I’m a frequent guest on Peter Boyles’s show on 710 KNUS in Denver, but this morning’s show was particularly good, as Peter and I discussed how Iraq came to be dominated by the Islamic State, the Bush and Obama policies that led to this debacle, and what is likely to happen now. If you only listen to one, make it this one.
WVinMN says
I really have no use for malcontents like Peter Boyles. These people are perpetually angry and offer no solutions, yet they somehow manage to position themselves as the sole genius in the room, of course, omitting that such “genius” is only achievable with a heavy dose of “historical perspective, aka hindsight. Admittedly, Bush’s fantasy about democracy building in the ME was just that. That is simply a fact. However, the notion that Saddam Hussein’s exceptionally fragile regime circa 2003, a regime in which every strain of terrorism was ensconced and financed by Saddam himself, was somehow going to maintain stability in the ME is just as fanciful as that proposed by the democracy-at-all-costs pimps. I mean, we are witnessing a similar situation in Syria as we speak! Now, you could say, “so what, let the ME breakdown into civil war without our involvement. They’re killing themselves, so let ’em!” I have no problem with that, until one side has emerged and the victor decides to look for targets elsewhere. I maintain that Bush’s mistake wasn’t invading Iraq and taking out Saddam. His mistake was selling the notion of democracy to a largely tribal population. If he instead would have partitioned off the country and MAINTAINED a US base of operations in Kurdish controlled areas, stability could have been achieved, along with providing the US with a base of operations in the heart of the ME (i.e., we wouldn’t have to rely on Israel everytime some idiot decides to build a nuclear reactor).
I’ll finish with this. Bush screwed the pooch on a number of foreign policy issues, but he did manage to dismantle many terrorist enclaves, which in turn, prevented them from hitting us on any kind of scale since 9-11. And he did so even when it wasn’t politically expedient. Obama could care less about foreign policy or US influence in the region, as he himself despises what the US traditionally stands for. Make no mistake about it. Obama inherited a fragile, yet largely pacified post surge Iraq. Many options were on the table regarding the situation, yet he went full steam ahead with the draw down, and he did so knowing that military and CIA intelligence concluded that such a plan would almost certainly result in widespread chaos capable of spreading beyond Iraq’s borders. Bush remains a flawed man, and whose 2nd presidential term was largely a failure. However, in no way are these two men comparable, either by their actions as president or their respective view of America’s greatness.
Jack Gordon says
Sorry, but anyone who even attempts to justify the stupidity, blindness, crudity, ignorance, and wild spending of the idiot George Bush, loses me right there. Obama is one of the two worst presidents in US history; G W Bush is the other, and I could not rank one higher on the Bozo List than the other.
dumbledoresarmy says
**Islam** has produced the mess that we now call “Iraq”.
So long as the vast majority of people in that region remain Muslim, nothing will change.
dezzy says
They use our stupidity and pettiness against us… you know, divide and conquer… as long as we have a leader who divides the country, we will be in big trouble!!!
Tim says
I’m sorry but Peter Boyles know shite what he’s talking about. He walks around in circles and although he imagines he understands Islam, he doesn’t truly understand it. He keeps scratching the surface on some subject or the other having no relation to each other. Its a confusing mess of a presentation.
Also, I never understand these radio hosts who invite people to interview – and then spend half of the interview listening to the sound of their own voice.
What’s the point?