Bush: U.S. Had Hand in European Divisions

[gilliam]

RIGA, Latvia - President Bush said Saturday the Soviet domination of central and eastern Europe after World War II will be remembered as “one of the greatest wrongs of history” and acknowledged that the United States played a significant role in the division of the continent. Bush said the agreement in 1945 at Yalta among President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Soviet leader Josef Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill “followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.” The decisions at Yalta led to the division of eastern Europe and creation of the Soviet bloc.
%between%

“Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable,” the president said, opening a four-nation trip to mark the 60th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s defeat. “Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable.”

“We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations _ appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability.”

missoulian.com/articles/2005/05/07/ap/headlines/d89udhrg0.txt

 

[gnjsdad]

gilliam:

RIGA, Latvia - President Bush said Saturday the Soviet domination of central and eastern Europe after World War II will be remembered as “one of the greatest wrongs of history” and acknowledged that the United States played a significant role in the division of the continent. Bush said the agreement in 1945 at Yalta among President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Soviet leader Josef Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill “followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.” The decisions at Yalta led to the division of eastern Europe and creation of the Soviet bloc.

“Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable,” the president said, opening a four-nation trip to mark the 60th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s defeat. “Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable.”

“We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations _ appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability.”

missoulian.com/articles/2005/05/07/ap/headlines/d89udhrg0.txt

I thought WWII was a victory for freedom (see the NRO link you posted in another thread).

Of course, Bush was right in describing the situation in Europe in the aftermath of the war.

But the timing and the location of this speech really makes me wonder about who’s running the show now. Is it diplomatic ameteur hour? A friendly Russia is a vital interest of the United States, and this in-your-face lecture is straining relations. Russia is a great country that has suffered, over the past 20 years, some staggering humiliations. For Bush to go to Latvia and criticize Russia at a time that country is celebrating one of the few things in the last century it believes it’s done right (defeating Nazi Germany) shows an appalling lack of perspecitve. Bush is going to need Putin’s help with Iran, China, India, and other areas down the line. Does he even realize that? Will Putin be there when we need him after this? Makes me wonder.

 

[gilliam]

gnjsdad:

I thought WWII was a victory for freedom (see the NRO link you posted in another thread).

Of course, Bush was right in describing the situation in Europe in the aftermath of the war.

But the timing and the location of this speech really makes me wonder about who’s running the show now. Is it diplomatic ameteur hour? A friendly Russia is a vital interest of the United States, and this in-your-face lecture is straining relations. Russia is a great country that has suffered, over the past 20 years, some staggering humiliations. For Bush to go to Latvia and criticize Russia at a time that country is celebrating one of the few things in the last century it believes it’s done right (defeating Nazi Germany) shows an appalling lack of perspecitve. Bush is going to need Putin’s help with Iran, China, India, and other areas down the line. Does he even realize that? Will Putin be there when we need him after this? Makes me wonder.

Read the speech again. Bush is saying we are squarely on the side of Freedom and we will not sell out the small countries to appease Russia or any other large countries.

Gee, you were arguing this point before, just because Bush said it, doesn’t make it all of a sudden the wrong thing to say.

 

[Philip_P]

I agree that the selling out of eastern Europe was tragic, but I’m not sure, given the situation as it was in 1945, this could have been avoided. Should we have pushed on to Moscow after Berlin and attempted to prevent the Cold War by risking a hot war immediately after Hitler’s defeat? It would have been nice if we could have avoided making a deal with the devil in the first place, but we couldn’t have defeated Germany without Russia/USSR. I suspect that Bush is simply trying to further undermine FDR by attacking his foreign policy, even as he is engaged in tearing down his legacy in domestic policies.

I think that, by 1941, American entry into WWII was necessary and unavoidable. But was WWII itself unavoidable? What if we had acted differently in the years concluding WWI? What if we had had a Marshall Plan following the Treaty of Versailles, waiting until after a second world war to seriously engage in rebuilding Europe?

In one sense WWII was a triumph of democracy. On the other hand, the fact that it happened at all speaks to an abject failure of democracy. Increasingly, I’m more sympathetic to those who see the war as having begun in 1914 and ending in 1989.

 

[gilliam]

The question is did we have to partition Europe, as Stalin wanted after WWII, or was there an alternative? The answer is there were a lot of alternative. This relates, by the way, to spys for the USSR and investigations of the House Committee on Unamerican Activities. Lots of interesting history, if you want to read about the history. Short story is, yes, FDR and Truman made major mistakes giving up Eastern Europe to Stalin.

If you are interested in this topic. I highly recommend the book:

The Conquerors: Roosevelt, Truman and the Destruction of Hitler’s Germany, 1941-1945

images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000CAR62.01.PIdp-schmooS,TopRight,7,-26_SCMZZZZZZZ.jpg

 

[swampfox]

gnjsdad:

I thought WWII was a victory for freedom (see the NRO link you posted in another thread).

Of course, Bush was right in describing the situation in Europe in the aftermath of the war.

But the timing and the location of this speech really makes me wonder about who’s running the show now. Is it diplomatic ameteur hour? A friendly Russia is a vital interest of the United States, and this in-your-face lecture is straining relations. Russia is a great country that has suffered, over the past 20 years, some staggering humiliations. For Bush to go to Latvia and criticize Russia at a time that country is celebrating one of the few things in the last century it believes it’s done right (defeating Nazi Germany) shows an appalling lack of perspecitve. Bush is going to need Putin’s help with Iran, China, India, and other areas down the line. Does he even realize that? Will Putin be there when we need him after this? Makes me wonder.

It’s good that Bush tells the truth and the truth is that Stalin and Hitler started World War II when they attacked Poland from the East and the West. Bush is just accepting responsibility for the US’s engaging in realpolitik and sacrificing the freedom of East Central Europe by effectively ceding it to Soviet domination and control.

 

[swampfox]

gnjsdad:

I thought WWII was a victory for freedom (see the NRO link you posted in another thread).

Of course, Bush was right in describing the situation in Europe in the aftermath of the war.

But the timing and the location of this speech really makes me wonder about who’s running the show now. Is it diplomatic ameteur hour? A friendly Russia is a vital interest of the United States, and this in-your-face lecture is straining relations. Russia is a great country that has suffered, over the past 20 years, some staggering humiliations. For Bush to go to Latvia and criticize Russia at a time that country is celebrating one of the few things in the last century it believes it’s done right (defeating Nazi Germany) shows an appalling lack of perspecitve. Bush is going to need Putin’s help with Iran, China, India, and other areas down the line. Does he even realize that? Will Putin be there when we need him after this? Makes me wonder.

It’s good that Bush tells the truth and the truth is that Stalin and Hitler started World War II when they attacked Poland from the East and the West. Bush is just accepting responsibility for the US’s engaging in realpolitik and sacrificing the freedom of East Central Europe by effectively ceding it to Soviet totalitarian domination and control. Of course, no free and democratic vote of the people ever took place as guaranteed by the Yalta agreement, though it would appear that the US knew it either wouldn’t or couldn’t enforce this aspect of the Yalta agreement. I don’t think the pro-Stalinist segments of the Russian population are strengthened by truth-telling about Russia’s Stalinist past and its complicity in starting World War II or by the fact that Bush is accepting the US role in the partition of the post World War II world into two camps, one which was free and the other totalitarian. The immoral aspect was the the fact that the freedom of the West was effectively guaranteed by acceding to the enslavement of hundreds of millions in East Central Europe. Thank God Pope John Paul II and Solidarity cracked open that cynical division of the world and understood the principle of the indivisibility of freedom. It appears that Bush is just reiterating that truth.

 

[gilliam]

It really was a great speech. You can read the entire speech here and draw your own conclusions.

Yet we’ve also learned that sovereignty and majority rule are only the beginnings of freedom. The promise of democracy starts with national pride, and independence, and elections. But it does not end there. The promise of democracy is fulfilled by minority rights, and equal justice under the rule of law, and an inclusive society in which every person belongs. A country that divides into factions and dwells on old grievances cannot move forward, and risks sliding back into tyranny. A country that unites all its people behind common ideals will multiply in strength and confidence. The successful democracies of the 21st century will not be defined by blood and soil. Successful democracies will be defined by a broader ideal of citizenship – based on shared principles, shared responsibilities, and respect for all. For my own country, the process of becoming a mature, multi-ethnic democracy was lengthy and violent. Our journey from national independence to equal injustice [sic] included the enslavement of millions, and a four-year civil war. Even after slavery ended, a century passed before an oppressed minority was guaranteed equal rights. Americans found that racial division almost destroyed us, and the false doctrine of “separate but equal” was no basis for a strong and unified country. The only way we found to rise above the injustices of our history was to reject segregation, to move beyond mere tolerance, and to affirm the brotherhood of everyone in our land

 

[gnjsdad]

gilliam:

It really was a great speech. You can read the entire speech here and draw your own conclusions.

Yet we’ve also learned that sovereignty and majority rule are only the beginnings of freedom. The promise of democracy starts with national pride, and independence, and elections. But it does not end there. The promise of democracy is fulfilled by minority rights, and equal justice under the rule of law, and an inclusive society in which every person belongs. A country that divides into factions and dwells on old grievances cannot move forward, and risks sliding back into tyranny. A country that unites all its people behind common ideals will multiply in strength and confidence. The successful democracies of the 21st century will not be defined by blood and soil. Successful democracies will be defined by a broader ideal of citizenship – based on shared principles, shared responsibilities, and respect for all. For my own country, the process of becoming a mature, multi-ethnic democracy was lengthy and violent. Our journey from national independence to equal injustice [sic] included the enslavement of millions, and a four-year civil war. Even after slavery ended, a century passed before an oppressed minority was guaranteed equal rights. Americans found that racial division almost destroyed us, and the false doctrine of “separate but equal” was no basis for a strong and unified country. The only way we found to rise above the injustices of our history was to reject segregation, to move beyond mere tolerance, and to affirm the brotherhood of everyone in our land

I don’t so much have a problem with **what **Bush said, but how he said it. It’s like Pat Buchanan said last night on Scarborough Country. It’s the difference between pulling a friend aside and privately telling him 'you’re fat’ and announcing it in public in front of hundreds of people. This lack of diplomatic sensitivity is what many, allies and potential allies, find so galling about Bush. The U.S. has a vital interest in a friendly Russia. I don’t understand why Bush doesn’t seem to understand that.

 

[David_Paul]

Philip P:

I agree that the selling out of eastern Europe was tragic, but I’m not sure, given the situation as it was in 1945, this could have been avoided.

Had FDR or Truman tossed Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Lauchlin Currie, Samuel Dickstein (D-NY) and other Soviet agents in prison, it could have been avoided.

FDR knew about Hiss before WWII. He and Truman knew the OSS was compromised by Soviet agents whose goal was to let the Red Army to roll to the English Channel.

 

[Philip_P]

Gilliam,

I know you’re strongly supportive of American military action. I don’t know if this applies only to Republican-led military action or if its across the board (for instance, did you support our actions in the Balkans and in Somalia in the 90s?).

However, your posting on this subject indicates that you feel the partitioning of Europe was a mistake. As I mentioned in my earlier reply, I agree, but I’m not sure it could have been avoided by the time we reached 1945. So I challenge you to go a step further. What should have been done instead? How feasible would it have been, and what consequences, both positive AND negative, do you forsee as coming out of your proposed course of action?

 

[gilliam]

Philip P:

Gilliam,

I know you’re strongly supportive of American military action. I don’t know if this applies only to Republican-led military action or if its across the board (for instance, did you support our actions in the Balkans and in Somalia in the 90s?).

However, your posting on this subject indicates that you feel the partitioning of Europe was a mistake. As I mentioned in my earlier reply, I agree, but I’m not sure it could have been avoided by the time we reached 1945. So I challenge you to go a step further. What should have been done instead? How feasible would it have been, and what consequences, both positive AND negative, do you forsee as coming out of your proposed course of action?

Well, for starters, there was no reason to give the Eastern European nations over to Stalin. They didn’t attack him, they were victims of Nazi aggression. Those nations should have been liberated and given their independence. The reason to give them over to the USSR was purely political, and quite frankly, because FDR didn’t really care what happened to them.

 

[David_Paul]

Let’s not forget, the Soviets attacked Poland and the Baltic States before the Nazis invaded the USSR. Over one million, mainly Catholic, Poles were rounded up and sent on cattle cars to concentration camps in the Soviet Union. Few returned. Some who did were freed from the camps only to be used by Stalin as fodder to slow down the Nazi invasion. A late neighbor of mine was one of them.

Many Americans supported the German/Soviet nonagression pact after which Stalin to grabbed Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and the eastern part of Poland. Unions, the CIO among them, at defense plants in the USA went on strike to halt munitions shipments to Great Britian which was under Nazi attack. The term “Politically Correct” comes from those in the Commmunist Party USA who were against Nazi Germany and then, the day after Stalin and Hitler reached an agreement not to attack each other, switched and began defending Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

Two sad accounts of these events:

The bloody stories of Lithuania

Sarmatian Review XIX.1

 

[Philip_P]

gilliam:

Well, for starters, there was no reason to give the Eastern European nations over to Stalin.

You don’t think the fact that the Red Army was occupying these countries had anything to do with it? From a level of morality and values, it’s certainly true that these nations should not have been abandoned, but practically speaking, how exactly were the US and UK supposed to expel the Soviets? Could it have been done without immediately going to war against the USSR? If not, are you saying that we should, in fact, have immediately gone to war against Stalin? Were we even in a position to fight that war?

 

[BarbaraTherese]

gnjsdad:

I thought WWII was a victory for freedom (see the NRO link you posted in another thread).

Of course, Bush was right in describing the situation in Europe in the aftermath of the war.

But the timing and the location of this speech really makes me wonder about who’s running the show now. Is it diplomatic ameteur hour? A friendly Russia is a vital interest of the United States, and this in-your-face lecture is straining relations. Russia is a great country that has suffered, over the past 20 years, some staggering humiliations. For Bush to go to Latvia and criticize Russia at a time that country is celebrating one of the few things in the last century it believes it’s done right (defeating Nazi Germany) shows an appalling lack of perspecitve. Bush is going to need Putin’s help with Iran, China, India, and other areas down the line. Does he even realize that? Will Putin be there when we need him after this? Makes me wonder.

I’m an Aussie and I really wish our Mr. Magoo (the near sighted, Mr. Magoo!) most of us Aussie’s call him…would walk right off that crane on the top of the building and allow in a politician who would re establish our independant and national identity!..so much for John Howard! Come July 05 next, he has the Upper House and the Senate in his pocket … God help Australia!..he’s a diplomatic nincompoop creating a nightmare! on the overseas front alone! …

What I’d really like to know is where President George Bush is coming from and where he’s at and headin for!!!..Aussie-isms for what makes Bush behave the way he does (comin from!), be the person he is ( where he’s at!) and what is he trying to achieve (headin for!!!)…
As I understand it Russia is now controlled by Mafia - the Russian Mafia…as I understand it.

mmmmmmmmm down the line… I see…I’m doing Modern History at the moment, WW 1 and The French and Russian Revolutions…alliances in times of peace are great stuff…the weak can be made strong…but in times of war and we are at war with Iraq…alliances have a devestating effect as the domino principal takes over!!!

What I still want to know is why the USA and with Magoo on his side and a politician I have a lot of time for for some reason, I can’t quite p(name removed by moderator)oint - The British Prime Minister (and I rejoiced and thanked God for hearing me when he got another term. that guy aint completely stupid, mark my words - and all this has made an old man of him…Bush & Magoo still fit and healthy and …? sometimes I wonder, Mr. Bush!..name of British Prime Minister on the tip of my tongue but not quite there… Why have we invaded Iraq and stay there when we know the reason we went to war was completely false! It is interesting that about 6 weeks something like that prior to the invasion basically by the USA, Bush more or less told the Arabs and their oil to take a walk. Now as I understand it the reserves of oil in the USA once the backstop for the free world are rapidly in decline. Terrorists
are hitting oil lines!..Bush smashed a Pandora’s Box to pieces in Iraq…and now he reckons he’s trying to put the pieces together again???..scuse me!

Will Putin be there?..surely that has to be a tongue in cheek statement? Do you know who Putin was (his previous occupation?), and he has it written all over him still!..

Barb
Bethany South Australia
Mon 9.5.05 2.37pm Octave of The Ascension

 

[David_Paul]

BarbaraTherese:

As I understand it Russia is now controlled by Mafia - the Russian Mafia…as I understand it.

The “Russian Mafia” was never Russian and Putin chased into exile or imprisoned most of the leaders. Mikhail Khodorkovsky (who was worth over $12 billion in 2002) will be sentence May 18th. Gusinsky and Berezovsky are in the UK. The whereabouts of the worst of them, Semion Mogelivich, is unknown. Theories are he is in Prague , Budapest or Tel Aviv (he was operating on an Israeli passport).

Nobody knows where the $9 billion plus the “Russian” Mafia laundered through the Bank of New York under the not so watchful eyes of Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin’s number two at Treasury–Stuart Eizenstat–went. More than a little of that money came from taxpayers in the United States as aid to Russia.

 

[gilliam]

Barb,

President Bush has been very clear where he is and where he is going:

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation’s security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America’s influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America’s influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom’s cause.

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America’s resolve, and have found it firm.

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America’s belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.”

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side. And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom’s enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies’ defeat.

You probably should read the rest here.

 

[gnjsdad]

BarbaraTherese:

What I’d really like to know is where President George Bush is coming from and where he’s at and headin for!!!..Aussie-isms for what makes Bush behave the way he does (comin from!), be the person he is ( where he’s at!) and what is he trying to achieve (headin for!!!)…

gilliam quoted at length from Bush’s second Inaugural Address and that’s a good summation of where Bush is coming from.

It’s America’s mission, according to Bush, to spread democracy everywhere, even, apparently, if we have to force feed it to people who don’t want it. In fact, America’s security depends on it. God help the country that resists America’s “invitation” to democracy if America feels threatened in any way by that country.

I believe the President is a decent, God-fearing man who began his presidency with the sensible intention of inaugurating a more humble foreign policy. He is also a man who had a life-changing conversion relatively late in life (at age 40), going from a fun-loving, devil-may-care playboy to a committed Christian. Then, as we like to say in America, 9/11 changed everything; most of all, President Bush. I believe he believes he has been called by God to remake the world in America’s image. I believe he sees himself as a modern day Churchill, doing God’s work by leading God’s country. In the President’s mind, America always equals good, and anybody who doesn’t see it that way is evil, or potentially evil *(Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists). *In this, Bush is prototypically American. He, like most Americans, has trouble seeing himself or his country as others see him or it. He can’t understand why some people would not want what America has to offer.

America has had bouts of millinarian interventionism in the past, the most disastrous instance being Woodrow Wilson intervening in World War I “to make the world safe for democracy”.

I hope I’ve at least started to adequately answer your questions.

 

[Shoshana]

gnjsdad:

gilliam quoted at length from Bush’s second Inaugural Address and that’s a good summation of where Bush is coming from.

It’s America’s mission, according to Bush, to spread democracy everywhere, even, apparently, if we have to force feed it to people who don’t want it. In fact, America’s security depends on it. God help the country that resists America’s “invitation” to democracy if America feels threatened in any way by that country.

I believe the President is a decent, God-fearing man who began his presidency with the sensible intention of inaugurating a more humble foreign policy. He is also a man who had a life-changing conversion relatively late in life (at age 40), going from a fun-loving, devil-may-care playboy to a committed Christian. Then, as we like to say in America, 9/11 changed everything; most of all, President Bush. I believe he believes he has been called by God to remake the world in America’s image. I believe he sees himself as a modern day Churchill, doing God’s work by leading God’s country. In the President’s mind, America always equals good, and anybody who doesn’t see it that way is evil, or potentially evil *(Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists). *In this, Bush is prototypically American. He, like most Americans, has trouble seeing himself or his country as others see him or it. He can’t understand why some people would not want what America has to offer.

America has had bouts of millinarian interventionism in the past, the most disastrous instance being Woodrow Wilson intervening in World War I “to make the world safe for democracy”.

I hope I’ve at least started to adequately answer your questions.

:clapping:

 

[aimee]

gnjsdad:

gilliam quoted at length from Bush’s second Inaugural Address and that’s a good summation of where Bush is coming from.

It’s America’s mission, according to Bush, to spread democracy everywhere, even, apparently, if we have to force feed it to people who don’t want it. In fact, America’s security depends on it. God help the country that resists America’s “invitation” to democracy if America feels threatened in any way by that country.

I believe the President is a decent, God-fearing man who began his presidency with the sensible intention of inaugurating a more humble foreign policy. He is also a man who had a life-changing conversion relatively late in life (at age 40), going from a fun-loving, devil-may-care playboy to a committed Christian. Then, as we like to say in America, 9/11 changed everything; most of all, President Bush. I believe he believes he has been called by God to remake the world in America’s image. I believe he sees himself as a modern day Churchill, doing God’s work by leading God’s country. In the President’s mind, America always equals good, and anybody who doesn’t see it that way is evil, or potentially evil *(Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists). *In this, Bush is prototypically American. He, like most Americans, has trouble seeing himself or his country as others see him or it. He can’t understand why some people would not want what America has to offer.

America has had bouts of millinarian interventionism in the past, the most disastrous instance being Woodrow Wilson intervening in World War I “to make the world safe for democracy”.

I hope I’ve at least started to adequately answer your questions.

What questions? Come on now…there is no way you believe what you posted…at least not completely…
BTW…what country are you from?