Paul blames Iraq crisis on Bush administration

[Politics4us]

We never should have reduced the troop level so low in Iraq. This wouldn't have been happening if there were still a larger amount of troops there. Rand Paul is no different that his father. There wasn't one attack on U.S. soil after 9/11 on Bush's watch.

[Atomic Cow]

Rand can kiss his political aspirations goodbye.  He's already come out for amnesty and this should finish him off completely.

[jmyrlefuller]

We never should have reduced the troop level so low in Iraq. This wouldn't have been happening if there were still a larger amount of troops there. Rand Paul is no different that his father. There wasn't one attack on U.S. soil after 9/11 on Bush's watch.

That's because al-Qaeda's goal shifted after that. They went from attacks to the idea of bankrupting the country.

Between Obama's spending and the foolish notions of many even here that somehow we can spend our way to peace in our time, bin Laden is smiling in his nice spot in Hell knowing full well that his plan is working like a charm.

Meanwhile, as the late Paul Harvey put it, our best weapons are sitting in our silos, collecting rust.

[jmyrlefuller]

Rand can kiss his political aspirations goodbye.  He's already come out for amnesty and this should finish him off completely.

Oh, yeah, because that Iraq war was so politically popular.

Remember Rick Perry? Yeah, the same guy who killed his political future by suggesting going back to Iraq?

[Politics4us]

That's because al-Qaeda's goal shifted after that. They went from attacks to the idea of bankrupting the country.

Between Obama's spending and the foolish notions of many even here that somehow we can spend our way to peace in our time, bin Laden is smiling in his nice spot in Hell knowing full well that his plan is working like a charm.

Meanwhile, as the late Paul Harvey put it, our best weapons are sitting in our silos, collecting rust.

There have been attacks on Obama's watch. There were no attacks during W's presidency, because he did a better job domestically and abroad of fighting it.

[speekinout]

There have been attacks on Obama's watch. There were no attacks during W's presidency, because he did a better job domestically and abroad of fighting it.

Yes. W scared our enemies, because they knew he'd react to any threat to our country or our allies, and we had the power to overcome them. They also know that 0bama won't do anything to retaliate. They have a free hand. All we can do is wait and see what they will do next.

[NavyCanDo]

we can debate here forever about what to do or not about Iraq. but first and foremost and there is no debate is we must protect americans that are in that country. We must not have another Benghazi.

[speekinout]

we can debate here forever about what to do or not about Iraq. but first and foremost and there is no debate is we must protect americans that are in that country. We must not have another Benghazi.

 

[evadR]

He will get us all killed. 

You think this trash in Iraq is going to leave us alone?  You're very mistaken and misguided if you think that.

Rand Paul is a goofy libertarian at heart:  pull up the drawbridge and the bad guys will stay away; open borders; sex, drugs, and rock n' roll. 

I'm sorry I even considered him a viable presidential candidate.

[Oceander]

Pretty stupid thing for Rand Paul to say.  You can't point to the omelet and say that it only got that way because of the first few wisks of the egg but not the last few.

[musiclady]

Pretty stupid thing for Rand Paul to say.  You can't point to the omelet and say that it only got that way because of the first few wisks of the egg but not the last few.

In addition, when Bush left office Iraq was under control.

It has only become 'an omelet' since Obama was elected.

Rand Paul is a fool to say that what is going on now is Bush's fault.

He's just shamelessly trying to get the votes of those he perceives to be 'independent,' and is risking losing the base.

Because, no matter what you think in retrospect about Iraq. everyone with a functioning brain cell knows we were safer when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were at the helm.

I repeat.  Rand Paul is a fool to say this.

[jmyrlefuller]

There have been attacks on Obama's watch.

There wasn't one attack on U.S. soil after 9/11 on Bush's watch.

Apples to apples, this is untrue.

If you count overseas U.S. interests, they happened under both Presidents.

If you count only the 50 states, unless I am living under a rock or something, I know of no notable Islamic terrorist attacks here in the USA that have happened between 9/11 and now, and that includes Obama's tenure.

[olde north church]

Apples to apples, this is untrue.

If you count overseas U.S. interests, they happened under both Presidents.

If you count only the 50 states, unless I am living under a rock or something, I know of no notable Islamic terrorist attacks here in the USA that have happened between 9/11 and now, and that includes Obama's tenure.

Who was President when Fort Hood occurred?

[jmyrlefuller]

Who was President when Fort Hood occurred?

"Fort Hood" was not an outside attack on the general population.

[olde north church]

"Fort Hood" was not an outside attack on the general population.

Then we can say the Cole wasn't really terrorism either?

[alicewonders]

One of my pet peeves, with both the Bush and Obama administrations is that the minute some violent event happens - they rush out and say that they don't know why it happened, but they've already ruled out terrorism!  I believe we have been victim to terrorist attacks since 9/11 (obviously on a smaller scale) - but if you don't call it terrorism, then it's not.   

Actually, there have been many terrorist attempts such as the shoe and underwear bombers, etc.  Some were successful, others not.  It's clear that we've gotten pretty good and stopping them - but the cost has been great.  How many freedoms have we lost in the process?  We get groped at the airport, we get eavesdropped on our every communication - in this way - our enemy has scored a huge victory.

I think Rand Paul is wrong on this, what is happening in Iraq is Obama's fault - but I have always maintained that the reason we even have a President Obama is because George Bush failed to leave a legacy that Republicans could build another victory on.  With Cheney, there was no logical successor to the White House to vote for, the media's relentless attacks on everything Bush did went undefended and are now accepted as fact by the majority of Americans. 

I found this article by the Heritage Foundation that lists 50 Terror Attacks Foiled since 9/11 - http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/fifty-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-the-homegrown-threat-and-the-long-war-on-terrorism  - "Fifty Terror Plots Foiled Since 9/11: The Homegrown Threat and the Long War on Terrorism"

I don't think the Boston Marathon bombing is even included in this listing - but the point is that they sure haven't stopped TRYING to attack us, just haven't been able to carry out anything like 9/11.  They are still trying.  Now, they are just infiltrating the White House - I call that a terrorist attack, but that's just my opinion.  Just because we refuse to call something an attempted terrorist attack doesn't mean it isn't.  The Fort Hood incident is called "Workplace Violence" - so there, that's better, isn't it?

[EC]

Depends if you want to count only the terrorist attacks aimed at 0.055% of the entire population.

[NavyCanDo]

The world was obviously safer at the end of the Cold War, because American was perceived to be powerful, determined, and would without question use its military might to squash threats.   When Gaddafi was threatening our ships and planes nearing the Gulf of Sidra, military brass asked Reagan if Libyan jets fire on our Navy planes should they be pursued?  Reagan responded, “All the way back to the hanger”.  You know the rest of that story. We felt safer, the World felt safer. And why?  Because America could not be pushed around.  It was only after Obama came into office that we showed the World we could be pushed around.  This “leading from behind” is not working and is tearing down every thing Reagan, and the Bush’s and I will even say Clinton built.   The credibility of the United States is in question. Obama’s failure to follow through on threats he makes like the “red line” reverberated all around the globe sending the message America is weak, and America is unreliable.  It can also be argued that the Islamofascism has spread like wildfire under not Bush’s watch, but Obama’s.

So Rand, and those here that agree with him can spout all you want that this civil war is Bush’s fault.  But ask yourself, would there even be a Iraq civil war, if militants on either side of this war feared us?   

[alicewonders]

The world was obviously safer at the end of the Cold War, because American was perceived to be powerful, determined, and would without question use its military might to squash threats.   When Gaddafi was threatening our ships and planes nearing the Gulf of Sidra, military brass asked Reagan if Libyan jets fire on our Navy planes should they be pursued?  Reagan responded, “All the way back to the hanger”.  You know the rest of that story. We felt safer, the World felt safer. And why?  Because America could not be pushed around.  It was only after Obama came into office that we showed the World we could be pushed around.  This “leading from behind” is not working and is tearing down every thing Reagan, and the Bush’s and I will even say Clinton built.   The credibility of the United States is in question. Obama’s failure to follow through on threats he makes like the “red line” reverberated all around the globe sending the message America is weak, and America is unreliable.  It can also be argued that the Islamofascism has spread like wildfire under not Bush’s watch, but Obama’s.

So Rand, and those here that agree with him can spout all you want that this civil war is Bush’s fault.  But ask yourself, would there even be a Iraq civil war, if militants on either side of this war feared us?   

I think Islamofascism has been growing for quite some time and has now reached a point where they are on the verge of global victory- and their supreme achievement of taking the US down from the inside-out.  I love Reagan, but my brother was in the Navy when our Marine barracks in Lebanon were bombed and he is still mad that Reagan didn't go after who did that.  They've been hating on us for a long time now and have had many successful attacks - not all of them have been paid back in kind. 

We've seen this gorilla growing since it was a baby and now we have an 800lb gorilla in the middle of the room that we all have to walk around and act like it isn't there.  These attacks have happened under every president's watch - the difference now with Obama is that we switched sides.  We're now training and arming the guys that hate us - OPENLY - Senator John McCain had his picture taken with some of them!

[olde north church]

Depends if you want to count only the terrorist attacks aimed at 0.055% of the entire population.

It's all about intent.

[alicewonders]

Depends if you want to count only the terrorist attacks aimed at 0.055% of the entire population.

It's all about intent.

You can strike terror in many small events just as you can with one megolithic event.  In fact, just plan to have a huge one every decade or two and the small ones will instill just as much terror.  This is very effective.

[EC]

It's all about intent.

I agree. Though I don't particularly care about specific targets. American, English, Russian, Indian, Thai - it makes no difference to me who gets targeted. Results count.

Ever wondered why Canada never gets a terrorist attack, despite fairly open borders and an almost pathological level of politeness? They have a dedicated counter terrorist unit that make the SEALS look like young and inept girl scouts. Even a hint of an attack on Canadian soil or interests, and he terrorists will be removed with extreme prejudice, including anyone aiding and abetting in the attack.

The only way to deal with terror tactics is make them more scared of you than you are of them. Obama is unwilling to do that.

[NavyCanDo]

I love Reagan, but my brother was in the Navy when our Marine barracks in Lebanon were bombed and he is still mad that Reagan didn't go after who did that. 

That happened in 1983 just after I left the Navy and I shared your brother's sentiments that we didn’t punish them enough, and that the war against Islamic extremist should have began in 1883 not 2001.    But please don’t believe the Liberal lie that Reagan did nothing. Do you not remember the battleship New Jersey hurling 1,900-pound shells at Syrian antiaircraft positions?  This was the first  time those guns were fired in battle  since the Vietnam War.  She was off the coast for several months and then replaced by the Iowa. We used a  battleships to cover the marine withdrawal and the libs complained that using a battleship was leaving the wrong impression. It sure left a great impression on the Syrian gun positions, not to mention a Soviet General and his staff that was visiting one of these artillery spotting position. Not enough left of them to fill a garbage pail and of course the liberals in congress cried about that too.

[alicewonders]

That happened in 1983 just after I left the Navy and I shared your brother's sentiments that we didn’t punish them enough, and that the war against Islamic extremist should have began in 1883 not 2001.    But please don’t believe the Liberal lie that Reagan did nothing. Do you not remember the battleship New Jersey hurling 1,900-pound shells at Syrian antiaircraft positions?  This was the first  time those guns were fired in battle  since the Vietnam War.  She was off the coast for several months and then replaced by the Iowa. We used a  battleships to cover the marine withdrawal and the libs complained that using a battleship was leaving the wrong impression. It sure left a great impression on the Syrian gun positions, not to mention a Soviet General and his staff that was visiting one of these artillery spotting position. Not enough left of them to fill a garbage pail and of course the liberals in congress cried about that too.

I agree with you Navy and have had this discussion many times with my brother.  When you evaluate the overall context of the Reagan presidency, he is one of the best.  But that incident does show that even with Reagan, we were still attacked.  Like I said, I don't agree with Paul's statement - this ISIS thing is Obama's baby.  But we have been mishandling the Islamofascists for a long time.  What we are doing is not working.

[evadR]

You can nuance all you want, Fort Hood was muslim terrorism.