After the British joined former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in responding to the “claims” of former American President George Bush Jr. who “did not say the truth” in his memoirs regarding the war on Iraq and terrorism, the only one left is the French president who was in power at the time: Jacques Chirac. However, had the latter not been involved in a second lawsuit on charges of corruption, he may have found in the memoirs “Decision Points” something that could have provoked him and prompted him to talk. While Schroeder's response pointed to Bush's misleading attempts and his fabrication of German support in favor of the war on Iraq, what The Guardian newspaper attributed to British officials undermined the claims of the master of the White House for two catastrophic terms for the world, in regard to the fact that he was behind the prevention of the attacks on London. Hence, we saw the rapid collapse of the credibility of these memoirs that can in no way constitute a documentation reference or a reference to collect the facts of two wars, whose repercussions are still affecting the world and whose reality is still introducing tragic events that are not about to end. What Bush wrote condemned him with more than mere political stuttering and led him to the trap of contradictions. Indeed, he defended “the liberation of Iraq by the American troops” and the “rightfulness” of the toppling of Saddam Hussein, but recognized disappointment toward the inability to find proof confirming the “legitimacy” of the American invasion in 2003, i.e. the Weapons of Mass Destruction. If the claims of the author of “Decision Points” who said that America was safer without Saddam's presence – a thing which is proven false by the facts – are true, the “intelligence” for which Bush was known is the one that led him to this simple conclusion that “justified” a war which claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq: “25 million people are now living in freedom!” In this context, anyone can accuse the former American president of being quasi-insane and not just blindly arrogant, as he is seeing this freedom hovering over a sea of blood in the Land of the Two Rivers. The bleak paradox is probably that the issuance of Bush's memoirs coincided with the massacre committed in Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad, followed by the detonation of the houses of Christian citizens in the Iraqi capital and the killing of civilians in Najaf and Karbala. It is thus the freedom of mobile massacres in a country that was liberated from Saddam but fell under the control of terrorism. As for the democracy which Bush dreamed about as he was exporting it to Iraq to the beat of American shells, it has failed to generate the “miracle” of the government formation eight months after the elections were held. This is happening in light of the disputes between rivals who are on the brink of an abyss that is shortening the distance separating the country from a civil war which is threatening with the division of Iraq. The question that is now on the table revolves around whether or not the booby-trapped packages which were uncovered a few days ago and the recognition by American Defense Secretary Robert Gates of the expansion of the “claws and cells of Al-Qaeda” are a good enough proof for the falsehood of the justification of Bush's invasion – i.e. to provide better security for the Americans. The question also revolves around the riddle of the American-Iranian conflict in the liberated Iraq, after Bush's administration toppled the method of containment toward Tehran, while Washington's ally Afghan President Hamid Karzai is acknowledging the collection of bags of money from Iran. Karzai, who is almost drowning in corruption like the author of “Decision Points” is drowning in the illusion of false victories, is presenting a sample of Bush's heritage, knowing that the Democrats were beaten in the American Congress when they considered that his acts were enough to spare them from being questioned about the serious solutions. In the meantime, while the latter solutions exceed the pullout of the American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems that the entire world – and not just the United States – is still reaping the results of the methods adopted by Bush's administration in responding to the September 11 events. Can anyone argue about the ability of Guantanamo and its “doctrine” to graduate dozens among the likes of Khaled Sheihk Muhammad, thus allowing terrorism to affect other generations who are raising the banner of global suicide? Can Washington be exonerated from the power complex that is creating a fertile soil for blind retaliation? What is certain is that President Barack Obama who promised to shift away from Bush's policy, has not yet been able to get rid of the Guantanamo detention camp or meet his promises to take the interests of Muslims into account in order to remove the extremism weapon from the hands of the terrorists… If this is not the case, what does the submission and reluctance in the face of the public Israeli blackmail mean? The memoirs of the predecessor clearly exposed, even if by mistake, the nature of the Israeli-American relations when Bush implicitly pointed to the bluntness of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert when he asked him to bomb the Deyr al-Zur location in Syria. But what has changed between the predecessor and the successor? America, which is drowning amidst the unemployment crisis, is hesitant between diplomatic failure, the nightmare of the Iraqi and Afghan wars, and the price of salvation. As for Bush's advice to Obama in his memoirs for him not to tilt toward isolation, it seems to be – in light of the return of the neoconservatives – closer to a booby-trapped gift.
