Interesting Op-Ed on Georgia v. Russia.

[Robert]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... aakashvili

I saw Mikheil Saakashvili days before he launched that attack. In
response to his broad hints that he was about to start shelling
Tskhinvali I told him such a course of action would be madness. He
ignored me then and had his minions label me as promoting Russian
interests when I later told the world of our conversation.

That lie, too, was repeated verbatim by our media. The irony that their
chief was the one who gave the Russians the opportunity they had so long
desired to occupy Georgia and threaten the fabric of our independence
was either lost on them or ignored, like every other inconvenient fact.

and:

Tbilisi has a thriving media and some internet access and opposition
voices can get a hearing in newspapers and cable TV. But for two-thirds
of the country, our three national TV channels are the only mass media
available. And all are directed by the president's inner circle.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I heard about that report when it came out and thought of mentioning it here. Then again, there's plenty of other stuff to post about so instead of having my "I told you so" post I poked in other areas.

However, I'm not sure that the point she makes about the report not being available is applicable only to Georgia. I'm pretty sure coverage out here in Canada has been pretty low key and I wonder if the folks in the US even heard about it at all. In the end, not mentioning the report's existence is pretty much the same as having it blocked - only better. Our main stream media is even more tightly controlled than Georgia's.

As to whether Sack-of-Willies started it, yes, of course he did. That wasn't really anything in doubt. What I want to know is : did he have permission. I suspect that he went off on his own and tried to force the issue. Maybe they let him stay on because he will have learned form his mistakes and be more obedient in future.

 

[Glaucus]

I heard about it. The report didn't really say anything new, maybe that's why it's not front page news. It basically says that Georgia fired the first shots and that both countries did horrible things. It did mentioned that Russia may or may not had troops inside Georgia before the initial attack, but there was no evidence to prove either way. it does however state that there were plenty of provocations including fly overs and military build ups before the invasion. So over all, nothing new. Not sure why they bothered.

 

[Robert]

Not sure why they bothered.

Perhaps because the Georgian government and their apologists, including both UK and US regimes, went to great lengths (and with a fair amount of success) to try and convince the world that poor, wee Georgia was the innocent victim of an unprovoked act of aggression.