You thought Bush was incompetent? Meet the Abbott and Costello of foreign policy

By 12 Comments 1,839 views

PHILADELPHIA, PA - NOVEMBER 21:  Hillary Clinton attends the 2013 Greenbuild Conference November 21, 2013 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  (Photo by Bill McCay/WireImage)

 

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.

Proof?

Libya.

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.”[16] 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.”[17] 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”.[18] 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.[19]

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.”[20] 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.[21]

Poll: Most doubt Bush has plan for Iraq victory

Remember how the left beat Bush over the head with Iraq- how he failed, how he had no plan, yada yada yada?

Clinton: 2007:

 “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,”

(emphasis mine)

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-Genocide? Check.

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.

What about Iran? They slaughtered their own people in the Arab spring, they supplied the IED’s that killed more than a thousand US troops in Iraq. Now they’re Obama’s BFF’s.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

12 Responses to “You thought Bush was incompetent? Meet the Abbott and Costello of foreign policy”

  1. 1

    John

    “they” didn’t topple Ghaddfi the Libyan people toppled him
    The support that the USA offered was much less than was given by Britain ir France both of whom put boots on the ground
    Iraq was THE greatest foreign policy in our nation’s history
    That is the reason Bush will never be invited to the GOP national convention
    That is the reason Clknton will be elected POTUS

  2. 4

    Nanny G

    If we haven’t derived by now that Turkey has not acted as our friend or ally, perhaps we never will.
    But all of Bush’s plans and assumptions about how Iraq might end up depended on a strong pincer movement of our troops from both south and north in the initial invasion of Iraq.
    When Turkey made their Last minute reneging of permission for our troops to use their land for that northern invasion, the Baathists of Saddam had time to melt into the civilian population instead of being captured.
    Since they suddenly lost their incomes looting and crime became rampant.
    Everything from munitions to art and food were looted by the Baathists as well as the al Qaeda groups.
    If you read the “Iraq the Model” blog during the Iraq war of Bush’s day you saw that al Qaeda became an organized enemy while the Baathists became like a mafioso enemy, each group destroying what Bush tried to build in their various ways.
    Kidnappings, looting and a huge underground layered on top of Bush’s ostensible new order there.
    But enough about Bush.

    So armed with all this experience, what did Obama and Clinton do?
    They toppled Gaddafi and Libya, with absolutely no plan for the aftermath.

    It was NOT the first time Obama and Clinton acted quickly to insure moderate Muslims and secular Muslims could not organize in order to take the reins in a Muslim country.
    In Egypt Obama/Clinton pushed a QUICK election so that the Muslim Brotherhood would win.
    In other words, overturning a moderate secular leadership and replacing it with radical Muslims was a FEATURE not a BUG of the Obama/Clinton strategy.
    Did Obama/Clinton foresee the resultant refugee/invasion influx into secular/moderate Europe as a direct result?
    The demographics were all in favor of this move.
    The institutionalized ”white guilt” of most European countries was well known.
    The draw of the welfare states in Europe by Muslims had already begun.
    Family reunification had been made law in Europe, making every 500,000 man invasion morph into 3 million man,woman, children responsibility.

    Obama was so quick to claim that the Iranians were merely making statements for domestic consumption that we should take a lesson: Obama makes many statements merely for our consumption, not to be backed up by actions of any kind whatsoever. He only makes them to to get elected.

  3. 5

    Bill

    @John:

    Even the leader in the GOP polls is saying what everyone knew BUSH DID NOT KEEP US SAFE

    He also said Hillary should be indicted and Obama has left us weaker and less safe than Bush. I suppose you agree with those statements as well?

    “they” didn’t topple Ghaddfi the Libyan people toppled him

    “they” provided the air support that allowed the “Libyan people” (aka al Qaeda) to bring Gaddafi down and eventually murder him. We had NO business in Libya. None. Obama just wanted to flex his muscles and find a tomato can to beat up on. And, like Syria and Iraq, look at the mess he left behind… he AND Hillary.

  4. 6

    Greg

    We had NO business in Libya. None. Obama just wanted to flex his muscles and find a tomato can to beat up on.

    Republicans first attacked Obama for failure to take action against Muammar Gaddafi as the humanitarian crisis in Libya unfolded, and then turned on a dime and attacked him for taking action moment he did. Have we forgotten? It wasn’t that long ago.

    They first attacked him for not responding to ISIL. Then they reversed course when he did, refusing even to allow debate on his formal request for Congressional authorization to use military force. Did we miss that?

    They bitched and moaned about his delay in arming Syrian rebels, when the stated reason for it was concern about the politics and intentions of the factions we’d be arming—a concern that was entirely legitimate. Some criticized him for not putting U.S. combat forces on the ground and throwing them directly into the fray. We could have easily ended up supporting factions that turned out to be Islamic extremists. That situation isn’t much clearer now than it was then.

    And now, the Russians. Somehow that’s also Obama’s fault. I’m not sure if “fault” is really the correct word. It depends on how Russian intervention works out, doesn’t it? I’m thinking, better the Russians than us. If they want the thankless, morally ambiguous, and financially draining job of propping up a Syrian regime that will also entail taking on ISIL, along with any other Islamic extremist factions that come along, why would we want to discourage them? Has that thought crossed the minds of anyone in the Obama administration? I’m not sure, but our protests about Putin’s behavior have seemed somewhat halfhearted. I was reminded of a scene from an old Disney movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_vvex_mfik

  5. 7

    Nanny G

    @Greg: Greg, If ISIS hadn’t been mistaken for part of an Obama-approved ”Arab Spring,” (by the Obama-compliant media) most elected officials would NEVER have wanted Gaddafi removed, but assisted.
    Sadly, people can only base their proposals on what information is available to them.
    OBAMA knew that ISIS (ISIL) was and is a radical Islamist supremacy movement with hopes to re-establish an Islamic caliphate.
    Gaddafi put up with (even protecting) many minorities including black Africans (both Muslim and non-Muslim) Jews and Christians.
    OBAMA’s desire for an ”Arab Spring” was cover for his desire to supplant secular leaders in that part of the world with Muslim leaders.
    By the time we realized Obama was delaying arming factions so that moderate Muslims as well as non-Muslim blacks as well as non-Muslim Libyans were ousted, it was too late.
    Everything Gaddafi said would happen happened.
    Extremist Islamists took control while fighting one another for supremacy.
    Refugees flooded Europe.

  6. 8

    Pete

    So now that we have on record the emails from Hillary the night of the terrorist attack telling her daughter Benghazi was an attack by “al-Queda (sic) like group”, and an email just 24 hours after the attack to the Egyptian PM that this was a planned attack that had nothing to do with a video, we have undeniable proof that Hillary and the Obama administration LIED to the US, and brings up the illegal imprisonment of the falsely accused video producer.

    Anyone who thinks Hillary is possessing of any integrity, or should be allowed any position other than prison inmate is a fool.

  7. 9

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Republicans first attacked Obama for failure to take action against Muammar Gaddafi as the humanitarian crisis in Libya unfolded, and then turned on a dime and attacked him for taking action moment he did. Have we forgotten?

    SOME Republicans… a FEW Republicans. Regardless, we had no business in Libya. We had national security issues in Afghanistan and Iraq; NO interests in Libya or Syria. So, not only did Obama turn success into a screwed up mess in Afghanistan and Iraq, he and Hillary felt compelled to go out and create NEW theaters to screw up.

    As George Costanza once did, Obama should conceive what he thinks he should do, then do the opposite. EVERY foreign policy move of his has been a failure…. failures that will hurt for a LOOOOOOONNNNNNNNGGGGGGG time.

  8. 10

    Smorgasbord

    Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have proved that they are less intelligent and less competent than George W. Bush.

    I guess it all depends on what a person thinks their intentions are. I think their intention is to turn the USA into a muslim country. When what they are doing is aiding the muslim terrorists, and hurting our own country, it isn’t a lack of intelligence. It is the muslim brotherhood’s, brilliant planning working as planned. Look at what they have accomplished:

    (1) muslim brotherhood members in the obama administration.
    (2) muslim brotherhood members in ALL OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, and probably in all other federal agencies.
    (3) common core making students study the koran, and learn the muslim ways.
    (4) They have almost declared Israel our enemy.

    AND THEIR BIGGEST ACCOMPLISHMENT
    (5) They got their man in the white house.

  9. 11

    Nanny G

    @Smorgasbord:
    And that is why Obama hates what Putin’s Russia/Iran/and Assad are doing in Syria.
    They are wiping out all the Islamists there, whether they are friends of Obama’s or not.
    Richard Fernandez has a brilliant explanation of how: the Kesselschlacht, which literally means “cauldron battle”, a form of double envelopment.
    Based on how the Nazi’s beat the forces of Stalin in early WWII, in Syria it involves a Russian backed offensive against the Syrian city of Aleppo is to encircle it, trapping the Islamists Assad was forced to allow to win there.
    Then, all of them get killed, whether they fight to the death or surrender!
    Ouch!
    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/10/22/the-battle-for-aleppo/

    See?
    Putin, Assad and Iran are fighting to WIN, not to lose, like Obama does.

  10. 12

    Smorgasbord

    #11
    We have, and are still trying to, infiltrate other country’s governments, schools, news media, etc., and to think other countries aren’t doing it to us is stupid. I think our enemy has succeeded in all of the above.

    When we have an election system that means that the candidates have to use someone else’s money to run for office, the ones with the most money win, and it might not be American interests that win.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *