No. The U.S. leaving Iraq is what gave ISIS its chance, which it is now contesting with Iran for dominance of the region.The US going in to Iraq is what created ISIS - not their leaving it. .
If you don’t understand, let me make it clear for you. What about Bush’s statement do you find wrong—other than it comes from Bush.What?
No, I didn’t understand; thank you for making it clear. Better punctuation helped.If you don’t understand, let me make it clear for you. What about Bush’s statement do you find wrong—other than it comes from Bush.
I think eventually Saddam Hussein will be regarded as the greater threat than ISIS. If one looks at all the countries that opposed Saddam with treasure, weapons and lives, and then look at the present situation in which the only serious opponent of ISIS is Iran, and perhaps then only to the extent of the Shiite areas, it is pretty plain the world saw Saddam as the more serious threat.Headline: 2019 Obama criticizes Bush middle east policy at Muslim donor meeting…
Yawn.
Normally I would throw stones and think Bush was being tacky. Ignoring the unspoken pact of former presidents. BUT if anyone can understand tacky cheap shots it would be Obama.
Either way the middle east is worse now than ever. And part of that is Obama’s fault and part of that is Bush’s fault. And part of that is Clinton’s fault and part of that is Reagan’s fault. But as for the danger and upcoming tragedies that WILL happen in this region, I blame Obama and Bush for the vast majority of it and in that order.
If we have to go that way, then we can just blame it all on Sarah sending Hagar away. No, the Muslim Brotherhood has existed for decades and so for that matter has Al Qaeda. ISIS might have made use of them, but there is no way the people on the playing cards would have been leading a band of bloodthirsty criminals if they had not suffered the indignity of being kicked out of power in favor of those they previously lorded it over.No. The U.S. leaving Iraq is what gave ISIS its chance, which it is now contesting with Iran for dominance of the region.
ISIS is an offshoot of Al Quaeda, which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. There are lots of others, but their ideology is the same. Only their leaders change. Their ideology was fully developed before G.W. Bush was born.
So, the US should have continued to support the corrupt dictator of Egypt. That’s what went wrong?I’m glad President Bush spoke up.
We are not totally withdrawing troops from Afghanistan because we see what a disaster the policy starting in 2009 or whenever it was to withdraw troops from Iraq.
Then, we asked president Mubarak to step down, the whole Middle East has been a catastrophe with the Arab spring.
It’s sad that so many Christians and indeed others have died and you see how important American Leadership is, in this vacuum, up rose ISIS, yet we have an administration more prone to criticize Christianity.
The “people on the playing cards” DID lead a band of bloodthirsty criminals and were bloodthirsty criminals themselves. Who do you think organized and carried out the acid baths, the rape rooms, the killings of children in front of their parents, the mass executions in the deserts, the gassing of Iranians and Kurds? Indignity? They deserved the indignity of the hangman’s noose.If we have to go that way, then we can just blame it all on Sarah sending Hagar away. No, the Muslim Brotherhood has existed for decades and so for that matter has Al Qaeda. ISIS might have made use of them, but there is no way the people on the playing cards would have been leading a band of bloodthirsty criminals if they had not suffered the indignity of being kicked out of power in favor of those they previously lorded it over.
Bush owns this and it might just be his guilty conscience talking. Would it be better if American soldiers’ blood was being spilled instead of innocent Iraqis, Syrians and foreign hostages? A surge (not sustainable over time) and outright bribery (paying the tribal leaders) is what bought a precarious lull in the carnage. The ousted generals and their own were just biding their time. Time is what wins wars (or should I say, ‘shifts the balance of power’ - since the strife doesn’t really end) in those parts of the world. Same story with Afghanistan: never been conquered because time is what wears outsiders down over and over again. When presuming to march out against the world, it would behoove one to open a history book first…
One supposes those who wax so wistful about the merits of Saddam Hussein’s rule in order to bash Bush, would think so except for their antipathy toward any ally of the U.S.So, the US should have continued to support the corrupt dictator of Egypt. That’s what went wrong?
The question of whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were prudent is certainly one that reasonable people can debate. The one thing that cannot be debated is that those who will be paying for it (our grandchildren) were left out of the decision making process. I think it is called taxation without representation.One supposes those who wax so wistful about the merits of Saddam Hussein’s rule in order to bash Bush, would think so except for their antipathy toward any ally of the U.S.
If Mubarak had spewed hatred against the U.S., and particularly if he had allowed Russia to establish bases in Egypt, they would have loved him.
It certainly is true that the unborn and even children do not vote.The question of whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were prudent is certainly one that reasonable people can debate. The one thing that cannot be debated is that those who will be paying for it (our grandchildren) were left out of the decision making process. I think it is called taxation without representation.
Remedying the situation would have been extremely simple. Just make those who favor the war to pay an extra surcharge on their taxes. There is nothing morally redeeming about supporting government programs that other people have to pay for,It certainly is true that the unborn and even children do not vote.
There is very little to do of a practical matter to remedy that situation.
We’ve also had a blame the Jews post. I suspect the Fox News is evil post will not be far behindThat was fast! It took only one minute for the hate Bush rhetoric to begin the tag team.
I offer the following: President George W. Bush has earned his legacy as one of the greatest American Presidents AND the last true Commander in Chief until 2016 brings another leader to the U.S.:clapping::clapping:
He broke his resolve to not comment on a sitting Pres performance because he loves the United States and is acutely aware of the dangerous conditions that have been allowed to develop under this Administrations leaderless conduct.
Christians are under attack and we need to speak out and defend all good people.
Back in the days when the left was screaming about the Bush tax cuts I had a weekly tax advice show on a local radio station . I had a standing offer to prepare for free the tax returns of anybody was opposed to the Bush tax cuts as long as they let me prepare their return using the rates in effect before his cuts . I never had any takersRemedying the situation would have been extremely simple. Just make those who favor the war to pay an extra surcharge on their taxes. There is nothing morally redeeming about supporting government programs that other people have to pay for,
And all of the other things that tax payer dollars fund, the billions in debt the US government is. This would also mean one could have the option for paying for space programs, aid to citizens and so on, national defense, national parks, everything in this line of reasoning.The question of whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were prudent is certainly one that reasonable people can debate. The one thing that cannot be debated is that those who will be paying for it (our grandchildren) were left out of the decision making process. I think it is called taxation without representation.
Why is it morally redeeming to support government spending that other people pay for? I actually didn’t say anything about the Bush tax cuts. The tax cuts would have been fine as long as he paid for them and didn’t increase spending on wars, socialized medicine, etc. In principle, I think the government should have a smaller claim on the taxpayer. But that should be paired with lower government spending.Back in the days when the left was screaming about the Bush tax cuts I had a weekly tax advice show on a local radio station . I had a standing offer to prepare for free the tax returns of anybody was opposed to the Bush tax cuts as long as they let me prepare their return using the rates in effect before his cuts . I never had any takers
True. No argument here.And all of the other things that tax payer dollars fund, the billions in debt the US government is. This would also mean one could have the option for paying for space programs, aid to citizens and so on, national defense, national parks, everything in this line of reasoning.