Bush/Cheney Created Conditions That Led Directly to ISIL

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bush/Cheney Created Conditions That Led Directly to ISIL

It takes a lot of gall for people like ####### 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-Baathification 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.

And after all, contrary to ####### Cheney's absurd assertion that U.S. forces would be greeted in Iraq as "liberators," no one likes a foreign nation to occupy their country.

The War did more than any propagandist could possibly do to radicalize vulnerable young people. And by setting off wave after wave of sectarian slaughter it created blood feuds that will never be forgiven.

The Iraq War -- and the Sunni power vacuum caused first by U.S. policies and then Al Maliki -- created the perfect conditions that allowed a vicious band of extremists to take huge swaths of territory.

And now many of the same people who caused this foreign policy disaster have the audacity to criticize President Obama's measured efforts to clean up the mess they created. And they do so often without ever saying what they themselves would do to solve the horrific problems that they created.

It reminds you of a bunch of arsonists standing at the scene of a fire criticizing the techniques used by the firefighters who are trying to extinguish the blaze they themselves have set.

Oh, they say: "If you had just left a residual force after the withdrawal of U.S. troops everything would be hunky dory."

Do they really think that several thousand U.S. troops would have solved Iraq's problems when hundreds of thousands failed to do so?

And of course they conveniently forget to mention that neither the Iraqi's nor the U.S. voters wanted a "residual" force to remain in Iraq. And they forget that the Iraqi government would not agree to conditions that would allow a "residual" force to be stationed in Iraq.

Or perhaps they wish U.S. troops were now going door to door in Iraq cities rooting out adherents to ISIL? Only a few neo-con die-hards want more U.S. troops on the ground in the Middle East.

Or then there is the refrain that President Obama should have helped "arm" the moderate Syrian opposition earlier. Let's remember that had he acted at an earlier point it is entirely likely that many of those arms would now be in ISIL hands -- and we must be extremely careful even now to avoid precisely that problem in the days ahead.

The president's response to ISIL is supported by almost two-thirds of Americans because it seems to be the only reasonable response where the cure is not worse than the disease.

It recognizes that the problem posed by ISIL must first and foremost be dealt with by other Sunni's in the region. It is aimed at building an international coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy the ability of this vicious organization to threaten people in the Middle East or elsewhere. And it relies on American airpower to bolster the abilities of other Sunni forces to accomplish this goal.

But most Americans also realize this will not be easy -- and they're right. It won't be easy to clean up the horrific mess created by the Bush/Cheney policies in the Middle East.

Frankly, I don't think that any of the architects of the Iraq War should ever be invited on TV to say one word about foreign policy -- and especially the Middle East. They have zero credibility to comment. They have been wrong over and over again and created the conditions that spawned the problems we face today.

But if they are invited to act as "talking heads," interviewers must at least have the common decency to point out their failed track record -- and to demand that they do more than criticize the president's efforts to clean up their mistakes. They must also be required to tell us exactly what they would do to fix it.

And if any of them actually do propose a course of action, you can pretty much be sure that based on their past track records, that course of action is wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/bushcheney-created-condit_b_5820916.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Absolutely - what we see in Iraq today is all of our own making starting with the boneheaded decision to invade that country in 2003. Hundreds of thousands of lives snuffed out, trillions and trillions of dollars wasted and blown up and all we have to show for it are a bunch of radicalized boneheads that destabilize one of the most fragile parts of the globe.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Absolutely - what we see in Iraq today is all of our own making starting with the boneheaded decision to invade that country in 2003. Hundreds of thousands of lives snuffed out, trillions and trillions of dollars wasted and blown up and all we have to show for it are a bunch of radicalized boneheads that destabilize one of the most fragile parts of the globe.

It just beggars belief that those guys (and Tony Bliar) haven't been criminally prosecuted. They have destablised the entire middle east at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

I think we're at real risk of another world war here.

[Darnell 8,478]

Man, I hate seeing stuff where one's Cheney gets Bushed...

but - the OP and the article are spot on. The Bobsey Twins Strike again, even this far into their retirement !

[rlogan 2,036]

Too much blind partisanship. Obama armed ISIS. The republicans helped him.

They were arming "Moderate" Islamic rebels against the Syrian government. Lol. Moderate Jihadists. The "moderates" almost all have formal agreements with ISIS. So Obama and congress armed ISIS. It is that simple. There is ample proof in documented caches with photographs that these were weapons we supplied to Syrian rebels.

They took those weapons to Iraq in order to commandeer heavy weapons depots supplied by the US to our puppet government of the Green Zone. How absurd for Obama to announce we are partnering with Iraq to fight ISIS when they do not even have a defense minister. There isn't the person in office that the agreement needs to be made with and fighting coordinated through. Their government is completely dysfunctional and ranked one of the most corrupt on earth. That's why arms depots are so easy to knock over.

Remember how fierce the Peshmerga were supposed to be? ISIS kicked their rear ends. They were about to be annihilated. It was bombing by the USA that put ISIS into check. Bombing our own weapons. So our ground force allies are the two local pussies in Iraq, apparently. Great.

Bush "liberating" Iraqis is every bit as stupid as Obama "liberating" Iraqis. Obama has added an additional level of insanity here by arming ISIS in Syria in order to overthrow Assad, but fighting ISIS in Iraq. He claims as usual - Oh, no these jihadis are the moderate ones. Like the ones Obama turned loose to rampage in Libya right now.

Boy, those pictures of two beheaded journalists did exactly what ISIL and warhawks want. That's all it takes to get the USA to bomb the place back to the stone age. This is the Sunnis rising up against Shia oppression. Bombing them is going to drive them even closer to ISIL - exactly what ISIL wants. What Bin Laden wanted. Bleed the beast because he will spend hundreds of billions and you will spend $3.44 in costs of social media video. $1.77 per execution.

So the idea of the OP is to cover up the same mistakes Obama is now making by the original ones made, led by Bush, Cheney, and all the Project for a New American Century Neocons.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You can alays tell when the Preznitz has really FUBARed to the point deniers can't even defend him any longer.

Cause we get

Of course if Clinton had taken OSBL when he had the chance and gone after the terror network, 9-11 never would have happned, so I guess using stupid logic, it's his fault also

A. Bush's fault . can also be "conjure up any conservative in history that even remotely did anything similar to what is going on today. It makes it ok.

6 years in. The world loves us now. Appeasing the Islama fascist worked.

All Hail Obama

[Rattlehead 69]

There is nothing under the sun that cannot be blamed on Bush.

[rlogan 2,036]

Bush got re-elected after overthrowing Iraq. Obama got re-elected after overthrowing Libya. Congressmen from both parties supporting same were also re-elected. That's how they all proved they were tough on terror. Killing people and overthrowing governments, by lying about them. It is despicable, yes.

In both cases (Iraq and Libya), a person paying attention could see they were lying, and that they had destroyed the country rather than rescuing anyone. War crimes. By both parties.

So the fault here is really the American people. To keep re-electing politicians from both parties that do the same things. How easily we are herded by fear and stupid rhetoric into committing war crimes.

[JohnR! 5,495]

And as of 2009 there is nothing under the Sun that can't be blamed on Obama... Funny how these things work.

There is nothing under the sun that cannot be blamed on Bush.

Edited September 16, 2014 by JohnR!

[eieio 1,594]

These people will keep fighting ,killing and beheading regardless of what any US president does. It's in their blood and nurtured by their religion. The sooner Islam is eliminated the sooner there could be a peaceful solution.

But, I wouldn't count on it.

[JohnR! 5,495]

By the same rationale - to use the term very loosely - we should eliminate christianity for the inception of the inquisition, which by the way killed far more people than ISIS.

To paraphrase the nutters and their mantra: Guns don't kill people and neither does religion...

These people will keep fighting ,killing and beheading regardless of what any US president does. It's in their blood and nurtured by their religion. The sooner Islam is eliminated the sooner there could be a peaceful solution.

But, I wouldn't count on it.

[eieio 1,594]

By the same rationale - to use the term very loosely - we should eliminate christianity for the inception of the inquisition, which by the way killed far more people than ISIS.

To paraphrase the nutters and their mantra: Guns don't kill people and neither does religion...

You could have a point. Christianity evolved. Maybe in 200 years Islam will evolve?

That's all we can hope for.

For now, we can just expect them to kill/try to kill all 'Infidels"

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Bush got re-elected after overthrowing Iraq. Obama got re-elected after overthrowing Libya. Congressmen from both parties supporting same were also re-elected. That's how they all proved they were tough on terror. Killing people and overthrowing governments, by lying about them. It is despicable, yes.

In both cases (Iraq and Libya), a person paying attention could see they were lying, and that they had destroyed the country rather than rescuing anyone. War crimes. By both parties.

So the fault here is really the American people. To keep re-electing politicians from both parties that do the same things. How easily we are herded by fear and stupid rhetoric into committing war crimes.

Take your logic, intelligence, truth and reason and be gone knave. None of that here

I agree with everything you just said, however the thread was started by the deniers, who still want to blame everything Obumer F's up on Bush . It's absurd

Obumer took every screw up Bush committed and called and raised. The same brain dead deniers who blame everything on Bush, would be in a lather if Bush was preznit now doing what Obumer is doing and Vice Versa.

By the same rationale - to use the term very loosely - we should eliminate christianity for the inception of the inquisition, which by the way killed far more people than ISIS.

To paraphrase the nutters and their mantra: Guns don't kill people and neither does religion...

Got anything say, I don't know.. Like less than a 1000 years ago

[JohnR! 5,495]

The inquisition had nothing to do with religion. It was a scheme to eliminate opposition to the Vatican and solidify the Catholic's church iron grip around the neck of Europe. In today's parlance, the objective of the inquisition was to create a christian 'caliphate' in Europe.

Just because people do things in name of one religion or another, it really doesn't mean they represent the particular religion the purport to profess. You need not look past Leviticus to find justification for barbaric behavior.

There are millions of Muslims around the world, none of which are beheading their infidel neighbors on a daily basis.

And if you think Christianity has evolved, check out Michael Pearl's book, a minister who advocates the spanking as a means to 'train' children - in America, in the 21st century...

You could have a point. Christianity evolved. Maybe in 200 years Islam will evolve?

That's all we can hope for.

For now, we can just expect them to kill/try to kill all 'Infidels"

Edited September 16, 2014 by JohnR!

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The inquisition had nothing to do with religion. It was a scheme to eliminate opposition to the Vatican and solidify the Catholic's church iron grip around the neck of Europe. In today's parlance, the objective of the inquisition was to create a christian 'caliphate' in Europe.

Just because people do things in name of one religion or another, it really doesn't mean they represent the particular religion the purport to profess. You need not look past Leviticus to find justification for barbaric behavior.

There are millions of Muslims around the world, none of which are beheading their infidel neighbors on a daily basis.

And if you think Christianity has evolved, check out Michael Pearl's book, a minister who advocates the spanking as a means to 'train' children - in America, in the 21st century...

Wow some Christian wrote a book advocating spanking your children.

Beheading and Female circumcision or spanking.

Gee which one

Really.. A spanking is all you got

SMH