Obama’s Mideast Nightmare

aliA man sits holding a cup of coffee in a restaurant. He drops the cup and it cracks. Everyone around him berates him for his thoughtless stupidity.

Then a second man enters and after delivering a fine speech on the virtues of making this into the best restaurant that it can be, begins smashing all the cups and then the plates. He overturns the tables, tears down the curtains, breaks the lights, tumbles all the food to the floor and sets the whole place on fire.

The first man was named George. The second man was named Barack.

During George W. Bush’s last month in office, thirty-one Americans had died in Iraq and Afghanistan. By June, the month of Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, that number had climbed to forty. And by that same time next year, it was at sixty-eight.

When Bush left office at the end of his second term, the region was mostly stable aside from Iran’s nuclear program. By the time Obama had finished his first term, it was in a state of endless war.

It is still in a state of war today.

While Bush only overthrew Saddam, Obama overthrew Mubarak, Ben Ali, Gaddafi and Saleh. The difference lay not only in the scale of their respective regime change operations, but in their relative impacts on regional stability.

Saddam had invaded other countries and cultivated terrorists, while the governments that Obama helped overthrow, aside from Gaddafi, were not expansionistic, were not obsessed with building up WMD’s and had helped maintain regional stability,.

Bush had sought to stabilize the Middle East by removing Saddam. Obama instead destabilized it by trying to remove every government that was in any way friendly to the United States and was not covered by the umbrella of the Saudi GCC.

Bush’s Axis of Evil had consisted of “rogue states”. Obama’s Axis was made up of allied governments. Bush had set out to stabilize the Middle East by clearing out rogue states while Obama set out to empower rogue states by clearing out stable allied governments… which left the rogue states in charge.

The fall of more modern pro-Western governments left the Middle East divided sharply between Sunni and Shiite Islamists in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Democratic Party’s sabotage of Bush’s efforts to stop Iran had created a regional power imbalance. The Sunnis had numbers, but the Shiites were going nuclear. And a nuclear bomb is a blunt instrument for reducing population numbers by the millions.

Obama’s abandonment of Iraq had pushed it through another violent sectarian split that revived Al Qaeda and combined with his Arab Spring, consumed Syria.

Unable to match Iran on purely military terms and with the United States unwilling to do anything about its nuclear program, the Sunnis turned to insurgency. The Arab Spring had been disastrous for Sunni military powers like Egypt, but helped revive Sunni insurgencies. Syria, with a Sunni majority, was a perfect platform for taking on the Shiite axis and alienating it from the rest of the region.

Saudi Arabia tied down Obama’s “regional reforms” in a civil war exchanging his vision of populist Islamist regime change for violent sectarian conflict and killing his “Arab Spring”. Then killing a second bird with that same stone, it dragged Iran into a brutal insurgency, doing to Iran, what it and the Saudis had done to the United States in Iraq.

Except that it was no longer just about Syria. Syria had become a Sunni-Shiite fracture point stretching into Iraq and Lebanon.

Obama’s abandonment of Iraq led to a comeback for Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq had always been the most feral Middle Eastern franchise in the Al Qaeda family. The most brutal, the most senselessly violent and the likeliest to kill just for the sake of killing; its members seemed sociopathic even to hardened Al Qaeda leaders. And Bush had succeeded in burying it until Obama dug it up again.

The sectarian split in Iraq and Syria turned Al Qaeda in Iraq from a defeated footnote to a resurgent army with tens of thousands of fighters and a grip on two major countries.

When Obama boasts that the core of Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, he neglects to mention that the most dangerous part of Al Qaeda is now more powerful than it ever was before. Or that Al Qaeda now has more numbers, more territory and more experience than ever before.

Obama could do nothing meaningful about Al Qaeda in Syria because he feared empowering Assad. And he couldn’t do anything about Assad because he feared alienating Iran. It was a Catch 22 situation forcing him to choose between the Arab Spring and outreach to Iran.

After a long midnight struggle of the soul, he chose Iran.

The Arab Spring had been Obama’s international ObamaCare. It was the project that he was most identified with and the one that he could most take credit for. But by the time the Arab Spring had come down to bombing Syria, it was about as popular as ObamaCare. Russia, Iran and Syria offered Obama a way out. A new, new beginning to replace the old new beginning that had gone wrong in Cairo.

Having sold out Iraq, Egypt and Tunisia, Obama finished the job by dumping the rest of his Sunni allies and taking a ride on the Shiite nuclear express.

Bush had often been blamed for isolating the United States, but it was Obama who thoroughly isolated the United States in the Middle East.

The United States had set out to isolate Iran, but Obama’s nuclear pandering to Iran instead allowed Iran to isolate the United States from its allies. No country in the Middle East still trusts the United States. Egypt despises Obama. The Saudis insult him. The rest don’t even bother to do that much. The Israeli Defense Minister talks of dealing with Iran alone.

The United States has become a fading shadow in the Middle East; a power vacuum waiting to be filled by a nuclear arms race and battlefields of the dead.

Obama inflicted severe damage on American influence and interests, and on the Middle East, with nothing but an inchoate notion that the Islamists who would take over when he was done would embrace democracy over terrorism.  Instead there is less democracy and more terror than ever before.

Obama’s foreign policy was a self-fulfilling prophecy. The left had insisted for decades that the Arab Street was angry because of the damage wrought by our interference in their domestic politics. And he attempted to “right that error” by interfering so much that the accusation was finally proven true.

The one thing that all the parties in Egypt, that Sunni and Shiite from Syria to Iraq to Lebanon, that Christian, Jew and Muslim can agree on, is that the Middle East would have been better off if Obama had kept his mouth shut and stayed away.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

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

  • objectivefactsmatter
    • Gee

      Wouldn’t they be required to be smart enough to know how to read first

    • Hass

      Ahahaha!!… Thanks mate!

  • Alec Stuart

    “[T]he Middle East would have been better off if Obama had kept his mouth shut and stayed away.”

    Substitute “The Middle East” for “The United States of America.” Obama is nothing more than a Nero, fiddling while everything he touches burns to the ground. May the people who voted for this guy be damned for the fools they are.

    • Christopher Riddle

      SPOT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • edlancey

      Nero ? That be rayciss

    • Jon

      I can agree. Instead of the Christians here it is the Jews. Obama knows what he is doing and he is being successful because no one will stop him. Furthermore the forces that are behind him have extraordinary power.

  • wildjew

    I’ve got a slightly different take from Mr. Greenfield. True, Obama is an unmitigated disaster but post Bush it should not have been unexpected. I did not vote for Barack Obama. I voted for George W. Bush. I am a forty three year registered (conservative) Republican. Mr. Greenfield said Bush sat holding a cup of coffee in a restaurant. He dropped the cup and it cracks. I think this is an understatement. Abraham Lincoln said, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” This I think applies to former President Bush. For seven plus years following the September 11, 2001 Islamic attacks we listened to Bush assuring us Islam is a religion of peace; the terrorists who hijacked a religion that teaches goodness and peace were traitors to their faith, when they were nothing of the sort. In light of this, is it surprising Americans went to the polls seven years out for the 9/11 attacks and elected a Muslim-born president with deep sympathies to the world of authoritative Islam?

    Worse, Bush cut a sordid deal with then Saudi Crown Prince (now king) Abdullah bin Abdulaziz to sell out Israel late August 2001, only days before the Saudi sponsored attacks in New York and Washington. Abdullah invited Yasser Arafat (who was at that time in South Africa) to visit Saudi Arabia and read the two page letter Bush sent him which sold out Israel. Bush committed the United States to “formally” support the establishment of a Muslim-enemy state in Israel’s heartland, at Israel’s throat. Bush codified this abomination in our national platform, August 2004 – over the objections of Texas delegate to our national platform writing committee Cathy Adams. John McCain and Mitt Romney both affirmed the Bush vision for Israel’s dismemberment and destruction. Bush must never be forgiven this act of perfidy. Barack Hussein Obama is the inevitable result of a man who betrays fundamental conservative principles to 1) name (know) your enemy and 2) do not betray your friends and allies.

    Notwithstanding all the pleasant words Mitt Romney spoke about Israel (unless like me you were listening closely to the December 11, 2011 Iowa debate where Romney took the side of the Palestinians) Romney fought conservative Christians for the jihad via his surrogate Sen. Jim Talent on our August 2012 national platform writing committee yet again affirming the Bush vision for Israel’s dismemberment. This was not about Iraq. It was about a self-professed Christian conservative violating fundamental conservative principles. We can do better if we hold “our” side to a higher moral standard. Bush did not simply break a cup. George W. Bush let the conservative movement down.

    • Texas Patriot

      Caroline Glick has the right idea, let the Israelis create a larger Jewish state to act as a buffer between the warring Shia to the north and the warring Sunni to the south. It’s the only chance for peace in the middle east.

      • wildjew

        Glick was a strong and consistent supporter of President Bush even after he made public his vision for a Muslim state in Israel’s heartland; even after he repeatedly misled the public about the religion of Islam. Only late in his second term did she begin criticizing Bush’s policies. We need to hold “our side” accountable. I have to admit remaining relatively silent the first few years into Bush’s first term because I felt I should not undermine my side. Since then I realize silence in the face of evil (even if it is my guy doing and saying evil as Bush did and said) is NOT an option. We must condemn evil wherever it exists.

        • Texas Patriot

          Instead of “condemning evil”, what we need to be doing is creating solutions, and the best solution to the quagmire of the middle east is a larger and more dominant Israel with a zero-tolerance for Islamic jihad and terror. It’s the only chance for a rational and civilized society going forward.

          • BagLady

            More violence in other words.

          • Texas Patriot

            BL: More violence in other words.

            Make no mistake about it. Law enforcement is not violence. It is the legitimate response of all nations to violence committed against their citizens, and it doesn’t lead to more violence, it puts an end to violence. And that’s what needs to happen in the middle east.

          • BagLady

            I watched the latest videos from Kiev that show Law enforcers shooting protestors.

            However, something doesn’t sit well with me. The soldiers/snipers with the guns were running backwards which in my book equals retreat. There are only two reasons for doing that: 1) you are losing the battle, or 2) you are luring the enemy into a trap. Wonder which it was.

            I would use this as an example of gratuitous violence that plays no part in the final outcome but causes so much personal grief.

          • knowshistory

            law “enforcement” is different things in different places to different people. in the usa, law “enforcement” is hordes of government goons bullying legal citizens, enforcing every letter of every law, hauling people to courts where they are guilty on the sole word of one goon, and the fines provide magnificent funds for the government to spend on more goons and more courts. on the other hand, if you are an illegal invader, you have nothing but a welfare check to expect from our government.

          • Texas Patriot

            Israel is a Western nation in the sense that it stands for the values of individual freedom, human rights, and constitutional democracy, and these ideals form the basis of the “law” of Israel. Enforcing that law is the sovereign right of Israel, and anyone or anything that threatens that law would ordinarily be subject to the full force of the state. Perhaps it is because Israel has been “apologizing” for its existence for so long that its neighbors think they have a right to complain. Unless and until Israel quits apologizing for its existence and starts enforcing the legitimate right of its people to a peaceful existence free from the hostile attacks of any individual, group, or nation, there is no question that the attacks will continue.

          • BagLady

            Perhaps it is because Israel has been “apologizing” for its existence
            for so long that its neighbors think they have a right to complain”

            I see no reason for Israel to “apologize” for its existence nor have I ever heard any Israeli do so.

          • Drakken

            When the muslim runs out of bodies, there is no more violence.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Your “nonviolent” solution is what?

          • BagLady

            Both the first and second world wars were the product of half a dozen powerful men poring over maps and drawing lines in the sand. Propaganda and indoctrination gave them the green light to engage in mass murder and, after some time, settle the matter between themselves with the stroke of a pen.

            They could have skipped the violence and moved straight to Phase Three.

          • 1Indioviejo1

            “Only the dead have seen the last of war.” Homer.
            Violence is part of the human condition, just deal with it.

          • BagLady

            Homer is put around 7 or 8 BC and life must have been fairly rugged. Strange how we can advance in all things technological but can’t — or won’t — control our violence.

            I watched a documentary on a newly discovered tribe in the Amazon. Their sense of humour and permanent ear to ear giggling would have bored you after a short time but what was quite apparent was their total lack of aggression. I put it down to the lack of neighbours and lots of personal space. There is also a lot more value placed on each life in such a small world. Compare them with the recently discovered tribes of Papau New Guinea where the hospitals have now stopped treating anyone with spear wounds from their constant neighbourly ‘squabbles’.

            On the other hand, aggression could be genetic. For instance, northern Africans are far ‘angrier’ than those in the south.

            Then again, looking at American history and comparing it with that of Canada, we see Americans resorting to violence on a grand scale, while their neighbours followed the old adage “never shoot your customers.”

            Violence may well be a human condition but we don’t have to institutionalise it and give it justification.

          • 1Indioviejo1

            I know that you know Homer was from way back before Pericles 500 years before 7 or 8 B.C. Maybe you also know of the violent tribes in the Amazon, and the cannibals in both the Amazon and New Guinea. But I know that Liberals like you make up your own facts easily. Canada has lived and prospered under our protection for quite a while now, and occasionally they will send their boys to our Wars to pay up. Still, unless you start forcibly changing human nature, it is what it is.

          • pfbonney

            And your solution for stopping Islamic jihad and terror is?

          • BagLady

            Close your porous borders and tighten up the ridiculous passport system. At the moment it’s nothing more than an income for governments. I know young Russian ex-pat girls (from Moscow of course) who have at least 6 passports apiece. When they decide to have a weekend in Holland, they giggle as they decide which ‘avatar’ to use.

          • pfbonney

            Actually, that’s a surprisingly good solution. Not complete, but definitely a very solid good start.

            A side note/story on those Russian girls.

            Now age 55, I was single until just after turning 49 – I eventually married a Cambodian woman, to which I am still married.

            But previously, after the Soviet Union collapsed, and being enthralled with geo-politics, I strongly considered getting a Russian bride. Good thing that never worked out. Their divorce rates are near 100%.

            Why is that? I’ve since learned that one thing Lenin did after taking power was to make divorces extremely simple. He made it so that, all you had to do to get a divorce was for only one spouse to go to the post office and fill out a divorce-request postcard and mail it in, and the divorce was complete (I’m not sure that it was even a request, actually).

            The reason for such simplicity? Lenin recognized that to minimize competing loyalties, he had to first destroy the institution of marriage, a legacy which lives on today.

            In fact, a few years ago, I read a completely unrelated book called “More Money Than God: Hedge Funds and the Making of a New Elite”, (a financial book by Sebastian Mallaby published by Penguin Press, published in 2010, author, Sebastian Mallaby – thanks, Google!).

            In it, the author describes (among many others) the story of the hedge fund that made more money than any of the rest.

            He hired one former Soviet citizen who was a mathematical genius to help them out, who then referred to him several of his peers (who had all worked at some soviet military institution or other).

            Before the whole deal was over, the former Soviets had stolen the financial algorithms, despite having signed a form declaring they would not do so.

            Former Soviets still have no loyalty even to their employer, as a result of Lenin’s act.

            (Their employer sued and eventually won, but it turns out that the hedge funds strategy brainstorming sessions were so effective and they changed their strategies so often, that the betrayal had little impact on the fund’s operations anyway.)

            While I see no reason to beat up on former Soviets, I still wouldn’t put myself in a position where I had to trust any of them if I had any choice whatsoever.

            And as far as our original points are concerned, I do agree that we need to defeat the jihadists using as little force as possible, and by operating as much behind-the-scenes as possible.

            Being married to a Cambodian and having read up on that aspect of the Vietnam war, one of the reasons we failed there was the communists being able to use our highly visible (and expensive) bombing with B-52s against us, and the Khmer Rouge used simply the offer of free cigarettes if townspeople living in a target village to entice people to attend an evening recruiting meeting. (There’s more to it than that, but I’ve gone on plenty long enough here. But this inexpensive tactic was key.)

          • BagLady

            He made it so that, all you had to do to get a divorce was for only one spouse to go to the post office and fill out a divorce-request postcard and mail it in,”

            I’m all for that.

            “While I see no reason to beat up on former Soviets, I still wouldn’t put myself in a position where I had to trust any of them if I had any choice whatsoever.”

            I see the Russians are investing heavily in Cambodia. Sons of billionaires are buying up islands, beaches and hotels.
            ‘…and the Khmer Rouge used simply the offer of free cigarettes if townspeople living in a target village to entice people to attend an evening recruiting meeting.”

            I found the psyche of Cambodians rather strange and wonder whether genocide didn’t play a part in the loss of basic kinship.

            A rich man backing his 4×4 through 2 neighbours fences, repaired his car within 1 week but made no effort to mend his neighbours’ fences, nor did he apologise.

          • pfbonney

            ” I know young Russian ex-pat girls (from Moscow of course) who have at least 6 passports apiece. When they decide to have a weekend in Holland, they giggle as they decide which ‘avatar’ to use.”

            “I see the Russians are investing heavily in Cambodia. Sons of billionaires are buying up islands, beaches and hotels.”

            “I found the psyche of Cambodians rather strange and wonder whether genocide didn’t play a part in the loss of basic kinship.”

            As knowledgeable as you seem to be about the world, you seem either well traveled, a frequent listener of the BBC, or both.

            “I’m all for that.”

            A Roman Catholic, that’s not for me. But a un-contested divorces, with, presumably, non-communal property, would necessarily slash the financial impact to couples. I don’t know who gets the kids, in such matters.

          • BagLady

            Ah yes, the kids and the money. The stumbling blocks in amicable separation between ill-suited couples.

          • wildjew

            You are right, creating solutions is the answer but what you seem to be ignoring is the importance of politics (government) in our daily lives, for good or for ill. Here in the U.S. we have two major political parties. Since the rise of Obama, I think the Democratic party is irretrievably corrupt and broken and my party (the GOP) does not share your vision for the Middle East or the global jihad. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks and George W. Bush’s response to it the Republican party is little different from the party of Obama on Israel, jihad, Islam. Governor Mitt Romney re-affirmed George W. Bush’s delusions on the global conflict. Republican voters made Romney our nominee notwithstanding. We have an education problem on the right. Otherwise why did Republicans make this apologist for Islam our nominee in 2012?

          • BagLady

            Jihad is of course a tenet of Islam. Only its definition has been corrupted.

          • pfbonney

            “Instead of “condemning evil”, what we need to be doing is creating solutions, …”

            Can’t we do both?

          • Texas Patriot

            PFB: Can’t we do both?

            Only if we are prepared to bring God’s judgment upon ourselves:

            You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?

            Romans 2:1-3

          • pfbonney

            I write “condemning evil” and you argue “pass judgment”.

            That’s a non sequitur (i.e., a statement that is not connected in a logical or clear way to anything said before it).

          • Texas Patriot

            The idea of “condemning evil” seems clear enough to me. You can’t condemn anything unless you first pass judgement about it. If you’re having a hard time with the concept, I am very surprised. Besides, there is nothing to be gained by condemning evil wherever you see it. If you really wanted to do that and you were really honest about it, you wouldn’t have much time for anything else, and you’d probably eventually get around to condemning everybody and everything, including yourself. As Jesus said, “Only God is good.” So the better approach, by far, is to spend your time creating positive solutions that actually work for the good of all concerned.

          • pfbonney

            From what I hear you saying, you are not separating the sinner from the sin. “Love the sinner, hate the sin”, concept.

            People, you are not supposed to judge. But that still doesn’t mean you have to either approve or just turn a blind eye to their evil actions.

            How are you supposed to turn people away from sin and save their souls if you don’t condemn their sinful actions?

            Part of the problem today is parents not condemning their children’s sinful behavior and letting them run wild. Condemning their behavior is the first step to keeping them under control. From their, you take positive action to stop the behavior.

            I do agree that just passively judging a person as being good or bad and leaving it at that is pointless. Not a lot of difference between doing that and being self-righteous. Municipal jails are full of (otherwise) good people who have violated the law (having committed at least a Class C misdemeanor). To simply pronounce them as being “bad” (i.e., to judge them) and then throw away the key is totally unacceptable.

            But to let everyone know a given behavior is unacceptable (condemning it) and then making positive changes is something completely different.

            I stand by what I said.

          • Texas Patriot

            PFB: From what I hear you saying, you are not separating the sinner from the sin..

            Perhaps it is the terminology that you insist on using, but I still think you are mistaken. Unfortunately, it is not possible to use the word “condemn” without making it personal, because in addition to a strong statement of disapproval of the behavior, it is also has to do with punishment, and it is impossible to punish behavior.


            con·demn transitive verb kən-ˈdem
            : to say in a strong and definite way that someone or something is bad or wrong
            : to give (someone) a usually severe punishment
            : to cause (someone) to suffer or live in difficult or unpleasant conditions

            Therefore, in my estimation, by insisting upon the use the terminology of condemnation rather than prevention, you are the one failing to separate the sinner from the sin, and not me. From my perspective, focusing on the objectionable behavior itself and finding appropriate ways to put an end to it is all that is necessary. Everything else is unnecessarily personal and counterproductive.

          • pfbonney

            I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

          • Texas Patriot

            Not a problem.

        • William_Bradford

          Get off the “… it’s all Bush’s fault….” Obama is going on six years in office. What did he think he was running for, class President? Re-read the article above, Obama destroys everything he touches, he does nothing well. It’s always somebody else fault.

          There has never been a man less qualified to be President of the US, never ever. Prior to assuming the Presidency he had: no business experience, no business management experience, no academic management experience, no military experience, no foreign policy experience, no consensus building experience, no political management experience, and virtually no political experience; and you elected him to manage the largest administrative organization on earth – the Federal Bureaucracy – some thing he was utterly unqualified for. Further, he expended great effort and money to hide his background from public disclosure. No President in American history was less qualified to assume the office of the President, but that’s where people like you put this unqualified dolt. Obama is a man who’s life experiences have prepared him for nothing, rather than hold him accountable for his failures you are predictable to a fault, you choose to obfuscate : “…it’s Bush’s fault….” You are culpable, and are no better than he.

          If there is anything that you may count on when Obama speaks it is that he will: distort, deceive, and plead ignorance, as though he, as President, is responsible for nothing other than reading the daily paper. His presumption is that that ignorance provides him absolution for his responsibility to both lead and manage – just not so, in taking his Oath of Office he assumed what is called a fiduciary trust. But not him, his motto is: “…the buck, certainly, doesn’t stop here.” You may be a “Wildjew,” as your nome de guerre indicates, but you got nothing from the German Nazi experience.

        • MLCBLOG

          Frankly, it was hard to believe, even though I too saw the pix of him holding hands!! with the Arabs in red and white head scarves. Shocking but somehow we didn’t process it for what it apparently was.

          • BagLady

            I see the Queen of England is being criticised for making similar concessions to past enemies by entertaining such personages as IRA leader, Martin McGuiness.

            The unwritten British constitution demands that she do the bidding of the powers that be without question.. Do you wonder she always wears gloves whilst shaking the bloody hands of those she must fete in the interest of Britain’s ‘future’?

            American Presidents must surely suffer the same indignities.

    • 1Indioviejo1

      I thought I was the only one to notice Bush’s treachery, but I also remembered after 9/11 how OBL’s family members flew out of NYC with no impediment, and how Bush came out of the WH a couple of days after the attack holding hands with an Imam and proclaimin Islam as a religion of peace.

      • wildjew

        No. You and I couldn’t have been the only ones who noticed or got up to speed within months of the September attacks. But you did not hear anything from anyone prominent on the right. Maybe WND writer and author Paul Sperry spoke out but his boss Joseph Farah circled the wagons around the president. Back then if you said anything or complained, you were condemned by fellow conservatives. Not so much today given hindsight.

        • knowshistory

          I hoped that George w “religion of peace” bush was saying “nice doggie” while reaching for a big stick. what he was reaching for was another bag of doggie treats.

          • wildjew

            Little doubt a lot of conservatives agree with you pointing to the fact that “Bush is killing lots of Muslims” as they put it to me. The problem is, he misled the public. How many Americans who are not up to speed on the religion believed this nonsense that a few radicals hijacked a fundamentally peaceful religion. I have spoken to quite a few over the years; even conservatives, sadly.

          • Patriot077

            This is my biggest beef with Bush as well. We should have been learning about the enemy’s stated objectives instead of twisting ourselves in knots trying to understand the horror while we gave in to TSA and the Patriot Act.
            That and the fact that he allowed the Dem House and Senate start the spending bonfires without any real outrage.

          • BagLady

            How many Americans who are not up to speed on the religion believed this
            nonsense that a few radicals hijacked a fundamentally peaceful

            It doesn’t take long for radicals to raise an army. Khmer Rouge, Rwanda etc. It wasn’t too long ago that Muslim countries were no more dangerous than any other for visiting westerners.


      Thank you for refreshing my memory. Only too late did I realize what liberals George and Laura were!!

      • BagLady

        Surely the turning point in Iraq came the day Bush decided that all members of the B’aath Party must be sacked and their jobs be taken over by the Shi’ites. Hitherto, in order to get on in business in Iraq

  • monostor

    I also have a slightly different take on the situation created by US involvement in the region.
    Ol’man Bush was an appeaser of communists like Gorbachev. He didn’t finish his war with Iraq.
    Young Bush was courting the Saudis ( see him holding hands with one of the princes while taking a stroll at his Crawford ranch). He gave in to the dhimmi Bernard Lewis declaring islam the religion of peace.
    His Iraq campaign not only de-throned Saddam Hussein but de facto extended the Iranian realm by putting the country’s steering wheel in the hands of the Shia majority. That probably emboldened Assad the president of Syria in his efforts to maintain the Alawite (Shia) minority’s fight for continued dominance.
    Obama on the other hand supports shamelessly the Muslim Brotherhood, the Sunnis. In the same time appeases the Iranians by lifting sanctions against them.
    All-in-all the light at the end of the tunnel has been switched off because the light bulb has been stollen.

    • BagLady

      It is quite difficult to trace the chaotic turbulence that is created by interference by those who purport to ‘know best’.

      China now has no alternative but to build up its military as the US builds up their own, closer and closer, in a pincer movement. The tremors are rumbling all over the Far East and Asia. It will end in tears.

  • manny winter

    The US should keep out of the Middeast. We have no bussines there. As long as the Saudis keep sending oil, everything is fine. Let them kill each other, squabble about land or religion.

    • Habbgun

      The Saudis don’t just export oil. They export Jihad and jihadists and they corrupt every political system in the world with oil money. They have significant investments in US media or do you think the slanted coverage just happens? They are flush with money and would love more 911’s. Sorry but this isn’t going away. Fightin’ and frackin’ is the future.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Did you inform FDR before or after he met with Saud?

  • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

    One problem: staying away ensures a Putin victory—and if you’re telling me that Putin is not an enemy of America, then the USA has no enemies. Someone has to repel the Russians.

    • BagLady

      When exactly did Putin become an enemy of the US? Not another gun totin’ Yank are you?

      • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

        When exactly was Putin a friend of the USA? I’ll say that Putin has been an enemy since 1999.

    • Drakken

      Putin is laughing at the inept stupidity in the white house and how idiotic the American people are for electing this fraud. Putin doesn’t have attack us, we are our own worst enemy, besides with the 3rd world flooding the US why attack the US.

    • BagLady

      and who should that someone be? You are stretched to your limits and Britain is resorting to bribes to get soldiers to join up, so many have they lost in their losers’ wars.

      One month ago Russia wasn’t considered a threat to you and to suggest a democratic referendum that returned a 97% vote by a largely Russian population should lead your soldiers to war is quite preposterous. Your country is a long way away and not in danger.

      It seems Putin knows more about democracy than you do.

  • BagLady

    When Bush left office at the end of his second term, the region was mostly stable”

    I didn’t know that.

    Saddam had invaded other countries

    Egged on by the US.

    When Obama boasts that the core of Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, he
    neglects to mention that the most dangerous part of Al Qaeda is now
    more powerful than it ever was before”

    He knows that and is ignoring it. He has turned his attention to the more popular Russian front.

    Perhaps everything is going to plan. The Middle East is imploding and can be safely left behind to destroy itself while the West moves towards its intentioned prey: China.

    • Gee

      How did the US egg Saddam to violate international law? Didn’t Saddam do the same again Iran?
      Maybe just maybe the problem is the Arabs and not the US

    • Well Done

      The region was in fact quite stable. Compared to what 0bama has done. Blaming the US for Hussein invading every surrounding country is classic leftthink. Also quite stupid.

  • Habbgun

    One thing Obama did do was create more than one United States of America. We are divided and maybe that is for the best. One America must win and it will at least make for policies that reflect a population base that can support it. Hopefully the winner in America will be the America that jihadis fear.

  • knowshistory

    you understate the stupidity of George w bush, mr greenfield. it wasn’t a coffee cup mr bush cracked. he declared our sworn and deadly enemy to be a great religion of peace. he allowed unrestricted invasion of our country by Hispanics and our archenemies, muslims. he inserted our men into two wars which could not possibly be won without killing every enemy (every muslim) within the nations we warred on, and he was not willing to do that. therefore, he went to war with the intention of losing. he failed to do the one thing that would have made any sense at all, would have been easily accomplished, and enormously beneficial: expel all muslims from our nation, and extract all americans from muslim lands. there are only three ways of getting along peacefully with muslims. 1. submit and convert, and allow them to genocide you if they wish. 2. totally avoid them. do not go where they are, do not allow them where you are. 3 kill them all. the powerful interests that rule our country have chosen #1. our population is not willing to chose #3. that leaves, realistically, only 2 options. submit, or avoid. I suggest that our elites who worship islam should go to Somalia and submit to their hearts content, and the rest of us should expel all muslims from our country. after 8 long years of bush’s stupidity, we voted for the only thing we could find that was worse than bush. Obama. we are getting what we voted for, good and hard.

    • Drakken

      Option number 3 is coming whether we like it or not, for the muslims who feel they are emboldened by our weakness, will continue to wreak havoc until we westerners unleash our DNA of conquer and kill and the muslim really has no clue that our wrath will be the stuff of legend.

      • BagLady

        I hope you’ll be signing up and not expecting naive young people to go fight your silly pointless battles while you sit in your armchair blowing fire.

      • 2BlackCoffee71

        Ah, the Islamophobia continues unabated. The idea of Muslim boogeymen who are out to genocide or wage “jihad” against infidels fits in with the propaganda and agenda of the Amerikan military-industrial-banking complex.

        • Hass

          Boogie man my arse!
          Nearly every Muslime State has or still do encourage Jihad against the Evil Satan being the US and Israel, virtually on any video site.

          You wanker! Keep sipping those black coffees.

    • Well Done

      Bush didn’t originate any of the things you’re blaming him for.

      • knowshistory

        bush swore to uphold the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. then he sided with the domestic enemies, and invited foreign enemies to invade and occupy our country. the fact that he was neither the first nor the last to flagrantly violate our immigration laws does not in any way excuse his crimes. we expect such treason from democrats. we absolutely expect such treason from a muslim mole pretending to be a democrat. we should not have been stabbed in the back by bush. regarding the wars to improve the lives of poor downtrodden muslims: pure stupidity. muslims love to be downtrodden. that is why they humiliate themselves to an invented “god” 5 times daily. there may be a place in the world for muslims, just like mosquitos, flies, ticks, and fleas, but there is no reason to allow them in our country. when you are walking in your pasture and see a pie covered with flies and full of maggots, do you pick it up, put it in your pocket, and take it home with you, or do you avoid stepping in it? bush took it home with him.

        • BagLady

          I always got the impression the Bush Junior had not a clue of what was going on. His dad’s leftover team of hawks got together and handed him the speech. Get Saddam…. and the resources. He liked to sleep a lot and work little.

          I see he has now progressed from Painting by Numbers to producing his very own works of art. (Coming to a very expensive art dealer near you shortly).

    • BagLady

      This could have been written in the ’60s. All it requires is that you swap the word Muslim for Communist. Such alarmist nonsense.

      • knowshistory

        it was you I was talking to with the suggestion that our islam worshiping elites should go to somolia and be ecstatic. regarding your friends, the communists: prior to ww2 it was probably understandable for people to think communism was the solution to the worlds problems. many did. one of them was mr dolgun, who immigrated to the soviet union, bringing his baby son with him. the son wrote a book about the system you do not find threatening: an American in the gulag. read it and admire the communism you love. regarding your new idol, allah, his archcriminal prophet, and his international crime syndicate, islam– we don’t have to read about it. we will soon be living it. you should move to islamastan so you can start living it without waiting any longer.

        • BagLady

          Of course there was a case for communism before WW2. There was no middle class and, if you could steal yourself to be caught with a left-wing book, then I recommend Ragged Trousered Philanthropists [Tressel]. It gives an insight into the average working man’s life at that time.

          Men came back from the ‘front’ with an higher opinion of themselves and women found they were man’s equal in the factories and began their fight for equal pay (still not achieved).

          We’ve come a long way by constantly fighting our way up ‘the ladder’ and suddenly, whilst languishing in our ‘bubble’ bath, we took our eye off the ball and suddenly we were tumbling back into the abyss of hunger and deprivation.

          The difference between then and now is that we have been joined by millions of others falling into the abyss. Not only must they share what little we have but what little we have is being reduced by our governments’ need to reduce our portion because of ‘security and foreign aid’ spending.

  • Josh Randall

    Obama is the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • Randy Townsend

    Do not for one second believe Obama didn’t know this would happen – he’s an enemy of Israel. The good news is the Jews are freed from any obligation to the US (and the PM knows it) and can deal with the gorillas in Iran as they should.


      You’re right. He/ they are celebrating, amazed at what they are actually getting away with.

    • BagLady

      and how should the “gorillas in Iran” be dealt with, in your esteemed opinion?

  • Donald J DaCosta

    The Middle East is an Islamic powder keg that is going nuclear. Obama’s openly sympathetic view towards the Muslim Brotherhood and the Palestinians, his disdain for Israel and willingness to deal with the Mullahs of Iran may light the fuse on that keg.

    The world’s best hope for defusing that keg is the tiny nation of Israel populated by the most hated culture on the planet; the Jews. They will be on their own.

    The US and Europeans will put tail between legs, join in the condemnation and display great sympathy for the poor, innocent Iranians, the victims of an unprovoked attack in the middle of negotiations between the great Satan of the west, that would be us, and the great nation of Iran. Obama and Kerry will proclaim that their looming diplomatic coup, the greatest most successful
    diplomatic effort in the history of mankind, with success imminent, was violently disrupted by the short sighted, irresponsible, self serving militancy of the Jews. A narrative Obama and his publicity media machine is sure to love.

    The Americans who voted for this pissant in 2008 can be forgiven. Here he was, a black man, well educated, physically attractive with superlative oratorical skills and a smile that can light up a room. The “low information voters,” convinced that America was still a racist nation, were sold a bill of goods by the greatest campaign con job in our nations brief history.

    But those who voted for him the 2nd time, after living through 4 years of broken campaign promises, evidence that he was rude and divisive and not the unifier he claimed to be, revelations about his questionable background and of those he associated with in his formative years, and his obvious incompetence, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Whatever irreparable damage this man has done, is in the process of doing and has yet to do, with his pen and his phone, will be on their heads, and ours.

    • ricpic

      America was in recession (a case could be made for depression) for all four years of Obama’s first term. No previous American president had ever been re-elected after such a dismal economic performance. Even under FDR the country had seen a slight improvement between 1932 and his re-election in 1936. Obama was re-elected because the percentage of Americans who are strictly gibsmedats and are incapable of shame is greater, far greater than it was in the past and voted to keep its proxy thief in power.

      • Donald J DaCosta

        You got me with “gibsmedats” which I thought was a misspelled word. My bad, but for those linguistically challenged, like me, it refers to those addicted to and dependent on welfare and government largesse, a group the Obama machine is working hard to cultivate.

        • BagLady

          Or those who have no choice but to resort to welfare in a world of ever decreasing job opportunities. Not sure ‘largesse’ fits the picture. Perhaps more true in the UK where we read daily stories of crooks ripping off the system for $thousands.

          Most of these, however, happen to be politicians. This week’s unapologetic MP is Ms Miller who has sucked on the taxpayer’s nipple big time in order to feather her luxurious nests. She has resigned after a media campaign but still gets to keep the $1.5 million profit from her manipulation of the ‘rules’.

      • Well Done

        Voting fraud had a LOT to do with it. Like, all of it.


      See, they were taught all that in school. Peace, love, etc., man.

    • BagLady

      The world’s best hope for defusing that keg is the tiny nation of Israel
      populated by the most hated culture on the planet; the Jews.

      Bring on the violins

      • Donald J DaCosta

        Thanks for proving the point.

    • BagLady

      It would appear that the Palestinian/Israeli talks have gone full circle and are back to “pre-negotiation status”.

      Presumably we will now see an escalation in violence.

    • BagLady

      revelations about his questionable background and of those he associated with in his formative years,


  • DonaldYoungsRevenge

    Daniel, that would be FRAUD in CHIEF! He is radical because he used fraud to usurp the office of the POTUS and the US Congress and the Media (both Conservative and Liberal) allowed it to go unchecked, including yourself.

  • Farouk

    So u can see the racism u are preaching that is exactly what your people are doing every where. As far as I am concern The next best American president after Lincoln is Obama and what is the business of American invading Iraq and now they left them in mess. Same thing in Afghanistan u people have killed innocent souls in the name of fighting terrorism and today have they achieved anything instead they were raping and killing their wives and children God will judge all off u u are here talking about Islam exposed .

    • CosmotKat

      Farouk….who cares what you think. What we know is Islamist terrorists are the scourge of the world. If there is a mess in the middle east that mess is due to Islamist fundamentalism and backward thinking. Bush attempted to enable the Arab/Muslim people to embrace freedom, but Arabs choose violence and ignorance and solved nothing. Most enlightened people are sick of your irrational and backward thinking.

    • John E Coleman

      Farouk , You are A true Democrap ! being in the GD RACE CARD evey damn Time !! not only that but You are A STUPID DemoCRAP !!

    • UCSPanther

      Learn to spell and use proper grammar, moron.

    • 1Indioviejo1

      There are NO innocent Muslims. Allah is Satan and your cult is satanic.

    • Well Done

      Moron or troll? What’s the difference. It doesn’t know what was going in in Afghanistan before NATO went in… apparently it thinks everything was just fine. It thinks the US went into Iraq alone. No knowledge of the coalition… or anything else, I suspect. Must be a Democrat.

    • Steve Bryant

      Farouk, let me guess…you have managed to overcome the challenges of living in the US Satan Headquarters and are muddling through life in the US. Is that about it?

  • 1Indioviejo1

    I know a chaotic ME will bring unintended consequences, yet I’m enjoying from afar the Muslim on Muslim slaughter. I will never forget 9/11 and who the enemy is. Obama is an evil jinn, but if we manage to elect a better leader in the next election, we may benefit from our enemies being brought down low. If we elect another dunce, then we can brace for the blowback.

    • BagLady

      It’s not far off now. Who have you got in the running? The Dems seem to have no-one but Hillary. Who will they put forward for the Reps? Oh no. From a cast of millions they have chosen none other than Jeb Bush. Hey there Jeb. What are your policies?

      Your duopoly sucks.

      • 1Indioviejo1

        I like Ted Cruz, Allen West, and a few others, for now.

        • BagLady

          Do they have the money behind them? Who will buy the Presidency, eh? Democracy at its worst.

          • 1Indioviejo1

            I think Winston Churchill said it best when he said something like:”Democracy is the worst system, except for all the rest.” I think the alternative in our case would be a Coup D’etat to “save” the Republic from Socialism. I think nobody wants that.

          • BagLady

            Winston is long gone and yet our ‘democratic system’ remains stuck in its rather rich rut. Just look at the graphs. All of them show a sharp upsurge of $s to the already extremely wealthy.

            A good man in his day but didn’t cut mustard after the war.

  • raj89

    Well I guess this is what happens when you elect an inexperienced civil right leader as a president. A boy doing a mans job. It looks like the Arabs saw Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech as a green light to overthrow their dictators and establish their own views on Islamic justice.

  • trickyblain

    “Bush had sought to stabilize the Middle East by removing Saddam.”

    And he failed spectacularly.

    He thought the other ME nations would rise up against their oppressive gov’ts and a rainbow of democracy would magically appear. What we got was the “Arab Spring.” It’s preposterous to claim that all this chaos is the result of a single Obama speech (which was, in reality, mirroring Bush’s thoughts on the matter).
    Bush on ME “Democratic Revolution,” circa 2003 (much more to go around, too):

    “In many nations in the Middle East, countries of great strategic importance, democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even have a choice in the matter?”

    • Well Done

      Yeah, tricky, forget it. Nobody’s buying the “Bush did it” story anymore. The MidEast is a LOT less stable than it was when Bush left office. It got that way by some astonishingly heinous moves by the 0bama administration. Moves so bad, they can not possibly be errors. The man is trying to destabilize the area. Why, I wouldn’t know. But, he is trying.

    • BagLady

      He thought the other ME nations would rise up against their oppressive gov’ts and a rainbow of democracy would magically appear.

      Such altruism. Nothing in it for the West, of course.

      The Middle East was muddling through like everyone else until someone threw a spanner in the works.

  • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks


    He’s working out his tragic destiny of leading this nation into peril and waking it up.


  • dad1927
  • knowshistory

    from Obama we are getting exactly what he promised, and exactly what we should have expected. what did you think “fundamentally transform America” meant? ” when political winds blow in an ugly direction, I will side with the muslims”–was there some alternate interpretation of that statement of truth? what bush did was treason. Obama is just giving us the “transformation” and siding with muslims that he promised, and that a majority or our citizens (and noncitizens), living and dead, voted for. bush is to blame for bush’s treason. we are to blame for Obama. we are getting what we voted for, good and hard.

  • Ronin0948

    This is precisely why I laughed my ass off at the suddenly McCarthyist Liberals who presumed because of their stereotypes of the region, that for the sake of pure greed, the Gulf states would be willing to up their oil production to help Obama “isolate” and “sanction” Russia over the Crimea.

  • Topol-M

    Sunnis are good muslims, and shia are bad muslims, is what I get from reading the article.

  • Hard Little Machine

    You have two fundamental choices in the Mideast, North Africa and West Asia: totalitarianism or total anarchy. Pick one or the other. But in so far as it makes any sort of difference to the ordinary people who live there it doesn’t matter in the least.

  • USARetired

    The only thing he has not isolated us from are nations wanting our money, which we no longer have thanks to O’Bozo!

  • pfbonney

    “When Bush left office at the end of his second term, the region was mostly stable aside from Iran’s nuclear program. By the time Obama had finished his first term, it was in a state of endless war.”

    No one else is pointing this out. Why not?

    The articles here in frontpagemag all make for terrific blog posting fodder. Stuff that no one else is saying.

  • BagLady

    Never mind, elections are coming up and your democratic system will give you a platform to voice your horror. Or will it?

    I see the Supreme Court has raised the limit that individuals may contribute to political candidates from $123,200 to $3.6 million.


    I thought we were unanimous in condemning the use of wealth to influence the election process? Clearly not.

    Far right multi-billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, will be pleased to hear this easing of the democratic rules — he probably helped bring it about — and will be buying up air time to bring you this year’s line up stars and their families, all putting on a family friendly show.

    Just press the Red/Green button on your handsets folks.

    Tut tut America. You are bought and paid for — black people will empathise with thise.

    Sheldon et al will determine the outcome.

    • pfbonney

      “Far right multi-billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, will be pleased to hear this easing of the democratic rules”
      And don’t forget far-left billionaire George Soros, the financial guru that almost broke the Bank of England almost singlehandedly, a couple of decades back or so.
      He spends more on politics than anyone I’ve ever heard of. He’s apparently out of control, as I read of him just the other day complaining of all the money in politics.
      He is very old, I do believe, and it does appear that it is starting to affect his mind.

  • 2BlackCoffee71

    And you know this how? Have you been to every Muslim state for yourself? Do you speak Arabic, Farsi and the numerous other languages of the Muslim world? Or do you believe that because that is what the Western, especially US, media show you?

    • Hass

      I’m an Apostate…

  • Robert W

    Sure Bush was nice enough to help clean up the mess he created. But let’s not forget that Bush started this whole disaster. He was a terrible president and no ways a conservative (unless you consider invading a country that was no threat to us or our allies “conservative”). Bush also gave us the Orwellian DHS, TSA and Patriot Act which our Community Organizer in Chief is able to politicize to full advantage.

    Obama is definitely driving the car over the cliff. But let’s not forget that Bush drove it to the edge.

    • pfbonney

      Bush was only a Social Conservative. The Iraq war (and rebuilding the world in our image) is a neo-conservative thing.

  • D Brown

    I think Obama views all this chaos as a success, a mere bump on the road to global peace and socialism. He views the conflicts as necessary to human development, meaning the formerly oppressed need mature in order to work things out without imperialistic interference. You’d think he and Jarrett would have a better understanding of sectarian differences given their exposure to Islam. My take is that their faith and confidence in the supposed logic of Socialism leads them to believe that human dignity will prevail. He suffers from the hero syndrome that is driving force of social justice.

    I keep picturing the back room conversations with the lying Islamic leaders who set up the pits for him to fall into, then calling their friends to mock him. In the meantime, Putin is laughing his you know what off.

    • pfbonney

      Just in case you haven’t seen this yet, this kind of helps explain about Obama (from FPM):

  • pfbonney

    Wonderful article, Daniel Greenfield.

    No one else seems to be concerned about the potential nuclear arms race.

    I keep coming back to re-read this, from time to time.

    • pfbonney

      And, yet still again.

  • daronlady620

    BUSH is the one who set off the powder keg in the middle east.

    • pfbonney

      So you’re denying that Bush had cleaned up the aftermath of his endeavors? And that Obama had any role in the emergence of ISIS, of the overthrow of Mubarak?

      You are not being objective. You are ignoring actual facts pertaining to the situation.

      • daronlady620

        I’m certainly denying that “Bush cleaned up the aftermath of his endeavors.” He launched an ill-advised, ill-managed and UNPAID FOR war and left the subsequent mess for his successors to clean up (and you don’t have to be a military genius to understand that it is a lot easier to get into a war than to get out of one)- and his actions unquestionably played a significant role in the rise of ISIS and other terrorist groups. Perhaps Richard Clarke expressed it best when he warned Bush that his military actions would create hundreds of terrorists. Now Bush is attempting to rewrite history with his comments about how he “warned about the effects of early withdrawal from Iraq” when the record clearly shows that he signed off on the withdrawal before Obama took office- and in his last few interviews as president, his answers to questions about the war were essentially “It’s not my problem any more.” If he had any such misgivings he didn’t share them at the time.
        I certainly don’t think that Obama’s handling of the situation is above criticism, but he did NOT create this monster regardless of what his opponents would have you believe, just as they would have you believe that Bush’s actions had no consequences- and at the end of the day there are no good solutions to any of them.

        • pfbonney

          Daniel Greenfield says in his article, above, “During George W. Bush’s last month in office, thirty-one Americans had died in Iraq and Afghanistan. By June, the month of Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, that number had climbed to forty. And by that same time next year, it was at sixty-eight.

          “When Bush left office at the end of his second term, the region was mostly stable aside from Iran’s nuclear program.”

          Do you have anything to dispute any of the points here? They sound pretty precise and convincing to me.

          “ISIS’s modern roots can be traced to Abu Musab
          al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian street thug who arrived in Afghanistan too late to fight the Soviets…. When the Taliban fell in 2001 he fled to Iraq, and in 2003 he set up ISIS’s precursor, Jama’at al-Tawhid w’al-Jihad (the Party of Monotheism and Jihad)…. By 2004 his campaign of suicide bombings in that nation made him a jihadist superstar, earning Bin Laden’s endorsement in the process. Al-Zarqawi returned the favor by rebranding his group al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

          “The American troop surge, coupled with Sunni Iraq’s own disenchantment with Zarqawi’s strict sharia rules gave birth to the “Awakening” that allowed the U.S. to prevail in Iraq—until the deadly combination of a Shi’ite-dominated Maliki government looking for payback after years of Sunni Ba’athist domination, coupled with the Obama administration’s precipitous troop withdrawal in 2011, laid the groundwork for ISIS’s current rise.

          “In 2011, AQI was being run by current ISIS leader Abu
          Bakr al-Baghdadi and had become a largely Iraqi organization. Another rebranding took place as these “Sons of Iraq” became ISI, until their ranks were swelled by former commanders and soldiers in Saddam’s military. With the addition of new troops, Baghdadi opened a second front in Syria, once again targeting Shi’ite Muslims and their Shia sub-sect Alawite rulers led by Bashar Assad. When Syrian became part of the equation, ISI became ISIS.” – “The Muslim Brotherhood-ISIS Connection”, FPM

          “when the record clearly shows that he signed off on the withdrawal before Obama took office”

          I’d have to see that record to believe it. I was on a combat tour in Iraq with the Guard in 2009 – 2010, so I was paying close attention at the time. Why were Obama admin. reps in Iraq to extend the SOFA if there was already a plan in place to pull everyone out, anyway?

          You have an uphill battle to convince me. But I’m still listening.