• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

George W. Bush and Neocons Vindicated

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
June 18, 2014
George W. Bush and Neocons Vindicated
By David Paulin

Former President George W. Bush is remaining mum on the tragedy unfolding in Iraq. But as an army of bloodthirsty Islamists rampages across Iraq with the goal of establishing a 7th century religious tyranny -- a caliphate -- it's worth recalling who years ago had predicted this would happen if the Democrats got their way.

It was President George W. Bush and his top officials.

They warned early on that Iraq was ripe for the rise of an Islamic caliphate -- either in a failed state created by Saddam Hussein or, they later contended, if the U.S.-led coalition bugged out without leaving behind a stable Iraq. Two years into the U.S.-led occupation, in 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld warned that a premature withdrawal would be disastrous -- and he foresaw what has in fact happened. He explained, "Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East, and which would threaten legitimate governments in Europe, Africa and Asia."

Vice President Dick Cheney also warned of the rise of a caliphate if the U.S. withdrew before Iraq was capable of governing and defending itself. "They talk about wanting to re-establish what you could refer to as the seventh-century caliphate" to be "governed by Sharia law, the most rigid interpretation of the Koran," he said.

Gen. John P. Abizaid, then America's top commander in the Middle East, also offered prescient testimony in 2005 to the House Armed Services Committee, foreseeing what the terror masters would do in a weak Iraqi state.

"They will try to re-establish a caliphate throughout the entire Muslim world. Just as we had the opportunity to learn what the Nazis were going to do from Hitler's world in 'Mein Kampf,' we need to learn what these people intend to do from their own words."

Liberals jeered at such dire predictions -- and especially at the repeated use of the word "caliphate."

The New York Times, for instance, ran a piece on December 12, 2005, that mocked the forgoing Bush-administration officials for their warnings of a "caliphate" -- portraying them as foreign-policy amateurs peddling an alarmist view of the Middle East. Wrote reporter Elisabeth Bumiller:

"A number of scholars and former government officials take strong issue with the administration's warning about a new caliphate, and compare it to the fear of communism spread during the Cold War. They say that although Al Qaeda's statements do indeed describe a caliphate as a goal, the administration is exaggerating the magnitude of the threat as it seeks to gain support for its policies in Iraq."

Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, obviously don't believe what's printed in The New York Times. ISIS, incidentally, has reportedly been preparing to make its move for several years -- right under the radar of the Obama administration. Were they emboldened by President Obama's endless apologies to the Muslim world? Or the deadlines he'd set for leaving Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably all of the above. But what no doubt really energized them was President Obama's failure to negotiate a deal with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that would have left sufficient U.S. troops in Iraq.

President Bush, for his part, issued a prophetic warning in 2007 when vetoing a Democratic bill that would have withdrawn U.S. troops. "To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States," he said.

"It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."

A little history is worth recalling. Saddam's failure to account for his weapons of mass destruction, including remnants of his toxic arsenal (some of which was in fact found), gave the Bush administration legal cover for going into Iraq. But only a fool would believe weapons of mass destruction were the only reason for the war. The U.S.-led invasion, or liberation, was in fact part of a vision to remake the Middle East: a long-term project to liberate millions in Iraq; nudge the region toward modernity; and above all make America safer in a post-9/11 world -- all by correctly defining who the enemy was and taking the war on terror to them.

The Bush administration certainly encountered setbacks in Iraq and made mistakes; the fog of war invariably upsets the best-laid plans of politicians and generals. But Iraq only plunged into utter chaos after President Obama brought home U.S. troops, despite warnings that Iraq was not ready to govern or defend itself. The blood and treasure that America spent in Iraq has been squandered.

The terror masters were energized in Syria, thanks to the Obama administration's tepid support of moderate rebels there. Now they are on the march, just as President Bush and his top officials had predicted. After they establish their regional caliphate in Iraq and Syria, expect them to next turn their attention toward their real enemies: America, Israel, and the West. Oil prices are bound to go through the roof, sending the global economy into a tailspin.

President Obama and his foreign-policy amateurs have blood on their hands. But if Obama remains in character, he'll do what he usually does -- blame it all on George Bush.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/george_w_bush_and_neocons_vindicated.html
 

Mike

Well-known member
When Buckwheat drew a Red Line and didn't back it up, that was huge cue for these folks to just go about their way with whatever they wanted to do.

WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Silver

Well-known member
Not saying the present administration hasn't handled things poorly, but pretty sure it was GW who signed the agreement mandating the removal of all American forces from Iraq by the end of 2011.
Just sayin'.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Silver said:
Not saying the present administration hasn't handled things poorly, but pretty sure it was GW who signed the agreement mandating the removal of all American forces from Iraq by the end of 2011.
Just sayin'.

Iraq and the US were still in negotiations on withdrawal, in 2011


Officials had been discussing with Iraqi leaders the possibility of several thousand U.S. troops staying beyond 2011 to train Iraqi security forces. However, Iraqi leaders had refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution, something that was seen as a deal-breaker.

Talks with the Maliki government did not begin in earnest until August of this year. The White House had authorized the ambassador there to negotiate the possibility of up to 5,000 trainers remaining -- though Gen. Lloyd Austin, the commanding general, had requested upwards of 15,000.

Over the summer, Pentagon officials expressed public frustration with the stalling being done by Maliki -- it later became increasingly clear that all U.S. troops would have to leave.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/21/obama-to-speak-about-iraq-troop-levels/
 

Tam

Well-known member
Silver said:
Not saying the present administration hasn't handled things poorly, but pretty sure it was GW who signed the agreement mandating the removal of all American forces from Iraq by the end of 2011.
Just sayin'.

Cheney was on Megyn Kelly tonight and he said Bush's signed an agreement but it included the fact Obama was to negotiate the SOFA when he took office. The Pentagon was requesting the US leave around 20,000 troops in Iraq but Obama said no. Then they cut the troop numbers to 10,000 but Obama still said no and agreed to try for leaving only 3000 troops. Obama's negotiations with Iraq fell apart because the Iraqis did not believe Obama cared at all about was going to happen after the US left. And Obama could have cared less due to his campaign promise of bringing the troops home come hell or high water.

Obama was warned that pulling out of Iraq to early would be a disaster and just like the warnings the Republicans told the Democrats about the US economy and Fanny and Freddy they did not heed the warning as THEY KNEW BEST and AGAIN THE WORLD IS PAYING FOR THEIR STUPIDITY. :mad:
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Of any President in our history, which would understand the muslim world more than Obama who grew up in it?

I don't believe that he did not understand what he was doing by complete withdrawal. Otherwise, he would have fought for stabilization.

The guy who visits mosque's that were once churches all the while claiming a desire to spread religious tolerance, the guy who has removed muslim from the FBI's dictionary, the guy who claims the muslim call to prayer is the prettiest sound in the world, the guy who has armed more muslims than any American in history that I can think of..... you don't think he doesn't know exactly what he is doing?

He just did more for the advancement of the caliphate than any muslim in the middle east could ever do.

It was a move that Judo experts around the world should marvel at. Liberals allowed him to take the force of America and use it against ourselves on a world presence.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Silver said:
Not saying the present administration hasn't handled things poorly, but pretty sure it was GW who signed the agreement mandating the removal of all American forces from Iraq by the end of 2011.
Just sayin'.

Cheney was on Megyn Kelly tonight and he said Bush's signed an agreement but it included the fact Obama was to negotiate the SOFA when he took office. The Pentagon was requesting the US leave around 20,000 troops in Iraq but Obama said no. Then they cut the troop numbers to 10,000 but Obama still said no and agreed to try for leaving only 3000 troops. Obama's negotiations with Iraq fell apart because the Iraqis did not believe Obama cared at all about was going to happen after the US left. And Obama could have cared less due to his campaign promise of bringing the troops home come hell or high water.

Obama was warned that pulling out of Iraq to early would be a disaster and just like the warnings the Republicans told the Democrats about the US economy and Fanny and Freddy they did not heed the warning as THEY KNEW BEST and AGAIN THE WORLD IS PAYING FOR THEIR STUPIDITY. :mad:



Andy Borowitz

Dear Dick Cheney: A good time to present yourself as a foreign policy expert is not a week when your foreign policy produces an unmitigated disaster.



The main reason ALL the troops were brought out was that Iraq would not agree to the US terms of jurisdiction outlined in the SOFA for any crimes committed/allegedly committed by US troops after Dec. 31, 2011 ... Previously US troops and US contractors were under US criminal jurisdiction for any alleged crimes committed in Iraq- but Iraq refused to extend that immunity past Dec 31,2011, the date the agreement expired...Only State Dept employees would retain their immunity past that December date...

Would you want your US soldier son tried by an Iraqi Court under Iraqi law alleged by Iraqi police and prosecutors :???:
 

Silver

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Silver said:
Not saying the present administration hasn't handled things poorly, but pretty sure it was GW who signed the agreement mandating the removal of all American forces from Iraq by the end of 2011.
Just sayin'.

Cheney was on Megyn Kelly tonight and he said Bush's signed an agreement but it included the fact Obama was to negotiate the SOFA when he took office. The Pentagon was requesting the US leave around 20,000 troops in Iraq but Obama said no. Then they cut the troop numbers to 10,000 but Obama still said no and agreed to try for leaving only 3000 troops. Obama's negotiations with Iraq fell apart because the Iraqis did not believe Obama cared at all about was going to happen after the US left. And Obama could have cared less due to his campaign promise of bringing the troops home come hell or high water.

Obama was warned that pulling out of Iraq to early would be a disaster and just like the warnings the Republicans told the Democrats about the US economy and Fanny and Freddy they did not heed the warning as THEY KNEW BEST and AGAIN THE WORLD IS PAYING FOR THEIR STUPIDITY. :mad:



Andy Borowitz

Dear Dick Cheney: A good time to present yourself as a foreign policy expert is not a week when your foreign policy produces an unmitigated disaster.



The main reason ALL the troops were brought out was that Iraq would not agree to the US terms of jurisdiction outlined in the SOFA for any crimes committed/allegedly committed by US troops after Dec. 31, 2011 ... Previously US troops and US contractors were under US criminal jurisdiction for any alleged crimes committed in Iraq- but Iraq refused to extend that immunity past Dec 31,2011, the date the agreement expired...Only State Dept employees would retain their immunity past that December date...

Would you want your US soldier son tried by an Iraqi Court under Iraqi law alleged by Iraqi police and prosecutors :???:

From what I understand GW wouldn't agree to that and neither would Obama. Good for both of them.
 

Mike

Well-known member
The proposed agreement, which took nearly a year to negotiate with the United States, not only sets a date for American troop withdrawal, but puts new restrictions on American combat operations in Iraq starting Jan. 1, 2012 and requires an American military pullback from urban areas by June 30. Those hard dates reflect a significant concession by the departing Bush administration, which had been publicly averse to timetables.

Iraq also obtained a significant degree of jurisdiction in some cases over serious crimes committed by Americans who are off duty and not on bases.

Under Bush's SOFA Agreement, troops left in Iraq would have had full immunity while "on duty" in Iraq. Serious crimes committed by troops while off duty and off bases would have been under Iraqi legal jurisdiction.
 

Latest posts

Top