George W. Bush Bashes Obama on Middle East

[Path_Finder]

How about that, those Assyrians that were kidnapped were released, I don’t know if we ever heard about that.

IS releases all the Assyrian detainees

March 6, 2015
Assyrian military commander reported to SOHR that the IS released all the Assyrian detainees after Friday’s prayer, after he was informed by a brother of a judge in IS Sharia about the release. The commander confirmed to SOHR that the detainees are still in areas under ISIS control in al-Hasakah

syriahr.com/en/2015/03/is-releases-all-the-assyrian-detainees/

 

[Ridgerunner]

So, just because everyone does it that makes it acceptable? So the question is, why is making future generations pay for the wars better than paying for it ourselves? I realize that it has been done before, but so have abortions been done before, so that is not a moral justification.

I make no pretense of justifying or approving any war or using debt to pay for it. I am only observing that it has always been so and will always be so because war is too expensive to be paid for out of current revenues. One could make an argument for keeping a treasury surplus of very large proportions to pay for any future wars, as Frederick the Great did most of the time. But Frederick is remarked for it precisely because it was so unusual.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually, it appears that the wars could have been easily paid for by getting rid of the Bush tax cuts. That would have been a perfectly reasonable choice for the public to make, do you want a war or a tax cut? That would lead to a better decision than having both and making future generations pay for both.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/revisiting-the-cost-of-the-bush-tax-cuts/2011/05/09/AFxTFtbG_blog.html

Perhaps so. Indeed, with two wars going full blast, Bush began reducing the deficit about midway in his holding the office, and it was headed full tilt toward balance until 2008.

But that, in itself, doesn’t necessarily mean it would have been better had the cuts been put on hiatus until the end of the wars. One could even make the argument that had Bush been successful in cutting back and imposing discipline on FNMA and FHLMC early in his first term as he tried to do, the wars would have been paid for with only a short delay.

I have still not seen a persuasive argument for the proposition that tax increases must necessarily accompany the initiation of hostilities. Lyndon Johnson tried it later on during the Vietnam War with his 7 1/2% surtax, and there is absolutely no basis for believing that either the war or the economy turned out better because of that.

 

[Darryl1958]

To make someone pay for something that they had no say in is a betrayal. It is like a person that goes out to dinner and enjoys a fine meal and then sticks someone else with the check.

When it comes to the unborn, it is not as if parents are sticking it to a stranger. We are making the decision on behalf of our own flesh and blood.
It is not as if Americans do not have a vested interest in their own children.

The point is, there is no reason why we need to pass the cost off onto future generations.

That is a fiscal argument on the wisdom of borrowing, rather than an argument over ME policy per se.
Adults make decisions, and through electing both Bush and Obama, Americans made these decisions on behalf of their children and themselves.

 

[Darryl1958]

Did you know the treaty to pull out was signed during the Bush administration? Of course, it was flexible but it’s a bit more complex than your statement.

Also, the war is in Syria too, ISIS might not have risen to power likewise, if there hadn’t been a good 2-3 years of Sunnis being bombed in the first place.

I am quite sure that Bush dealt with that point in his OP address.

As for the situation in Iraq, it was stable throughout the Arab Spring leading up to the Syrian conflict.

 

[Path_Finder]

I am quite sure that Bush dealt with that point in his OP address.

As for the situation in Iraq, it was stable throughout the Arab Spring leading up to the Syrian conflict.

The deal was flexible and I know General Lloyd Austin, head of operations of the Iraq war wanted to leave a larger troop presence and was against leaving so soon.

I guess my point is that there is a lot to this.

 

[stinkcat_14]

When it comes to the unborn, it is not as if parents are sticking it to a stranger. We are making the decision on behalf of our own flesh and blood.
It is not as if Americans do not have a vested interest in their own children.

I would say that Americans have much to be embarrassed about concerning their behavior towards their own children. After all, would parents who care about their children keep electing politicians (dems and repubs) who will give them benefits that their children and grandchildren will have to pay for? That is not a sign of parents who are truly concerned for the welfare of their children. As an economist, I don’t care what people say, what I watch is what people do. When you look at the behavior of parents, you clearly see nothing but selfishness.

That is a fiscal argument on the wisdom of borrowing, rather than an argument over ME policy per se.
Adults make decisions, and through electing both Bush and Obama, Americans made these decisions on behalf of their children and themselves.

In both cases, they made bad decisions.

 

[seekerz]

Tell that to the Syrian Human Rights Commission.

ISIS executes at a much higher rate.: syriahr.com/en/2015/04/2154-people-executed-by-is-since-the-declaration-of-its-alleged-caliphate/

These despot governments you speak of do not just execute persons because they are Christian.

Nor are these governments involved in suicide bombings, etc.

Human Rights in the ME is a sad joke. If the rate at which they’re violated (or the religion of the people being violated) is the standard to which governments sworn to protect their people must be held…then things are probably even sadder than I thought.

 

[Mulligan2]

Is young George really in a position to lecture ?

He would be better served by keeping quiet. After 8 years of his presidency, his foreign policy was an unmitigated disaster, the economy was in tatters, and our country desperately needed a change in leadership and direction. He was, by far, the worst president of my lifetime. And that includes Nixon.

 

[Darryl1958]

Bush’s foreign policy at the end of his term was ultimately successful.
Iran was contained with American forces flanking both sides, in Iraq and Afghanistan, democracy established in Iraq, and Qaddafi acquiescing to full compliance with American demands to end any program involving weapons of mass destruction. Relationships with all of the major countries of the ME from Egypt to Saudi Arabia were strong, and El Quada had been largely contained and discredited across the Islamic world due to their barbaric excesses in Iraq. The Sunnis received their ‘tribute’ from America, and were thereby willing to support America against the Islamists, and tolerate the Shia majority in Iraq, and for their part, as long as America was present, Shia government in Iraq did not overreach in there relations with the Sunni minority.
The Iraqi Kurds on Turkeys southern flank were getting along with the lives without causing problems for Turkey

It was a long time coming, but the situation that Obama was handed by Bush was as good as any president might expect.

For his part, Obama displayed his utter incompetence from the starting gates by complicitly supporting the fascist theocracy of Iran against the democratic forces in that country that were stifled with no country lifting nary a finger to help them.

Bush quite correctly stepped out of the way for the past six years, and allowed Obama to put his own ideas into practice. Were it not for the fact that Iran is now going to have nuclear arms, Bush likely would still be biting his tongue. As it is, he is a decent man, and any decent man would blanch at the idea of what is now happening in the ME, under Obama’s extreme incompetence.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Bush’s foreign policy at the end of his term was ultimately successful.
Iran was contained with American forces flanking both sides, in Iraq and Afghanistan, democracy established in Iraq, and Qaddafi acquiescing to full compliance with American demands to end any program involving weapons of mass destruction. Relationships with all of the major countries of the ME from Egypt to Saudi Arabia were strong, and El Quada had been largely contained and discredited across the Islamic world due to their barbaric excesses in Iraq. The Sunnis received their ‘tribute’ from America, and were thereby willing to support America against the Islamists, and tolerate the Shia majority in Iraq, and for their part, as long as America was present, Shia government in Iraq did not overreach in there relations with the Sunni minority.
The Iraqi Kurds on Turkeys southern flank were getting along with the lives without causing problems for Turkey

It was a long time coming, but the situation that Obama was handed by Bush was as good as any president might expect.

For his part, Obama displayed his utter incompetence from the starting gates by complicitly supporting the fascist theocracy of Iran against the democratic forces in that country that were stifled with no country lifting nary a finger to help them.

Bush quite correctly stepped out of the way for the past six years, and allowed Obama to put his own ideas into practice. Were it not for the fact that Iran is now going to have nuclear arms, Bush likely would still be biting his tongue. As it is, he is a decent man, and any decent man would blanch at the idea of what is now happening in the ME, under Obama’s extreme incompetence.

I think the one thing we can agree on is that both Bush and Obama are two of the most incompetent presidents that we have ever had. It is debatable whether they were as bad as Carter, but beyond that there is nothing that either has done that was good for the country.

The one area where Bush was better than Obama, is that he faked being a conservative when he was nothing of the sort. After all, he further implemented socialized medicine in this country, increased spending dramatically and increased crony capitalism. Both of them saddled our grandchildren with a lot of debt.

 

[Darryl1958]

I think the one thing we can agree on is that both Bush and Obama are two of the most incompetent presidents that we have ever had.

No, I don’t agree that Bush was one of the most incompetent presidents, although that is very true about Obama. Bush on the economy was very bad though, and that had a lot to do with the Congress.

It is debatable whether they were as bad as Carter, but beyond that there is nothing that either has done that was good for the country.

Carter was a very disappointing president, and an even more egregious ex-president.

The one area where Bush was better than Obama, is that he faked being a conservative when he was nothing of the sort.

Compassionate conservativism is neither compassionate or conservative. It is a lesson that had to be learned by the American electorate.

After all, he further implemented socialized medicine in this country, increased spending dramatically and increased crony capitalism. Both of them saddled our grandchildren with a lot of debt.

Bush’s record on the domestic economy is what created the Tea Party as an antidote. That however is outside of the topic of Middle East policy, where Bush had already done the heavy lifting-at great expense in every meaning of the word expense- but nevertheless left the next president with something that could have been built upon.

 

[Mulligan2]

It was a long time coming, but the situation that Obama was handed by Bush was as good as any president might expect.

If that is true, then our standards are unconscionably low.

 

[Darryl1958]

If that is true, then our standards are unconscionably low.

Obviously.

Ergo, Obama x 2.

 

[Darryl1958]

danielpipes.org/15722/decoding-the-obama-doctrine
Excellent analysis of what Obama is all about by Daniel Pipes.

The Obama Doctrine is simple and universal: Warm relations with adversaries and cool them with friends.

Several assumptions underlie this approach: The U.S. government morally must compensate for its prior errors. Smiling at hostile states will inspire them to reciprocate. Using force creates more problems than it solves. Historic U.S. allies, partners, and helpers are morally inferior accessories. In the Middle East, this means reaching out to revisionists (Erdoğan, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Republic of Iran) and pushing away cooperative governments (Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia).

Of these actors, two stand out: Iran and Israel. Establishing good relations with Tehran appears to be Obama’s great preoccupation. As Michael Doran of the Hudson Institute has shown, Obama during his entire presidency has worked toward rendering Iran what he calls “a very successful regional power … abiding by international norms and international rules.” Contrarily, his pre-presidential friendships with truculent anti-Zionists such as Ali Abunimah, Rashid Khalidi, and Edward Said point to the depth of his hostility toward the Jewish state.

This is what Obama is all about. This is what the left is all about.

Whether this is going to be what America is all about will be determined in 2016. If the electorate does not repudiate this policy, this will in effect be the new norm for American foreign policy.