I am concentrating on the US press coverage and portrayal of the conflict.  The LA Times, which I have read for 40 years and now follow on the web, had one article on Saturday, Aug 9, that first mentioned in the fourth paragraph that Georgia had invaded South Ossetia before Russia sent in the tanks.  I found an AP article on Aug 9 from the Houston Chronicle, which I sometimes monitor, that describes Georgia's role in "trying to seize" South Ossetia, and there is the article from the NYT I cited.  Nothing appeared in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

By Sunday and Monday, when the situation was starting to get serious, I don't recall any mention of the role of Georgia in starting the conflict. It is all Russian aggression against Georgia.  Not until mid-week did I see  critical coverage of the role that the Bush Administration and John McCain had played in encouraging Georgia.  And still the preponderance of the coverage seems to be on Russia's actions.  There is a lot more condemnation of Russia's "disporportionate" response than there is to that to which what they were responding.

First impressions can be lasting.  I suspect that not many US citizens became aware of the situation until Sunday or later.  By that time their first impressions  didn't likely include the fact that Georgia set off this round of trouble.

The neo-cons schemes blow up in their faces, they are shown by the facts to be incompetent and impotent and yet they are not called on it.  It seems to me that what coverage there was of Georgia's role was the minimum possible so that US news organizations could say: "well, we did cover it."  That is not good enough for me.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."