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."
More specifically, quote what I said and ask a question about it.
Peach, or anyone:
Is that video of the trucks leaving for Baathist Syria still around? Any of the articles on it?
Based on my read of it, it sounded like the President was trying to make the point that the present instability was due to the overal "state" of transition.
I sure don't have that video or the links to it; I had a computer crash and lost a lot of that stuff. Keep asking on pertinent thread (anything about Iraq) and maybe someone will have it.
Would any of these 'informants' be disenfranchised former Iraqis with an ax to grind against Hussein? Like Chalabi? Only cost us around $400,000 to get his 'information' didn't it? Guess that was some of my tax dollars going for a good cause (even though I can't seem to find the power to spend tax dollars like that in the Constitution)
We can't disclose publicly evidence from informants, because of course that would put their lives in danger and make it very difficult to recruit informants in other countries in the future. We also cannot disclose most of the information gathered by the NSA, because that would allow Saddam's regime to deduce some of the capabilities of the NSA, i.e., what kind of communications we are able to intercept
But yet they were able to disclose a rather specific list of information received from the 'informants' (types of supposed weapons, locations of supposed weapons, etc) to get buy in for the police action. Hmmm......
Oh I see!! It's okay to release information to get the buy in for the military action but when the military action doesn't find the information as it was told to us, it's not okay to release information. Makes so much sense now....
No I don't read WND and those are my own conclusions based on many sources and a lot of logical thinking about this subject. When you say things like "no sale" about trucks going to Syria, I don't know what you're talking about. The liberal media of course did not publicize that information, but conservatives at FR certainly accept that explanation for some materials leaving Iraq. Please keep in mind that the liberal news media is not the final judge of what is true or false in such a complex situation. The agenda of the news media is to attack the GOP and advance the power of the DemocRAT party.
Good points; as I said, I think relatively good arguments can be made with regard to letting the left continue to spew about WMD. There aren't similar excuses for letting the left get away with lying about other key aspects of the war, however.
He has responsibility for sending Americans to their death and implementing deficit spending.
Lt. General Delong also has commented on the trucks going to Syria and he was the Deputy Centcom commander I believe.
Incorrect. We did not disclose the most convincing, most senstive intelligence before the war. We used less powerful, more publicly available information to persuade the public to back the war, in order to protect sources and methods.
That's a great blog; was there something in particular you wanted me to look at? I read a few of the mini articles about Iraq and the deficit.
That was more a military action than a war. We didn't occupy a country or depose a dictator.
You responded to Peach when she said he had nothing to apologize for and you commented what about the 3000 troops that have died in Iraq. You said it, do not be a coward now. I am asking you why he should apologize for it. You think he should, so I am asking you why?
He should be exposing them mercilessly for their calculated calumny, not apologizing to them for his honest failings.
But, I do admit he has a problem. He can't even get his own intelligence agencies to cooperate in massive intelligence leaks which are hurting our war efforts, nor can he get his own DOJ to prosecute them.
Bush needs to start lopping off heads all over, not wearing a hair shirt and tugging on his forelock.
Ditto eveything you just said.
Read on FR (see below) that it looks like the Kurdish Peshmerga is mobilizing to join in the fight in Baghdad. I hope the Peshmerga put a knife in Sadr's bellybutton.
FR Title: "Iraq - Kurd general says his brigade training intensively for urban combat in Baghdad""
My answer is at #230.
I thought that Polybius's response to you in #142 was an excellent response and that you've been unable (or unwilling) to answer.
Still dodging a few questions posed to you by freepers.
And your continued whining about the deficit as it relates to the war makes me all the more convinced I was right about you originally.
You seem unwilling to acknowledge that Wall Street analysts, people who actually know what they're talking about as opposed to some freeper I've never heard of before, are nearly universally unconcerned about the deficit, especially as it related to the GDP.
But keep whining. You're proving my point with each post.
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.