the bush administration's mucking about in central asia was mostly likely one of a series of conditions of possibility for georgia's decision to go into south ossetia--in the assurances of american "support" for georgia, say. if you notice, loquitor, there is no claim--apart from putin's---that there was a one-for-one correspondence (cause-effect relation)--but it is a significant element in the overall situation. what the administration was doing mucking about in central asia in the first place had and has everything to do with oil, obviously.

it does not follow--nor did i (or anyone else) say--that russia's decision to attack georgia over it's incursion into south ossetia was in the american's interest. so that's a red herring. no more reason to talk about it.

jorgelito---tisonlyi's went beyond simply going after the americans. the fade of empire and defunctionalization of nation-state based ideologies are of a piece, and seem to be a more-or-less global problem. different political groups, in power in different places, choose to deal with it in particular ways--the bush administration is not that dissimilar from putin in their choices. little wars like this are great for fading empires: they galvanize support and what's more are excellent for bidness.

There will never be ironclad "proof", but their fingerprints are all over this, "OP":

....and Rove had opportunity in July, (...same time as Condi's "visit".....) for face to face access to

o there's no doubt that the bush people had their fingers and thumbs in the pie.
it is difficult to go from there to an exact mapping of action x on their part and action y on the part of georgia---but i don't see any basis for disputing that the context is in significant measure shaped by the actions of the bush people. *and* russia, which is jockeying with these people for geopolitical advantage. i think it's beyond naive to assume the contrary, even if you can't at this point go much further than that.

and can we ever dispense with this tiresome category of "america bashing" or are we saddled with this bush-meme permanently? it means nothing, says nothing, does nothing except to provide folk who do not want to face facts with an excuse to not do it.

Ok, I can agree with that to some extent.
-----Added 7/9/2008 at 06 : 11 : 26-----
I disagree roach, The tone of some of your posts were definitely "America bashing". It's the way you frame and phrase it. I often end up agreeing with the text of your posts after you clarify but not the tone. Such is the hazards of 2-d posting I suppose.