The Wall Street Journal carries Saakashvili's testimony that the Russia was amassing at their border well before the invasion:

"I got a call from the minister of defense that Russian tanks, some 200, were massing to enter Tskhinvali from North Ossetia. I ignored it at first, but reports kept coming in that they had begun to move forward. In fact, they had mobilized reserves several days ahead of time."

"We subsequently found out from pilots we shot down, that they'd been called up three days before from places like Moscow. We had intelligence coming in ahead of time but we just couldn't believe it. Also, in recent weeks, the separatists had intensified artillery barrages and were shooting our soldiers. I'd kept telling our guys to stay calm. Actually we had most of our troops down near Abkhazia where we expected the real trouble to start. I can tell you that if we'd intended to attack, we'd have withdrawn our best-trained forces from Iraq up front."

Some of this seems obvious -- i.e. Georgia's need for its best troops (and a good chunk of its military) if it had planned to attack Russia. But, hey, the rest? Given what he has at stake here, who can trust Saakashvili's testimony at face value? (That's a level of trust we reserve for Vladimir Putin!)

Speaking of which, I just found this little gem in Time Magazine. It seems Time and Paul Craig Roberts are exactly in sync: both claim Putin would have been more than justified in directly deposing Georgia's president.

The truth is that both Russia and Georgia had plenty of reasons of their own to start a war. Putin, who resents Saakashvili for his brazen defiance of Moscow and close ties to the West, had ample grounds to try to invade Georgia and oust him. Saakashvili, for his part, had staked his presidency on "re-integrating" Georgia 's two breakaway territories into Georgia proper.

Putin had "ample grounds" for ordering the invasion of another nation? Stunning. Though Time never sees fit to divulge these allegedly ample grounds (unless they actually mean that having "close ties to the West" is a kind of international crime) -- moving onto an account which would seem to obviously indict Putin. Yet Time apparently still needs to treat the matter as a bit of an unsolved mystery.

Meanwhile Time's competitor, Newsweek, offers us two completely contradictory narratives. First, Newsweek indicts (believe it or not) Dick Cheney for offering Russia closer ties to the West, and assuring her neighbors she was not fated to be an enemy:

The last time Dick Cheney visited the former Soviet Union in May 2006, he spoke as the victor of the cold war–and extended an invitation to Russia to become a partner of the West, on the West’s terms. In Vilnius, Lithuania, he told an audience of the leaders of nine former Soviet republics or Warsaw Pact satellites that Russia was not "fated to be an enemy" and that it "can be a strategic partner and a trusted friend." But he urged that Russia follow the course embraced by its former subjects in the Soviet bloc. "Russia has a choice to make," he said.... Clearly, Cheney will have some explaining to do.

Then, in seemingly the same breath, Newsweek suggests that the West is being stupid and myopic for (wait for it...) not offering Russia closer ties to the West, and treating her as though she were destined to be an enemy:

Diplomats are now searching for ways to make Moscow pay some price for its actions... In fact, the real challenge we face in dealing with Moscow is that we have too few... ties and, as a result, too little leverage.

The problem is not that Russia has been integrated into a world order that has failed to deter it, but rather that the country remains largely unintegrated—and thus feels it has little to lose by breaking the rules.

Very nice: In one case, Newsweek lays blame on Cheney for being too friendly with Russia, in the next Newsweek rebukes the West for not being friendly enough. In neither case is Russia herself indicted.

Wired seems "on message" also. Their intrepid journalists might not be able to detect any deception or spin from Putin, but they're apparently keen to validate and promote a rumor that Georgia staged a masterful "propaganda war":

Gordon Hahn, an analyst at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, offers what he believes is key insight into Saakashvili's miscalculation. The Georgian president, Hahn claims, counted on a massive propaganda effort to draw the West into the war. "Saakashvili and his ministers made numerous statements in their effort to convince the West that it was obliged to defend Tbilisi from Russia's incursion..."

Georgia begged help from the West while several hundred Russian tanks rolled into their country? Diabolical! (The most disgusting such ploy since Prague pulled the same sneaky trick.) Wired's article carefully reveals every nefarious bit of disinformation from Georgia's alleged "propaganda war", including such unbelievable assertions as:

Russia ignored Georgia's attempts at a diplomatic solution.

You mean the country who is now blatantly violating the ceasefire agreement they just signed might not have been open to diplomacy with Georgia? Absurd!

Russia used "disproportionate" force, including 1,200 tanks.

Wired believes the number 1,200 may have been much too high. (No doubt Georgia's president knew the exact number during the invasion, and simply chose to lie about the matter.) Presumably, Wired therefore also disagrees that Russia's action was "disproportionate."

Russia destroyed civilian infrastructure and killed non-combatants.

If so, that $1 billion aid package to allegedly "rebuild Georgia" (which has, according to Wired, suffered no such harm at all!) must be part of this deception, too. Unbelievable.

While the West sits on the fence (if not in Putin's lap) Russia has declared the matter closed -- and again repeats their justification... you know, the one Time can't quite bring itself to disbelieve:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said he no longer considers his counterpart Mikheil Saakashvili to be Georgia's leader... "For us, the present Georgian regime has collapsed. President Saakashvili no longer exists in our eyes. He is a political corpse," Medvedev said... "But we would like the international community to remember who began the aggression and who is responsible for people's deaths," he said.

Yep. There was no Russian invasion at all. Just a before-the-conflict "response" to an alleged Georgian genocide which seems, strangely, not to have existed in the first place. (Good thing I can find this in The Times of India -- the American press apparently doesn't believe I need to be exposed to that quote!)

The EU, meanwhile, has received some hard-earned praise for its handling of the crisis -- from Russia, that is:

President Dmitry Medvedev on Tuesday praised the European Union's decision to reject slapping sanctions on Russia over its war with Georgia but criticized the Western bloc for failing to understand the Kremlin's motives in the conflict.

"Good start EU. Though we'd appreciate a bit more sympathy!"

When a real moral crisis arises, it's always comforting to remember that the US media and Europe are there to call it what it is. Times like this I miss Ronald Reagan. Too bad I didn't appreciate him at the time.