RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Charlie's Interview with President Bush
December 02, 2008 11:42 AM
The esteemed Mr. Gibson sat down with President and First Lady Bush for an interview that ran yesterday on World News.
Asked what he was "most unprepared for," the President said, "I think I was unprepared for war. In other words, I didn't campaign and say, 'Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack.' In other words, I didn't anticipate war. Presidents -- one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen."
Asked his biggest regret, Mr. Bush said, "the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. 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. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess."
At Talking Points Memo, Greg Sargent takes issue with how these remarks have been cast by some in the media.
"This really isn't complicated," Sargent writes. "President Bush was not being 'blunt' or showing 'candor'... Rather, he was whitewashing away his own role in the fiasco by promoting the demonstrable falsehood that there was no available evidence or information that argued against war and that he was merely fooled into invading Iraq solely by the bad intel."
"The big news orgs seem eager to help Bush do this," Sargent continues. "Not a single one of their reports on the interview that we can find bothered to tell readers that there was plenty of good intel -- ignored by the Bush administration -- saying that Saddam wasn't the threat Bush was claiming he was. Nor did any of them bother mentioning that the weapons inspectors in Iraq were saying the same thing -- something that also went ignored... Let's go over this very slowly. For Bush to blame the failure of intel for his decision to invade is not a concession at all, and it is not an admission of failure on his part. Rather, it is the opposite of these things. It is an evasion of responsibility for what happened."
On another note, I was a guest on Dennis Miller's radio show this morning, and Miller commented that, especially given the Mumbai attacks, he doesn't think President Bush gets enough credit for actions taken that prevented any further terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11.
This is something the First Lady commented on in Charlie's interview: "I think they think he's somebody that kept them safe for eight years," she said of her husband. "I hear that all the time, people thanking me, telling me to thank him."
Is it possible to agree with Sargent, Miller and the First Lady all at the same time? What do you make of this?
-- jpt
December 2, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (39)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
He still is the worst President in the history of the United States of America. He still does not know it, let alone understand it. Good riddance!
Posted by: Larry Linn | Dec 2, 2008 2:10:02 PM
Sargent is correct, and Gibson carried more than his share of the water.
Posted by: dragon | Dec 2, 2008 2:08:35 PM
Too bad Bush did not listen to his church, United Methodist, when Jim Winkler, head of social justice wrote him a letter before Bush declared war.
The letter said there was no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction pointed at ant country. Winkler wanted the US to work with France and other countries to find the weapons.
Winkler told Bush that the war was against the teachings of Christ. He reminded Bush that the the people of Iraq were already in bad conditions.
Instead Bush/Cheney have killed over a million innocent people. 4,200 US military and millions of wounded military and civilians.
In 2006, Winkler called for the impeachment of United Methodist Church members Bush & Cheney
Posted by: Julie | Dec 2, 2008 1:45:53 PM
Jen - First of all, I was asserting that historically, geographic barriers ward off attacks. And the Atlantic Ocean has most certainly provided a good barrier, something which the European countries could have used in their post 911 terrorist attacks. In respect to the national tragedy of 911, which occurred under Bush's watch, many have suggested with credibility that it could have been prevented. During his vacation time in Crawford in Aug. of 01, he did receive a specific memo that Bin Laden was attempting to a mass attack on the US and could use hijacked plans as a means. As the result of a perhaps avoidable tragedy, the security of national ann international flights has been improved as it should have been. But it was belated. I'm not aware of significant security improvements made to ports. They remain frighteningly vulnerable.
Look, Jen, I don't like to rehash what all has gone wrong in the past eight years, so I tend to keep it short and sweet on the Bush years. Except obviously, when a Bush apologist makes issue on my reticence to complain about the past.
Posted by: kat | Dec 2, 2008 1:26:39 PM
Jen- Of course they exist, just as geographical barriers do to terrorism
__________
So the geographical barriers didn't exist on 9/11 then.
Posted by: Jen B. | Dec 2, 2008 1:13:24 PM
A cousin of Saddam Hussein, he was considered one of the most powerful and brutal men in Saddam's inner circle. It is his second death sentence after he was condemned last year to be hanged on five separate charges for his role in a 1980s genocide campaign in the Kurdish northeast. "Chemical Ali" earned his nickname for his poisoned gas attacks on the village of Halabja and his crushing of the Kurdish autonomy campaign that killed up to 100,000 Kurds.
For a long time they have had the ability for Chemical weapons, which are WMD.
They even used them on their own people.
Posted by: seah | Dec 2, 2008 1:09:31 PM
"Yeah, because boats and planes don't exist."
Jen- Of course they exist, just as geographical barriers do to terrorism.
Posted by: kat | Dec 2, 2008 1:04:49 PM
I beleive Mr Bush was being Candid and open and honest.
I think He was given a raw deal over it all. By the media, the Democratic Party, and Mr Obama.
Remember this went the UN, with all the other nations involved. The all backed the war.
Combining all the intelligences of all the nations, taking it before the UN, then before Congress.
All made the decision to enter into a war.
Mr Bush did keep us Safe, and no further terrorism on US Soil.
Continued to pursue Terrorism in Afghanistan.
I beleive The Democrats went to extreme measures over emphazing it all. To make it their platform to run on. The war and the cost of the war.
We won the war, and staying for humane reasons until the Iraq people can fend for themselves.
We will see what happens with the new President. I beleive the world has him marked as a easy push over. That would give in and up instead of fighting For the freedom and rights of Every American. It will take more than prayers to keep terror from coming onto American Soil.
Posted by: seah | Dec 2, 2008 1:01:50 PM
I think we have the oceans to thank instead.
________
Yeah, because boats and planes don't exist.
Posted by: Jen B. | Dec 2, 2008 12:51:59 PM
I don't think Mumbai is a good example, with the gist of Miller's remarks being it happened there when it could have happened here. I think we have the oceans to thank instead.
Posted by: kat | Dec 2, 2008 12:42:02 PM
Arun, you shouldn't believe everything you see while watching "24". George "Bring'em on" Bush was the best thing that ever happened to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Compound his foolish, macho hubris with the incompetence of Rumsfeld and the sheer greed and malice of Cheney and what you have is most certainly not more security. This administration failed us in every way imaginable.
Posted by: Ed | Dec 2, 2008 12:41:25 PM
Asked what he was "most unprepared for:
Iraq and the freakin Economy!!
What a LOSER and LIAR!!!
Always side stepping his role and responsiblity as PRESIDENT!!
Jan. 20th can not come any faster!!!
Posted by: sisterdearest09 | Dec 2, 2008 12:31:36 PM
I think that Pres Bush is probably a good man, he has kept us safe and I also think that you can agree with all three. I think he acted on bad intel, but also with ulterior motives, perhaps oil or finishing daddys job, I don't know. More than anything, I think he gets some pretty bad raps from the media and from the blogs...In a few years that will lighten...I mean look what happened with Clinton, everyone was sick of him and his antics, Gore wouldn't even allow him to campaign...a few years later, he was godlike to most...go figure.
Posted by: samhiguchi | Dec 2, 2008 12:07:35 PM
I miss you Pres.Bush
Posted by: isabelle li | Dec 2, 2008 12:04:57 PM
"an evasion of responsibility"
that sums up the whole Bush administration.
Posted by: JR | Dec 2, 2008 12:03:56 PM
Asked what he was "most unprepared for,"
that would be the presidency, don't you think?
Posted by: JR | Dec 2, 2008 12:02:12 PM
Only Greg Sargent was being reasonable and accurate in his assessment of the events. Were the others lying thru their teeth?
Posted by: jbrownski | Dec 2, 2008 12:00:58 PM
The Bush decision to launch a stupid, unjustified war and to commit torture did not enhance our security. Guantanamo, Iraq, holding people for years without charges or recourse to a court all served to put Americans and american soldiers at greater risk. For Bush to blame faulty intelligence for his poor decisions is pathetic especially because his administration was involved in cooking the evidence. The media dutifully repeats this latest lie because you were cheering him on, hoping for a war.
Posted by: ed | Dec 2, 2008 11:59:00 AM
I think you can agree with all three. Saying that Bush needs to take responsibility for the decision doesn't take away from the fact that he deserves some credit for keeping us safe.
By the way, Jake, love it when you come on DM's show. Great balanced views and I thank you.
Posted by: Jen B. | Dec 2, 2008 11:53:54 AM
Post a comment


