Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Blood on George W. Bush’s Hands
Substack ^ | May 19, 2022 | Pedro L. Gonzalez

Posted on 05/20/2022 12:12:45 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007

Bush accidentally called the invasion of Iraq "unjustified and brutal" in a speech about Ukraine. He also helped make the war in Ukraine inevitable and undermined efforts to avoid it.

May 19
The Bush Center / YouTube

Former President George W. Bush suffered a Freudian slip while delivering a speech from Dallas condemning Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The Russian president, said Bush, launched “a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine.” The audience fell silent as he realized the mistake. “Iraq too, anyway,” Bush muttered under his breath as awkward chuckles rippled through the room.

Rarely does the truth reveal itself so spectacularly and unintentionally. 

Bush’s war was a mistake based on lies that resulted in many American and Iraqi lives lost, the virtual annihilation of the region’s Christian population, and the creation of an environment that allowed the murderous Islamic State to rise. Lieutenant General Michael Flynn admitted as much in an interview with Der Spiegel. “The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq,” he said. “History will not be and should not be kind with that decision.”

But Bush’s litany of foreign policy blunders extends beyond the East. He also helped make the war in Ukraine inevitable and subverted the efforts of those who attempted to avoid the tragedy that is now pressing its weight upon the world. This is an important but forgotten aspect at the root of the conflict.

Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, a former top foreign policy aide to late French President Jacques Chirac, recently revealed in an interview with Europe 1 how the Bush administration undermined its less belligerent European allies.

“(Chirac) was used to saying, since the end of the Soviet Union that ‘Russia is not a doormat on which you can wipe your feet,’” Gourdault-Montagne said. “And that was the way he looked at our partners which mistreated Russia.” With the Iraq disaster fresh in mind, Chirac was preoccupied with the balance of power in Europe and specifically with preventing tensions between Russia and Ukraine from escalating to blows. Chirac understood the Russian position but also cared about Ukrainian independence. In 2006, he sent Gourdault-Montagne to Moscow to meet with Sergei Prikhodko, a top Russian advisor on international issues. Ukraine was among the main topics of discussion.

Gourdault-Montagne helped sketch a plan for peace and stability to ensure Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. It entailed “a reciprocal protection of Ukraine, by Russia on one hand, and NATO on the other; this would have been overseen by the Russia-NATO Council, which had been created in the early 2000s.” Chirac thought it reasonable because there were already neutral countries in Europe. Why not add Ukraine to that list? Gourdault-Montagne’s Russian counterpart was likewise intrigued by the proposal.

“‘It’s very interesting for us, because it solves the question of Crimea for us,’” Gourdault-Montagne recalled him saying. “He asked me: ‘Did you talk to the Americans?’ I told him: ‘Not yet, we wanted to feel you out first.’” But D.C. had different designs. According to Gourdault-Montagne:

Then I went to the Americans, to Condoleezza Rice in Washington, who was Secretary of State at the time, and who had been my counterpart during the Iraq War—I knew she was, I would say, hardline, but also sometimes pragmatic. Well, she told me, this was completely unexpected for me, she looked at my piece of paper, and she said: “You, the French, for a long time you held up the first wave of East European countries joining NATO, you will not hold up the second wave.” That is when we understood that the American plan was to, in the fullness of time, bring Ukraine into NATO, and in 2008 there was the notorious Bucharest Summit.

It’s important to note that peace was not merely a pacifist’s delusion. No less a hardened enemy of totalitarianism than Russian writer and Nobel laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn warned in 2006 that NATO was “preparing to completely encircle Russia and deprive if of its sovereignty.” He added: “Although it is clear that Russia, as it exists, represents no threat to NATO, the latter is methodically developing its military deployment in Eastern Europe and on Russia’s southern flank.” Even former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger cautioned against NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine in 2007, a point he bluntly reiterated later: “Ukraine should not join NATO.” 

But caution was thrown to the wind at Bucharest in 2008, where the Bush administration meddled once more.

Just before the summit, Putin told then-Undersecretary for Political Affairs William Burns, now director of the CIA, about Russia’s concerns. “No Russian leader could stand idly by in the face of steps toward NATO membership for Ukraine,” he said. “That would be a hostile act toward Russia.”

Nevertheless, in a move that Putin called a “direct threat” to Russian security, the summit affirmed the NATO aspirations of the two at the behest of Washington and against the concerns of its European partners. The Bush administration had actually requested that NATO immediately begin the formal process of integrating the two countries, but Germany and France were opposed because they didn’t want to poke the bear. Indeed, Robert Gates, who served as secretary of defense in the administrations of Bush II and Barack Obama, later admitted in his memoir that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching . . . that was an especially monumental provocation.” 

Shortly after the Bucharest Summit, then-Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, emboldened by the support of NATO and his friends in the Bush administration, picked a fight with Russia over the breakaway region of South Ossetia. Though it has been memory-holed, an independent report commissioned by the European Union blamed Georgia for starting the war. “In the Mission’s view, it was Georgia which triggered off the war when it attacked Tskhinvali [in South Ossetia] with heavy artillery on the night of 7 to 8 August 2008,” said the Swiss diplomat who led the investigation. 

Bush gave the world a taste of proxy war with Russia. Or, more precisely, as Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Herbert P. Bix put it, “the Russo-Georgian War exhibited the features of a proxy war pitting US-NATO imperialism against Russian nationalism.” Bix also came to the same conclusion as the report about who was to blame.

“When we try to clarify the basic facts of the war, we discover that virtually everything about it is contested, especially the question of who started it,” he wrote in the October 2008 issue of The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. “But an abundance of published evidence disconfirms Georgian propaganda and indicates that Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili provoked the war with encouragement and material support from the Bush administration.” Hundreds of civilians were killed in the fighting.

Neoconservatives like Bush are not known for their ability to reflect or feel shame. Before his slip in Texas, when asked whether invading a sovereign country is a war crime in the context of Russia and Ukraine, Condoleezza Rice said that it “is certainly against every principle of international law and international order.” While Rice remains blissfully ignorant of how hypocritical those words are in her mouth, there seems to be some guilt weighing on Bush’s conscience, like the pressing of God’s finger on his psyche. As it should, because he shares in the blame for the bloodshed unfolding in Europe.




TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: georgebush; georgewbush; georgia; jorgearbusto; liberalswhereright; neocon; oldwarmongerclub; oldwarmongers; russia; smirkingchimp; stayoutdabushes; theleftwasright; theoldwarmongerclub; thesmirkingchimp; thewarparty; ukraine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-127 next last
To: Nifster

And I am practicing that now


101 posted on 05/21/2022 6:25:18 AM PDT by Nifster (I see puppy dogs in the clouds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

Illegal aliens pose the greatest threat to this country. And Bush’s administration actually went after border guards who did their job. This was widely discussed here on FR.


102 posted on 05/21/2022 7:08:08 AM PDT by Jane Austen (Neo-cons are liberal Democrats who love illegal aliens and war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Geo81

What I do know is this; 1) the Bush invasion resulted in the wipeout of the Iraqi Christian population, which had been there for 2000 years; 2) when we invaded, a poll showed we had the support of 35 percent of Iraqis, if Saddam was so horrible why wasn’t this much higher, like over 90 percent? 3) a poll a year into the Occupation found we had the support of 2 percent of the population, or 1 in 50 Iraqis; 4) Iran was placed in a much stronger position than with Saddam who was their mortal enemy; 5) Colin Powell came to realize that what he was told to say at the UN was a pack of lies and he never got over it; 6) we lost far too many of our best young men and women, led by a VP, Cheney who would not serve in the military during VN (he had five marriage and educaiton deferments and said service “wasn’t for him”) and a President, GW Bush, who somehow got into the Alabama National Guard and reportedly wouldn’t even show up for monthly meetings.


103 posted on 05/21/2022 7:30:00 AM PDT by laconic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Geo81
Because Sadaam Hussein did have wmds. We know that. They likely went to Syria.

So nobody saw them and we guess they must have been moved somewhere but we're not sure where. We assume that because we know for sure that they existed because Bush told us that that the intelligence people swore to it but we weren't allowed to see any evidence of it.

The same intelligence people that swore that the Steel Dossier was real and the Hunter Biden laptop was fake? I guess if you like and want war you're willing to suspend disbelief. I used to trust the intel and the government in general but I no longer trust anything they say or have said in the last 25 years without them sharing proof. Their word .. and Bush's ... are not good enough. Not Trump's either, he'd have to show me the evidence had he wanted to go to war.

But you do you.

104 posted on 05/21/2022 8:51:10 AM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Often wrong, but never in doubt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73

The exit polls showed that second choice for President in 92 for Perot voters was slightly in favor of Clinton, not Bush.

Your vote pattern closely mirrors my own, but I voted for Nixon. He was clearly the better choice. The fact that he was taken out by what was a “nothingburger” in terms of what kind of shenanigans went on over nearly every campaign.

Perot was superior to both candidates, from his defeat we got Trump though. In hindsight, Clinton was a better President than Bush was. Remember HE gave us the assault weapons ban.

Your POV is the most common among voters. I just think of it as a false dichotomy. If there are more than 2 choices, of course it takes votes away for them for a third person to be in the race. Since when is it written that we get only one choice? A or B?


105 posted on 05/21/2022 10:31:18 AM PDT by Glad2bnuts ((“If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.” Francis Schaeffer,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
Amazing. Absolutely amazing. Nothing Trump said prior should be taken seriously? That is so ridiculous, so illogical I don't even know what to say. Cultish rationalization to attempt to defend the indefensible. Trump was not apolitical at all. He was involved in politics for years. He even ran for president in 2000 before ending his campaign. Regardless, the idea that we should ignore his leftism and lies prior to a certain date is something no serious person would espouse. He also repeated his libel on the primary debate stage in 2016, after your magic cut off date. Of course, that doesn't count either because of reasons.

I never thought I'd see the day when the treasonous lies of the America hating left would not only be tolerated on Free Republic, but embraced. We're definitely not in Kansas anymore. But that's what populism gets you. Lowest common denominator politics where principles and truth don't matter. Screw conservatism, am I right?

106 posted on 05/21/2022 3:40:33 PM PDT by Geo81 (Conservatism, not populism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul
You're projecting like a typical leftist. You have nothing.
107 posted on 05/21/2022 3:45:14 PM PDT by Geo81 (Conservatism, not populism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Jane Austen

You are correct, next to the Kenyanesian Usurper, the Bushes were the worst thing to happen to this country.


108 posted on 05/21/2022 3:45:29 PM PDT by Lurkinanloomin ( (Natural born citizens are born here of citizen parents)(Know Islam, No Peace-No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

And he was the least corrupt of all the bushes. Even his sainted mom wrote an alibi for her husband the day of the Kennedy assassination.


109 posted on 05/21/2022 3:48:31 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Geo81
George W. Bush was a disappointment in some areas and made his share of mistakes, but he was a whole lot better than having Gore or Kerry as President. Just in terms of the Supreme Court--he gave us one solid conservative and one wishy-washy conservative (who only abandons the Constitution when it really matters), whereas Gore or Kerry would have given us two hard-line leftists like Obama and Biden chose, and we would now have a leftist majority on the Court. I think Bush wanted to do the right thing but wasn't enough of a fighter--Trump showed us what someone with real courage could accomplish.

I don't think wanting to get revenge for Saddam trying to kill his father was a significant factor in his decision to invade Iraq. Any serious President (that is, excluding people like Clinton, Obama or Biden) weighs seriously the consequences of sending troops into harm's way.

Unfortunately I don't think GWB will get over Trump humiliating his brother in 2016, but he has zero political power and virtually no political influence at this point, so it doesn't really matter (other than hurting his nephew's political fortunes).

110 posted on 05/21/2022 5:07:42 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin
...next to the Kenyanesian Usurper, the Bushes were the worst thing to happen to this country.

Have you forgotten Bill and Hillary Clinton? Not to mention the incumbent usurper.

111 posted on 05/21/2022 5:10:28 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Clinton had eight years, the Bushes had twelve and the illegal alien inundation got much worse when W was in office.
Clinton actually enforced the law more than either Bush.


112 posted on 05/21/2022 5:16:29 PM PDT by Lurkinanloomin ( (Natural born citizens are born here of citizen parents)(Know Islam, No Peace-No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: laconic
Right. Just like Saddam received 100% of the vote in his "elections." Opinion polls of Iraquis. Lol. You are seriously saying Saddam Hussien was not that bad. Has it really come to this? This is surreal. Your whole post could have been copy and pasted from DU. I am shaking my head in disgust. I can't be the only one.
113 posted on 05/21/2022 5:36:28 PM PDT by Geo81 (Conservatism, not populism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: pepsi_junkie
So why did Trump say he had wmds and was developing nukes in 2000? Who told him that? It sure wasn't Bush, the governor of Texas. Why did every prominent Democrat say the same thing going back to the Clinton years? They then lied for political reasons. Why are you lowering yourself to their level and propagating their lies?
114 posted on 05/21/2022 5:50:32 PM PDT by Geo81 (Conservatism, not populism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
That is what you respond to? It's true, and I stand by it. Look at their respective records. It is not at all an insult to Reagan. Actually, they have a whole lot in common. But it is beside the point. If you have legitimate criticisms, why resort to lies? Lies made up by the left.
115 posted on 05/21/2022 6:00:39 PM PDT by Geo81 (Conservatism, not populism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

You mean Bush’s “brother” Bill Clinton?


116 posted on 05/21/2022 6:03:07 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (“There should be a whole lot more going on than throwing bleach,” said one woman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Geo81

Where do you noob idiots come from? Are you farmed somewhere like mushrooms?


117 posted on 05/21/2022 6:04:21 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (“There should be a whole lot more going on than throwing bleach,” said one woman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass

“Where do you noob idiots come from?”

There are at least three noobs that have popped up in the last couple of weeks — spewing some weird nonsense.


118 posted on 05/21/2022 6:08:11 PM PDT by MayflowerMadam (When government fears the people, there is liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Geo81

Dear Troll,

This tread and my posts are about Bush, not Trump. Stay on topic or stop posting to me. Thanks.


119 posted on 05/21/2022 6:42:07 PM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
Thank you for the reasonable post. Nice to see there are still people like you here. No president is perfect for sure, but to see freepers resort to using lies to attack Bush is disheartening. These are the same lies conservatives fought against for years.

The case for going to war was regularly posted here, and it was overwhelming. Saddam broke the cease fire. We were absolutely justified in defending ourselves. We couldn't just ignore him.

Roberts is interesting. When all else is equal he is definitely a conservative justice. Unfortunately, he seems to have a strong aversion to using the court to overturn the status quo. That's why he was on the right side of Obergefell but the wrong side of the Obamacare decision. I don't agree with him, and it's disappointing.

Put yourself in Bush's shoes. You see a guy who was a Democrat during your presidency, who you know was lying about you and trying to undermine our war efforts. A guy who praised Pelosi and wanted you impeached. Now you see him switch parties to run for president. He gets on the primary stage and he's attacking you, still spewing lies about you, and using those lies to attack your brother. Hell, he even said you allowed 9/11 to happen. Then you watch as your party nominates the liar. Wouldn't you feel like the voters of your own party had stabbed you in the back? I would. Is he supposed to kiss Trump's ass or something? If it happened to Trump, he'd be openly supporting the Democrats, there's no doubt about it. Especially since he's a political carpetbagger.

120 posted on 05/21/2022 6:50:10 PM PDT by Geo81 (Conservatism, not populism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-127 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson