I dont belive so, he may have made it appear that the USA was taking a back seat (for tactical reasons), but it would not have happened without our involvement and accquence.
That is not stretch, the only reason Mubarick was in power so long was because we supported him, 6 months prior to the uprising our state department sent signals that the policy was no longer in effect and that Mubarick would no longer be proped up.
If that is true, good for him for knowing when to follow a plan that would work. So Bush gets credit for the good things he did, but you cant say anything about what he did to cause this economy? Hack!
Does Iran have a nuke?
Preventing attacks from enemies abroad is not a forign policy issue? Sure it has a domestic componant, but its a FP issue. That is a dense statement!
Absolutly, I said that even during the Bush Administration. 9-11 was planned by Al-Queda who was opperating in Afganistan and at odds with the government of Iraq. Al Queda was allowed to operate in Afganistan due to a power vaccum and not allowed to operate in Iraq. We have a duty to the safety of the USA to ensure that the conditions that allowed Al Queda to plan 9-11 are corrected. We never had a justification to be in Iraq at all what so ever! So yes, Iraq BAD, Afganistan NECESSARY!
yes!
It would take a 500 page tretus on each nation to address that request. Our relations in general with all of the Middle Eastern nations is a policy to not interfere with them unless they allow factions to exist who are planning attacks on our interests. The policy is that we will no longer prop up dictatior who we deem to be "friendly" to us, but will allow them to form self government. Our policy in NK as far as I can tell is the same as its been since the 1950's which is one of containment.
Id say what I listed is a LOT, and there is plenty more.