What George Bush said about Iraq in 2007 was amazingly prophetic

You know, sometimes when I read a new story, it just makes me shake my head. I came across one last night as I was doing my end of day reading, and just had to share this with y’all. I suppose you all know by now that, as we discussed this morning, ISIS has taken the Iraqi city of Ramadi. Well, this story about Congress dithering over the War Powers Act is evidence of just how inept, disconnected, and neutered our current elected officials seem to be.

There are lots of hypotheticals flying around about Iraq, but in 2007, President George W. Bush knew exactly what would happen if the U.S. withdrew too quickly. Here are his amazingly prophetic words.


Of course he was dismissed and denigrated. Now, as his predictions have come true with bloody accuracy, Congress can’t even legislate its way out of a paper bag.

As reported by the Associated Press, “A move to write new war powers to authorize the Obama administration’s 9-month-old battle against Islamic State militants has stalled in Congress. It might even be dead. President Barack Obama doesn’t seem to mind. And while lawmakers say they don’t want to give up their check on a commander-in-chief’s authority to use military might, they have little interest in having what would be the first war vote in Congress in 13 years. Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was recently asked whether Congress was still going to craft a new AUMF. 

“What does that stand for?” Corker joked, knowing that it stands for Authorization for the Use of Military Force. But his five words said a lot. After Obama ordered airstrikes in August over Iraq and in September over Syria against IS militants, lawmakers complained that he was justifying the action with dusty war powers written to authorize conflicts after 9/11. Today, there is hardly a word about it on Capitol Hill. “I’m not optimistic. I wish I were,” Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told The Associated Press. “The snag is there is no real political will or interest in doing it.” He said Congress has a lot to lose if it doesn’t. “As an institution, we’re the ones who are going to suffer because future presidents are going to look back at this and say, ‘We don’t need Congress to make war.’ It’s a terrible precedent,” Schiff said. He believes that if a new military force authorization is not passed, the current Congress will have done more to weaken its own power as a check on the executive branch than any other Congress in memory.”

Here we have ISIS closing the noose on Baghdad and our U.S. Congress is having philosophical deliberations amongst themselves about the war powers act. Where is the adult in the room? I find Sen. Corker’s flippant response not in the least bit funny — people are being massacred. That is not a joke, Senator. Who will step forward and present a plan, a strategy, a course of action to defeat Islamic jihadism?

I am sick and tired of this sense of faux leadership by polls. Where are the courageous, resolute men and women who will stand up for liberty and freedom in a world gone mad? How can it be that in the 21st century we are bombarded with videos containing scenes of men, women, and children being brutally slaughtered and beheaded — and we make jokes about what AUMF stands for?

President Obama had no problem running over the Congress when it came to actions in Libya and there were folks like Rep. Adam Schiff who watched it happen. And now in the face of the most savage and barbaric scourge the world has seen in recent history — we do nothing. Is there no one able to draft a resolution for combat operations to fight ISIS? Particularly as it seems the commander-in-chief and his half-measures have yielded nothing but disappointment. The rhetoric about bringing an end to the war in Iraq was just empty words — as we now know, the enemy did indeed have a vote.

Here is the latest version of Abbott and Costello’s “who’s on first” comedy routine:”Schiff said not one Democrat backs what he termed the “limited” authorization Obama sent to Congress. Under Obama’s proposal, the use of military force against Islamic State fighters would be authorized for three years, unrestricted by national borders. The fight could be extended to any “closely related successor entity” to the IS extremists, but the measure does not authorize large-scale ground operations. Corker said some Republicans, who do not think the White House has a strategy in Syria, don’t want to limit the authorization because it would appear that they are “embracing a non-strategy in Syria.” Corker said any new war authorization would not permit U.S. military action already underway in the region. “It’s about limiting the next president,” he said.”

Nowhere in that statement do I see anyone exhibiting leadership — just political posturing.

Boy did ISIS, all the other Islamic jihadists, Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea get lucky, because they’re beneficiaries of a time when America has no leadership.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here