First of all, I am one of the firmest supporters of Bush that I know. Voted for him twice, no regrets.
That said, it was the wrong decision. We should have gone for Iran. Any student of history and the past 30 years (and post WW1) would have been able to call it easily.
These terms were originally set by...Bush. Any failure to negotiate lay in the hands of Obama, that much is true but it really is time to get the heck out of there. Enough is enough.
I have screamed that at the top of my lungs on FR for years. It's only been in the last couple of years that people have actually agreed. Back in 2004/2005 people would tell you to go to DU (and they still are...I guess they can't handle a mature arguement without pulling the "DU" card).
It's really VERY simple. Bush laid out the doctrine...that I agree with. WHOLEHEARTILY! When he gave that speech...I was cheering. FINALLY! I said. We will go after IRAN and SYRIA.
After all...isn't that what "WE WILL MAKE NO DISTINCTION" means? And yet...all these years later there are STILL Freepers who defend going into Iraq BEFORE going after Iran and Syria.
And just to make the point CLEAR again...so I don't get told to go to DU...no one is saying Iraq wasn't a legitimate target...but in the grand scheme of GLOBAL terrorism and threat to the HOMELAND of the US and its allies...it was not even CLOSE to the threat Iran and Syria pose. So...if you are the president...to me you knock off the terrorist nations in order of the threat the represent. Afghanistan (Taliban and Al Qaeda)...Iran...Syria...Lebanon/Gaza (Hamas/Hez Bollah)...Pakistan....Iraq.
Going after Iraq instead of Iran and Syria is like taking and hydrocodone for a brain tumor. Yeah...you treat the symptome of your headache but the thing that will kill you is still out there.
I am sorry if I went over the top in my post to you in a snarky manner.
At the time of the invasion of Iraq, Bush had the support and rationale—at the time- to go into Iraq THEN.
There was no consensus or support for invading Iran. It may have been logistically a good idea in terms of overall danger to the world by their proxy attacks in Iraq, against Israel and in afghanistan and Iran’s behaviors and threats rhetorically for the last 30 years to be done with Iran under Bush.
However..and this is the determining HOWEVER.....his attack on Iran would have been seen as ‘coming out of left field “ by our “allies’ as well as at home. Never would have happened.
The terms for Iraq withdrawal were set by Bush with the determinant of Negotiations on leaving and our presence in Iraq in some way as a “base” or at least much stronger and clearer than we have now. So the caveat for a 2011 withdrawal was a Negotiated withdrawal.
time to get out of there...yes.... “enough” of what?
We have strong bases in japan, Korea, Germany, etc etc...Guess we don’t think pulling those is a good idea cause its “enough’ after 60 years or so.
“Just get the heck out of there” is an emotional reaction to the pain and cost of our involvement...NOT a cogent argument for ‘splitting”..Actually it was the same rationale for “getting the heck out of Vietnam” used by the administration and our disgusted citizens at the time ( of course, while being lied to by the MSM).