Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It was supposed to be renegotiated. I don't care if you schlebbs claim it was written on stone tablets. Obama had the option to renegotiate it, or just ignore it like he does the Constitution.You're actually claiming that the person (Bush) who orchestrated the agreement to pull ALL the troops, for no reason, would have done it differently years later.Bush wasn't in office when his Status Of Forces agreement was allowed to expire. They never were intended to be permanent. That would have made us an occupational force and our media at the behest of Democrats wouldn't stand for that. Most of the negatives about the war was political anyway, thanks to the left. Doing the right thing doesn't always jib with politicians.That's pretty fucked up logic since Bush couldn't get Iraq to agree to an immunity deal. So no, your false premise that Bush would have kept troops there, after Bush was the one to make the deal with Iraq to pull ALL of the troops out, falls into the trash bin where it so rightfully deserves to be.Because eventually Iraq would have become an afterthought in the news, and we would have maintained bases there from which strikes could be launched at the Syrian border, similar to what they're gearing up to do today. We would have had some influence over Iraqi politics and prevented much of the nonsense caused by Shiites that led to Sunni unrest.One more thing ... explain how we wouldn't be talking about this if Bush was still president?Bush hasn't been president for 6 years. We wouldn't be talking about this if he still was.
(this should be good)
I knew I your answer would be fun!
Ok, so it was 2004 ...Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11.
It takes a lot of gall for people like Dick Cheney to utter even one critical word about President Obama's strategy to eliminate the threat of ISIL in the Middle East.
In fact, it was the unnecessary Bush/Cheney Iraq War that created the conditions that led directly to the rise of the "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL).
Former George H.W. Bush Secretary of State James Baker said as much on this week's edition of "Meet the Press." He noted that after the first President Bush had ousted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991, the U.S. had refrained from marching on Baghdad precisely to avoid kicking over the sectarian hornet's nest that was subsequently unleashed by the Bush/Cheney attack on Iraq in 2003.
But it wasn't just the War in Iraq itself that set the stage for the subsequent 12 years of renewed, high-intensity sectarian strife between Sunni's and Shiites in the Middle East. It was also what came after.
Bush's "de-Bathification program" eliminated all vestiges of Sunni power in Iraqi society and set the stage for the Sunni insurrection against American occupation and the new Shiite-led government. Bush disbanded the entire Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army and bureaucracy. He didn't change it. He didn't make it more inclusive of Shiites and Kurds. He just disbanded it. It is no accident that two of the top commanders of today's ISIL are former commanders in the Saddam-era Iraqi military.
General Petraeus took steps to reverse these policies with his "Sunni Awakening" programs that engaged the Sunni tribes against what was then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. But the progress he made ultimately collapsed because the Bush/Cheney regime helped install Nouri Al-Maliki as Prime Minister who systematically disenfranchised Sunnis throughout Iraq.
And that's not all. The War in Iraq -- which had nothing whatsoever to do with "terrorism" when it was launched -- created massive numbers of terrorists that otherwise would not have dreamed of joining extremist organizations. It did so by killing massive numbers of Iraqis, creating hundreds of thousands of refugees, imprisoning thousands, and convincing many residents of the Middle East that the terrorist narrative was correct: that the U.S. and the West were really about taking Muslim lands.
More: Bush/Cheney Created Conditions that Led Directly to ISIL Robert Creamer
At least Bush is smart enough to keep his mouth shut about all of this - but Cheney isn't.
The twin towers fell before Iraq was attacked, and that pretty well shows that the hornet's nest was already stirred up before Bush did anything in the Middle East.
Islamic extremists have been at war with the United States since the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, and the fact that we had turned a blind eye to that reality did not make it less of a threat. Bush didn't start the war, he responded to it.
ISIS in Iraq is a direct result of Obama pulling all the troops out of Iraq and leaving the vacuum that ISIS filled. Actions have consequences, and all you left wingers should begin to recognize that tidbit.
You can whine, spin, or turn cartwheels, but Obama owns present day Iraq, and the American public knows it.
And ISIS formed in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. Who knows how that's Obama's fault?
2003? Bullshit.
ISIS ISIL or the Islamic State Q13 FOX News
It all started in 2004 when the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formed an al Qaeda splinter group in Iraq. Within two years, al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to fuel a sectarian war against the majority Shiite community.
Thanks, Bush!
Ok, so it was 2004 ...Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11.
It takes a lot of gall for people like Dick Cheney to utter even one critical word about President Obama's strategy to eliminate the threat of ISIL in the Middle East.
In fact, it was the unnecessary Bush/Cheney Iraq War that created the conditions that led directly to the rise of the "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL).
Former George H.W. Bush Secretary of State James Baker said as much on this week's edition of "Meet the Press." He noted that after the first President Bush had ousted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991, the U.S. had refrained from marching on Baghdad precisely to avoid kicking over the sectarian hornet's nest that was subsequently unleashed by the Bush/Cheney attack on Iraq in 2003.
But it wasn't just the War in Iraq itself that set the stage for the subsequent 12 years of renewed, high-intensity sectarian strife between Sunni's and Shiites in the Middle East. It was also what came after.
Bush's "de-Bathification program" eliminated all vestiges of Sunni power in Iraqi society and set the stage for the Sunni insurrection against American occupation and the new Shiite-led government. Bush disbanded the entire Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army and bureaucracy. He didn't change it. He didn't make it more inclusive of Shiites and Kurds. He just disbanded it. It is no accident that two of the top commanders of today's ISIL are former commanders in the Saddam-era Iraqi military.
General Petraeus took steps to reverse these policies with his "Sunni Awakening" programs that engaged the Sunni tribes against what was then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. But the progress he made ultimately collapsed because the Bush/Cheney regime helped install Nouri Al-Maliki as Prime Minister who systematically disenfranchised Sunnis throughout Iraq.
And that's not all. The War in Iraq -- which had nothing whatsoever to do with "terrorism" when it was launched -- created massive numbers of terrorists that otherwise would not have dreamed of joining extremist organizations. It did so by killing massive numbers of Iraqis, creating hundreds of thousands of refugees, imprisoning thousands, and convincing many residents of the Middle East that the terrorist narrative was correct: that the U.S. and the West were really about taking Muslim lands.
More: Bush/Cheney Created Conditions that Led Directly to ISIL Robert Creamer
At least Bush is smart enough to keep his mouth shut about all of this - but Cheney isn't.
The twin towers fell before Iraq was attacked, and that pretty well shows that the hornet's nest was already stirred up before Bush did anything in the Middle East.
Islamic extremists have been at war with the United States since the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, and the fact that we had turned a blind eye to that reality did not make it less of a threat. Bush didn't start the war, he responded to it.
ISIS in Iraq is a direct result of Obama pulling all the troops out of Iraq and leaving the vacuum that ISIS filled. Actions have consequences, and all you left wingers should begin to recognize that tidbit.
You can whine, spin, or turn cartwheels, but Obama owns present day Iraq, and the American public knows it.
And ISIS formed in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. Who knows how that's Obama's fault?
2003? Bullshit.
ISIS ISIL or the Islamic State Q13 FOX News
It all started in 2004 when the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formed an al Qaeda splinter group in Iraq. Within two years, al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to fuel a sectarian war against the majority Shiite community.
Thanks, Bush!
I gave you the link with their history. It ain't my problem if you can't understand it.Ok, so it was 2004 ...Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11.
It takes a lot of gall for people like Dick Cheney to utter even one critical word about President Obama's strategy to eliminate the threat of ISIL in the Middle East.
In fact, it was the unnecessary Bush/Cheney Iraq War that created the conditions that led directly to the rise of the "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL).
Former George H.W. Bush Secretary of State James Baker said as much on this week's edition of "Meet the Press." He noted that after the first President Bush had ousted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991, the U.S. had refrained from marching on Baghdad precisely to avoid kicking over the sectarian hornet's nest that was subsequently unleashed by the Bush/Cheney attack on Iraq in 2003.
But it wasn't just the War in Iraq itself that set the stage for the subsequent 12 years of renewed, high-intensity sectarian strife between Sunni's and Shiites in the Middle East. It was also what came after.
Bush's "de-Bathification program" eliminated all vestiges of Sunni power in Iraqi society and set the stage for the Sunni insurrection against American occupation and the new Shiite-led government. Bush disbanded the entire Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army and bureaucracy. He didn't change it. He didn't make it more inclusive of Shiites and Kurds. He just disbanded it. It is no accident that two of the top commanders of today's ISIL are former commanders in the Saddam-era Iraqi military.
General Petraeus took steps to reverse these policies with his "Sunni Awakening" programs that engaged the Sunni tribes against what was then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. But the progress he made ultimately collapsed because the Bush/Cheney regime helped install Nouri Al-Maliki as Prime Minister who systematically disenfranchised Sunnis throughout Iraq.
And that's not all. The War in Iraq -- which had nothing whatsoever to do with "terrorism" when it was launched -- created massive numbers of terrorists that otherwise would not have dreamed of joining extremist organizations. It did so by killing massive numbers of Iraqis, creating hundreds of thousands of refugees, imprisoning thousands, and convincing many residents of the Middle East that the terrorist narrative was correct: that the U.S. and the West were really about taking Muslim lands.
More: Bush/Cheney Created Conditions that Led Directly to ISIL Robert Creamer
At least Bush is smart enough to keep his mouth shut about all of this - but Cheney isn't.
The twin towers fell before Iraq was attacked, and that pretty well shows that the hornet's nest was already stirred up before Bush did anything in the Middle East.
Islamic extremists have been at war with the United States since the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, and the fact that we had turned a blind eye to that reality did not make it less of a threat. Bush didn't start the war, he responded to it.
ISIS in Iraq is a direct result of Obama pulling all the troops out of Iraq and leaving the vacuum that ISIS filled. Actions have consequences, and all you left wingers should begin to recognize that tidbit.
You can whine, spin, or turn cartwheels, but Obama owns present day Iraq, and the American public knows it.
And ISIS formed in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. Who knows how that's Obama's fault?
2003? Bullshit.
ISIS ISIL or the Islamic State Q13 FOX News
It all started in 2004 when the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formed an al Qaeda splinter group in Iraq. Within two years, al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to fuel a sectarian war against the majority Shiite community.
Thanks, Bush!
Bullshit again. Better bone up there bucko and get your facts straight. AQI was chump change in Iraq all those years.
Run of the mill car bombers and hostage takers.
ISIS "became" if you will when Baghdadi (a brilliant man and most certainly a rock star among jihadists) took over the AQ affiliate and moved them into Syria.
This is the moment that ISIS and the Levant were born. And Obama with his obsession to depose Assad turned a willful blind eye to their growing power and wealth.
Obama in a sense was the midwife for the birth of ISIS as we know it today.
This is fact. Not opinion. The entity known as ISIS screamed onto the scene in all their monstrous glory when they broke from AQ.
In Syria.
ISIS's roots trace back to 2004. Deal with it.Ok, so it was 2004 ...Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11.
It takes a lot of gall for people like Dick Cheney to utter even one critical word about President Obama's strategy to eliminate the threat of ISIL in the Middle East.
In fact, it was the unnecessary Bush/Cheney Iraq War that created the conditions that led directly to the rise of the "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL).
Former George H.W. Bush Secretary of State James Baker said as much on this week's edition of "Meet the Press." He noted that after the first President Bush had ousted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991, the U.S. had refrained from marching on Baghdad precisely to avoid kicking over the sectarian hornet's nest that was subsequently unleashed by the Bush/Cheney attack on Iraq in 2003.
But it wasn't just the War in Iraq itself that set the stage for the subsequent 12 years of renewed, high-intensity sectarian strife between Sunni's and Shiites in the Middle East. It was also what came after.
Bush's "de-Bathification program" eliminated all vestiges of Sunni power in Iraqi society and set the stage for the Sunni insurrection against American occupation and the new Shiite-led government. Bush disbanded the entire Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army and bureaucracy. He didn't change it. He didn't make it more inclusive of Shiites and Kurds. He just disbanded it. It is no accident that two of the top commanders of today's ISIL are former commanders in the Saddam-era Iraqi military.
General Petraeus took steps to reverse these policies with his "Sunni Awakening" programs that engaged the Sunni tribes against what was then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. But the progress he made ultimately collapsed because the Bush/Cheney regime helped install Nouri Al-Maliki as Prime Minister who systematically disenfranchised Sunnis throughout Iraq.
And that's not all. The War in Iraq -- which had nothing whatsoever to do with "terrorism" when it was launched -- created massive numbers of terrorists that otherwise would not have dreamed of joining extremist organizations. It did so by killing massive numbers of Iraqis, creating hundreds of thousands of refugees, imprisoning thousands, and convincing many residents of the Middle East that the terrorist narrative was correct: that the U.S. and the West were really about taking Muslim lands.
More: Bush/Cheney Created Conditions that Led Directly to ISIL Robert Creamer
At least Bush is smart enough to keep his mouth shut about all of this - but Cheney isn't.
The twin towers fell before Iraq was attacked, and that pretty well shows that the hornet's nest was already stirred up before Bush did anything in the Middle East.
Islamic extremists have been at war with the United States since the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, and the fact that we had turned a blind eye to that reality did not make it less of a threat. Bush didn't start the war, he responded to it.
ISIS in Iraq is a direct result of Obama pulling all the troops out of Iraq and leaving the vacuum that ISIS filled. Actions have consequences, and all you left wingers should begin to recognize that tidbit.
You can whine, spin, or turn cartwheels, but Obama owns present day Iraq, and the American public knows it.
And ISIS formed in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. Who knows how that's Obama's fault?
2003? Bullshit.
ISIS ISIL or the Islamic State Q13 FOX News
It all started in 2004 when the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formed an al Qaeda splinter group in Iraq. Within two years, al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to fuel a sectarian war against the majority Shiite community.
Thanks, Bush!
Since the origins of Al Qaeda go back to the Soviet/Afghan war in late 70's and 80's...blaming George W. Bush for it in 2004 only works if you completely ignore history. As for the conflict between Shia and Shiite? If you think THAT started in 2004 you've conveniently ignored hundreds of years of history!
That's a separate discussion. You're saying that Bush, who planned on pulling ALL of the troops out, would have (for no known reason you can offer) had a change of heart. That's just ludicrous.It was supposed to be renegotiated. I don't care if you schlebbs claim it was written on stone tablets. Obama had the option to renegotiate it, or just ignore it like he does the Constitution.You're actually claiming that the person (Bush) who orchestrated the agreement to pull ALL the troops, for no reason, would have done it differently years later.Bush wasn't in office when his Status Of Forces agreement was allowed to expire. They never were intended to be permanent. That would have made us an occupational force and our media at the behest of Democrats wouldn't stand for that. Most of the negatives about the war was political anyway, thanks to the left. Doing the right thing doesn't always jib with politicians.That's pretty fucked up logic since Bush couldn't get Iraq to agree to an immunity deal. So no, your false premise that Bush would have kept troops there, after Bush was the one to make the deal with Iraq to pull ALL of the troops out, falls into the trash bin where it so rightfully deserves to be.Because eventually Iraq would have become an afterthought in the news, and we would have maintained bases there from which strikes could be launched at the Syrian border, similar to what they're gearing up to do today. We would have had some influence over Iraqi politics and prevented much of the nonsense caused by Shiites that led to Sunni unrest.One more thing ... explain how we wouldn't be talking about this if Bush was still president?
(this should be good)
I knew I your answer would be fun!
ISIS's roots trace back to 2004. Deal with it.Ok, so it was 2004 ...Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11.The twin towers fell before Iraq was attacked, and that pretty well shows that the hornet's nest was already stirred up before Bush did anything in the Middle East.
Islamic extremists have been at war with the United States since the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, and the fact that we had turned a blind eye to that reality did not make it less of a threat. Bush didn't start the war, he responded to it.
ISIS in Iraq is a direct result of Obama pulling all the troops out of Iraq and leaving the vacuum that ISIS filled. Actions have consequences, and all you left wingers should begin to recognize that tidbit.
You can whine, spin, or turn cartwheels, but Obama owns present day Iraq, and the American public knows it.
And ISIS formed in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. Who knows how that's Obama's fault?
2003? Bullshit.
ISIS ISIL or the Islamic State Q13 FOX News
It all started in 2004 when the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formed an al Qaeda splinter group in Iraq. Within two years, al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to fuel a sectarian war against the majority Shiite community.
Thanks, Bush!
Since the origins of Al Qaeda go back to the Soviet/Afghan war in late 70's and 80's...blaming George W. Bush for it in 2004 only works if you completely ignore history. As for the conflict between Shia and Shiite? If you think THAT started in 2004 you've conveniently ignored hundreds of years of history!
ISIS's roots trace back to 2004. Deal with it.Ok, so it was 2004 ...Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11.The twin towers fell before Iraq was attacked, and that pretty well shows that the hornet's nest was already stirred up before Bush did anything in the Middle East.
Islamic extremists have been at war with the United States since the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, and the fact that we had turned a blind eye to that reality did not make it less of a threat. Bush didn't start the war, he responded to it.
ISIS in Iraq is a direct result of Obama pulling all the troops out of Iraq and leaving the vacuum that ISIS filled. Actions have consequences, and all you left wingers should begin to recognize that tidbit.
You can whine, spin, or turn cartwheels, but Obama owns present day Iraq, and the American public knows it.
And ISIS formed in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. Who knows how that's Obama's fault?
2003? Bullshit.
ISIS ISIL or the Islamic State Q13 FOX News
It all started in 2004 when the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formed an al Qaeda splinter group in Iraq. Within two years, al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to fuel a sectarian war against the majority Shiite community.
Thanks, Bush!
Since the origins of Al Qaeda go back to the Soviet/Afghan war in late 70's and 80's...blaming George W. Bush for it in 2004 only works if you completely ignore history. As for the conflict between Shia and Shiite? If you think THAT started in 2004 you've conveniently ignored hundreds of years of history!
I gave you the link with their history. It ain't my problem if you can't understand it.Ok, so it was 2004 ...Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11.The twin towers fell before Iraq was attacked, and that pretty well shows that the hornet's nest was already stirred up before Bush did anything in the Middle East.
Islamic extremists have been at war with the United States since the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, and the fact that we had turned a blind eye to that reality did not make it less of a threat. Bush didn't start the war, he responded to it.
ISIS in Iraq is a direct result of Obama pulling all the troops out of Iraq and leaving the vacuum that ISIS filled. Actions have consequences, and all you left wingers should begin to recognize that tidbit.
You can whine, spin, or turn cartwheels, but Obama owns present day Iraq, and the American public knows it.
And ISIS formed in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. Who knows how that's Obama's fault?
2003? Bullshit.
ISIS ISIL or the Islamic State Q13 FOX News
It all started in 2004 when the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formed an al Qaeda splinter group in Iraq. Within two years, al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to fuel a sectarian war against the majority Shiite community.
Thanks, Bush!
Bullshit again. Better bone up there bucko and get your facts straight. AQI was chump change in Iraq all those years.
Run of the mill car bombers and hostage takers.
ISIS "became" if you will when Baghdadi (a brilliant man and most certainly a rock star among jihadists) took over the AQ affiliate and moved them into Syria.
This is the moment that ISIS and the Levant were born. And Obama with his obsession to depose Assad turned a willful blind eye to their growing power and wealth.
Obama in a sense was the midwife for the birth of ISIS as we know it today.
This is fact. Not opinion. The entity known as ISIS screamed onto the scene in all their monstrous glory when they broke from AQ.
In Syria.
Nothing you can say will alter the fact that ISIS formed in Iraq as a response to Bush invading.
Perhaps you forgot, but Bush went to the U.N. to ask for a vote to support an invasion, but he backed down from pushing for that vote when he learned the U.N. was going to vote against it.The UN and the entire world supported the Iraq fiasco. To blame it all on Bush and Cheney is just ignorant.
Everyone got it wrong. It was a waste of lives and money. So was Viet Nam, but we seem incapable of learning from history.
That's a separate discussion. You're saying that Bush, who planned on pulling ALL of the troops out, would have (for no known reason you can offer) had a change of heart. That's just ludicrous.It was supposed to be renegotiated. I don't care if you schlebbs claim it was written on stone tablets. Obama had the option to renegotiate it, or just ignore it like he does the Constitution.You're actually claiming that the person (Bush) who orchestrated the agreement to pull ALL the troops, for no reason, would have done it differently years later.Bush wasn't in office when his Status Of Forces agreement was allowed to expire. They never were intended to be permanent. That would have made us an occupational force and our media at the behest of Democrats wouldn't stand for that. Most of the negatives about the war was political anyway, thanks to the left. Doing the right thing doesn't always jib with politicians.That's pretty fucked up logic since Bush couldn't get Iraq to agree to an immunity deal. So no, your false premise that Bush would have kept troops there, after Bush was the one to make the deal with Iraq to pull ALL of the troops out, falls into the trash bin where it so rightfully deserves to be.Because eventually Iraq would have become an afterthought in the news, and we would have maintained bases there from which strikes could be launched at the Syrian border, similar to what they're gearing up to do today. We would have had some influence over Iraqi politics and prevented much of the nonsense caused by Shiites that led to Sunni unrest.
I knew I your answer would be fun!
Who on Earth knows how you translated my words into that??ISIS's roots trace back to 2004. Deal with it.Ok, so it was 2004 ...Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11.
And ISIS formed in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. Who knows how that's Obama's fault?
2003? Bullshit.
ISIS ISIL or the Islamic State Q13 FOX News
It all started in 2004 when the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formed an al Qaeda splinter group in Iraq. Within two years, al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to fuel a sectarian war against the majority Shiite community.
Thanks, Bush!
Since the origins of Al Qaeda go back to the Soviet/Afghan war in late 70's and 80's...blaming George W. Bush for it in 2004 only works if you completely ignore history. As for the conflict between Shia and Shiite? If you think THAT started in 2004 you've conveniently ignored hundreds of years of history!
So Islamic extremism didn't exist before 2004?
If that's what Bush really wanted, he wouldn't have signed off on an agreement to pull ALL the troops out. There's absolutely no evidence Bush would have left troops in Iraq had he still been president. This is nothing but a rightwingnut fantasy.That's a separate discussion. You're saying that Bush, who planned on pulling ALL of the troops out, would have (for no known reason you can offer) had a change of heart. That's just ludicrous.It was supposed to be renegotiated. I don't care if you schlebbs claim it was written on stone tablets. Obama had the option to renegotiate it, or just ignore it like he does the Constitution.You're actually claiming that the person (Bush) who orchestrated the agreement to pull ALL the troops, for no reason, would have done it differently years later.Bush wasn't in office when his Status Of Forces agreement was allowed to expire. They never were intended to be permanent. That would have made us an occupational force and our media at the behest of Democrats wouldn't stand for that. Most of the negatives about the war was political anyway, thanks to the left. Doing the right thing doesn't always jib with politicians.That's pretty fucked up logic since Bush couldn't get Iraq to agree to an immunity deal. So no, your false premise that Bush would have kept troops there, after Bush was the one to make the deal with Iraq to pull ALL of the troops out, falls into the trash bin where it so rightfully deserves to be.
I knew I your answer would be fun!
Since Bush maintained all along that pulling out "ALL" of our troops prematurely would be dangerous and lead to exactly what has taken place...how would he be having a "change of heart" exactly?
You know we're talking about ISIS, right?ISIS's roots trace back to 2004. Deal with it.Ok, so it was 2004 ...Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11.
And ISIS formed in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. Who knows how that's Obama's fault?
2003? Bullshit.
ISIS ISIL or the Islamic State Q13 FOX News
It all started in 2004 when the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formed an al Qaeda splinter group in Iraq. Within two years, al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to fuel a sectarian war against the majority Shiite community.
Thanks, Bush!
Since the origins of Al Qaeda go back to the Soviet/Afghan war in late 70's and 80's...blaming George W. Bush for it in 2004 only works if you completely ignore history. As for the conflict between Shia and Shiite? If you think THAT started in 2004 you've conveniently ignored hundreds of years of history!
radical islam has its roots back 4000 years----------Deal with it.
Perhaps you forgot, but Bush went to the U.N. to ask for a vote to support an invasion, but he backed down from pushing for that vote when he learned the U.N. was going to vote against it.The UN and the entire world supported the Iraq fiasco. To blame it all on Bush and Cheney is just ignorant.
Everyone got it wrong. It was a waste of lives and money. So was Viet Nam, but we seem incapable of learning from history.
Why do you think the invasion was Bush's "coalition of the willing" and not a U.N. coalition?
He said many times it was up to the commanders on the ground. Obama doesn't listen to them BTW.That's a separate discussion. You're saying that Bush, who planned on pulling ALL of the troops out, would have (for no known reason you can offer) had a change of heart. That's just ludicrous.It was supposed to be renegotiated. I don't care if you schlebbs claim it was written on stone tablets. Obama had the option to renegotiate it, or just ignore it like he does the Constitution.You're actually claiming that the person (Bush) who orchestrated the agreement to pull ALL the troops, for no reason, would have done it differently years later.Bush wasn't in office when his Status Of Forces agreement was allowed to expire. They never were intended to be permanent. That would have made us an occupational force and our media at the behest of Democrats wouldn't stand for that. Most of the negatives about the war was political anyway, thanks to the left. Doing the right thing doesn't always jib with politicians.That's pretty fucked up logic since Bush couldn't get Iraq to agree to an immunity deal. So no, your false premise that Bush would have kept troops there, after Bush was the one to make the deal with Iraq to pull ALL of the troops out, falls into the trash bin where it so rightfully deserves to be.Because eventually Iraq would have become an afterthought in the news, and we would have maintained bases there from which strikes could be launched at the Syrian border, similar to what they're gearing up to do today. We would have had some influence over Iraqi politics and prevented much of the nonsense caused by Shiites that led to Sunni unrest.
I knew I your answer would be fun!
Perhaps you forgot, but Bush went to the U.N. to ask for a vote to support an invasion, but he backed down from pushing for that vote when he learned the U.N. was going to vote against it.The UN and the entire world supported the Iraq fiasco. To blame it all on Bush and Cheney is just ignorant.
Everyone got it wrong. It was a waste of lives and money. So was Viet Nam, but we seem incapable of learning from history.
Why do you think the invasion was Bush's "coalition of the willing" and not a U.N. coalition?
You know we're talking about ISIS, right?ISIS's roots trace back to 2004. Deal with it.Ok, so it was 2004 ...2003? Bullshit.
ISIS ISIL or the Islamic State Q13 FOX News
It all started in 2004 when the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formed an al Qaeda splinter group in Iraq. Within two years, al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to fuel a sectarian war against the majority Shiite community.
Thanks, Bush!
Since the origins of Al Qaeda go back to the Soviet/Afghan war in late 70's and 80's...blaming George W. Bush for it in 2004 only works if you completely ignore history. As for the conflict between Shia and Shiite? If you think THAT started in 2004 you've conveniently ignored hundreds of years of history!
radical islam has its roots back 4000 years----------Deal with it.
