George Bush predicted exactly what would happen if we pulled troops from Iraq like Obama wanted.

page: 1
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Very well written article not only explaining Bush's strategy and why, after half a decade in, the "surge" worked, as well as what Obama Administration wanted to do, and done, didn't.

Of course I realize you cannot have US Troops stationed there in mass forever.


In early 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama was pushing a plan to pull U.S. forces out of Iraq and abort the “surge” strategy that had yet to take hold and end the raging sectarian struggle. President George W. Bush believed that a precipitate U.S. troop pullout would lead to increased chaos, bloodshed, and eventual terrorist victories. Given the recent dramatic events in Iraq, it looks like Mr. Bush knew what he was talking about

Mr. Bush was busy defending his politically unpopular but militarily daring plan to implement the surge. On May 1, 2007, at an address to a CENTCOM Coalition Conference at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, he explained why he thought it would be a mistake to abandon the surge strategy and immediately withdraw U.S. combat forces. He said that the option proposed by people like Senators Obama, Clinton and Biden was to “pull back from [Baghdad] before the Iraqis could defend themselves against these radicals and extremists and death squads and killers. That risked turning Iraq into a cauldron of chaos.” He explained that “the enemies of freedom, love chaos. Out of that chaos they could find new safe havens. Withdrawal would have emboldened these radicals and extremists. It would have confirmed their belief that our nations were weak. It would help them gain new recruits, new resources. It would cause them to believe they could strike free nations at their choice.”


buzzpo.com...




posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I wonder . . .

perhaps the PTB shared the script with him . . .

Sigh.


+16 more 
posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Or maybe he could have chosen not to invade Iraq in the first place and lie to congress, the UN, and the American people to do so? Why is it the republicans can say "HA! TOLD YOU SO!" when it's their war that caused this cluster# in the first place?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

True dat.
Republicans. The ultimate spin-masters..



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Of course Bush knew what would happen. Anyone with a little common sense could have came to the same conclusion.

The real issue at hand here is if we have learned anything from this.

Indeed, we have. We learned that it's best to not stick our noses in other people's affairs and we should have never gone in the first place.

Wonder if Bush was wise enough to catch that.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Last time I checked, my friends were still fighting overseas in Iraq....when did this supposed pull-out occur?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
So let me get this straight. Bush doesn't so much poke a hornet's nest with a stick, but rather bludgeons it with a baseball bat by sending our troops into Iraq. Shortly, after getting there we are told that the mission is accomplished then proceed to sit in the country for another 6 years while terrorists surge into the country and just kill our soldiers and civilians like sitting ducks. Then when Americans are finally sick of this charade and demand pullout, Bush makes a declaration that pulling out now will cause the area to descend into chaos (literally stating the obvious). Then when that happens, the Republicans say "I told you so!"

I wonder what other painfully obvious pearls of wisdom Bush has for us as well. Next he'll be telling us that blowing up dams causes flooding and destabilizes whole ecosystems while uprooting tons of people. You know if the Republicans (or any other politician left or right for that matter) wants us to be there so badly, they can get off their old wrinkled asses, pick up a gun, and go themselves.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: CALGARIAN

If you don't commit to occupation troops forever then you commit to letting locals take over when you leave.

It's just that simple.

Who still talks about "hearts and minds"? No one, because that was another key failed premise of this operation.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247




Of course Bush knew what would happen. Anyone with a little common sense could have came to the same conclusion.


His father knew it too, which is why he chose not to initiate regime change after the first gulf war. I'm not sure where you'd look to dig it up, but there are quotes out there from Dick Cheney (ironically enough) shortly after operation Desert Storm in which he defends Bush Sr.'s decision not to topple Saddam by pointing out everything we are now currently dealing with, and indicating Saddam's forces had been neutered. They remained neutered under crippling sanctions and constant airstrikes during the Clinton era, and Iraq posed ZERO threat to the United States or it's allies. The whole world knew this (everyone except for the Americans and the British, apparently) and there were massive protests in major cities all around the world leading up to the invasion under Bush jr.

That didn't make one lick of difference though, and Dubya went in guns blazing anyways. Well, low and behold, Iraq fractured into 3 major pieces (Kurds, Sunni, and Shiites) just as predicted, and the lack of infrastructure from extensive bombing by the U.S and a cohesive and strong central government just fanned the flames of violence in the country. It cost not only countless Iraqi lives, but thousands of American lives as well (to say nothing of the thousands more that came back with missing limbs or disabilities, or emotional scars that would never heal).

Now Bush's old supporters are going to try and pull the "told you so" card? That's ballsy.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
here's what was being talked about in 2004 on ATS about this very thing
www.abovetopsecret.com...

people here knew this was a clusterf**k back in 2004...the year that bush won his second term



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: CALGARIAN

what happened to MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph




Or maybe he could have chosen not to invade Iraq in the first place and lie to congress, the UN, and the American people to do so? Why is it the republicans can say "HA! TOLD YOU SO!" when it's their war that caused this cluster# in the first place?


Link

And PLEASE spare me the tired vast republican conspiracy crap. For example if a sitting Senator can be duped into voting wrongly by GW Bush what does it say about the investigative powers of that Senator. Someone so easily lead down the path should not ever be running a country, or a Senate seat.

And, at least Bush went to Congress.



Senate Roll Call: Iraq Resolution
Friday, October 11, 2002


Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator voted on President Bush's Iraq resolution. A "yes" vote was a vote to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally. A "no" vote was a vote to defeat the measure. Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans. Voting "no" were 1 Republican, 21 Democrats, and 1 Independent.

Alabama Jeff Sessions (R): Yes Richard Shelby (R): Yes
Alaska Frank Murkowski (R): Yes Ted Stevens (R): Yes
Arizona Jon Kyl (R): Yes John McCain (R): Yes
Arkansas Tim Hutchinson (R): Yes Blanche Lincoln (D): Yes
California Barbara Boxer (D): No Dianne Feinstein (D): Yes
Colorado Wayne Allard (R): Yes Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R): Yes
Connecticut Christopher Dodd (D): Yes Joseph Lieberman (D): Yes
Delaware Joseph Biden (D): Yes Thomas Carper (D): Yes
Florida Bob Graham (D): No Bill Nelson (D): Yes
Georgia Max Cleland (D): Yes Zell Miller (D): Yes
Hawaii Daniel Akaka (D): No Daniel Inouye (D): No
Idaho Larry Craig (R): Yes Mike Crapo (R): Yes
Illinois Richard Durbin (D): No Peter Fitzgerald (R): Yes
Indiana Evan Bayh (D): Yes Richard Lugar (R): Yes
Iowa Charles Grassley (R): Yes Tom Harkin (D): Yes
Kansas Sam Brownback (R): Yes Pat Roberts (R): Yes
Kentucky Jim Bunning (R): Yes Mitch McConnell (R): Yes
Louisiana John Breaux (D): Yes Mary Landrieu (D): Yes
Maine Susan Collins (R): Yes Olympia Snowe (R): Yes
Maryland Barbara Mikulski (D): No Paul Sarbanes (D): No
Massachusetts Edward Kennedy (D): No John Kerry (D): Yes
Michigan Debbie Stabenow (D): No Carl Levin (D): No
Minnesota Mark Dayton (D): No Paul Wellstone (D): No
Mississippi Thad Cochran (R): Yes Trent Lott (R): Yes
Missouri Jean Carnahan (D): Yes Christopher (Kit) Bond (R): Yes
Montana Max Baucus (D): Yes Conrad Burns (R): Yes
Nebraska Chuck Hagel (R): Yes Ben Nelson (D): Yes
Nevada John Ensign (R): Yes Harry Reid (D): Yes
New Hampshire Judd Gregg (R): Yes Bob Smith (R): Yes
New Jersey Jon Corzine (D): No Robert Torricelli (D): Yes
New Mexico Jeff Bingaman (D): No Pete Domenici (R): Yes
New York Hillary Clinton (D): Yes Charles Schumer (D): Yes
North Carolina John Edwards (D): Yes Jesse Helms (R): Yes
North Dakota Kent Conrad (D): No Byron Dorgan (D): Yes
Ohio Mike DeWine (R): Yes George Voinovich (R): Yes
Oklahoma James Inhofe (R): Yes Don Nickles (R): Yes
Oregon Gordon Smith (R): Yes Ron Wyden (D): No
Pennsylvania Rick Santorum (R): Yes Arlen Specter (R): Yes
Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee (R): No Jack Reed (D): No
South Carolina Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D): Yes Strom Thurmond (R): Yes
South Dakota Thomas Daschle (D): Yes Tim Johnson (D): Yes
Tennessee Bill Frist (R): Yes Fred Thompson (R): Yes
Texas Phil Gramm (R): Yes Kay Bailey Hutchison (R): Yes
Utah Robert Bennett (R): Yes Orrin Hatch (R): Yes
Vermont James Jeffords (I): No Patrick Leahy (D): No
Virginia George Allen (R): Yes John Warner (R): Yes
Washington Maria Cantwell (D): Yes Patty Murray (D): No
West Virginia Robert Byrd (D): No Jay Rockefeller (D): Yes
Wisconsin Russell Feingold (D): No Herb Kohl (D): Yes
Wyoming Mike Enzi (R): Yes Craig Thomas (R): Yes

© 2002 The Washington Post Company
edit on 17-6-2014 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
That's just public consumption material imo.
Bush & Obama have been following a longer term goal, which is much larger in scope than Iraq.
Gotta step back and see the big picture.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

Good point. Democrats were equally culpable by sheer force of ignorance.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
All i see is happening is that obama is creating incubators for terrorists that will be strong enough to reign holy hell upon us soil right about the time his second term ended making the usa a un rulable mess. Mission accomplish. The world most successful terrorist in human history. Use your enemies weapons against themselves.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

On that we totally agree. The question for me if it is willful ignorance.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

True. However, Iraq would have fell just like Libya and Egypt etc..
No?

(Of course NATO sped it up)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: CALGARIAN

If he "saw it coming", why did he, in 2008, sign the treaty which required a pullout of all troops by the end of 2011? Obama merely complied with the treaty Bush signed.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy
a reply to: CALGARIAN

If he "saw it coming", why did he, in 2008, sign the treaty which required a pullout of all troops by the end of 2011? Obama merely complied with the treaty Bush signed.



Once again Obama can't have it both ways. Obama takes credit for the pullout and now that things are dicy he is spinning it as another Bush's fault. The treaty which ended USA involvement by 2011 could have very easily been modified by a President with a phone and a pen. Obama choose not to.
edit on 17-6-2014 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: DeadSeraph

On that we totally agree. The question for me if it is willful ignorance.


I believe it was, personally. It's awfully convenient that the democrats and republicans get to blame each other when they switch office. It's like the incoming president has a blank check to blame the last guy for his first term, regardless of any policies implemented. They just point the finger at each other in public and laugh about it behind closed doors. All the major gaffes the U.S is guilty of throughout the last 50 years were joint efforts by both parties, from Vietnam to Iraq.

I still find it repugnant that anyone could hold up Bush's predictions of a troop pullout from Iraq as evidence of much of anything, however. Especially when this outcome was predicted before the U.S invaded in the first place (as was the lack of WMD's, or Iraq's ability to threaten the U.S with them).

I hope I don't come across as a blind democrat/obama supporter, because I personally believe both parties are batting for the same team (mainly: the military industrial complex, globalism, and multinational corporate interests).





new topics




 
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join