Posted on 05/20/2022 12:12:45 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
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.
He pulled the same crap with Harriet Miers. Don’t ask any questions about her, just TRUST US and confirm her! ####head Cheney even called into Rush and told conservatives to settle down! Just trust us Harriet Miers is great! There’s no evidence at all, just trust us!
I hate to break the news to you Sparky but Saddam did have WMDs. We found them. Bush lied, not about Saddam having WMDs but about not having found them.
The NY Slimes ran with the story in 2014, detailing the injuries to US servicemen who were injured when they chanced across the caches of mustard agent and sarin. The Slimes later published the US intelligence report on the events, released under FOIA. It's even been noted on Wikipedia that "the total number of munitions discovered since 2003 had climbed to 4,990...."
The Daily Beast later reported that Bush administration insiders claimed that it was Carl Rove's idea to cover up having found the weapons, presumably to prevent every Muslim terrorist on the planet from descending on Iraq in a scavenger hunt for whatever chemical weapons the US might have overlooked.
And not that it matters but only the Illiterati ever thought the war was over the belief that Saddam had WMDs anyway (which was lie that the demoncrats were peddling). The war was over his unwillingness to allow the international community to confirm he didn't have them.
Whether he had them or not -- which he did -- was irrelevant.
Don’t forget this POS lecturing us about islam being a “religion of peace”! right after 9/11 !!!
FU GWBush! F your whole ####head family!
what a joke
Yes it is. The Swamp is full of gators, ticks and leeches. If it comes down to the governor of Florida or Trump, it is not even close. DeSantis gets my vote. DJT lost me with the support of OZ. It is EVIL to maim children to make permanent customers for pharma.
Take it up with Colin Powell.
Everyone? In that case, I apologize. God knows the majority opinion is always the truth.
Where are the wmds Trump and all the other other Democrats said were there? Most likely Syria. Btw: Bush didn't start the war, Saddam Hussein did. How do you not know that?
He certainly did.
I know I'm touching a live wire here, but did DJT love America when he committed blood libel against the CIC when our soldiers were fighting for us overseas? He either lied in 2000 or he lied in 2007-present. Clearly he wasn't lying in 2000. Therefore he knowingly committed blood libel against GWB.
This is a false dichotomy.
True, maybe Trump knowingly committed blood libel against GWB, as you claim.
Or maybe the data he was operating off in 2000 was incomplete, compared to 2007.
Or maybe he believed the reports that were publicly available in 2007, and thought the older data had therefore been faulty or false.
Or perhaps the reality of facts on the ground in 2007 Iraq made him think that perhaps the Middle East had been better off with Saddam Hussein.
And so on.
There are a variety of potential explanations regarding why Trump changed his tone from 2000 to 2007 that don't fit your absolutist dichotomy.
But apparently, "standard conservative foreign policy" involves the decimation of the Christian population from one of Christianity's oldest havens by virtue of the radical Islamists who gained power because of our feckless and ill-defined foreign policy.
"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace." - George W. Bush from a speech on September 17th, 2001
Saddam Hussein was a SOB who needed to be taken out. Should we have done it in 2003? That's open to debate. But it's done with and old news like you said.
Did Trump lie in his 2000 book?
What matters is the sense of objective. If the Bush Administration believed Saddam had been a clear and present danger to the United States of America, taking him out was one thing.
Staying behind for year after year as part of some nebulous mission to 'spread democracy' in the Middle East — in a region and culture with no tradition in Western values that made democracy such a valuable system — was a fool's errand.
You should. Colin Powell was George W. Bush's Secretary of State from 2001 to 2005 (and therefore the one responsible for implementing the Bush Administration's foreign policy), and was one of the most notable public faces promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
His opinions about Obama have no bearing on his public proclamations as Secretary of State (and the contradictions he disclosed in private contrary to those public statements).
You nicely avoided the fact that FR does not exist as an opinion piece. FR has no opinion but people at FR have lots of opinions…. You included
You seem bent all out of shape that people aren’t agreeing with you
Have a good weekend
I don’t think you understand the term blood libel for starters
W went to war in Iraq. Didn’t like it then don’t like it now
Maybe you can go fight for the Ukrainians.
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.