Iraq: The Bush Legacy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ieicflBG_Y

Interesting video video of George W. Bush explaining his decision to invade Iraq.

 

He was right, 90,000 American troops came home, but for all the body bags and limbs and lives left in Iraq, nothing was accomplished, we set the process back, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was closer to democracy than it is now, or at any time since the illegal American invasion....

 

That's what the Bushies were saying as well when the Bush capitulated to dictator Maliki's demand for a total pull-out.

Some knew better.

Obviously, dropping bombs on Iraqis now is an idiotic idea.

Conservative Forbes, with a grasp of the economic implications has a suggestion:

There is no need for Americans to be the chumps again.

 

You don't know what kind of guy you have in there till he's in. But yes I'll blame Obama if Iraq falls. The head of Iraq has asked for air power for 4 months, as little as man less drones and Obama has done nothing but watch ISIS take over town after town. Who else can you blame? Though I know you Obama followers will find anyone and everyone else to blame besides Obama.

 

No one is talking of sending in ground troops. We are talking of air power. We can't afford to hand over Iraq to the ISIS. All those Americans would have died and got hurt for nothing.

 

I put up another video of the VP saying what kind of success Iraq was and how it's a credit to the Obama administration. Now that it looks like Obama is going to let it fall, the Left wants to keep bringing up Bush. It would seem you want to take credit when one isn't do you and want to blame others when it seems to be the administration's fault. Never any honesty on the Left is there?

 

Serious question for the Democrat party hacks here. What's the Obama legacy going to be?

Other than Bush was responsible for all of his failures

 

They didn't die for nothing, they died as part of a Bush campaign stunt, he needed to be the war president to get re-elected.
Thanks to their sacrifice, taxes stayed low for the ultra rich....

 

They will be and they'll blame Bush for that change in direction too.

- - - Updated - - -

see........

 

I guess you've forgotten about the 500,000 Iraqi children killed under Clinton. I mean, if we're going back in history, let's include it all shall we?

 

You want to talk about a useless war and dying troops, lets talk about Vietnam. Over ten times as many Americans died in that.

Now that we have gone through the blame game, what is Obama going to do? He has already sat back and not lifted a finger to help. Allowing the ISIS to take over three Iraqi towns. Is he going to let Iraq fall into the hands of terrorist? Is that part of his legacy, along with swamping our country with illegals?

 

The use of the word "terrorist" has become meaningless.
ISIS is a response to the political problem in Iraq,the US removed the secular government and replaced it with a sectarian government, and that is the problem. There needs to be a political solution, and since the foreign power with the real stake in the region is China, let China sort out the problem, they want to be a world power.

 

why should Americans support a re-invasion to re-unite Iraq?

Face it, you wont. Neither will Europe.

ISIS will win. Iraq is doomed. The GOP feared terrorism and jihadism, now theyve got it in spades.

The only solution left is supporting a peaceful federation or creating a safe zone in ISIS held territory for those who dont want to live there.

 

If we had declared war like I wanted to, none of them would be dictating our leaving, but my Democratic Senator said the authorization was “sufficient”:

I cannot just blame Bush for not getting that formal declaration of war, which is where the problem really started.

Funny how this would fit the current situation (just replace “Zionists conspiracies” with Shiite), and ISIS becomes the well-known pronoun people instead of Al Quacka:

July 1997, South Movement, “the path of Jihad and proper action”: “Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq’s national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries/Iraq/speech.htm

January 14, 1999: “ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.” http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/abcnews_1-14-99.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-i...lip-connecting-obl-saddam.html#post1057483750

“Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.”

Can’t help but forget the last time I sited the source of that quote with an embedded link back in 2002 and the future Obamanation “liberal” said they were glad that I came around to their way of thinking. Now instead of Al Quacka and their Taliban surroundings it is ISIS and their Caliphate the former regime will say should be saved.

“Saddam Hussein-era loyalists have joined the ISIS militant forces along with other groups of disaffected Sunnis.”
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014...tinue-advance-capture-two-towns-near-baghdad/

Secular one’s of Saddam’s regime so happy to join with another proxy like Al Quacka, to rid themselves of a dilemma, who could have figured that would happen? But, but, we were told the regime was secular and enemies of Al Quacka?

 

It's about time we minded our own business anyway. We have troops in more than 100 countries and the last time someone surrendered to us was in 1945. Our defense budget is more than the next thirteen most powerful countries on the planet combined. We have 11 aircraft carriers and no other country even owns one that's not open for tours as a used vessel. How many young Americans must die because of oil production?

The war mongers have no reservations about sending the kids of others 10,000 miles to die in the sand. None of the individuals who decided to send troops has a family member on the ground. There's something wrong with that scenario.

 

Of course they voted for the war, and why do you think they did? Because they were sold the same pack of lies, phony intelligence and 'justification' that everyone else bought.

 

And after air power fails what do we do next?

 

They died for nothing no matter what happens in the end. There were no WMD's to threaten America. And as for turning Iraq into a democracy that was just a fall back rational after the WMD rational failed. Read the Brown University study on the costs of the war and tell us what could possibly be the justification.

 

Based upon non-existent WMD stockpiles, fictitious mobile biolabs, chimerical al Qaeda training bases, and an airy-fairy nuclear weapons programme?

I don't think you could have contrived such a formal aggression even if you had a thousand Curveballs feeding you false intel that comported with your agenda.

You need only recall George H W Bush's eminently intelligent reasoning:

"Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998 ):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.​

How true!

 

I agree with you except with regard to oil production.. That's not the cause or even a perceived necessity... They have to sell oil..

 

Of course Bush Jr. had the Clinton intel to work with.

 

The only conspiracy here is the one you and Natty and Margot are claiming about Iraq.

So exactly how did President Clinton get President Obama to go along and then of course Senator Clinton was unequivical about her support so can we assume you will NOT be supporting her for President? And don't claim she supported it because she was lied to, she we very clear he support was based on her OWN knowledge and discussions with her own trusted advisers and the history of Saddam during her husbands term in office.

So still supporting her?

 

Bush junior was appeasing the PNAC signatories.. They did appeal to Bill Clinton, but he ignored them and didn't get sucked into a war.

 

So Hans Blix and UNSCOM and the Clinton administration were lying about them? And please explain the hidden cache's of highly concentrated organophosphates we found, undeclared hidden in underground camouflaged bunkers along side new chemical weapons shells.