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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
“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.
You can not fight and win wars when the objectives are not military ones including total elimination of the threat either by death or by destroying all infrastructure and obtaining a full surrender. We left Iraq wide open "AGAIN" for radical Islamic clerics and dictator thugs to come in several times now. We left them our military equipment to use as well.
Remember kinder, gentler, Poppy's invasion into Iraq? Followed by Juniors how can we turn this into contractor profits nation building policy? Smoldering Ashes was what was needed. Now likely in the future within possibly months will see our troops invade yet again and repeat these same damn idiotic mistakes {which are not their fault} due to the orders of the incompetent corrupt Bipartisan Limp Wristed Pansy Leadership in DC. Let men run the wars and leave the state department out of the loop. Close it down for that matter.
Amen.
Saddam was the point of elimination for the Iraq war in 2003. He was eliminated, as was his gov't. All infrastructure was not destroyed, but a great deal was. There was full surrender on the part of Iraq as we then knew it. If elements from the old regime escaped elsewhere or managed to hide and re-invent themselves, that's something else.
From my perspective, I don't know how the USA technically and legally differentiates between 'force' and 'war' for congress approval process. Personally, I would see bombing a country and having an active military force in that country for some 9 years as a war.
Suffice it to say that we went there, took Saddam down & it was a military operation. Nation building was a great, more costly but a secondary attempt.
Most salient point you've raised, in my view, is overlooking or underestimating the Islamic elements, who & which would surface after the US left, and not having a solid contingency plan(s) for their future assault. And, most of us knew they would re-surface and re-invent themselves, most likely, for a deadlier cause. That's the point I'd like to highlight here.
As crude as it will sound, unless the US and the West are completely in favor of annihilating Islamic infrastructure, leadership, and, most importantly, ideology, especially the Ideology, and I mean all of those in full meaning, we should expect re-occurring and related problems in the future.
Of course the above mentioned would require approval from congress, president, and much of the western world & its leadership. I don't see it happening, not any time soon. So the rest for now remains to be a blame game, unfortunately.
I expect this war will go on forever ....We are fighting a religious ideology ....It does not die out easily.
I still think the best message we can send these people is :
“Your God Allah isn’t worth spit if he can’t keep you alive long enough to murder all the innocent people you want to murder....maybe another God wont let you get squashed like a bug on the windshield.”
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
We can not win wars congress does not have the will to commit to. Even in WW2 they understood that for our nation to survive and win against Germany and Japan it would take
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Nothing is scared to the tyrants in office today but bribes, remaining in office, and gaining more of the states and individual citizens right powers from them.
Saddam's fate should have been a U.S. military tribunal {after all our troops blood was spilled to capture him} and a firing squad broadcasted live to the world. We have coddled and spared the lives of terrorist state supporting scum ever since Gerald R Ford signed his EO to do so. Ford began us down that road and Carter continued us on it.
We also let S.O.B's like Murtha persecute our troops for acts in combat while the administration sat there with their heads up you know where. Sec of Defense had the power to stop this so did POTUS. Troops were placed under military arrest, presumed guilty by press and Pentagon, held in a few cases for a few years, while trials {Court Martials} were held based on accusations of Iraqi nationals. You can not do this in war. The Geneva Convention agreements should be treaded and used for TP in the heads.
As crude as it will sound, unless the US and the West are completely in favor of annihilating Islamic infrastructure, leadership, and, most importantly, ideology, especially the Ideology, and I mean all of those in full meaning, we should expect re-occurring and related problems in the future.
That is the only way it will ever be stopped or even slowed down. But Marxist in our government are making Islam out to be victims and the same in Europe as well. Isn't it ironic? Great Britain aka UK turned away Jews being persecuted & killed by the Nazi's in WW2. The old saying the sun never sets on the British Empire became false within one generation. Great Britain would likely not have fallen if not for that.
Europe as in the European Union and UK instead have welcomed Islam with open arms and they are setting up the throne of rule by the antichrist before our very eyes. Sad to say our leaders here in the U.S. are also doing the same.
Of course the above mentioned would require approval from congress, president, and much of the western world & its leadership. I don't see it happening, not any time soon. So the rest for now remains to be a blame game, unfortunately.
Again the ones who founded our nation did not base our policies nor laws on world opinion but rather winning our own freedom for which they were willing to say publically and mean it
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Where is the honor in the Executive Branch? The Legislative? Only a minority remains. The Judicial Branch? They are corrupt to the core and have subverted the Constitution by making themselves Legislatures from the bench. Only a minority still uphold their sworn oath. GOD means nothing to our leaders today so why should their word mean anything? Our nation is on the brink of moral and likely civil collapse while lawmakers parade for perverts rights.
As a nation we are in very serious trouble. 1980 had Reagan elected in part by a turn in national morality. This was an effort put forth by many churches both Protestant and Catholic. It worked. Our nations woes literally turned around in a matter of a few years. The world was changed and USSR fell. As a result we had a not perfect but wise leader for eight years who's policies and counsel of wise men helped get us there.
Then in 1989 came the New World Order movement & appeasers to thugs and tyrants back into power. Presidents with strong family monetary or power ties to China, Middle East, Indonesia, the list goes on.
Where is the United States we knew as of even 1988? How do we stand even before what few alliances we have remaining as compared to that in 1988? Where did it go? Blame the Dems for it all? Oh No they had lots and lots of Bipartisan help.
The falling away of congress to keep it's word began after a months of the ones elected in 1994 being sworn in. They and The DEM became as one in an agreement that the subversive power of their illicit formed oligarchy out weighs the Constitution. A few in both houses are still oath keepers the majority would enslave us tonight if the right deal of power share and money were offered to them.
Wanted to say thanks for the reply. I’ll read fully a bit later.
Thanks. Your post is very comprehensive. I think everything is cyclical. How long does a cycle last for good or bad, who knows... But I do think what did apply decades or perhaps years ago, in parts or entirety, may not apply in 2014, 2020 or beyond. We must constantly assess ourselves, our situation & if necessary do different or revisit for the better. I think the guiding principles are sound. Though we must adapt with times. Hope am not sounding too ‘esoteric’ or abstract.
I didn’t know that. Wasn’t his master’s in economics, or do I have him mixed up w/Reagan?
His masters was a Harvard business degree.
Reagan had a bachelor degree in economics, Romney was also a lawyer.
So he managed to convince himself Saddam posed a dire and imminent threat to us with WMDs? Or he regarded Saddam as so evil that he had to be taken out even if the result was chaos and a playground for anti-American forces? Or he thought he could easily fix Iraq and make it a stable Western-style constitutional democracy? Or he really did think we'd be able to stay in Iraq for generations? None of those assumptions reflects very well on Bush.
Perhaps you are a liberal who thinks in soundbites instead of syllogisms.
Syllogisms can be as simplistic as soundbites. And, no, you didn't have to be a liberal to see that something was really wrong with Bush's assumptions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.