Skip to comments.Flashback: George W. Bush Predicted Iraqi Meltdown If US Troops Were Withdrawn from Region
Posted on 06/16/2014 3:07:25 PM PDT by Nachum
President George W. Bush predicted the current meltdown in Iraq back in 2007. Bush vetoed a Democratic bill to withdraw troops from Iraq.
Via Truth Revolt:
I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that wed be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean wed 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Prophetic! Bush was right, God bless him.
Well, not exactly, but that's still what would be happening if we did things their way.
Thanks for the ping——good stuff.
Did he expect us to stay there forever?
Going in might have been bad enough, leaving early was a disaster. Obama and his gang of Rats did the worst thing they could have done, for politics.
Long enough, there are a lot of places that we have maintained a presence for generations.
Generations of American military families have gone through our bases in various nations around the globe.
Obama likes to take credit for ending the war and bringing the troops home. I guess now he’ll change his tune and blame Bush for bring the troops home before the job was done.
The Philippines, fine.
Iraq -- not such a good idea to begin with.
Bush's advice in 2007 may have been sound.
2003? Not so much.
So why did Bush sign the Status of Forces Agreement in the fall of 2008? It required All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.
America still has troops in Germany 70 years after the event.
Foreign military bases are a good thing. They give the US options and global reach, and access to novel training grounds - as well as reinforcing geopolitical allies.
There is enormous responsibility on conquerors to maintain order in conquered lands. Like the adage of, “if you break it, you own it,” after busting up Iraq we owned it. To withdraw precipitously is to invite horror.
Where is George Bush?
Millions endangered by obama’s actions. You just know obama going to let Iran get nuclear weapons and I bet he still won’t talk.
Stop being quiet about what is happening.
Well we pulled out, and what we got was different from all the places where we maintained a presence, including the ones on your list that you approve of.
I read a column once that was raving about W's ignorance of history and how if he had ever read a book on it, it would educate him.
The writer didn't know that Bush's Yale degree, is in history.
What we should have asked -- but didn't -- was "is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?"
Absolutely what we should have done.
Yes, yes, yes, but Comrade Obama knew better than the republican Bush. Everything is Bush’s fault. Comrade Obama know best. Everyone just be quiet and allow him to continue to destroy America. He is doing such a nice job at it. Quieten down now.
2014 isn’t 2007 or 2003 either.
The author overreaches.
For example If we don’t have the intel sources now to tell if Iraq has WMDs we never will.
Likewise we have a large number of “tribal” intel sources both in Iraq and the Afghan so a “9/11” surprise attack frpm those areas is preventable.
And we have influence in events.
Intel was the purpose of those wars. We went overboard on the nation building... but then congress always demands such contribution-opportunities..
Personally I assumed the purpose was to give us a long time presence there, a penetration into the Muslim world.
Most foreign policy initiated & enacted by a US president cannot be fully accomplished or seen to fruition in 8 years. So long as there is a genuine, robust election process, a president is in good health and people vote for him or her, then they should be able to continue.
Otherwise, a new person will be elected who has a different policy and we see little continuity which at times like this is critical to a successful outcome. Equally, enemies can simply wait until a new player is elected and the entire mix changes.
Did Obama ignore Bush, or did the Community-Organizer-in-Chief believe Bush and that’s why he pulled out? believe
Works two ways. It also allows for 4 consecutive years of governance without the turmoil of a parliment losing coalitions and forcing elections in successive years. Much more volatile.
I hope to God that you are NOT suggesting that O’IWon should get more terms in office as our president? Because if you are, IBTZ.
Not sure if I understand you correctly. I meant maximum two terms, 8 years. That isn’t a long time to embed and see results.
I was talking about the article, ie George W Bush.
Study up on FDR and you’ll understand why we have a 22nd Amendment.
Remember the argument, fight them on the battlefield over there instead of waiting for them to come over here?
What's happening now? They rebuilt and are still fighting over there, not over here.
Still, they shouldn't have been given the luxury of rebuilding at all.
The whole of the Constitution is inimcal to long term foreign adventures- deliberately.
The 22nd is relatively insignificant in it’s effect.
And though I hate the way things are being handled how long would we have to stay there? They’ve hated each other since 632.
Not our fight and not a position we can win. Sure, we can beat them into submission for just at time but at a high cost and a lot of dollars we don’t have.
We will have to fight them here. No matter what.
Okay! Thank you for the clarification. Had me worried there for a moment. :)
Obama doesn’t weigh things like what’s good for the country, what’s good for Iraq, or what’s good for the world. He operates on what the hard core left wants him to Operate, to spite Bush, to spite this Country, and anyone right of Pelosi.
More allies the leftists abandoned to our enemies..
Well, the libs always insisted Iraq was “another Vietnam”
..and Barry has made it so.
In most countries that have parlimentary systems, it is rare to have prime ministers that serve 8 years. Also, the parlimentary system itself is extraordinarily unstable with new goverments and fringe groups constantly able to cause upheaval. That is one of the pluses of the U.S. system of government is that it governs much more consistently that any other model I have seen world wide.
Do you really think one question has anything to do with the other? Really?
Perhaps you are a liberal who thinks in soundbites instead of syllogisms.
It might be a fable but reportedly Roosevelt met with the congressional leaders to tell them of the possibilities of research on the atom bomb to end WW2.
The response was from the Senate Leader from Tennessee: “Wonderful news Mr President! Where in Tennessee would you want to build this research facility?”
A more recent example of congress’s power over foreign affairs is the huge, wasteful, partisan spending Pelosi and Reid demanded of Bush for their approval of funding the Iraq “surge”.
We’ve been bankrupt ever since.
“So why did Bush sign the Status of Forces Agreement in the fall of 2008? It required All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.
Exactly. This article is bs.
It's certainly an advantage to have a more consistent model for the US since the global implications of any inconsistency or change in the governance of the US would have much more of a far reaching impact than that of the UK or Australia, as examples.
No kidding. That whole thing was a mistake from the git-go.
Going war war anywhere in the Middle East and NOT accepting anything but total victory, and then leaving is insane.
You are not going to defeat this idea that is Islam. It has to be eradicated.
I would think a single six year term, coincident with Senators and congressional elections. That way you could get the consistency of a parliamentary system without the volatility.
But the system we have works fine. Especially when Americans are running for office.
Who else would be running for office in the USA if not Americans? If not an American on paper at least, then that's a bigger problem that should be detected before someone becomes even eligible to run for office in the USA.
Yeah.. You’d think that would be clear. And clearly defined. There are a lot of rules that are inconvenient, so the government just doesn’t follow them.
Thanks again. I think your points are really great for those who don’t have much visibility of or aren’t completely across the US political system. Most see the ‘front-person’ that is the President and forget about Congress and its role.
Well I wasn't for going there in the first place without a formal congressional declaration of war which coward in congress never voted on.
However since we went we should have built a huge multi purpose Air Force/N.A.S./Army HUB Base ran and controlled solely by the United States military rather than instead building a bunch of stinking nose picking Liberal Chair Monkeys a mega resort embassy. Which was more important? Bush's lack of military insight and nation building agenda is a factor in where we are today also. Iraq from day one should have been a level the nation to smolder ruins mission then occupy Iraq with a military base for our own future use in the M.E.
We didn't and now the radical clerics have a nice new shinny military as even many Freepers predicted when this because a nation building mission and the military objectives never made clear. It seems now that starting wars with the U.S. heaps huge rewards for Islam now doesn't it?
If you dont annihilate the other side in all out war, it is better to be endlessly entangled with them on their turf rather than your own.
Bush, as flawed as he was, was so much better than Obama.