Replies

One thing I've realized is that not many people can handle the truth. When it comes to politics this is even more the case. Obfuscation is not only an art form, it is the only form of engagement (where you have smoke and mirrors orbing around behind funny glass). Some would say that it has a purpose (and in high diplomacy it does have an important purpose), but at the same time it is interesting how people want SO MUCH to be deluded. Lies are actually appreciated.

Going back to this case, I think the State Dep is worried that the dude may push an angle that they do not want brought forward. Is that the right way of looking at it? I don't know, but maybe he should match his statement speech with that of president Bush. If Bush says the US military will be taking humanitarian aid using the US military to Georgia, maybe he should say that. IF Bush says that the US military will be taking over Georgian sea and air ports then he can say that, but maybe he should not say it unless Bush specifically put it that way.

There is something I learned from the Bible about enemies .....Proverbs 24:17 states that we should 'not rejoice when our enemy falls, And not let our hearts be glad when he stumbles.'

I think this has a bearing here, especially when it comes to Cultures like the Russian and the Chinese that love to save face. A moment of bluntness can have a ripple effect (I read today that the Russians were withdrawing from Gori when some Georgian soldiers came and drew weapons ....the Russians came streaming back. Now, the Georgians had every right to do that, after all it is GEORGIA. However I wonder the prudence of it since the Russians were leaving anyways).

Well, I don't like obfuscation much, but there is a spot for it in international politics (especially at certain levels, and this is one of them). And when you consider that with the US moving in with humanitarian aid that is spearheaded by the military, indicating an end of the conflict, one wonders what function certain statements would have. There is no added benefit, but there is definitely added risk.

Look at how president Bush phrased his words ....he was very direct when he said that the US military was bringing in aid, but he did so in a way that allowed the Russians to save face and have an exit strategy. I know there are many on FR that would have preferred he state that the Russians have 30 minutes to move out or he will begin nuking targets (or my favorite stupid comment ....give suit-case nukes to Chechen terrorists), but in life there is no need to take the long convoluted route when a short and efficient one will work (and work better).

I hope I make sense.

but at the same time it is interesting how people want SO MUCH to be deluded. Lies are actually appreciated.

So true. Thus the popularity of Bill Clinton, while people run screaming from guys like Alan Keyes or Ron Paul- flawed men to be sure, but they say the things that the self-deluded are terrified to hear. Political speech that says nothing is a waste of my time.

You made perfect sense; well done.

If Bush says the US military will be taking humanitarian aid using the US military to Georgia, maybe he [Saakashvili] should say that.

What? And have the Socialist MSM paint Saakashvili as a U.S. Poodle, as Obama did re the English Prime Minister?

Last but not least, the U.S. needs to have Russia reveal/expose WHY they are taking out on Georgia what Russia thinks is due the U.S.