On July 10, Secy. of State Condoleezza Rice told Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili:
I want to again affirm that the United States remains committed to the territorial integrity of Georgia... It is extremely important that the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia be resolved on the basis of principles that respect that territorial integrity....
Georgia says South Ossetia is part of its territory. When Rice says we support "territorial integrity," she means Georgia’s right to call the shots in South Ossetia.
Yesterday Bush said Russia "must respect Georgia's territorial integrity and sovereignty."
"I am deeply concerned by reports that Russian troops have moved beyond the zone of conflict, attacked the Georgian town of Gori, and are threatening Georgia's capital of Tbilisi. There's evidence that Russian forces may soon begin bombing the civilian airport in the capital city," he said.
See a problem here?
Bush refers to Russian military incursions into the Georgia proper, that is, Georgia without South Ossetia. To his audience, the American people, that seems reasonable.
But to most Russians, he is advocating an untenable solution that probably isn't going to happen. Russia isn’t going to accept Georgia’s sovereignty over South Ossetia.
The use of the same phrase, directed at two different audiences, renders it mutually exclusive in this case. The same words have different and opposite meanings. And Bush is too much of an idiot or too heinously deceptive to clear it up.
This ranks among the clearest examples of talking out of both sides of one’s mouth I have ever seen---a ‘plain as the nose on your face’ example of current American duplicity that even Republicans will get.
If they ever hear it.
The Bush crime family and especially their corporate media shills have mixed-and-matched words and phrases without regard to meaning for a generation.
They have relied on the fact that most Americans know little of the differences between Iraqi Sunis---the minority who supported Saddam---the Shi’a, whom we betrayed after the Gulf War, encouraging them to rise up against Saddam and then deserting them, or the Kurds, whom we have betrayed countless times since the 1950’s.
They’ve done a good job---even John McCain gets them confused (though it’s difficult to tell whether he gained his ignorance by honest means or default).
As of this morning, Sen. Obama has taken the highest (and most middle) road.
I think the American people deserve to have the situation---and the critical risks---laid out for them clearly, simply, and transparently.
I think Sen. Obama has both a major responsibility and major opportunity to do so. And I can't imagine anyone who could do it better.