PDA

View Full Version : GW Bush was right about pulling troops out of Iraq.



genglandoh
03-27-2015, 04:18 PM
It is a shame that Obama decided to pull out of Iraq without leaving a stabilizing force.

George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout
At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-george-w-bush-was-right-about-iraq-pullout/2014/09/08/6ddd91b2-374e-11e4-bdfb-de4104544a37_story.html

DMillet
03-27-2015, 04:25 PM
He was flat out wrong about going in to begin with so he gets credit for EVERYTHING that has happened since.

Dan McCosh
03-27-2015, 04:29 PM
We should have left as soon as those rose petals were strewn in front of our troops when they marched in.

George Jung
03-27-2015, 04:32 PM
GW and Cheney screwed the pooch. Glen, don't you tire of getting every single thing wrong? There's gotta be a lesson in that...

ljb5
03-27-2015, 04:38 PM
Leaving 24,000 troops behind wouldn't have done a darned thing since the Iraqi army was unwilling or unable to do their jobs.

We would have had to leave 100,000 or more troops behind.... and they'd have to be there indefinitely because the Iraqi army still wouldn't be able or willing to do their jobs.

Would have cost three or four trillion dollars... but of course, that's okay, because we only blame Obama for spending.

ljb5
03-27-2015, 04:45 PM
Sad thing is, Bush was actually right when he predicted failure in Iraq.

He was just five years too late, and behind the curve of everybody else.

Everybody predicted failure in Iraq... going back to 2002.

Just because he predicted failure doesn't mean he had a plan for success. Far from it. Bush's plan wouldn't have led to any better result.... just with more American lives lost and a bigger deficit.

He just really wanted to leave that problem to someone else... and someone else after them... and someone else after that.

johnw
03-27-2015, 04:51 PM
It is a shame that Obama decided to pull out of Iraq without leaving a stabilizing force.

George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout
At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-george-w-bush-was-right-about-iraq-pullout/2014/09/08/6ddd91b2-374e-11e4-bdfb-de4104544a37_story.html

Bush negotiated a treaty that required we remove our forces from Iraq.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement) (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement#cite_ note-sofatext-1)

So, if the title of this thread is correct, the proper thing to do was get our forces completely out of Iraq by the end of 2011. Was that your point?

jack grebe
03-27-2015, 05:15 PM
What was the big deal about total withdraw anyway?

How many spots on the globe still have U.S. occupation
from WW2?

John Smith
03-27-2015, 05:24 PM
G.W. Could have just given the UN weapons inspectors a bit more time. Saddam had granted them total access. Any weapons he had that he wasn't supposed to (of which he had none) could have been removed.

It was Bush who yanked them after they got the previously denied access, and he is responsible for all his decision led to. Generations from now, no matter who is in the White House, the history will be that G.W. was responsible for the invasion of Iraq and all it led to.

skuthorp
03-27-2015, 06:53 PM
As far as leaving too early, if I remember rightly it was the Iraqi govt that told the US to go home.

LeeG
03-27-2015, 07:01 PM
Geng, 180,000 troops and 100,000 contracted personell couldn't stabilize Iraq. Do you understand how idiotic your suggestion that a residual force could? This is why I keep asking if you have suffered a TBI because your understanding of the situation is so superficial.
I came to understanding the Iraq war from complete ignorance but spent the two years since the war reading a book or three a month and finding blogs by experts in the MiddleEast, Iraq and the military and what I learned early on is that the military knows about force levels to occupy territory and that we went in WITHOUT a plan for occupation. The deception played upon YOU and the American public was that this would be a quick "operation" so the majority of America without a son or daughter in the line of fire wouldn't be vexed with worries. The word from on high was "continue shopping". It would take millions of soldiers to secure Iraq but more importantly it would take the occupying forces gov't to PLAN for it. President Cheney/GW didn't.

Paul Pless
03-27-2015, 07:04 PM
suckers

LeeG
03-27-2015, 07:07 PM
suckers

Ok, ok, you're right

Btw how's the driveway, Things melting yet?

Paul Pless
03-27-2015, 07:14 PM
twenty degrees and snow

ccmanuals
03-27-2015, 07:44 PM
Leaving 24,000 troops behind wouldn't have done a darned thing since the Iraqi army was unwilling or unable to do their jobs.

We would have had to leave 100,000 or more troops behind.... and they'd have to be there indefinitely because the Iraqi army still wouldn't be able or willing to do their jobs.

Would have cost three or four trillion dollars... but of course, that's okay, because we only blame Obama for spending.

Bush disbanded the Iraqi army. Many believe and I would agree that this was just another terrible decision that he made.

wardd
03-27-2015, 08:24 PM
shinseki

LeeG
03-27-2015, 11:01 PM
Bush disbanded the Iraqi army. Many believe and I would agree that this was just another terrible decision that he made.

It was a decision by default not volition. The irresponsibility and hubris of the Cheney/Bush administration was on an epic scale. Something Shakespeare could work with.

genglandoh
03-28-2015, 05:17 AM
Geng, 180,000 troops and 100,000 contracted personell couldn't stabilize Iraq. Do you understand how idiotic your suggestion that a residual force could? This is why I keep asking if you have suffered a TBI because your understanding of the situation is so superficial.
I came to understanding the Iraq war from complete ignorance but spent the two years since the war reading a book or three a month and finding blogs by experts in the MiddleEast, Iraq and the military and what I learned early on is that the military knows about force levels to occupy territory and that we went in WITHOUT a plan for occupation. The deception played upon YOU and the American public was that this would be a quick "operation" so the majority of America without a son or daughter in the line of fire wouldn't be vexed with worries. The word from on high was "continue shopping". It would take millions of soldiers to secure Iraq but more importantly it would take the occupying forces gov't to PLAN for it. President Cheney/GW didn't.

Iraq was stable for about 3 years, so much so that Joe Biden was trying to give Obama credit for it.
So when Iraq was stable Obama wants the credit.
But after Obama removes all our troops and all he## breaks out it is Bush’s fault.

Feb 11, 2010
Vice President Biden: Iraq “Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration”
On Larry King Live last night, Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/02/vice-president-biden-iraq-could-be-one-of-the-great-achievements-of-this-administration/

ljb5
03-28-2015, 08:16 AM
Vice President Biden: Iraq “Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration”

So Biden was a bit overly optimistic.

So what?

Biden's optimism is not what screwed up Iraq.

Bush's invasion screwed up Iraq.

Biden made those comments nearly seven years after the invasion. Seven years after Rumsfeld told us it would only take six weeks. Seven years after Bush declared victory. Trillions of dollars after Wolfowitz said it would pay for itself.

You can't be wrong about something like that for seven years and then blame the guy who comes in to clean up the mess.

Honestly, you make it sound like Obama has nothing better to do than sit around and cover up for Bush's screw ups.

LeeG
03-28-2015, 08:24 AM
Iraq was stable for about 3 years, so much so that Joe Biden was trying to give Obama credit for it.
So when Iraq was stable Obama wants the credit.
But after Obama removes all our troops and all he## breaks out it is Bush’s fault.
]

Iraq was not stable, millions of Iraqis were displaced. Shia militias operating under the mantle of the "Iraqi gov't" had changed Baghdad's population from 70/30 Sunni/Shia to 30/70 through threats and killings. The idea Iraq was stable is like saying someone on their third round of chemo is stable after their cancer has metastized to vital organs.
There was a huge section of the population that was totally disenfranchised.

Remember "Peace With Honor"?

John Smith
03-28-2015, 08:30 AM
As far as leaving too early, if I remember rightly it was the Iraqi govt that told the US to go home.

Thank you. That is the little thing people seem to forget. If we had left troops they would have been under Iraq's control. Unacceptable.

My opinion, which was totally correct about how the invasion would work, is it wouldn't matter when we left. The same s**t would happen whenever we left.

John Smith
03-28-2015, 08:37 AM
It was a decision by default not volition. The irresponsibility and hubris of the Cheney/Bush administration was on an epic scale. Something Shakespeare could work with.

Let us not forget how they lied to us, and to congress. They lied to Powell. Even about the famous resolution we've been lied to. Let me post this again. This comes from Senator Clinton's floor speech Oct. 10 2002 and this is her primary reason for voting for the resolution:

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

As history unfolded, Saddam DID grant the access. Once he granted the access, Bush yanked the inspectors. The invasion was never necessary, even for those who thought he had WMD's. The invasion was wanted.

John Smith
03-28-2015, 08:39 AM
Iraq was stable for about 3 years, so much so that Joe Biden was trying to give Obama credit for it.
So when Iraq was stable Obama wants the credit.
But after Obama removes all our troops and all he## breaks out it is Bush’s fault.

Feb 11, 2010
Vice President Biden: Iraq “Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration”
On Larry King Live last night, Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/02/vice-president-biden-iraq-could-be-one-of-the-great-achievements-of-this-administration/

I seem to remember Bush boasting the mission had been accomplished.

I'll agree that since Obama withdrew on a timetable negotiated by Bush, Bush would get the credit if it worked out well. Truth is, it was doomed to not work out well.

LeeG
03-28-2015, 09:15 AM
It's bizarre Geng could say Iraq was stable. Where does he think the alliance between Iraqi Baathists and Jihadists occured.

Norman Bernstein
03-28-2015, 09:21 AM
Here's Jon Soltz's take (Iraq War veteran, and founder of VoteVets.org):


President Obama lost Iraq by pulling out too early.

This is always a favorite line (http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/24/santorum-us-lost-the-war-in-iraq/) of the GOP. Of course, to someone who doesn't know any better, it makes a ton of sense: If President Obama had just kept our troops there, everything would be better. Here's why that isn't true.

First and foremost, the Iraqis didn't want us there anymore. They made that abundantly clear when they got President Bush to sign a Status of Forces Agreement that required the U.S. to end its large-scale presence by the end of 2011 (http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/). When you liberate a country and give them self-rule, you kind of have to go with their wishes.

Second, a major reason they wanted us gone was that they didn't want (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/world/middleeast/iraqis-say-no-to-immunity-for-remaining-american-troops.html) our troops to have immunity. They wanted our troops to be tried in Iraqi courts and held in Iraqi prisons if they deemed that necessary and appropriate. We would never agree to such an arrangement, and so President Bush wisely agreed to leave Iraq.

Third, Iraq was always destined to fall back into chaos because President Bush backed a prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who is a Shiite who exacted political revenge on the Sunni minority in Iraq by driving them out of positions of power,including in the military (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901728.html). The underlying issues in Iraq were political, are political, and always will be political. As long as the minority feels like it has to fight against the Shia government for rights and stability, Iraq will be a mess. This more than anything has allowed groups like ISIS the space they need to operate in majority-Sunni regions.

LeeG
03-28-2015, 10:12 AM
Geng, you might consider educating yourself about what happened after the U.S. invasion destroyed Iraqs gov't and military. Statements by US politicians and pundits is not the path for your learning.


http://www.amazon.com/Iraqi-Familys-Inside-First-Occupation/dp/0971679509


http://www.amazon.com/Aftermath-Following-Bloodshed-Americas-Muslim-ebook/product-reviews/B0046A8SJ0/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Life-Emerald-City-Inside/dp/0307278832/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1427556281&sr=8-8&keywords=the+green+zone

I heard Nir Rosen speak at a book fair with Rajiv and another author on terrorism and got to participate in a Q&A with them. What became obvious was that the portrayal of ground reality by popular media and the Bush administration was constructed primarily to fit our narrative going in and not what was actually happening over there.

ljb5
03-28-2015, 10:40 AM
Second, a major reason they wanted us gone was that they didn't want our troops to have immunity. They wanted our troops to be tried in Iraqi courts and held in Iraqi prisons if they deemed that necessary and appropriate. We would never agree to such an arrangement, and so President Bush wisely agreed to leave Iraq.

It's important to remember that this negotiation point became a critical issue because of incidents like Abu Ghraib, the Nisour Square shootings and, of course, Cheney's torture program.

In other words, Bush's mismanagement and atrocities early in the war destroyed the trust and cooperation that we would have needed to keep troops in Iraq.

The Status of Forces agreement --- and the subsequent troop withdrawal did not happen in a vacuum; they stem directly from Bush's policies.

ccmanuals
03-28-2015, 12:07 PM
It was a decision by default not volition. The irresponsibility and hubris of the Cheney/Bush administration was on an epic scale. Something Shakespeare could work with.

Pretty good analysis here
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2007/09/who_disbanded_the_iraqi_army.html

LeeG
03-28-2015, 04:12 PM
Pretty good analysis here
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2007/09/who_disbanded_the_iraqi_army.html

That is worth reading. My take is that the lack of accountability was a natural consequence of the administrations overall tactics in using disinformation and sequestering away relevant expertise from the policy makers.
Chalabi could have undue influence because he provided the disinformation they sought. The problem wasn't Chalabi.
Cheney and Rumsfelds ad hoc intel groups served their purpose of winning the battles in DC while polluting the entire intelligence process. Cheney/Rumsfeld totally destroyed gathering of human intelligence by presuming to reinvent interrogations with torture in order to acquire prefered intel. The Pentagons knowledge about war making and occupation was severely restricted by Rumsfelds rejecting efforts at post invasion planning by the joint chiefs. The list goes on.

A similar event of unaccountability happened when those famous "WMD" didn't show up. As chaos unfolded and more soldiers were spread thin getting attacked GW is desperate to show off the scary mushroom cloud causing devices.
So they appointed David Kay to be accountable which was then kicked down to Charles Duelfer.

The documentary No End In Sight has an interview with Paul Hughes describing what it was like when he found out the Iraqi military was cut loose and he had to tell all those Iraqi officers his govt's prior assurances were all hollow and they could essentially reup as privates or GF themselves, intensely painful thing to see. The duplicitous and dysfunctional process that led to the invasion is revealed in that and many other instances.

Cheney/GW/Rumsfeld and the neocons were the opposite of conservative, they were reckless and negligent.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RzhxctD3hlw

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-zDBvEzE2QY
Part 3 @ 2.49 min is worth hearing

This is what I was looking for, the absolute lack of accountability is terrifying, "oops, blew up a country, darn that intel"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLFB7A9E07117568E9&v=fJnQnBN_ozY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLFB7A9E07117568E9&v=HC9Vac0D3B4&params=OAFIAVgI&mode=NORMAL

this was a criminal enterprise. I bet Graham has spent more on candy bars than books about the Iraq war. It's simply not possible to say the things he has if he had educated himself just a little about what has transpired.

Captain Intrepid
03-28-2015, 05:41 PM
Iraq wasn't stable at the peak of the US military presence there.

LeeG
03-28-2015, 05:52 PM
Iraq wasn't stable at the peak of the US military presence there.

Correct, and Iraqi and coalition deaths peaked in coincidence with our presence. Maybe Geng is seeking a prolonged yet sustainable rate of casualties.

ljb5
03-28-2015, 08:31 PM
Among some degenerate gamblers, there's a theory that you're never really losing as long as you're always willing to double your bet.

Your loses are already potentially covered by the winnings on the next bet you're going to place. And if that one fails, it doesn't matter, because you can cover that one with an even larger bet afterwards. They key is to never stop betting... because defeat only happens to those who aren't still playing the game.

It's even easier if you can get up from the table and make someone else take over for you.

Cuyahoga Chuck
03-28-2015, 10:58 PM
It is a shame that Obama decided to pull out of Iraq without leaving a stabilizing force.

George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout
At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-george-w-bush-was-right-about-iraq-pullout/2014/09/08/6ddd91b2-374e-11e4-bdfb-de4104544a37_story.html

Marc Thiessen may be your hero-of-the-moment but I never heard of him and what he says is just his opinion. I don't doubt that in years to come there will be those who paint GW Bush as all-knowing and ever correct but those opinions will be from outliers who make a living trying to re-manufacture history. George Bush may have loved little children and dogs but he was a bum president who did this country far more harm than good.

genglandoh
03-31-2015, 04:18 PM
In 2011 Obama said Iraq was stable too justify pulling the troops out.

"Iraq's not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people. We're building a new partnership between our nations and we are ending a war not with a final battle but with a final march toward home. This is an extraordinary achievement," he said.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/14/barack-obama-iraq-war-success

johnw
03-31-2015, 04:21 PM
In 2011 Obama said Iraq was stable too justify pulling the troops out.

"Iraq's not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people. We're building a new partnership between our nations and we are ending a war not with a final battle but with a final march toward home. This is an extraordinary achievement," he said.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/14/barack-obama-iraq-war-success

You never did answer my question. Given that the troops were withdrawn on the schedule that George W. Bush negotiated, do you feel that Bush was right about when they should be withdrawn?

LeeG
03-31-2015, 05:08 PM
In 2011 Obama said Iraq was stable too justify pulling the troops out.

"Iraq's not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people. We're building a new partnership between our nations and we are ending a war not with a final battle but with a final march toward home. This is an extraordinary achievement," he said.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/14/barack-obama-iraq-war-success

There was also no basis to keep them there unless you wanted to subject US soldiers to the "Iraqi" legal system.
Graham, how much do you think you've spend on ice cream in the last ten years compared to books on Iraq, the invasion, etc?