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."
Judging from the comments, the President seems to be pretty down on the whole thing!
Being bombed day in and day out, things tumbling out of control, rebellion among the generals, and the Moonbat being in control in the Congress!!
Who the hell wants to be President?
He's a lame duck. He has no re-election concerns. He can veto every bill he wants to. He should run the country and the war the way he thinks it should be run. Oh... maybe he is.
I could get booted for this but....you're a dipshit dude.
LOL. Some things are just worth getting booted for.
Yes, he should be sympathetic to losses for which he is responsible, particularly in overseas military efforts.
Do you approve of vulgar conversation on FreeRepublic?
Another deceiving headline.
Oh, so you CAN read. Given your (non) responses on this thread, I was positive you had a severe reading comprehension problem.
AND it's the interference of Iranian and Syrian backed al quaeda types who have created the instability.
You would be stunned to hear how many people I've talked to about that who had no idea. And naturally, aren't sure whether they should believe me or the media.
That was a wrong conclusion.
I'm just glad Drudge responded and changed the headline. Now if the admin mod would do the same here, that would be good too! :-)
Yawn. I'll check back later and see if you can actually answer:
1) Post #142 made to you a while ago.
2) Why we should listen to YOU vs. the Wall Street analysts regarding the deficit.
Why do I need to answer?
Oh, hon, you don't need to answer anything. We can see that you can't. It's okay.
I know what the MSM will claim he said and they can interpret it anyway they want being in a free America but it's not exactly what he said.
I'm not so mad about it because I've just come to expect this misrepresentations from almost everyone that reports their version of the news.
Well it is obvious that is not the case.
OMG. Are you serious? Did you HAPPEN to see the photo of the president a few days ago when he presented a medal posthumously to the family of a fallen marine? The tears were streaming down his face...
He is more sincerely sympathetic to the losses than most anyone outside of family and comrades.
WTH do you think you are?
Thank you!
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.