ADVERTISEMENT

gwb co conspirator admits Iraq War was no better than not going to war

THE_DEVIL

HB King
Gold Member
Aug 16, 2005
66,190
83,107
113
Hell, Michigan
www.livecoinwatch.com
And ISIS was formed in part because of Iraq war

Admits partial responsibility for ISIS rise
Blair acknowledged to Zakaria that there are "elements of truth" in the view that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the principle cause of the rise of ISIS.

"Of course, you can't say that those of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015," he said. "But it's important also to realize, one, that the Arab Spring which began in 2011 would also have had its impact on Iraq today, and two, ISIS actually came to prominence from a base in Syria and not in Iraq."

More broadly, Blair said, the policy debate on Western intervention remains inconclusive.

"We have tried intervention and putting down troops in Iraq; we've tried intervention without putting in troops in Libya; and we've tried no intervention at all but demanding regime change in Syria," he said. "It's not clear to me that, even if our policy did not work, subsequent policies have worked better."

Asked by Zakaria how he feels about being branded a "war criminal" for his decision to go into Iraq, Blair said he did what he thought was right at the time.

"Now, whether it's right or not, that's for -- everyone can have their judgment about that," he said.
 
Seems to me he is saying no matter what we have tried it has not worked out well. There is a different post title lesson that you could have went with that would make more sense. Something along the lines of - United States should stay out of the Middle East.

Looking at something 10-15-20 years later always provides a better road map. In the Middle East we have seen time and time again that there are no right choices.
 
Last edited:
We have vital national interests in the Middle East, not the least of which is ensuring safe shipping navigation through the area, and ignoring the terrorists won't make it less likely that they'll try to strike at us.
 
Seems to me he is saying no matter what we have tried it has not worked out well. There is a different post title lesson that you could have went with that would make more sense. Something along the lines of - United States should stay out of the Middle East.

Looking at something 10-15-20 years later always provides a better road map. In the Middle East we have seen time and time again that there are no right choices.


Yes, both sides, liberals and consevatives, add this subject to the list of things they will/can argue about....forever.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...or-bushs-fault-medias-empty-debate-over-isis/
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexMichFan
Is that true or self-serving revisionism? That's NOT what I recall hearing at the time.
Appears to be self serving-

FromTthe Weekly Standard
ISIS’s leader, Ibrahim Awwad al-Badri, is the self-proclaimed caliph, also known as Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi, a 43-year-old jihadist from the Iraqi city of Samarra. During the American occupation, he was arrested on unclear charges, but deemed a low security threat and released after six months. Once out of jail, he joined Al Qaeda in Iraq, then under the leadership of the Jordanian Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Long before he proclaimed his caliphate, Baghdadi came to understand something that was lost on Zarqawi. As a member of the Banu Badr clan, Baghdadi saw that he needed to court the tribesmen on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border.
 
Looking at something 10-15-20 years later always provides a better road map. In the Middle East we have seen time and time again that there are no right choices.
And yet we have seen some obvious wrong choices that few seem willing to talk seriously about.

For example, our main Arab ally, Saudi Arabia, has been using "our" money for decades to promote Wabhabism - the religion that gives us al Qaeda and ISIS (among other extremists).

So, while we have tried successively less militaristic approaches to regime overthrow in the Middle East, as Blair points out, we have never stopped supporting the predominant promoter of extremist values and organizations.

It's such a joke that we moralistically label Saddam's Iraq and the current Iran as supporters of terrorism while continuing to support and look the other way with regard to Saudi Arabia. Not saying they are good guys, but Saudi Arabia has practically single-handedly created a Middle East culture of extremism and terror.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
That's what I'm saying. A lot of the leaders came from those we booted out, and those we bribed to stand aside during the Surge. They are Iraqis and they became ISIS because of the Iraq war and our Iraq policies.

But their rise would never have been possible had there not been a power-vacuum created by the Syrian civil war, in which Obama refused to insert himself.
 
Appears to be self serving-

FromTthe Weekly Standard
ISIS’s leader, Ibrahim Awwad al-Badri, is the self-proclaimed caliph, also known as Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi, a 43-year-old jihadist from the Iraqi city of Samarra. During the American occupation, he was arrested on unclear charges, but deemed a low security threat and released after six months. Once out of jail, he joined Al Qaeda in Iraq, then under the leadership of the Jordanian Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Long before he proclaimed his caliphate, Baghdadi came to understand something that was lost on Zarqawi. As a member of the Banu Badr clan, Baghdadi saw that he needed to court the tribesmen on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border.
Sounds right. And shows that even The Weekly Standard can get things right once in a while. Actually, like a lot of neocon organizations, they get the facts straight fairly often - but really screw up the prescriptions for action.
 
We have vital national interests in the Middle East, not the least of which is ensuring safe shipping navigation through the area, and ignoring the terrorists won't make it less likely that they'll try to strike at us.
You are right, but the vital interest always has been cheap oil. That is why the country should have have energy independence at the same level as national defense since 1973.
 
United States should stay out of the Middle East.
But then what?

It's certainly tempting to just walk away, but then what happens? Not just over there - but also what happens to us, given how many mortal enemies we have created by killing their family members, and devastating their economies and cultures?
 
But then what?

It's certainly tempting to just walk away, but then what happens? Not just over there - but also what happens to us, given how many mortal enemies we have created by killing their family members, and devastating their economies and cultures?
You're right. Let's stay over there and guarantee future enemies and guarantee more hatred and vengeance. Risk more death, risk more attacks at home, risk more of everything except losing profit on ordinance and munitions manufacturing.
 
But then what?

It's certainly tempting to just walk away, but then what happens? Not just over there - but also what happens to us, given how many mortal enemies we have created by killing their family members, and devastating their economies and cultures?
What is your thinking here? How is all of that not made better by simply walking away?
 
well, duh!! when are the co-conspirators with Obama namely Hillary, gonna admit that the arab spring and Syria and Libya and gun running thru turkey were all mistakes as well???
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT