I challenge each and every blind liberal supporter of Barack Obama to view this one video which, in 2007, President G.W. Bush eerily outlines the reasons why it was so important to leave at least 20,000-plus troops in Iraq in order to maintain the peace and secure the region from terrorism.
Here, in part, are his words of that year:
“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are 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 increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”
That was in 2007, folks. It has all come to pass. Whether you liked him or not, George W. Bush was right.
Here’s the 4-minute video, several venues of the same speech: (scroll down)
I was not a big fan of President G. W. Bush. I wrote articles in 2003 opposing the proposed invasion of Iraq, stating numerous reasons why. It had nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism. But once it was a done deal, the next most important objective was be to minimize losses and to establish Iraq as an ally in the middle east and to keep the region safe and secure from terror.
Bush may not have been the best president in history, but it is clear that he regularly attended security briefings and trusted his military personnel to know what was best for America and for the free world.
According to White House records, Barack Obama attends about 42 percent of security briefings and otherwise reads them on his iPad daily. It’s difficult to imagine that a president of the United States – in a period of time when international terrorism is at its peak around the world – takes terror so nonchalant that he not only skips the majority of security briefings, he reads them on a device in which he cannot challenge, engage, debate, ask questions, delve, investigate, or do everything possible to make right his oath of office, to protect the citizens of America.
Everyone in a position to know, including the past president, many of his past and present staff members, nearly all the military hierarchy, and his own prior Secretary of Defense, pleaded with Obama to leave 20 to 25 thousand troops in Iraq as a peacekeeping contingency force following the successful surge of 2007, much the same as we did in South Korea in 1953. But Mr. Obama was hell bent on keeping his promise to pull out entirely, despite the risks, and despite projections otherwise.
Every disaster that has plagued the middle-east in the last five years can be directly attributed to the errant policies of this president, from Egypt, to Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Iraq, and Hamas’ expanded war against Israel. The ISIS debacle would never have happened had we maintained a reasonable force within Iraq.
Nobel Peace Prize? Are you kidding me?
The president would have us believe that Iraq’s Malaki government refused to guarantee liability against a small American contingency of five thousand, which – according to the Obama administration – is his excuse for pulling out. But that’s a load of c—p, because any competent president with a position of power could easily have negotiated that agreement once the numbers would be over 20 thousand. But the words were music to Obama’s ears, his perfect excuse for leaving the region. That was his goal. He achieved it. Now look!
We now have a forming caliphate, and the most dominant array of radical Islamists ever, with thousands of dead innocent people, with torture, hangings, rapes and decapitated heads rolling around much more than the media lets us know. And, the mongrels have their sights set for greater land grabs, including the west.
Nothing could have gone better for radical Islamic terrorism, than the United States having Barack Obama for a president.
It’s simply impossible to imagine that a U.S. president would be so naïve, or inept, or disengaged. The only other explanation is too scary to even suggest.
I said it in articles five years ago: I wonder whose side he is really on…