Bush / Cheney Created Conditions That Led Directly To I S I L

[mudwhistle]

What's up with this lie that ISIS became an entity in Iraq in 2004. That's bullshit.

They became the powerhouse that they are in Syria. AQI was nothing, nada but two bit jihadists before Baghdadi and Syria.

That is where they gained their wealth and their power.

Right from the BBC timeline. Stop with the Bush bullshit. You look like fools.

"In 2010 he emerged as the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, one of the groups that later became Isis."

BBC News - Syria Iraq The Islamic State militant group

This rare image of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was released by the Iraqi interior ministry

In 2010 he emerged as the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, one of the groups that later became Isis.

Baghdadi is regarded as a battlefield commander and tactician, which analysts say makes his group more attractive to young jihadists than al-Qaeda, which is led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Islamic theologian.

Prof Peter Neumann of King's College London estimates that about 80% of Western fighters in Syria have joined the group.

IS claims to have fighters from the UK, France, Germany and other European countries, as well as the US, the Arab world and the Caucasus.

Unlike other rebel groups in Syria, IS is seen to be working towards an Islamic emirate that straddles Syria and Iraq.

The group has seen considerable military success. In March 2013, it took over the Syrian city of Raqqa - the first provincial capital to fall under rebel control.

Obama is trying to act like he's not helping them.

 

[tinydancer]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Obama should have pursued further negotiations to allow for an extension.

But that of course was never going to happen. Don't you remember when he was against the Patraeus surge and introduced legislation to remove all troops from Iraq by 2008?

Senator Obama's legislation is on record.

 

[mudwhistle]

How many times have these loony libs told us Bush helped Saddam?

Now Obama does the same thing and it's Bush's fault.

 

[BluesLegend]

According to the left Obama is the smartest president ever yet he can't fix even one Bush screw up, just throws his hands up and blames Bush?

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Obama should have pursued further negotiations to allow for an extension.

But that of course was never going to happen. Don't you remember when he was against the Patraeus surge and introduced legislation to remove all troops from Iraq by 2008?

Senator Obama's legislation is on record.

What does that have to do with the idiotic notion that Bush would have kept troops there if he was still president?

 

[tinydancer]

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.

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.

Ok, so it was 2004 ...

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.

Oh piss off with the origins shit. We can go back to the Old Testament in every thread on Islam for crying out loud.

We are talking in the here and now. Baghdadi and his organization were part of AQ in Iraq. And they were nothing.

In Syria is where ISIS in its current form was born. And Bush and Cheney have had nothing to do with desperately wanting regime change in Syria that left the power vacuum for ISIS to become the monster we know today.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We sacrificed our own and gave it all to them ......elections, a well-equipped army, training and infrastructure. They had oil revenue on top of that.

The same ideology that has kept them but a step away from the dark ages squandered and relinquished it all for sectarian conflict and western jihad.

When you look at those "dark ages Muslims" it's astounding how much they are like right wing conservative Republicans.

Oh look - more partisan bigotry.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

I believe the West attacked Iraq on 17 January 1991. Iraq was not involved in the 911 attacks. President Bush started an unnecessary war in Iraq and set the date for the withdrawal of all US troops before he left office.

Yeah it was quite a mess the Bush administration left behind in Iraq. One blunder after an other.

Like most libtards you are a complete moron January of 1991 George W. Bush wasn't in office. LMAO!

Wow, like most rabid righties you listen to the voices you hear inside you head, don't you? Our involvement with Saddam goes back to the Ray-Gun Administration. I never said President Bush(43) was the one in office when the West attacked Iraq in 1991.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

You can blow up a house with a push of a button.

But it takes weeks or months to rebuild it.

Republicans won't let anyone rebuild anything. They failed so miserable under Bush, they want everyone to fail just so we can all be at the same level.

Six years of Obama Administration incompetence and you're STILL trying to blame Barry's failures on a guy who's chopping brush on a ranch in Texas!

Barry ignored advice on the situation and chose to do it HIS way! That's his right as President but when he does things HIS way then it's time to man up and take responsibility when he's as wrong as he's been with the complete troop pullout in Iraq.

How many of our soldiers would you have been willing to leave behind knowing they would be subject to the Iraqi justice system?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

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.

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?

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.

Obama should have pursued further negotiations to allow for an extension.

But that of course was never going to happen. Don't you remember when he was against the Patraeus surge and introduced legislation to remove all troops from Iraq by 2008?

Senator Obama's legislation is on record.

What does that have to do with the idiotic notion that Bush would have kept troops there if he was still president?

Funny how you libs were pounding your chests over the pullout and now you want to disown it.

Bush would have done what needed to be done, meaning not giving up a strategic outpost in the ME just to get himself re-elected like Obama did. Reality isn't as much a consideration to Obama as is the political aspect.

The problem with your asshat Democrats is they could care less about anything if it doesn't keep them in their offices.

 

[Faun]

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.

Ok, so it was 2004 ...

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.

Oh piss off with the origins shit. We can go back to the Old Testament in every thread on Islam for crying out loud.

We are talking in the here and now. Baghdadi and his organization were part of AQ in Iraq. And they were nothing.

In Syria is where ISIS in its current form was born. And Bush and Cheney have had nothing to do with desperately wanting regime change in Syria that left the power vacuum for ISIS to become the monster we know today.

You are wrong again. What was being discussed when I joined the thread was the idiotic notion that Obama was to blame for ISIS. I merely pointed out that is impossible since ISIS formed in 2003 (later corrected to 2004).

 

[tinydancer]

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.

I believe the West attacked Iraq on 17 January 1991. Iraq was not involved in the 911 attacks. President Bush started an unnecessary war in Iraq and set the date for the withdrawal of all US troops before he left office.

Yeah it was quite a mess the Bush administration left behind in Iraq. One blunder after an other.

Like most libtards you are a complete moron January of 1991 George W. Bush wasn't in office. LMAO!

Wow, like most rabid righties you listen to the voices you hear inside you head, don't you? Our involvement with Saddam goes back to the Ray-Gun Administration. I never said President Bush(43) was the one in office when the West attacked Iraq in 1991.

The Ottomans really really stirred up the bee hive. No guff.

True story.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

You can blow up a house with a push of a button.

But it takes weeks or months to rebuild it.

Republicans won't let anyone rebuild anything. They failed so miserable under Bush, they want everyone to fail just so we can all be at the same level.

Six years of Obama Administration incompetence and you're STILL trying to blame Barry's failures on a guy who's chopping brush on a ranch in Texas!

Barry ignored advice on the situation and chose to do it HIS way! That's his right as President but when he does things HIS way then it's time to man up and take responsibility when he's as wrong as he's been with the complete troop pullout in Iraq.

How many of our soldiers would you have been willing to leave behind knowing they would be subject to the Iraqi justice system?

Not an issue. Obama didn't even try

 

[Faun]

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.

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?

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.

Obama should have pursued further negotiations to allow for an extension.

But that of course was never going to happen. Don't you remember when he was against the Patraeus surge and introduced legislation to remove all troops from Iraq by 2008?

Senator Obama's legislation is on record.

What does that have to do with the idiotic notion that Bush would have kept troops there if he was still president?

Funny how you libs were pounding your chests over the pullout and now you want to disown it.

Bush would have done what needed to be done, meaning not giving up a strategic outpost in the ME just to get himself re-elected like Obama did. Reality isn't as much a consideration to Obama as is the political aspect.

The problem with your asshat Democrats is they could care less about anything if it doesn't keep them in their offices.

You're still full of shit. No, Bush would not have done "what needed to be done." We know this because he had the chance and still agreed to pull ALL of the troops out. You have absolutely no evidence (delusions don't count as evidence) that Bush would have reversed the policy he set forth, had he still been in office.

 

[BlindBoo]

You can blow up a house with a push of a button.

But it takes weeks or months to rebuild it.

Republicans won't let anyone rebuild anything. They failed so miserable under Bush, they want everyone to fail just so we can all be at the same level.

Six years of Obama Administration incompetence and you're STILL trying to blame Barry's failures on a guy who's chopping brush on a ranch in Texas!

Barry ignored advice on the situation and chose to do it HIS way! That's his right as President but when he does things HIS way then it's time to man up and take responsibility when he's as wrong as he's been with the complete troop pullout in Iraq.

You mean because he followed the agreement Bush made with Iraq.

No, I mean because Obama chose to ignore developing problems with both ISIS growing in power in Syria and the Maliki government excluding Shiites from positions of power. Barry decided to look the other way on both those things because admitting they existed would have made it impossible for him to declare Iraq "stable" and walk away from the problems there.

So now we've got ISIS embedded in population centers in Iraq...equipped with advance weapons they took from an Iraqi Army that wouldn't fight...and taking in an estimated 3 million dollars a day in revenue from oil sales! That fuck up belongs COMPLETELY to Barack Obama! He was more concerned with his own "legacy" as the President that "stops" wars than he was with the growth of ISIS or the problems within the Iraqi government.

None of which would have happened had Bush decided to let the U.N. inspectors finish the job they were sent into Iraq to do rather than invade. How is that Obama's fault?

Are you kidding me?

Let me see if I understand the liberal "logic" here, Faun...

Because George W. Bush made the call to go into Iraq in 2003 when Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the UN sanctions that he'd agreed to following the first Gulf War...11 years later Bush is still responsible for the results of Barack Obama's naive foreign policy for the region? Bush is still responsible for Obama's decision NOT to leave a stabilizing force in Iraq even though both he and Obama's military leaders warned that not doing so would lead to EXACTLY what happened? Bush is responsible for Obama being totally caught by surprise as ISIS conquered half of Iraq in a matter of weeks?

When does Barry become responsible for Barry's fuck-ups? Six years after he leaves office? Never?

I see where you went wrong. President Bush (43) made the call to invade Iraq on Sept 12th 2001, not 2003........ The decision to leave troops in Iraq was not up to either president. That was the Iraqi governments call.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

You can blow up a house with a push of a button.

But it takes weeks or months to rebuild it.

Republicans won't let anyone rebuild anything. They failed so miserable under Bush, they want everyone to fail just so we can all be at the same level.

Six years of Obama Administration incompetence and you're STILL trying to blame Barry's failures on a guy who's chopping brush on a ranch in Texas!

Barry ignored advice on the situation and chose to do it HIS way! That's his right as President but when he does things HIS way then it's time to man up and take responsibility when he's as wrong as he's been with the complete troop pullout in Iraq.

How many of our soldiers would you have been willing to leave behind knowing they would be subject to the Iraqi justice system?

Not an issue. Obama didn't even try

Wrong, negotiation continued throughout 2011.

 

[tinydancer]

2003? Bullshit.

Ok, so it was 2004 ...

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.

Oh piss off with the origins shit. We can go back to the Old Testament in every thread on Islam for crying out loud.

We are talking in the here and now. Baghdadi and his organization were part of AQ in Iraq. And they were nothing.

In Syria is where ISIS in its current form was born. And Bush and Cheney have had nothing to do with desperately wanting regime change in Syria that left the power vacuum for ISIS to become the monster we know today.

You are wrong again. What was being discussed when I joined the thread was the idiotic notion that Obama was to blame for ISIS. I merely pointed out that is impossible since ISIS formed in 2003 (later corrected to 2004).

It was Al Qaeda in Iraq. And they were chump change. Yes they have morphed thru many names and leaders.

But make no mistake. ISIS is an entirely different entity led by Baghdadi. AND came to be the most powerful and wealthiest terror group on the planet in Syria.

Assad could have handled them and al Nusra with ease if our bloody leaders hadn't been obsessed with deposing Assad and leaving this vacuum open so that these major terror groups could flourish. And this is a bi partisan rag here because my PM is Conservative as is Cameron.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

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.

Obama should have pursued further negotiations to allow for an extension.

But that of course was never going to happen. Don't you remember when he was against the Patraeus surge and introduced legislation to remove all troops from Iraq by 2008?

Senator Obama's legislation is on record.

What does that have to do with the idiotic notion that Bush would have kept troops there if he was still president?

Funny how you libs were pounding your chests over the pullout and now you want to disown it.

Bush would have done what needed to be done, meaning not giving up a strategic outpost in the ME just to get himself re-elected like Obama did. Reality isn't as much a consideration to Obama as is the political aspect.

The problem with your asshat Democrats is they could care less about anything if it doesn't keep them in their offices.

You're still full of shit. No, Bush would not have done "what needed to be done." We know this because he had the chance and still agreed to pull ALL of the troops out. You have absolutely no evidence (delusions don't count as evidence) that Bush would have reversed the policy he set forth, had he still been in office.

Again, Bush didn't pull them out. And you and I both know that since he wasn't in office at the time of the pullout he had no input in the ultimate decision.

You're hiding behind this false belief that Obama can't effect change and that everything Bush did was somehow irreversible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you kidding me?

Let me see if I understand the liberal "logic" here, Faun...

Because George W. Bush made the call to go into Iraq in 2003 when Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the UN sanctions that he'd agreed to following the first Gulf War...11 years later Bush is still responsible for the results of Barack Obama's naive foreign policy for the region? Bush is still responsible for Obama's decision NOT to leave a stabilizing force in Iraq even though both he and Obama's military leaders warned that not doing so would lead to EXACTLY what happened? Bush is responsible for Obama being totally caught by surprise as ISIS conquered half of Iraq in a matter of weeks?

When does Barry become responsible for Barry's fuck-ups? Six years after he leaves office? Never?

You know the answer to that.
They shall never blame their Secular Messiah for anything, and like good little useful idiots, they shall shout down anyone who dare try.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

You can blow up a house with a push of a button.

But it takes weeks or months to rebuild it.

Republicans won't let anyone rebuild anything. They failed so miserable under Bush, they want everyone to fail just so we can all be at the same level.

Six years of Obama Administration incompetence and you're STILL trying to blame Barry's failures on a guy who's chopping brush on a ranch in Texas!

Barry ignored advice on the situation and chose to do it HIS way! That's his right as President but when he does things HIS way then it's time to man up and take responsibility when he's as wrong as he's been with the complete troop pullout in Iraq.

How many of our soldiers would you have been willing to leave behind knowing they would be subject to the Iraqi justice system?

Not an issue. Obama didn't even try

Wrong, negotiation continued throughout 2011.

Half-hearted at best. He said he had no intention of staying. What good are negotiations when you're blasting to the world that our presence there is unwanted?