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 does my concern for the killing of Americans and government waste put me in a "fragmented group of cynical defeatist/protectionist fanatics" ?
Do you think that FDR should apologize for the 418,500 Americans that died in World War Two and the deficit spending that occurred under his pen?
If the Iraq War had never happened and if you were Commander-in-Chief in four years and Saddam then had nuclear weapons to control 70% of the world's know oil reserves, how would you deal with that?
Would you deal with it at all?
What would be the cost if you didn't deal with it?
What would be the cost if you did?
If the Allied Powers had attacked Nazi Germany as soon as Hitler renounced the Versailles Treaty in 1936, people like you would be asking, "Is Roosevelt going to apologize for the 3,000 Americans who died in Germany in 1936?"
I'm as willing to kick the President on his immigration stance as most (on the appropriate threads), but you do realize the he was in office for less than nine months before the attack? That most of the hijackers were in the country before the got elected? That thanks to Al Gore and the Democratic Party, President Bush did not get the opportunity to perform a proper transition from the previous administration? You do realize these things, right?
I imagine we will eventually find that Bush regreats taking Powell's advise to go to the UN with a thin case about WMN, rather than taking the bull by the horns and saying our purpose was to remove Sadaam.
Yes it did, on our side anyway. Remember though that the invasion itself lasted 100 hours.
It would increase my respect for the primary occupant of the White House.
We know better. Watch what comes out when those troops head up by the Syrian border. Remember how hot it got when they were there before? It's not only because the that's one of the terror routes and Syria's harboring them.
INTELLIGENCE: Why Iraq WMD Finds Were Kept Secret
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654974/posts
ROTFL! Right on.
Really? I expect my leaders to admit to mistakes, but I don't expect them to apologize. Apologies are not solutions. I guess the military taught me that; I don't understand how anyone could think differently.
You misunderstand The Eaglet... I believe he/she/it means when we are attacked do nothing, God forbid one life besides those on our soil is lost. You know... the way Carter and Clinton did. Nevermind those Americans lost all over the world in our embassies, the Cole, diplomats and other places re: terrorism. We should just stand down and wait for the UN to take care of it. s/
I've seen little flashes that they are learning...
For example, Bushs' recent comment that "To oppose everything and propose nothing is irresponsible" I'd credit to Snow and wish it had been an '06 campaign theme.
Agreed, however, that they're not learning fast enough and leave themselves too open to Leftspin opportunities like the one this thread cites.
" "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.""
Ya, like the Italians handled Mussolini.
Troll, your diatribes are getting OLD!!! Did I say OLD???!!!
TSK! TSK!
"Your point is taken. IMO one of the biggest mistakes Bush made was in insisting Islam is a religion of peace. Along with the US invasion force should have been 50,000 Christian missionaries. That's the way you change hearts and minds."
Instead our troops are instructed not to practice their religion openly. Can't offend the Muslims.
"....yet he is an incompetent moron as depicted by the media."
He sure makes it easy for them.
Truman's decision made Hiroshima more radioactive.
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.