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."
I agree 1000% with everything you said. Had a Bill Clinton attacked Iraq he would have hailed it as a great victory and would have had no problem explaining the lack of large caches of WMDs. He would have said the WMDs were there, they found them and the rest were buried in the sand. The media would have moved on to midnight basketball or something.
3,000 dead American soldiers plus more in Afghanistan and elsewhere is a tragedy.
That said, this President has been fighting global terrorism on the cheap. He has used other local Muslim alliances to fight our battles and thus saving American military lives.
You should apologize to the President for saying that he has cost our military a net loss in life.
As far a spending goes, outside of DOD spending and Homeland defense type spending which is justified, this President irresponsible spending is really about the Prescription Drug Plan.
But the President did campaign for the plan and the president did win the 2000 election based on a few hundred votes in Florida.
IMV, w/o PDB, we would have had Gore.
Off topic: Just wondering... in your spare time (if your list is as long as mine, that is), could you list what made you have enough?
Oh, btw, we're still fighting tyranny in this country IMO.
Why not say...
"Under Saddam, Iraq may have appeared to be stable to outsiders, but its because its people were in chains, one step away from rape, torture and death."
"Iraqis just voted in record numbers in free elections - for a former Middle East terrorist regime, you can't get much closer to stability than that. Victory is near."
"America has give hope to Iraqis, and for their children, and grandchildren. Why would you deny them the chance for a real future?"
Where the hell is the GOP? Public Relations? Where is any conservative today, other than hiding under Nancy Petulant's skirt?
Me too.
Well Sam Hill! Thank you, good to see i'm not the only one saying it repeatedly.
Amen and God bless you.
He has NOTHING to apologize for.
People assume that they know what would have happened if different decisions had been made. But no one knows what would have happened if President Bush had made different decisions. The situation could be far worse now if the course advocated by some had been followed. They don't know, they just assume that they know.
Re-read the post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like this fiscally liberal administration. They spend money like they hate the stuff.
That's a good point.
Spare me your cut and run crap.
It's not like we have a draft so if you're concerned, don't go. The troops believe in the mission and are committed and in case you haven't heard (and you sound so uninformed, I'm assuming you haven't heard) re-enlistments are up.
Yes to a point. However, as we stand, all that is illrevelant. Our enemies in Iraq are really making their last stand in Baghdad. Their only hope is either for the United States to cut & Iran or direct Iranian intervention. As long as Bush is President HE WILL NOT CUT & RUN OR redeploy to Okinawa. As for Iran directly intervening that could happen.
Pelley: It's much more unstable now,
Bush: Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable.
Sometimes, Bush can't seem to speak his way out of a paper bag.
I would point out to the reporter that, although Iraq now has more sectarian violence for the simple reason that the U.S. has not used its military might like Saddam did to kill tens of thousands of Shiites when they acted up, the region is much more stable in regards to nuclear proliferation.
Iraq is completely out of the nuclear weapons picture and Iran's nuclear threat can now be countered, if the U.S. so chooses, with massive air power flying from land bases literally next door to Iran.
The overall nuclear threat in the Persian Gulf is thus being "defeated in detail".
Compared to the strategic catastrophe of having both a nuclear armed Iraq and a nuclear armed Iran controlling the flow of 70% of the world's known oil reserves, having Sunni and Shiite fanatics continuing to kill each other as they have for centuries is a minor consequence.
I should have put a sarc tag after my question, I believe most understood my intent.
Ah yes, lax immigration enforcement on the Bush watch led to 9/11. Billy and his crooks during the 8 years are lily white.
I don't worship the ground that President Bush walks on but he is and has been a fine president, IMO. He is a man of principle and integrity and does what he thinks is right, not what he thinks will get him votes. And I support his decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam.
new bumper sticker
AL QAEDA GREW
WHILE MONICA BLEW
You brought up "cut and run," not me. Thus you are spared with no effort on my part.
Great post, Ali. I've actually started a file on how the West is giving in to Muslim extremists and just today added an article that jails in the UK are changing the COLOR of utensils that Muslim prisoners are given. Honest to goodness, if the West doesn't show more gumption than this, we are in big, big trouble.
Drudge can be such a drama queen.
I still disagree with you.
Yep. Compassion leads to the gas chamber.
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.