Left Blames Benghazi on Bush Listening to Them and Freeing Gitmo Terrorist

I blame Bush for listening to us

I blame Bush for listening to us

It’s been a heady few weeks for the left.

Only a few weeks ago they rediscovered that Benghazi had been carried out by a few mischievous boys upset by an offensive YouTube video. Now that the State Department is moving to concede that an Al Qaeda terrorist who had been freed from Gitmo carried it out, they’ve got an even better talking point.

“Bush did it!”

What did Bush do? He listened to the left. So it’s his fault. Not the fault of the left.

 

Let’s recap how all that happened a decade ago

Bush: “We’re going to lock up Al Qaeda enemy combatants in Gitmo.”

The Left: “You’re raping the Constitution. You’re worse than Hitler. Free the terrorists!”

Bush: “I can’t do that. They might kill Americans.”

The Left: “They’re all innocent people. You’re the one who should be behind bars. We’ll sue to free them.”

Bush: “Okay, I’ll try to free the least dangerous ones.”

The Left: “No, you’ll free all of them. Right now! You’re violating our values.”

Bush: “Okay, I freed some more.”

The Left: “No! All of them! Right now!”

Bush: “That’s too dangerous.”

The Left: “The War on Terror is something Dick Cheney made up. The only way to stop terrorism is to free all the terrorists!”

 

Fast forward to 2014.

The Left: “Bush freed the terrorists. It’s his fault.”

 

While obviously Bush should not have let a single detainee out of Gitmo, it’s sheer mindblowing hypocrisy for the left to attack him for a course of action that they incessantly demanded, sued and protested over.

Furthermore Bush did not just set Abu Sufian bin Qumu free. He transferred him over to Libya. The Muslim Brotherhood with Obama’s support then negotiated a deal with the Libyan government that resulted in an amnesty for Islamist terrorists. The amnesty bit Gaddafi hard when, with Obama’s support, those same groups led a rebellion against him.

Abu Sufian bin Qumu would never have been much of a threat to US diplomatic facilities in Libya… if Obama had not engaged in illegal regime change in Libya.

It wasn’t Bush who turned Benghazi into a war zone or removed protection from the US diplomatic facility there making it a ripe target for Al Qaeda.

The buck still stops with Obama. Bush may have freed Abu Sufian bin Qumu, but it was Obama who turned Benghazi into a target of opportunity for Abu Sufian bin Qumu.

  • Gusan

    They look like Zekes.

  • Erudite Mavin

    This Just In
    Bush responsible for Pearl Harbor Attack

    • truebearing

      He’s everywhere! I saw him riding the Polar Vortex, laughing maniacally.

  • BagLady

    You elected a fool and the ramifications were obvious to all outside observers when he announced that no Ba’ath party member could hold any position within the government:
    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ambassador_bush_didnt_know_there_were_two_sects_of_islam/

    http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/Iraq%20Syria%20Lebanon/Iraq/144-make-or-break-iraq-s-sunnis-and-the-state.pdf

    • A Z

      De-Baathification is the Standard Operating procedure. (SOP). It is what we did in Germany and Japan.

      It is not obvious except maybe in hindsight that De-Baathification was a bad ideal. People are still arguing about how well deNazification worked or did not work.

      • Drakken

        As much as I hat to agree with that muzzy jihadist supporter bag lady, but. We should have put Saddams Generals in charge and called it a day and took their oil for reparations. And so called de nazification extended German suffering and rebuilding for 20 years. A bad idea period.

        • A Z

          De-Nazification was only partial successful. I started reading the wiki on it and it says as much.

          I have also read elsewhere where it said as much

          Further proof is given by Operation Valkerie. Stauffenberg’s children were very much looked down upon by Germans. They had a hard time.

          The book “Loyalty is my Honor” by Gordon Williamson is an interesting read. Certainly all SS were treated as NAzis. But is that the case.

          After the reading the wiki I have severe doubts about its’ efficacy. There certainly had to be war crimes trials.

          • Drakken

            Denazification was a complete utter failure, it took out the technocrats who could have gotten the job of rebuilding done sooner and kept a lot of people from starving to death, as for war crimes trials, bah! certainly those who put people in death camps should have gone in front of a wall, but the rank and file Waffen SS, Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine should never have and has set a bad president ever since. That is why we cannot win wars anymore.

          • A Z

            Have you read the book “Loyalty is my Honor” by Gordon Williamson

            There is a story about some Nordic or Dutch SS recruits that had a disagreement with a German instructor. They said they did not want to see their country become part of greater Germany. The instructor went to the Russian Front about 2 or 3 days after the argument?

            Wikipedia did say it was a failure for the most part.

            WWII Quarterly magazine lists the stories of several people with Jewish ancestry that fought for the Reich. This I already knew in some part. The most interesting one was the corporal. They had a picture of his paybook. Growing empires usually overlook such things in order to grow.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Correct. It wasn’t right or wrong except as part of a larger plan. The plan failed and that was a weak point of the plan.

          If they wanted to do nation building they should have planned for expending a lot more resources during the transition period. If they wanted a light footprint they should have adjusted their strategic objectives accordingly. They wanted to have their cake and eat it to. In order to lead from the center – IOW appease the left. Which is impossible.

    • truebearing

      Nice try. You want to deflect the point Greenfield is making and hijack the thread into a back and forth on what Bush did wrong in Iraq. You want to obscure Obama’s culpability, the Left’s sheer stupidity, and its hypocrisy.

      Sorry to have ruined your transparent ruse…not really.

      BTW, I don’t agree with your assertion. Bush didn’t want the Ba’athists/Nazis back in power because a coalition government would then be an even bigger failure than it turned out to be. A lot of Kurds and Shiites died at the hands of Ba’athists.

      • A Z

        There were the Shia Mass graves as well. 10,000 people were in one mass grave alone.

  • truebearing

    Yeah, Greenfield. Go ahead and defend Bush, but no amount of facts, logic, or common sense will convince us that Bush isn’t the cause of everything that ever went wrong, retroactively, inter-galactically, or inter-dimensionally! Bush invented racism and caused global warming, too.

  • Gee

    Newsflash – the wicked British burned Washington – August 24, 1814. George A. Bush is responsible

    • darnellecheri

      To digress, a little: The first US Marine killed in combat – by the wicked British – was Lt. William Sharp Bush during the War of 1812. He was killed on the USS Constitution while attempting to board the HMS Guerriere. The destroyer, USS Bush (DD-529), was named after this US Marine. My father served on the USS Bush (DD-529) before it was destroyed by Kamikaze pilots.

    • Drakken

      Oh here is some history for you Gee, what 2 govt buildings weren’t burnt by the British in Washington in 1812?