Posted on 01/13/2007 11:15:33 AM PST by West Coast Conservative
The president concedes that his decisions have led to more instability in Iraq. President Bush made the admission in an exclusive interview with Scott Pelley at Camp David yesterday (12), his first interview since addressing the nation about Iraq. It will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Jan. 14 (8:00-9:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
The president says the current sectarian violence in Iraq, is a destabilizing factor that "could lead to attacks here in America" and must be controlled. He defended his decision to invade Iraq in the same way, saying Saddam was competing with Iran to get a nuclear weapon and making the region unstable. But when pressed by Pelley, Bush concedes that conditions in Iraq are much worse now.
Pelley: But wasn't it your administration that created the instability in Iraq? Bush: "Our administration took care of a source of instability in Iraq. Envision a world in which Saddam Hussein was rushing for a nuclear weapon to compete against Iran... He was a significant source of instability. Pelley: It's much more unstable now, Mr. President. Bush: Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable.
"I think history is going to look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better. No question about it," says Bush.
Toppling Saddam was not a mistake, however. "My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the correct decision in my judgment. We didn't find the weapons we thought we would find or the weapons everybody thought he had. But he was a significant source of instability," Bush tells Pelley. "We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude and I believe most Iraqi's express that."
The execution of Saddam was mishandled, says the president, who saw only parts of it on the Internet because he didn't want to watch the dictator fall through the trap door. "I thought it was discouraging... It's important that that chapter of Iraqi history be closed. [But] They could have handled it a lot better."
How would an apology make you "feeeeel"?
If there were republicans on the hill with spine, the CinC wouldn't have to piddle around trying to explain every move... now would he. If I knew some protest voters were going to slam the party this bad... they might as well had axed all of them. Yikes! I said that?
We've spent 70 years of the last 100 operating this government in a deficit.
In that period of time, it has managed to survive.
Isn't that a miracle as well as amazing? Maybe the deficit truly isn't as critical as you try to make it sound. 99% of economists agree. You don't agree because you have no clue about what it is you talk about.
When Tony had his radio show, we used to discuss issues on the open forum and in freepmail. I know he was disappointed in the president's decision not to fight back against the left's lies about various matters and I'd hoped he could convince the president to start doing so. Apparently he's been unsuccessful. So while I think Tony is a fabulous spokesman, the best I've ever seen in that job, he's been unable to change how the administration handles its critics.
Things ain't so bad now.
As Shiite/Persian Iraq tries to gain influence in Iran, we use that to our advantage.
We gain support among the Sunni Arab states to move against Iran. As this happens we gain support with Arab Iraqi Shiites of Najif against their rivals the Iranian Ahiites of Qom.
Oh, they'll Monday morning quarterback just like they're doing here. LOL
Well spoken. Fight them there, defeat them there and remove their safe harbors so they do not have places to train, plan and attack from. GW is doing that and those of us that support him need to stand shoulder to shoulder not to let the cut and run crowd win because if we do withdraw, we all will lose.
we were thinking the same thing....
Um... do you have the stats on how many deaths were in the US and how many were from other medical conditions?
I suggest you look it up.
That was more a military operation than a war, imo. We didn't control territory and depose a dictator.
Exactly... we wouldn't even be a country if it was up to some here.
no he shouldn't apologize. He prevented who knows how many more attacks. The "instability" is caused by the release of the tyrannical hand of Hussein. Nazi Germany was stable... Communist Soviet Union was "stable"... democracy and the creation of republics is messy and argumentative. our own country was "unstable" during and for the next hundred years of it's creation.
God, libs are so f'ing stupid. How about getting the libs to apologize for the deficits in the welfare programs, for the destruction of the black populace in this country, for subverting our men in Vietnam.
By the way, the Congress makes up the budget. The RINO's trying to curry favor with the libs got us into more spending. They lost the election. good.
the rest of my post is unprintable due to the following request.....NO profanity, NO personal attacks, or violence in posts.
Could he have meant the insurgent's decision to attack each other?
Ooooorrrrraaaahhhh to your pic! Awesome, just awesome.
I do not believe the President plays semantic games.
If he was talking about others, he would have clearly said so.
I see, so the administration's abject failure to counter 'Rat allegations that Saddam's WMDs never existed and that Al Qaeda weren't present in Iraq before we invaded can all be chalked up to brilliant "strategery," eh? Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.