ABC News– Looking back on his eight years in the White House, President George W. Bush said he was “unprepared” for war and pinpointed incorrect intelligence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction as “biggest regret of all the presidency.” “I think I was unprepared for war,” Bush told ABC News’ Charlie Gibson in an interview airing today on “World News.” “In other words, I didn’t campaign and say, ‘Please vote for me, I’ll be able to handle an attack,'” he said. “In other words, I didn’t anticipate war. Presidents — one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen.”
Bush, who has been a stalwart defender of the war in Iraq and maintaining U.S. troop presence there, said, in retrospect, the war exceeded his expectations. “A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein,” Bush said. “It wasn’t just people in my administration. A lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington, D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence.
“I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess,” Bush added.
When pressed by Gibson, Bush declined to “speculate” on whether he would still have gone to war if he knew Hussein didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.
“That is a do-over that I can’t do,” Bush said.
2
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#30 The Monster’s Lawyer, thank you! I’ll forego the usual kingly robes in favor of long boots so I can wade through my own “bull-stuff” 😉
““I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess,” Bush added.” – Yeah !!! If only he had some between his ears !!! No such luck for America !!!
Angry liberals take the easy bait and focus on Bush. How funny.
#29, I don’t think he meant it the way you think he meant it. I think he meant it as if he wasn’t prepared to be attacked. That being said, none of us was prepared for 9/11.
And I stand by my assertion that if the Congress had simply declared war as required by the Constitution, we’d be bitching at them and not Bush.
The Iraq War was the right thing to do.
2002-2003 was a pivotal point and the whole world was watching.
Our enemies were watching: North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, etc.
Our friends were watching.
The undecideds were watching: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.
No doubt some ignorant people on this blog will take issue with this, and that’s fine.
I think Bush did a bad job of handling the war, but the larger question at the time was whether or not the US was serious about world stability.
And in the wake of that, Saudi Arabia and other borderline states have cleaned up things domestically, countries like Libya said “fuck it, let’s be friends” and countries like North Korea decided to settle their differences at the table.
#36 LOL..
I do agree the whole world is watching, though. They are witnessing a great power in a state of self destruction.
The last pope called it right.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/p/D/bush_pope.jpg
#36 HMeyers… The Iraq war merely showed the world that the one nation with the most WMDs on the planet is much less interested in the truth than in advancing its own energy interests. I’m not sure how that will benefit us in the long run.
#326–HMyers==you are joking right? Even sifting thru and selecting only the data points that support your conclusion reveals a process that fully employed should lead to the opposite conclusion? Why do you do that?
Its a crying shame that so many otherwise intelligent people think that “the military” is an answer to anything other than a direct attack. Futher, the notion that even “valid” wars 6000 miles away won’t bleed us (USA) like a stuck pig leading to world instability is shortsighted in the EXTREME!!!
If you were a terrorist and had little popular support, no advanced weaponry, and few people, how could you take the great Satan down? I can think of no better way than what they are doing. Make an ocassional attack, watch the USA over react, and bleed them dry economically.
HMyers–otherwise intelligent, but really stupid on the international stage. Just like his leader except for the intelligent part.
Remember in 2000 when Bush made a big deal out of his executive CEO experience? The first prez with an MBA. It was supposed to be a good thing.
Except, when you act like a CEO of a mid-level corp, you surround yourself with sycophants and others like Karl Rove. Not enough diversity of opinions for the really big decisions, like whether or not to send our sons to die.
It’s official – Associated Press.. shows Bush’s
administration turned blind eye to the impending economic crisis…
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hTDPY8hFtJLxsv8i1Q7OvoRrlYrQD94PQ0JO0
The world is watching!
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?postversion=2008120115
#41–Dallas==excellent data but “the history” of this crises was fairly well and specifically predicted all along the line.
“Turning a blind eye” to the unavoidable failure that was being constructed, is too kind.
I’m waiting for the reports of the “INTENTIONALITY” behind this mess. The only thing “not known” by anyone not blinded by avarice was the exact month and year of the meltdown.
I really do wonder how many wallstreet and bank executives shook their heads everyday about the coming crash and just looked to their own bank accounts and took some comfort in thinking the Feds would bail them out anyway?
And with absolutely no one taking a fall for this, the recovery program has already shown itself to just be another gravy train hijacked by the well placed.
Where is that list of all the pork and sponsoring congress members who added that 150 Billion in Pork as their cut of the bail-out pie?
I guess that would include everyone but McCain, but then he voted for the bailout anyway.
Yes==the whole system is corrupt. Obama doesn’t stand a chance, and derivatively (sic) neither do we. The toilet was flushed and we are all mid-swirl.
Its our children I feel bad for.
#42 I do not quite understand what you mean by waiting for some report on ‘intentionality”. Nobody wanted this mess to happen but that’s not the point.
The point is that it did happen and the guy in charge of the executive branch is at fault. Forget the corrupt bank executives you cite – they operated under the lawless, regulation free environment allowed by an incompetent executive office.
I don’t subscribe to the “we’re all in this together and we’re all at fault” philosophy when economic and security issues this big are in the proverbial abyss. This attitude excuses those responsible, get elected and paid to prevent these things from happening to hide in the very carnage they create.
#43–Dallas==by intentionality I mean that the experts involved all state the system was so complex that no one knew enough to be responsible for what happened. Fact is, I don’t believe that. I believe many knew the system was corrupt by design. Designed to float fraudulent instruments that relied on a rising market and would be worth nothing in a declining market.
They intentionally sold the shit on the way up intentionally intending to get rich and then step out of the way in bankruptcy or bailout on the way down, without a care in the world with their gain salted away in Florida Real Estate and Swiss bank accounts.
By “taking a fall” for this==yes, all those involved should be in jail (with an extra term enhancement for the rating agencies).
So far, there has been no blame at all. Not even a call for hearings. Barney Fife is still looked to as an expert instead of behind bars.
Its a macabre play with our children’s future in the assheap. And we are all victims, if not players. Maybe if we would even yelp instead of standing by in silence, we would be less “responsible.”
But yes, when everyone is responsible, then no one is and that is exactly where we are.
@39 Bobbo
“HMyers==you are joking right?”
Not in the slightest.
@38
“The Iraq war merely showed the world that the one nation with the most WMDs on the planet is much less interested in the truth than in advancing its own energy interests. I’m not sure how that will benefit us in the long run.”
Iraq was never about the WMD.
One day, you are the dictator of a police state who ignores the diplomatic channel of the United Nations, the next day, they find you in a whole in the ground.
A rather clear and stunning demonstration to borderline states that sanctioning and encouraging radicals might mean you lose your dictatorship.
It was a very persuasive argument that smaller countries like Libya could relate to and identify with.
#45 HMeyers wrote “One day, you are the dictator of a police state who ignores the diplomatic channel of the United Nations, the next day, they find you in a whole[sic] in the ground.”
For all the times that BushCo touted Iraq’s violations of U.N. resolutions as justifying the invasion, Bush disregarded the U.N. himself when he unilaterally decided what consequences to impose, ignoring the will of the U.N. regarding those consequences. It seems that Bush only valued United Nations decisions when they were made in accordance with his own will.
Making false accusations and then acting on them prematurely doesn’t inspire confidence and respect. Instead, it tends to create fear.
@42 Bobbo
This current economic downturn will be considered rather mild compared to Economic Downturn II – The Financial Apocalypse.
Companies are required to have future expenditures on the books, like retirement.
The USA isn’t $10 trillion in debt. We have $40 trillion in off-the-books social security debt. For $50 trillion total debt.
Why the government isn’t honest about the national debt accounting practices is probably a nice political topic.
In 6-7 years, we’ll see what happens.
@46 “Making false accusations and then acting on them prematurely doesn’t inspire confidence and respect.”
Agreed. I thought that part was dishonest and a fiasco. It really hurt the credibility of the United States.
The US could have handled the entire situation so much better.
Iraq had for 11 years violated the UN resolutions. If the world is going to be a peaceful place where diplomacy prevails, you can’t have countries kicking out weapon inspectors (like in 1998) and then nothing happens. Iraq was really ruining the idea of non-war solutions to world problems.
So when will Democrats admit they were wrong about the surge? Barack Obama has done so, but most of his left-wing buddies haven’t done so.
Bush didn’t get bad intelligence. He ignored the good intelligence.
#17
Once again Confusion, you show that you are clueless. Bush’s Presidency will rest on Iraq. If Iraq thrives, Bush will be seen as a good leader who maintained focus in the face of opposition to free Iraq from a dictator. Congress had access to the same intelligence as Bush. The other countries of the world had access to our intelligence and their own and came to the same conclusion.
The one upside of Bush leaving office is that we don’t have to listen to the BDS bozos like Fusion whine about Bush any longer.
For those that keep parroting “The buck stops with Bush”, remember that when anything goes wrong under Obama.
#26
Congress did declare war. Read up on AUMFs.
#41
Nonsense. The Bush administration via the Treasury Secretary testified before Congress in 2004 that more regulation was needed and Congress did nothing. The Bush administration has warned of a problem in the financial markets almost since Bush took office.
#46
Actually, the US *did* have authorization from the UN for the invasion.
To soon old to late smart.
#51 wrote “Actually, the US *did* have authorization from the UN for the invasion.”
I’d like to see you make that case without using questionable interpretation of purposely vague language in the applicable U.N. resolutions. Such interpretation would be contradicted by several contemporaneous accounts from parties to the negotiations at the U.N., including Negroponte from the U.S. Reassurances were made to various countries that the language of the resolution did not contain any automatic triggers for the use of force against Iraq.
Hmmm…
Saddam’s removal was important but how it was achieved unilaterally by the US was wrong. Although the UN acted like milktoast, with Saddam’s arrogance growing at each capitulation, the world would have finally got wise and removed him with a true global force.
George’s problem was that he wanted it now and didn’t consider his actions thoroughly. Even looking in retrospect, we can see his single-minded desire to enter into the fray and now we realize what we suspected at the time, most of the facts were fabricated or bent to adapt to his will.
At the time George held the mantle and respect of the position of president, and even I was willing to give him the benefit of doubt.
He has proved himself a fool, in this way and many more. I don’t know how history will view him but for the here and now he is a confirmed idiot.
#51, Thomas,
Congress had access to the same intelligence as Bush.
Nothing could be more incorrect. Congress is given information from the Administration. Even that filtered information was set up to mislead. Bush controls and answers for that Administration. Congress was not told about any conflicting intelligence. Shit, even Bush’s Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was knowingly lied to before he spoke at the UN.
The other countries of the world had access to our intelligence and their own and came to the same conclusion.
Other countries also questioned the intelligence that the Bush Administration was providing. Or have you forgotten the objections of France, Germany, Russia, and China? Have you also forgotten the Downing Street Memos that showed this was a set up?
For those that keep parroting “The buck stops with Bush”, remember that when anything goes wrong under Obama.
Now you really sound like a cry baby. Osama isn’t even in office and right wing nuts can’t get enough to blame on him. When Obama errs then yes, I will castigate him.
The Bush administration via the Treasury Secretary testified before Congress in 2004 that more regulation was needed and Congress did nothing.
Was that the Republican controlled House or the Republican controlled Senate that did nothing?
Actually, the US *did* have authorization from the UN for the invasion.
Could you cite that? Most reasonable people are unaware that the UN authorized an invasion of Iraq in 2003. I bet you forgot that Bush told the UN Inspectors to get out because he was coming in.
Nothing has changed with the right wing nuts. They are still hell bent on writing history in the same manor as any petty dictator would.
#53
This is the “Stop or I’ll say stop again” logic. U.N resolution 1441 stated that they were offering Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”. Further, the resolution called for “serious consequences” if Iraq did not comply.
What else is beyond final: a spanking? More resolutions? Torture with soft pillows? Putting Saddam in the comfy chair? What did they think was meant by “serious consequences” combined with “final opportunity”?
Negroponte’s statement that there were no automatic triggers was entirely true. However, what he meant was that if inspectors found WMDs, there was no automatic trigger for war. That does not mean that Iraq was free to continue ignoring their obligation to comply with weapons inspectors. In December of 2002, Blix came back and emphatically stated that Iraq was in still in breach of their obligations. It wasn’t until the following March that the US and UK declared that diplomacy had clearly failed. Iraq was offered every opportunity to comply and thumbed their nose at the US and made a farce of the UN.
The problem is that the UN is a paper tiger. It can pass resolutions all it wants but without force of arms and force of will to back up those resolutions, they are pointless.
#51, An AUMF is not a Declaration of War as defined in the Constitution. Congress cannot give the President the authority to declare war unless a Constitutional amendment is adopted.
Doe v. Bush was dismissed because Congress did not give the President the “Absolute Discretion” to declare war. There was never a formal declaration.
An AUMF is this:
“Mr. President, you can use MF if you think it is necessary. However, if you screw up, it’s your fault and not ours because we didn’t say you had to use MF.”
A Declaration of War by Congress requires the President to use MF. Congress didn’t want the responsibility of declaring war. It’s easier to jockey for position with him once he commits himself by threatening to deny him the funds needed to continue the campaign. When Congress declares war, they have to come up with the money.
#56
Well, we now know why France objected. France was deeply involved in the Oil for Food scandal. In the case of Germany, Russia and China, they weren’t arguing that Saddam lacked WMDs, they were arguing that lack of compliance with UN resolutions was insufficient justification for war. That is entirely different.
> Now you really sound like a cry
> baby. Osama isn’t even in office
> and right wing nuts can’t get
> enough to blame on him. When Obama
> errs then yes, I will castigate him.
Fusion you are the pinnacle of tools. In no way was I castigating Obama. I am simply preparing you for the fact during Obama’s administration, he’ll get the blame for all the goes wrong just as the left have done with Bush.
Frankly, I’m somewhat pleased with Obama’s staff choices to date (except for Hillary) which are mostly moderates.
> Was that the Republican controlled
> House or the Republican controlled
> Senate that did nothing?
What difference does it make? There were still plenty of Democrats in Congress that could have proposed legislation. Did they? No. The blame goes to both parties. Given you “the buck stops here” logic, the Democrats are *currently* in control of Congress, so it is their fault, right?
#58
Congress has not officially declared war (“We declare war on…”) since World War II. Instead they *only* issue AUMFs. The Supreme Court has declared that most AUMFs are the legal equivalent of a declaration of war for purposes of powers granted etc. Further, Congress has backed the AUMFs with funding for the wars. Even during an “official” war, Congress can restrict funds and have in the past.
The Supreme Court has declared that most AUMFs are the legal
Two wrongs don’t make it right.
The SC also declared most of FDR’s programs legal but only after being threatened by him with dilution. Pointing to the SC as the final say in what is “right” is laughable — they’ve become nothing more than a tool for the presidency.
The AUMF has diluted the power of Congress by turning it into a bunch of cowards who are afraid to go on record as promoting the bombing of a country, by putting that power in the hands of one man, at his discretion.
We show we are not united in our cause as we should be when we drop our bombs. We no longer have to have signed treaties formally ending the war. We no longer are responding to a wrong.
AUMF’s can also be used against us.
#57 Without endless rehashing of complaints concerning efficacy of the U.N., you could have saved a lot of words if you had simply admitted that you couldn’t make your case without questionable re-interpretation of the U.N. resolution.
Resolution 1441 wouldn’t even be available for reference in your argument if it had not been passed based on the assurances made by Negroponte to other countries that it did not contain any automatic triggers for the use of force. The U.S. bargained hard to include language that would authorize military force upon Iraq’s further noncompliance, but it was specifically rejected by several countries and not included in the final version. The accepted consensus at the time of adoption (an understanding that was crucial in the vote) was that further action by the U.N. would be required to authorize the use of force.
Some of the points you make about the U.N. are quite true, but I’m simply rebutting your claim that “Actually, the US *did* have authorization from the UN for the invasion.” It did not, and those who claim such authorization existed obviously don’t subscribe to the legal doctrine of “original intent.”