ISIS was “decimated” under Bush, but has grown as much as 4,400% under Obama

[Publius1787]

ISIS was “decimated” under Bush, but has grown as much as 4,400% under Obama

Not that any of this is surprising to anyone, but worth the read nevertheless:

CIA director Brennan admits ISIS was “decimated” under Bush, but has grown as much as 4,400% under Obama - AEI

 

[Grandma]

Except that ISIS didn't exist during the Bush Regime.

You're probably thinking of the Taliban or Al Queda. Both grew during the Bush years because he destabilized both Iraq and Afghanistan, while opening up Pakistan to trafficking.

 

[frigidweirdo]

ISIS was “decimated” under Bush, but has grown as much as 4,400% under Obama

Not that any of this is surprising to anyone, but worth the read nevertheless:

CIA director Brennan admits ISIS was “decimated” under Bush, but has grown as much as 4,400% under Obama - AEI

Well this should make people who see only black and white happy.

 

[Publius1787]

Except that ISIS didn't exist during the Bush Regime.

You're probably thinking of the Taliban or Al Queda. Both grew during the Bush years because he destabilized both Iraq and Afghanistan, while opening up Pakistan to trafficking.

Indeed AQ did grow early in the Bush years. By the time Obama became president, both support and growth for AQ was clearly on a downward trend. In fact, they had conceded Iraq altogether. Obama reversed this trend. No amount of pointing to Bush is going to change this fact.

Pakistan, by the way, has always been open for trafficking. They made this conscious decision looong before Bush.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Except that ISIS didn't exist during the Bush Regime.

You're probably thinking of the Taliban or Al Queda. Both grew during the Bush years because he destabilized both Iraq and Afghanistan, while opening up Pakistan to trafficking.

Indeed AQ did grow early in the Bush years. By the time Obama became president, both support and growth for AQ was clearly on a downward trend. In fact, they had conceded Iraq altogether. Obama reversed this trend. No amount of pointing to Bush is going to change this fact.

Pakistan, by the way, has always been open for trafficking. They made this conscious decision looong before Bush.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Except that ISIS didn't exist during the Bush Regime.

You're probably thinking of the Taliban or Al Queda. Both grew during the Bush years because he destabilized both Iraq and Afghanistan, while opening up Pakistan to trafficking.

Indeed AQ did grow early in the Bush years. By the time Obama became president, both support and growth for AQ was clearly on a downward trend. In fact, they had conceded Iraq altogether. Obama reversed this trend. No amount of pointing to Bush is going to change this fact.

ISIS (in Syria, should be a clue) is part or a larger thing which is Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorism has grown every year since 2003. It grew because of what Bush did.

Just because ISIS has grown, which is mainly because they had a nice new battleground to play in. That doesn't mean that Bush was great and Obama is bad.

 

[SwimExpert]

ISIS was “decimated” under Bush, but has grown as much as 4,400% under Obama

Not that any of this is surprising to anyone, but worth the read nevertheless:

CIA director Brennan admits ISIS was “decimated” under Bush, but has grown as much as 4,400% under Obama - AEI

 

[Publius1787]

Except that ISIS didn't exist during the Bush Regime.

You're probably thinking of the Taliban or Al Queda. Both grew during the Bush years because he destabilized both Iraq and Afghanistan, while opening up Pakistan to trafficking.

Indeed AQ did grow early in the Bush years. By the time Obama became president, both support and growth for AQ was clearly on a downward trend. In fact, they had conceded Iraq altogether. Obama reversed this trend. No amount of pointing to Bush is going to change this fact.

ISIS (in Syria, should be a clue) is part or a larger thing which is Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorism has grown every year since 2003. It grew because of what Bush did.

Just because ISIS has grown, which is mainly because they had a nice new battleground to play in. That doesn't mean that Bush was great and Obama is bad.

The Arab Spring created the vacuum in Syria combined with Obama supporting the ousting of Assad. The destabilization thereof gave ISIS fertile ground to grow. ISIS, in their former self, were just plain defeated in Iraq. Sorry, Bush may had created a mess but by the time Obama took the helm the folks we now call "ISIS" were clearly in regression. Obama reversed this trend.

Of course, it could just as easily be said that Islamic terrorism has been growing since the death of Mohammad. Which is, of course, why I give no credence to attempting to expand the argument in order to make a point not argued in the OP.

 

[Steven_R]

And don't forget, ISIS gained huge numbers after Obama looked the other way when al-Maliki started cracking down on the Sunnis in Iraq, simply because ISIS was the only faction to support the Sunnis.

Obama's Middle East policies is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

What do you all expect.
obama is the best leader and organizer they have ever had. plus he can keep the U.S off their backs while they build up

 

[Publius1787]

And don't forget, ISIS gained huge numbers after Obama looked the other way when al-Maliki started cracking down on the Sunnis in Iraq, simply because ISIS was the only faction to support the Sunnis.

Obama's Middle East policies is the gift that keeps on giving.

I wouldn't call it a gift. Having been to Iraq multiple times I don't exactly see Obama's failure to solidify the gains made at such a huge expense for his own political purposes a laughing matter.

 

[aaronleland]

Except that ISIS didn't exist during the Bush Regime.

You're probably thinking of the Taliban or Al Queda. Both grew during the Bush years because he destabilized both Iraq and Afghanistan, while opening up Pakistan to trafficking.

Indeed AQ did grow early in the Bush years. By the time Obama became president, both support and growth for AQ was clearly on a downward trend. In fact, they had conceded Iraq altogether. Obama reversed this trend. No amount of pointing to Bush is going to change this fact.

ISIS (in Syria, should be a clue) is part or a larger thing which is Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorism has grown every year since 2003. It grew because of what Bush did.

Just because ISIS has grown, which is mainly because they had a nice new battleground to play in. That doesn't mean that Bush was great and Obama is bad.

The Arab Spring created the vacuum in Syria combined with Obama supporting the ousting of Assad. The destabilization thereof gave ISIS fertile ground to grow. ISIS, in their former self, were just plain defeated in Iraq. Sorry, Bush may had created a mess but by the time Obama took the helm the folks we now call "ISIS" were clearly in regression. Obama reversed this trend.

Of course, it could just as easily be said that Islamic terrorism has been growing since the death of Mohammad. Which is, of course, why I give no credence to attempting to expand the argument in order to make a point not argued in the OP.

The Arab Spring was bound to happen with or without Obama in office. And ISIS's former self was Al Qaeda, and they were far from defeated by the time Bush left office.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Except that ISIS didn't exist during the Bush Regime.

You're probably thinking of the Taliban or Al Queda. Both grew during the Bush years because he destabilized both Iraq and Afghanistan, while opening up Pakistan to trafficking.

Indeed AQ did grow early in the Bush years. By the time Obama became president, both support and growth for AQ was clearly on a downward trend. In fact, they had conceded Iraq altogether. Obama reversed this trend. No amount of pointing to Bush is going to change this fact.

ISIS (in Syria, should be a clue) is part or a larger thing which is Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorism has grown every year since 2003. It grew because of what Bush did.

Just because ISIS has grown, which is mainly because they had a nice new battleground to play in. That doesn't mean that Bush was great and Obama is bad.

The Arab Spring created the vacuum in Syria combined with Obama supporting the ousting of Assad. The destabilization thereof gave ISIS fertile ground to grow. ISIS, in their former self, were just plain defeated in Iraq. Sorry, Bush may had created a mess but by the time Obama took the helm the folks we now call "ISIS" were clearly in regression. Obama reversed this trend.

Of course, it could just as easily be said that Islamic terrorism has been growing since the death of Mohammad. Which is, of course, why I give no credence to attempting to expand the argument in order to make a point not argued in the OP.

There's no such thing as ISIS in Iraq. ISIS is Islamic State In SYRIA.

But yes, you're right, Bush put IS on the back foot in Iraq. Then went and signed a withdrawal document (ie, if this is a success I'll take the credit, if not then I'll blame the next guy kind of document).

Bush created the mess. By the time the Arab Spring got to Syria, the elements of IS that were around, and there were a lot, then flocked to Syria.

Obama didn't reverse this trend. That's a completely false statement.

Obama withdrew the troops following the withdrawal order that BUSH had signed. At the time most people thought it a good idea to leave. By this point the US, led by Obama, had left. Then the Iraqi regime in Iraq were the ones who couldn't cope with the increase in IS support.

Then again had Bush and Bremer not thrown all the Iraqi police and armed forces onto the unemployment heap, then maybe there wouldn't have been so many IS in the first place. Had Bush not invaded in the first place, Saddam would never have allowed this to happen, and then the Syrian Arab Spring would probably never have taken off either and IS would simply not be a concern either in Syria or in Iraq.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Except that ISIS didn't exist during the Bush Regime.

You're probably thinking of the Taliban or Al Queda. Both grew during the Bush years because he destabilized both Iraq and Afghanistan, while opening up Pakistan to trafficking.

Indeed AQ did grow early in the Bush years. By the time Obama became president, both support and growth for AQ was clearly on a downward trend. In fact, they had conceded Iraq altogether. Obama reversed this trend. No amount of pointing to Bush is going to change this fact.

ISIS (in Syria, should be a clue) is part or a larger thing which is Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorism has grown every year since 2003. It grew because of what Bush did.

Just because ISIS has grown, which is mainly because they had a nice new battleground to play in. That doesn't mean that Bush was great and Obama is bad.

Grew because of what Bush did? What's that.... Capture Saddam and allowed him to be photographed in his underwear? All the Lefries said that would lead to recruitment and make them "hate us more".

 

[MarcATL]

How many terrorist leaders did the Bush Administration find and/or kill?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

ISIS got new leadership under Obama