Bush: Decisions Have Made Iraq More Unstable

[Pale Rider]

BUSH: DECISIONS HAVE MADE IRAQ MORE UNSTABLE
Sat Jan 13 2007 13:36:11 ET

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."


http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

[darin]

Here's a shock - How about this:

MUSLIM TERRORISTS have made Iraq unstable...

[Pale Rider]

Here's a shock - How about this:

MUSLIM TERRORISTS have made Iraq unstable...

You know I think the ole prez has been brow beaten for so many years and so bad by the liberal drive by media, that he caves now when asked certain questions.

He looks forty years older than he did when he got elected.

[jillian]

You know I think the ole prez has been brow beaten for so many years and so bad by the liberal drive by media, that he caves now when asked certain questions.

He looks forty years older than he did when he got elected.

Every president ages horribly in office. I sure wouldn't want the job.

But at least he stepped up to the plate and took responsibility for his bad decisions. Doesn't change anything, but it's something.

[Gunny]

Every president ages horribly in office. I sure wouldn't want the job.

But at least he stepped up to the plate and took responsibility for his bad decisions. Doesn't change anything, but it's something.

He didn't take responsibility for a bad decison. He took responsibility for the results of a decison he stands behind.

[TheSage]

He didn't take responsibility for a bad decison. He took responsibility for the results of a decison he stands behind.

In that case, he just has a learning disability.

[Gunny]

In that case, he just has a learning disability.

Yeah, we should have just left Saddam alone to do what he wanted. He still had about four other neighboring countries he hadn't invaded yet.

[retiredman]

Yeah, we should have just left Saddam alone to do what he wanted. He still had about four other neighboring countries he hadn't invaded yet.

the fact remains: invading Iraq was not in OUR national interest.

The fact remains: As much of an asshole as Saddam was, he did three things better than we have been able to do them. 1. Keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another en masse....2. Keep radical wahabbist (AQ) Islamic extremists from using Iraq as an area of operation...and 3. Keep Iranian regional influence from growing

[TheSage]

Yeah, we should have just left Saddam alone to do what he wanted. He still had about four other neighboring countries he hadn't invaded yet.

DId i say that? Don't change the subject.

Bad results of a decision mean the decision was bad. Don't play word games; that's what liberals do.

[Gunny]

the fact remains: invading Iraq was not in OUR national interest.

The fact remains: As much of an asshole as Saddam was, he did three things better than we have been able to do them. 1. Keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another en masse....2. Keep radical wahabbist (AQ) Islamic extremists from using Iraq as an area of operation...and 3. Keep Iranian regional influence from growing

Depends on how you define "our National interest." The US is bouind by treaties to several countries in the ME that Saddam WAS an immediate threat to. An attack on any of they countries is considered an attack on the US itself.

Then there's the fact he was tying up at least a quarter of our military and its financing for over a decade with no end in sight. I sure got tired of my all-expense-paid "vacations" to Kuwait to babysit a sandbox.

Regardless the pitiful arguments otherwise, once Saddam got his hands on some weapons-grade nuclear material, he'd have been a much bigger threat, and the consequences of his using such a weapon multiplying his ability to devastate.

Yes, he did keep the fundies at bay, and he kept the region out of balance, being the joker sitting right in the center of the deck.

For those reasons, I would not have chosen to invade. That does not negate the justification that DOES exist to invade.

[Gunny]

DId i say that? Don't change the subject.

Bad results of a decision mean the decision was bad. Don't play word games; that's what liberals do.

You can do all the homework you want, and run your little plan through a computer and have every expert in the world weigh in and make an almost flawless decision and STILL have disasterous results. That little 10% known as the "unkown" negates your argument.

[TheSage]

You can do all the homework you want, and run your little plan through a computer and have every expert in the world weigh in and make an almost flawless decision and STILL have disasterous results. That little 10% known as the "unkown" negates your argument.

What's my argument?

I'm just pointing out that failing to learn from observable bad results and still standing behind the decisions that let to them seems either egomaniacal or learning disabled.

[retiredman]

Depends on how you define "our National interest." The US is bouind by treaties to several countries in the ME that Saddam WAS an immediate threat to. An attack on any of they countries is considered an attack on the US itself.name such a country

Then there's the fact he was tying up at least a quarter of our military and its financing for over a decade with no end in sight. I sure got tired of my all-expense-paid "vacations" to Kuwait to babysit a sandbox. You are mathematically challenged if you think that our pre-2003 standing forces in the middle east equated to "at least one quarter of our military. That is simply incorrect

Regardless the pitiful arguments otherwise, once Saddam got his hands on some weapons-grade nuclear material, he'd have been a much bigger threat, and the consequences of his using such a weapon multiplying his ability to devastate.and once pigs get wings, they can fly. The fact is, he did NOT have any weapons grade nuclear material. He did NOT have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. He was NOT a threat to our national interest. Bush's own secretary of state, six months before 9/11 clearly stated that sanctions had worked and that Saddam was incapable of projecting power outside his own borders, let alone around the world

Yes, he did keep the fundies at bay, and he kept the region out of balance, being the joker sitting right in the center of the deck. and you think that keeping fundies at bay was a bad thing? YOu think that Iranian hegemony going unchecked is a good thing? You think that sunnis and shiites slaughtering each other is an even better thing?

For those reasons, I would not have chosen to invade. That does not negate the justification that DOES exist to invade.

There was no justification to invade.

[TheSage]

There was no justification to invade.

The real reason was to consolidate the region into a simple administrative block, probably under Iranian puppet control. Saddams' secularism is actually why he was not compatible for the new world order. A new theocratic dark age is dawning.

[Gunny]

Depends on how you define "our National interest." The US is bouind by treaties to several countries in the ME that Saddam WAS an immediate threat to. An attack on any of they countries is considered an attack on the US itself.name such a country

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel,

Then there's the fact he was tying up at least a quarter of our military and its financing for over a decade with no end in sight. I sure got tired of my all-expense-paid "vacations" to Kuwait to babysit a sandbox. You are mathematically challenged if you think that our pre-2003 standing forces in the middle east equated to "at least one quarter of our military. That is simply incorrect

Mathematically challenged? Hmmm..... I don't know the actual percentage nor do I really care, nor is it relevant to the fact that he tied up a lot of military assets for 13 years. If my quick guess was incorrect, so be it. I'll try to get over it.

Regardless the pitiful arguments otherwise, once Saddam got his hands on some weapons-grade nuclear material, he'd have been a much bigger threat, and the consequences of his using such a weapon multiplying his ability to devastate.and once pigs get wings, they can fly. The fact is, he did NOT have any weapons grade nuclear material. He did NOT have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. He was NOT a threat to our national interest. Bush's own secretary of state, six months before 9/11 clearly stated that sanctions had worked and that Saddam was incapable of projecting power outside his own borders, let alone around the world

As I said, regardless PITIFUL arguments otherwise .......

Posing a threat to ANY oil=producing nation that keeps this country functioning day-to-day IS a threat to our national interest.

The fact is, he not only possessed chemical weapons, but used them more than once. He was nailed AFTER (you know, with all the UN sanctions and agreements to ceasefire in place) the First Gulf War with a bio lab.

He was attempting to build a nuclear facility when the Israeli's cut that plan short.

I don't know what it takes for people like you to understand intent and the course he was most likely to pursue, but obviously logical conclusion has nothing to do with it.

Yes, he did keep the fundies at bay, and he kept the region out of balance, being the joker sitting right in the center of the deck. and you think that keeping fundies at bay was a bad thing? YOu think that Iranian hegemony going unchecked is a good thing? You think that sunnis and shiites slaughtering each other is an even better thing?

Putting words in my mouth? I don't recall saying anything of the sort.

For those reasons, I would not have chosen to invade. That does not negate the justification that DOES exist to invade.

There was no justification to invade.

And for ostriches like you, there never will be, no matter how long the list is.