Posted on 06/22/2014 10:48:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I read stuff like this on conservative websites and I can only shake my head in disbelief. This theory is all based on the notion that Saddam Hussein was a secularist who kept the jihadists out of Iraq and at bay.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Hussein was harboring and helping Ansar al Islam for years. The predecessors to bin Laden were Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas abd Abu Zarqawi all of whom were ensconced in Baghdad and all of who who had attacked American interests and killed Americans the most notorious of these murders was the killing of an american Jew on the Achille Lauro who happened to be wheelchair bound.
I'm getting old so it my only concern is for my grandkids who seem to be growing up in a world where our politicians and citizens just have no foresight at all. The Middle East was a huge boil that needed lancing and though we should have lanced it much more violently ala Dresden and Hiroshima it nonetheless needed doing. Bush saw Iraq through while the left and many on the right were screaming for negotiated defeat and deserves much credit for that. To me that was his shining momeent, not standing in the rubble in Manhattan.
Our politicians and our citizens just did not have what it takes to win the peace and that is neither Bush's fault or Cheney's fault. That was is woned by Obama, Congress and the good ole american people.
There's a reason why the U.S. doesn't lay waste to enemies like Iraq. The whole purpose of these nation-building campaigns is to establish and prop up governments so we can do business with them -- and destroying a country kind of defeats the whole purpose of that.
I understand your concern about sealing the borders at war and think you are right and Bush was wrong there. But unlike you I can separate the two. Attacks on American interests had been escalating for decades. The perps wer in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t buy the war for oil bs if that’s what you are getting at. We have more than enough energy sources in America to be self sufficient. Of course we don’t have the will and as far as trusting politicians the only thing I trust that they will do is sell their souls to be re-elected. Though there are exceptions. Duncan Hunter for one.
Saddam was a heinous SOB. Unbelievably, ISIS is worse. At least Saddam wasn’t as direct of a threat. Saddam didn’t want to control the world and it was a different time. ISIS has a strong support base in the USA. Saddam didn’t.
Rand Paul, Barrack Obama, John Kerry, Hillary, et al, all share similar views on foreign policy. And they are all more right then Cheney, if, BIG IF, the meaning of “right” means open borders, loss of military supremacy, appeasement, isolationism, screwing our allies, giving up all of our interests around the globe, giving the Islamic fascists, Iran, Russia, NK, China, et al, carte blanche to take whatever they wish. Oh, we might object, write sternly worded letters, draw red lines, etc, but the evil doers will know our threats are meaningless... along with our word to our allies.
Powell composed the Powell Doctrine prior to Desert Storm. The doctrine states the requirements that must be met before intervening and the main requirement is having an exit strategy. There was no exit strategy for Iraq.
Powell opposed Iraq in 2003. You may recall from 2006 Powell telling Cheney and Bush that they should have listened to him.
The way it had worked out, was Powell asked for two hours alone with George Bush to try to convince him not to go into Iraq, after which, if George Bush decided to go, Powell would support him, which he did. Powell laid his reputation on the line when he convinced the UN to issue the Mandate, which was the legal basis for the US to go in.
Powell still resents Bush and Cheney over that
I was in no way referring to 2003, only the highway of death.
An exit strategy that works: “We win, they lose.”
The Nixon, Powell, Paul, Obama, Kerry, Clinton doctrine:
Our troops win the battles, our politicians (including brass) lose the wars.
Blaming Bush at this point in time is the same as supporting Obama. It is communist agitprop.
Colin Powell endorsed hussein obama twice. His resentment and/or opinion on anything means nothing. And he's an quota-pushing abortionist:
You all know that I believe in a woman’s right to choose and I strongly support affirmative action.
EXACTLY!
You are absolutely correct on Bush signing the SOFA in Dec, 2008. This was a legal and binding document that could not be changed by the US.
But, it was widely believed that once the withdrawal began, Iraq would have second thoughts and would consent to either delaying the final withdrawal, or possibly consenting to another SOFA.
And Obama pursued that.
But Iraq insisted on having legal authority over any troops there after Dec 31, 2011.
The US doesn't do that. We have troops all over the world that are covered by SOFAs in which we retain legal authority.
So, Obama pulled them all out. As any president would.
The same thing could happen in Afghanistan. Obama has proposed a residual force there. If Afghanistan insists on legal authority, Obama will pull them all out.
Your statement that Powell wanted to go on to Bagdad from Kuwait after Desert Storm is pure ignorance.
Five and a half years of Obama in charge (not four and a half).
You are so dumb about foreign policy that you think it is about Republicans versus democrats.
It is about Realists versus NeoCons
You know that and I know that but we are in the vast minority.
So, what is your stance on the Bush Doctrine?
But he endorses Obama’s?
Thanks for the clarification, Ben Ficklin.
The left still don’t forgive Powell for going before the UN and presenting the WMD evidence.
Rand Paul is an isolationist.
Obama and Kerry are Realists
Hillary is a Liberal Interventionist
Cheney is a NeoCon
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.