesn't help my previous feelings about Bush. Look at what he said while addressing the people of Georgia on May 10, 2005:

 

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050510-2.html#

 

You gathered here armed with nothing but roses and the power of your convictions, and you claimed your liberty. And because you acted, Georgia is today both sovereign and free, and a beacon of liberty for this region and the world. (Applause.)

 

The path of freedom you have chosen is not easy, but you will not travel it alone. Americans respect your courageous choice for liberty. And as you build a free and democratic Georgia, the American people will stand with you.

 

 

I guess the American people will only stand with them if it isn't too hard, or if we're not too busy with more important things... Like slapping hot vollyball players on the ass at the Olympics.

 

Video of his full speech to the Georgian people in 2005 available via RealPlayer here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050510-2.v.html

 

 

No big deal, right? They were only words of support from the leader of our nation...

 

 

 

Yeah, yeah... I know. He came home and condemned the action... Only a few thousand people dead.

[Pangloss]

Yeah, yeah... I know. He came home and condemned the action... Only a few thousand people dead.

 

Wow. That's almost as bad as some of the partisan straw men bascule was tossing around last week. Congratulations, you've executed another thread. Are you guys in league or something?

Edited August 13, 2008 by Pangloss

[Sayonara]

I don't see why that comment should lead to this topic being locked.

[CDarwin]

It's not terribly accurate, though. I hate to play Russian apologist, but the Georgians did 'start this' with their incursion into S. Ossetia, and that's where the majority of casualties have taken place. It's not clear how many of those casualties would have been averted if the Georgians had just been allowed to duke it out with the S. Ossetian forces and the Russians had withdrawn their troops and not sent in any more, but I don't doubt the number would still have been high.

 

As I somewhat expected would happen, Russia is getting treated a bit unfairly in Western perceptions over this. Russia's actions were bad because they over-reacted and threatened Georgia's sovereignty (disproportionate response, the term Bush used, is a good phrase), not because they are responsible for the conflict in the first place (or only in a very long-term, indirect sense). As long as Georgia found the idea of independent S. Ossetia and Abkazhia unacceptable, this was going to happen. There's not much Bush could have done about that. And I don't think NATO should have incurred just to protect Saakashvili from his own stupidity.

Edited August 13, 2008 by CDarwin

[Sayonara]

Just to be clear, I wasn't making any judgement about the accuracy of the comment; that is what replies like yours in a threaded discussion are for.

[Pangloss]

Well I consider blatant partisanship worthless and counter to our purpose here, but I've made appropriate adjustments to allow for both discussions. iNow can now continue to mirror the current offerings of Air America and Democratic Underground in this thread, and the Russia v Ossetia discussion can progress without a mind-numbing anti-Bush agenda.

Edited August 13, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

Wow. That's almost as bad as some of the partisan straw men bascule was tossing around last week. Congratulations, you've executed another thread. Are you guys in league or something?

 

It would seem that my concerns are shared across larger groups, so hopefully you can lay off the "me and Bascule make nothing but strawmen" BS...

 

 

http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/08/13/Bush_team_bungled_big_time_on_Georgia_fiasco/UPI-32371218648531/

 

The scale of the Bush administration's failures in Georgia is now becoming clear: The issue was not just a routine bungle; it was a fiasco of monumental proportions.

 

Read the link for well detailed support in 4 to 5 points.

 

 

Bush is now, more than ever, a lame duck who has just been humiliated by Putin and the Russian army in Georgia, and he is desperately hoping global oil prices will continue to drop. But Russia is the second-largest oil exporter in the world and the largest exporter of oil and gas combined. Russia is therefore in a far stronger position to hammer the United States with economic retaliation for U.S.-imposed economic sanctions than the other way around.

 

The great U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt recommended talking softly and carrying a big stick in the world of international relations. For seven and a half years, Bush has been talking loudly and carrying a stick whose military and economic clout has been shrinking by the year. Now he is paying the price.

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Just to be clear, I wasn't making any judgement about the accuracy of the comment; that is what replies like yours in a threaded discussion are for.

 

Thanks, Sayonara. I was rather confused by that, too.

[Pangloss]

Completely different subject. Your point was that Bush was playing around in Beijing instead of coming home and addressing the issue. Martin Sieff's point is that Bush's foreign policy has lead to the current situation, which I've never disagreed with you or them on.

 

Nice try, though.