Imagine how it will be, if Hillary Clinton and Soros joins the list.
George H.W. Bush has died at age 94.
- Thread starter Ca.
- Start date
George Bush's Christmas Pardons
Editorial of The New York Sun | December 3, 2018
While we’re all reflecting on the life of President George H.W. Bush, let us remember his famous Christmas pardons. They will go down in history as one of his finest hours. They’re relevant today, too, because of the precedent Bush set for President Trump, who has been wrestling with whether — or when — to use the least fettered of presidential powers in respect of Russia-gate.
The similarities of Bush 41’s Christmas pardons with Mr. Trump’s predicament aren’t exact. They’re enough, though, to offer up much to think about as we wait for Robert Mueller to show his hand. Bush unsheathed the pardon to “decapitate” — to borrow the word Reuters news wire used — the six-year-long investigation by an independent prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh.
Judge Walsh, who once sat on the bench here at New York, had been looking into the Iran-Contra affair. That involved the diversion to the anti-communist Contras fighting Nicaragua of money from arms sales to Iran. The probe started under President Reagan, and continued into Bush’s presidency. Bush used the pardon, a writer for Politico was prepared to state flatly, “in order to protect himself.”
Walsh was named independent counsel in late 1986. An appeals court threw out his first big convictions, of Reagan’s national security adviser, Admiral John Poindexter, and an aide, Colonel Oliver North. That was in 1991. The appeals court concluded Walsh failed to make adequate protection against using tainted evidence. Walsh should have packed his bags right then and gone back to Oklahoma.
Walsh instead made a mewling appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal did not, as the Times would later put it, “appear to interest the Justices.” They turned Walsh down colder than a mackerel. Walsh plunged on, though, hooked on the crack-cocaine-like hubris to which independence makes prosecutors inherently susceptible. In June 1992, he gained an indictment of Caspar Weinberger.
Walsh indicted Reagan’s ex-defense secretary even though a presidential election was looming. The charges were perjury and obstruction, but a court promptly threw out the obstruction charge. On October 30, Walsh brought another indictment of Weinberger. It mentioned — cast shade on — President Bush himself, though he was standing for re-election in four days.
That attempt to influence the election was shocking. Even Lanny Davis, a partisan of Bill Clinton, Bush’s opponent, would later write that the reference to Bush was made “gratuitously and unnecessarily.” Yet it took until December 11 for a court to find that the indictment was not only insidious but illegal. Meantime, Bush lost the election to Clinton, albeit by a margin wide enough to spare Walsh the blame.
Did Bush pace the White House fearing that he was the last man left for Walsh to target? We don’t know. We do know that, in a fell swoop, Bush preemptively pardoned Weinberger on Christmas eve. Bush also cleared five other figures. They included the neoconservative foreign policy sage Elliott Abrams, who’d been fined $50 for the misdemeanor of withholding information from Congress.
The left went bananas. Walsh issued a bitter statement (the video is above). The New York Times called the pardon “unpardonable.” Bush himself remained implicated in the scandal, it reckoned, “and in that sense he has shamelessly pardoned himself.” Walsh hinted that he might yet go after Bush. Yet a generation later, as the mortal remains of the president lie in state, hosannas are being sung from the left and right.
Why are the Christmas pardons not an issue and what does that tell us about President Trump’s prospects? Our own view is that the country has come to realize that it was a profound wrong for Walsh to glancingly suggest in a court filing that Bush might be guilty of a crime. It was a constitutional wrong for Congress and the courts to give a prosecutor independence in the first place.
Alexander Hamilton, in 74 Federalist, makes clear that the Founders considered that a president might use the pardon to cover his own “connivance.” They gave it to him anyhow. So Lawrence Walsh was wrong to suggest, as he did after the Christmas pardons, that Bush had undermined “the principle that no man is above the law.” Bush remembered the right lesson, and Mr. Trump should, too: The Constitution and the pardon power are not above the law. They are the law.
Editorial of The New York Sun | December 3, 2018
While we’re all reflecting on the life of President George H.W. Bush, let us remember his famous Christmas pardons. They will go down in history as one of his finest hours. They’re relevant today, too, because of the precedent Bush set for President Trump, who has been wrestling with whether — or when — to use the least fettered of presidential powers in respect of Russia-gate.
The similarities of Bush 41’s Christmas pardons with Mr. Trump’s predicament aren’t exact. They’re enough, though, to offer up much to think about as we wait for Robert Mueller to show his hand. Bush unsheathed the pardon to “decapitate” — to borrow the word Reuters news wire used — the six-year-long investigation by an independent prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh.
Judge Walsh, who once sat on the bench here at New York, had been looking into the Iran-Contra affair. That involved the diversion to the anti-communist Contras fighting Nicaragua of money from arms sales to Iran. The probe started under President Reagan, and continued into Bush’s presidency. Bush used the pardon, a writer for Politico was prepared to state flatly, “in order to protect himself.”
Walsh was named independent counsel in late 1986. An appeals court threw out his first big convictions, of Reagan’s national security adviser, Admiral John Poindexter, and an aide, Colonel Oliver North. That was in 1991. The appeals court concluded Walsh failed to make adequate protection against using tainted evidence. Walsh should have packed his bags right then and gone back to Oklahoma.
Walsh instead made a mewling appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal did not, as the Times would later put it, “appear to interest the Justices.” They turned Walsh down colder than a mackerel. Walsh plunged on, though, hooked on the crack-cocaine-like hubris to which independence makes prosecutors inherently susceptible. In June 1992, he gained an indictment of Caspar Weinberger.
Walsh indicted Reagan’s ex-defense secretary even though a presidential election was looming. The charges were perjury and obstruction, but a court promptly threw out the obstruction charge. On October 30, Walsh brought another indictment of Weinberger. It mentioned — cast shade on — President Bush himself, though he was standing for re-election in four days.
That attempt to influence the election was shocking. Even Lanny Davis, a partisan of Bill Clinton, Bush’s opponent, would later write that the reference to Bush was made “gratuitously and unnecessarily.” Yet it took until December 11 for a court to find that the indictment was not only insidious but illegal. Meantime, Bush lost the election to Clinton, albeit by a margin wide enough to spare Walsh the blame.
Did Bush pace the White House fearing that he was the last man left for Walsh to target? We don’t know. We do know that, in a fell swoop, Bush preemptively pardoned Weinberger on Christmas eve. Bush also cleared five other figures. They included the neoconservative foreign policy sage Elliott Abrams, who’d been fined $50 for the misdemeanor of withholding information from Congress.
The left went bananas. Walsh issued a bitter statement (the video is above). The New York Times called the pardon “unpardonable.” Bush himself remained implicated in the scandal, it reckoned, “and in that sense he has shamelessly pardoned himself.” Walsh hinted that he might yet go after Bush. Yet a generation later, as the mortal remains of the president lie in state, hosannas are being sung from the left and right.
Why are the Christmas pardons not an issue and what does that tell us about President Trump’s prospects? Our own view is that the country has come to realize that it was a profound wrong for Walsh to glancingly suggest in a court filing that Bush might be guilty of a crime. It was a constitutional wrong for Congress and the courts to give a prosecutor independence in the first place.
Alexander Hamilton, in 74 Federalist, makes clear that the Founders considered that a president might use the pardon to cover his own “connivance.” They gave it to him anyhow. So Lawrence Walsh was wrong to suggest, as he did after the Christmas pardons, that Bush had undermined “the principle that no man is above the law.” Bush remembered the right lesson, and Mr. Trump should, too: The Constitution and the pardon power are not above the law. They are the law.
Hi_Henry
The Living Force
angelburst29
The Living Force
In the past two months, there have been several high ranking Military Officers assassinated or found dead in Afghanistan. This goes for Afghan Officers, as well as, US/NATO high ranking Military officers. US Navy Vice Admiral Scott Stirney was the high command of a large Navy Fleet in Afghanistan. Add to that - Diplomatic Peace talks have begun to defuse the situation and pull foreign Troops (US) out of the Country. There might be some kind of power-struggle going on and high ranking Military Officials are getting bumped-off?
Afghanistan
Hi_Henry
The Living Force
In the Wilderness of Mirrors you can not be sure of anything. My guess is Iran and Russia is paying back for what happened to their people when in the West or not.
The Bankers usually us nail-guns, hotel windows or hang you on a bridge
In the Wilderness of Mirrors you can not be sure of anything. My guess is Iran and Russia is paying back for what happened to their people when in the West or not.
The Bankers usually us nail-guns, hotel windows or hang you on a bridge
If there's a power struggle, I would think that it was more on long the lines of the CIA, NATO, NSA, MI6, and other rouge elements of the Deep State. That profit by maintaining the old status quo.
Russian's, much to busy taken care of business. Fatherland first, with the help of a few friend's.
Were also talking about links, and connections maintained by other elements, that control the global drug cartels as well as the Dark Webb of mercenaries and arms. You know, those that operate along with Fourth Density STS, and all the misery associated with this activity.
MANAMA, Bahrain (Oct. 24, 2018) Vice Adm. Scott Stearney, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, U.S. 5th Fleet and Combined Maritime Forces, looks at a cache of over 2,500 AK-47 automatic rifles seized during maritime security operations aboard the guided-missile destroyer USS Jason Dunham (DDG 109). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Jonathan Clay/Released) 181024-N-UX013-2036
Hi_Henry
The Living Force
CA you might be right. The problem we Little People have is that all we can do is guess. I'm sure the ones in the higher echelons do the same but we are just Common People.
That Pieczeniek guy I think is a Snake. Every time I see him he gives me the wrong vibes
angelburst29
The Living Force
In the Wilderness of Mirrors you can not be sure of anything. My guess is Iran and Russia is paying back for what happened to their people when in the West or not.
The Bankers usually us nail-guns, hotel windows or hang you on a bridge
I totally agree with C.a.'s assessment, Hi_Henry. By all indications, neither Russia or Iran are involved in "this internal Power Play" between Afghanistan Officials/ high ranking Military and elements of the "CIA, NATO, NSA, MI6, and other rouge elements of the Deep State" that C.a. has pointed out.
Go to this link below, top of page 8 - starting Oct. 13th and work your way down to the latest Posting and you'll get a better feel for what might be transpiring?
Russia, to the larger extent (Sergei Lavrov) and Iran are behind the formation and process of arranging the Peace Talks. The hardest part has been getting the Taliban to sit at the table and recently, the Taliban agreed to attend the last scheduled meeting. Not much transpired, as far as working on the tenants of the Peace Agreement but at least, the Taliban showed up. I forget, when the next meeting is scheduled? In the meantime, all-hell-is-breaking-loose between Afghan Official's and their Military and US/NATO.
Afghanistan
Hi_Henry
The Living Force
Like I said, it is a Wilderness of Mirrors
Wilson was the "Deep State" when he gave Trosky his American passport to travel on to Russia to make a Revolution. He was not on the Little Man's side.
As to these strange "events". If they can murder JFK and get away with it these little Pawns are simply road kill for "them". Jack Ruby knew too much, said too much and ... in 3 yrs died of cancer. USS Liberty was in the way and with little concern was taken "out of the way". Just amazing how easily "they" do it. This octopus is HUGE and old as this World.
Mr. Wilson, I love bashing him but in the quote he was talking about Monopolies and business practice,
Wilson was the "Deep State" when he gave Trosky his American passport to travel on to Russia to make a Revolution. He was not on the Little Man's side.
As to these strange "events". If they can murder JFK and get away with it these little Pawns are simply road kill for "them". Jack Ruby knew too much, said too much and ... in 3 yrs died of cancer. USS Liberty was in the way and with little concern was taken "out of the way". Just amazing how easily "they" do it. This octopus is HUGE and old as this World.
Hi_Henry
The Living Force
Ran out of time to edit my post above.
PS: Have a look at this link which someone offered in a conversation about Bush,
Deep State
PS: Have a look at this link which someone offered in a conversation about Bush,
Deep State
angelburst29
The Living Force
Save your energy - the site is loaded with nothing more than conjure and disinfo. Take for instance, the article the link brings up ...
Russian Spy Chief Dies: Hacked the 2016 Election and Bungled an Assassination Plot - the only thing legit presented is the photo of Igor Korobov. Everything else is pure conjure and assumptions.
Then the author drags the Skirpal Case into the narrative "to spice it up" with another photo - giving Credit to "Bellingcat" a known disinfo artist, along side a legit news site "Russia Insider".
For the real scope on Bellingcat and the Skirpal Case, check out these two links: Neither has a connection with Igor Korobov.
Eliot Higgins - The Bellingcat group
Skripal Case Bombshell: Swiss Lab Reports 'BZ Toxin' Used In Salisbury - Chemical Not Produced In Russia, Only NATO States
As far as the two Bush articles featured - same garbage.
Hi_Henry
The Living Force
You are right. I'll admit I only read the beginning of the articles as it showed that it would seem that Korobov was in better health then suggested as he traveled to DC. Then in short enough time he suddenly died (happens all the time). The rest of the article's text is Anglo-Zio bent BS.
Sorry, will be more careful next time
I was trying to figure out how I got there and here it is. Look at the last comment,
The Trickster (Ron Bulman)
I like this forum because the people there do heavy lifting when it comes to research. As in all large groups there are factions. This guy is now on my ???? List.
Bush was a Devil of the highest rank.
The death of former president George HW Bush was used to dig at President Donald Trump, thus reducing it to “a political battering ram,” Fox News host Laura Ingraham believes.
Ingraham has shamed her colleagues, MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace and Mika Brzezinski, for pulling no punches in Trump-bashing at the time when the late Bush’s casket was shown being paraded through the streets of Washington.
Brzezinski, who along her co-host Joe Scarborough, fell out with Trump even before he was elected president, for instance, predicted that Trump would try to “fake more respect” for the Bush family “whose unprecedented history of public service has repeatedly belittled” to go back to “making a mockery of the very office George Bush and the nation long revered.”
Wallace was also not in a solemn mood while commenting on the procession of the Bush Snr. motorcade to Capitol Hill, as she lashed at Trump, saying that he had “debased” the presidency “in a way that’s unimaginable for people who served the last president.”
“They lack all sense of decency. They reduce a presidential death to just a political battering ram, like any other issue,” Ingraham charged, as she pilloried her fellow cabal news hosts for their failure to contain their hard feeling towards Trump for a moment out of respect for the late president.
“But what you hear, if you listen closely, is the last gasp of an embittered establishment,” Ingraham went on, calling out the establishment for apparently thinking that “the way to win them [voters] back is to belittle President Trump even during formal on-air eulogies and tributes.”
“So rather than directing their anger at Trump, the establishment at both parties should be directing it at themselves for it is their policies that the voters turned against in 2016.”
The bickering between the hosts has spilled on Twitter, where both Brzezinski and Wallace mounted counter-attacks. Wallace accused Ingraham of “sniping” at her instead of seeing off Bush, while Brzezinski accused Wallace of catering to Trump.
“You are as usual serving as the president’s panderer. I’m not sure that ends very well but good luck!” Brzezinski tweeted.
READ MORE: Late George H.W. Bush valued ‘constructive dialogue’ with Russia – Putin
Trump has been invited to Bush’s Wednesday funeral service but is not expected to deliver a eulogy. Since the last US Cold War president’s passing on Friday night at the age of 94, Trump has heaped praise on the Republican, even canceling his G20 press conference “out of respect” to the Bush family.
Wallace and Brzezinski were by far not alone in using Bush’s death to take a swipe at Trump.
CNN host Don Lemon apparently could not come to terms with the Bush family’s decision to invite Trump to the service.
“I do not understand why they want him to be here. You have your reasons, but again, I just… I would not want him,” he said, while relishing the idea of seeing Trump being not invited despite reality being the contrary.
“That would be the biggest and better lesson to teach someone who is a bully. Sorry. Not invited.”
For centuries, the Middle East has cast a long and dark shadow over the legacy of many a statesman wanting to leave his mark on history. Unlike Europeans, the Americans largely resisted the allure of the region until 1945, when President Franklin D Roosevelt met with Saudi King Abdul Aziz on board the USS Quincy. That is when the sands of Arabia turned into a quagmire for America and its Presidents.
With the creation of the state of Israel not long after that meeting, US Presidents became embroiled in the Middle East to such an extent that many now believe that America’s interests no longer have priority in Washington’s foreign policy.
When the Cold War came to an end and the Berlin Wall was knocked down it seemed that history had gifted the 41st President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, a chance to carve a legacy to be proud of. A “New World Order” was taking shape, one in which Bush Snr saw himself as the main architect.
The death of the USSR — America’s number one enemy for decades — and the decline of communism were monumental events. For millions, though, the legacy of Bush Snr — like that of his son George W Bush, who became President a decade later — came to be defined by events that would unfold in a different continent, based on what he did and did not do in the Middle East.
Born in 1924 to an affluent family in the suburbs of Boston, Bush Snr went on to become a World War Two fighter pilot. Unlike his successors Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, he had experience working in the federal system before entering the White House, having served as a Congressman, US Ambassador to the United Nations and China, the Director of the CIA and Vice President for eight years under President Ronald Reagan. His experience of public service prior to becoming President is said to be why he was a political realist, especially when it came to Israel. It is fair to say that he was at odds with Tel-Aviv more than any other US President.
George HW Bush's legacy of war in Iraq
Since his death last week at the age of 94, benign tributes have been pouring for Bush Snr which tend to whitewash his record; he has even been championed as the person who ended the cold war “without firing a shot.” Little attention has been paid to his record in the Middle East.
Seizing on the historic events in Europe during his presidency, George H W Bush mis-sold his adventures in the Middle East, telling a captivated world audience that the 1991 Gulf War was part of a global shift ushering in a “New World Order”. His campaign to cobble together an international coalition against Saddam Hussain has been cited as one of his greatest achievements. He did indeed line up a broad coalition against Iraq, including a significant British contingent alongside around 400,000 US troops.
Bush’s case for war to end Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait, however, has been denounced as dishonest. Like his son thirteen years later, who lied about weapons of mass destruction to justify the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, Bush Snr’s case for war “was sold to the public on a pack of lies.”
READ: Iraqi security prevents protesters from storming oilfield
He told the world that, “What is at stake is more than one small country; it is a big idea: a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind — peace and security, freedom and the rule of law.” What followed was anything but security, freedom and the rule of law for the people of Iraq and the wider region.
Bush launched Operation Desert Storm in 1991 to devastating effect. US forces are reported to have dropped 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq and Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, many of which resulted in horrific civilian casualties. One incident cited by rights groups is a raid by US aircraft on public shelters in Baghdad which killed 408 Iraqi civilians. Human Rights Watch said that the US knew in advance the location of the shelters and concluded that it was “a serious violation of the laws of war.”
An act that would go down in history as one of the one worst lies ever told to make the case for war saw the Bush administration parading a member of the Kuwaiti royal family pretending to be a nurse who had witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing Kuwaiti babies. Nayirah Al-Sabah, it was discovered later, was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador. She went before the US Congress masquerading as a volunteer nurse who had witnessed alleged atrocities.
The six-week war to free Kuwait culminated in a ground campaign lasting just 100 hours. Having won a decisive victory over Saddam Hussain, Bush the realist resisted the temptation to go to Baghdad and force a regime change. Instead, he called on the Iraqis to rise up against their President. Many did so, including Kurds in the north, but Saddam survived. Fearing reprisals, Bush established a no-fly zone over Iraqi Kurdistan in 1992 to prevent a massacre.
One of the unintended consequences of the war in Iraq was the rise of Osama Bin Laden. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the wealthy Saudi Bin Laden offered to raise an army of Arab Afghan veterans to fight the “godless” Saddam. His offer was rejected and Riyadh invited US troops into the Arabian Peninsula. By January 1991, some 300,000 foreign troops were stationed on Saudi territory. The war boosted the network of US military bases across the Gulf which now support troops in Afghanistan and forces fighting against Daesh in Iraq and Syria.
The presence of US troops in the Kingdom became a source of great tension between Bin Laden and the Saudi royal family. The fall out resulted in the late leader of Al-Qaeda leaving his homeland and regrouping elsewhere. This was cited by him as a major grievance in advance of the 9/11 terror attacks in America.
Having routed Saddam Hussain with the support of many Arab countries, Bush used his political capital to find a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. He authorised US Secretary of State James Baker to begin talks in Madrid in 1991 between the PLO and Israel. The bilateral and multilateral negotiating tracks established during this period culminated in the 1993 Oslo Accords.
READ: Oslo Accords have been “a complete disaster” for the Palestinians
Bush Snr’s political realism saw him take a tough stance against Israel. Seeing an opportunity to end the conflict in Palestine with a possible peace deal, he moved to break Israeli intransigence by refusing to approve $10 billion in loan guarantees to help the Zionist state to cope with a wave of Jewish immigration from the former Soviet Union. Doing what no other US President had done in order to give peace a chance, he dared to tie military and economic aid to Israel with a limit on settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. It is said that this is one reason why he didn’t win a second term in office.
Bush promised to lead the world into a “New World Order” wherein the rule of law and the UN would take centre stage in global politics. Judged by that standard and the chaos that has unfolded in the Middle East over the past 30 years and more, not least the ongoing devastation of Iraq, the instability caused by the US military presence in the region and the Israeli colonisation of Palestine, the tainted legacy of George H W Bush will forever be remembered more for his many failures in the Middle East than any successes noted elsewhere.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
Ingraham has shamed her colleagues, MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace and Mika Brzezinski, for pulling no punches in Trump-bashing at the time when the late Bush’s casket was shown being paraded through the streets of Washington.
Brzezinski, who along her co-host Joe Scarborough, fell out with Trump even before he was elected president, for instance, predicted that Trump would try to “fake more respect” for the Bush family “whose unprecedented history of public service has repeatedly belittled” to go back to “making a mockery of the very office George Bush and the nation long revered.”
Wallace was also not in a solemn mood while commenting on the procession of the Bush Snr. motorcade to Capitol Hill, as she lashed at Trump, saying that he had “debased” the presidency “in a way that’s unimaginable for people who served the last president.”
“They lack all sense of decency. They reduce a presidential death to just a political battering ram, like any other issue,” Ingraham charged, as she pilloried her fellow cabal news hosts for their failure to contain their hard feeling towards Trump for a moment out of respect for the late president.
“But what you hear, if you listen closely, is the last gasp of an embittered establishment,” Ingraham went on, calling out the establishment for apparently thinking that “the way to win them [voters] back is to belittle President Trump even during formal on-air eulogies and tributes.”
“So rather than directing their anger at Trump, the establishment at both parties should be directing it at themselves for it is their policies that the voters turned against in 2016.”
The bickering between the hosts has spilled on Twitter, where both Brzezinski and Wallace mounted counter-attacks. Wallace accused Ingraham of “sniping” at her instead of seeing off Bush, while Brzezinski accused Wallace of catering to Trump.
“You are as usual serving as the president’s panderer. I’m not sure that ends very well but good luck!” Brzezinski tweeted.
READ MORE: Late George H.W. Bush valued ‘constructive dialogue’ with Russia – Putin
Trump has been invited to Bush’s Wednesday funeral service but is not expected to deliver a eulogy. Since the last US Cold War president’s passing on Friday night at the age of 94, Trump has heaped praise on the Republican, even canceling his G20 press conference “out of respect” to the Bush family.
Wallace and Brzezinski were by far not alone in using Bush’s death to take a swipe at Trump.
CNN host Don Lemon apparently could not come to terms with the Bush family’s decision to invite Trump to the service.
“I do not understand why they want him to be here. You have your reasons, but again, I just… I would not want him,” he said, while relishing the idea of seeing Trump being not invited despite reality being the contrary.
“That would be the biggest and better lesson to teach someone who is a bully. Sorry. Not invited.”
For centuries, the Middle East has cast a long and dark shadow over the legacy of many a statesman wanting to leave his mark on history. Unlike Europeans, the Americans largely resisted the allure of the region until 1945, when President Franklin D Roosevelt met with Saudi King Abdul Aziz on board the USS Quincy. That is when the sands of Arabia turned into a quagmire for America and its Presidents.
With the creation of the state of Israel not long after that meeting, US Presidents became embroiled in the Middle East to such an extent that many now believe that America’s interests no longer have priority in Washington’s foreign policy.
When the Cold War came to an end and the Berlin Wall was knocked down it seemed that history had gifted the 41st President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, a chance to carve a legacy to be proud of. A “New World Order” was taking shape, one in which Bush Snr saw himself as the main architect.
The death of the USSR — America’s number one enemy for decades — and the decline of communism were monumental events. For millions, though, the legacy of Bush Snr — like that of his son George W Bush, who became President a decade later — came to be defined by events that would unfold in a different continent, based on what he did and did not do in the Middle East.
Born in 1924 to an affluent family in the suburbs of Boston, Bush Snr went on to become a World War Two fighter pilot. Unlike his successors Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, he had experience working in the federal system before entering the White House, having served as a Congressman, US Ambassador to the United Nations and China, the Director of the CIA and Vice President for eight years under President Ronald Reagan. His experience of public service prior to becoming President is said to be why he was a political realist, especially when it came to Israel. It is fair to say that he was at odds with Tel-Aviv more than any other US President.
George HW Bush's legacy of war in Iraq
Since his death last week at the age of 94, benign tributes have been pouring for Bush Snr which tend to whitewash his record; he has even been championed as the person who ended the cold war “without firing a shot.” Little attention has been paid to his record in the Middle East.
Seizing on the historic events in Europe during his presidency, George H W Bush mis-sold his adventures in the Middle East, telling a captivated world audience that the 1991 Gulf War was part of a global shift ushering in a “New World Order”. His campaign to cobble together an international coalition against Saddam Hussain has been cited as one of his greatest achievements. He did indeed line up a broad coalition against Iraq, including a significant British contingent alongside around 400,000 US troops.
Bush’s case for war to end Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait, however, has been denounced as dishonest. Like his son thirteen years later, who lied about weapons of mass destruction to justify the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, Bush Snr’s case for war “was sold to the public on a pack of lies.”
READ: Iraqi security prevents protesters from storming oilfield
He told the world that, “What is at stake is more than one small country; it is a big idea: a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind — peace and security, freedom and the rule of law.” What followed was anything but security, freedom and the rule of law for the people of Iraq and the wider region.
Bush launched Operation Desert Storm in 1991 to devastating effect. US forces are reported to have dropped 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq and Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, many of which resulted in horrific civilian casualties. One incident cited by rights groups is a raid by US aircraft on public shelters in Baghdad which killed 408 Iraqi civilians. Human Rights Watch said that the US knew in advance the location of the shelters and concluded that it was “a serious violation of the laws of war.”
An act that would go down in history as one of the one worst lies ever told to make the case for war saw the Bush administration parading a member of the Kuwaiti royal family pretending to be a nurse who had witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing Kuwaiti babies. Nayirah Al-Sabah, it was discovered later, was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador. She went before the US Congress masquerading as a volunteer nurse who had witnessed alleged atrocities.
The six-week war to free Kuwait culminated in a ground campaign lasting just 100 hours. Having won a decisive victory over Saddam Hussain, Bush the realist resisted the temptation to go to Baghdad and force a regime change. Instead, he called on the Iraqis to rise up against their President. Many did so, including Kurds in the north, but Saddam survived. Fearing reprisals, Bush established a no-fly zone over Iraqi Kurdistan in 1992 to prevent a massacre.
One of the unintended consequences of the war in Iraq was the rise of Osama Bin Laden. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the wealthy Saudi Bin Laden offered to raise an army of Arab Afghan veterans to fight the “godless” Saddam. His offer was rejected and Riyadh invited US troops into the Arabian Peninsula. By January 1991, some 300,000 foreign troops were stationed on Saudi territory. The war boosted the network of US military bases across the Gulf which now support troops in Afghanistan and forces fighting against Daesh in Iraq and Syria.
The presence of US troops in the Kingdom became a source of great tension between Bin Laden and the Saudi royal family. The fall out resulted in the late leader of Al-Qaeda leaving his homeland and regrouping elsewhere. This was cited by him as a major grievance in advance of the 9/11 terror attacks in America.
Having routed Saddam Hussain with the support of many Arab countries, Bush used his political capital to find a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. He authorised US Secretary of State James Baker to begin talks in Madrid in 1991 between the PLO and Israel. The bilateral and multilateral negotiating tracks established during this period culminated in the 1993 Oslo Accords.
READ: Oslo Accords have been “a complete disaster” for the Palestinians
Bush Snr’s political realism saw him take a tough stance against Israel. Seeing an opportunity to end the conflict in Palestine with a possible peace deal, he moved to break Israeli intransigence by refusing to approve $10 billion in loan guarantees to help the Zionist state to cope with a wave of Jewish immigration from the former Soviet Union. Doing what no other US President had done in order to give peace a chance, he dared to tie military and economic aid to Israel with a limit on settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. It is said that this is one reason why he didn’t win a second term in office.
Bush promised to lead the world into a “New World Order” wherein the rule of law and the UN would take centre stage in global politics. Judged by that standard and the chaos that has unfolded in the Middle East over the past 30 years and more, not least the ongoing devastation of Iraq, the instability caused by the US military presence in the region and the Israeli colonisation of Palestine, the tainted legacy of George H W Bush will forever be remembered more for his many failures in the Middle East than any successes noted elsewhere.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
