Skip to comments.Sorry, George W. Bush, but this whole mess is still your fault (vomit up both lungs)
Posted on 06/17/2014 8:18:57 AM PDT by pabianice
Like clockwork, the Republican noise machine is blaming Barack Obama for the crisis in Iraq. And like clockwork, theyve got everything wrong again.
The man to blame for whats happening in Iraq is not President Obama its President Bush.
Contrary to Tony Blairs latest protestations, the U.S./U.K. invasion of Iraq under deliberately fraudulent pretenses had a great deal to do with enabling the current emergence of a Sunni terrorist military power in Iraq, but it goes much deeper than that. The recent success of ISIS the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is exactly what Osama bin Laden had hoped that the 9/11 attacks would lead to. And thanks to Bushs spectacularly foolish responses, bin Ladens dream has come true.
Before 9/11, bin Laden was a terrorist and could only dream of becoming the holy warrior he imagined himself to be. When Bush chose to respond to 9/11 as an act of war, rather than a crime, he gave bin Laden the gift he had always wanted, just by conferring that status.
First, by invading Afghanistan, Bush validated bin Ladens claim that what was happening was a religious war between Islam and the Christian West. Then, by invading Iraq and deposing his most prominent ideological foe, Saddam Hussein, Bush gave bin Laden a second gifta much stronger position of influence throughout the region.
But the invasion also fractured Iraqs tenuous factional stability, and was followed by a whole series of bad decisions making matters even worse. on their own.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
I stopped reading there. The author has nothing intelligent to say on the topic.
You have to be paid be the Democrats to write this kind of stuff.
Billy Carter’s brother Jimmy is the one that took down the Shaw of Iran. Wasn’t it Clinton that was in office when Iran was attacked?
But first, you have to get a full frontal lobotomy.
It’s hard for me to connect the dots in a liberal’s brain. They absolutely lack reasoning ability.
They always miss the point that a great leader, like Ronald Reagan, doesn’t complain about their predecessor. They roll up their sleeves and get the job done.
Barky Hussein simply is not a great, or even good, leader.
Someone throw this little yapping dog a treat so he’ll shut up.
Bush derangement syndrome rears it’s ugly head again.....
At the end of year eight he will still be “inheriting this mess.”
Truth about Iraq is that if Bill Clinton had handled it better, there would have been absolutely no need to go over there.
The left often talk about how the sanctions hurt the Iraqi people. Wasn’t Clinton president for 8 years?
So true. I don't remember Reagan whining about Carter for 5 years.
I’ve been trying to follow this mess since Obama put GWB’s regime-change disaster on steroids. The most obvious cause of this out-of-control mess is that the US armed and trained terrorists in Syria. That’s all Obama’s and McCain’s doing, probably inspired by Saudi Arabia.
Okay, then why did so many Democrats vote to give President Bush the authority to go into Iraq?
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff February 17, 1998
"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.
Democracy will not spring up by itself overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated society that's suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis, including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, deserve to be represented. This is not just a moral imperative. It's a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner, and such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina) Speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies October 7, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) Addressing the US Senate October 10, 2002
"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University February 18, 1998
"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University February 18, 1998
Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 105th Congress, 2nd Session September 29, 1998
February 6, 1999
Saddam link to Bin Laden
By Julian Borger
Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.
News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."
Bill Clintons response.....
In the ceasefire agreement for the first Gulf War, he was to allow easy movement of weapon inspectors, as well as no lock-ons to planes in the “No Fly Zone.” He broke both, allowing resumption of war.
All arguments Libs have fall to this line of reasoning.
Eat it, Libs.
Isn’t Ken Starr somehow also to blame for this?
Hard to keep up sometimes.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein:
1) Developed and used chemical weapons (WMD) against the Kurds and in the war with Iran.
2) Invaded two countries-—Kuwait and Iran.
3) Fired SCUD missiles at Israel.
4) Plotted to assassinate a US president (George H.W. Bush)
5) Harbored international terrorists including Abu Nidal.
6) Funded the families of suicide bombers terrorizing Israel.
7) Practiced massed genocide and ethnic cleansing, especially against the Kurds.
The US had every right to liberate this nation and bring Saddam to his just reward.
God bless President Bush for liberating Iraq and freeing it from tyranny.
And God....BHO for turning the country back to hell.
There is no doubt that if the democrats and leftist media repeat this diatribe long enough, the stupid ignorant sheep will believe it.
Actually a lot of blame to go around but both Bush’s can get the majority of the blame for all of this.
In addition, this piece from 2008, prior to the election, still has not sunk in yet in the US, to its detriment, re the centrality of what is at the core of all things ...ISLAMIC, and it is not G. Bush!
Once you claim credit for a situation and say it is your greatest accomplishment during an election year, you pretty much own it from that point forward.
We should have let Saddam go on take over Kuwait and then let him roll down over Saudi Arabia and take out the despicable Royal Family and destroy the Wahhabi Muslim Sect that controls that country and let the chips fall.
Saudi Arabia has financed a lot of Terrorism world wide with the Oil Money we have paid them.
Everything in that region is a lose lose deal for us. Let those people kill each other and be done with it. We can't police that area and I would say we have made things a lot worse by trying to.
Well, he did dismiss my suggestion that he simply nuke Baghdad instead of invading it.
All this dancing around an no one has mentioned the FIRST opening shot in the hostilities between the USA and Saddam’s Iraq.
Whatever you say.
I blame Christopher Columbus. If he didn’t discover the New World, it would have remained an environmentally friendly Native American paradise and the evil, Capitalist, war-mongering United States never would have been founded. And the people of Iraq would be living in peace and happiness under their dear leader, Saddam, today.
Whew, that was close. Almost thought Marxism was partially to blame.
Pray America wakes up
Think about it.
What have we gained?
gave cash payments to families of suicide bombers
sorry just saw #6
The real blame for this terrorist mob goes to...the terrorist mob.
However, if anyone insists on blaming an American president, at least blame the right one - Jimmy Carter.
All of this radical Islam terror stuff can be traced back to Jimmy Carter being weak, weak, weak, against the Iranians in 1979-80. Carter should have crushed them then and there.
In this most recent event, it was a MAJOR mistake by Obama to not to leave behind a US force behind.
IF these vermin (like probably all of Salon’s spittlists) survive the coming collapse of America, they will have to be sent for six if America is ever to rise again as a we the people Republic. The media is currently the enemy within, spewing the lies of the oligarchs as if sharing truth with pitiful fools. Disgusting
Bush won the war. Obama lost the peace.
Salon is garbage.
Of course, the fact that the House had previously scheduled impeachment hearings during those four had nothing to do with Clinton's decision.
On December 16, 1998, on the eve of the scheduled House vote on his impeachment, Bill Clinton launched a surprise bombing attack on Baghdad. As justification for this exploit, he cited the urgent threat that Saddams weapons of mass destruction posed to America, and the need for immediate action. Almost immediately, the House Democrats held a caucus and emerged calling for a delay in the impeachment proceedings. House minority leader Dick Gephardt made a statement: "We obviously should pass a resolution by saying that we stand behind the troops. I would hope that we do not take up impeachment until the hostilities have completely ended."
Conveniently, a delay so near the end of the House term would have caused the vote to be taken up in the next session when the newly elected House membership would be seated with more Democratic representation, thereby improving Clintons chances of dodging impeachment.
The Republicans did, in fact, agree to delay the hearings, but only for a day or two. Amazingly, Clinton ended the bombing raid after only 70 hours -- once it became clear that in spite of the brief delay, the vote would still be held in the current session.
Once the bombing stopped, Clinton touted the effectiveness and importance of the mission. As reported by ABC News : We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure, he said. Defense secretary William Cohen echoed the point: We estimate that Saddam's missile program has been set back by at least a year.
Whether or not one buys Clintons assessment of that mission, it is difficult to believe that its timing was so critical that it required commencement virtually at the moment the House was scheduled to vote on the impeachment. I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Clinton cynically deployed US military assets and placed military personnel in harms way for purely political reasons.
I like reading history, and while history doesn’t so much repeat, human nature never changes and we see the same patterns of conduct over and over again.
I believe the world is headed for war. A very bad, destructive war that will not have a good outcome for the United States. And when the history of this war is written by Chinese historians documenting how they won the war and dominated the world, they will write about how the Americans selected the worst leader they possibly could. They will write about how his complete lack of leadership allowed the world to spin out of control and into a war, and in fact his policies guaranteed it would happen.
Our children are going to have a tough time trying to rebuild our country from the rubble. The first thing they’ll need to do is forget about all the liberal environmental/gay rights/welfare nonsense.
Hey numbnuts, in what way was that NOT an act of war?
Liberals are insane.
Lest we forget Columbus had two parents. Hardly blameless.
Don’t forget Cheney and Haliburton, because once one mentions the word Haliburton any argument about Iraq is over!
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.