I do think that the Bushes led. George I kept Iraq from comandeering a world oil shipping industry by defending Kuwait
He did such a good job we had to re-invade again 12 years later. And he was defending countries that are ungrateful as hell and that love to screw us over the price of oil, and turn around and give that oil money away to religious teachers who preach hate against the United States.
In fact, we just recently celebrated an anniversary this past week reminding us of the deaths of thousands of Americans at the hands of the very people we supposedly were leading in the Middle East.
and George II got rid of Hussein and slaughtered tens of thousands of terrorists who would be out there planning way more terror than is being perpetrated today.
And that worked out so well for us, didn't it? Back in 2008 when Bush signed the
Status of Forces agreement that American troops would be out of Afghanistan by the end of the 2011, the terrorists were practically dancing in the streets, because Bush was handing them a divided country with a week government and Obama was more than happy to stick to the agreement that Bush signed.
Iraq is just working out so well, isn't it? Except that the Sunni Vice President was sentenced to death last week because he was running death squads against other Iraqis.
And you think they aren't planning way more terror? The terrorists killed nearly 100 people in a single day last week. That's a lot of terror in my book.
And here's the bottom line: if we don't lead in the Middle East, China will fill the vacuum.
You want leadership? I'll tell you what leadership is. Leadership means no more kissing the asses of countries that have schools teaching young men to hate and that they should kill Americans. Leadership means no more dumping billions of dollars of taxpayer aid into those very same countries.
Both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama all failed that test miserably, and everything that Romney has said so far tells me he will do the same.
And he was defending countries that are ungrateful as hell He was defending us as well.
If he had let it go, there would have been a vicious country with the 4th largest army in the world controlling oil shipping (which would directly affect our way of life over the long term). BTW, no I don't think Kuwait is ungrateful. They've provided strategic advantages to us since that time.
Iraq is just working out so well, isn't it?
Far better than before when they had a dictator terrorizing the world by threatening to develop WMD which he would have done in time. And this would have been expedited if Bush Senior had not stopped him from becoming even stronger by invading Kuwait BTW.
And you think they aren't planning way more terror?
If Bin Laden's network had not been taken out (and the thousands of Al Queda killed in Iraq) there would have been far more U.S. civilians killed over the last decade than the 4 Gov't employees of last week's attack.
Leadership means no more dumping billions of dollars
It would be great if we could pull back on some aid if a larger problem (China/Russia) weren't there to take our place. Unfortunately that is what would happen and many don't understand that larger geopolitical concern.