From the NY Times this A.M.

"After their first meeting in 2001, Mr. Bush said famously that he had looked into the eyes of Mr. Putin and “got a sense of his soul.”"

Oh...O.K...now I really feel better...he looked into his eyes and got a sense of his soul. We're on solid ground here folks.

Also from the NYT this A.M.

"After postponing a trip to his ranch in Texas by a day, Mr. Bush went to the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va., for a briefing on the situation in Georgia.

“Got a lot of folks, smart folks, analyzing the situation on the ground and, of course, briefing us on different possibilities that could develop in the area and the region,” he said, flanked by the agency’s director, Michael V. Hayden, and his deputy, Stephen R. Kappes.

Hmmmm...weren't these some of the same "intelligence" personnel that "analyzed the situation on the ground" and provided our beloved leader with the WMD rationale for invading Iraq? (let's not forget that we KNOW Russia has WMD's up the you know what and they know how to use them)

It also warms my heart that W went to Langley and made sure that the smart guys are taking care of things before he heads off to the ranch for a spell. Now that's dedication people!

I feel so much better, I think I'll go back to bed now.

Two thumbs up Kevin.
Typical Bush BS. We take on the raggedy Ann's and flinch on the Big Bully Boys. Watch how we let Poland down in the comming days.More huff and puff from Bush & Co., no doubt about it.

NATO and the United States will defend Poland: even if it leads to WW III. Poland is a NATO member and Georgia is not.

I'm confident that many Bojack commenters would be railing on President Bush if he risked igniting WW III with a more aggressive intervention in Georgia.

Personally, I would welcome it. But we would need several days to position sufficient air power (to Turkey, or one of the -stans bordering Georgia) and secure/destroy Russian nukes. We can win a war with Russia, if it comes to that.

Shrub's nickname for Putin is "Pootie-Poot", no joke, that's real.

I guess when he looked in to Putin's soul he got a warm, fuzzy feeling in his loins and felt a cutsey nickname was the way to refer to our "new friend".

Bush has been loading up Georgia with military personnel, weapons, and CIA advisers for months, maybe years. Georgia is on the border with Russia. Most people in the breakaway province where this all started (and in Russia) consider this province to be Russian. When Georgia attacked to regain the province, what did Bush expect of the Russians? Why was Condi Rice there only two days before Georgia began the assault? Was she directing the assault? I am for protecting our democratic partners, but this is like poking a stick in the eye of the Russian bully to prompt war. As for the other two potential new presidents.......it sounds as if neither has a clue of what to do at this point. I expected no more.

Far be it for me to get in the way of a nice federal government bashing session, but the CIA is hardly the lackeys of this administration.

I have it on good authority that they actually refer to Bush as the "First Customer" internally because there is very little institutional respect.

Their role is to provide information and analysis. If the misguided souls in the cabinet and the Oval Office make bad policy by ignoring parts of it or misinterpreting it, that's hardly the fault of the CIA analyists.

Wow, that's some awesome spelling I used there.

"Analyists" ...

Let's try analysts.

Personally, I would welcome it. But we would need several days to position sufficient air power (to Turkey, or one of the -stans bordering Georgia) and secure/destroy Russian nukes. We can win a war with Russia, if it comes to that.

"Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!"

So, let's get this straight: Russia can arm Iran to the teeth and it's all good, but if the U.S. arms a democratic nation, it's bad.

Sounds fair.

So, let's get this straight: Russia can arm Iran to the teeth and it's all good, but if the U.S. arms a democratic nation, it's bad.

Well, I don't think anyone's really making that claim, but one obvious difference is that Iran does not share a border with the US, while Georgia does share a border with Russia. For obvious reasons countries tend to get upset when their biggest enemy starts supplying arms and training to one of their hostile neighbors. (cf. USSR and Cuba.)

The reporting I heard basically said the S. Ossetians started shelling Georgia first and the US was trying to keep them from responding militarily. The Georgians held back for as long as the deemed possible then moved in.

The Russians baited the trap and the Georgians stepped in it big time. And yes, it was a setup or the troops wouldn't of been set up on the border, ready to roll in on a moments notice otherwise.

Wow, a pi##ing match of catastrophic proportion. Guess I need to finish that bomb shelter. I wonder, does Bush feel betrayed by his Russian soul mate?

I agree with MachineShedFred. It happens that I'm acquainted with the DD of the CIA, and it's pretty clear to me that what happens to the information they provide isn't their fault.

"but one obvious difference is that Iran does not share a border with the US"

True, but Iran has infinitely more power and influence than the tiny country of Georgia. Compounding the fact Russian guns and ordinance are turning up in the hands of terrorist groups.

Oh, and don't forget the nuclear fuel they provide to our Iranian friends.

I don't blame the U.S. at all for arming countries in eastern Europe.

It worked so well in Afghanistan.

"After their first meeting in 2001, Mr. Bush said famously that he had looked into the eyes of Mr. Putin and “got a sense of his soul.”"

Good, then he knows Putin is one evil, murderous SOB. And he shouldnt trust him in any dimension.

That said, Georgia's problem is their own. We shouldnt interfere. (Although I am curious if the reports of two US Marines being killed in the shelling is true.)

As for Poland, if they want to let us put a base there, and the Russians attack it, why shouldnt we defend it?

President Monroe (outlining what would eventually become known as the Monroe Doctrine to the U.S. Congress) said in 1823:

Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none.... It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course....

As Michael Corleone said in Godfather III, "Every time I try to get out they pull me right back in."

We can win a war with Russia, if it comes to that.

Pretty optimistic aren't you? We seem to be having a rather difficult time winning the two wars we're in now, and our combined enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan would barely amount to a Russian division.

Or, is your definition of winning the same as that of the neocons?

Our combined enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan don't wear uniforms and they have no armor, radar arrays, ships, or aircraft (aka "hard targets") for us to destroy. They rarely congregate in groups larger than 20, and they have almost no visible command and control (aka "leadership targets").

We are fighting an insurgency with weapons and tactics that were designed to crush the Soviets in Europe (and their strategic missile infrastructure) in the first 30 days, or fallback to a tactical nuclear attack. While our tactics in Iraqistan have evolved, our weapons (especially our heavy armor and tactical nukes) are pretty much worthless for guerrila warfare. That doesn't mean we've forgotten how to use them.

It's more a question of how long it would take us to mobilize for the defense of Western Europe (a task which has likely fallen from the top of the to do list): once we've got the right hardware paired with the right troops, we can beat the Russians in a conventional war. If they strike first (before we're mobilized), then we probably have to go nuclear to win. But we can win (with or without nukes), and Europe will suffer the worst of the fallout.

That's why the Europeans (France and Germany) are so eager to appease Putin: they know that any future war will likely occur on their doorsteps. They would rather see Georgia and Ukraine turned back into Russia's "do not disturb" sign than fire a single shot in anger.

Sadly, it's not first time in history that France surrendered before war broke out. And it won't be the last.

Let's hope Russia is satisfied with annexing South Ossetia and Abkhazia: because Bush isn't prepared to walk away from the rest of Georgia. Even if Sarkozy already left them for dead.

That also explains why the Russians are so terrified of a functional ballistic missile defense in Europe: the Soviet's strategy was predicated on a fallback to tac-nukes when they start losing a conventional war ("show them we aren't prepared to surrender"), and a strategic nuclear first strike failing that. If we take away their strat-nuke first strike contingency (with an effective missile defense shield), then they know they would have to beat NATO in a conventional slugfest, and do so in the first two weeks of battle (by which time NATO Air Superiority is expected to prevail).

I'm with Jackie and Dunlap: It feels good being able to hate the Russians again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM8yHb19jhQ

It is sad to get into hating people from other countries. We are being manipulated by the Bush administration. In 2003, Bush whipped up the hate against Saddam. Sorry, I am not follow Bush's hate any more. Bush has been provoking the Russians (US missles in Poland, etc.), and now he is reaping what he sowed.

Yeah. The problem is the harvest crop falls on YOUR head, house, and hereabouts. And mine. And us.

Impeach and imprison the grim reaper. Leave the crop untouched to rot and decay.