Quote:How am I being dishonest? I've provided facts to back up my points. You've simply followed the typical playbook your master teleprompter reader in the Oval Office uses, blaming it on Bush. I've never said ISIS didn't expand in numbers under Bush. But, you're being completely dishonest when you act like that growth came with expansion of control, because that didn't happen until later when your inept king was busily running around on tour apologizing for America..


For those who weren't trying to make the Bush administration look worse by saying al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq, the ISIS / ISIL label was a convenient word game to avoid confirming that al Qaeda was indeed in Iraq. That's not intellectually dishonest on my part. That's intellectually dishonest on the part of anyone who said al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq with multiple camps. Going from control over nothing to basically running a country and expanding their terror footprint into the rest of the Middle East, Europe, and abroad is a true explosion. But, in order to agree with that, you'll have to admit that your beloved ruler was responsible since it happened under his watch. I know you can't do that because for all the love and energy you put into defending your pantsuited princess, you will double down on the defense you put up for Barry Soetoro. After all, it's his playbook you're working with.


There was already a plan underway to withdraw the majority of troops from Iraq, but not all of them. Obama didn't have the spine to stand up to Iraq and insist on keeping a residual force there, and by showing no testicular fortitude (par for the course unless you're using drones), Obama basically rolled out the red carpet for ISIS (we can't call them al Qaeda in Iraq for obvious reasons) to fill the void and they were only too happy to oblige.

What?? Al Qaeda in Iraq was a thing for as long as I can remember?


I'm sorry, but I see this very differently. And I think I have history to back me up.


First, the occupation of the middle east by America did more to incite unrest than any speech president Obama gave. If you honestly believe that one of Obama's speeches caused the Arab spring or whatever, please provide your source for us to review. From my understanding, revolutions usually occur because of economic crises, authoritarian turmoil, or religious zealotry - not from a speech a foreign official gives. But if I'm wrong, please provide a link for us to review.


Second, while I'll agree that Obama did the Syria and Iraq no favors, I think the original sin (the invasion we were lied into) is by far the biggest fault and shame that hangs on the USA. If we never occupied Iraq this never would have happened, for crying out loud!!!!


So I find it odd that your disdain for Obama borders on the fanatical, while you have yet to acknowledge the fact that it was Bush that created this entire quagmire.


If you cannot at least admit that, then you're truly not being an honest broker in this conversation.


I'm honest enough to concede the point Stroud made earlier today because I want honest conversations. And I think there are really good posters here that also want the same. How bout you, FBT? Can you concede that the original sin falls on the Bush administration?

---