FlamingText

Deep in the Forest of Unverifiable Claims

Sometimes you hear two sides of a story from two well-known liars and it's hard to decide who is lying or if they both are. Case in point:
Putin says US was behind conflict  *
 Wherein Putin points out that there were numerous US citizens present in the area of South Ossetia shortly before hostilities broke out there. Putin contends that they were acting on the orders of the Bush administration, arming and training the Georgian army.

"Why... seek a difficult compromise solution in the peacekeeping process? It is easier to arm one of the sides and provoke it into killing another side. And the job is done."

"The suspicion arises that someone in the United States especially created this conflict with the aim of making the situation more tense and creating a competitive advantage for one of the candidates fighting for the post of US president."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino dismissed Putin's allegations as pure crazy talk:
"To suggest that the United States orchestrated this on behalf of a political candidate - it sounds not rational."

 Actually, it sounds perfectly rational, but that doesn't mean it's true. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the U.S. had employed the strategy Putin is describing. Putin, a veteran cold-warrior himself, would doubtlessly recognize it as such from the old days of U.S.-Soviet proxy wars. And if the Ossetia conflict was an early-arriving October surprise, it looks to have been an effective one, resulting in a bump in the polls for the hawkish McCain, who benefits not only from any opportunity to sound tough on foreign policy but also any chance to shift the subject away from the domestic economy. So the motives of such a move are certainly in place, but as anybody who has ever watched a crime drama on TV knows motive alone does not establish guilt.

 The conundrum presented here for me is this: When I hear Putin say anything, I react with great skepticism because this is the man who has created a cult of personality around himself in the process of assuming virtually uncontested control of an increasingly authoritarian Russia, a man whose control of the Russian media calls to mind the state-run media of Soviet days, a man who sets the agenda and is not used to having his facts checked by reporters. Not exactly a trustworthy source.

On the other side, we have the White House press secretary.

As a lifelong cynic it is not difficult for me to believe that one of these sides is lying. What is tough to swallow is that one side or the other might be telling the truth.

Posted by flamingbanjo at August 28, 2008 09:37 AM