by Mark Silva
President Bush, who has occasionally lamented that he regrets some of the tough talk he uttered in the war on terror - terms such as "dead or alive'' or "bring 'em on'' - also allows that the flawed intelligence surrounding Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction was the "biggest regret of all the presidency.''
"I think I was unprepared for war," Bush told ABC News' Charlie Gibson in an interview conducted at Camp David and airing tonight on World News. "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,'' the retiring, 43rd president says in the ABC interview.
On that flawed WMD intel: "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.
"I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess," Bush added - asked if he still would have gone to war if he knew that Iraq did not possess those weapons. "That is a do-over that I can't do.''
His determination to stay and "do what it takes to win in Iraq'' stems from another voice to which he pays great attention, the president says: "I listened to a lot of voices, but ultimately, I listened to this voice: I'm not going to let your son die in vain....
"One of the things about the presidency is you deal with a lot of tragedy -- whether it be hurricanes, or tornadoes, or fires or death -- and you spend time being the comforter-in-chief," Bush says. "But the idea of being able to serve a nation you love is -- has been joyful. In other words, my spirits have never been down. I have been sad, but the spirits are up."
He maintains that he will return home to Texas proud:
"The thing that's important for me is to get home and look in that mirror and say, 'I did not compromise my principles,'" he says. "And I didn't. I made tough calls. And some presidencies have got a lot of tough decisions to make."
CHARLIE GIBSON: Mr. President, let's start with the economy because it's what's on everybody's mind. Your successor will inherit not just a troubled economy, but an economy in crisis. Did you miss any signals that this would --
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: You know, we anticipated some issues revolving around Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and early in my administration called for a regulator, on the knowledge that an implied government guarantee could cause, and eventually did cause, the agency to become excessive in its lending practices, which eventually was a part of the financial meltdown.
And I can remember sitting in the Roosevelt Room with Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke and others, and they said to me that if we don't act boldly, Mr. President, we could be in a depression greater than the Great Depression.
GIBSON: When was that?
BUSH: That was, I would say, five weeks, four weeks after we began to deal with some -- like AIG. And that was right before we went to Congress for the $700 billion. And my attitude is, is that if that's the case, this administration will do everything we can to safeguard the financial system. And that's what we've been doing.
And I'm sorry it's happening, of course. Obviously I don't like the idea of people losing jobs, or being worried about their 401Ks. On the other hand, the American people got to know that we will safeguard the system. I mean, we're in. And if we need to be in more, we will.
And eventually, however, this economy will recover. And when it recovers, many of the assets backed by the government now will be redeemed, and we will -- could conceivably make money off of some of the holdings.
GIBSON: But was there an "uh-oh" moment -- and I could probably use stronger language than that -- (laughter)-- when you thought this really could be bad --
BUSH: Well, that was, of course, the crystallization. When you have the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed say, if we don't act boldly, we could be in a depression greater than the Great Depression, that's an "uh-oh" moment. But you got to understand, leading up to that we had been bailing water in this way: AIG was failing; other big houses on Wall Street needed to be merged, one failed --
GIBSON: Was not saving Lehman a mistake?
BUSH: We'll let the historians look back on that. At the time, the recommendation was not to, obviously. And some are second-guessing that. And in a situation like this, Charlie, where the administration is making big decisions and big calls, that there's going to be a lot of second-guessing. The one thing that I don't want to have happen is people say this thing was in a financial meltdown and we didn't do anything. And so we're moving -- hard.
GIBSON: When you add it all up, you've got about $7.5 trillion in funded and unfunded backing of securities now.
BUSH: Yes.
GIBSON: And that's about half of what our economy is in its whole. Does that scare the willikers out of you?
BUSH: What scared me is not doing anything, which would have caused there to be a huge financial meltdown and the conceivable scenario that we'd have been in a depression greater than the Great Depression.
On the other hand, a lot of the -- you know, these -- some of these are investments. I've got faith that the economy will recover. As a matter of fact, I'm confident it will recover. I can't tell you exactly the moment, but when it does recover, a lot of the assets now owned by the government will be sold. And I can't guarantee that we'll get all our money back, but it's conceivable we could.
And the question is, is it worth it to save the system, to safeguard the system? And I came to the conclusion, along with other smart people, that it is.
GIBSON: Do you feel in any way responsible for what's happening?
BUSH: You know, I'm the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President.
I'm a little upset that we didn't get the reforms to Fannie and Freddie -- on Fannie and Freddie, because I think it would have helped a lot. And when people review the history of this administration, people will say that this administration tried hard to get a regulator. And there will be a lot of analysis of why that didn't happen. I suspect people will find a lot of it didn't happen for pure political reasons.
GIBSON: How high do you think unemployment will go?
BUSH: Too high. I mean, anybody unemployed is too much. And I -- I'm not a very good economic forecaster. I do know that we are taking steps to make sure -- see, the most difficult thing about this is that a lot of people out there in Main Street wonder why the government is having to act because Wall Street went on a binge. And I'm one, frankly -- at first. I was the guy that inartfully said, "Wall Street got drunk, and we got a hangover."
And on the other hand, though, when you're the President and somebody says, we better move big, Mr. President, otherwise we could have a depression greater than the Great -- we're moving big. And it is hard for the average citizen to understand how frozen the system became and how over-leveraged the system became. And so what we're watching is the de-leveraging of our financial markets, which is obviously affecting the growth of the economy.
GIBSON: You've pushed a lot of money on the table to try to get the banks lending again and to try to get the economy vibrant again. And yet a lot of banks in trouble, we get an indication, are hoarding some of that money, or holding it, concerned about debts that they may have. Are you disappointed the way the banks have dealt with the money that was given them out of TARP?
BUSH: Well, obviously, in a situation like this you'd like to see instant liquidity. But there's a lot of fear throughout our society and the system itself. And slowly but surely the system is becoming unthawed, and it's going to take time for the system to become unthawed. What the American people have got to know is we've taken the steps to unthaw it, which is the first step to recovery.
GIBSON: Your successor said right from the beginning, there's only one President. But he's been holding news conferences; he named his economic team. Is he intruding in any way?
BUSH: No, not at all. Look, one of the things that we vowed is to work with the President-elect and his team to have a smooth transition. This is a very unique period in American history where a new President is coming in where we are fighting a two-front war against terrorists and, at the same time, dealing with a very difficult economic situation. And the more we can work together, the better off our country will be.
I called President-Elect Obama with the Citigroup decision. I wanted him to know what we were doing. And he was very appreciative of the phone call. And I --
GIBSON: Did you call him on Tuesday about the Fed putting up $600 billion, and Treasury $200 billion --
BUSH: Yes, yes.
GIBSON: You called him about that, too?
BUSH: I sure did -- oh, no, no, no, I have not on that. But I know his team was briefed. I didn't speak to him personally about that, but I know his team was briefed. We're in touch with the Obama transition team a lot. And I don't feel any -- I don't feel any intrusion whatsoever, because he knows what I know -- I'm -- our administration still will be making the decisions necessary until he becomes the President.
GIBSON: Given the exigencies of the time and how critical this situation is, do you need to take any kind of extraordinary actions, bringing his people in to work side by side with your people before January 20th?
BUSH: I don't think so. And I don't think he would want that. I think he's going to want to be able to come in fresh. On the other hand, he does want, and I think his team will want, to be fully briefed on any further difficulties until he's sworn in.
GIBSON: Let's talk a little bit about eight years as being President. What don't the American people know about being President? What would surprise them the most?
BUSH: That's an interesting question. I think, at least from my administration, I think they'd be surprised at how our team has worked so closely together. Some days we're not so happy, some days happy; every day has been pretty joyous, though -- that when you have a purpose in life, that no matter what it may look like from afar, that we're a highly motivated group of people that are honored to serve.
In other words, I think people look at the White House and say, oh, man, what a miserable experience it is to be President. You know, there's a lot of noise, a lot of criticism, a lot of name-calling, a lot of this, a lot of that. But I think people would be surprised when they walked in the Oval Office and the White House to see a highly motivated group of people that really enjoy what we're doing.
GIBSON: What were you most unprepared for?
BUSH: Well, 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.
GIBSON: You said you were not going to be in the business of nation-building. And so much of what you had to do was nation-building.
BUSH: Well, what I said was, in the course of a debate, I said the military shouldn't be used to build nations. In this case, it turns out the military, in my judgment, was needed to remove threats to our security, and after that removal, the military, as well as our diplomatic corps, needed to help rebuild after tyrannical situations.
GIBSON: That's the second time I've heard you use the word "joyful" about the presidency, and that might take people by surprise. Even in really tough times?
BUSH: Oh, yes. As I said, some times are happy, some not happy. I don't want people to misconstrue. It's not -- I don't feel joyful when somebody loses their life, nor do I feel joyful from somebody loses a job. That concerns me. And the President ends up carrying a lot of people's grief in his soul during a presidency. One of the things about the presidency is you deal with a lot of tragedy -- whether it be hurricanes, or tornadoes, or fires, or death -- and you spend time being the Comforter-in-Chief. But the idea of being able to serve a nation you love is -- has been joyful. In other words, my spirits have never been down. I have been sad, but the spirits are up.
GIBSON: I have found you to be an excellent political analyst and commentator?
BUSH: Why? I try not to. (Laughter.)
GIBSON: What did you think of the campaign?
BUSH: I thought my candidate for President, John McCain, had a tough headwind -- for two reasons. One, rarely does the American people -- do the American people give a political party three terms. That in itself was difficult for him. They did one time since World War II; that happened to be for President 41, my dear dad. Obviously the economic situation made it awfully difficult for John McCain to get a message out. And I felt that Barack Obama ran a very disciplined campaign. I mean, he inspired a lot of people and was in a position to take advantage of the inspiration. It was well organized, he raised a lot of money, and ran a textbook campaign.
GIBSON: Given the conditions, and the economy, is there any way John McCain could have won?
BUSH: It's hard to see it, in retrospect. You know, John ran a hard campaign. And he was -- I think the interesting thing about the way people analyze campaigns, though, is they always look at the negative side. The positive side is, from Barack Obama's perspective, he had a really good campaign. I mean, this guy I'm told raised $150 million in one month. That meant a lot of people were for him for President. And he had a organization that he was able to get them out to the polls, particularly in the voting box, where it really mattered on the electoral map.
GIBSON: Palin choice -- help or hurt?
BUSH: I think it helped John. It energized the party. It -- I can remember when she first was named, young women in our office were saying, isn't it great that a woman is in a position to serve on the ticket now, to maybe be Vice President of the United States. Her crowds were big and enthusiastic. And so I think it helped.
GIBSON: Was the election in any way a repudiation of the Bush administration?
BUSH: I think it was a repudiation of Republicans. And I'm sure some people voted for Barack Obama because of me. I think most people voted for Barack Obama because they decided they wanted him to be in their living room for the next four years explaining policy. In other words, they made a conscious choice to put him in as President.
GIBSON: But both candidates wound up criticizing you a lot.
BUSH: Yes, well, that's what happens when you're the incumbent during a tough economic time, but --
GIBSON: Hurt?
BUSH: No, not really. You know, I've been around politics a long time. Remember, I was the guy in 2000 who campaigned for change. I campaigned for change when I ran for governor of Texas. The only time I really didn't campaign for change is when I was running for reelection.
GIBSON: Given the fact that you did start campaigning for change, said you were going to change the ways of Washington, do you feel you did in any way? Or did 9/11 really stand in the way of doing it?
BUSH: No, you know -- actually, 9/11 unified the country, and that was a moment where Washington decided to work together. I think one of the big disappointments of the presidency has been the fact that the tone in Washington got worse, not better.
Having said that, there were some moments of strong bipartisanship. I mean, No Child Left Behind Act, for example, or eventually funding our troops. I know the war was -- created bitter divisions. But nevertheless, when it came to supporting the troops or our veterans, we worked together. And so there were -- PEPFAR, for example, the AIDS initiative in Africa, got bipartisan support. Millennium Challenge Account. I mean, there were moments of bipartisanship. But the tone was rough. And I was obviously partially responsible because I was the President, although I tried hard not to call people names and bring the office down during my presidency.
GIBSON: Do you feel the divisions are deeper, the enmities perhaps a little stronger, the language a little tougher now than it was January 20, 2001?
BUSH: Yes, I do. I do. I think -- I don't know, the close election created some pretty harsh language. But once I was President I think people decided that, well, let's try to work with him, and I said, I'd like to work with you, and we did some pretty good things. But having said that, Washington has always been politics. I mean, if you, like, for example, study the early Presidents, there's some pretty tough language when it came to Abraham Lincoln, or the relationship between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
So I didn't go into this naively, I knew it would be tough. But I also knew that the President has the responsibility to try to elevate the tone. And, frankly, it just didn't work, as well as I'd like to have it work.
GIBSON: I guess the bottom-line question I'm asking you is, do you feel you were in any way able to change Washington? Or do you feel --
BUSH: I think we did. I think we brought a results-oriented government, and we insisted that people focus on results, not process, and on a variety of reforms. Whether it be No Child Left Behind, or like the PEPFAR Initiative, or the Malaria Initiative, the question we always asked was, are we achieving the results?
Washington can be a very process-oriented town. The budget process -- let's just pass money because the program sounds good. We worked hard to say, is the program achieving the results? If not, let's eliminate it.
GIBSON: Barack Obama was talking just last week about the fact that he wants to go at the budget line by line, change things. I remember your State of the Union address you said, here's 151 programs we can cut out --
BUSH: Yes.
GIBSON: -- and we can save $20 billion. Not one of them got cut out, sir.
BUSH: No, that's right. The problem is the President doesn't get to decide how to appropriate. And because the President doesn't have the line-item veto it's very difficult to be able to excise some of the programs from the budget.
Comments
One piece of intelligence (there's got to be a more appropriate word) that I'd like explained to me someday is: How does one deduce from an aerial/satellite photograph that an alleged mobile weapons lab is contained in a tractor trailer?
And who does Bush think he's kidding, it was Cheney who insisted that the reference to Niger yellowcake be kept in Bush's 2003 state of the union speech when Tenet at CIA said it was unconfirmed and not to include it. By then the hawks wanted war, facts and neccisity be damned. These same people were also asserting without a shred of evidence that Saddam was involved with Al Queda.
Don't let Dubya get away with re-writing history.
Posted by: Doug Zook | December 1, 2008 3:40 PM
Mr Bush holds himself to the same low standards that allowed him to nominate Harriet Meiers to the supreme court, that allowed him to hire Alberto Gonzalez to Justice.
I think there may be some truth to the statement "he did not compromise his principles", he simply lacked them.
Posted by: Ron M | December 1, 2008 5:56 PM
I guess that same flawed intellgence that led President Bush into war, led President Clinton into the decision to bomb a soverign country in Dec, 1998
Posted by: Terry | December 1, 2008 6:55 PM
The key is Team Blix. He showed there were not any current WMD programs as claimed by President Tommy Fenagle Bush.
Terry,
Blix didn't get into Iraq until 2000, so in 1998 lots of 'folks' thought there may be some active programs.
There weren't.
Here's the painful facts;
Containment and deterrence were working in Saddam's case and the no fly zone was creaming his ability to operate any effective military offence.
Posted by: Chet Chitchat | December 1, 2008 7:12 PM
Terri,
Put down the kool-aide. Clinton didn't invade, occupy and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Prez Chimpy did.
I've always been amazed at how Repugs like Terri can never seem to come up with new logic, ideas and thought process. It's always the same stuff over and over again. It's like a circular firing squad of stupid, which I guess explains exactly why the GOP is current occupying 4th party gadfly status in this country and the world.
Posted by: Drill, Baby, Drill | December 1, 2008 7:47 PM
WHAT ABOUT BIN LADEN?????
Posted by: Dawson | December 1, 2008 10:15 PM
Chet,
So Bill Clinton bombed Iraq on the "hunch" there were WMDs?
.
If containment and deterence were working so well, why did Clinton bomb Iraq then?
.
I thought you stunk on sports coverage, you are worse on politics,
Posted by: Terry | December 1, 2008 10:31 PM
""the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq"
"asked if he still would have gone to war if he knew that Iraq did not possess those weapons "That is a do-over that I can't do.'' "
It was a failure.... But nevertheless, Bush still doesn't know if he would start again a such war.
Since for a long time, all people know that reports on the Iraq were wrong. And until the last days, Bush supported this war.
OK, when I would like to lie, I will call it "a big failure"...
"I listened to a lot of voices, but ultimately, I listened to this voice: I'm not going to let your son die in vain"
At the beginning, he don't listened to this voice: "don't kill irak people and American soldiers IN VAIN"
It's only now that people understand his error :
In France, for 8 years, we have understood that there was neither weapons of mass destruction, nor links between Saddam and Al Queda. This war was useless (except for keep oil)
Then, why to have insulted french people, immediatly ?
Only because we said 'no' to friends (before, yes!), only because we refused to participate in this crim.
Now, it would be better to ask for forgiveness...
conclusion:
the situation is worse than before:
- Iraq becomes a true home for terrorism now, Iran took force (second home for terrorism) } then, 4 home for terrorism with pakistan/afghanistan
- because of conflicts between shiite and Sunni, any pacification is impossible.
- Billions of dollards spent for nothing, while American people would need it now, while attention wasn't focused on increasing financial crisis.
How american people could reelect a man who so much lied to the whole world?
The victory of Obama was a good things, at the rigth moment. Because here in Europe, we began really to lose our friendship for America. And now you will need the help of European people to resolve every problem that Bush left behind him...
Good luck and now we can walk in the same way
Posted by: the truth | December 2, 2008 5:28 AM
Hey Chet -
Reagan bombed Libya (also a sovereign country) during his presidency. But like Clinton, didn't invade.
Posted by: Dan | December 2, 2008 8:28 AM
Terry,
Well, at least Clinton didn't know there weren't any WMD, unlike President Toonces driving us off the cliff in Iraq.
Did you miss all the stories about piped intell. from that special office set up in the Pentagon? Did you miss all the statements from former Bush people about his, Rummy's and others determination to strike Iraq regardless of the facts? (You know, the NeoCons.)
Posted by: Chet Chitchat | December 2, 2008 8:32 AM
Mr Bush - with no due respect - you are unprepared to handle the drive through at McDonalds....
Posted by: RJinchi | December 2, 2008 8:47 AM
On January 20th 2009, at 1215 pm, the American people should grab Bush and Cheney, take them behind the Capitol, tar and feather them, and chase them down Pennsylvania Ave in front of crowds waiting for the inaugural parade. They don't deserve anything less. That can't be cruel and unusual punishment for what those two have put America through these last 8 years.
Posted by: GW | December 2, 2008 8:47 AM
All these monday morning quarter backs need to smarten up, none of them have ever walked in the shoes of the person in the highest office of this great country, all they know how to do is throw rotten eggs which is a sign of their intelligence level, WAKE UP IDIOTS
Posted by: Jim | December 2, 2008 8:59 AM
The President and Vice President, who jumped through hoops to dodge military duty during the Viet Nam era, looked for every tiny reason they could find to go to war in Iraq. And if they couldn't find such reasons, they invented them.
The past eight years will go down in history as a long interlude in which the Dark Ages returned to America. Thank God these terrible times will at least START to move in the other direction come January 20.
But it's going take Obama and whoever comes after him decades to undo the damage The Decider has done to this nation in just eight years.
Posted by: Carlos | December 2, 2008 9:00 AM
Wasn't HE the one who ordered the troops to roll into Baghdad for some "shock and awe"? NOW I'VE HEARD EVERYTHING!!!! And HE wasn't the one who had to be ready: it was the troops!!!!
Posted by: Dawson | December 2, 2008 9:04 AM
George Bush should have been impeached over this illegal war he insisted on getting America into.
5000+ bodybags later, he fesses up. Lives ruined and our economy in complete shambles, his glaring incompetence is revealed for all to see.
George Bush and his apointees should have been impeached.
Posted by: Writer Of Wrongs | December 2, 2008 9:11 AM
You THINK you were unprepared for war? You stupid incompetent idiot! You were unprepared for the presidency! Look what you have done to the American people. And to other contries as well with your false statements on weapons of mass destruction. You are the worse president the US has EVER had! Go away when your term is up. We don't EVER want to hear from you or your family again.
Posted by: Lisa Keenely | December 2, 2008 9:11 AM
I agree with Dawson's comment above. Gibson should have asked Bush about Bin Laden and why he has failed to apprehend him as promised. Any Al Qaeda attacks in the near future must be laid at Bush's feet. It's been seven years.
Posted by: Reed | December 2, 2008 9:14 AM
Bush was unprepared for kindergarten...and remains so to this day.
Posted by: Laura B | December 2, 2008 9:19 AM
Every time Dubya 'thinks', our nation gets a little weaker.
Posted by: Radian | December 2, 2008 9:28 AM
Senator Dick Durbin and the rest of the Intelligence Committee knew that the information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was false and hid cowardly behind an "oath of secrecy" and said nothing. Senator Durbin could have prevented this war and spared the lives of thousands of US troops.
The senator's campaign ads extolled his work in creating rehab centers for our soldiers. It was Senator Durbin who helped send them into an unjust war in the first place.
Step up and take the blame, Senator, and then resign. You are a disgrace to the office.
Posted by: Impeach Durbin | December 2, 2008 9:29 AM
The President once elected, must put his own people in office. People he or she can trust in positions which effect long term positional changes. The CIA Director position is one of these and undid Bush as much as anything else. George Tenet did a horrible job and lacked the management skills and
integery to facilitate providing accurate and verified information to the Executive Office so informed decisions can be made. What Tenet did truly bordered on the criminal, and what really is questionable is how Tenet left office with a slap on the back by the Bush Administration. Not for a job well done but the typical bureaucrat support the Bush family has always felt for government workers. GHB was no different in his dealings with the backside governmental bureaucrats who actually run this country's tax, domestic and foreign policies long after administrations leave. He turned his cheek time after time and was another reason his administration was a lost cause without a legecy. If one is to look at both Bush Administrations, one will find many of the same failures...lack of providing leadership and a lack of firing those who cannot provide management of their agencies.
Posted by: Wildbill | December 2, 2008 10:16 AM
A lot of these comments are just mean and rude. Why the name calling? Is that really the best way to argue your point? Until Republicans and Democrats can debate without insults, you'll never have real change, just the same old resentment.
Obama's campaign started at the grassroots level, so why don't you practice what you preach and leave respectful comments because we are all Americans. Though I don't like Bush, I don't need to call him or his supporters names when debating his policy.
Posted by: Mike S | December 2, 2008 10:29 AM
Thank you for printing the entire transcript of the interview instead of selected quotes. Its nice to leave judgement up to the reader.
Plus, Bush sounds so much more intelligent inside my head than he does on TV.
Posted by: Smartypants | December 2, 2008 10:39 AM
Bush and Cheney cherry-picked the intelligence.
They relied on single-sourced information when the source was a known liar and untrustworthy (the guy known as "Curveball").
They claimed the aluminum tubes were for centrifuges, when our own energy analysts said they weren't.
There's a story out today that Bush was warned about the financial crisis a year in advance and yet ignored it.
Posted by: eddie | December 2, 2008 10:51 AM
One huge difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration: Obama is intelligent enough to understand that the kind of problems the US confronts in the world today can't be solved solely by relying on "principles". Principles are important, but coming up with the best answer sometimes requires the process of intelligent, insightful people with good information kicking the problem around until every aspect of it has at least been considered before a decision is made. Bush and most of his supporters never quite understood this---they governed on the basis of good/bad, right/wrong, with no consideration of the gray areas and the law of unintended consequences.
Posted by: Martin | December 2, 2008 11:23 AM
T.
Your 1998 Clinton bait doesn't hold water.
First, nobody has tried to defend the attacks of 1998.
And second, it's just one more argument against preemptive first strikes. The record shows they are rarely, if ever, warranted. I thought it was pretty stupid at the time, but it is chump change compared to the gigantic screwups of GWB.
Posted by: C.Morris | December 2, 2008 11:37 AM
I couldn't get through this entire article. It makes my stomach sick to read Bush's words. He will return to Texas proud... he sure will... a bonafide hero to that state who has benefitted more than any other with high oil prices and record oil profits. Isn't is just amazing that as W gets closer to being out of office our so-called oil addiction seems to be disappearing. Hmmm, prices dropping like a lead balloon. Bush is the worst President this country has ever had. He used the office for his own personal gain. He couldn't care less about anyone but himself.
Posted by: Kate | December 2, 2008 11:38 AM
How could he not be prepared for war? He knew before the election was certified he was going to invade Iraq, unless Dick Cheney didn't tell him until later.
The whole bunch ought to be in jail.
Posted by: Cheryl | December 2, 2008 11:38 AM
To listen to Bush, you'd think he was the victim. This war and this recession just sorta happened to poor little him. The corporate media is quite happy to abet this nonsense, too. The president is the leader of the free world, and the person serving in this role needs to be elite, not an overmatched mediocrity such as Dubya. Or Palin or McCain for that matter.
Posted by: Joe | December 2, 2008 11:41 AM
I guess that same flawed intellgence that led President Bush into war, led President Clinton into the decision to bomb a soverign country in Dec, 1998
Posted by: Terry
Terry,
Bombing is not invading. Two completely different choices.
Let's face it, Bush invaded Iraq because he believed (later disproved) that Saddam Hussein tried to kill his father.
Bush reacted like Sonny in the "Godfather," and when you think about it, it was all about the mafioso pride that runs through the Arab world and the world of tough-guys, from Russia, China, etc..
Unfortunately, the people who do the fighting have very little to gain and their lives and limbs to lose. The "tough guys" just controll the puppet strings.
So you can blame the "intelligence" all you want, but the truth is this was a vendetta.
As for the economy, if the economic meltdown was solely the result of bad loans issued by Fannie and Freddie, $700 Billion would have been more than enough to calm the waters. This wasn't, isn't and will not be only about bad home loans to a FEW people. Many of the on-going foreclosures are the result of people losing good paying jobs. Nothing at all to do with "bad loans."
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | December 2, 2008 11:45 AM
Why blame this poor man? It is American people who gave him the second term, after he invaded Iraq and the war was obviously a disaster. I have stopped bashing this poor man since the 2004 presidential results came in. American people need to look inside and ask ourselves, how could this ever happen to a great democracy like ours?
Posted by: Phoebe | December 2, 2008 11:50 AM
It's always a "pleaure" to read the misinformed ramblings from those on the Left. As far as Yellowcake and Niger, that has been proven to be TRUE. Iraq did in fact go to Niger looking to obtain yellowcake.
In regard to Bush and Cheney, "cherry-picking" the intelligence, the facts, once again, prove otherwise. In 1998. folks like Tom Daschle and Carl Levin wrote to Bill Clinton stating that there needs to be regime change in Iraq. Those same Democrats stuck to that tune right through their vote authorizing Bush to go to war, so no "illegal war," Lefties.
In regard to Bush's comment that he "was unprepared" for war (which I find hysterical that Mark "Objective Journalist, what's that?" Silva would focus on), ALL presidents are unprepared for war. I'll try and explain simply for the folks on the Left, Bush did not say we were unpreparared for war, he said that any president is unprepared for war because you don't plan on getting involved in a war when you're running to become president. Obama is not prepared for war simply because he is not planning on it happening. Roosevelt didn't plan it, Kennedy didn't plan it, etc.
Iraq is not a "disaster." It actually is a young democracy that has a fighting chance of working because of the U.S. and the surge. Hey Lefties, don't you think that is why Obama has done about a 180 on the war and put hawks in charge of the military and foreign policy????
Posted by: John D | December 2, 2008 1:01 PM
What, you mean his brave and valiant service in the Texas Air National Guard (which has no records of him even flying for the last months of his valiant and brave patriotic *hic* service *hic* *snort*) didn't prepare him for war? Say it ain't so, Joe! *wink* *wink*
Posted by: Patrick | December 2, 2008 1:04 PM
The Bush eternal-campaign/administration set its tone & stayed on the wrong course from the time Candidate Bush picked Dick Cheney to be his running mate.
Posted by: Jim Quince | December 2, 2008 1:07 PM
Thank God that Barry O is here with all of his "change" to save us all!
Posted by: TLD | December 2, 2008 1:07 PM
Bush has been unprepared for any leadership position he has found himself occupying.
He was born on third base and thought he hit a triple. He is a black mark on the history of this country and the world.
Posted by: ernieson | December 2, 2008 1:13 PM
January 20 can't come fast enough. What a nimrod this guy is and continues to be.
Posted by: Tim | December 2, 2008 1:21 PM
Twenty years from now, we will be remembering Bush a lot differently--perhaps the best president since JFK. He encountered incidents no one could for see--like hurricanes, 9/11, and a bad economy that he could not control. I am proud of him, and I wish Obama the best as well.
Posted by: pat | December 2, 2008 1:26 PM
Pat, Pat, Pat...................Are you kidding me?
Posted by: Tim | December 2, 2008 1:41 PM
Oh, and Lefties, the Bush administration tried to get some reform and oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (two government operations by the way) and the Democrats in Congress prevented that. Then this past July, one month before those two entities went belly up, the Great Nimrods in Congress lead by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank proclaimed that both agencies were SOUND! And these are the morons who will fix things??
Posted by: John D | December 2, 2008 2:10 PM
Of course it is easy to call President Bush names, question his policies, and blame him for all the world's troubles. Every President that has left office has been scrutinized and criticized by people (some intelligent, some not) with the luxury of analyzing history. Not one of the citizens, journalists or politicians who have bashed a departing administration could have done any better and most likely would have performed worse.
President Obama will have his pwn set of challenges, most likely greater than what President Bush had to deal with given the complexity of the global economy and the growing hatred of people toward Westerners (not just the US but ALL Eurpoeans as well).
I pray that we as a nation will continue to have the fortitiude to push forward and the foresight to adapt to the changing world. Rather than wasting energy on blaming Presidnt Bush, we must learn from the mistakes of every branch of the government over the past 50 years to recognize how we have arrived in this situation. To solely focus on the past 4-8 years is naive and will not prepare us for the complexity we are dealing with now.
Posted by: Jim | December 2, 2008 2:20 PM
"To listen to Bush, you'd think he was the victim."
Posted by: Joe | December 2, 2008 11:41 AM
Joe,
The whole Religious Conservative Industrial Complex likes to play the victim, the martyr.
They don't realize that they have become the Romans.
Posted by: C.Morris | December 2, 2008 2:54 PM
"I think I was unprepared for war," Bush told ABC News' Charlie Gibson...
File under Duh.
Posted by: Sven Swami | December 2, 2008 3:39 PM
Earth to Terry, when Clinton bombed bin Laden, people on the right attacked him for it because they didn't think some guy living in a tent was a threat to us.
Another point: Congress didn't have the same access to intelligence that the President did--they only have whatever snippets the President provides them.
The administration only told us one side of the story on everything.
For example: the aluminum tubes. We were told that analysts said they were for centrifuges.
Problem, is the "analysts" had no experience with nuclear technology.
Our own energy department analysts (who DO have experience with nuclear technology) said the tubes couldn't be used for centrifuges.
Yet were only told have the story.
Posted by: eddie | December 2, 2008 4:22 PM
Don't fall for it people, remember what he told us before. All lies! He's lying. He lied to Congress, his people pointed to all the evidence. Colin Powell was skeptical and reluctant to advise any military action without prodding. Yellow cake, Valerie Plaine, aluminum tubes.......all lies. Don't believe a word or you'll be the fool!
Posted by: Jim | December 2, 2008 4:50 PM
Eddie, Congress does not get the intelligence reports from the White House, they get them from the intelligence agencies (those on the intelligence committees anyway). All of Congress does not see all of the reports and sensitive information, but those on the committees and especially the leaders of the Committees (from both parties) get the exact same stuff as the White House. To say the White House provided with Congress with only partial information is just more left wing distortion of reality.
You Lefties really ought to begin getting your information from places other than left wing blogs, or the mainstream media as it lately gets much of its "information" from left wing blogs too. Try reality for a change!
Posted by: John D | December 2, 2008 4:52 PM
I wonder how the people feel that voted for him where he showed he wasn't president material and then voted for him again a 2nd time after actually knowing he wasn't suited to help this country.
Posted by: Dee | December 2, 2008 5:34 PM
"To listen to Bush, you'd think he was the victim."
Posted by: Joe | December 2, 2008 11:41 AM
Joe,
The whole Religious Conservative Industrial Complex likes to play the victim, the martyr.
They don't realize that they have become the Romans.
Posted by: C.Morris | December 2, 2008 6:27 PM
Unthawed?!...intellectually crippled and inarticulate right up until the end. Farewell, dear "W" snd don't let the door hit you on your brains on the way out.
Posted by: Gus | December 2, 2008 6:49 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/05/world/main4235028.shtml
"BO" is on his way in and "W" is out the door. - Good the country needed a change, but so far the key cabinet positions for defense and economics do not reflect a change from "W". "BO" is already back tracking. There is so little difference between the Democrats and Repulbicans.
Posted by: Norm | December 2, 2008 7:55 PM
Bud M,
I still think last summers $4 gas is what froze the American public in the headlight of the onrushing locomotive.
Lots of folks with huge trucks, etc. are still paying down the CC debt they used to get through the summer.
Now they are losing their jobs.
America saw $4 gas and soiled their delicates.
Posted by: OldCreaky | December 2, 2008 8:33 PM
Chet,
.
You stated,
.
"...at least Clinton didn't know there weren't any WMD..", so do you mean he bombed Iraq for no reason? I guess you believe that bombing was all a wag-the-dog distraction over the Monica testimony?
.
As far as believing there were WMDs, let's see who else was on board with the idea of Saddam having WMDs:
.
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
.
Did you notice the list included the last democratic president, the nominated secretary of state, the previous two democratic presidential canidates, the last democratic secretary of state,...?
.
Did you used to go by the name John E?
.
Bud,
.
Bombing is the not the same as invading? I guess December 7, 1941 doesn't mean anything to you then?
Your loon conspiracy theory about avenaging his father is abunch of fertilizer, Iowa can use it in the spring. See the quotes above about who thought Saddam had WMDs. If I recall the vote to go to war in Oct, 2002 was passed with 77 votes in the Senate and 296 in the House. That is bi-partisanship. Also, since it took 5 months from the vote to the actual invasion, I guess we will also disspell the myth that Bush rushed into war.
.
The recession's primary cause was the the sub-prime crisis. And yes, $700 billion might not be enough because of the spiraling effect these bad loans had on the economy. How does it feel that the economic god, Robert Rubinomics, is actually on the board of CitiGroup and will receive a large chunk of change. The Fannie and Freddie mess has democratic fingerprints all over it.
.
Mars to Eddie - when Clinton lobbed a few cruise missles, I guess he didn't take bin Laden seriously, even after WTC center bombings, African embassies, army base in Saudi Arabia, etc... T
.
There was the time that Clinton held off bo9mbing bin Laden for fear he would kill the woman and children (his wives and offspring) that were around him. Guess he should have put Janet Reno in charge of that one since she has no problem putting children in harm's way.
Posted by: Terry | December 2, 2008 9:06 PM
....
Posted by: Terry | December 2, 2008 9:06 PM
....
TrickleDown Boy,
BushCo and the Neonut Republicans fooled alot of people in congress and everywhere else with their trumped up pre-war "intelligence", so what?
Pre-emptive warmongering and deregulated wall street policies that Phil Gramm pushed through are what destroyed your party. You had eight years of control of the White House and six of the last eight years of control of congress. Nutty Republicans like you got everything you wanted and you failed on such a grand scale that the word "Republican" has not only become a dirty word but Repulican congressional candidates who were running for office in 2008 did everything they possibly could to avoid calling themselves "REPUBLICANS" because they were embarrassed by it.
You're really a trip Terri. It's like reality has no effect on dope Republicans like you and if you just close your eyes and stomp your feet enough like a three year old, mommy will make it all better.
I've got a hot stock tip for you bud, Start Drinking....heavily.
Posted by: John E | December 3, 2008 1:37 AM
One huge difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration: Obama is intelligent enough to understand that the kind of problems the US confronts in the world today can't be solved solely by relying on "principles". Principles are important, but coming up with the best answer sometimes requires the process of intelligent, insightful people with good information kicking the problem around until every aspect of it has at least been considered before a decision is made. Bush and most of his supporters never quite understood this---they governed on the basis of good/bad, right/wrong, with no consideration of the gray areas and the law of unintended consequences.
Posted by: Martin | December 3, 2008 8:06 AM
Welcome back to Trickled On,
Trumped up intellgence - wrong - the reports the president saw were also looked at by Congressional leaders of both parties and those on the intellgence committees - for example John Kerry.
.
If the dems were duped as you claim, then I guess they aren't smart enough to lead.
.
I'll let you choose - either they saw the intellgence and came to the same conclusion that the Bush administration came to (and also the Clinton administration) or the dems aren't smart enough to lead.
.
Phil Gramm push thru deregulated wall street policies - I'll assume you are referring to Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Look at some facts:
.
On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law that ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy and also "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e. protection against exclusionary redlining). Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns. On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57. This legislation was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
.
Notice that the dems jumped on board as soon as "economic opportunities" were made avialable in their communities. In English, that meand making loans to those who can't pay them back.
.
Fact - Republicans did not control the Senate from May, 2001 thru Dec, 2002 when Jumpin Jim Jeffords switched parties. Facts are pesk things.
.
Glad to see you are back - I need my nightly dose of humor
.
Posted by: Terry | December 3, 2008 6:29 PM
Posted by: Terry | December 3, 2008 6:29 PM
....
TrickeDown Boy,
Are you saying that you're proud of the lying on intelligence that your team (GOPers) did on the pre-war intelligence? Are you also proud of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people including American troops who died because of those lies?
Here Terry, watch as your "brave" protege college Republicans storm the doors of military recruiters offices all over America demanding that they be sent to Iraq:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFGit_tZDqs
.
------------------------
And then we have this:
Terry- "Phil Gramm push thru deregulated wall street policies - I'll assume you are referring to Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Look at some facts:" "On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132"
---------------------------
Gee Mr ChickenHawk, I see a very solid Repub majority there..just like I said and yes Repubs have controlled congress for 10 of the last 12 years and the white house for the last eight....that's exactly why you are part of a very small minority right now, otherwise known as "4th party gadfly" status.
Here's some more info on your hero Forecloser Phil:
"Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industry—friends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional career—came on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered dead—even by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted. "Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what was going on or what was in it," says a congressional aide familiar with the bill's history."
.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2008/Foreclosure-Phil-Gramm28may08.htm
.
You know Terri, you're my favorite Republican because just like Sarah Palin you are always the only one in the room who thinks you are smart and witty.
Posted by: John E | December 3, 2008 10:59 PM
Trickled On
"...just like I said and yes Repubs have controlled congress for 10 of the last 12 years..."
.
Wrong - GOP were the minority for the last half of 2001 & 2002. Facts are pesty things.
.
A source from Mother Jones - there's accuracy at its best???
.
But within the article it talks about "collateralized debt obligations—securities backed largely by subprime instruments". Those subprime instruments were the result of the added provision in the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act". Those subprime instruments are the result of making loans to those who can't pay them back - - which was pushed thru by the democrats.
.
Speaking of profiteering on this whole sub-prime mess - How is the Clinton Economic Guru Robert Rubin doing with his job as Director and Senior Counselor of Citigroup. You know that bank that is getting a $300 billion bailout. How about Rahm Emmanuel and his stint on the BOD of Freddie Mac? The list goes on, the sub-prime mess, and thus this recession has democratic fingerprints all over it.
.
Now back to fifth grade with you.
Posted by: Terry | December 4, 2008 8:06 PM