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."
Why do you find it necessary to hang out here when you could be playing with your ilk at the Kos palyground or hang out with those of your intellect at Dummy land?
Yeah, it's more important to protect the troops in the field then score a 'gotcha' with the MSM. You may want to play politics with their lives but W doesn't.
Actually the president was exactly seven month and 22 days in office on 9/11 not 9 month. Count them up
I'm not interested in "Kos palyground" or "Dummy land."
FR is a good source of information, such as the topic article.
And you would've preferred a nice, stable Iraq with Saddam ready to re-start his nuke program as soon as the oil-for-food sanctions were lifted.
That's just plain ol' crazy thinking!
Gulf War I.
Yes I did. Thank you for bringing it. :)
The drudge headline really makes me mad. The President did not say "MY DECISIONS" he said "DECISIONS". Drudge is misrepresenting and I just sent him an email about it. This is pathetic and typical of the media, including Drudge, of misrepresenting facts. Drudge loses enormous credibility in my book for hyping a false headline.
He should apologize for doing so much apologizing and so little leadership.
Well this is not the place for troll loitering because you will get the ZOT then be gone.
You need to be careful, then.
The press decided to boil the reasons to go to war down to WMD. Congress gave 23 reasons.
Operation Iraqi Freedom: Bush was as clear as day.
If you think Bush should apologize for our dead in Iraq then I put you in the same crazy group as Cindy Sheehan.
"Why do you call me a troll?"
Because you do not support this president no matter what he does and therefore must hate America.
That's a false statement.
I am not the one that came on the thread saying GW should apologize for the 3000 troops that died in Iraq fighting terrorists. You were. Shows your intellect and mindset. The people responsible for most of the deaths are TERRORISTS or Insurgents, not GW and the other deaths were accidents that happen everyday in military life. I do not expect you to grasp those facts though.
When you're a Republican president you can't show empty lab rooms to the media and say "this is where Saddam was working on nukes." Clinton could get away with that, but not a Republican. Bush was not surrounded by idiots. The situation is much more complex than the public could every imagine and few people spend enough time analyzing the facts to figure out what really happened.
The whole cabinet wasn't in place yet either... was it?
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.