Who is more to blame for our Middle Eastern crisis George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and/or George W. Bush?

Question

I think they all are. I think Daddy started a war in 1991 that he couldn't finish. He couldn't have taken out Saddam but backed off. It is vastly reported by Desert Storm personnel that they could have taken out Saddam because we had Baghdad.

Clinton could have given the order to take out Bin Laden when we knew exactly where he was and he opted not to.

Now Baby Bush had to make up for Daddy's mistake and also for Clinton's non-action. Now we have a mess in Iraq and we are fighting shadows in Afghanistan. Failure by Clinton to act caused 9/11 and failure for Daddy Bush to act caused Iraq.

There are definitely other shady motives behind 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' but his dad is the real reason why we are in this situation in the first place.

Sorry, correction...He could have taken out Saddam!

Yeah you can add Carter to the list too. I forgot about him. Thanks for posting that.

Nature Lover are you that stupid? I can't list a whole history of wrongs. I know a lot of this started a long long time ago but I would be writing for days and days and bringing up a whole lot of names. Point is in the last couple of decades we have had the ability to try and make things a little bit better but chose to look the other way. That's my real point. You can write out the whole history if you like!

David W, NO, you are the STUPID ONE who listens to too much media. Don't spin that one on me.

David from Cleveland, thank you. Obviously you are one of the few who actually do read in context.

My father is a military historian (USAF Colonel retired recently). I know plenty of U.S. history and I cannot write it all down as relates to this question because of the character limitations by yahoo. I could write for days on the subject. I was just shortening it up a bit and also wanted to see opnions without being attacked. Obviously, that's some people's purpose in life so I just deal with it. They attack rather than assess.

In some respects I agree with you Doc but never bring up the UN, please. They are probably the most corrupt entity on the face of the earth.

Answer 1

The guy said "OUR M-East crisis" not "THE M-East crisis". I assume the questioner refers to our being mired in a war we cant win.

How about a little reading comprehension before bashing the guy asking the question ok?

I also think he has some valid points.

Answer 2

It's interesting that you use pejoratives when referring to the Bushes, but not to Clinton. I also find it interesting that Clinton's blame is a sentence long and the Bushes get paragraphs. No telling if your a Democrat, eh?

Bush, Sr. didn't just "start a war." It was a UN operation led by the US to restore Kuwaiti sovereignty after the 1990 Iraqi invasion. It is true that he could have taken Saddam and he backed off because the UN insisted that he not take Baghdad. Would you have wanted Bush, Sr. to usurp the UN instructions and take over the operation? I bet not.

Clinton did nothing after several attempts by Middle East Terrorists including, the World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993, Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993, Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995, Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996: A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the US military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel, the U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998, the bombing of the USS Cole, killing several U.S. sailors. Each time he did nothing, it empowered Al Qaida because they thought the U.S. was weak and wouldn't fight back under Clinton. Further, as you mentioned, Clinton could have taken out Bin Laden, not once but at least 4 times and refused. Who wouldn't have taken all of this into consideration and decided that the U.S. had gone soft and lazy?

Now we have the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the mistakes made by Clinton and the UN, not Bush, Sr. unless you consider following UN instructions during a UN operation a mistake. I do, but I'd be surprised if you did.

You really should get your facts straight before you make assertions.

I agree that Jimmy Carter is also to blame. In addition to what some answerers have mentioned, let's not forget how he almost succeeded in doing away with the military. He cut it to the bare bone!

Where exactly is the rant here? FACTS, son, merely the FACTS. I'm sure your father knows a lot about them! If you can't deal with FACTS that disagree with what you are asserting then perhaps you shouldn't make your assertions in the first place.

Answer 3

Is this a rant or a question? If you really want the truth (of our "recent" history), then you should probably go back to the Eisenhower/Nixon administration -- Nixon was his VP. They had the CIA overthrow the Iranian government just to more or less, see if it could be done. Then, installed the Shaw, who they believed would be a "Yes" man. They really wanted the Shaws's sister, but a woman on the throan there... The Shaw, it turns out was a ruthless dictator. And we supported him right up to the overthrow that got him booted out. And even then, Carter invited him here. Do you now see why we're so hated on a political level?
And, as much as most here don't want to admit, it IS about religion and oil. The religious aspect is simple, just read chapter nine of the Holy Qu'ran. The oil? Why would Eisenhower elect to overthrow a U.S. friendly government? And Reagan choose to reflag foreign oil freighters passing through the region? The world economy runs on oil. Why would Saddam overrun Kuwait? More oil, and a seaport into the Persian Gulf.
Had anyone been paying attention, they'd have concluded that both Desert Shield/Storm and Iraqi Freedom are completely connected and that they should have been the business of the U.N., not the U.S.. Water under the bridge.

Answer 4

Well the Brits pushed for the formation of the states of Israel and Palestine. They could be the start.

But then the Arab states refused to recognise either state to they could be at fault.

LBJ was in when the 6 Day War happened so it could be his fault.

Nixon was there when the Yom Kipper War was fought so it could be his fault

Carter were there when Iranians took over our embassy and did nothing about it. So it could be his fault.

Bush 1 kicked Saddam's butt for taking Kuwait but didn't take him down.

Clinton left Saddam alone and Usama Bin Laden as well and that led to 9/11 and then the invasion of Iraq.

Bush got us started in both Afghanistan and Iraq and hasn't gotten us out of either one.

I'm sure that Ike and JFK probably did something wrong as well I just don't remember what it was. So through action or inaction the mess has continued. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Take your pick there is plenty blame to go around.

Answer 5

I'd say none of the above. The Middle East has been a hot bed for unrest and violence for a long time. Now has some of the policies of the US made the situation worse? Sure. Start with the creation of Israel after WW II and add a few dozen other decisions by several US Presidents and you have the mess we now deal with.

Answer 6

I didn't think so at the time, but I think "Daddy" was correct in not finishing off Saddam in '91.
He saw the problems that Jr. is now contending with and was correct just to contain him.

Since then and now, I think Slick Willie Clinton, in his thirst for tramps in blue dresses is to blame for 911. He should have been more interested in our safety than his having fun with a pig in the Oval Office ( and I'm not referring to Hillary)
Clinton HAD HIM! Had he terminated OBL then, 911 would still be something to dial when you were in trouble and nothing more.

Now about Jr..... He should have stayed in Afganistan and killed every last taliban-islamo-facist as an example of what we would do to anyone else if they attacked us again. Democracy would hopefully grow thruout the region on it's own merits.
But....Who really knows?

Answer 7

You can blame Jimmy....His allowing the Shah to receive medical treatment and brief sanctuary here on October 22, 1979, pissed off the Islamic fundamentalists who wanted him back to stand trial. This led to the taking of the hostages from the embassy by radical students. One of which is the current leader of Iran.
Go back to history class..oops, wouldn't do any good because most current school books probably don't even address it.
As far as the current situation....Iran backs and supply's Hamas, Hezbolla, Syria and most of the insurgency in Iraq. Iranian weapons have been found in Gaza, Lebanon, West Bank and currently in Iraq, where they have also found the design plans, from Iran, for the current EFP devices being used against ours and British troops.
So yes the CURRENT middle east crisis started with Jimmy.

Answer 8

The Muslims. They are determined to eradicate Western civilization. We had to do something to show our enemies that they cannot blow up 3000 people. The only thing that the fundamentalist understand is strength. To attack the US in such a manner and we do nothing shows them how weak we are despite the fact we have such an arsenal of weapons. Like it or not, there is a War on Terror and to combat it we have to start somewhere. Is our country worth fighting for. Why is everyone blaming our leaders and not the terrorists. I am getting tired of it.

Answer 9

the roots of our problems with Middle East pre-date all 3 of those Presidents and have to do with our Cold War policies of propping up governments that would hold back social development just so they would not become communist....also we trained and supplied most of the terrorists of this day but back them we called them freedom fighters.

Now all do bear blame, don't get me wrong. However, I think it was a mistake to remove Saddam (at least right now and by USA)...he was a wacko and killed but he kept the region in order and was way too paranoid to allow terrorists to be in his country. Would have been better if an organized group could have removed him and assumed full and legitimate command to keep the region from collapsing, as it has, and that is my personal opinion of why we left him in control when Bush Sr was there.

Answer 10

what about blaming Russia- for aiding syria jordan and egypt during the six day war which destabilized the area- or the Un for setting up a Jewish state in the middle of a muslim area, what about Jimmy carter for allowing radical muslims to gain power. or even England for slicing up the middle east region the way it is. the list goes longer and longer and has been doing such for thousands of years- to say one guy did it or another guy did it is plain stupid and ignorant towards historical facts.

Shady motives- what for oil when we get less than 20 % of our oil from the middle east

you listen to too much media- they have you spinning!

I'm sorry I just enjoy learning history withe TV off, the media is nothing more than reality Tv- your trying to blame a select group of men when the area has been a tinder box since the begining of time- use some common sense.

Answer 11

I think Saddam, Osama, the House of Saud, Wahabism, Iran, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (the world's slowest and least successful mutual genocide) might have something to do with it, as well. Actually, a /lot/ more to do with it than who was trying to react to it all in the Oval Office at the time.