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.
Enter Trump. A leftist Democrat during Bush's presidency, he too has a record of saying the same thing as Bush about wmds. Like his fellow Democrats, he too chose to lie. Then, he switches parties to run for president. He is elected and all of a sudden, everything he says is embraced as truth. So now, I have to read "conservatives" spewing the same lies we have fought against for years. This is not limited to FR, but all over conservative media.
Leftists: Bush lied and people died!
Conservatives: You are the liars, not Bush!
Trump: Bush lied and people died!
"Conservatives": Bush lied and people died!
Everything Freepers used to fight the lies remains the truth. The facts have not changed. How can anyone credibly claim Bush lied when Trump and the Dems said the same thing Bush did, starting before Bush was ever president? They all said Saddam had wmds because he did. It wasn't until after the fact when Democrats(including Trump) started lying to hurt Bush politically, despite their earlier comments. Now this vicious blood libel is used to attack Bush from all sides, including from people who absolutely know better. I never envisioned a day when FR would go all code pink, and it makes me sick.
I get it. You prefer tyrants like Putin and Hussein. Keep supporting our enemies.
Has the possibility ever occurred to you that people carried water for Bush simply because he was the ostensible opponent of the Democrats, even though many had concerns about his more liberal leanings?
I remember when Rush Limbaugh of all people admitted on his radio show that he was tired of carrying water for squishy GOP figures simply because their opponents were Democrats (I think it may have been after Republicans lost the Congress in 2006?); that sentiment was rife on Free Republic all throughout the 2000s, where those who opposed George W. Bush for whatever reason were purged on a not-infrequent basis...even if their political positions would have been 80 to 90%+ in line with traditional American values.
It’s only with the benefit of the passage of time that Freepers, in general, have allowed themselves to look at George W. Bush’s legacy and performance with a more analytical eye, and have allowed themselves to stop carrying water for a President who was disastrous for conservatism on many levels. I should know: I lived through it.
Were all the claims of the Left truthful? Of course not; but that doesn’t mean the Bush Administration was always right, either. And a lot of Freepers pretended otherwise for the sake of opposing the Democrats.
In hindsight, with all that’s been learned in the subsequent years about the Deep State, the fact that both Republicans and Democrats were united when it came to the cause of invading Iraq would now be a cause of suspicion by many on this website...and deservedly so.
What you call “conservative” foreign policy is an aberration relative to the overall history of America, rife with an interventionist spirit that is utterly foreign to the sentiments of the Founding Fathers.
What has America gotten for all of our foreign interventions over the past two decades? Has it helped or hurt the cause of American conservatism?
Same here
You are delusional
You complain about FR not being what it used to be. You contribute by insulting me. Just because I’m not on your war wagon ( mainly because I’ve seen what happens when the US gets on an endless war cycle) doesn’t mean I support dictators. That’s intellectually dishonest and sloppy to boot
IF the US left after defeating Hussein ( or the Taliban) instead of trying to decmocratise the place maybe I’d agree with you
IF you are that miserable on FR…….
Dear Freeper Folks…..
……this new person has signed on just to trash Free Republic
We all would do well, imo, by not responding to its aggression, insults, and enticement to argue
Let him/ her/ it talk to itself
Just saying
Two schools of thought on that, personally:
Supported John Schmitz (AM IND) in '72 over Nixon/McGovern - gave us Nixon.
Voted for John Anderson (AM) in '76 over Ford - gave us Carter.
Voted for Ross Perot (IND) in '92 over Bush - gave us Clinton.
In reality, every vote is for the lesser of two evils ("for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God")
Roger that
Bull, like the 2020 election we can't move on until the truth is known to all and the guilty punished. Neocons need to be jailed for all those that died needlessly. The entire Bush family is dirty.
We couldn't just leave. The terrorists would quickly take over. We had to provide a framework for a government, one that would not threaten and attack us. Look at what happened when Obama pulled us out of Iraq, and Biden pulled out of Afghanistan. We should have kept a certain number of troops in both countries. It was very much to our strategic and security benefit.
Why did the USA invade Iraq? Allow me to explain.
Saddam tried to kill W father so W used the US military to get back at Saddam. Now W could not say he was taking care of family business so he invented reasons like “weapons of mass destruction” to get the job done.
He knew Iraq was going to be a mess after Saddam was killed. His top military adviser told him he did not have the troops to occupy Iraq. So he fired his top general and invaded anyway. He did not care, all he wanted was Saddam head. He did not give a damn about what best for the USA, for Iraq or the middle east in general. Thousands lost their lives so W could have his revenge on Saddam.
Some day ask me about the Bush family and running cocaine out of Mena Ar.
What has the wars under Bush gotten us? Well, how many times have we been attacked on American soil after 9/11 when Bush was president? Is that not the most important thing? To prevent further attacks? Bin Laden is dead. Why? Because we caught a guy who led us to him. Where did we capture said guy? Iraq. Saddam Hussein is no longer stockpiling and developing wmds. He is no longer supporting terrorists. He is no longer attacking our planes. He is no longer threatening us. We basically wiped out Al queda because Iraq served as as a roach motel for terrorists after Saddam was removed. We fought them over there, not here. That was the plan right? America is safer because we took action.
One more note, if you were anti-Bush and against the wars all along, you are part of a very small minority of Republicans and conservatives. My remarks are mostly targeted towards those who have embraced the lies they once fought against.
Now I know you're trolling.
Neither of those things are going to happen. And while you are focused on the rear view mirror, you are not preventing the same stuff from happening again.
Trump was apolical in until 2015. Nothing he said prior to 2010ish should be taken serious.
You want serious Bush derangement? Google “Mena, Arkanas” + “cocane” + “bush”.
here is a tease
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adambvary/bill-clinton-george-w-bush-american-made
This used to be a hot topic on Fr back when I first joined in 99.
The Bushes are dirty, dirty, dirty. The whole damn family is dirty. But since daddy was CIA just about everyone looked the other way.
You're not fooling anyone.
You are making a whole lot of assumptions with that broad brush.
We have no business in Ukraine, and bushs words and that audience laughing speak for themselves.
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.