George Bush’s Prediction of the Iraq Meltdown

140616-isis-iraq-jms-1914_dfd9d334d657162e5efe720e4f206e29Former President George W. Bush is remaining mum on the tragedy unfolding in Iraq. But as an army of bloodthirsty Islamists rampages across Iraq with the goal of establishing a 7th century religious tyranny — a caliphate — it’s worth recalling who years ago had predicted this would happen if the Democrats got their way.

It was President George W. Bush and his top officials.

They warned early on that Iraq was ripe for the rise of an Islamic caliphate — either in a failed state created by Saddam Hussein or, they later contended, if the U.S.-led coalition bugged out without leaving behind a stable Iraq. Two years into the U.S.-led occupation, in 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld warned that a premature withdrawal would be disastrous — and he foresaw what has in fact happened. He explained, “Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East, and which would threaten legitimate governments in Europe, Africa and Asia.”

Vice President Dick Cheney also warned of the rise of a caliphate if the U.S. withdrew before Iraq was capable of governing and defending itself. “They talk about wanting to re-establish what you could refer to as the seventh-century caliphate” to be “governed by Sharia law, the most rigid interpretation of the Koran,” he said.

Gen. John P. Abizaid, then America’s top commander in the Middle East, also offered prescient testimony in 2005 to the House Armed Services Committee, forseeing what the terror masters would do in a weak Iraqi state. “They will try to re-establish a caliphate throughout the entire Muslim world. Just as we had the opportunity to learn what the Nazis were going to do, from Hitler’s world in ‘Mein Kampf,’ we need to learn what these people intend to do from their own words.”

Liberals jeered such dire predictions — and especially at the repeated use of the word “caliphate.”

The New York Times, for instance, ran a piece on December 12, 2005, that mocked the forgoing Bush-administration officials for their warnings of a “caliphate” — portraying them as foreign-policy amateurs peddling an alarmist view of the Middle East. Wrote reporter Elisabeth Bumiller:

A number of scholars and former government officials take strong issue with the administration’s warning about a new caliphate, and compare it to the fear of communism spread during the Cold War. They say that although Al Qaeda’s statements do indeed describe a caliphate as a goal, the administration is exaggerating the magnitude of the threat as it seeks to gain support for its policies in Iraq.

Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, obviously don’t believe what’s printed in The New York Times. ISIS, incidentally, has reportedly been preparing to make its move for several years — right under the radar of the Obama administration. Were they emboldened by President Obama’s endless apologies to the Muslim world? Or the deadlines he’d set for leaving Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably all of the above. But what no doubt really energized them was President Obama’s failure to negotiate a deal with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that would have left sufficient U.S. troops in Iraq.

President Bush, for his part, issued a prophetic warning in 2007 when vetoing a Democratic bill that would have withdrawn U.S. troops. “To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” he said.

It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.

A little history is worth recalling. Saddam’s failure to account for his weapons of mass destruction, including remnants of his toxic arsenal (some of which was in fact found), gave the Bush administration legal cover for going into Iraq. But only a fool would believe weapons of mass destruction were the only reason for the war. The U.S.-led invasion, or liberation, was in fact part of a vision to remake the Middle East: a long-term project to liberate millions in Iraq; nudge the region toward modernity; and above all make America safer in a post-9/11 world — all by correctly defining who the enemy was and taking the war on terror to them.

The Bush administration certainly encountered setbacks in Iraq and made mistakes; the fog of war invariably upsets the best-laid plans of politicians and generals. But Iraq only plunged into utter chaos after President Obama brought home U.S. troops, despite warnings that Iraq was not ready to govern or defend itself. The blood and treasure that America spent in Iraq has been squandered.

The terror masters were energized in Syria, thanks to the Obama administration’s tepid support of moderate rebels there. Now they are on the march, just as President Bush and his top officials had predicted. After they establish their regional caliphate in Iraq and Syria, expect them to next turn their attention toward their real enemies: America, Israel, and the West. Oil prices are bound to go through the roof, sending the global economy into a tailspin.

President Obama and his foreign-policy advisors have blood on their hands. But if Obama remains in character, he’ll do what he usually does — blame it all on George Bush.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • krinks

    The funny thing is that for all of his wickedness Sadaam Hussein trusted Christians in the highest positions and protected them as a people in his nation. All of this ended with Bush’s invasion of Iraq based on known lies. Since then 2/3 of them are dead or in exile, not to mention the total elimination of the Jews that dated back to the days of the Babylonian Empire. Bush nor his cabinet have clean hands.

    • J.B.

      As if you care sbout Christians or Jews, and not that your fable is true.

  • SereneBowrageyel

    as Thelma
    explained I cannot believe that a stay at home mom can make $7420 in four weeks
    on the internet . more info here R­e­x­1­0­.­C­O­M­

    • Lanna

      Lady, if you don’t wake the hell up you won’t be making any money or be safe at home! Another Progressive….trying to diminish the situation of Jihad! So obvious!

  • Lanna

    Bush’s prediction was quite accurate in every way. Dictators of any kind are NEVER acceptable…..just because one may be just a little more tolerant does not mean that they are NOT EVIL! DO NOT COMPRIMISE WITH EVIL!

    • Christopher Riddle

      When Winston Churchill was pressed by his cabinet to try to reach some kind of”Surrender”deal with Hitler,he said that you can’t TRUST DICTATORS!Now we have our VERY OWN DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • JoePk

      Yes, dictators are evil. But in the case of the middle eastern dictators, they were keeping Islamic radicals in check. It was working, too – until the Bushes stuck their noses into the mix.

      The Bushes did not start their wars in the middle east for any of the reasons stated in the article. They were simply following directives from the Saudis. The plan has not been to stabilize the region, but to *destabilize it” so the Caliphate could be recreated, with the Saudis controlling it either directly, or from behind a curtain.

      All US presidents since at least the first Bush have been part of this plan. Why would US presidents do such a thing? Money and other favors. The Saudis heavily fund the election coffers of both major political parties (at the federal level) in the US and do similar things in most of the other western countries. They also do many other things for compliant politicians. It is illegal for them to influence politicians in the US directly, so they funnel large amounts of money to both parties (currently the Democrats get more of it) through entities like the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, think tanks, and lobbyists.

      • J.B.

        Bush turned Iraq around. After the overthrow of Saddam, everything from infrastructure, public services, farming, the economy and a free media improved exponentially. And al qaeda had been crushed to impotence by killing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of their terrorists. Obama deliberately reversed all those gains by abandoning our ally and is actively helping the terrorists carve it into sunni and shiite caliphates.

        The meme that “Bush did it” doesn’t work, trolltard.

      • Guy


  • Guy

    Re: “the terror masters were energized in Syria, thanks to the Obama administration’s tepid support of moderate rebels there.”

    What moderate rebels? The Left will always win when their opponents (the good people at Front Page) join in the condemnations of the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria by pretending there is an acceptable alternative to him in some of the rebel groups.

    Some observations are in order. Under Bashar al-Assad’s father and grandfather Lebanon was stable and productive – the Lebanese Muslims and Christians worked together and the Lebanese Jews lived productively despite the fact that they never held political positions.

    Do people really think that had the Left and the Caliphate – including Iran – during Bashar al-Assad’s father’s and granfather’s rule been as powerful then as they are now, that Bashar al-Assad father and grandfather would not have done what Bashar al-Assad is doing now?

    Is the issue here really Bashar al-Assad? Isn’t the issue the Left and the power of Iran and the Caliphate and their militias?

    The move to actions of despotism, and alliances with Jihad elements was and is always a potential for any Mid Eastern Monarchy. That is and was always a given. The issue is what triggers their move in that direction.

    You know if one was a radical leftist or a jahadist during the reign of the Shah of Iran his security police didn’t make your life a happy or a safe one. Imagine what the scale of the Shah of Iran’s occasional coercive actions would have been if his country was a whirlwind of Leftist radicals – PLO, Fatah, Hamas and the armies of the Caliphate – Hezbollah.

    The scale would resemble what Bashar al-Assad is now doing.

    • Americana

      I think you’re forgetting that under Basher al Assad’s father and grandfather, Lebanon hadn’t become the haven for dispossessed Palestinians who were looking for a location for their resistance power base and decided they could use Lebanon. There is fallout from the failure to secure an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord and Lebanon’s Palestinian refugee situation is proof of this. There is fallout from Israel’s wars and Lebanon’s civil war is proof of this.

      As for the Left jeering at the idea of a “Caliphate,” I don’t believe they are. What they are jeering at is the concept that the world-wide Caliphate is in the immediate offing and that everyone Muslim from everywhere is pushing for it in the Muslim world because it’s in the Qu’ran. This concept of pushing the threat of a world-wide Caliphate when the immediate threats are smaller, distinct regional jihads in an attempt to secure Caliphates is being done because otherwise the U.S. would differentiate between the levels of threat presented by the two jihadist threats we face in the U.S. — the Palestinian jihad and the world-wide jihad, which so far hasn’t coalesced into precisely the threat that’s presented by the most vocal anti-jihad voices.

      • truebearing

        They were jeering at the use of the word “caliphate,” in any of its manifestations, world widw or regional. It’s right in fron of you face in writing, yet you persist in your denial.

        The N azis didn’t start out in control of Germany, or by conquering most of Europe. Caliphates start small and build, like any empire. A Caliphate just happens to be a theocratic empire.

        I was admiring the incredible architecture of Oxford’s Bodleian Library today, especially the interior. As we looked through the photos of that exquisite facility I mentioned to my wife that if the Muslims takeover Britain, they will burn all of those books and either destroy the building, or turn it into a Mosque. Then I thought of Westminster Hall and the fantastic timber framing in the ceiling. That too would probably end up destroyed. In Egypt, the Salafists want to destroy all remnants of ancient Egypt, including the Sphinx and the Pyramids because they aren’t Islamic. You better get your head on straight when it comes to Islam and its goals because Islamists are moving as relentlessly as any N azi ever did towards domination and destruction of that which they won’t tolerate, which is pretty much everything.

      • J.B.

        Hezb’ allah is not comprised of Psuedostinians and your comment about an immediate worldwide caliphate is a strawman. A regionsl caliphate is already there, and it’s growing.

        Try again, trolltard.

        • Americana

          The fallout from the Lebanon War in the formation of Hezbollah is very definitely linked to the continuing strife over Israel’s Middle Eastern actions.

          Hezbollah [Arab.,  =  Party of God], Lebanese Shiite political party and militia. Founded in 1982 with Iranian help to oppose Israeli forces occupying S Lebanon, Hezbollah launched guerrilla attacks and suicide bombings against Israeli forces (which were a factor in Israel’s withdrawal in 2000), and mounted terror attacks on other targets inside and outside Lebanon, include the 1983 bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. With strong support among religious, comparatively poor Shiites in S Lebanon the Biqa (Bekaa) valley, and Beirut’s southern suburbs, and underwritten financially by Iran and individual Shiites, Hezbollah established a Shiite social-services network, including schools, hospitals, and clinics, and emerged as a major Lebanese political force; it has been led since 1992 by Hassan Nasrallah, a charismatic Shiite cleric. Supported militarily by Iran and Syria, Hezbollah’s fighters used the years after Israel’s withdrawal to retrain and rearm, acquiring large numbers of missiles and sophisticated equipment.

          Politically part of the pro-Syrian camp in Lebanon, the party nonetheless became part of the largely anti-Syrian government established in 2005, and resisted the government’s and the United Nations’ call that it disarm. In 2006 a cross-border Hezbollah attack on Israeli soldiers, in which two Israelis were captured, sparked warfare (July–August) between Hezbollah militia and Israeli forces in which Hezbollah launched hundreds of missiles at Israel (many at civilian targets) and maintained a stubborn resistance against the Israeli forces that invaded S Lebanon.

          Hezbollah emerged from the fighting, which it regarded as a victory, determined to claim a larger political voice in the Lebanese government, and ulitmately forced (2008) the goverment to give it and its allies veto power in the cabinet. In the 2009 elections its coalition placed second, with 45% of the vote, and subsequently again served in a national unity government. Denouncing a joint UN-Lebanon investigation into Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s assassination, which ultimately indicted four Hezbollah members, the party and its allies withdrew from the government in 2011; they were part of a new government formed in July. Hezbollah has provided training and other support, including fighters, to Syrian government forces in the Syrian civil war.

          Read more: Hezbollah |

      • Guy

        Re “I think you’re forgetting that under Basher al Assad’s father and grandfather, Lebanon hadn’t become the haven for dispossessed”

        I don’t think I am forgetting it. I am saying that that the forces that creates the dispossessed were and are the activities of the Left and the Caliphate. They always move towards anarchy and blood lust that coalesce against your formerly stable homeland.

        The Left and the Caliphate are separate forces and the Caliphate is by now the dominant one. The Left still, though, works against Israel. It was the Left that in 1972 started the myth narrative of a dispossessed Palestinian people as opposed to negotiating to solve the refugee problem created by the War. This was before the Caliphate had militias.

  • Guy

    What is triggering violence in the Mid East? Lebanon shares a border with Israel. For over fifty years the border was peaceful because the two countries were not at War. After the Lebanese revolution when Iran’s militias took over the country, Lebanon became a staging area of rocket attacks and terrorist infiltrations into Israel.

    Israel of course, and rightly so, attacked. In fact they had to attack – it would have been wrong if they did not. While I am not drawing a parallel between Israel and Syria, I am saying that the forces in the field effected them both.

  • Leslie

    All I see is a permanent occupation like we have in South Korea.

    • J.B.

      America has been in Germany and Japan longer than Korea. Besides, what do aerial bombardments have to do with an occupation? And why do you care about an occupation? Am I supposed to believe you’re concerned about the s :afety of the US military?

  • maccamcfc

    You lot really have some front trying to make out Bush, Cheney et al are foreign polices geniuses when it was there fault in the 1st place to go into Iraq on total lies but now you are saying they predicted what would happen, well if they knew it was going to be a disaster why did the invade in the beginning,

  • Curt Cope

    The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name:
    Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq
    On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization
    of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a
    status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States,
    signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S.
    combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all
    U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1]U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement

    • J.B.

      And Obama didn’t renew it. Bush was only able to guarantee it through his term in office.

      Try again, trolltard.

  • oneteedoffpatriot

    Why didn’t the Iraqi government just post those “No guns allowed” signs at the border?

  • Dyer’s Eve

    I love the tassels on the flag in the photo…

  • BagLady

    Obama’s failure to negotiate a deal with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
    al-Maliki that would have left sufficient U.S. troops in Iraq.”

    Well, precisely. Maliki demanded that US troops be accountable to Iraqi law rather than US military. This was, of course, unacceptable to the Americans and they withdrew their forces immediately.

    Would you have had it any other way, considering the barbarity Cheney unleashed?

  • MrUniteUs1

    How more are willing to pay in taxes for Iraq?

  • Space Cowboy

    It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda.

    AQ members are mainstream orthodox Muslims and they are no more extreme or radical than the mainstream orthodox Muslims that have migrated in mass to the USA for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest, as all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent, as opposed to just a few radicals and extremists being terrorists and who perpetrate terrorism. This loon writer, like GWB, has an infantile fantasy based notion of the Islamic totalitarian world and the nature of the perpetual jihad they are waging against the infidel world.

    It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.

    OK John McCain Junior, why are mass killings of Muslims, who are our eternal mortal enemy and the eternal mortal enemy of all infidels, on a horrific scale bad for the infidel world, especially when it is accomplished by other Muslims who see the other side as infidels? Actually, it is good for the infidel world and bad for the Islamic totalitarian world. You moonbats see the mass killings in Syria and say it’s bad, but that’s because you neo-con idiots have an extremely infantile fantasy based notion of what Islam is and the nature of the jihad the Islamic totalitarian world is waging perpetually against all infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme, just like GWB.

    It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.

    Since all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world, including the millions living over here in the USA for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent, as opposed to just a few radicals and extremists who are terrorists, the notion that Afghanistan or Iraq were or could become terrorists safe havens is an extremely fantasy based notion, not based in reality, but based in stupidity instead.

    It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.

    Only if we have somebody as mentally incompetent as GWB, John McCain, or this unhinged loon neo-con writer on steroids at the helm would we be stupid enough to send troops over there to fight another jihad on their behalf. Apparently, this neo-con moonbat writer didn’t learn anything from GWB’s two greatest strategic blunders ever in American history that manifested in Iraq and Afghanistan. Too bad.

  • Gary Anderson

    This website is a disgusting lie. But delete me you cowards. The Zionists will ultimately be judged by God even if you succeed on earth for a time. We can identify the globalists, NWO types of all races who want Israel to rule the world.

  • BagLady

    Wonder how it would have been after GW ‘won’ the war in Iraq if he had actually been inclusive in his ‘reconstruction program’.

    Had nice roads sprung up, electricity and water supplied to the people at an affordable price, and jobs above ‘shovel ready’ been offered to local companies rather than US and allied mates, things might have worked out differently.

    As I recall, the majority of Iraqis welcomed the allies and were happy to see off Saddam. They were looking forward to a new lease of life. It never came. The only change came when Bush announced that those ‘below stairs’ were to move upstairs and their erstwhile bosses would take up the broom.

    Bush and Obama are equally to blame for the current crisis. Bush for starting it and Obama for continuing in the same vein.

    Seems to me that both Left and Right have the same ongoing destructive policy and would point, once again, to Oded Yinon’s account – A Strategy for Israel in the 1980’s..

  • Oh really now

    People have conveniently short memories. Not that long ago all we were hearing was hemming and hawing about uncontrolled spending (including military spending) and the ever mounting deficit. We all knew full well that the Iraq war was costing over a billion dollars a day. The question was “why was the US rebuilding Iraq?” “Why are we spendiing all that money over there whaen we have problems here?” Face it, the war and occupation had to end. Even McCain and Romney wanted it to end. Romney campaigned on removing the troops as quickly as he could.

    George W. Bush’s 2007 comments are taken as a great revelation. But in hindsight everything is 20/20. Should have, would have, could have….

    If the prez (who I am no big fan of) had listened to the commanders US troops would still be in Iraq and ISIS may or may not be a problem. But by that logic, the US might still be fighting in Vietnam because the commanders (even Nixon) did not want to withdraw in the 70’s. Hell, by that logic we probably would have been warring with Russia over Berlin after WWII. Most military commander want to be in battle. It is what they do, it is what gives them satisfaction, it makes them valuable. It pads their self-worth.

    In hindsight, if Prez Bush, VP Cheney & Secretary Rumsfled had these 2007 revelations in 2002 before invading Iraq, or perhaps listened to the advice of General Colin Powell, the ex-military commander, or General Tommy Franks, we may not be facing this mess. The reality is, they were hell bent on defeating Saddam and nothing was going to stop them.
    The ugly reality now is that after 10 years of futility, the US is going to have to return and try to clean up its own mess.