Don’t Blame Bush for Al Qaeda in Iraq, Blame Obama

lkLike Birkenstocks and ironic t-shirts, blaming Bush has never gone out of style on the left. When Al Qaeda’s resurgence in Iraq became so obvious that even the media, which had been pretending that Obama’s claims about a successful withdrawal were true, could no longer ignore them, their talking points were all lined up and ready.

It was all Bush’s fault.

Defenses of the war by pivotal figures like Dick Cheney and Tony Blair only enraged them further. “Why wouldn’t they admit it was all their fault?”

But the left’s lazy talking points about Iraq, like their talking points about the economy, ignore everything that has happened since 2008.

The leading factor behind the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq didn’t come from Iraq. It came from Syria.

From the “Islamic State of Iraq” under Bush to the ”Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant” under Obama, it’s all in the name. The variations of ISIS and ISIL show a regional shift toward Syria. Al Qaeda in Iraq was a vicious terrorist organization before the Arab Spring, but it was not capable of menacing Baghdad with a sizable army while crushing numerically superior forces along the way.

That didn’t happen in Iraq. It happened in Syria.

If you believe liberal supporters of Obama and opponents of the Iraq War, regime change in Iraq disastrously destabilized the region, but regime change in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen and Syria didn’t.

But the theory that turned Al Qaeda into a regional monster didn’t come from Dick Cheney. It came from Obama’s Presidential Study Directive 11 which helped pave the way for the Arab Spring. The definitive speech that opened the gates of hell wasn’t Bush’s speech on Iraq, but Obama’s Cairo speech.

That speech and the policy implemented with it led to the fall of allied governments and the rise of Islamist militias aligned with Al Qaeda. The Arab Spring was a regime change operation on a much larger scale than the Iraq War. Unlike the Iraq War, it was completely unsupervised and uncontrolled.

And it favored America’s enemies from the very outset.

ISIS picked up its weapons and manpower as a consequence of the conflicts in Libya and Syria. Obama chose to fight on the side of Al Qaeda in Libya. That led to the murder of four Americans in Benghazi after Islamic militias took over major cities.

Obama chose to facilitate the smuggling of weapons to Islamic militias by Qatar and other Gulf states. The White House endorsed the weapons smuggling, but then claimed to be surprised that the weapons were going to “more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam” fighters.

The White House didn’t shut down the smuggling operation. Instead a senior official claimed not to be able to control the Qataris; not to mention the Saudis, Kuwaitis and the rest of the state-sponsored terrorism gang.

After Libya many of the fighters and weapons went to Syria where different factions of Al Qaeda were battling it out with the Syrian government and each other. And some of those weapons didn’t just end up in Syria.

A US chopper was shot down in Afghanistan using Qatari weapons supplied to the Libyan Jihadists that ended up in the hands of the Taliban.

Despite supposedly learning a lesson from Libya, Kerry announced last year that he supported efforts by the same bad actors to arm the Syrian rebels. Occasional noises were made about seeing to it that the weapons ended up in the hands of the “moderates”, but there was an extensive track record showing that such distinctions meant nothing and that the Gulf states would go on arming terrorists.

Even when the weapons didn’t go directly to Al Qaeda, its various affiliates were able to capture them anyway through defections, deals or outright attacks.

Obama failed to crack down on the weapons smuggling that armed ISIS because it was being carried out by “allies” like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda would be in no position to menace Baghdad if its flow of weapons and recruits had been aggressively cut off.

There were two paths that led to this current crisis. One was from the Gulf and the other from Iran.

Obama failed to check Iranian power which emboldened Maliki to crack down on Sunnis. The Gulf Sunni states were busy financing the armed and political Jihads of everyone from the Muslim Brotherhood to Al Qaeda. The intersection of these two paths led to the current civil war.

The “Blame Bush” crowd insists that if Saddam had not been overthrown, none of this would be happening. Except that Assad, Saddam’s fellow Baathist dictator, wasn’t overthrown by Bush and he’s still having trouble holding his own against Al Qaeda.

Saddam Hussein might have been less threatened by a Sunni insurgency, but that’s because Al Qaeda in Iraq is allied to and fighting alongside the current head of the Baath Party.

Saddam had supported a number of terrorist groups. Al Qaeda had operated under Saddam Hussein as Ansar Al-Islam and had a Saddam man in its ranks. Today Saddam’s Baathist successors have their own man in ISIS who chose its current leader.

Saddam and Al Qaeda being on the same team is not some new phenomenon. Saddam helped fund and plan operations with Egyptian Islamic Jihad which eventually merged into Al Qaeda and took over its leadership. They both had a common interest when it came to the United States and to Shiites.

If Saddam had not been overthrown, he would probably have become a much more active state sponsor of Al Qaeda once the Arab Spring rolled around.

Obama could have kept Iran and its Shiite allies from pushing the Sunnis into the Baath/Al Qaeda corner by standing up to Iran. Instead he disengaged and pretended that everything was going to be fine. He didn’t believe that, but he didn’t care either. Democrats had been vocal critics of Maliki. Obama repeatedly told Maliki to govern more inclusively as if mere words would somehow change anything.

Power in the Middle East is based on strength, not on teleprompters.

Obama’s withdrawal only meant that everyone would choose a stronger horse. The Shiites chose Iran. The Sunnis chose Al Qaeda. Obama’s failure to do anything about Iran led the Gulf states to require a Salafist horde to keep it at bay. Al Qaeda is their response to the military gap between them and Iran.

Iraq would not have fallen apart nearly as badly without the Arab Spring. Al Qaeda would have gone on killing dozens of people in car bombings, but it wouldn’t have been moving on Baghdad. It wasn’t the Iraq War that turned Al Qaeda in Iraq into a monster that could menace two nations.

It was the Arab Spring.

Obama chose to execute regime change on a much larger scale than Iraq. Al Qaeda’s dominance in Syria and Iraq is only one of the consequences of that disaster.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

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

  • Shein Ariely

    Magic number the 300 USA troops.
    The 300 Spartans that confront the Persians in the battle of Thermopylae changed stop the advance of the Persian Empire and changed the History.
    Is this number a sign of a change for a better of president Obama policy toward
    the modern Islamist Iran quest of hegemony?

    God put Obama on earth to accomplish a certain number of things.
    Right now he is so far behind, he will live forever.
    However he still has a chance if he will prove once again that he got it what Winston Churchill said:
    ”We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have
    exhausted all the other possibilities’.

    Last call for Obama administration to draw conclusions and fix the outcomes of his catastrophic policy:

    1: Libya — transformed into a Jihadist hub.
    2; Iraq– Jihadist take control of large areas.
    3: Syria: I don’t know what to say about Obama policy.
    Except that Russia scores many points.
    4: Iran: giving away the effective sanctions that eroded Iranians support to the Islamist dictatorship.
    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Islamist Iran supreme leader, said that the Islamic Republic’s ideals include destroying America.
    Google search: /iran-supreme-leader-jihad-continue-until-america-no-…
    5: Egypt: He legitimized the Muslim Brotherhood that preaches to destroy USA civilization.
    USA court revealed Muslim brotherhood mission in a sixteen-page Arabic document:
    “”The Ikhwan must understand that their working America is a kind of
    grand Jihad in eliminating and DESTTROYING WESTREN CIVILIZATION FROM WITHIN.”.
    6: Palestinian: legitimized the united government with Hamas Islamist terrorists organization- the self declared enemy of all non Islamic cultures.
    “” Only under Islam wings Christianity, Judaism and Islam may coexist.””
    Read Hamas charter:

  • Texas Patriot

    Unfortunately, the Bath Army apparatus of Saddam Hussein was the Little Boy with his finger in the dyke holding back the rising tide of Islamism and Islamic fundamentalism. Removing Saddam Hussein but leaving the Bath Army apparatus in place might not have been fatal. But with both removed, the dam burst and the floodwaters of Islamic jihad are now sweeping across the Middle East in the form of both Shia and Sunni Islamic fundamentalism. At this point it will be surprising if all the artificial post WWI governments set up by the West are not swept away leaving the Shia and Sunni tribes to fight it out with Israel in the middle. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu gave an excellent summary of the situation yesterday on Meet the Press:

  • Paul B.

    Isis has had victory because the Iraqi forces cut and ran, even though they vastly outnumbered ISIS. They ran because the government no longer had broad support. Under Bush, everyone was pleasantly surprised that Malaki had made such strides reaching out to the Sunnis. Under obama’s disengagement, which actually began years ago, that fell apart.

    obama fiddled – or actually, played golf and fund-raised – instead of giving moral support to Iran’s Green Revolution, when we might have been rid of one of the world’s worst players for a tuppence. This is not leading from behind, it’s simply not leading. Unless you count leading America over a cliff as leading. This is the man who promised to unify us and restore America’s world prestige. Thanks for nothing, obama voters.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It didn’t help that Iranian power grew so much that the Sunnis were complicatedly alienated.

  • Underzog

    Kudos to Dan Greenfield for setting the record straight, especially when even “National Review” is trying to blame the Bush administration for this.

    • SamDuhigiyn321

      my classmate’s aunt makes $68 every hour on the
      computer . She has been fired for 7 months but last month her paycheck was
      $15495 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit the site R­e­x­1­0­.­C­O­M­

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        If it sounds too good to be true, it is. Flagged …

    • Daniel Greenfield

      What articles are you referring to?

  • wildjew

    “….Al Qaeda had operated under Saddam Hussein as Ansar Al-Islam and had a Saddam man in its ranks….”

    What to believe? True this is from Wikipedia:

    “In the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration claimed that Ansar al-Islam had links with Saddam Hussein, attempting to establish a link between Hussein and al-Qaeda.

    The Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq concluded that Saddam “was aware of Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaeda presence in northeastern Iraq, but the groups’ presence was considered a threat to the regime and the Iraqi government attempted intelligence collection operations against them. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) stated that information from senior Ansar al-Islam detainees revealed that the group viewed Saddam’s regime as apostate, and denied any relationship with it.” The leader of Ansar al-Islam, Mullah Krekar, has also called Saddam Hussein his sworn enemy….”

    Saddam’s regime was a designated state sponsor of terrorism. Why do we need to establish a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda and by inference the 9/11/2001 attacks to justify his ouster? Isn’t that what Bush administration officials sought to do? Weren’t Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran more directly involved in the September attacks?

    • Jason P

      I remember the Bush administration repeatedly denying that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. The left created a “straw man” to knock down. They kept saying that Bush claimed Saddam was behind 9/11. Now the administration said that Saddam back other Islamic terrorist groups and we all know that he gave funds to Hamas.

      One of the slippery features of Arab culture is the friend/enemy dynamic. One hour Sunni/Shiite/secular can join and attack the West. In the next moment, they are stabbing each other in the back while claiming each other as eternal enemies. This is followed by knocking on each others door for help, then more backstabbing. The combinations are formed along religious/national/tribal permutations and the divisions are created along the same lines.

      WJ, the lack of cognitive dissonance is not unusual in Arab culture. Raphael Patai talks about it in his superb book “The Arab Minds.”

      • wildjew

        I did not pay real close attention to what Bush and his administration officials said in the lead up to the war in Iraq. By that time I had lost faith and confidence in Bush (I voted for him in 2000) because of his betrayal of Israel early October 2001 in response to a pledge he made to Saudi Crown Prince Abduallah late August 2001. I was agnostic on Iraq. Like the Israelis, I did not push one way or another.

        I did find the following doing a quick search.

        On December 5, 2008, President Bush stated: “It is true, as I’ve said many times, that Saddam Hussein was not connected to the 9/11 attacks.”

        On January 31, 2003, President Bush stated: “The strategic view of America changed after September the 11th. We must deal with threats before they hurt the American people again. And as I have said repeatedly, Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill and leave no fingerprints behind.”

        On March 6, 2003, he stated: “If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.”

        On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell said in his presentation to the UN Security Council, warning against the Saddam Hussein threat: “Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al-Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible.” In a January 8, 2004 press conference, Powell acknowledged: “I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection.”

        Here is the problem I have with former President Bush (who I voted for not without some apprehension) beyond the fact he sold out Israel to the global jihad when he made the establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel’s heartland a “formal goal of U.S. policy.” Bush repeatedly misled the American people about the religion / ideology of Islam assuring the American people that “terrorists” hijacked a religion whose teachings are peaceful and good. The “terrorists” Bush insisted are traitors to their faith.

        Is it any wonder in light of that, seven years after these Islamic attacks Americans elected a man who has deep sympathies (if not a strong identity) with the world of Islam, whose middle name is Hussein?

        • Texas Patriot

          We’re on the same page, WJ. But don’t be too hard on Bush. He doesn’t even understand Christianity very well. How can you expect him to understand Islam? Otherwise, I would urge you to reserve judgment on Obama as a defender of America and her allies, including Israel. The key issue there is whether he allows Iran to go forward with the development of nuclear weapons, and the proof of that pudding has yet to be made.

          • wildjew

            TP, Obama is a nightmare. He’s done terrible damage to this country, to the Middle East and North Africa. Iran has already been given the green light to move forward with their nuclear weapons program when the U.S. began negotiating with the state sponsor of international terrorism.

            A U.S. president has access to some of the best minds available for advice. President Bush apparently chose apologists for Islam to advise him because that is what he wanted to hear post 9/11.

            I chose just the opposite because I intuited the September attacks were Islam in action just as the hundreds of jihad terror attacks in Israel are Islam in action. I think that is scholar on Islam, Robert Spencer’s view. That is my view.

          • Texas Patriot

            From my point of view, Spencer is likewise a bit too inclined to politicize the events of the day into an anti-Obama spiel. There is no need for that at this point in time. Obama hasn’t given Iran a “green light” to move ahead with their nuclear weapons program. Quite the contrary. If Iran chooses to interpret Obama’s negotiating posture in that way, they could lose their right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes altogether.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I’m going to have to go along with WJ on this, Patriot. The jury isn’t out on Obama, it’s come back with a verdict of guilty and a recommendation for the death penalty.

            The trouble is, the judge is on the links playing golf with the guy …

          • Texas Patriot

            I respect your opinion, Wolfie. But if Obama ends up blowing the Iranian nuclear weapons complex to smithereens, I think you’re going to owe him an apology. ;-)

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Patriot, the first President I remember was Dwight Eisenhower. I’ve been a supporter of every President in my lifetime, deferring to their access to information which I could not possibly get. I even gave Carter the benefit of the doubt, after the Camp David Accords.

            However, Obama is a deal-breaker, for me. Note that I blame Bush for not taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities, after the 2008 elections.

            But Obama is never going to strike those facilities, my friend. Never. His sentiments lie with the rest of the world, not the country he has failed to lead. Indeed, he sees the United States as the problem, and not the solution.

            If he destroyed those facilities, today, I would be the first to praise him for the act (which should have taken place in January of 2009). I would give a sheepish and embarrassed public apology to him, on this site and others.

            But he’s not going to do anything of the sort.

          • Texas Patriot

            WTKA: Note that I blame Bush for not taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities, after the 2008 elections. But Obama is never going to strike those facilities, my friend. Never. His sentiments lie with the rest of the world, not the country he has failed to lead. Indeed, he sees the United States as the problem, and not the solution. If he destroyed those facilities, today, I would be the first to praise him for the act (which should have taken place in January of 2009). I would give a sheepish and embarrassed public apology to him, on this site and others. But he’s not going to do anything of the sort.

            I’m not a prophet, Wolfie, so I don’t know what the future holds or how Obama will resolve the ongoing development of nuclear weapons by the Islamic Revolutionary Party of Iran. But I find it encouraging that by using the word “if” in the above-quoted remarks, you are at least willing to recognize the possibility that Obama will do the right thing in this situation, even if your better judgment leads you to the firm conclusion that he won’t.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I said “if”, because there is always the possibility that he will the right thing if he sees a political advantage to it. But he would have to overcome his anti-Western worldview in order to do so.

            I believe that those beliefs are more powerful, in him, than even political considerations.

          • Drakken

            You don’t need to be a prophet to know what Comrade Obummer is going to do with Iran, all you have to do is connect the dots, or is your blind faith in the Obummer administration clouding your judgment? I will make a bet, a cool grand that your boy Obummer isn’t going to do a bloody thing? Care to take me up on it? Or are you going to keep wishing upon rainbow and unicorns to appear?

          • wildjew

            I think you can rest pretty well assured, you will not have to give a sheepish apology.

          • Texas Patriot

            If I know Wolfie, he would be so busy commending and applauding the destruction of the Iranian nuclear weapons complex that the necessity of issuing a polite apology with all due respect and felicitations to the office and person of the President of the United States would present no great obstacle or impediment to him.

          • Drakken

            And wishing upon those rainbows and unicorns will actually make them appear by magic. How many bloody times do you need to be told that your delusions are never ever going to happen while Obummer is in office? Your faith in this administration is delusional at best, and retarded at worst.

          • wildjew
          • Texas Patriot

            Are you saying that because there are so many scandals plaguing his administration that you are absolutely certain that Obama lacks the capacity to act decisively in order to neutralize a clear and present danger and imminent existential threat to the national security America and her allies, including Israel?

          • wildjew

            None of this pervasive corruption is surprising. Are you surprised. I question Barack Obama’s loyalties I don’t buy his apologists who say Obama loves this country. There are naive folks on the political right who believe it. What I am saying is a politicians life long associations matter. I learned first hand that a politicians associations matter. Obama defenders scolded those who brought up these troubling adult associations it was “guilt by association.” Obama sat in a racist church for twenty years listening to anti-Semitic, racist, anti-American sermons. Obama ran with PLO activists, jihadists, racists, anti-Semites his entire adult life. For those of us who have a love of history, there is no excuse for electing a racist. None. Germans learned the lesson when they helped elevate a racist and a racist party in Germany in the early nineteen thirties. Americans elected and then re-elected a racist. Why would you trust a racist with anything much less our national security?

          • Texas Patriot

            You didn’t answer my question. Even if we assume for the sake of argument and discussion that everything you say is true, are you absolutely certain that Obama lacks the capacity to act decisively in order to neutralize a clear and present danger and imminent existential threat to the national security America and her allies, including Israel?

          • wildjew

            How can I say I am “absolutely certain” Obama lacks the capacity to act decisively in the face of an imminent existential threat? We have been watching Obama for six plus years. Obama defenders say he has acted decisively citing the killing of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. We’ve seen Obama extend a hand of friendship to Iran’s genocidal Mullahs, support Muslim Brotherhood jihadists in Egypt, al-Qaeda of North Africa in Libya, al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. I have watched the way Obama treated Israel’s politically moderate prime minister and Israeli Jews living in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem since he first took office. I think Obama, like his twenty year mentor (Jeremiah Wright) has a visceral loathing for the Jewish state as he does this country. I cannot say I am absolutely certain Obama lacks the capacity to act decisively to protect America’s security, though I must confess I am suspicious of his motives.

          • Texas Patriot

            WJ: How can I say I am “absolutely certain” Obama lacks the capacity to act decisively in the face of an imminent existential threat?

            Thank you. I don’t think it’s possible to do that either. Otherwise, I think it’s fine if you’re suspicious of Obama’s motives. It’s part of our duty as American citizens to be suspicious and watch our elected representatives very closely, lest they take their eye off the ball and act in some way other than the best interest of the American people.

          • wildjew
          • Texas Patriot

            Overly polemic.

          • kasandra

            WJ and TP – I think the problem is Obama’s concept of national security is not the same as either of your’s. A rational person, for example, would think that Iran having nuclear weapons is a threat to our national security and I assume that both of you being rational people do, too. But he obviously doesn’t. He does, however, undoubtedly think that income inequality, racism, homophobia, etc., are the real national security threats to the U.S. So you guys really are talking past each other both assuming that he has a concept of national security similar to that held by all of his predecessors. He undoubtedly thinks that concept is invalid, too “20th Century,” too much formed by old white men, etc. Besides which, he doesn’t much like the U.S. anyway but that’s another topic.

          • Drakken

            I will bet your life on it!

          • Texas Patriot

            It’s not yours to bet. ;-)

          • Drakken

            Wildjew might not say it, But I bloody will!!!

          • Texas Patriot

            I’m a little worried about you, Drak. If Obama ever does decide to defang the mullahs, you could blow a microchip!

          • kasandra

            I don’t think you have to worry about Obama deciding to defang the mullahs. He’s been pursuing him since he became president and no amounts of threats, broken agreements, betrayals, etc. has deterred his Captain Ahab mania towards the mullahs.

          • Drakken

            I am worried about you, for you have faith in an administration that has proved time and time again it demonstrates feckless weakness on a daily basis. I live in reality, you have nothing but wishful thinking to go with. Your hero Obummer will not and shall not ever do a bloody thing about those goddamn muslim savages in Iran except appease them, and you can take that to the bank.

          • Texas Patriot

            Drakken: I live in reality, you have nothing but wishful thinking to go with.

            I’m going with Sun Tzu.

            “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”

            “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

            “Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”

            ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

          • Texas Patriot

            Relax Drak. He’d only be doing the reasonable and prudent thing. Everybody thinks he should. So, don’t freak out, but it could happen.

          • Drakken

            How many times do you have to be told, IT AIN”T NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN, before you wake up and smell the coffee? You can’t put boomers into the Persian Gulf, and your boy Obummer does not have America’s National Security and interest at heart, period, no matter how many times clicking those ruby red slippers together wishing there is no place like home. You think Obummer is reasonable and prudent, and he has demonstrated time and time again he is anything but.

          • Texas Patriot

            Drakken: You can’t put boomers into the Persian Gulf…

            What you can do is put five fully locked-and-loaded Ohio class nuclear submarines in the Arabian Sea which is 15,000 feet deep, and let them patrol there undetected until such time as they may be needed.

          • truebearing

            You have a real problem with causality. When an American president makes it clear he will allow our enemies to do as they will, with no consequences, they do things that are dangerous to this nation and the world. Obama has NEVER shown an interest in opposing Islamists, Iran included.

            How is Iran going to “lose their right to develop nuclear energy” for any purpose? It’s already too late. Iran most likely already has at least one nuke, and is working on many more. Obama isn’t going to do anything about it for two reasons:
            1) He can’t. They are far enough along that they can bluff that they have a nuke even if they don’t, which would freeze any attempt to stop them. That train left the station quite awhile ago, and won’t be returning.
            2) Obama isn’t opposed to Iran having nukes. He’s far more opposed to you owning guns, or gays not having the right to marry. Obama enabled Iran by ending sanctions and freeing up billions of dollars in frozen assets that Iran can now use to complete their acquisition of nukes.

            You’re deluding yourself so thoroughly that you see in Obama a person who doesn’t exist.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      These kinds of tangled enemy-enemy alliances between states and terror groups are routine in the Middle East.

      Iran even played up to Al Qaeda.

  • Jason P

    Sadly many on the right fall for the leftist mindset that ISIS in Iraq happens in a vacuum. I notice a few talking heads on TV in the last few days. No mention of Syria, let alone the Arab “spring” in other countries! No comparison to the country we didn’t invade (i.e. Syria)!

    For both left and right it is all about us and our actions in Iraq as if their broken culture (and religion) isn’t a factor. Failure to identify their problems means we actually wind up supporting Islamist factions as Obama has with support from certain Republicans senators.

    In any case, this is one of the few articles and rare venues (American Thinker is another) that gets it right.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The left doesn’t want to talk about the Arab Spring because it shows how their entire foreign policy approach had failed.

      • Americana

        I talk about the OVERALL failure of American policy in the Middle East as the inevitable failure of both major American parties and I talk about SPECIFIC failures when they are attributable to a particular President and particular parties. Why should we act as if we’re all powerful when we’re not? We’re very powerful but we’re not omnipotent nor are we omnipresent in every square inch of these ME countries which is what it would take to control these political undercurrents.

        This is a very long term issue for the region and our government will do the best that it can to figure out something that works to achieve what we need to achieve for our national security objectives. What are our chances of success? I’d say in the short term, we’re going to be on the losing end, in the long term, I believe we’ll win out.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          We’re not all powerful, but our greatest weakness is a lack of awareness of our strengths.

  • Texas Patriot

    Wake up, Daniel. There’s no one to blame here. As Benjamin Netanyahu says, when your two worst enemies are fighting each other, it’s not a bad thing.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      There’s no one to blame for ushering in the overthrow of multiple governments in the name of rapprochement with the Muslim world?

      • Texas Patriot

        You could blame Bush or Obama or multiple other leaders of multiple other governments for the ongoing collapse of the sham governments in the Middle East which do not represent the effective will of their own people. The important point is that the underlying Shia and Sunni tribal conflict is the dominant force in the region, and as Benjamin Netanyahu points out, having two mortal enemies of Western Civilization (including Israel) fighting each other is not necessarily a bad thing. Why complain about something if the net result works to your advantage, even if it’s something that you never imagined, much less ever worked for?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Bush has his share of the fault, but he wasn’t there pushing the Arab Spring.

          Obama was.

          • Texas Patriot

            DG: Bush has his share of the fault, but he wasn’t there pushing the Arab Spring. Obama was

            So were many Republican politicians, including John McCain and Lindsay Graham. Now the whole thing has come crashing down into a Shia-Sunni bloodbath that is likely to sweep away every government in the Middle East with the exception of Israel. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says, it’s not altogether a bad thing to wake up and find that two of your mortal enemies are now engaged in a battle to the death. Unfortunately, none of us gets to live in the world we’d like to live in. Instead, we all have to take the world as we find it. The important thing to do now is to take the world as we find it today, and to make the best of it going forward.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Sure. Except neither of the men were in the White House.

          • Texas Patriot

            DG: Sure. Except neither of the men were in the White House.

            No, neither John McCain nor Lindsay Graham were in the White House when all of the governments of the Middle East came crashing down only to expose an age-old Shia-Sunni blood feud with Israel in the middle. Does Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seem to be worried about it? No, and neither should we. Sometimes it’s better to see reality as it really is, even if we don’t particularly like it. Let’s face it. The sham governments of the Middle East are dropping like flies, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            They didn’t just come crashing down. That’s the point.

            The Arab Spring engineered these collapses to shift the US to an alliance with Islamists.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            An alliance with Islamists or an alliance with Muslims? Which one?

          • Texas Patriot

            DG: They didn’t just come crashing down. That’s the point. The Arab Spring engineered these collapses to shift the US to an alliance with Islamists.

            From my perspective, the intent of the American people in electing Barack Obama was to effectuate a sort of detente with the forces of radical Islam. All of that came to naught on September 11, 2012 with the assassination of our diplomats in Benghazi to the accompaniment of worldwide Muslim demonstrations and chants of “Obama, Obama, We’re All Osama.”

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I think that was the intent of some Americans, but they weren’t clear what this would mean exactly.

            It was always going to come to naught.

            The policy was never for the benefit of America, but for the benefit of Islam.

          • Texas Patriot

            Personally I’m surprised that Obama didn’t withdraw and refuse to run for re-election. After the events of 9/11/12, I really don’t think he had his heart in the race. Unfortunately, Romney’s campaign was so poorly managed that Obama was reelected anyway. Now he gets to oversee the meltdown of all the sham governments in the Middle East and the emerging inevitability of the ISIS, et al. vs. Iran, et al. showdown. I would love to have heard the advice that Benjamin Netanyahu gave Obama in the meeting Netanyahu mentioned yesterday on Meet The Press. When was that meeting supposed to take place?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            There never was an Arab Spring. It only existed in the minds of Obama and Hillary and their acolytes until you tried to give it legitimacy the other day. Was Obama and Hillary’s foreign policy naive to the hilt? Well…does a bear crap in the woods and wherever else it wants?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “There never was an Arab Spring. It only existed in the minds of Obama and Hillary and their acolytes until you tried to give it legitimacy the other day.”

            And the lying troll… never stops lying.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You better stop calling me a lying troll or I will be forced to sick that bear on you.

          • trickyblain

            He wasn’t there. But his armies were. Fighting for Iraqi freedom and eventually democracy. To say that Bush wasn’t pushing ME “democracy” is an outright and tangible falsehood. Here’s some quotes from a single 2003 speech.

            “This freedom deficit … has terrible consequences for people in the Middle East and for the world. In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading. Women lack rights and are denied schooling, whole economies remains stagnant while the world moves ahead,”

            “Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty,”

            Sounds a lot like Obama’s Cairo speech, doesn’t it? He’s apologizing!

            “We will stand with these oppressed peoples until the day liberty and freedom finally arrives,”

            He said he will stand with the Muslims!

            “It should be clear to all of Islam that the faith of one-fifth of all humanity is consistent with democratic rule,”

            “These are not the failures of a culture or a religion, these are the failures of political and economic doctrines,”

            Obama has made his mistakes, many of them. But the “Arab Spring” was forecasted by and enabled with the implementation of the Bush Doctrine.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            GWB, like Karl Rove, GHWB, and Jeb Bush, never had a conservative bone in his exceedingly leftwing body. Which is why he didn’t ban and reverse mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage immediately following 9/11 when it would have been easy to do and elected instead to grow the size, scope, and power of the federal government via the creation of the massive Department of Homeland Security and the gargantuan National Intelligence Directorate like a Dhimmicrat on steroids. So he could also justify continuing to accommodate mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, and indeed mass Muslim immigration to the USA with all of its excess baggage actually increased post 9/11 even though it is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest. Indeed, the only reason that America remains vulnerable to violent jihad attacks today, not to mention the stealth and deceptive jihad that manifests over here in America on a daily basis, is because of the millions of Muslims we have here living in America under false pretenses thanks to GWB and his ilk.

            In other words, if GWB was that naïve and ignorant of Islam, then there was no way his two fantasy-based nation-building missions in Afghanistan and Iraq would not inevitably turn into the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history exactly like they did. Say what you want about Obama, and there is a lot to say about that self-hating radical Marxist loon, but GWB was also one of the worse Presidents to ever besmirch the office of the presidency, just like Obama.

            Let’s not also forget, that GWB is also a big advocate of Obama style illegal immigration as well, as like his brother Jeb, he never saw an illegal immigrant he didn’t want to give amnesty to.

            The entire Bush crime family along with Karl Rove are all crooks in my book.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I said Arab Spring, not Arab Democracy.

            That’s why I said, Bush has his share of the fault.

          • trickyblain

            They are one and the same. Dictators were overthrown in popular revolts (just like the Bushies envisioned), elections held, and terrorists elected. Gaza provided the playbook, so the Bushies, nor Obama’s admin, can claim ignorance. Not, by any means liberal democracy but democracy nonetheless.

            If Bush has his share of the fault, why not blame him along with blaming Obama? The title and much of the content (I do realize editors, not authors, usually pen the header) suggests we absolve Bush of blame. Just seems you’re taking a blindly hyperpartisan stance with this article …

          • truebearing

            You’re equating Maliki with the Muslim Brotherhood? He may be corrupt, a lousy leader, or a poor choice to back, though I doubt there were any good ones, but he isn’t a dedicated Islamist.

            Bush didn’t directly enable Islamists all over the Middle East. He didn’t unseat a valuable ally in the war on Islamist terror, like Obama did twice. You can say both Saddam and Mubarak were dictators but Mubarak wasn’t using WMDs on his own citizens. He wasn’t supporting terrorism. He wasn’t seeking nuclear weapons so that he could rule the Middle East and most likely, attack Israel. Mubarak didn’t invade Kuwait, with an eye on Saudi Arabia, which would have been an economic disaster for the US. Now we have discovered vast energy reserves due to fracking, but we didn’t have that option then.

            And speaking of fracking, the Left opposes it vehemently, which necessarily means they prefer continued US dependence on unstable, hostile Islamic oil producers, with all of the inherent problems that dependencies on Muslim oil producers create. if the Left was really opposed to war and the risk of polluting the oceans, they’d be for fracking.

          • trickyblain

            “You’re equating Maliki with the Muslim Brotherhood?”

            Never did that. In the case of Iraq, the Sunnis, as with everywhere else in the “Arab Spring” are sealing the deal. Maliki was an inevitable fail.

            “He didn’t unseat a valuable ally in the war on Islamist terror, like Obama did twice.”

            The thought of Ghadafi as anything resembling a “valuable ally” is patently absurd. Which one of his hostile actions did you like better, Lockerbie, or the bombing of the German disco filled with GIs? Mubarack was exactly the Bush Doctrine model of a freedom-hating dictator that had to go. He went. Folks there voted for Islamic savagery. You blame Obama. Weird.

            Understandable that you’d take the complete non-sequtor to fracking, though. That was awesome.

          • hiernonymous

            “I said Arab Spring, not Arab Democracy.”

            They’re inseparable. The Arab Spring was a movement for Arab Democracy. The uncomfortable underlying fact is that democracy in countries like Egypt meant Muslim Brotherhood-dominated legislatures, at least in the short run. We knew this in 2003.

          • Drakken

            You really have been in the academic world too long. A muslim nation is either run by a good general or a muslim religious fanatics, always go with the Generals. Democracy in the muzzy world is bloody pipedream. Let me guess, your were one of those bloody geniuses that said the MB was a good thing weren’t you?

          • hiernonymous

            No. I’m one of those geniuses that said that the MB was probably a necessary step to transitioning Egypt from military dictatorship to any prayer of democracy.

            I certainly did say that getting Mubarak out of power was a good thing, and I think the al Sisi coup is much worse than letting the MB stand the next round of elections.

          • hiernonymous

            Actually, Bush was pushing pretty hard in the immediate wake of our apparent victory in Iraq. He was pressuring Mubarak heavily in 2004 and early 2005, but as it became apparent that our adventure in Iraq was going south, he decided that he needed Mubarak’s help with the Arabs more than he needed to see a democratic regime in Egypt, and he executed an about face.

            And you sidestepped TP’s excellent point that the governments in question were shams. In fact, they were the authors of the growing tide of disaffection, and supporting them over the years is probably the single biggest U.S. contribution to the wave of Islamist support. A bit tricky pinning that on a single party or administration, though I’m sure that won’t stop you.

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    After Obama and his 40 liars are individually tried, incarcerated, executed, or deported, whichever is appropriate in each case, what’s left of America should distance itself from the entire Muslim world, deport resident Muslim trouble makers and restrict contact to the occasional bombing run whenever needed and appropriate. Iran’s nuclear ambitions should be ended with nuclear devices if needed. Chief supporters, funders and exporters of overt or societal Jihad, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are way overdue for some meaningful punishment from the air. America has had a whole series of idiotic administrations in relation to Islam peaking insanely with the present and if the next one doesn’t do an entire turnaround, it will curtains for all of us. Harry Truman put Japan out of business without a single American boot in Japan. We need another Harry.


      Arrest the leadership and members of CAIR.

      CAIR is a fifth column – providing support to terrorists world-wide.

  • BagLady

    If I were to give a colour to this generation, I would choose black.

    We have the black economy, black employment (zero hour contracts), black security (FBI, MI5/6, Mossad etc etc etc) and now we have black boots on the ground. Armies of thugs in mufti, governed by no country’s laws of decency, unleashed in loose bands to create mayhem and fear wherever they go, disowned by all but paid well by those lurking in dark corridors and speaking in whispers.

    Keeping up with hasty allegiances is like tracing the pattern of a black widow spider’s web.

    I call this one Hillary.

  • Lanna

    Yes, Thanks for setting the record straight. President Bush set up new programs against terrorism with Homeland Security, and was a total success in Iraq. He was proactive against terrorism and now look at the Middle East Meltdown which has happened under Obama and his policies……total failure! Sadam Hussein was a terrorist too, and had chemical weapons labs, and the ability to make chemical and biological weapons…there are no moderate terrorists or muslims….appeasement allowed them to regroup, so thank this administration for your lack of security!

  • Pepe Turcon

    By being such oxymoron and contra nature not to mention a totally dysfunctional do gooder Obama has paradoxically helped the USA a lot. The Country has come together into realizing who the USA is and who is not. By tanquom ignotum just like Thomas Aquino approached God. No one except for low life stupid criminals lazy duchebags wants to follow that thing called Obama.

  • LieutenantCharlie

    By now, unless you live under a rock or your IQ is very low, everyone in America knows Obama is a Muslim, and a Member of the Terrorist Muslim Brotherhood.
    And we can Thank the Democrat Party for putting the MORTAL ENEMY of America in the White House,…..where he can destroy AMERICA piece by piece.
    Obama says in his book, ‘Audacity of Hope’, “I will stand with the MUSLIMS, should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
    By his own words Obama puts MUSLIMS before AMERICA,…TREASON.

    • hiernonymous

      “Obama says in his book, ‘Audacity of Hope’, “I will stand with the MUSLIMS, should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.””

      Yes. He was very clearly stating that he was not going to allow American Muslims to be scapegoated and abused after 9/11 the way the Japanese were after Pearl Harbor. What is this country coming to when we have a president who doesn’t want us teaching the less-American Americans a lesson every now and then?



        Barack HUSSEIN Obama stands with “the MUSLIMS” for the same reason that he flew to Egypt to apologize to Muslims for America, and bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia.

        Obama is the president of the muslims – not America.

        American Japanese killed no Americans in America.

        American Muslims HAVE killed Americans in America,

        British Muslims have killed Brits in Britain.


          Obama should apologize to the American people for the murderous actions of Islam world -wide.

          • Americana

            Why on earth should Pres. Obama be expected to do that? More like we should ask the Grand Mufti to do that…

        • hiernonymous

          “American Japanese killed no Americans in America.”

          Of course they have. Heck, the 2012 Empire State Building shooting was committed by a Japanese American.

          If you mean Pearl Harbor wasn’t attacked by Japanese Americans, that’s true. But then, 9/11 wasn’t committed by American Muslims.

          Are you suggesting that the president was wrong to be committed to protecting U.S. citizens from being put in concentration camps and otherwise abused by their fellow Americans?

    • John Fritzel

      Does the tinfoil itch?

  • Gee

    I don’t think much of Odumba, but will disagree with this analysis.
    It’s not Odumba’s fault – he has neither the power nor the influence to cause this. Islam is at fault, not the West. The best we can hope for is to contain it within the Muslim world.

    • Texas Patriot

      Other than the totally unnecessary and counterproductive misspelling of the President’s name, I agree with this analysis.

      • Gee

        My choice – I do consider him to be dumb so the name fits

    • Daniel Greenfield

      America has a great deal of power and influence, Obama used it to undermine American power and influence.

      • Gee

        Not really. The US has never had any real power or influence with Muslims. That has been a façade for far too long.
        It is the opposite – countries like Saudi Arabia has far more influence over the West than the West has over that dictatorship.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          It’s had a great deal of power and influence. It’s the US that kept the Gulf Arabs safe, for example.

          The problem is that the US has misused that influence and allowed the Saudi tail to wag the dog.

        • truebearing

          Look at the surge in Al Qaeda once Obama made it clear the US would be passive, or even encourage Islamist aggression. The old Al Qaeda couldn’t recruit anywhere near the numbers that the various branches are recruiting now. Al Qaeda was beaten badly in Afghanistan and Iraq, but thanks to Obama’s strategic US passivity (surrender), he has not only reinvigorated their strength, but increased it.

          The same dynamic effects Israel’s relationship with surrounding nations. Obama engineered the ill-conceived “Arab Spring” and immediately the Muslim Brotherhood began escalating its threats to Israel. The same is true for Turkey, where Obama’s friendly relationship with Erdogan had no tempering effect on his belligerence toward Israel.

          Putin and China have become far more aggressive since Obama neutered US power. Bush had his faults but no one doubted his willingness to protect American interests. Everyone knows Obama won’t protect US interests and the result is the chaos of a massive power struggle.

        • Gordon Fraser

          Yes, guess who helps to keep America oil import dependent?


        A strong America is respected by primitive Arabia.

        A weak America, thanks for nothing BHusseinO, is not respected by Arabia or KGB Putin.

        I hope that Congress can block Obama from doing any more damage and hopefully undo the damage that Obama has wrought.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    I don’t blame GWB for going after OBL in retaliation for 9/11 and I don’t blame GWB for ousting Saddam Hussein for WMD. However, both nation-building missions in Afghanistan and Iraq to democratize the Islamic totalitarian world, which is impossible since Islam is a form of totalitarianism far more than it is a religion, and to do nation building to lift up Muslims, who are the eternal mortal enemies of all infidels, were incredibly fantasy based and destined to inevitably fail no matter what even before they were ever implemented.

    Then it was GWB upon the recommendation of his Secretary of State, Condi “Appeaser” Rice, who appointed Zalmay Khalilzad first to be ambassador to Afghanistan and then subsequently to be the ambassador of Iraq. However, Ambassador Khalilzad was a stealth jihadists like all Muslims are in one form or another and so he enshrined both countries’ respective constitutions with Sharia, i.e., Islamic totalitarian law, as the highest authority for law, thereby ensuring at the same time that both countries would remain Islamic totalitarian hellholes. As the only freedom that Sharia allows is the freedom for Muslims to become more devout slaves of Allah.

    Thus, at the time that Obama ordered the evacuation of Iraq, our military occupation was propping up what in effect was a Sharia Totalitarian State in Iraq that was also an Iranian puppet. Meanwhile, the government in Afghanistan today is also a Sharia Totalitarian State thanks to Khalilzad, which is why they sentence apostates and blasphemers in Afghanistan to this day to death over there. Not to mention that lifting up our eternal mortal enemies was also an incredibly fool hardy exercise in futility to say the least, not to mention exceedingly counterproductive as well.

    Some of you guys can try to rewrite the history books if you think you can get away with it to make GWB seem like a hero, but the fact of the matter is he was incredibly incompetent. Indeed, his first action following the 9/11 jihad attacks was to proclaim to America that Islam is a so-called “Religion of Peace” and that with the exception of a tiny minority of so-called “radicals” and “extremists”, the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world were so-called “moderates”. Neither assertion was remotely correct.

    He also believed that America had a duty to send our best and brightest to the Islamic totalitarian world to fight and die to prevent so-called “radical Islam” from hijacking the so-called “religion of peace”, and the problem with that stupidity is that there is no so-called “radical Islam” and no so-called “religion of peace” Instead, there is only mainstream orthodox Islam and the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam is the subjugation of all infidels and all religions into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, i.e., Islamic totalitarian law, to ultimately make Islam supreme.

    Moreover, he named his war to recast the world the so-called “War on Terror”. However, terrorists are always extremists and radicals who perpetrate terrorism for various political causes. Meanwhile, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world, on the other hand, are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent, as opposed to extremists and radicals who are also terrorists, because waging jihad (holy war) in the cause of Allah against all infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims, and because Islam is a so-called religion that executes all apostates and all blasphemers, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world, including the millions of them living over here in America for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest, are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent. Otherwise, they are executed for apostasy or blasphemy according to the dictates of Islam. Hence, GWB even misnamed his fantasy based and unhinged “War on Terror”.

    Moreover, what do we have to show for GWB’s war today, besides trillions of dollars wasted down a rat hole and thousands of America’s best and brightest either dead or maimed and being abused by Obama’s VA system and all for nothing.

    So while I would love to blame Obama for America’s two greatest strategic blunders ever, since I believe Obama is far more radical and dangerous that GWB, I’m afraid I have to lay blame only where blame is deserved, and that is squarely on GWB.

    • momprayn

      Amen. I’m about as Conservative and patriotic as you get, but since researching since Obama was elected, I see these truths you state. It’s because most all Americans are ignorant about Islam and how corrupt and ignorant our politicians are, how international politics works, etc.
      Muslims & the global NWO elitists that are running things took advantage of this ignorance, naturally and they’ve been succesfully infiltrating everything here via their stealth methods – which is the only way to do it with a powerful country as America.
      Check out the best info re this I’ve seen by Walid Shoebat, exMuslim converted to Christianity who is trying to educate us…has amazing evidence re the corruption in our Govnt, collusion with the MB, etc.
      ( shoebat(dot)com )

    • Habbgun

      Yes and no. Bush and especially the military understood that since Vietnam there is a strong fifth column in America that will favor the enemy and in fact any enemy and that they would have to fight a war as a democracy while putting up with a strong knee jerk opposition already embedded in the government. The urban Democrats only want money in their own pocket, safety of the society that let’s them thrive be damned.

      Secondly Bush wanted to do the decent thing and give a chance at a functioning democratic world work rather than multigenerational balance of power. The post WW II example of functioning ex-militaristic states was something to strive for. Now we have something uglier (which I guess we had all along). Now we have to arm small groups willing to fight Islamists to the very end. The world is going to be a more balkanized place. Maybe even the USA. I’m sure Bush for all his faults was trying to avoid this.

  • mtnhikerdude

    It will take another 9-11 plus to wake up America . Islam will have to fly planes into the downtown structures of 5-6 major cities for the left to fall out of Terrorist Love.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I’m not sure even that will do it

      • mtnhikerdude

        Daniel ,to hear that from you saddens my heart .

        • Daniel Greenfield

          The problem with a burst of pain is that it staggers people, but then memory dulls the point.

          If it’s not something that is sustained, then it goes away.

          Let’s say a US city gets nuked tomorrow. We’ll do all the 9/11 stuff, but time will fade the memories and people will go back to the same pre 9/11 mindset that they have now.

          Maybe a critical mass event will do it, but I doubt it.

          People need to connect a change in how they live for it to be a meaningful.

          e.g. you get harassed by the TSA and NSA because of Muslim immigration to this country

          • CosmotKat

            and the left goes back to what they always do and that is embrace our enemy and subvert our freedom.


            That’s the Red/Green Axis of Evil.

            The enemy of my enemy is my friend. How else would “progressives” side with people who hang gays, stone girls to death over family honor, behead kidnapped hostages.

            Socialists and Islamofascists are natural enemies – but they are willing to set aside their differences to work together to attack a common enemy.

    • kazzer66

      I think many on the Left admire that the most, they became more enthusiastic about Islam after 9/11. Remember there were some who admired the ‘courage’ shown by the terrorists?


        Bill Maher – being provocative.

        Bill Maher can be contemptible – but he often is funny and correct.

  • mtnhikerdude

    What Nation elects a President who hates its Nation to a second term ?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      a nation sinking into self-hatred

      • kasandra

        Let’s not leave out criminal stupidity and willful blindness.


        a nation with open borders and shame of its history – a copy of Eurabia..

        If the US is that bad, then the 60,000 kids wouldn’t be flooding into the US.

        If any nation should be ashamed of its past, it’s any Muslim majority entity. Today Islam is associated with Terrorism, plane bombing, plane hijacking, beheading, executions of gay teens, stoning girls to death, poison gassing, bombing churches, mosques, funerals, London transport..

      • WW4

        A nation that hated the direction the previous 8 years had taken?

    • Paul B.

      A nation whose electorate has been deceived and derailed by the takeover of its media and public schools.

  • momprayn

    As a past Bush supporter, Conservative Tea Party person I must say that this writer and all other patriots/Americans who don’t want tyranny to win here – need to wake up to the facts regarding Bush (both), Islam and the corruption of our political parties (RINOs are complict with D’s). And no, you can’t believe what the “moderate” Muslims tell you. They are taught to LIE in order to further their deceitful stealth takeover for Allah. What “ObamaYoMama” said is true. Do more research if you really want the truth. It’s not hard to find. Most of us “peons” out here have figured it out.
    My take is that Bush had good intentions – but like most, was very ignorant/naive about Islam and believed his consultants, who were trying to push Islam and the same naive, ignorant ones like Cheney who strongly believes in the “democratizing” of Islamic nations. So wrong. I agree with Pres. Eisenhower (R) who warned against MIC (military industrial complexl) who took over after he left & he didn’t believe in nation building, etc. He was against going into Vietnam. Re Saddam- take him out and then leave….

    We must get back to that & wise up about this crazy nation building stuff & working on getting the “hearts and minds” of Muslims as they told our troop to do there. Craziness!!!! Impossible. As some of our troops have said – they built schools, hospitals there and they promptly blew them up!!! They don’t want what we want – they just vote for their other leader that is Muslim & Sharia law, etc. In their new constitutions, we let them keep all their Islamic laws, etc.
    This is really all about establishing the NWO – which Muslims rule which nations for easier control. Bush & crew didn’t “get” so much – they were “sincerely wrong” but they weren’t trying to destroy America. Obama is different & far worse being that he hates America and is involved in helping our enemies, whom they’re in chaoots with to destroy us.
    For all who want to be enlightened – best site is by Walid Shoebat, ex-Muslim, converted to Christianity who is trying to educate us. We must know our enemy & face the cold facts before we can turn around.
    ( shoebat(dot)com ) Book: God’s War on Terror

  • tombreyfogle

    I’ll give the author credit for the blunt, blatant title that is impossible to misinterpret. On the other hand, it is a load of BS.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Says the guy with actual spin as his avatar

  • Randy Townsend

    As a candidate, Obama announced his intention to abandon Iraq/Afghanistan. He’s merely done precisely what he said he would, the consequences be damned because Obama doesn’t care. Moving forward, does anyone really believe anointing Hillary will result is anything better, re: foreign policy?

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Last time I checked it was ISIS invading Iraq which was inevitable in only a matter of time once we finally got out of the way. Ousting Saddam was one thing, but fantasy based nation building missions to lift up Muslims who are our eternal mortal enemies was a fools errand. Not to mention that Iraq was never a victory, it was an inevitable fiasco instead. Thus, we didn’t have anything to lose. All we accomplished in all those years in Iraq was the creation of another Sharia state that inevitably became the puppet of Iran. Hence, a Sunni/Shia jihad in Iraq and on Iran’s border that will hopefully last for many years to come is a good thing in my book. As Muslims killing Muslims is bad for the Islamic totalitarian world and good for the infidel world. So let the heads roll! The more the merrier! Allah Akbar!

  • El Cid

    The undeniable truth is that Obama is President and the results are the ones reported during his tenure.

    That’s real simple. If he can’t take the blame, he is no leader.

  • Natalie Rose

    As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
    United States — Muslim 0.6%
    Australia — Muslim 1.5%
    Canada — Muslim 1.9%
    China — Muslim 1.8%
    Italy — Muslim 1.5%
    Norway — Muslim 1.8%
    At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and
    among street gangs. This is happening in:
    Denmark — Muslim 2%
    Germany — Muslim 3.7%
    United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
    Spain — Muslim 4%
    Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
    From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to
    their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the
    introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby
    securing food preparation jobs for Muslims.
    They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.
    This is occurring in:
    France — Muslim 8%
    Philippines — Muslim 5%
    Sweden — Muslim 5%
    Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
    The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
    Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
    At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow
    them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic
    Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the
    entire world.
    When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase
    lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris ,
    we are already seeing car-burnings.
    Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and
    threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and
    films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim
    sections, in:
    Guyana — Muslim 10%
    India — Muslim 13.4%
    Israel — Muslim 16%
    Kenya — Muslim 10%
    Russia — Muslim 15%
    After reaching 20% , nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
    Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
    At 40% , nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
    Bosnia — Muslim 40%
    Chad — Muslim 53.1%
    Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
    From 60% , nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers
    of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic
    ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya,
    the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
    Albania — Muslim 70%
    Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
    Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
    Sudan — Muslim 70%*
    After 80% , expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
    Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
    Egypt — Muslim 90%
    Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
    Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
    Iran — Muslim 98%
    Iraq — Muslim 97%
    Jordan — Muslim 92%
    Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
    Pakistan — Muslim 97%
    Palestine — Muslim 99%
    Syria — Muslim 90%
    Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
    Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
    United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
    100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
    Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
    Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
    Somalia — Muslim 100%
    Yemen — Muslim 100%
    Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the
    most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood
    lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

    • American Patriot

      Good job informing us on how the larger the Muslim population the greater influence Islamists have on countries. However, I would like to also mention that “Palestine” is not a country nor should it be a country. It is Gaza and the West Bank, both of which are 99% Muslim. Therefore, “Palestine” should not be on the list.

    • Ravindra Agrawal

      A good analysis. Use full for Indian secularists

  • Arlie

    Remember 1998 – Bill Clinton – Saddam & WMD! Who started that story about Iraq WMD’s and al qaeda – that’s right! Bill Clinton did. So, I though this was a very refreshing read:

  • j.veritas

    “Self hatred.” You got me thinking. I teach at the high school level. Every self-hating faculty member I know voted Democrat. The “America is always wrong” crowd. They love Obama. Still do. Why? I think it dates back to their childhoods. Some seem to have suffered from lack of popularity. Maybe they weren’t jocks, cheerleaders, or even strong academics. They align themselves with other victims. For them, Obama was the Big Get Even. “Self-hatred?” More than you know, Dan.

    • Americana

      It’s not good enough to simply throw out pejoratives like “narcissist,” now you’ve got to conflate the entire generation who votes other than Conservative to the they “always believe America is wrong” crowd? Why on earth would HS POPULARITY have ANYTHING to do w/how someone assesses American foreign policy as an adult? You think Americans who weren’t popular in HS would have the mindset to be treating foreign relations like gender relations and HS dating games? You think if they weren’t cheerleaders in HS they won’t understand the “cheerleading concept” in politics later in life? Lordy…

      • j.veritas

        in answer to your last 2 questions, Yes, and then Yes. All politics is local, goes the expression. I take it a step forward. All politics is personal. Ever met a white person who privately admits to voting for Obama so he/she wouldn’t “feel” like a racist? If you are above all the personal, feel-good identity politics zeitgeist, then God bless you. For most people I have encountered, from Ivy Leaguers down to high school drop outs, they rarely can remove themselves from whatever issue we are discussing, foreign or domestic.

  • kazzer66

    Why does the Left ignore the overthrow of Gaddafi, facilitated by Obama’s ‘leading from behind’ policy in Libya. Which I believe led to the paranoia by Assad, undoubtedly justified, that he was next.

    Obama and the Lefty ‘peaceniks’ own this crisis, their meddling and arms running to potential terrorists, have made the Middle East even more toxic than it was.

    Bush was open about his plans, and managed to wrangle bipartisan support for his mission in Iraq. Obama and the Left have been sneaking around, behind the backs of allies and enemies alike, to wreak havoc with Islam.

    How does arming an unstable and savage people, who can’t even stand each other, promote peace?

  • MrUniteUs1

    Hmm no mention of the Saudis.

  • MrUniteUs1

    No mention of tax increases to pay for expanded military effort.

  • MrUniteUs1

    No mentions of the Brits creating the artficial country of Iraq.


      Stevies broken clock minute.

  • Pete

    The Left Lied and People Died!

    “Iraq, Syria Conflicts Merge, Feed Off Each Other”

  • aemoreira81

    I’m not sure Obama can be blamed though…reason being: Iraq is what I would call a forced amalgamation of incompatible cultures…Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The USA has never had to before try to build a country with so many incompatible cultures residing within a single political entity. Additionally, such countries rarely last long without a strongman, because the natural desire would be to be on one’s own. The last such example of note was Yugoslavia…and the parallels between Yugoslavia and Iraq are many.

    Bush cannot be blamed either, as Saddam Hussein really was a threat to the Western world.