Politico: The Man Who Broke The Middle East

[Scataphagos]

Bush should never have messed with Iraq, as it destabilized what was a balance of power between Sunni and Shia in the region.

After Paul O'Neill resigned as Treasury Secretary, he said on a Fox channel, ".... early in my term, there was a cabinet meeting where Bush told us, I'm going into Iraq. You all find me a reason...."

WMD's were Bush's "reason"... which turned out to be phony.

Bush is not blameless in this mess.

 

[fhl]

The old middle east, before Bush, had wars between the major participants and exported terrorism like 9-11 to America. And used chemical weapons as well.

I can't see that that was any better or any more peaceful than it is now. I couldn't care less whether sunni or shia wins or whether they are in any balance. They have constant wars over there no matter who is in power.

 

[Ricter]

"The Middle East that Obama inherited in 2009 was largely at peace," LOL!

No bias at all coming from the deputy national security adviser in the administration of George W. Bush.

And yup this is on ZeroSense's reading list.

I laughed at that line, too.

Rand Paul gets it:

Rand Paul: We Created 'Jihadist Wonderland' In Iraq
Posted: 06/22/2014 11:02 am EDT Updated: 06/22/2014 1:59 pm EDT

"As the Islamist militia group ISIS gains new ground in Iraq, capturing four more towns near the Syrian border and barreling towards Baghdad, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is holding strong to his belief that the United States should stay out of the conflict in the region.

"On CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, Paul ruled out ground troops in Iraq and said that as president, he would ask Congress before getting involved at all.

"There needs to be a full-throated debate in Congress, and Congress has to decide," Paul said. "Militarily, we could go back in. The surge worked. Obviously, we have the military might and power. But the country as a whole has to decide, do we want to send 100,000 troops in? Are we willing to have 4,500 young Americans die to save a city like Mosul that the Shiites won't even save, that they have fled?"

"President Barack Obama is sending 300 troops into Iraq as advisers, but he is holding back more substantial military support, including airstrikes and combat troops, for the time being.

"Paul also responded Sunday to some of Obama's critics in the Republican Party, who say he should have overthrown Syrian President Bashar Assad following evidence that he used chemical weapons on citizens last year. Paul said we need less involvement in the region, not more."

More>>

 

[Martinghoul]

Well done, Rand Paul...

I can't believe Dick Cheney is still offering his opinions on the matter and isn't being told in no uncertain terms to shut the f*** up. More generally, whatever Obama's failings in the ME might have been (and there have been many), let's not lose sight of where and how it all started.

In light of this and since this is a trading site, I thought this was rather appropriate:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-20/dick-cheney-would-be-an-awful-trader

 

[Tsing Tao]

I laughed at that line, too.

Rand Paul gets it:

Rand Paul: We Created 'Jihadist Wonderland' In Iraq
Posted: 06/22/2014 11:02 am EDT Updated: 06/22/2014 1:59 pm EDT

"As the Islamist militia group ISIS gains new ground in Iraq, capturing four more towns near the Syrian border and barreling towards Baghdad, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is holding strong to his belief that the United States should stay out of the conflict in the region.

"On CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, Paul ruled out ground troops in Iraq and said that as president, he would ask Congress before getting involved at all.

"There needs to be a full-throated debate in Congress, and Congress has to decide," Paul said. "Militarily, we could go back in. The surge worked. Obviously, we have the military might and power. But the country as a whole has to decide, do we want to send 100,000 troops in? Are we willing to have 4,500 young Americans die to save a city like Mosul that the Shiites won't even save, that they have fled?"

"President Barack Obama is sending 300 troops into Iraq as advisers, but he is holding back more substantial military support, including airstrikes and combat troops, for the time being.

"Paul also responded Sunday to some of Obama's critics in the Republican Party, who say he should have overthrown Syrian President Bashar Assad following evidence that he used chemical weapons on citizens last year. Paul said we need less involvement in the region, not more."

More>>

Agree wholeheartedly with Paul's position. Shocking that you do, although I suppose you'll call up Paul when he suits your narrative (the blame Bush one).

 

[fhl]

Well done, Rand Paul...

I can't believe Dick Cheney is still offering his opinions on the matter and isn't being told in no uncertain terms to shut the f*** up. More generally, whatever Obama's failings in the ME might have been (and there have been many), let's not lose sight of where and how it all started.

In light of this and since this is a trading site, I thought this was rather appropriate:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-20/dick-cheney-would-be-an-awful-trader

Lol, you mean the way Obama is being told to STFU on health care?

And war in the middle east started with Bush? #deluded

 

[Martinghoul]

Lol, you mean the way Obama is being told to STFU on health care?

And war in the middle east started with Bush? #deluded

What does healthcare have to do with anything here?

And yes, it's Bush and his neocon clique who have, undoubtedly, started the ball rolling in the Middle East. We're reaping the end result of these "efforts", compounded by the Obama admin adhering to the same broad foreign policy principles.

 

[Trader666]

And yes, it's Bush and his neocon clique who have, undoubtedly, started the ball rolling in the Middle East. We're reaping the end result of these "efforts", compounded by the Obama admin adhering to the same broad foreign policy principles.

No, it was terrorist attacks against the United States. And Saddam Hussein's defiance of United Nations resolutions. And Saddam Hussein's rejection of Bush's ultimatum. And flawed intelligence. And democraps, 111 of whom voted FOR the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. And a bunch of other factors. It's leftist revisionist nonsense to put all the blame on Bush and "neocons."

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Cwqh4wQPoQk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

With hindsight we shouldn't have gone in, but we're "reaping" the consequences Odumbo snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by ignoring the commanders on the ground who said we needed a residual force of ~20,000. Which was avoidable without hindsight.

 

[fhl]

What does healthcare have to do with anything here?

And yes, it's Bush and his neocon clique who have, undoubtedly, started the ball rolling in the Middle East. We're reaping the end result of these "efforts", compounded by the Obama admin adhering to the same broad foreign policy principles.

What does healthcare have to do with it? I'll tell you what. You leftists want Cheney to shut up because he was wrong. Why don't you want Obama to shut up about healthcare?


Bush got the ball rolling? You mean Iraq and Iran at war, Iraq invading Kuwait war, etc., etc were something like 'good, inconsequential' wars, but Isis invading Iraq is a 'bad, very consequential' war?

 

[Martinghoul]

No, it was terrorist attacks against the United States. And Saddam Hussein's defiance of United Nations resolutions. And Saddam Hussein's rejection of Bush's ultimatum. And flawed intelligence. And democraps, 111 of whom voted FOR the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

With hindsight we shouldn't have gone in, but what we're "reaping" is the consequences Odumbo snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by ignoring the commanders on the ground who said we needed a residual force of ~20,000. Which was preventable without hindsight.

Right, but isn't it rather well-established that Saddam Hussein didn't have anything to do with Al-Qaeda? As to the defiance of UN resolutions, isn't it also reasonably accepted now that these violations do not represent a sufficient justification for military action? And yes, 111 Democrats and 263 Republicans voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

As to a residual force, would the American people be happy if their soldiers keep dying in Iraq? I thought that there was pretty clear consensus (not just in the US) that the people want out...