Although of course you can make the argument that Bush is to blame for what’s going on in Iraq right now just as you can also make the argument that Bush's plans offered the only real hope to overcome the sectarian mediaevalism of the region, a hope that was lost when Obama squandered the gains wrought by the surge by walking away and leaving Iraq to its own dysfunctional devices and acting as if he could ignore Syria and nothing bad would come of that - just as you can also argue the merits of other scenarios and what ifs including the cynical but quite possibly true idea that in a place as dysfunctional and rife with entrenched hatreds and suspicions as the Mideast what is happening now was inevitable and all Bush’s invasion did was at most expedite that inevitability - but, whatever - point is if you're going to make the argument that the 2003 invasion is the root of all evil here then I need to ask: are you talking about just the invasion itself or the botched occupation? Because those are different things with different implications - if you’re saying the invasion itself then seems to me you're also saying that the only way to keep sectarian idiocy and extremism under control in the mideast is through dictatorial thugs like Saddam - and if you’re saying that does that also mean you were opposed then to the ousting of Mubarak and the attempt to oust Assad, indeed that we should have moved in early to save Assad? And if you’re saying that, are you then also saying that Islamism and democracy are not compatible, that Islamist societies can never be truly pluralistic, representative, open societies free from forever being undone by corruption and sectarianism? I certainly think one could make that argument - but the thing is all those trying to blame Bush for Iraq never make that argument - rather they tend to believe that the vain, stupefied delusion of Obama’s Cairo speech represented the best way forward and that all that was necessary to push Muslim polities into the 21st - hell, the 20th century and make all Islamic extremism magically fade away was the deploying of pretty words, the rendering of heartfelt apologies for the implied evil of America and then the flouncing about as if all that was needed to move forward was doing the opposite of what you think Bush might have done and everything would just be oh so fine.
Those wanting to blame Bush are attempting to draw a straight line from one thing to another in a region where there are no straight lines, only bent, broken and corrupt ones - they're of the type who lauded unquestioningly the Arab Spring [delusional] and yet now want to somehow blame Bush for this wonderful spring turning so nasty in Syria - they never talk about how leaving Saddam in power and free of sanctions would have produced a whole other set of problems that if not handled adroitly could have ended up with the region looking pretty much as it does right now - they want to draw straight lines in a place where there are no straight lines except possibly one: show weakness and you will be targeted - in short, they're of a type fond of embracing the unreal so as to protect the pleasing perfection of their dreams - they're the people for whom the Cairo speech was intended and therefore they have no right to be lecturing anyone about anything when it comes to foreign policy.
