[Report Abuse]
[Login to Blog] JimmyMack's Blog
THE Biggest Lie of All
Mr.
Last comment by HMJC 1 month, 2 weeks ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

W., the Boy King ,is directly responsible for the horror now being perpetrated on the people of Iraq by ISIS, a terror group so brutal that even al Qaida denounces them. There were NO WMD's in Iraq. Saddam was NOT training al Qaida. The lives of brave American men and women were needlessly sacrificed by Bush along with 100's of thousands innocent Iraqis accompanied by a mountainous debt in the Trillions of dollars inflicted upon the American people by the 'leadership' of George W. Bush. A War Criminal if there ever was one.

Peter Bergen:

ISIS, the brutal insurgent/terrorist group formerly known as al Qaeda in Iraq, has seized much of western and northern Iraq and even threatens towns not far from Baghdad.

From where did ISIS spring? One of George W. Bush's most toxic legacies is the introduction of al Qaeda into Iraq, which is the ISIS mother ship.

If this wasn't so tragic it would be supremely ironic, because before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, top Bush officials were insisting that there was an al Qaeda-Iraq axis of evil. Their claims that Saddam Hussein's men were training members of al Qaeda how to make weapons of mass destruction seemed to be one of the most compelling rationales for the impending war.

After the fall of Hussein's regime, no documents were unearthed in Iraq proving the Hussein-al Qaeda axis despite the fact that, like other totalitarian regimes, Hussein's government kept massive and meticulous records.

The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency had by 2006 translated 34 million pages of documents from Hussein's Iraq and found there was nothing to substantiate a "partnership" between Hussein and al Qaeda.

Two years later the Pentagon's own internal think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, concluded after examining 600,000 Hussein-era documents and several thousand hours of his regime's audio- and videotapes that there was no "smoking gun (i.e. direct connection between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda.)"

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded in 2008, as every other investigation had before, that there was no "cooperative relationship" between Hussein and al Qaeda. The committee also found that "most of the contacts cited between Iraq and al Qaeda before the war by the intelligence community and policy makers have been determined not to have occurred."

Instead of interrupting a budding relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda, the Iraq War precipitated the arrival of al Qaeda into Iraq. Although the Bush administration tended to gloss over the fact, al Qaeda only formally established itself in Iraq a year and a half after the U.S. invasion.

On October 17, 2004, its brutal leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi issued an online statement pledging allegiance to Osama bin Laden. Zarqawi's pledge was fulsome: "By God, O sheikh of the Mujahideen, if you bid us plunge into the ocean, we would follow you. If you ordered it so, we would obey."

Zarqawi's special demonic genius was to launch Iraq down the road to civil war. In early 2004, the U.S. military intercepted a letter from Zarqawi to bin Laden in which he proposed provoking a civil war between Sunnis and Shia.

Zarqawi's strategy was to hit the Shia so they would in turn strike the Sunnis, so precipitating a vicious circle of violence in which al Qaeda would be cast as the protector of the Sunnis against the wrath of the Shia. It was a strategy that worked all too well, provoking first sectarian conflict in Iraq and later civil war.

Al Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI, regularly attacked Shia religious processions, shrines and clerics. The tipping point in the slide toward full-blown civil war was al Qaeda's February 2006 attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra, which is arguably the most important Shia shrine in the world.

Three years into the Iraq War, AQI seemed all but unstoppable. A classified Marine intelligence assessment dated August 17, 2006, found that AQI had become the de facto government of the western Iraqi province of Anbar, which is strategically important because it borders Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia and makes up about a third of the landmass of Iraq.

In addition, AQI controlled a good chunk of the exurban belts around Baghdad, the "Triangle of Death" to the south of the capital and many of the towns north of it, up the Tigris River to the Syrian border.

Thus AQI controlled territory larger than New England and maintained an iron grip on much of the Sunni population.

In other words, the Bush administration had presided over the rise of precisely what it had said was one of the key goals of the Iraq War to destroy: a safe haven for al Qaeda in the heart of the Arab world.

By 2007, al Qaeda's untrammeled violence and imposition of Taliban ideology on the Sunni population provoked a countrywide Sunni backlash against AQI that took the form of Sunni "Awakening" militias. Many of those militias were put on Uncle Sam's payroll in a program known as the "Sons of Iraq".

The combination of the Sunni militias' on-the-ground intelligence about their onetime AQI allies and American firepower proved devastating to al Qaeda's Iraqi franchise. And so, between 2006 and 2008, AQI shrank from an insurgent organization that controlled territory larger than the size of New England to a rump terrorist group.

But AQI did not disappear. It simply bided its time. The Syrian civil war provided a staging point over the past three years for its resurrection and transformation into the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria," or ISIS. And now ISIS has marched back into western and northern Iraq. Only this time there is no U.S. military to stop it.




Latest Activity: Jun 14, 2014 at 3:36 PM


Bookmark and Share
Forward This Blog
Print Blog
More Blogs by JimmyMack
Send JimmyMack a Message
Report Abuse


Blog has been viewed (323) times.

gacpl commented on Sunday, Jun 15, 2014 at 09:31 AM

and who is the leader id ISIS? Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and guess who let him go. king Obama did in 2009. if we had left a post in Iraq which was the plan from the get go, none of this would be going on.

JimmyMack commented on Sunday, Jun 15, 2014 at 14:06 PM

Hi gacpl. Yes, but there would not even BE an ISIS leader in Iraq such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had Bush not 'lead' us there to begin with. We had no justifiable reasons to even be in Iraq from the get-go. No al-Qaida there. No WMD's. No clandestine training of terrorists. Bush went after the wrong target (Saddam). W. essentially aided and abetted the spread of al-Qaida and the birth of ISIS rather than eliminating it.

We will be paying for King George's 'DECISION POINTS' for decades in the form of human life and national fiscal deficits.

gacpl commented on Sunday, Jun 15, 2014 at 19:13 PM

i guess you forgot the games they played when clinton was in office, blocking the inspectors from getting into sites to look for them. we know they had them, they used them before, M8 alarms were going off left and right during desert storm all over the country. then they showed up in Syria.

gacpl commented on Sunday, Jun 15, 2014 at 21:14 PM

the "IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998"was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998:

The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change."

quote:

Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production....
.....President Bill Clinton February 1998

gacpl commented on Sunday, Jun 15, 2014 at 21:16 PM

and lest not forget it was voted on too when the Democrats controlled the Senate when President Bush requested passage of the The Iraq War Resolution in 2002? Yes, the democrats were in control, Majority leader was Tom Daschle and he along with Hillory Clinton, John Kerry, and Good Ole Harry Reid voted YES and gave approval to go to war in Iraq.

gacpl commented on Sunday, Jun 15, 2014 at 21:18 PM

also.

Human Rights Watch, a non-governmental organization, stated in their Feb. 20, 2003 briefing paper titled "International Humanitarian Law Issues in a Potential War in Iraq":

"Although Iraq has repeatedly claimed that it currently has no weapons of mass destruction, it has used chemical weapons in the past against both combatants and civilians. The Iraqi army repeatedly used chemical weapons against Iranian armed forces between 1983 and 1988. Furthermore, it used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians at Halabja in 1988, killing up to 5,000 people, and on some forty documented occasions that year during the Anfal genocide against Iraqi Kurds. These previous uses of chemical weapons violated the 1925 Geneva Protocol that prohibited the use of chemical weapons."

JimmyMack commented on Monday, Jun 16, 2014 at 07:00 AM

Yes gacpl the legislative 'procedures' were there but were wrongfully utilized by Bush and his Administration. Saddam was EVIL, but we had him contained. Bush had no reason to put boots on the ground in IRAQ or AFGHANISTAN after 9-11!

Unlike Clinton, who so deftly handled the Bosnian-Serb-Croatian conflict where atrocities were being committed,
Clinton did it with very few loss of life by American combatants.

Bush, however, fumbled the ball by invading a CONTAINED Iraq resulting in thousands of deaths of American Soldiers and at a massive fiscal cost.

gacpl commented on Monday, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:28 AM

that's the difference between democrats and republicans (short term thinking vs long term thinking). in the short term he was contained, but in the long run he was far from it and the cost would have been much higher. it would have been much lower if Clinton didn't let them get away with blocking the weapons inspectors.

JimmyMack commented on Monday, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:50 AM

At this point in time it is hard to imagine the cost being higher than it is right now. Hundreds if not thousands of veterans committing suicide, the number of veterans divorce rate and shattered families left in the wake, the growing number of soldiers with PTSD, the very real possibility of Iraq becoming an Islamic State 'friendly' with al-Qaida and ISIS and the on-going monetary burden having to be shouldered by the American Tax payer for the Bush wars.

I respectfully disagree with your argument, gacpl. And if you served your country and I think I remember you saying you did, then thank you and God Bless you. I hope you have not had to endure any emotional or marital upheaval as a result of Bush's folly.

gacpl commented on Monday, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:22 AM

don't forget it's been Obama folly too. and more so seen he didn't end it when he said he would. and he doesn't intent of ever ending it in Afghanistan. leaving almost 10,000 troops there indefinitely is not ending anything.

HMJC commented on Tuesday, Jun 17, 2014 at 09:31 AM

JM, did you really state how "deftly" the Dems handled Bosnia? Love ya Brother but not even close. Wild Bill stated in 95 that we were going to send in a 20,000 strong force for the period of one year called IFOR. He further claimed that at the end of the year the US would pull out. So wonder boy proclaimed in 96 that IFOR was over and now it is SFOR. SFOR went on for almost 12 years and the country is still living in the stone age and the centuries old hated of one another is still perpetuated to this day. All we managed to do was get the three opposing parties to go to separate sides of the country. Unfortunately another place I have served can be classified as a failure that no one wants to bring up...

JimmyMack commented on Tuesday, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Hi HMJC. First: Thank you for your service to our country.

Now I know the number of body bags is not necessarily an indicator of 'success' or failure. However, how many of our men and women in uniform came home in one of them? How does the over all cost of the Bosnian conflict stack up against the Bush Iraq fiasco? And finally, is conflict still going on in that particular region?

HMJC commented on Tuesday, Jun 17, 2014 at 13:05 PM

Jimmy Thank You and money and bodies will never equate. The simile here is that the initial push into Bosnia was not supposed to be a protracted one. This of course been our hallmark since Korea. We never figure out how to leave... Although the US casualties were minimal the Bosnia debacle claimed 10 times of what we lost in Iraq. Doesn't make it any better; my point was to illustrate another conflict where we were not able to create an exit strategy. As far as the middle east; at this point I would fine with backing out and letting them put themselves back to the stone age. I have grown weary with the US trying to assert a democratic state when the centuries of hate and religious based governments will continue to prevent from occurring.

JimmyMack commented on Tuesday, Jun 17, 2014 at 13:19 PM

Yes HMJC: exit strategy has plagued our military ventures for decades. I agree.

I may be missing something as I am confused as to what "the Bosnia debacle claimed 10 times what we lost in IRAQ."

Are you referring to loss of life, dollars, civilian casualties, money... etc.

Thanks. Jimmy

gacpl commented on Tuesday, Jun 17, 2014 at 13:56 PM

not sure of the loss of life count. but one thing not in the news is loss of american contractors lives. which is usually much higher then military loss. i still agree with the Chenny doctrine on Iraq. we were going to leave a base to insure piece and oil stability.

HMJC commented on Tuesday, Jun 17, 2014 at 15:07 PM

I was referring to the Bosnian civilian deaths, many by Genocide in Srebrenica and Gorzade. The religious intolerance predicated hundreds of thousands of cruel death; many by rounding up "war age" men(14-60 years old) in a stadium or warehouse and committing Genocide. I am going to post a blog here in a little bit that may be a little illuminating. Thanks for your insight.


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by JimmyMack
 
The Intellectual Paucity of Polls
July 28, 2014
Once again, Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, then Polls. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/28/romney-leads-obama-and-other-dumb-polls-that-are-still-interesting/ Pollsters have tried for years to measure Obama's popularity in various ways, from rating how likable he is to how strong of a leader he is considered to whether people think he understands their problems. They even ask if people want ...
Read More »
 
The Coming Republican Nightmare
July 26, 2014
No. The Nightmare is not the Tea Partiers hi-jacking the Republican Party and embracing aspects of National Socialism. Though, that truly would be nightmarish. It just ain't likely to happen. What is getting closer to becoming reality and a detriment to Republicans but a boon to the American public is ...
Read More »
 
For the Poll Watchers (not me)
July 23, 2014
I have never put much stock in polls. Except for the one poll that counts votes on election day. I have a problem with the other polls and view poll taking as an immensely flawed system. For example: who are the people being polled, who is polling them, how are ...
Read More »
 
Boy Scouts Thank Public
July 22, 2014
The Boy Scouts wish to thank the public for supporting their recent Boston Butt sale. Though the price of meat has risen the amount of Boston Butt sales was good. Dr. Carter and The Boy scouts greatly appreciate your support of all of their fund-raisers - recent Boston butt sale, ...
Read More »
 
Global Warming Real or Not
July 21, 2014
At the risk of detracting from my blog below I nevertheless feel compelled to ask this question and take a head count, so to speak of those who care to comment. Just a yes or no will do, or you can add a comment to your answer if you like. ...
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]





 
Powered by
Morris Technology