Iraq: The Bush Legacy

Yes and it was so unfair to draft obama against his will to be the vacationer in chief.

What were we thinking?

 

So did I. We patriots were correct all along but the blind and deluded right wingers failed to see that we have been correct all along.


Desmond Tutu called for a war crimes tribunal for Bush and Blair. His call was ignored by the controlled far right media and by political pundits all over the world. He, too, was correct. The tragedy that we see today in Iraq and elsewhere were caused by those two political criminals. Now let's see the deluded right wingers fess up to their deficiencies and admit we were correct all along.

 

You must have been looking for a messiah or a miracle worker..

 

True Maliki has brought on much of what has happened on himself by excluding to many of the Sunnis and Kurds from the government. But many of these terrorist came together to fight Syria and when they saw they weren't strong enough to topple Assad and his heavy weapons and planes, they headed to Iraq and joined up with the Sunni dissidents there and the lightly equipped Iraqi army.

 

Yes, it was very clear, especially in the last six months of the Bush adminstration, that the strategy was to try and get a SOFU and Production Sharing Agreements signed quickly and get out.

The whole purpose of the Surge was to stabalize Iraq just enough so that it wouldn't fall apart before the 2008 election, so that Bush could dump it on whoever his successor would be.

His real plan was a permanent military occupation and favorable deals for US and British oil companies from a pliable puppet government.

 

Correction: Bush's legacy.

 

I agree in that the similarities of Iraq to Vietnam were obvious to me from the beginning, and I figured that we'd have about the same success in 'training' up a loyal and competent Iraqi military force to defend their nation as we had in Vietnam . . . being none at all. On the other hand nobody 'saddled' Barack with anything. He himself pulled on his big fellow britches and bellowed (the equivalent of) "Vote me into office and I will make everything turn out right!" Which he pretty much failed to do in most respects and in most areas right across the board.

So in other words, as everyone in the world today EXCEPT fanatical Obama supporters comprehend, Barack simply was not president enough for the job. He's an example of the Peter Principle in operation with a vengeance. Next time at least bother to vet your political candidates on the Left rather than voting for a fellow simply because the media turned him into a Political Rock Star sans any substance.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot that Bush is still President.

 

The problem in Iraq was that nobody believed Iraq was stable enough for oil production... and it wasn't.. The oil majors never showed up to bid on production sharing agreements. Bush was a fool. The oil business HATES a war zone.

 

He has tried to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, and I give him credit for his efforts. Bush screwed up. His invasion was a mistake. His disbanding of the Iraqi army was a mistake. His attempts at handholding a multiethnic fake arab country on the path to democracy was a mistake.

The profound damage was done by our entry INTO Iraq, which was all on Bush. Blaming Obama for the aftermath of that screw up is laughable.

 

Saddam kept a lid on it by loading bus load after bus load of people and taking them out in the desert and murdering them all. Or lining up a few in the town square and shooting them in public. Iraq is full of mass graves with dead Iraqis. They found one mass grave full of women and children, all shot in the back of the head. One little girl still clutching her doll.

 

If one measures US Presidential success by the degree that multi-ethnic Jeffersonian democracy has blossomed on the banks of the Euphrates, there is no American alive who would have been able to be "successful" under that grading system.

 

No conspiracy or lie gets past you, does it? How about the "rape rooms" and feeding people into wood chippers?

 

Democrat memory isn't that good ...

The Iraq War Resolution had to face a little problem: a Democrat leaded Senate. And what happened?

While where their vote wasn't decisive [in the Congress] the Democrats showed their ethics, in the Senate, where they were decisive they showed different ethics [or what?]

At the House of Representatives the result was

Republican 215 Y / 6 N / 2 Not voting
Democratic 82 Y / 126 N / 1 Not voting

At the Senate

Republican 48 Y / 1 N
Democratic 29 Y / 21 N

It was early October 2002 ...

Is there some leftist genius able to explain such a behavior by the Democratic Party?

P.S. Just a link to get more information about that vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

 

No, we are blaming the President for doing nothing for 4 months and allowing this ISIS terror group to take over three different towns that Americans died to liberate. They are blaming the President for sitting back and doing nothing while Iran is volunteering to come in and help save Iraq, which will only bring the two nations with nuclear reactors further together. One thing the nations of the Middle East didn't want to see. Iran spreading their influence further than it has now. Israel must be feeling quite safe about now.

 

Winning Iraq, with blood and treasure, was the Bush legacy. Losing Iraq, well, that is pure BoBo and his dem enablers...

 

You want to go back into Iraq?

Iran actually needs nuclear power and has since the Atoms for Peace projects under Eisenhower.. We were very supportive of the idea when the Shah was in power.

- - - Updated - - -

We didn't win anything in Iraq?

Why do you suppose the oil majors did not show up to bid on oil projects in Iraq?

While Americans and the Bush administration were selling "victory".. the oilmen knew better.

 

And what do you think Al Makaki has been doing???????

Abu Ghraib is open for business under the US installed government.

ISIS is no different.

And, please, don't insult the intelligence of people on this board by pretending that you care one whit about it, either.

 

"The Facts" to the left are those items that fit their narrative and "lies" everything else...regardless of truth

- - - Updated - - -

Sort of like parasitic infestation?

 

The real question is who is man enough to deal with realities over and above party affiliation???

 

No, they don't want to go back into Iraq.

But they want to bluster about it.

Their committment to Bush's war was never deeper than a bumper sticker.

Big oil knew that Malaki's government probably wasn't going to last. And they were making side deals with the Kurds among others. Why do you think it took over ten years for Iraq's oil production to get back to the level it was at the time of the US attack. (remember Wolfowitz telling the Senate that the Iraq war would be self financing?)

 

You are spot on..

Big oil wouldn't touch Iraq.. Too unstable.

 

Good thing they found and destroyed those WMD that made Iraq such an "urgent threat" to the US.

Iraq was lost the minute Bush and the conservatives decided to invade.

 

Yes.. Iraq was lost before the first shot was fired.

 

I'm going to become pedant ... but the Iraq Resolution got also the votes of the majority of the Democratic Senators in the Senate ... [October 2002].

So, at least, this thread is about Bush-Democrat legacy ...