Are you sure about this? I remember the Iraqi's really wanting the US out--especially Maliki--who was taking some real political heat. The agreement called for a two-step withdrawal, first from the cities in 2009 and then from the rest of Iraq in 2011. There were no contingency plans for situational changes in the agreement, that I am aware of. If there were, please point me to that information---I would be interested in reading more on this.
As for the rise of ISIS--here's where the world misses Saddam Hussein. Although a Sunni, he was a secular dictator and would never have permitted ISIS to flourish and threaten his power. Saddam left behind a formidable power vacuum.
Although this point has already successfully been refuted, I will reiterate that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist who supported terrorism, especially against Israel.
As for the comparison between what Bush would have done and what Obama did, all it takes to understand the difference is a rudimentary understanding of both men, their view of America, their history of military leadership, their differing levels of respect for the military, and their understanding that there is such a thing as evil, and that it resides in the terrorism in the ME.
Bush had plans to withdraw, but those plans never included abandoning Iraq to terror. (That's what the surge was all about, if you have forgotten. It was to rectify the mistakes made in not having a strategy for the time following the removal of terrorist Saddam.
If you have listened at all to Dick and Liz Cheney in their interviews or articles, you KNOW that Iraq would not have been abandoned under Bush-Cheney as it has been under Obama, the anti-American Muslim sympathizer.
I agree with Carling.
The blaming of Bush for Obama's horrific Iraq decision to withdraw every American troop is a leftist talking point, and it's very disappointing to see it here on what is supposed to be a right of center board.