Bush Is Responsible For ISIS:

[MikeK]

When George W. Bush began fabricating his fraudulent justification to invade Iraq, then Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki adamantly insisted that doing so without significant loss of life and severe injury to American troops and to innocent Iraqi civilians would require at least 200,000 more troops than Bush was proposing. He also said deposing Saddam Hussein and disbanding his army would necessitate the permanent presence of at least one division of U.S. troops to avoid the emergence of a substantial guerilla entity combined with a significant terrorist threat.

Bush fired Shinseki and went ahead with his ill-advised, criminal invasion of Iraq which cost the lives of almost 5,000 American troops, the physical or mental maiming of tens of thousands more, along with the death and maiming of almost a million innocent Iraqi civilians, and he transformed what was a projected Budget surplus into an unprecedented, monumental debt. And now there is ISIS.

And Barack Obama has never taken a step in the direction of prosecuting this criminal sonofabitch and his conspirators.

 

[dadsgm]

The actions of the Bush presidency are not the sole cause for ISIS. The mid-eastern problem(s) in Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, etc, started when the Brits left and the support of western nations to the various regimes when oil was discovered. The US, at least since the 50s, with help and support from Britain, France, etc. helped to prop up various dictators who feigned friendship but held down their people. This continues to this day and while not condoning their actions we see the results.
Therefore, the responsibility cannot be placed on Bush alone but on every President and Congress from the 50, to today.
When assessing blame one should know the background of the problem or one puts displays his ignorance for all to see.

 

[MikeK]

The fact remains if Bush had not invaded Iraq we would not be having the problems we're having in the Middle East today. But we could follow your line of reasoning all the way back to the American Revolution.

If you really wish to proceed analytically then begin in 1947 with the rise of the most troublesome little theocracy in the history of the world -- Israel. There is the root cause of all our present problems in the Middle East.

 

[whitehall]

Must we go through this again? Congress (including 36% of democrats) approved the use of combat troops to enforce about a hundred UN sanctions against Hussein and then the democrats undermined the mission every chance they got. Bill Clinton was offered Bin Ladin on a silver platter but he refused and bombed Yugoslavia instead.

 

[MikeK]

Must we go through this again? Congress (including 36% of democrats) approved the use of combat troops to enforce about a hundred UN sanctions against Hussein and then the democrats undermined the mission every chance they got. Bill Clinton was offered Bin Ladin on a silver platter but he refused and bombed Yugoslavia instead.

I have no argument against what you've said. Clinton was another crooked bastard whose only saving grace was the projected Budget surplus he left for Bush to ravage. But Clinton did enforce the UN sanctions against Hussein with a constant sequence of bombings, which were more than sufficient to ensure Iraq's virtually defenseless condition.

So no invasion was necessary.

 

[dadsgm]

The fact remains if Bush had not invaded Iraq we would not be having the problems we're having in the Middle East today. But we could follow your line of reasoning all the way back to the American Revolution.

If you really wish to proceed analytically then begin in 1947 with the rise of the most troublesome little theocracy in the history of the world -- Israel. There is the root cause of all our present problems in the Middle East.

And harping on the past in a quest to place blame as opposed to learning from the past and adjusting ones thought, tactics etc. is part of the problem we have today. Everyone in Washington seeks to place blame and point fingers instead of displaying the moral courage to accept the blame/ take responsibility for the problem and move on.

 

[namvet]

When George W. Bush began fabricating his fraudulent justification to invade Iraq, then Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki adamantly insisted that doing so without significant loss of life and severe injury to American troops and to innocent Iraqi civilians would require at least 200,000 more troops than Bush was proposing. He also said deposing Saddam Hussein and disbanding his army would necessitate the permanent presence of at least one division of U.S. troops to avoid the emergence of a substantial guerilla entity combined with a significant terrorist threat.

Bush fired Shinseki and went ahead with his ill-advised, criminal invasion of Iraq which cost the lives of almost 5,000 American troops, the physical or mental maiming of tens of thousands more, along with the death and maiming of almost a million innocent Iraqi civilians, and he transformed what was a projected Budget surplus into an unprecedented, monumental debt. And now there is ISIS.

And Barack Obama has never taken a step in the direction of prosecuting this criminal sonofabitch and his conspirators.

no its my fault. i threw pigs in a mosque and they got pissed

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Must we go through this again? Congress (including 36% of democrats) approved the use of combat troops to enforce about a hundred UN sanctions against Hussein and then the democrats undermined the mission every chance they got. Bill Clinton was offered Bin Ladin on a silver platter but he refused and bombed Yugoslavia instead.

I have no argument against what you've said. Clinton was another crooked bastard whose only saving grace was the projected Budget surplus he left for Bush to ravage. But Clinton did enforce the UN sanctions against Hussein with a constant sequence of bombings, which were more than sufficient to ensure Iraq's virtually defenseless condition.

So no invasion was necessary.

Well except that France Russia and China were conspiring to remove ALL sanctions from Iraq. And as the files we captured prove Iraq was set to renew their quest for Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weapons.

 

[whitehall]

Must we go through this again? Congress (including 36% of democrats) approved the use of combat troops to enforce about a hundred UN sanctions against Hussein and then the democrats undermined the mission every chance they got. Bill Clinton was offered Bin Ladin on a silver platter but he refused and bombed Yugoslavia instead.

I have no argument against what you've said. Clinton was another crooked bastard whose only saving grace was the projected Budget surplus he left for Bush to ravage. But Clinton did enforce the UN sanctions against Hussein with a constant sequence of bombings, which were more than sufficient to ensure Iraq's virtually defenseless condition.

So no invasion was necessary.

Whatever Clinton did in Iraq he did it on his own with no permission from congress. He used more military hardware on Waco Texas than he did in Iraq. Clinton bombed Yugoslavia on his own using NATO for cover. They didn't call him "slick willie" for nothing. Bush gave Saddam a year to comply with UN sanctions but Saddam refused. Congress gave Bush permission to use combat Troops. It hasn't been that long ago and there are still lots of Korean War Veterans around so I ask who gave Truman permission to ultimately lose 50,000 Troops in Korea? The short answer is ....nobody. Korea was an executive order but like every democrat president in 20th century history Truman had the blessings of the mainstream media.