As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Tag Archives: George W. Bush

How Obama Lost Iraq and Allowed ISIS to Bloom

President Obama is playing his customary Blame Bush card, trying to heave the Iraq catastrophe, featuring the ISIS caliphate, onto his predecessor.

“ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion,” Obama said in an interview with VICE News released Monday. “Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.”

I suppose, if you try hard enough, you can find a way to blame the British or the Ottomans for ISIS. But the fact is that Obama was handed a stable Iraq by George W. Bush, who had real reasons to go into country, including what everyone thought was accurate intelligence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

A piece in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs by Rick Brennan, a senior civilian adviser to the U.S. military in Iraq from 2006 through the end of 2011, lays out exactly what happened. It makes several things clear:

  • The failure of the Iraqis to secure their country absent U.S. troops was predicted;
  • Obama did not seek to keep nearly the number of U.S. troops in Iraq his commanders requested;
  • The excuse that a status of forces agreement was not reached because U.S. troops would have been subject to Iraqi law is a canard. In fact, U.S. forces operating in Iraq today have less legal protection than they would have under a deal Obama could have struck in 2011 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki.

Let’s walk through the argument together.

The 2008 agreements negotiated by the Bush administration with the Iraqis called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011. The deal was the best Bush could get at the time and was always intended to be renegotiated, which is exactly what Obama was supposedly trying to do.

Military planners believed about 24,000 troops would need to remain in Iraq to maintain the peace, which had been achieved with enormous U.S. blood and treasure, and to continue to prepare Iraq to secure the the place on its own.

Otherwise, disaster would engulf the country. Al Qaeda in Iraq, which had been defeated, was nevertheless licking its wounds in Syria and rebranding itself. It could return. Withdrawal by the United States would also provide an opening for Iran in Iraq.

Brennan writes:

The military planners’ scorecard made one thing perfectly clear: by 2011, enough information was available to conclude that absent a significant U.S. military presence, within a few years, the situation in Iraq was likely to deteriorate — perhaps irreversibly.

The Iraqi military, for example, was still three to five years away from being able to independently sustain the gains made during the past four years.

All of this turned out to be correct. ISIS was not specifically seen, though with substantial U.S. troops in Iraq, it likely would have been noticed:

Had a residual U.S. force stayed in Iraq after 2011, the United States would have had far greater insight into the growing threat posed by ISIS and could have helped the Iraqis stop the group from taking so much territory. Instead, ISIS’ march across northern Iraq took Washington almost completely by surprise.

Obama was having none of it.

In April (2011), Obama directed (U.S. forces in Iraq commander General Lloyd) Austin to develop a plan that would result in a residual force of just 8,000 to 10,000 troops and to identify the missions that a force of that size could realistically accomplish.

In August, according to (then-U.S. ambassador to Iraq James) Jeffrey, Obama informed him that he was free to start negotiations with the Iraqis to keep 5,000 U.S. service members in Iraq: 3,500 combat troops who would be stationed on yearlong tours of duty and 1,500 special operations forces who would rotate in and out every four months.

As we know, Obama reached no deal for a continued U.S. troop presence. The president blamed the prospect of Iraqi legal purview over U.S. forces serving in the country.

Let’s talk about this.

Few realize that this would have simply maintained the status quo, which Bush had felt worth the risk when compared to squandering all our gains:

Washington had to drop its insistence that U.S. forces enjoy complete immunity from Iraqi law. Instead, in somewhat ambiguous terms, the agreement gave Iraqi authorities legal jurisdiction over cases in which U.S. service members were accused of committing serious, premeditated felonies while off duty and away from U.S. facilities.

In his memoir, Duty, published earlier this year, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates revealed that Pentagon lawyers (during Bush’s negotiations with Iraq) strongly opposed the compromise. But Gates explains that he believed it was worth the risk if it meant that U.S. forces could stay in Iraq past 2008. Commanders in the field were also comfortable with the compromise; after all, since members of the U.S. armed forces are on duty 24 hours a day and are not permitted to leave their bases unless on a mission, there was little chance that an American marine or soldier would ever wind up in the hands of Iraqi authorities.

Here’s how the end game played out for Obama on the issue:

In early September (2011), U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns visited Iraq to press Maliki on both those issues. According to a former administration official familiar with what happened during the meeting, Maliki told Burns that although he could likely persuade Iraq’s parliament to request a residual force, anyone who believed that the parliament would approve a status-of-forces agreement that included complete immunity did not understand Iraqi politics. Instead, Maliki proposed signing an executive memorandum granting immunity without the need to gain parliamentary approval. White House lawyers rejected that offer, arguing that for any such agreement to be legally binding, it would have to be formally ratified by the Iraqi parliament.

In early October, as Maliki had predicted, the parliament approved the request for an extended U.S. military presence but declined to grant legal immunity to U.S. military personnel. Later that month, Obama told Maliki that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq by the end of 2011, in fulfillment of the terms of the agreement signed by the Bush administration in 2008.

The compromise offered by Maliki, Brennan writes, would have involved some risk for American service members. But not unacceptable risk:

In the nearly three years since Bush had agreed to a similar compromise, no U.S. service member or civilian official stationed in Iraq had been charged with violating an Iraqi law.

As noted above, U.S. commanders were comfortable with the legal exposure negotiated by Bush. And let’s be honest. Would the Iraqis really risk ending U.S. assistance by imprisoning a U.S. service member? And is the risk of imprisonment in Iraq really worse than the risk of death, which is implicit in any U.S. deployment?

If you want to understand how disingenuous this all was, note what Brennan writes:

It is also worth pointing out that the U.S. military personnel stationed in Iraq today count on a promise of immunity backed only by a diplomatic note signed by the Iraqi foreign minister — an assurance even less solid than the one Maliki offered (and Obama rejected) in 2011.

Get it? With catastrophe imminent by 2014, Obama actually took a lesser deal on immunity. So how big a issue would this have been in 2011 if Obama had been able to wrap his mind around the awesomeness of mistake he was making then?

Obama fist bump troops

If Obama was so concerned about reaching a deal to keep troops in Iraq, why did he make their complete withdrawal into a celebration, using the “I ended the war” claim as a central plank of his reelection campaign. This provides clear proof that Obama wasn’t serious about the negotiations to begin with.

In one of the bravest moves by a commander in chief in U.S. history, Bush ignored all the conventional wisdom and, with his faith in the skill and bravery of our armed forces, ordered the surge in Iraq that won the war.

Obama turned around and lost the war. Those are the facts that Obama, and all of us, now have to live with.

Bush Criticizes Obama: I Would Have Kept Troops in Iraq

Former President George W. Bush today gave a rare TV interview and, in what may be an unprecedented step, directly criticized President Obama.

Bush, who was being interviewed at a golf tournament for wounded warriors by Brian Kilmeade of Fox News, said he agreed with an assessment by Obama’s military advisors that a serious, though not vast, contingent of troops should remain in Iraq.

Bush was reluctant, saying repeatedly that he didn’t want to “second guess” Obama – and then going ahead and second guessing him. Because it must really rankle Bush, particularly sitting amongst these wounded warriors, to know that Obama utterly squandered the victory in Iraq that Bush handed him.

Kilmeade asked Bush about an assessment by Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey that 10,000-15,000 troops should remain in Iraq.

From the interview:

The president has to make the choices he thinks are important. I’m not going to second guess our president. I understand how tough the job is. To have a former president bloviating and second-guessing is, I don’t think, good for the presidency or the country . . . But I agreed with General Dempseys’ assessment.

Bush also said Obama doesn’t rely on him for advice, which demonstrates not only Obama’s contempt for Bush, but his hubris and poor judgement too. Not to be calling the men who held this unique job is irresponsible. I doubt Obama solicits much advice, other than maybe on political matters, from Bill Clinton either.

“He has not [called] on a regular basis, which is OK. It doesn’t hurt my feelings. It’s a decision he has made. Presidents tend to rely on the people they’re close to … and I understand that

Here’s the entire interview, in case you’d like to see it.


Obama Revives Charge Bush Administration Tortured

President Obama today said the United States tortured people in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, saying that while he understood the emotion that drove the practice, it was nevertheless unequivocally wrong.

Obama spoke today during an impromptu press conference at the White House. “We tortured some folks,” Obama said during a long answer to a question not directly concerning the response to 9/11.

Obama has previously referred to water boarding, which was practiced following 9/11, as torture. And in May 2013 he said that “I believe” that the United States “compromised our basic values — by using torture to interrogate our enemies.”

But it is not clear he has made the charge as directly and unequivocally as he did today. Obama did not this time say specifically which practice he was referring to.

Bush administration officials have acknowledged that the practices were harsh, but say they stopped short of torture.

Bush Booed During Mandela Memorial

A sterling example of the maxim, no good deed goes unpunished.

Former President George W. Bush was booed when he appeared on the video monitor at today’s memorial for Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg, South Africa, according to the White House pool report, which cited local press outlets.

Meanwhile, when the images President Obama and Michelle popped up, there was a 30-second “deafening roar,” the pooler wrote.

How sad. Bush has done a far greater amount for South Africa than Obama. But Obama is much better at crafting his public image and saying the right things.

Bush personally saved the lives of millions of South Africans with his President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, ensuring AIDS drugs are available to South Africa’s impoverished masses.

From a Washington Post piece describing how Bush’s achievements were haunting Obama’s June trip to South Africa:

In South Africa, the success ( of PEPFAR) was extraordinary. AIDS killed roughly 2.3 million in South Africa — once one of the worst-affected countries in the world — and orphaned about a million children there, according to the United Nations. Today, rates of infection have fallen to 30 percent, and nearly 2 million people are on antiretroviral drugs.

Meanwhile, Obama has cut PEPFAR funding and generally been his customary inattentive self. From the same Post piece:

AIDS advocates on Sunday said that Obama administration budget cuts that have slashed hundreds of millions of dollars from PEPFAR threaten to turn back years of progress in the fight against the AIDS epidemic. Last year, the administration unveiled a budget that reduces AIDS funding globally by roughly $214 million, the first time an American president has reduced the U.S. commitment to fighting the epidemic since it broke out in the 1980s during the Reagan administration.

“Knowing that Africa has many challenges, with fighting AIDS being one of the biggest challenges, we were really expecting President Obama to continue where President Bush had left off,” said Hilary Thulare, country director of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit group that works in 26 countries providing medical care to people with AIDS. “But it’s been a disappointment. Obama is retreating on AIDS and, by this, retreating on Africa.”

Thulare said she wished Obama was as inspired by Mandela when it came to fighting AIDS.

I’m sure those desperately in need of AIDS drugs in South Africa would be happy to hear that Mandela’s saga “woke me up to my responsibilities to others and to myself,” as Obama said today.

Meanwhile, Obama today delivered his speech, shared some stirring words, accepted his applause, and went home. I imagine most of those awestruck by Obama and contemptuous of his predecessor are HIV-negative.

Bush is still heavily involved in Africa, turning his focus last year to cervical and breast cancer and traveling repeatedly to the continent.

I assume he knows that even as he was booed in Johannesburg, God was cheering, and millions of South Africans who would be dead are going about their lives.

Americans Still Blame Bush for the Economy!

Whaa??

You know how President Obama is constantly placing fault for the economy on George W. Bush? Ridiculous at this point, right? Well, not so fast. Apparently those White House operatives know what they’re doing.

Fully 69 percent assign a moderate or great deal of blame to Bush for the state of the economy, compared to 53 percent who blame Obama, according to a poll last month by Gallup. And the numbers basically haven’t changed for three years!

Respondents, as you can see, were given an option to assign blame to both.

Screen Shot 2013-08-06 at 5.05.29 PM

Either Obama has succeeded in warping perceptions by constantly blaming his predecessor, or people just grew so angry at Bush that they can’t change their view.

But Bush didn’t even cause the financial meltdown. That was courtesy of liberal housing policies pushed mainly by Democrats that placed people in homes they couldn’t afford – and that they eventually stopped paying the mortgage on.

No wonder Bush went in for a stent today!

Obama: “All I Care About Right Now is Governing”

Speaking at his 18th fundraiser of the year, President Obama Wednesday evening declared without apparent irony that governing the nation is his sole priority. “Now, I’ve run my last campaign — and Michelle is very happy about that,” Obama said to laughter from well-heeled donors who had assembled at the Miami Beach residence of philanthropist… Continue Reading

Obama: Middle Class Families “Struggling to Get By”

President Obama Wednesday evening sounded almost like he was delivering a Republican attack ad against himself, asserting that the middle class remains in an economic bind four years into his presidency and singing the praises of George W. Bush. Obama spoke during a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Dallas: Middle-class families all across America are… Continue Reading

Top Ten Things Obama Might Say to Bush at his Library Dedication

President Obama Thursday plans to attend the dedication of the George W. Bush presidential library in Dallas. Well, that might be uncomfortable, given that Obama has been badmouthing Bush since taking office, attributing most of his problems to the former president. One can only imagine some of the things he might say. Here’s ten possibilities.… Continue Reading

Obama Headed to New York Next Week

President Obama Thursday will visit “the New York City area” to get a first hand look at the failure of government to provide adequate power, food, and gasoline to the battered city in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Well, the White House puts it a little differently: On Thursday, the President will travel to the… Continue Reading