If you’re one of those who believe George W. Bush was incompetent, I’ve got something for you. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have proved that they are less intelligent and less competent than George W. Bush.
Following the fall of Saddam Hussein, there was no shortage of criticism of George W. Bush for his handling of Iraq:
In addition to raising questions about troop levels, critics of the Iraq War have argued that the U.S. planning for the post-invasion period was “woefully inadequate.” In particular, critics have argued that the U.S. was unprepared for the widespread looting and the violent insurgency that immediately followed the invasion. Soon after the invasion, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, a leading architect of the war, acknowledged that the U.S. made assumptions related to the insurgency that “turned out to underestimate the problem.” Pre-war beliefs about the occupation were inherently rosy, with Vice President Cheney noting on “Meet the Press” that U.S. forces would be “greeted as liberators”. Subsequent reports have indicated that oversights such as the failure to control access to the Qa’qaa munitions factory in Yusufiyah allowed large quantities of munitions to fall into the hands of al-Qaida.
The U.S. plans for reconstructing Iraq have also come under heavy fire. In a February 2006 report, Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, wrote that: “There was insufficient systematic planning for human capital management in Iraq before and during the U.S.-directed stabilisation and reconstruction operations.” Critics have particularly chastised the Pentagon, which was charged with preparing for the post-invasion period, for largely ignoring a $5 million study entitled the Future of Iraq Project, which the U.S. State Department compiled in the year preceding the invasion.
Remember how the left beat Bush over the head with Iraq- how he failed, how he had no plan, yada yada yada?
“The president’s team is pursuing a failed strategy in Iraq as it edges closer to collapse, and Afghanistan needs more of our concerted effort and attention,” she said.
There’s something I’d like you to read – carefully. Obama said it in 2007:
“If there are ways that we can constrain and condition what the president is doing, so that four to six months from now we are considering a phased withdrawal… that is the area that I am most interested in supporting,”
Back then he was all about restraining a President. Ironic, huh?
So, with all these “mistakes” Bush made in Iraq and with all this clarity of hindsight, you’d think a lesson might be learned, right?
You’d be wrong.
So armed with all this experience, what did Obama and Clinton do?
They toppled Gaddafi and Libya, with absolutely no plan for the aftermath. Clinton’s plan was to “play it by ear.” Now, among other things, Libya is a safe haven for terrorists:
And the consequences of that improvisation are still being felt today. The country is an epicenter of the refugee crisis sweeping the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe. Part of Libya is under the control of the self-proclaimed Islamic State. And the Russians use the U.S.-NATO intervention in Libya to justify their own military incursions in places like Syria.
Clinton and Obama’s actions in Libya nurtured ISIS:
In recent months, U.S. military officials said, Islamic State has solidified its foothold in Libya as it searches for ways to capitalize on rising popularity among extremist groups around the world.
“ISIL now has an operational presence in Libya, and they have aspirations to make Libya their African hub,” said one U.S. military official, using an acronym for the group. “Libya is part of their terror map now.”
Clinton screwed Libya up royally:
As secretary of state, it was Clinton’s job to ask questions about the state of Libya, both before the intervention and after. She was secretary when the intervention began—and when the U.S. presence in Benghazi ended with a deadly attack. And while she held talks in the early months after Gaddafi’s death, Libya became largely a public afterthought. In the email caches released so far from her personal account, former adviser Sidney Blumenthal repeatedly kept Libya before Clinton, sharing his views of the situation, at the time contradicting the diplomats working for Clinton. Blumenthal, a longtime adviser to both Clinton and President Clinton, was not an expert on the region.
Blumenthal was so focused on monetary pursuits that it made me wonder whether the whole thing was about money. Given the Clintons’ voracious avariciousness, it would surprise no one.
Hillary still asserts Libya is a success:
“Well, let’s remember what was going on,” she offered during the recent Democratic debate. “We had a murderous dictator, Gaddafi, who had American blood on his hands, as I’m sure you remember, threatening to massacre large numbers of the Iraqi people. We had our closest allies in Europe burning up the phone lines begging us to help them try to prevent what they saw as a mass genocide, in their words. And we had the Arabs standing by our side saying, ‘We want you to help us deal with Hussein.’
Hang on a sec- let’s try something here:
“Well, let’s remember what was going on,” she offered during the recent Democratic debate. “We had a murderous dictator, Hussein, who had American blood on his hands, as I’m sure you remember, threatening to massacre large numbers of the Iraqi people. We had our closest allies in Europe burning up the phone lines begging us to help them try to prevent what they saw as a mass genocide, in their words. And we had the Arabs standing by our side saying, ‘We want you to help us deal with Saddam.’
Saddam- American blood on his hands? Check
And Saddam had already invaded Kuwait.
In other words, Iraq and Libya are basically the same, with one notable difference. Until Obama abandoned Iraq, it was a success. Obama said so.
“…we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people.”
Biden said Iraq would be one of the “great achievements” of the Obama administration.
It’s a disaster.
This is what Clinton calls “smart power.”
But to Clinton, Libya was—and still remains—a major achievement. “We came, we saw, he died,” she crowed in October 2011. “Smart power at its best”
The weapons set free by Obama and Clinton and put into the hands of terrorists include 20,000 surface to air missiles. So were many heavy weapons and RGP’s- the kind used in the attack on Benghazi.
It’s one thing to hammer a guy for what you assert was a mistake, but then going on and repeating that “mistake” proves how feckless both Obama and Clinton really are. The rationale used by Obama and Clinton for overthrowing a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US is really no different from the one Bush used for Iraq. Bush, though, had a real coalition and the support of Congress. Clinton and Obama pounded Bush relentlessly, solely for political reasons, but Bush had the situation stable and under control. In throwing it all away and repeating what they claimed what a mistake, Obama and Clinton have proved themselves to be the Abbott and Costello of foreign policy. They couldn’t even tell ya who’s on first.