Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, September 8, 2014

George W. Bush's 2007 Statement

On July 12, 2007 (hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance):



Text of the speech, in case that the above video again becomes unavailable:
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 Qaida. 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.
GWB wasn't always right. Not by a long shot. The above statement from George W. Bush now seems prophetic, however.

84 comments:

  1. What's being "blamed" on Barack Obama is his total inability to deal with foreign policy problems throughout the world...as well as Iraq! Barry knew full well what was going on the Middle East when he took office. He chose to go the "Cairo Speech" route and apologize for America's actions, seeming to think that doing so would make Arabs in the region love us. So here we are six years later and you've got Islamic terrorists taunting Obama while they decapitate Americans.

    So what to do when it comes to foreign policy? Should we take a page out of Hillary's play book and say, "At this point...what difference does it make!”

    I’ll tell ya what difference ir makes, now we have Libya, the Palestinians, (Hamas) and those SAVAGES in Syria to deal with and lets not forget Iran.
    Yes, what difference does it make! Impeaching Bozo and having Joe Biden as the president is going to make a whole worse, if that’s at all possible!! You'd go from stupid and incompetent...to stupid and senile.

    Because Obama bought that Muslim Brotherhood Bullcrap known as the “Arab Spring” and now he’s covering his ass because he knows that he screwed up! This was very predictable, everyone but the lefties knew what was going to happen. And who know, one day we might even find out the whole story behind Benghazi.!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Obama has loyalty to both Islam and Marxism, which also makes him the nitwit that he is, and anyone that can’t see this should take the mud out of their eyes. I should be perfectly obvious, without exception!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? Is that why he ordered Osama killed and didn't jail a single Wall Street banker? Nice try, genius.

      Delete
  3. Wake up people! Obama is just a lapdog doing what his masters tell him to do. And if you didn't figured out already, he WASN'T elected, he was appointed! Yes! By the real people who are running America! Come on now, it's not so hard to see.

    Now, try to figure out why the "anointed" ones would like to give a joint to a such a murderous religion as Islam! Islamic extremists have declared war on America.

    Did you know that the Obama administration conducted an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2010 and 2011, beginning even before the events known as the “Arab Spring” erupted in Tunisia and in Egypt." When Obama had to go over to Secretary of State Hillary “thunderthighs” Clinton's office and ask Huma Weiner Hillary’s closest advisor if the Muslim Brotherhood were ok? Yes. Obozo had to ask a POS like Huma Weiner!

    Yep in case you folks are a bit slow, Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, is also Huma Wiener's Mother , who is Hillary’s closest adviser is a Professor and Dean at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia and has been heavily involved in organizations tied to Terrorism.
    This is the SAME HILLARY that you leftist want for YOUR President!

    Don't believe anything that I've said? Well just look it up, it's all there for you to see...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm...soneone's tin foil hat is on tight tonight!

      Delete
  4. Hillary is every bit as evil as Barry "Ovomit" is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Hillary is every bit as evil as Barry "Ovomit" is."

      Correct. Look at Obama's ongoing attempt to destroy healthcare, popularly called "Obamacare".

      "Hillarycare" was far worse: it was far more restrictive, far more fascistic, and included throwing people in jail for the "crime" of wanting to see their own doctor.

      Those running against Hillary in the upcoming election would do well to publicize this. Obamacare is rather unpopular: show them that Hillary, if she had her way, would make it much worse.

      Delete
  5. Prophetic or not, his team was only able to convince the Iraqi's to agree to a SOFA until 2011. Blaming Obama is the easy argument. ISIS' rampage in Iraq, is the fault of the Iraqi's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CI,
      Prophetic or not, his team was only able to convince the Iraqi's to agree to a SOFA until 2011.

      The presence of infidels not wanted?

      Delete
    2. What in God's name do you mean by a SOFA? I know it could not be a couch, a loveseat, a davenport or a divan, but that is ALL I know.

      Please pardon my abysmal ignorance, but I wish otherwise intelligent contributors would stop using acronyms and initials as though everyone just OUGHT to know what they mean. Such usage may make YOU feel smarter and better informed than average, but they obscure and even thwart whatever message you are trying to convey.

      One of my professors in graduate school advised us, "Always write as though your readers were hopelessly ignorant, incurious, and very very lazy."

      I think that was excellent advice.

      Delete
    3. FT - I would think that anyone who aspires to speak reasonably on the Iraq debacle [as you did below, and I agree], and the recent 'gaming the blame' in the media, would have an understanding of SOFA....since it's been a topic even on this site. Spending most of my life in the world of acronyms, I go to great lengths to either avoid or define those that are vague or unclear. If all else fails, a quick Google hit is your friend.

      AOW - That's the cliff note version. The various political blocs in Baghdad made it crystal clear that they were not going to allow Maliki any avenue for retaining US forces after 2011. Given the longstanding Iranian ties to these Shi'a blocs...it would be no surprise that Tehran would also not desire to have a US constabulary force on their border.

      Delete
    4. CI,
      We have briefly discussed SOFA at this blog, but not much.

      ------------------

      Why didn't the United States have an exit strategy?

      Delete
    5. "Why didn't the United States have an exit strategy?"

      We did, as laid out in the SOFA agreed to in 2008. It stipulated a gradual reduction in unilateral patrols and raids, followed by a reduction in partnered patrols...with a turnover of detainees and the structure of equipment and training support. This strategy was followed.

      Delete
    6. Obama had incredible leverage to bring about a SOFA in Iraq but showed absolutely NO INTEREST in doing anything to get one. While some Iraqis might have resisted, there is no question that had U.S. leadership been exercised we would have been able to get an agreement. And that's not just my opinion.

      Delete
    7. And I completely disagree. By citing "no interest", you are either unaware of, or willfully excluding the time and work of the US negotiating team. By citing "some Iraqi's" you seem to ignore the political realities of Iraq and their sponsoring benefactor. But it is incredibly easy to simply ignore that and claim all we needed was "leadership". That makes it easier to blame one's domestic political opposition for the SOFA end date negotiated by the previous Administration.

      "When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible. The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started.” - Nouri al-Maliki

      Delete
  6. Mitt Romney was also right. But, the American electorate put Obama in the White House twice. Did they get what they wanted? Maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Of course Dubya was both correct and prophetic in this brief statement, which I happened to see as it aired the other night. We ought not to forget, however, that we should never have invaded Iraq in the first place.

    That ill-advised initiative was tantamount to poking a stick at a hornet's nest.

    If we must affix blame for this last string of hideous developments in the always hideous Muddle East it belongs more to the Neo-Cons and their damnable Project for a New American Century. Dubya was, indeed, foolish to follow their lead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FT,
      we should never have invaded Iraq in the first place

      At the time, intelligence indicated that we should do so.

      Bad intelligence? Or did those weapons go into Syria? I've heard both of those "versions."

      Delete
    2. FT,
      Are you familiar with this portion of George Washington's Farewell Address?

      Delete
    3. Hundreds of WMD were found inside Iraq after the 2003 invasion. Saddam was an aggressive terrorist kingpin, and after 9/11 it was folly to let him keep resisting inspections, funding and promoting terrorism, stockpiling WMD, and attempting to murder men performing the allowed air patrols.

      However, the way it was done was bungled and and ham handed, and could have been done a lot better.

      Anyway, on this subject, FT gets so much wrong. He gets Bush's name wrong, apparently confusing him with that city in the UAE. He names the "PNAC", which is irrelevant to any events, but often mentioned by conspiracy loons. He mentions "neocons", when there were few around,... and the idea of retaliating against the terrorist regime in Iraq was supported by so many traditional conservatives (not "neocons") and even liberals.

      Delete
    4. dmarks - Yet containment was vastly cheaper than the cost tallied. And let's be clear...most of the "Hundreds of WMD" found in Iraq, were already accounted for by the IAEA, or pre-91 stocks with a dubious shelf life. There was nothing remotely resembling the case made by the Administration. Certainly nothing that made the cost of lives worth the effort. A cogent case can be made that having left Saddam in his sandbox, we wouldn't be dealing with the ISIS threat today.

      Delete
    5. Containment... with bombing any part of Saddam's war machine at will. No, I am not committed to the idea of "boots on the ground" there.

      The WMD I am referring to were the hidden stockpiles: the ones the IAEA never knew about, but suspected.

      "There was nothing remotely resembling the case made by the Administration"

      There was indeed: an aggressive despot attacking Americans, promoting terrorism, and violating the cease-fire in many ways.

      " A cogent case can be made that having left Saddam in his sandbox"

      And, based on the death rates before and after the invasion, hundreds of thousands more would have died under Saddam's socialist reign of terror. The rape rooms, and the children's prisons, all intact. The numbers of swamp-area Shia and Kurds also dwindling. A cogent case, perhaps, for letting near-genocide occur.

      I would have been open to containment... with some way to encourage a non-catastrophic regime change as well.

      Delete
    6. dmarks - You would expend American lives for Iraqi? Or for a few degraded caches of chemical artillery shells? I wouldn't.

      We will have to disagree on both the premise for the invasion and 8 year occupation...and the cost benefit of removing the regional counterweight to both Iranian hegemony and the ISIS threat.

      Delete
    7. CI: Troops? In hindsight, probably not: Containment? Yes. Including bombing flat any of Saddam's facilities where he refused inspection (instead of pussyfooting around about it for years and years). Along with encouraging regime change to someone more moderate, less deadly.

      Delete
    8. CI,
      I've often wondered how much the 2001 anthrax attacks here in the United States contributed to our invasion of Iraq.

      Delete
    9. AOW - I've only seen wishful thinking on that front. There have been no found linkages within the intelligence community on that.

      Delete
    10. CI,
      I know that no there were no specific linkages. I was just wondering if the psychological effects of those anthrax attacks were related to the impetus to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. If I'm not mistaken, he bragged about his anthrax hoards.

      Delete
    11. Interesting angle. That's even harder to quantify. McCain and a few others did make the theory public [sans evidence], but we can only speculate on any impact in the decision matrix.

      Delete
    12. CI,
      I well remember the fear here in the D.C. area because of the anthrax attacks -- and, a few years later, the D.C. shooters.

      Delete
    13. I suppose it's easier for some to say we should never have invaded Iraq but that ignores the consequences of not acting which we cannot know. But we can assume that the security situation which was very bad prior to invasion would only have gotten worse.

      I am very glad Saddam is gone. I am disappointed that Obama threw away a hard won victory in Iraq.

      Delete
  8. As for Obama "ending" combat in Iraq? Right now we've got US planes dropping bombs in Iraq and about 1,500 combat troops on the ground. I know Barry WANTS to consider combat over in Iraq but that's obviously wishful thinking.
    And I’m also holding Barack Obama responsible because he was so egotistical, and , narcissistic and wanted to be able to claim the title of "President Who Ended The Iraq War.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And I must note with some amusement Obozo said........
    This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American history... well I guess that we could add narcissistic, vain, and a conceited, self-centered idiot to egotistical, and , narcissistic!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Before the 2012 National Election, Obama bragged time and time again that he was the President who got us out of Iraq.

    Things now are certainly not looking good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. I never understood why he thought he could take credit for something he had no part in.

      Delete
    2. CI,
      I think that I understand only too well. Pure demagoguery.

      Delete
  11. The video has gone private and is no longer available. :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thersites,
      Bummer!

      I wonder if the text of that speech is available.

      Delete
    2. Thersites,
      Found it! I'll add the text of the speech to the body of the blog post.

      Thanks for the heads up.

      Delete
  12. Thers, AOW:

    Is this it?

    http://www.hngn.com/articles/41540/20140905/al-qaeda-president-bushs-2007-speech-accurately-predict-future-iraq.htm

    Scroll down. It says play 9 minutes in.


    Direct Youtube link here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnHuSLDD3vU

    ReplyDelete
  13. I just added to the body of the blog post a different embed of the same video -- that is, I replaced the previous embed.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "SEEMS prophetic"? You 've got that right. He was right on every count. Otherwise, your daily liberals would be here screeching and calling you a liar.'
    I don't have time to see your Megyn Kelly video where she showed Bush giving that speech, so I don't know if the end includes the interview of the guy who wrote that speech for Bush. What struck me about him was that when she asked about the speech, he kept saying things like "Mr. Bush was right.." "Mr. Bush this, and Mr. Bush that" when he COULD have said "I"....as he'd written it. The typical humility and dignity of the Conservative. That really hit me when I saw the TV interview.
    I'm so glad you posted this. It's important that more people see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z,
      Yes, the video includes Marc Thiessen's comments.

      Delete
  15. Wow George, what an obvious prediction to make once you stirred up the hornets nest by invading a sovereign country based on lies with no exit plan. And by the way, Bush agreed to the deadline. Obama wanted to extend it. The Iraqis said no.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the prediction was so obvious, why did Obama strut around bragging that he was the POTUS who won Iraq?

      Delete
    2. There was no invading a sovereign nation based on lies either, for that matter.

      Delete
    3. AOW: "...why did Obama strut around.' I dunno, cause he's a politician. Duh!

      Really dmarks, you are one of the biggest deniers and revisionists posting here so this is not surprising coming from you, lol!

      Delete
    4. Obama did brag that he had pulled out of Iraq:

      http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2014/08/video-obama-repeatedly-claimed-credit.html

      And in debate with Romney Obama specifically said he would not have left 10,000 troops in Iraq that could have held the peace:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tErgLS5m_BU

      The idea that the Iraqis are to blame for no SOFA is FALSE!

      Delete
    5. How does claiming misplaced credit and campaign rhetoric disprove the statements of the Iraqi's themselves, of denying a renewed SOFA? Bolding and exclamation points don't camouflage intellectual perfidy very well.

      Delete
    6. CI,
      What do you make of that video (a link that Mike's America left above)?

      Delete
    7. Which video? The one where he falsely claimed credit, or the one where he employed duplicitous campaign rhetoric?

      Delete
    8. That's the duplicitous campaign rhetoric video. He panders to his base, all the while knowing that his negotiating team had tried to renew the SOFA.

      Delete
  16. Since ISIS was spawned in Syria...and Bush had ZERO to do with what's happening there...how is it that Bush is somehow responsible for ISIS? Is Libya Bush's fault as well? Iran? Afghanistan? Liberia? the Sudan? What pray tell...is Barry's fault? He's been in office for six YEARS! Surely HIS foreign policy must have kicked in by now? Oh I forgot.. It's STILL Bush's fault no matter what the facts are!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thom,
    Is Libya Bush's fault as well?

    Obama supporters seem to have forgotten about Libya and Obama's "invasion" thereof.

    It's STILL Bush's fault no matter what the facts are!

    I detect an air of desperation when that "argument" is made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean the invasion in Lybia where the right criticized Obamam for 'leading from behind,' until the coalition we were part of killed Khadaffi and now change their tune to this BS? Nice try.

      And yes, let’s be clear on this: The Bush Administration was single-handedly responsible for one of the biggest geopolitical screw-ups in U.S. history. They left the Obama administration with a precarious situation in Iraq that had no more long term stability than a house of cards.

      Delete
    2. ": The Bush Administration was single-handedly responsible for one of the biggest geopolitical screw-ups in U.S. history. "

      Didn't happen, no matter how much you rewrite history.

      Delete
    3. Is Libya Bush's fault?

      No.

      It is just a continuation of long term stupidity in the Middle East.

      Delete
    4. Riiight, dmarks. Good answer. And typical.

      Delete
  18. To invade in the first place and create the instability that allows the rise of groups like ISIS was the problem.
    That instability would be there REGARDLESS of when we left. Our military IS NOT capable of bringing stability to Arab countries. Time we learned it.

    Keep an eye on Saudi Arabia. That's where the danger is and their military shares the same extreme views as ISIS.

    We keep hitting the hornet's nest with a stick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ducky said: "Keep an eye on Saudi Arabia. That's where the danger is and their military shares the same extreme views as ISIS."

      Fair warning. Which country has given the hornets in Saudi Arabia their stingers?

      "We keep hitting the hornet's nest with a stick."

      you use a fire extinguisher and take out the whole next...

      Delete
    2. You seem to think unilateral military action can accomplish something other than breeding more extremism in the Middle East.

      Take out the whole nest? You probably think that's easily done.
      The right never, ever learns.

      Delete
    3. Yes, you got that right about the United States arming Saudi.

      However, no idea where you are pulling the "unilateral" thing from??/. In any case, it is possible to bomb a country into democracy without risking our troops' lives. It really cut off the flow of extremists from Japan and Serbia, as opposed to "breeding" more of it.

      Delete
    4. Bomb Saudi Arabia?

      Bomb Mecca and Medina? Take out the Kaʿbah, maybe?

      That won't create any more militants.

      Just how do you propose to bomb Saudi Arabia into submission without enraging virtually the entire Muslim world - Tip: They vastly outnumber Serbs or Japanese.

      Oh, and the disruption to the world economy when they blow the main wells.
      But I'm sure you've thought this out.



      Delete
    5. That instability would be there REGARDLESS of when we left.

      Sounds like we needed a permanent SOFA, and not a complete an Over-the-Horizon force redeployment.

      Delete
    6. Ducky said: "But I'm sure you've thought this out."

      Honestly, not, But that is not a problem. I was not recommending bombing Saudi, and I can't imaging doing so. I was just saying that sometimes that sort of thing (bombing) does work... speaking in general, and not about one specific current target, and it stops extremists instead of "breeding" them in those cases.

      Now, who is proposing "unilaterial" solutions? When is the last time anyone has?

      Delete
    7. Duck,
      Our military IS NOT capable of bringing stability to Arab countries.

      If the instability would stay over there, then I would agree that our military should not be there at all.

      Also, I have not forgotten 9/11. Have you?

      Here's my half-baked plan (I'm not an expert on national security or international security)....

      1. We need to drop "an iron veil" and halt all Muslim immigration to the United States.

      2. We need to use RICO as appropriate to "clean out" mosques and Islamic centers. Goodbye, Salafists!

      3. Stop funding various factions in Islamic countries. We can sort out who is an enemy and who is a friend.

      Delete
    8. Dmarks,
      Thank you for bringing up Japan.

      The problem: jihadists are focused on the afterlife -- even more so than kamakazes, I think. Jihadomaniacs, on the other hand, are "guaranteeing" their place in Paradise. It is difficult in the extreme to bring such fanatics into the modern world.

      Delete
  19. "Stupid Things" whined about "
    ".... President Obama slandering blogs ..." in a comment I can't find any more.

    Ah yes, the poor President, the most powerful man on the planet, can't take it when bloggers tell the truth about him and criticize him? Your attitude would fit quite well in North Korea, you know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lott Onderball said

      Undubitably.

      Delete
  20. Obama, thinks that he is so much better than anyone else that's why he has a 70% disapproval rating from the people in this country

    Obama might DREAM of being like Reagan. but there is no way in hell that he could even come close to that dream...... Reagan won with 49 of the 50 states something the Dear Leader Obama dream of doing. Reagan was very popular and admired President. Obama is admired by takers, rioters, illegal’s, and of course thugs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for moving your comment to this thread.

      Delete
    2. The myth that is Reagan permeates the uninformed mind of wingnuts. Amazing.

      Delete
  21. "the poor President, the most powerful man on the planet"

    I know what you mean, in reference to the Office, but as an individual this (man ?), per se, couldn't qualify as the most powerful player on a tiddly-winks team!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Cassandra Adelphi said

    "This One" is a TROLL.

    It's probably Leslie Ann Charpentier, Registered Nurse in disguise.

    Don't say you haven't been warned.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I find it ironic that all you Liberal and Progressive Idiots keep sending your MORONS back to office in the House and in Congress, and yes even to the Presidency, while mocking those you think are dumb like George Bush and Sarah Palin.
    My advice is to look at the IDIOTS who are there right now and who are wearing the Liberal and Progressive labels. And who are Dumber than dirt.. From the President to the Vice President to the Idiots like Reid, Pelosi etc etc. and etc...

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective