June 13, 2015

"The president will have to make that determination. My position was that you need to have boots on the ground."

"As you know, I made a very difficult decision. A fair number of people in our country were saying that it was impossible to defeat al-Qaida — which is ISIS as far as I am concerned. They said I must get out of Iraq. But I chose the opposite — I sent 30,000 more troops as opposed to 30,000 fewer. I think history will show that al-Qaida in Iraq was defeated. And so I chose the path of boots on the ground. We will see whether or not our government adjusts to the realities on the ground."

George Bush, in a new interview.

55 comments:

exhelodrvr1 said...

Well said!!

Hagar said...

Oh, I think they have adjusted.
See my cafe post below.

jr565 said...

This is why Bush was a better president than Obama.

Seeing Red said...

Bah, who needs boots when all u have to do is crack the U.S. computer system?

The Drill SGT said...

"I made a decision, as you know, not to criticize my successors, with an s. I am going to be around a little bit longer -- there is going to be more than one successor. The temptation is to try to rewrite history or to make yourself look good by criticizing someone else. I think that is a mistake. I don't think that is what leadership is all about. I know how hard the job is. I didn't like it when former leaders criticized me when I was president. Some did, so I decided not to do the same."

a Classy Guy...

AReasonableMan said...

Would it be considered gauche to mention that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before Bush the Destroyer arrived?

narciso said...

because you would be wrong:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/02/ayman_al_zawahiris_d.php

maninthemiddle said...

Bush! Quit using facts! Or I will tell everyone you made me hide in my safe place. And reasonable... Didn't agree with our entry and wrote so, however, we ended up destroying Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, which had sworn fealty to al Qaeda. Think of a seriously ill cancer patient. Through intensive chemotherapy and surgery, cancer is in remission. Dr. Obama then comes in, declares victory and prematurely pulls the plug on all treatment. Cancer recurs and the patient dies.

hombre said...

arm: "Would it be considered gauche...."

No, but as usual it would be ignorant. According to Senate reports - you know, the Democrat Senate - Abu al Zarqawi, the leader of AQ in Iraq, was there during most of 2002, prior to the invasion, and was an AQ affiliated terrorist long before that.

maninthemiddle said...

There would be no ISIS if Britain had not combined the Ottoman vilayets. There would have been no ISIS if the Ottoman's had not sided with the Axis powers. There would have been no ISIS if TE Lawrence's plan knew what to do with Central Iraq and the Kurds. There would have been no ISIS if the Crusades had started earlier???? Good grief, deal with the problem NOW and quit "look an old squirrel".

Michael K said...

ARM, the real mistake was when Constantine became a Christian. Everybody knows that.

AReasonableMan said...

Does claiming credit for a very expensive and temporary 'solution' to a problem that he created suggest that on some level Bush finally recognizes what a train wreck his presidency was? Even his brother has to do a Shaggy impression around that presidency.

CWJ said...

maninthemiddle,

Hear hear!!

Fen said...

This is the thread where we will be reminded our liberal friends have no principles or consistency...

CWJ said...

Michael K,

No the REAL mistake was Alexander's failure to name a strong successor and neutralize the others. Damn Seleucus.

Krumhorn said...

It's my view that W was a smart, classy and honest president who was not prepared for the viciousness, deceit and implacability of the lefties nor equipped with the temperament to publicly bitch slap them like the nasty little shits they are. His decency did him in.

Reagan, by contrast, like Churchchill, could eviscerate the libruls leaving their steaming entrails dangling down to their Birkenstocks and have you laughing as he did it. Will we ever see his like again?

- Krumhorn

machine said...

Hey, let's keep troops there forever....we broke it we own it, amiright?

Hagar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hagar said...

Well, Obama is sending the troops back in - though now to fight with the other side.

Hagar said...

Al Zarqawi had his own brutal faction, which bin Laden did not approve of. He asked bin Laden's permission to use the al Qaeda name for fundraising etc. - especially since bin Laden was pretty much out of it by then, but of course had the name and reputation. Bin Laden at first refused, but gave in when several other jihadist organizations seconded al Zarqawi's request.

narciso said...

the Tawsheed were in competition with AQ, as IS is with Al Nusra and Ahram Sham, but that doesn't make the latter any better,

Fen said...

Hey, let's keep troops there forever....we broke it we own it, amiright?

That's my favorite part - going back in to secure ground I already took.

Sorry but no. Send Malia.

Anonymous said...

Obama is playing with fire, and American lives.

Without an overwhelming presence (Like President Bush did) there is a chance, getting larger each day, that a large number of Americans will be captured, tortured, and executed.

Throwing these small numbers at a problem makes for a very explosive situation.

I hope our military in Iraq stays safe, but I become increasingly worried about them with this feckless administration.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Fen said...
This is the thread where we will be reminded our liberal friends have no principles or consistency...


You mean like an unreasonable man making a claim that is immediately blown to pieces and coming back to the thread without shame or apology, but instead yelling squirrel at the top of his lungs?

jr565 said...

ARM wrote:
Would it be considered gauche to mention that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before Bush the Destroyer arrived?

Would it be considered gauche to mention that there was no ISIS in Iraq before Obama the appeaser ran away?

AReasonableMan said...

It's a bullshit claim and most people know it. I felt it was impolite to point that out. Al Qaeda was not a problem in Iraq either for us or Saddam before efforts of Bush the Destroyer.

jr565 said...

Why is that even such a talking point for libs. Al Qaeda wanted to fight us. They saw the opportunity to fight us in Iraq because that's where we were concentrated. And because Zarqawi was there. And he was convinced that best way to inflict mass damage on us was there.
When Saudi Arabia allowed us to move troops through their territory as part of Clintons' containment of Iraq OBL issued a fatwah against us and attacked us in.... Yemen.
So, is ARM's argument that Clinton brought Al Qaeda to Yemen? Then they attacked us HERE. So is it ARM's argument that there was no Al Qaeda attack on 9/11 until Clinton waged containment on Iraq and therefore it's Clintons fault?

That is certainly why they did it, but its not his fault. It was in our interest to contain Iraq then, and move our troops through SA. And OBL saw an opportunity and saw targets to strike based on his anger at our actions, but also his own self interest.

jr565 said...

AReasonable Man wrote:
It's a bullshit claim and most people know it. I felt it was impolite to point that out. Al Qaeda was not a problem in Iraq either for us or Saddam before efforts of Bush the Destroyer.

Zarqawi wanted to attack our troops. We were in Iraq. Why then would it be crazy to assume he would attack us there?

Anonymous said...

Blogger jr565 said...
ARM wrote:
Would it be considered gauche to mention that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before Bush the Destroyer arrived?

Would it be considered gauche to mention that there was no ISIS in Iraq before Obama the appeaser ran away?


If there is anything we learned during the last 8-12 years, when the going gets tough, the Democrats will abandon you and run away. They abandoned President Bush after supporting his war, then they abandoned our allies abroad.

Never trust a Democrat.

jr565 said...

Also, prior to meeting us in Iraq he helped try to repel the attack in Afghanistan where he was injured and fled to Iran for medical attention. So, he goes where the fighting is.

exhelodrvr1 said...

" I felt it was impolite to point that out"

lol!!

Louis said...

This "Iraq was won/al Qaeda was defeated" meme is powerful and common but stupid.

People justify it with 44's statement in 2011 that Iraq was stable. And now 43 is invoking it to revision his choices in the Middle East as other than a free choice.

But what does it mean to say a country in West Asia was fixed or stable at a particular point? Especially since we here in 2015 know that ISIL was just one (in hindsight) inevitable civil war away from finding footing to play at empire. (JV team, indeed.) 43 did not have the vision to foresee a would-be caliphate emerging from chaos in the region? He did not foresee the short-term non-viability of a final political solution? Why should he take his own thoughts on the subject seriously? Why do we?

Anonymous said...

Why should he take his own thoughts on the subject seriously?

Because after he made mistakes, he fixed them. Changed course, did the right thing, and fixed them.

After seeing what worked, Obama tore it all down. Idiot.

Louis said...

After seeing what worked

But what does it mean to say it worked?

AReasonableMan said...

Louis said...
But what does it mean to say it worked?


Shhh! Next you will be asking whether it was worth $1,000,000,000,000 and thousands of lives lost.

jr565 said...

ARM wrote:
Shhh! Next you will be asking whether it was worth $1,000,000,000,000 and thousands of lives lost.

Was Afghanistan worth it after the number of lives lost and the number of dollars spent? And despite that Obama escalated there?
Is the peace worthy it? If we do nothing and how many thousands get their heads chopped off will that be worth it?

The fact that we did expend that blood and treasure, its worth it to maintain that victory and not have them have died in vain.

The Godfather said...

I wish that Bush had done the Surge a year earlier, before the 2006 election. It would have been easier for Republican candidates to defend the US policy if people could see that something was being accomplished. Prior to the Surge, it just seemed that American forces in Iraq were adrift, serving as targets for IEDs and such.

But the Dems would still have won the 2006 elections, and the Dem candidate (whoever he/she was) was going to win the 2008 presidential election. The war started with bipartisan support, and it needed to be won with bipartisan support. That proved impossible.

History (a generation from now) will regard Obama's failure to preserve the victory won by American forces as one of the greatest failures of any president -- in fact, I can't think of another as catastrophic.

Perhaps someone else can.

Phil 3:14 said...

Wars are bad, but Republican wars are REALLY bad!

jr565 said...

Also, ARM, whatever the flaws of the operation, Bush left Iraq in a position where it was stable. Obama will leave the next president with Iraq controlled by ISIS, making millions off of oil, and destroying Iraq.

Heckuva Job, Obama.

AReasonableMan said...

r565 said...
Bush left Iraq in a position where it was stable.


Crap. A Shia dictator ruling over disgruntled disenfranchised Sunnis and the Kurds looking to split the country. Can't get much more stable than that!

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

"
Crap. A Shia dictator ruling over disgruntled disenfranchised Sunnis and the Kurds looking to split the country. Can't get much more stable than that!"

It would be more stable than Iraq before the surge. It would be more stable than an Iraq contained for ten years,with all that that requires. And contained enough where Maliki can step down and doesn't hold on to power through force. That would have been impossible under Sadaam.
And it would be a hell of a lot more stable than Obama is going to leave Iraq for HIS successor.

Hagar said...

In Christianity, we pay lip service to the idea of our world here on earth being a vale of tears and how happy we will be when we leave it, but in actual fact we are not at all anxious to go to Heaven before we absolutely have to.

However, in Islam, they are serious about it, which is why you see all these losers blowing themselves up in one fashion or another. The Koran promises that anyone who martyrs himself in jihad automatically goes to the top level in Heaven regardless of whatever mess he has made of himself here on earth.
In addition, the idea is spreading throughout Islam that we are living in the end times, Armageddon or Ragnarok as prophesied in all the worlds scriptures, when there will be a final all-destroying war between Sunni and Shia, not to mention between Islam and all the infidels of whatever kind.

These are very powerful ideas that apparently goes much farther up than just the "low information" Moslems.

Obama may find he has made a great mistake in assuming the Moslem governments are going to act rationally and resolve their - and our - differences peacefully.

Anonymous said...

JR,

People like arm are too unreasonable to discuss complicated issues with. Don't be fooled by his name, his mind is made up. History be damned, its always Bush's fault. Or Republicans fault.

Drago said...

ARMeltdown, per usual, remains purposefully ignorant of Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood basis for so much of what see with the increase in sunni radicalism in later decades. Why does the left remain ignorant of such things (besides simply being a matter of principle)?

Can't blame boooosh is the all too obvious answer.

Would it be gauche to remind the lefties that obambi and the near-intellectually helpless biden told us they themselves were leaving a stable Iraq and that Iraq would be a great obambi success story?

Now those are some inconvenient facts

Hagar said...

Iraq was "stable" - as long as the United States sat in the middle of the yard with a substantial garrison.

Now we have a situation where any of the small wars going can set off a general conflagration that could indeed go world-wide in no time at all.

Unknown said...

---Iraq was "stable" - as long as the United States sat in the middle of the yard with a substantial garrison.

Like Korea and Germany. We have shown it could be done. No other nation has been able to build cooperative alliances in the manner that we have done it. Only our rabid dog, self hating left couldn’t accept the peace and stability we gave, nor our defeat of their gem, the Soviet Union.

Louis said...

---Like Korea and Germany

In Korea and Germany and Japan political solutions were arranged that made the military a high-utility tool in the area. In Iraq 43 was never able to create a political solution because the (small-d democratic, small-r republican) culture does not exist on the ground and his own vision was limited.

AReasonableMan said...

Some very thoughtful comments from Louis in this thread, exposing the emptiness of the 'surge'-'stable' rhetoric.

Rhythm and Balls said...

If there was a volcano threatening America, Bush would have made war on the earth's molten core. You're either with the lava or against the lava.

Rhythm and Balls said...

History (a generation from now) will regard Obama's failure to preserve the victory won by American forces as one of the greatest failures of any president -- in fact, I can't think of another as catastrophic.

Perhaps someone else can.


Being informed of a memo stating "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." and replying with, Aww fuckit. Three thousand dead on our own soil and a cratered out financial district ain't nuthin some heavy-duty shoppin' and making a pyrotechnic Picasso model of the mid-East can't solve!

Rhythm and Balls said...

Clearly not enough force was used in getting Iraq to accept our democracy.

When someone rejects your gift to them, you throw it at them. And a second time, throw it harder.

If they walk away, run down the road after them and make sure your gift is tightly in their hands.

If they throw it to the ground, hit them over the head with it.

Repeatedly.

Until they fall unconscious, if need be.

That's how someone is made to make the best use of something you give them. Their gratitude and resourceful acceptance of it is not even necessary.

Kiru said...

No unreasonable man, there is nothing interesting about Louis's contributions to the thread. He's essentially just responding by flatly contradicting what other people are saying, but offering absolutely no defense of his alternate-history scenario.

The chronology that he blithely dismisses is: Obama becomes president, Obama effectively pulls all ground forces out of an Iraq that was stable, then ISIS ascends in Iraq, and we were amazingly sluggish at helping the Iraqis. Now we're scratching our heads trying to figure out how to get involved in the most rational way again. (a genuinely difficult problem)

We have dozens of military bases in fucking JAPAN for God's sake(in case the devotees of Hirohito rise again?). Obama fiddled while Iraq burned, and Louis is playing with sophistry in the lamest defense ever: "what does stable really mean?".

The most recent false comparison to Korea, Germany and Japan was even better, and by lumping them together pretty effectively demonstrates that he doesn't know either the history or culture of any of those three.

Kiru said...

Rhythm, on the other hand, is just applying that good old colonialist "they're just not advanced enough for self-government", in its most recent popular form.

Louis said...

Well Kiru is certainly wrong about everything