General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCrimea River, Neocons
Last edited Tue Mar 4, 2014, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)
If Obama's being "weak" vis-a-vis Ukraine, then what was George W. Bush when the Russians took South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia in 2008?
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)and at that point in time he decided to sit on his ass and do nothing because he looked into Putin's baby blues this one time and saw a kindred spirit.
Don't forget that part!
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)and Welcome to DU BTW.
I wanna be good, but it's so tempting to be bad!
napkinz
(17,199 posts)Jon Perr
March 3, 2014
Proving once again that politics no longer ends at the water's edge, Republican leaders and many in the media have been lambasting President Obama's response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While the Washington Post editorial board charged that Obama's foreign policy is "based on fantasy," Senator John McCain and his Mini-Me Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called President Obama "feckless" and "weak and indecisive," an approach which "invites aggression."
Predictably, the memories of the administration's critics are short. After all, President Bush didn't roll back the Russian occupation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia after Vladimir Putin's battering of Georgia in August 2008. Bush didn't lead an alliance of the willing to isolate Russia, undermine its economy, mine the Black Sea, provide defense guarantees and rush American military supplies to Tblisi. Instead, Dubya simply denounced Moscow's reaction using much the same language President Obama is deploying now.
read more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/03/1281857/-Media-GOP-forget-Bush-s-feeble-response-to-Russia-Georgia-conflict#
napkinz
(17,199 posts)


Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(133,899 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)After the west heaped blame on Russia for the conflict, it ignores new evidence of Georgia's crimes of aggression
Seumas Milne
theguardian.com, Friday 31 October 2008 16.15 GMT
So now they tell us. Two months after the brief but bloody war in the Caucasus which was overwhelmingly blamed on Russia by western politicians and media at the time, a serious investigation by the BBC has uncovered a very different story.
Not only does the report by Tim Whewell aired this week on Newsnight and on Radio 4's File on Four - find strong evidence confirming western-backed Georgia as the aggressor on the night of August 7. It also assembles powerful testimony of wide-ranging war crimes carried out by the Georgian army in its attack on the contested region of South Ossetia.
They include the targeting of apartment block basements where civilians were taking refuge with tank shells and Grad rockets, the indiscriminate bombardment of residential districts and the deliberate killing of civilians, including those fleeing the South Ossetian capital of Tskinvali.
The carefully balanced report which also details evidence of ethnic cleansing by South Ossetian paramilitaries cuts the ground from beneath later Georgian claims that its attack on South Ossetia followed the start of a Russian invasion the previous night.
At the time, the Georgian government said its assault on Tskinvali was intended to "restore constitutional order" in an area it has never ruled, as well as to counter South Ossetian paramilitary provocations. Georgian intelligence subsequently claimed to have found the tape of an intercepted phone call backing up its Russian invasion story but even Georgia's allies balk at a claim transparently intended to bolster its shaky international legal position .
Naturally the man who ordered the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia, president Mikheil Saakashvili, denies the war crimes accusations. But what of his Anglo-American sponsors, who insisted at the time that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered"?
Full article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/31/russia-georgia
reformist2
(9,841 posts)nolkyz
(55 posts)Stephen Colbert used "Crimea River" at the top of his show tonight!
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Russian expansionist hegemony is something worth opposing.
