So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.

I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.

You were repeatedly warned of the dangers in ignoring the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and you would have no part of it. Nothing was going to do until you ended the war and destroyed Bush. So we abandoned the War on Terror, we abandoned the few people over there who were helping us build democracy and restore peace, and we moved toward your policies of appeasement and diplomacy. Now we're paying the price for not eliminating the threat when we had the chance.

Where are the WMDs? Well it turns out they were in Syria, where Saddam's WMD technology is currently being deployed. Actual chem/bio weapons have short shelf life, but the technology is what was important and it all went to Syria.

Radical Islam is not a joke. It wasn't something to take lightly. It certainly wasn't something that should have been turned into a political football for the purpose of bringing down a president. But.... that's our history in this country! We are constantly following the liberal heart and then having to pay the price in the end with more loss of life and greater wars.

ISIS roots trace back to 2003 because we invaded Iraq. How is Bush not responsible for that. Bush opened Pandora's box; in my opinion, he's responsible for whatever happens in that region, good or bad. Bush made the decision to go into Iraq -- he owns it lock, stock and barrel.

Bush responded to 9-11 by going after the terrorists. He maintained those efforts for as long as he could amid the relentless growing calls for his head from the left. It literally cost him his reputation and legacy as president. The administration remained committed to a policy of fighting and killing radical upstarts like ISIS before they could get a foothold from our bases in Iraq. We killed thousands of them in the few years we were there.

Yes, Bush made the decision to go into Iraq and to this day, he believes he made the right decision. I also believe he made the right decision but executed it poorly. I wouldn't have given Saddam Hussein nearly a year going through a kabuki dance with the UN. That was stupid. If he posed an imminent threat, take his ass out. We have the technology and ability to do that. All Bush did was give his adversaries time to work the stupid masses into an anti-war frenzy and that killed him.

But now... we're down the road a decade since we essentially threw in the towel on the war on terror and the radical fundies are taking over. We've followed the idiotic left-wing policy of appeasement and negotiation, diplomatically sending Kerry over there to make things right and it has all blown up in his mashed potato face because these people are at war with us. Hundreds are being executed daily in the most heinous and barbaric manner and the leftist stand there with their finger in their nose and blame it on BUSH!

Bush went after Saddam, not terrorists.

He was also going after a second term.

 

[SAYIT]

Hundreds are being executed daily in the most heinous and barbaric manner and the leftist stand there with their finger in their nose and blame it on BUSH!

Bush went after Saddam, not terrorists.

He was also going after a second term.

So you are claiming it was politically motivated and not the personal vendetta another loony leftist claimed just a few posts ago? Maybe you guys should huddle up and coordinate your stories and while you are at it, perhaps you should find something that substantiates it.

 

[Boss]

I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online

Maybe if you had in 2003 you would have heard liberals saying IF YOU INVADE IRAQ YOU WILL CREATE MORE TERRORISTS.

I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.

You were repeatedly warned of the dangers in ignoring the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and you would have no part of it.

Saddam Hussein wasn't a radical Islamic terrorist you fucking moron, he was a secular dictator. The people he was gassing were the fundamentalist Islamics! You are one seriously ignorant moron. Its unbelievable to me that people like you can be this ill informed and stupid about the whole Iraq thing over ten years later. We have the INTERNETS nowadays, surely by now you could have read up on things. You should seriously consider taking up some sort of hobby to distract you from politics, because your grey matter is no good.

What created more terrorists was abandoning Iraq and embarking on a policy of "leave them alone" or stick our head in the sand and pretend there isn't a problem.

The people Saddam was gassing were Kurds. I happen to know Iraqi Kurds and they tell me the Kurds were the least radical of all factions in Iraq, most of them being Christians or secular. The Kurds are the most 'westernized' people outside of Israel in the entire region.

Saddam wasn't a radical Islamic but he was a terrorist. When you gas 300k of your own people to death, you are a textbook terrorist. He had the potential and ability to share his WMD technology with the terrorists and we now know that's exactly what he did in the run-up to the war. All his technology went to Syria where it is being used today by the terrorists.

 

[Boss]

Hundreds are being executed daily in the most heinous and barbaric manner and the leftist stand there with their finger in their nose and blame it on BUSH!

Bush went after Saddam, not terrorists.

He was also going after a second term.

So you are claiming it was politically motivated and not the personal vendetta another loony leftist claimed just a few posts ago? Maybe you guy should huddle up and coordinate your stories and while you are at it, perhaps you should find something that substantiates it.

Give 'em a minute... they've not rolled out "all about the oil" yet!

 

[SAYIT]

So you are claiming it was politically motivated and not the personal vendetta another loony leftist claimed just a few posts ago? Maybe you guy should huddle up and coordinate your stories and while you are at it, perhaps you should find something that substantiates it.

Give 'em a minute... they've not rolled out "all about the oil" yet!

Yanno, that's the one story that makes sense. Mideast oil is critical to the survival of a lot of people on the planet and allowing one megalomaniac (or a terrorist cabal) to dictate its fate would have catastrophic results.

 

[hipeter924]

Not strictly true, to blame ISIS on a single President. If you want the roots of ISIS, you have to go to the roots of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The Taliban were funded by Pakistan, and Bin Laden was trained and supported by then President Reagan (and later Presidents) till the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan.

Later, Bush Sr invaded Iraq (after Saddam invaded Kuwait) and devastated the country, though strangely never toppled Saddam and left him in power.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda diversified and helped establish or train numerous terrorist groups throughout the world, while encouraging lone wolf terrorists as well.

When Bush Jr invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam, the already weakened Iraqi military was disbanded along with Saddam's security forces.

As a result, Al Qaeda had its first chance (since the war in Afghanistan) to fight off 'Christian crusaders', and terrorists from across the region and the world came to join in the bloodbath.

Eventually they met their match, but not before they had gained enough experience and followers, and built up plenty of affiliates, including what would become Al-Nusra Front and ISIL.

When America under Obama, among other countries started supporting or funding Arab Spring revolts, they didn't anticipate the strength and determination of terrorist groups.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hundreds are being executed daily in the most heinous and barbaric manner and the leftist stand there with their finger in their nose and blame it on BUSH!

Bush went after Saddam, not terrorists.

He was also going after a second term.

So you are claiming it was politically motivated and not the personal vendetta another loony leftist claimed just a few posts ago? Maybe you guys should huddle up and coordinate your stories and while you are at it, perhaps you should find something that substantiates it.

It was political clearly, the invasion planned before 9/11.

 

[SAYIT]

Hundreds are being executed daily in the most heinous and barbaric manner and the leftist stand there with their finger in their nose and blame it on BUSH!

Bush went after Saddam, not terrorists.

He was also going after a second term.

So you are claiming it was politically motivated and not the personal vendetta another loony leftist claimed just a few posts ago? Maybe you guys should huddle up and coordinate your stories and while you are at it, perhaps you should find something that substantiates it.

It was political clearly, the invasion planned before 9/11.

Camel crap. Contingency plans are part of any administration's job. It is far more likely that protecting the world's access to Mideast oil is what motivates our policies and plans.

 

[Boss]

Hundreds are being executed daily in the most heinous and barbaric manner and the leftist stand there with their finger in their nose and blame it on BUSH!

Bush went after Saddam, not terrorists.

He was also going after a second term.

So you are claiming it was politically motivated and not the personal vendetta another loony leftist claimed just a few posts ago? Maybe you guys should huddle up and coordinate your stories and while you are at it, perhaps you should find something that substantiates it.

It was political clearly, the invasion planned before 9/11.

Camel crap. Contingency plans are part of any administration's job. It is far more likely that protecting the world's access to Mideast oil is what motivates our policies and plans.

If we invaded Iraq for oil, why didn't we take any of it?

It's hard to argue that oil isn't a vital US interest in the Middle East but that isn't ever our motivation for going to war. If so, we'd stomp everybody's ass over there and take their damn oil. Instead, we continue to pay the price THEY decide to charge us for the oil THEY produce.

 

[Boss]

It was political clearly, the invasion planned before 9/11.

Not according to every General who was involved in the planning. Yes, we do have contingency plans for every possible scenario. We have a plan right now for invading Russia... doesn't mean we're planning on using it.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for political advantage. It instantly made him a very unpopular president and that unpopularity exists to this very day, so if that was his idea it was really stupid and shortsighted.

Saddam posed a threat, he had been posing a threat for some time. In fact, he was so much of a threat that congress, with Bill Clinton's blessing, adopted the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, calling for the replacing of Saddam's regime with a democracy. This was YEARS before Bush took office.

 

[SAYIT]

Bush went after Saddam, not terrorists.

He was also going after a second term.

So you are claiming it was politically motivated and not the personal vendetta another loony leftist claimed just a few posts ago? Maybe you guys should huddle up and coordinate your stories and while you are at it, perhaps you should find something that substantiates it.

It was political clearly, the invasion planned before 9/11.

Camel crap. Contingency plans are part of any administration's job. It is far more likely that protecting the world's access to Mideast oil is what motivates our policies and plans.

If we invaded Iraq for oil, why didn't we take any of it?

It's hard to argue that oil isn't a vital US interest in the Middle East but that isn't ever our motivation for going to war. If so, we'd stomp everybody's ass over there and take their damn oil. Instead, we continue to pay the price THEY decide to charge us for the oil THEY produce.

I didn't say we hit Saddam to get Iraq's oil. I said we protect the world's access to Mideast oil and Saddam was - or at least tried to be - a threat to that access.
While Mideast oil is no longer directly critical to the US, a global economic depression caused by the loss of Mideast oil would certainly damage the world's biggest economy.

 

[Boss]

He was also going after a second term.

So you are claiming it was politically motivated and not the personal vendetta another loony leftist claimed just a few posts ago? Maybe you guys should huddle up and coordinate your stories and while you are at it, perhaps you should find something that substantiates it.

It was political clearly, the invasion planned before 9/11.

Camel crap. Contingency plans are part of any administration's job. It is far more likely that protecting the world's access to Mideast oil is what motivates our policies and plans.

If we invaded Iraq for oil, why didn't we take any of it?

It's hard to argue that oil isn't a vital US interest in the Middle East but that isn't ever our motivation for going to war. If so, we'd stomp everybody's ass over there and take their damn oil. Instead, we continue to pay the price THEY decide to charge us for the oil THEY produce.

I didn't say we hit Saddam to get Iraq's oil. I said we protect the world's access to Mideast oil and Saddam was - or at least tried to be - a threat to that access.
While Mideast oil is no longer directly critical to the US, a global economic depression caused by the loss of Mideast oil would certainly damage the world's biggest economy.

Protecting the access? Well what do you think they will do with oil other than sell it to nations who need oil? If you removed ALL of Iraq's oil supply from the market (which we did for several months as the oil wells burned) it wouldn't make much difference in the world supply of oil. Someone, somewhere, is ALWAYS going to sell their oil. Because... what the hell else are they going to do with it?

Now.... We can say that ONE of the underlying reasons we want to have peace and stability across the ME is to protect the flow of oil... that's a valid point, but that is NOT our deciding factor when it comes to sending troops to fight a war. Never has been, never will be.

 

[Faun]

except that Iraq wasn't a threat to us, was not supporting Al Qaeda, did not have weapons of Mass destruction. But Bush wanted to get Saddam for humiliating his daddy.

Iraq was a proven threat to peace in the area. His minions met with alQaeda 88 times in three years. He sent Fauriq Haziz to Afghanistan to meet with OBL a year before 9-11. He had WMDs and the technology ended up in Syria where it is being utilized today.

No president, democrat or republican, would EVER take the nation to war in order to satisfy a personal vendetta. This is mad! Just to consider this a possibility is totally INSANE!

The problem is, YOU see it as this kind of global struggle, but the people we are fighting don't. They see it as Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurd with their own agendas. No one was really working for "Democracy". They were taking advantage of the chaos Bush caused. The winners were ISIL and Iran.

No, we see by your previous comment that you are INSANE. That's the problem... a good 40-45% of the country is INSANE. You've been brainwashed by morons to believe total insanity and you've become unhinged from reality.

Planes flew into buildings on 9-11 and 3,000 people died... not because it was Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurds with their own agendas. ISIS and Iran are winners because we abandoned Iraq and left a power vacuum.

Guy, if we left the Muslims alone, they'll leave us alone. You are like a guy who sticks his dick in a hornet's nest and then complains about getting stung.

Guy... Radical Islamist Extremists have executed more English-speaking people in the past year than any time in recorded history. This is after nearly 8 years of following the policy of "leaving them alone" ...so again, you are INSANE.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11 and who is Fauriq Haziz? Google turns up nothing. Did you mean Farouk Hijazi? If it is, I see no evidence he met with bin Laden in 2000.

 

[SAYIT]

So you are claiming it was politically motivated and not the personal vendetta another loony leftist claimed just a few posts ago? Maybe you guys should huddle up and coordinate your stories and while you are at it, perhaps you should find something that substantiates it.

It was political clearly, the invasion planned before 9/11.

Camel crap. Contingency plans are part of any administration's job. It is far more likely that protecting the world's access to Mideast oil is what motivates our policies and plans.

If we invaded Iraq for oil, why didn't we take any of it?

It's hard to argue that oil isn't a vital US interest in the Middle East but that isn't ever our motivation for going to war. If so, we'd stomp everybody's ass over there and take their damn oil. Instead, we continue to pay the price THEY decide to charge us for the oil THEY produce.

I didn't say we hit Saddam to get Iraq's oil. I said we protect the world's access to Mideast oil and Saddam was - or at least tried to be - a threat to that access.
While Mideast oil is no longer directly critical to the US, a global economic depression caused by the loss of Mideast oil would certainly damage the world's biggest economy.

Protecting the access? Well what do you think they will do with oil other than sell it to nations who need oil? If you removed ALL of Iraq's oil supply from the market (which we did for several months as the oil wells burned) it wouldn't make much difference in the world supply of oil. Someone, somewhere, is ALWAYS going to sell their oil. Because... what the hell else are they going to do with it?

Now.... We can say that ONE of the underlying reasons we want to have peace and stability across the ME is to protect the flow of oil... that's a valid point, but that is NOT our deciding factor when it comes to sending troops to fight a war. Never has been, never will be.

Again, what I said is that it's "far more likely" (than politics or vendetta) "that protecting the world's access to Mideast oil is what motivates our policies and plans." What do you believe to be our agenda in the region?

 

[AmericanFirst1]

And when they were at war, it was our fault. Using Uncle Saddam as a proxy against Iran, telling him Kuwait border was no interest of ours, making up mushroom clouds...oh, not our fault, the New BS GOP's fault.

You still spouting off retard? Take some Imodium. Idiot dupe.

 

[tigerred59]

First it was the Taliban, then it was Alqueda, now its ISIS....same sand negro's, just a different name....and Yes George W. Lush is responsible!!!!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11517170

Where are the WMDs? Well it turns out they were in Syria, where Saddam's WMD technology is currently being deployed.

. You certainly just made that up out of nothing. Why should anyone respect or accept the rest of your biased and unsupportable argument?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11517170

. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.

Is Senator Rand Paul and Republican presidential candidate a part of Liberalmania?

How about Fox News reporting this:

'They created these people': Rand Paul blames GOP hawks ...
www.foxnews.com/.../rand-paul-blames-gop-hawks-f...

Rand Paul on Wednesday said it was Republican hawks like John McCain and Lindsey Graham who helped give rise to ISIS. “ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS,” the presidential candidate told Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe. (Paul made the same claim to The Daily Beast's Olivia Nuzzi last September.)

Without Bush kicking UN inspectors out of Iraq and starting a dumb war there would have been no Al Qaeda in Iraq and Sunnis would still be in control of the government there. Hence it is a fact that Bush gave rise to AQI and its current offshoot ISIS.

That is not liberalmania. It is reality and a recognition of cause and effect clearly documented in history.

• 
  

• 
  

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11517170

Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.

If you supported invading Iraq in March 2003 then you supported kicking UN inspectors out in order to start a dumb war. There was no 'reasoning' at all regarding Iraq in March 2003 that we were invading Iraq to "kill them now" instead of "dealing with them later" if "them" to you is "radical Islam" since there was no 'radical Islam in Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq when the UN Inspectors were there doing their job to verify that Iraq had no WMD and none was being found. Bush was not authorized by Congress to Invade in order to "Kill Radical Terrorists now" so we would not have to deal with them later. If the AUMF of October 2002 was to authorize killing radical terrorists in Iraq there was no need for Bush to go to the UN and request that the UN Begin WMD inspections again.

That is a myth. A very sick myth.

 

[francoHFW]

And when they were at war, it was our fault. Using Uncle Saddam as a proxy against Iran, telling him Kuwait border was no interest of ours, making up mushroom clouds...oh, not our fault, the New BS GOP's fault.

You still spouting off retard? Take some Imodium. Idiot dupe.

Any actual argument, dumbass? Sorry I actually know what I'm talking about, not being an brainwashed, confused ignoramus.