Posted by Tina
Nile Gardner recalls that George Bush’s “coalition of the willing,” that was rudely mocked by liberals included: Great Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy, Poland, and 16 members of the NATO alliance, as well as Japan, South Korea, Moldova and Kazkhstan…he concludes, “The coalition, swelled to roughly 40 countries, and was one of the largest military coalitions ever assembled.”
You would never have known that to hear our press tell it. And what about Barack Obama’s “coalition”…hows that working out? By this morning it had dwindled to include…France.
Michael Graham points out that had President Obama learned from America’s successful past wars and taken advantage of the work in Iraq performed by his predecessor, he would have at his disposal today a fully functioning US military base of operations.
Graham takes the chance to return the favor and mock Bush skeptics:
Even if you lie in bed at night sticking pins in your “W” voodoo doll, it’s irrational to ignore the pragmatic value of a U.S. military force in a U.S.-leaning Iraq in the heart of the mess that is Obama’s “Arab Spring” Middle East.
Who can blame Graham for exposing the hypocrisy of those who so venomously and publicly criticized Bush’s efforts in the terror war? Not this lady…I applaud his backbone!
The threat: A big red line being crossed.
Now cornered, the unprepared but still arrogantly confident man in the White House signals he will likely follow through on his threat…but if so also how and when he will strike. Secretary of State, John Kerry does his best to sound competent and official after a questionable record of his own.
Is it unfair that someone have asked: “Who Are the Neo-Con Cowboys Now?”
Trouble is this one really is, as they once said of Bush, “All hat, no cattle,” and it seems the entire world knows it. In fact even Assad’s eleven-year-old son is mocking our President, and therefore our country, On Facebook:
“I just want them to attack soooo much,” Hafez al-Assad allegedly wrote, “because I want them to make this huge attack of beginning something that they don’t know the end of it.”
Whether the profile is real or not has not been confirmed — but The New York Times has put forward evidence backing its authenticity.
Paging Michael Moore…a camera crew is all fired up…prepare to dine on warmed over crow!
I know…it isn’t funny; it is tragic and hoorific. As Israel prepares for the worst our President struts and dithers by turns. At this point any act of force will only look pathetic. Still, I prefer pathetic to permanently damaging. Perhaps he will manage to dodge this embarrassing bullet.
In this dangerous and volatile period in world history America could use a strong, capable leader.
Netanyahu stands alone.
If wishes could be had I’d take the measured strength and wisdom of the former American President Cowboy about now…I’d bet Netanyahu would too.
It was interesting watching the Democrats say Obama had to get Congress’ approval before attacking Syria and John McCann and Lindsey Graham say he didn’t.
I just love the video of Joe Biden saying he’d bring impeachment proceedings against Bush if he didn’t get Congress’ approval. Bet he’s grown very fond for crow.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/08/30/flashback-biden-threatens-bush-impeachment-military-strike-without-congressional-approval
There’s been a precedent set, one that separates the law from what the president determines is the right thing to do. We’ve acted against the law before when we truly felt it was morally right, However, this situation is neither morally right nor legal if Obama launches missiles without Congressional approval. By the way, how does he do that (get approval) while Congress is in recess?
Speaking of moral, when England backs away from us what does that say? Their PM has not been turned down on a military action vote since the late 1700’s! America has to be doing something really stupid for England to shy away from us.
The fact of the matter is, Obama has lost all credibility as a leader and his judgement on everything is now called into question. And not just here, in the world as well, people don’t trust Obama anymore.
This stupid red line policy of his has got him ito a bind and now he’s looking for a way out and he thinks Congress is it. When they say no, and they surely will, then he thinks he’s off the hook. But, he’s not. This will be another monumental blunder and he will still look like the idiot he is. Then again, we look pretty stupid for having elected him. No winners here is there?
I don’t think anyone in Congress is afraid of Syria, they just think launching missiles at them with not strategy in mind at this late date is dumb. What’s it going to accomplish? All the military forces have taken refuge in schools and Mosques. The gas stock piles have been moved. Who do we bomb here? The worst case scenario is if we strike Syria it could get Israel hit in retalliation, the best case scenario is a the missile goes off course and blows up Obama.
Tina: “Michael Graham points out that had President Obama learned from America’s successful past wars and taken advantage of the work in Iraq performed by his predecessor, he would have at his disposal today a fully functioning US military base of operations.”
I’m confused. Wasn’t part of the “work in Iraq performed by his predecessor” establishing a timetable for withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq? A timetable which Obama followed? Are you certain that Bush would have kept a “fully functioning military base” in Iraq, or was he already planning on bringing them all back home?
Jack: “The worst case scenario is it could get Israel hit, the best case is the missiles go off course and blow up Obama.”
Wow. Just…wow. I guess conservatives really do hate Obama more than Assad.
Chris: “I’m confused. Wasn’t part of the “work in Iraq performed by his predecessor” establishing a timetable for withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq? A timetable which Obama followed?”
Diplomatic negotiations can be extended and stretched out. Obama was having none of that. He turned his back on Iraq. He made remarkably stupid and unnecessary remarks about his predecessor which may have been politically gratifying but were diplomatically very dumb considering both men represent America and American interests. Calling the Iraq war “stupid” was particularly indelicate at a time when completing the negotiations for troop withdrawal and establishing our future relationship was important. It also completely ignored and dismissed one of the strategic purposes in fighting terrorists. Establishing a democracy in Iraq, in the heart of the ME was part of Bush’s overall plan.
While it’s true that Iraq was resisting US presence beyond the withdrawal when Obama took the helm (because Iraq did not agree that US troops should be granted legal immunity), had the door been left open for further negotiations that impasse might have been overcome, especially goven the uptick in violence that followed. Stability is important in a new democracy.
In June of 2012 we were considering establishing a larger base of operations in Kuwait. Had Obama bothered to establish a more congenial relationship with Iraq we might have been able to continue with a noncombat presence using an established (and paid for) base of operations there.
As it is Panetta was at that time counting on the US military remaining in the ME:
Things change and so do minds. Quite recently Iraq has realized they need our help:
Yes it has and in my opinion at least, Al Qaeda has become a serious and growing threat because the President was not a thoughtful or wise leader. He showed little respect for the amazing job performed by our troops over eight years in Iraq, for our allies, or for our enemies. He was certainly full of himself, as his crowing about getting Bin Laden illustrated.
It’s been a total disaster.
The entire left deserves to feel the full brunt of our international humiliation. There is plenty of derision to go around and you are all, in varying degrees, responsible for it, both for your treatment of the former Commander-in-Chief and for your unchanging, vapid, hypocritical support of the Obama administration (Hillary)…no matter how horrifically it blunders and fails.
It gives me no pleasure now to point this out. I have always been proud of America and the men and women who fight for freedom and justice around the world…it pains me to see this happening. Mistakes are one thing, all Presidents will make mistakes…it pains me that this President appears to be so casually unengaged, careless, and inept.
Tina: the entire left? So the right, including Bush, bears no responsibility for our disastrous situation in the middle east? Bush shouldn’t be blamed for going into war under false pretenses based on bad information? Reagan bears no responsibility for arming the group that became Al Qaeda? Come on. Of course it gives you pleasure to blame the left. If it didn’t, you’d be willing to acknowledge the right’s blunders as well.
I mean, for God’s sake, Al Qaeda didn’t even *exist* in Iraq until after the invasion. They had no presence there and no real relationship with Saddam. And most of the intelligence community knew that at the time. Al Qaeda followed the U.S. to Iraq, not vice versa. So if there’s one person you should be blaming for Al Qaeda’s growing presence in Iraq today, it’s Bush.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html
Chris: “The entire left”
Yes. Politics (winning power and control) is number one with the left. Loyalty to America is at best squishy. If it is politically expedient leftists will side against a conservative president and with America’s enemies. It has happened time and time again since WWII. The radicals that control the party are grounded in Marxist, “end justifies the means” thinking.
“Of course it gives you pleasure to blame the left. If it didn’t, you’d be willing to acknowledge the right’s blunders as well.”
What evidence do you have that I would not, or haven’t, acknowledged “blunders” (I would call them mistakes in judgement or errors) made by the right? Defending against ridiculous criticisms isn’t the same as refusing to acknowledge errors.
The problem I have with Obama (Carter, Ted Kennedy, Clinton(s) & others) is that he arrogantly chooses (you call it blundering) to align with America’s enemies. Right now he’s painted himself into a corner in part by siding with the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB is a terror organization. He didn’t have to do that.
Carter’s blunder in Iran is the most obvious origin of the rise of the Islamist terrorists. His hand in removing the America friendly Persian monarchy led to the rise of the Ayatollahs, Hezbolah, and Al Qaeda.
Carter’s policy in Afghanistan was in support of the Mujahedin against the brutal Soviets but it was very weak. We stepped that up after Reagan took office. Lefties, as always, attempt to have it both ways…first they want to blame Reagan’s for the increase in support…then they want to take all the credit by claiming the hard work was done during Reagan’s term by Democrat Representative Charlie Wilson. (Hollywood even made a propaganda movie to prove it) See they suddenly needed to look strong militarily after being the so-called “peace” or “anti-war” party for several decades. Squishy at best.
If you want to know what happened, as opposed to simply buying into radical left talking points, historical rewrites, and Hollywood movies you have to do some digging on your own…and look at the broader picture. I am willing to do that. Every time I look I find radical leftist leaders collaborating or playing into the hands of the Soviets or terrorist support groups…and against America.
The “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan were made up of various tribes and factions. Some (religious extremists) aligned and became Al Qaeda and others would be those who joined us to fight Al Qaeda. That is history. Your assertion that Reagan did it is pure leftist propaganda.
“Al Qaeda didn’t even *exist* in Iraq until after the invasion.”
Two points.
1. Saddam Hussein had extensive ties with terror organizations, including Al Qaeda:
2. The Bush administration wanted to accomplish two tasks in invading Iraq (related to this subject), A. Remove the brutal, terror supporting Saddam (And his awful sons) and B. ATTRACT the Al Qaeda terrorists, a stateless organization, to a field of battle where we could engage and defeat them. It was working too after a few stumbles and setbacks common to war…and then Obama was elected.
Obama has done some good targeting with his drone strikes but his reluctance to have the taint of war attach to him has guided his leading from behind policies and given this enemy power to regroup, change plans, and strike the West again. His leadership has resulted in America appearing weak and ineffective.
“So if there’s one person you should be blaming for Al Qaeda’s growing presence in Iraq today, it’s Bush.”
You and Michael Moore must have learned your “history” from the same source. Get your head out of your butt Chris. You learned nothing in the eight years during which Bush actually led this nation and our troops but a bunch of political crap intended to regain power for the Democrats.
Bush and Reagan did make mistakes. I don’t know how you defend against such an enemy and conduct a war without making a few mistakes. BUT they didn’t play politics, using our troops as props, for legacy. They were firmly grounded in America and American principles. Carter, Kennedy, Clinton (both of them) and now Obama have tipped their hand toward our enemies and only reluctantly engaged our enemies. They play politics to avoid being associated with war. They prop up their choices with broad and undefined purposes like “peace” and “human rights”…things that may be noble but don’t represent achievable goals and therefore cannot come back to nail them politically (Or as “popular” figures).
More information on Saddam’s ties to terrorist here and here.
Guess what’s on TV right now?
“Wag the Dog”
“To divert attention from a presidential scandal, an adviser hires a Hollywood producer to manufacture a war.”
Sound familiar? Do you think Obama knows any producers?
I just ran across the CNN transcript of Bill Clinton speaking to the nation after he bombed Iraq in Dec 1998. He explains the reason for the UN inspections and Saddam’s defiance over 7.5 years…Clinton loved to jaw you recall…and eventually gets to this:
Seven and a half years of diddling with UN inspections, periodically drawing new lines in the sand, appeasing and giving another chance and ol Bill still stood up there and pretended the international community still thought America had credibility faith that his word was his bond…7.5 years that included terror attacks on US soil…7.5 years to pass the buck to the next president.
And what did the chicken *%&$ left do when a man finally stepped up? They played politics again.
Wag the Dog was but one of the adventures that came out of the Clinton era, as we all know.
Those of you that are looking seriously at our situation might enjoy reading this from Nightwatch at TownHall.
Tina:
“The Bush administration wanted to accomplish two tasks in invading Iraq (related to this subject), A. Remove the brutal, terror supporting Saddam (And his awful sons) and B. ATTRACT the Al Qaeda terrorists, a stateless organization, to a field of battle where we could engage and defeat them.”
I have never once heard anyone say that Bush’s goal was to attract Al Qaeda to Iraq. That certainly was not the stated goal and was never mentioned in any public explanation of our mission. Bush claimed that Al Qaeda was already there. If that was Bush’s mission, then he was intentionally misleading the public. He claimed that Iraq had a strong connection to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. Every informed person now knows that was not true. It is settled history. Why do you continue to defend this?
One of the links you use to try and establish a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda is from 2003 alleges that Mohammad Atta was trained in Iraq, which was not true. The same article references the “Niger uranium shipping” which was based on a memo that has since been revealed to be a forgery. These are basic facts about the Iraq War that every informed person should know, so why don’t you? The answer is because you rely on outdated information and ridiculous conspiracy sites like Human Events. You won’t find the truth that way, Tina, you’ll only find what you want to hear.
The report cited by Human Events to justify the Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection begins by stating that they found “no smoking gun tying Saddam to Osama bin Laden’s network.” Funny how Human Events left that bit out. Of course Iraq sponsored terrorists, but they did not sponsor Al-Qaeda, which is what the Bush administration constantly told the public.
You and your party have orchestrated a collective freakout over Benghazi, claiming that the Obama administration lied about the reason for the attack after the fact (even though every single department, including intelligence, mentioned the anti-Islam video in their initial memos, and witnesses on the ground said that they were protesting the video) but you have no problem with Bush’s far bigger and more destructive abuse of the facts? You blame Obama for four deaths at an embassy even though both Bush and Reagan had far more embassy deaths under their watch, and Bush’s distortion of the facts led to a war in which thousands of Americans have been killed?
Where are your priorities?
Chris, the reasons for the US invasion of Iraq were substantially more supportable than you infer. First, Saddam Hussein was obliged to abide by a peace treaty that he signed in Gulf 1 (1991).
He engaged in repeated treaty violations and that treaty clearly spelled out the consequences of renewed military action against his regime. I won’t bother to list them all here for you, but if you do your homework it will soon become clear there were many violations of a very serious nature over an extended period that forced a war or risked letting him get away with it while he also engaged international war crimes against his own people.
Remember, the plethora of UN resolutions had no effect and the UN blockade seemed only to inflict injury upon the poorer Iraqi’s who had no say in Saddam’s administration. Meanwhile Saddam deliberately toyed with UN inspectors in order to maintain his WMD status among the Arab nations. His tactics presented a credible theory that WMD’s were still there and still being developed. Personally, I think his stockpiles of Saran wound up in Syria just before the 03 invasion.
I disagreed with the invasion and I had even stronger issues how the occupation was administered. Aside from the false intelligence on the Niger connection, there were still many very logical and factual reasons that led to the invasion in 2003…even though we both may disagree with that war.
The sink hole (Iraq) which consumed billions upon billions of tax dollars was in my opinion one of the worst military adventures in US history. However, if there was an upside it should serve as a tragic and costly lesson to all future presidents who might like to meddle in the affairs of Gulf nations, including Obama and Syria to stay the H— out!
That whole place from the Red Sea to the Med is one giant cesspool of ignorant religious and political fanatics with the confused morals of a Rev. Jim Jones. It is amazing that such a region with their rich human history and fabulous resources could be misused by so many indigenous a-holes. -Jack
Jack it occurs to me that for all the criticism of Bush’s plan I have yet to hear an alternative other than the duck and cover position of the ultra libertarian isolationists. Given your considerable experience in the military…can I put you on the spot?
What would you have done following 911 to address the fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had declared war on America in such spectacular fashion?
Would the attacks in Spain, England, and Russia that followed and clearly indicated the war was against the west add to your resolve or alter your course?
If the plan to fight the terrorists in Iraq was ill-conceived and poorly executed what would have been a better solution to the Saddam WMD and treaty violations problem?
Bill Clinton chose to treat terror attacks as criminal, after the fact, and then we were hit on 911. Do you now support his approach as a preferable way to address this worldwide threat to democracy and freedom?
Any of our other military friends can feel free to respond as well if you’d like. Those of us with zero military experience don’t have the advantage of your perspective.
Tina, based on hindsight that would be easy, going into that big unknown like Bush did…well, now that would be real tough and lots of mistakes would be made and they were. Some were very excusable but then some were also very preventable and those are the ones that keep me frustrated because they were such obvioud mistakes…and they cost lives.
Okay, let’s start where W says to the world, and this is right after 9/11, that we’re going after Al Qaeda and whoever protects them is in our crosshairs too, I forget the exact words. Wow…that was honest, direct and everybody understood what he meant. That really got some attention over in the Gulf too. Iran completely shut up. Not a peep was heard from them until they felt it was safe to speak up. Pakistanis were shaking in their jutti’s (sandals). It was pretty much that way all over the Middleast and rightly so.
Nobody had seen American angry since WWII and they knew how that one ended. Bush was told he had stand down and be more diplomatic by lesser men that we didn’t elect to be president. I would not have stood down! Bush was right and that was a good start that I would have carried through on. The Taliban regime in Kabul would have fallen and the Norther Alliance could have picked up the pieces. I would not have embarked on nation building. We would have been in and out in 3 months tops and blown up everything occupied or run by the Taliban. My parting words would be and if you want some more let bin Laden back into your country.
Next, Pakistan would have given us carte blanche to deal with the remenents of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and we would have embarked on another campaign of hunt and kill and we would have exited on our terms in about 2-3 months. Overwhelming firepower would have kept our losses minimal in both theaters.
As for Iraq in 2003, there would not have been a war until 2004, if ever. I think we could have gained Saddam’s full cooperation by taking out one palace a week until he cried uncle, but if that wasn’t enough, then we should have made it a get in and get out war, no more than a year. For that we needed better planning and better intelligence. We needed to prepare troops for police duty which they had never been trained to do! SF units would have been the lead in each AO (sector). The plan would have included keeping the Army mostly whole with most Iraqi generals in place. I would have made it clear to Iran that you send your military people into Iraq to help the other side you do so at the risk of total war. The first time we caught Iran smuggling anything, food, ammo, bombs, etc., to the enemy they (Iran) would pay a heavy price… in downtown Tehran. Maybe the loss of a key government building? That action would be swift…no delays, no debates, no diplomats, no angry rhetoric, we just hit them hard. That’s how they come to understood we mean business. My guess it would a minimal effort and they would be coming to us looking for peace and in the long run other nations would learn YES, WE MEAN BUSINESS! DON’T MESS WITH US. This may sound overly brutal but in the long run it actually saves lives and we are stronger for having done it.
So there it is, my plan is fairly direct and simple. Our friends must respect us and our enemies must fear us, anything short of that is unacceptable. Of course there’s a few thousand other things that would go along with the above…but, you get the idea…it’s the old carrot and stick policy…with the carrot being (their) survival. Play ball with us and we will help you purge your country of Islamic terrorists and the world will be a better place for all of us, don’t cooperate and we guarantee that you’re existence will be limited. You will be nothing more than a tiny blood splatter on a page in world history.
Thanks Jack. I appreciate your taking the time.
This sounds a little like what Rumsfeld wanted to do but he was overruled. I don’t know if America has the backbone to support such a common sense approach anymore. Its a shame since it works better and for lot less in capital and lives! Plus we would keep our reputation as a nation that can be counted upon and remains a beacon for liberty (rather than a maker of free nations). People have to choose freedom; i9t can’t be painted on.
Once our chosen leader had taken the path to nation building, however, it is a shame he was followed by a weak (Narcissist) President who chose to insult our allies and turn his back on Iraq because it represented the previous Presidents accomplishments that he had trashed to get elected.
Anyway thanks, I enjoyed the lesson.
It does not matter who is President. First of all the Neo Cons were begging Clinton to go into Iraq. This is not divisional by party lines. This is a problem.
America has been messing around the middle east for years! Who put the shah in power? We Did then we took him out!
The military Industrial complex profits are down about 25 Billion as the wars wind down. Iraq was planned and the oil fields divided up by Cheney before 911. The Saudis were all involved in 911. Yet not a peep!
The media is all propaganda.
Does anyone remember the heritage Foundation republican debates? The talking points were we need to attack Syria, Iran! and blah blah,….hello!
Stop the hate for a sec. Does the narrative of this sound exactly like the Iraq playbook? yes it does.
Was WW1 a predecessor to WW2 yes! maybe like Iraq is this this world war? and oh they followed a huge economic deregulated wall street crash, no coincidence.
Our Congress and the White House are no longer ours. Americans and the English are against this not because Obama is the guy in the house cause we see the pattern. America has not been threatened. We have 2 unpaid wars and so does England. Then the politicians say the 2% need tax cuts and those who lost their jobs to outsourcing or the market Crash need to die or work for McDonald’s or worse yet walmart.
The wall street business model has changed to one with Chinese slaves as labor and we need to follow that?
Not our war has nothing to do with anything but the normal playbook.(OIL) I would not be surprised if our CIA had something to do with escalating this for the profiteers. Would not be the first time.
McCain wants full blown out war! read his Amendment!
let us be honest and stop the hate. We can not blame one party for this mess as it is one big evil government with a left and a right. The solution is take back our gov and fix it. We the people not we the corporation.
The reason the world does not trust us is the lies and Propaganda of the Iraq war. They hate Obama more because he just had the DOJ apply for immunity for the Bush Admin and their war crimes. There was no nation building!
I know a nation that needs to be rebuilt, it is called the United States of America.
Dewey your views about Cheney and the Iraqi oil fields are lies and reveal that you are just a Michael Moore misinformation freak.
Come back if you decide you are willing to drop the big bad conspiracy nuttiness and can show some willingness to actually seek truth.
We will not rebuild the United States of America as long as people see our capitalist system as an enemy. We will not rebuild America as long as Democrats and their phony social programs are shielded from scrutiny. We are broke because we have huge, expensive, Democrat created social programs that promised things that over time could not be delivered. social Security and Medicare are two of the biggests drivers of our massive debt. The Obama cure for the economy, money printing, has piled on a bunch more.
The recession ended in 2009. Obamas cure has caused all misery. Reagonomics, on the other hand, created a big boom that opened opportunities for everyone and expanded the middle class.
The extreme left media/education complex has been lying to you buddy. Wake up! the proof is right before your eyes. Five years of progressive economics and we are dying.
McCain doesn’t represent the views of Post Scripts, by the way. Perhaps you should find out who you are yammering away at before posting.
We are so done.
Tina nice to see a reply, Michael Moore? What? No it is documented and even in the cato institute documents it appears. I stand by that as fact! I do not get info from the blogs and movies.
That is a real fact.
Tina why assume it is conspiracy? it is fact.
America is a country of capitalism and socialism and that is just unbalanced. discussion is good. I do not believe in conspiracy nor watch corporate media. I take Tea party calls and hear what is said as well.
Sorry the Iraq war is an open book and google around, find a site you trust that is not a political party. That is just the ugly truth.
It saddens me that so many do not want to see the ugly truths from both parties. The information is out there and it does not come from politicians nor political parties.
Bottom Line independents will fix the country and just remember these are not lies as they are fact checked and the whole world knows.