Jump to content

George W. Bush administration's Iraq war helped to create ISIS


MasssageGuy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Golly, do ya think?

 

1. Gee, no Weapons Of Mass Destruction.... Actually should be named Republican Weapons of Mass DECEPTION... BTW - Whatever happened to all the anthrax scare at the same time as the WMD plate was spinning....

 

2. We totally destroyed the Iraq government upon taking over. We put Paul Bremer who was educated at New Canaan Country School, and Phillips Andover Academy in charge. His dad was was president of the Christian Dior Perfumes Corporation in New York. I guess perfume can cover up lots...

 

"Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, former U.S. special forces commander in Iraq and Afghanistan who was the country's highest ranking military intelligence official, says that the George W. Bush administration's Iraq war was a tremendous blunder that helped to create the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS."http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/565ca1781b0000810029ec45.jpeg

 

"Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, former U.S. special forces commander in Iraq and Afghanistan who was the country's highest ranking military intelligence official, says that the George W. Bush administration's Iraq war was a tremendous blunder that helped to create the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS.

 

"It was a huge error," Flynn said about the Iraq war in a detailed interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel published Sunday.

 

"As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him," Flynn went on to say. "The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and should not be kind with that decision."

 

When told by Der Spiegel reporters Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark that the Islamic State would not "be where it is now without the fall of Baghdad," Flynn, without reservations, said: "Yes, absolutely."

 

Read the entire interview here. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/former-us-intelligence-chief-discusses-development-of-is-a-1065131.html

 

Flynn, who served in the U.S. Army for more than 30 years and was former commander of special forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, also said that the American military response following 9/11 was not well thought-out at all and based on significant misunderstandings.

 

"When 9/11 occurred, all the emotions took over, and our response was, 'Where did those bastards come from? Let's go kill them. Let's go get them,'" he said.

 

Instead of determining why the U.S. was attacked by terrorists, Flynn said, the Bush administration was looking at where the terrorists came from and locations to attack.

 

"Then," Flynn said, "we strategically marched in the wrong direction."

 

Following the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 based on sketchy evidence presented by the Bush administration that linked weapons of mass destruction and terrorist organization Al Qaeda to former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The fall of Hussein resulted in chaos and led to a power vacuum in the region that terrorist organizations, like the Islamic State, have taken advantage of.

 

Flynn acknowledged just how wrongheaded the U.S. approach was as evidenced by the country's release of current Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in late 2004. The Pentagon has said that Baghdadi was arrested earlier that year near Falluja, but was released in December along with a large group of prisoners it deemed to be "low-level."

 

"We were too dumb. We didn't understand who we had there at that moment," Flynn said.

 

Flynn, who, before retiring most recently served as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency upon being nominated to the position by President Barack Obama, has also been critical of his former boss' strategy and language surrounding the terrorist group.

 

In a recent interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera's "Head to Head," Flynn took aim at Obama's publicly stated goals to "degrade and ultimately destroy" the Islamic State, saying that while the administration is effectively degrading the organization, the group cannot be "destroyed."

 

"We may cause it to change its name, but we are never going to destroy this organization," Flynn said. "Destroy means to completely eliminate -- he should not have used those words, those were incorrect words to use and he should have been more precise."

 

Following the violent attacks in Paris earlier this month, Flynn said that the Obama administration's foreign policy is "amateurish" and has "its own place of responsibility in the mayhem that we are seeing right now.""

 

Full Article...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iraq-war-isis-michael-flynn_565c83a9e4b079b2818af89c

'Totalitarianism can flourish where people systematically refuse to engage with reality, and are ready to replace reason with ideology and outright fiction.'

 

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://rackjite.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/330lll.jpg

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler. If we knew what we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" Einstein

 

"The Universe is not only queerer than we imagine; it is queerer than we can imagine." J.B.S. Haldane

 

"If the idea is not at first absurd, then there is no hope for it." Einstein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And since W didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, well...

 

The only thing that bothers me about Flynn's interview is that virtually everything he says should have been a red flag for going in was well-known then, in 2002/3. But one was attacked as traitorous for saying it, and most of the press caved immediately: Plans for "embedding" reporters with the military meant the press had to get into bed with the Pentagon. So they did. Huge mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bush clan and the evil henchmen that worked for them then or who do now have never apologized for the thousands of American lives lost (plus civilian casualties) or the trillions in debt their ignorance and stubborn disregard for facts has hoisted onto us. The most they can say is Saddam was a bad man. So for those that don't drink the Bush kool-aid, or foreigners still suffering from the war, they are left with the fact the American government sees itself as the primary adjudicator as to whether a leader is good or bad and if the latter, has the right (primarily granted to itself of course but there are some "allies" that will sit on the bench and quietly cheer us on) to take action.

 

Rand Paul's fairly isolationist policy is one we should enact. Too many US military bases around the world, too many weapons in foreign countries that are stamped "Made in America". Too many enemies as a result.

 

We need to protect ourselves, not assume (like McCain, Graham, Rubio, Christie, etc.) that its our role to protect everyone. If its the latter, we need the other countries we're protecting to join our union, subject themselves to our laws and pay US taxes (particularly the pay taxes part).

 

The countries facing ISIS directly need to do all or most of the heavy lifting. Kasich said something crazy this weekend. He said the US could give aid money for refugees to countries including Saudi Arabia - as if they need more of our money? These "conservatives" are butt heads.

Edited by Frequentflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Kasich the Dim said we should give refugee aid money to Saudi Arabia (duh), he was picking up on the new GOP meme first pushed by Bible-banger Ben, who said the same thing about the US providing more refugee aid to Jordan. (Um, Ben; there are 6 million Jordanians and 4.5 million refugees. Shut up and let the adults figure this out.) It's how the GOP is going to try to soften its anti refugee cruelty.

 

Compassionate conservativism, in short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bush clan and the evil henchmen that worked for them then or who do now have never apologized for the thousands of American lives lost (plus civilian casualties) or the trillions in debt their ignorance and stubborn disregard for facts has hoisted onto us. The most they can say is Saddam was a bad man. So for those that don't drink the Bush kool-aid, or foreigners still suffering from the war, they are left with the fact the American government sees itself as the primary adjudicator as to whether a leader is good or bad and if the latter, has the right (primarily granted to itself of course but there are some "allies" that will sit on the bench and quietly cheer us on) to take action.

 

Rand Paul's fairly isolationist policy is one we should enact. Too many US military bases around the world, too many weapons in foreign countries that are stamped "Made in America". Too many enemies as a result.

 

We need to protect ourselves, not assume (like McCain, Graham, Rubio, Christie, etc.) that its our role to protect everyone. If its the latter, we need the other countries we're protecting to join our union, subject themselves to our laws and pay US taxes (particularly the pay taxes part).

 

The countries facing ISIS directly need to do all or most of the heavy lifting. Kasich said something crazy this weekend. He said the US could give aid money for refugees to countries including Saudi Arabia - as if they need more of our money? These "conservatives" are butt heads.

 

they never had any issue about this either.

 

http://41.media.tumblr.com/0f737561a26b28b2bf41e1b282412634/tumblr_mnd3g278Uj1qztsh3o1_500.jpg

 

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/65459/large/tumblr_mz7a44lBMX1svzlzeo2_500.jpg?1389901279

 

CFpGKCNUgAArSLR.png

Liberal, born and raised in Maryland, proud member of pink pistols!

Ignore list: WilliamM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isis has been in the making since way before Bush was in office.

 

As were Al Qaeda and Boko Haram. But the Bush administration's ill-advised regime change crusade removed a stabilizing (even if horrible) dictator who kept the crazies in check. When you remove existing power structures with no viable plan for a replacement (also known as an exit strategy) it is not a surprise that chaos ensues. It's kinda expected, actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As were Al Qaeda and Boko Haram. But the Bush administration's ill-advised regime change crusade removed a stabilizing (even if horrible) dictator who kept the crazies in check. When you remove existing power structures with no viable plan for a replacement (also known as an exit strategy) it is not a surprise that chaos ensues. It's kinda expected, actually.

 

And that is exactly what the US gov and its allies wanted. And oh boy did they get it.

 

Hugs,

Greg

Honey badger don't give a fuck!

 

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isis has been in the making since way before Bush was in office.

 

Hugs,

Greg

 

Yes, you are correct: the roots of ISIS go back before Bush was president. However, it stayed a small splinter group until a few years ago when Obama left Iraq to its own resources and it mushroomed to what it is today. But the Bush Iraq policy does carry most of the blame for setting the stage of what we see today. The irony is that we now have a few thousand "boots on the ground" in Iraq once again. To be clear: Bush gets most of the blame for Iraq and the results including ISIS.

 

The elephant in the room is that the Obama administration under the leadership of Hillary as Secretary of State, did the same thing as Bush in Iraq: Obama and Hillary took a stable North African country, deposed the strongman who kept it under control and today we have a failed jihadist state in Libya. When things were going well, Hillary was happy to claim credit as the architect of the Libyan policy but now she is distancing herself from that failed state. What happened in Libya can not be blamed on Bush. Also, remember that Obama claimed that Yemen was a role model of what he wanted to accomplish in the Middle East and then six months later it became a shit storm.

 

Libya calls into question Hillary's judgement pursuing that war; sort of the same failed policy as Bush in Iraq but on a smaller scale. The original post at the top of this column makes it clear that the Obama administration has had a role in the "mayhem" in the area but it is interesting that ALL the hate seems to be reserved solely for Bush. Selective reading?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As were Al Qaeda and Boko Haram. But the Bush administration's ill-advised regime change crusade removed a stabilizing (even if horrible) dictator who kept the crazies in check. When you remove existing power structures with no viable plan for a replacement (also known as an exit strategy) it is not a surprise that chaos ensues. It's kinda expected, actually.

Yup. And it was at a notorious US military prison in Iraq, Camp Bucca, that the leadership formed.

 

Of course, kooky conservative trolls will blame Obama for failing to fix the century old fermenting chaos that Bush unleashed, and which cannot be contained by magic fairy dust, but we're pretty much stuck with stupid people. They actually pity poor Bush, who is a war criminal, while condemning Obama, Clinton, etc.

Edited by Kenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...