If you didn’t see it, here is the link to the entire transcript of the hour-long interview.
Bush Interview, President Spoke to 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley At Camp David
Instability in Iraq threatens the entire region?
BUSH: If the government falls apart and there is sectarian enclaves and violence, it’ll invite Iran into the Shia neighborhoods, Sunni extremists into the Sunni neighborhoods, Kurdish separatist movements. All of which would threaten moderate people, moderate governments, and all of which will end up creating conditions that could lead to attacks here in America.
PELLEY: But wasn’t it your administration that created the instability in Iraq?
BUSH: Well, 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. 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.
PELLEY: It’s much more unstable now, Mr. President.
BUSH: Well, no question decisions have made things unstable. But the question is can we succeed. And I believe we can.
>you were wrong about being greeted as liberators,
You’re right about the rest, but this part happened. Anti-war author Aaron Glantz pinpoints the loss of Iraqi goodwill at a failure to deliver electricity, and trying to shutdown Sadr’s newspaper.
Since when is stability the measure of whether a war is worth fighting? Things were probably more stable without the revolutionary war, or the war in Yugoslavia, and in Iraq. We shouldn’t interfere in Sudan because things will be more stable after they have ethnically cleansed the place. Things will be much more stable if we nuke Somalia.
32, the Whole middle east would be alot nicer If we nuked it…
Only problem comes that there are MORE muslims, NOT in that area, then those that LIVE there.
#33
You are an idiot. We are not at war with Muslims. The president declared war on extreme fundamentalist terrorists. The vast majority of Muslims are not violent people. What you are saying is analogous to wanting to nuke the united states because some fundamentalist Christians blow up federal buildings and assassinate abortion clinic doctors.
The Muslim terrorist finds a legitimate target in ignorant violent people like you.
I was so PO’s when Bush in his last radio address said,
Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.
Propose nothing!?!?! Uh. Mr. Bush… remember the Baker-Hamilton Report?
The press repeated the Whitehouse talking point that the “surge” is the “last best chance” for Iraq but I think history will say that the Baker-Hamilton plan was that.
It was something that both Dems and GOPs would have gotten behind but Bush just flipped it off. And then, in his snipey frat-boy way, accuses congress of irresponsibly “proposing nothing. ” What a pissant.
#34, tj
You are a blind, idiotic, know nothing, mouth piece for the friggen extremists.
We constantly hear from the loony fringe how much they want to drop nukes on the mid-east, don’t want Muslims in Congress, want to deny Muslims a fair trial even when falsely accused, and generally have only disdain for the entire Muslim world.
I don’t always agree with ECA, but occasionally he does come up with very profound comments, and this is an example. If, as he suggests, the entire Mid-East were nuked then we would not have any sectarian strife to argue over. And the fact that there are a whole lot of Muslims outside the Mid-East is even more important.
#36
“You are a blind, idiotic, know nothing, mouth piece for the friggen extremists.”
I am not a mouth piece for extremists. In fact I was trying to point out that people who want to kill thousands or millions of innocent people are extremists. The vitriolic hatred on both “sides” is what perpetuates the violence.
“We constantly hear from the loony fringe how much they want to drop nukes on the mid-east, don’t want Muslims in Congress, want to deny Muslims a fair trial even when falsely accused, and generally have only disdain for the entire Muslim world.”
I don’t know what you mean here, I think we’re saying the same thing?
“I don’t always agree with ECA, but occasionally he does come up with very profound comments, and this is an example”
There is nothing profound about suggesting that we exterminate people with nuclear weapons, unless you meant to say it was profoundly callus, wrong headed, genocidal. It’s profound in the same way Hitler is profound. Hatred is hatred.
36. You threw me for a loop there. Thats pretty much contrary to anything you ever have said in the past. Please explain.