George W. Bush: I Agreed With General Dempsey – We Should Have Left Troops in Iraq

Semi-retired President Barack Hussein Obama was so desperate to fulfill his campaign promise to pull everyone out of Iraq, he would listen to NO ONE.

His first day in office he signed one of his infamous Executive Orders to CLOSE GITMO WITHIN ON YEAR. It was far harder to undo the critical damage done by pulling all our troops out of Iraq. NOW we have troops on the ground and a major catastrophe. He must be so happy!

George W. Bush: I Agreed With General Dempsey – We Should Have Left Troops in Iraq
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, October 2, 2014, 9:58 AM

Former President George W. Bush told Brian Kilmeade Thursday that he would have listened to his generals and would have left a residual force in Iraq.


Martha MacCallum: It is well known that the military recommended that we leave a residual force of 10-15,000. Did you feel the same way? And, President Bush said, ‘I did. I did feel the same way.” He wanted to leave that force there which he is on the record of having said. And, here’s what he said after that.

President Bush: The president has to make the choices that he thinks are important. I’m not going to second guess our president. I understand how tough the job is… But I agreed with General Dempsey’s assessment.

Barack Obama withdrew all US forces in December 2011. It was one of the the most irresponsible presidential decisions in US history.

In November 2011 Senator John McCain asked General Martin Dempsey whether there were any U.S. military commanders in favor of full withdrawal from Iraq. “No, senator, none of us recommended that we completely withdraw from Iraq,” Dempsey replied.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/10/george-w-bush-i-agreed-with-general-dempsey-we-should-have-left-troops-in-iraq-video/

Don't hate that he posts facts you would like to ignore.

Sal wrote:Oh, and I almost forgot .....

That's all you have is it not?

I agree with President Obama......we should get out, and stay out, and do just enough intervention to allow chaos to reign in the region. We are almost an oil exporter now, and our consumption is dropping like a rock......Nation states in chaos pose no credible threat to Israel, and sure as hell beats letting any genies out of the bottle.


Oh chicken little says isis is falling.........isis is falling......and butchmeup agrees.........Sorry Mr. Markle.........you will really have your panties in a wad come December when you see what they do to Stan after we leave.......Oh tow truck driver you dented my crushed fender when you pulled my car out of the 100 foot gully. Yep, tow truck drivers always should let the car stay in the ditch.........no more fender damage. Chaos......bet on it......and that was fully the intent when we went in.......destruction of the regions nation states and chaos......but by golly......that tow truck driver screwed the pooch.

http://www.antipasministries.com/html/file0000313.htm

THE GENERALS' REVOLT
AGAINST THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY

Earlier this year (2009) Gareth Porter, an investigative journalist and an analyst on U.S. foreign and military policy worried out loud that Obama was facing a "General's Revolt" insofar as his military policy in the Middle East and Central Asia was concerned.

According to Porter, the revolt was being led, at least on the surface, by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus - who is in charge of all U.S. military activities in the Middle East and Central Asia - and Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq.

Petraeus and Odierno were being supported (most say "guided") in their insubordination by retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and MENTOR of Gen. Petraeus.



PORTER SEES KEANE AS THE REAL "PUPPET MASTER" - A KIND OF MAFIA DON - BEHIND THE "GENERAL'S REVOLT," WITH PETRAEUS AND ODIERNO PLAYING SUBSERVIANT ROLES. PORTER ALSO SEES KEANE AS A CENTRAL FIGURE TYING THE MILITARY AND THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY TOGETHER IN OPPOSITION TO THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY.

Porter writes:

"The opening ... [shot] by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama ... was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 [2009] meeting [between Petraeus and Obama] when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama's pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.

"Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on ... [Obama's insistence during the meeting] to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, argued that implementing such a [quick] withdrawal of combat troops would 'increase the risk rather dramatically ...' He asserted that it would jeopardize the 'stable political situation in Iraq' and called that risk 'not acceptable'."

NOTE: As active-duty generals, both Petraeus and Odierno are precluded from OPENLY opposing the military policies of the United States; specifically, those of Obama as Commander-in-Chief; it's precisely because of this that Keane retired from the army: so that he could lead a generals' rebellion against Obama in the OPEN by -

Organizing the rebellion without being charged CRIMINALLY for insubordination.
Acting as a conduit between the nation's officer corps and the public insofar as the military's dissatisfaction with Obama's leadership is concerned.
Drawing into the rebellion the defense and oil industries, and prevailing upon them to financially support the rebellion through their considerable largesse and their contacts in Congress - both Republicans and "blue-dog" Democrats.
[Keane sits on the board of General Dynamics, one of the nation's biggest defense contractors; he also is closely connected to the Carlyle Group (Please see our article, "The Fourth Horsemen of the Apocalypse" for information on the Carlyle Group).]

Establishing contacts between the Religious Right and the officer corps.
Establishing contacts between the officer corps and right-wing political elements throughout the country.

"Liberals" - ostensibly destroying the American army with their pencils and pens, and doing to the army what the enemy could not do on the battlefield.

THE IMMEDIATE AIM
OF THE REBELLION

The immediate aim of the generals' revolt is to crush Obama's attempt to curtail U.S. combat operations in the Middle East and Central Asia. Porter says:

"The assertion that Obama's withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush surge and Petraeus's strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning [against their commander-in-chief]."

And there should be little doubt as to what Obama wants to do; Fred Kaplan, a journalist and a correspondent for the Boston Globe, writing in Slate, describes Obama's "vision" for the Middle East; he begins by acknowledging that, at least publicly -

"... the president's vision of post-withdrawal Iraq is ... a little hazy. In his speech [of January, 2009] he talked about continuing to assist Iraq economically, coordinating regional diplomatic efforts to sustain its stability, and serving as an 'honest broker' to help settle internal disputes."

However, Kaplan goes on to say that "if all hell breaks loose" OBAMA IS WILLING TO LET THE MILITARY GAINS THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WON IN IRAQ GO BY THE WAYSIDE; this is also what Obama wants to do in Afghanistan: After a short "surge" to prove that he is "tough," he wants to "cut a deal" and run. Kaplan writes:

"The bottom line is ... this: President Obama simply wants to get out of Iraq [and Afghanistan] ... His [domestic] budget plans depend on a drastic winding down of this war. So does his broader legislative agenda."

Plainly put, Obama wants to divert the money he believes is being wasted on military adventures in the Middle East and Central Asia to repair the economy, revamp the health care system, and address the long-term problems of energy and climate.

THE GENERALS ARE FURIOUS: THEY
DO NOT WANT A REPEAT OF VIETNAM


The U.S. military: "Stabbed in the back by Democrats in Congress." The Generals want no more of this!! - and here they would probably even have the support of General Colin Powell who himself saw the army disgraced in this fashion in Vietnam.

However, if bringing the troops home before "victory is secured" in the Middle East and Central Asia is what Obama wants to do, it would mean that the Democrats are set on a course of action THAT CANNOT HELP BUT LEAD TO A REPEAT OF THE DISASTER (AND EVEN DISGRACE) THE DEMOCRATS INFLICTED ON THE ARMY THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO WHEN - AFTER THE ARMY HAD FINALLY PACIFIED THE COUNTRYSIDE IN SOUTH VIETNAM AT A COST OF 57,000 LIVES - IT SAW ALL ITS GAINS THROWN AWAY BY DEMOCRATIC PARTY "PEACENIKS" WHO - FUELED BY THE WATERGATE FIASCO - WERE EMBOLDENED TO VOTE AGAINST ANY FURTHER AID TO THE SOUTH.

Since then, the army has borne an undying HATRED towards the Democratic Party - a hatred that burns in the heart of just about every member of the officer corps, the exceptions of generals such as John Shalikashvili, John Adams, John Castellaw and others of their "ilk" notwithstanding.

Porter underlines the strong support that Keane has from a network of active and retired four-star Army generals; he says that these generals are prepared to "go to the mat" in a revolt against Obama. Porter goes on to say that the generals are preparing the ground for their rebellion by attempting to reach out to the American public for support:...

[...]

Poor FT, she could only find a post no one will bother to read.......

Joanimaroni wrote:Poor FT, she could only find a post no one will bother to read.......

You are a pathetic loser. I'm sure you won't "bother to read" anything that interferes with your support of Bush the murdering war profiteer.

Floridatexan wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Poor FT, she could only find a post no one will bother to read.......

You are a pathetic loser.  I'm sure you won't "bother to read" anything that interferes with your support of Bush the murdering war profiteer.

The interview this morning was very enjoyable.

2seaoat wrote: We are almost an oil exporter now

Where in the world did you get that from? Right now we're importing about 40% of the oil we consume.
According to the EIA (the government Energy Information Administration),
our imports will still be 32% of our consumption out to 2040.

Floridatexan wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Poor FT, she could only find a post no one will bother to read.......

You are a pathetic loser.  I'm sure you won't "bother to read" anything that interferes with your support of Bush the murdering war profiteer.

More and more desperation from the hard Left Progressives. Even well known Progressives and Democrats acknowledge the failure of this administration. The ones here can't admit failure. Well, they can't admit the truth much less failure.

Floridatexan wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Poor FT, she could only find a post no one will bother to read.......

You are a pathetic loser.  I'm sure you won't "bother to read" anything that interferes with your support of Bush the murdering war profiteer.

There is no conceivable way you can re-write enough history to excuse the total failure of this administration. All you can ever say is LOOK WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH DID!