Transcript: Bush Interview

President Spoke to 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley At Camp David

(CBS)  On Jan. 12, 2007, two days after President George W. Bush told the country that he would send 21,000 more troops into Iraq, the president sat down with 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley for a candid conversation. The two met in Camp David's Laurel Cabin, where, in 2001, the president and his cabinet debated plans for the invasion of Afghanistan and thus launched the war on terror.

---

SCOTT PELLEY: The war on terror, in a sense, began in this room, began in this cabin where your Cabinet meeting was held. Back then the whole country was with you. And now you seem to have lost them. Why do you think so?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Not to correct you, but the war on terror began on the streets of New York when an enemy attacked us. But you're right. We came here to plan a response. And, you know, I can remember thinking that it's gonna take a monumental effort to keep the country's attention on this war because it's an interesting dilemma for the president. On the one hand, you want them to understand we're at war. On the other hand, you want people to go about their daily lives. In other words, people can't be looking over their shoulder and seeing the next terrorist attack. And America has gone ahead. Our economy's good and people are, you know, helping their neighbors. And so I'm not that the danger the country felt after September 11th has slipped. Secondly, the Iraq War hadn't gone as well as I had hoped at this point in time. I mean, in my speech to the country I said we had good successes in 2005, and I truly believe we're gonna be in a position to reduce our presence. And then the situation changed on the ground. And people are, you know, people are discouraged. They don't approve of where we are. And so I think it's where the country is.

PELLEY: Most Americans at this point in time don't believe in this war in Iraq. They want you to get us out of there.

BUSH: I would hope they'd want us to succeed before we get out there. That's the decision I had to make. You know, Scott, I thought a lot about different options. One was doing nothing, just kind of the status quo. And I didn't think that was acceptable, and I think most Americans don't think it's acceptable. Secondly, we'd get out.

PELLEY: You actually thought about that?

BUSH: Of course I have. I think about it a lot, about different options. Listen, I've sat down with a lot of members of Congress, both parties, good decent people, who've said, "Start withdrawing now." I've thought about that, and my attitude is if we were to start withdrawing now, we'd have a crisis in our hands in Iraq. And not only in Iraq, but failure in Iraq will embolden the enemy. And the enemy is al-Qaeda and extremists. Failure in Iraq would empower Iran, which poses a significant threat to world peace. Failure in Iraq would provide safe haven, and the extremists still want to attack us. In other words, there's a lot of reasons that I know we must succeed. And so I thought long and hard about would withdrawal cause victory or cause success. And the answer is I don't believe so, and neither do a lot of experts. And so then I began to think, well, if failure's not an option and we've gotta succeed, how best to do so? And that's why I came up with the plan I did.

PELLEY You think the whole region could be in play? Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait?

BUSH: Absolutely. No question in my mind. And I know this is hard for some Americans to understand. The operative phrase that I thought made a lot of sense about this war is: if we fail in Iraq, the enemy will follow us here. And the point I make is that what happens in the Middle East matters to the homeland. And that's different than in some past engagements. Secondly, chaos in the Middle East will empower extremists who hate America. And failure in Iraq, defeat of America, in quotes, will then embolden these extremists. They'll be able to recruit more. They'll be able to find more suiciders. They'll have resources at their availability, like energy if they were able to topple modern governments. In other words, these people have a plan. They have a vision of the world. And they intend to use murder to enact their vision. And I fully understand that. You know, some of my buddies in Texas say, “You know, let them fight it out. What business is it of ours? You got rid of Saddam. Just let them slug it out.” And that's a temptation that I know a lot of people feel. But if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America in the future.

PELLEY: Instability in Iraq threatens the entire region?

BUSH: If the government falls apart and there is sectarian enclaves and violence, it'll invite Iran into the Shia neighborhoods, Sunni extremists into the Sunni neighborhoods, Kurdish separatist movements. All of which would threaten moderate people, moderate governments, and all of which will end up creating conditions that could lead to attacks here in America.

PELLEY: But wasn't it your administration that created the instability in Iraq?

BUSH: Well, our administration took care of a source of instability in Iraq. Envision a world in which Saddam Hussein was rushing for a nuclear weapon to compete against Iran. My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the correct decision in my judgment. We didn't find the weapons we thought we would find or the weapons everybody thought he had. But he was a significant source of instability.

PELLEY: It's much more unstable now, Mr. President.

BUSH: Well, no question decisions have made things unstable. But the question is can we succeed. And I believe we can. Listen, I'd like to see stability and a unified Iraq. A young democracy will provide the stability we look for. I will tell you that if we just isolate ourselves from the Middle East and hope for the best, we will not address the conditions that had led young suiciders to get on airplanes to come and attack us in the first place.

PELLEY: You mention mistakes having been made in your speech. What mistakes are you talking about?

BUSH: You know, we've been through this before. Abu Ghraib was a mistake. Using bad language like, you know, "bring them on" was a mistake. I think history is gonna look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better. No question about it.

PELLEY: The troop levels . . .

BUSH: Could have been a mistake.

PELLEY: Could have been a mistake?

BUSH: Yeah. [General] John Abizaid, one of the planners, said in front of Congress, you know, he thought we might have needed more troops. My focus is on how to succeed. And the reason I brought up the mistakes is, one, that's the job of the commander-in-chief, and, two, I don't want people blaming our military. We got a bunch of good military people out there doing what we've asked them to do. And the temptation is gonna find scapegoats. Well, if the people want a scapegoat, they got one right here in me 'cause it's my decisions.

[firemandav1]

To cdegolier's last post:

What?????? What are you talking about?

cdegolier:

Oh yeah, and I don't remember liberals forging or creating false evidence against Iraq either - that was the work of those corrupt conservatives, the Republican Party.

GW Bush and his corrupt buddies faked evidence to get what they wanted - I didn't see the liberals doing that.

Did you?

Could you please explain why the Conservatives had to fake evidence to do what they had been planning for years?

cdegolier wrote:

"Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002"

"Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003"

"How soon liberals forget."

Firstly, I'm what you'd call a "liberal" (it's much better than being a non-forward thinking, backwards "conservative") and I haven't forgotten all those Democrats who supported Bush. There were plenty of them and they are hypocrites (as most politicians are).

But that certainly doesn't mean that many liberals agreed with them either in regards to Iraq and WMD's.

The problem with your argument is that they at least know that they were wrong - Bush and the rest of his corrupt admin held on for many years hoping that WMD's would show up. When they didn't, despite getting excited about some weather balloon vehicles, they still wouldn't admit that Iraq had WMD's.

The fact is, that until recently, Bush wouldn't even admit that his admin had made mistakes, and he kept supporting that idiot Donald Rumsfeld.

Just exactly how much does Rumsfeld hate America to have continued on with his failed plans. And just how much did GW Bush hate America to continue on with his failed plans?

Good god, but you Conservatives must really hate America to continue supporting GW Bush.

How many more Americans must die because of this buffoon?

[aldeo6]

Does anybody remember the ancient saying about options that goes "There's more than one way to skin a cat." Am I the only person who thinks that there are other, unexplored options to those we are being offered, to whit quit or continue.

cdegolier wrote:

"Bush is one of the best we have had."

He certainly is one of the "best" presidents that money can buy, that's for sure.

That's why he needs to hide the records of visitors to the Whitehouse.

[cdegolier]

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus,
Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers,
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

[cdegolier]

By the way the WMD's

Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

How soon liberals forget.

[cdegolier]

By the way the WMD's

Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

How soon liberals forget.

[cdegolier]

lighthowse wrote
* How do you explain cutting taxes during war time? (I'm not allowed to write hot checks, but apparently, it must be okay for you).
I guess you forget about the increase in tax revenue do to the tax cuts.

"The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well" NYTimes

* And not caring about your legacy? You're willing to keep this war going until the end of your term so someone else will be stuck with cleaning up your mess

I guess you missed that one also, that was a bash on Clinton, who during his presidency not only kept himself busy with interns but started planning and raising money for his library.

* All volunteer service? Doesn't sound volunteer to me when service men and women are not allowed to get out.

When a person enlists in the armed forces it is entirely voluntary, you choose enlist but you should maybe look at the rights given.

Military Discharges
Entry Level Performance and Conduct

Discharge for members in their first 180 days of active duty

Conscientious Objection
An objection to participation in war

That should answer some of your questions.
.

[cdegolier]

lighthowse wrote
* How do you explain cutting taxes during war time? (I'm not allowed to write hot checks, but apparently, it must be okay for you).
I guess you forget about the increase in tax revenue do to the tax cuts.

"The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well" NYTimes

* And not caring about your legacy? You're willing to keep this war going until the end of your term so someone else will be stuck with cleaning up your mess

I guess you missed that one also, that was a bash on Clinton, who during his presidency not only kept himself busy with interns but started planning and raising money for his library.

* All volunteer service? Doesn't sound volunteer to me when service men and women are not allowed to get out.

When a person enlists in the armed forces it is entirely voluntary, you choose enlist but you should maybe look at the rights given.

Military Discharges
Entry Level Performance and Conduct

Discharge for members in their first 180 days of active duty

Conscientious Objection
An objection to participation in war

Typical of a crying liberal, doesn't ever know the facts. That should answer some of your questions.

[cdegolier]

Unbelievable, if Bush would have done nothing after 9-11 like Clinton most likely would have done all you pansy liberals would be crying about him not doing anything. If Kerry would have been elected we probably would not be in Iraq anymore, he would have pulled out as soon as his rating went down and most likely we would have been attacked again. Saddam would still be in power and New York would be leveled. Remember Bin Laden would not be here if Clinton would have done is job but he was to worried about his interns and his legacy. Bush is one of the best we have had.

[seajay8]

PELLEY: You know better than I do that many Americans feel that your administration has not been straight with the country, has not been honest. To those people you say what?

BUSH: On what issue?


Is this an apropriate response?
Q: Have you been honest with us?
A: About what?

[kalatur1]

To claim that Saddam threatened US security is like saying that communisim in Viet Nam threatened US security through the domino theory.

That is a profound similarity and both are wrong.

[robgee9]

The interview with the ever-smirking President Bush on the 60 Minutes program was troubling. When interviewer Scott Pelley asked the President what he says to people who feel he hasn't been straight about there being no WMD, 9/11-Iraq connection, and spending more than 10 times what we were told, he could only say, in effect "Congress agreed with me on WMD." Pelley should have followed up on the other two points.

Bush's smirk throughout the interview was disgusting. He comes off as a man who cares about only "winning." Winning means nothign when a war is founded on a false premise.
This man is not a leader.

[bitteral]

Question: Why didn't Pelley ask Bush about the Iraq Study Group? Cynical answer: because Israel didn't want him to. If we continue to play this rather evil game of war first, diplomacy second, the idea that this is going to be a wider regional battle will become a fait accompli. As much as it may seem distasteful to conservatives and fear provoking to democrats, the Palistinian issue is linked to our situation in Iraq. It is the fuel that feeds Arab radicalism. And the Lebanese war should have caused the pro-war folks in America as well as Israel to think hard about what the costs will be if we lose a larger regional war. Or are we going to just lay waste to the entire region? Heaven help us all if that is the plan.

[don80--2008]

This may not pertain directly to this interview but it is tangent to the theme. Recently George Bush said in the news that if we (the people, the congress, whoever) want to pull out of Iraq, we should come up with a plan. This is so illustrative of our current weak leadership. George Bush and his gold-mongering cohorts have gotten us into this ill-conceived debacle and now he tries the sleaze out from under the responsibility by claiming it is now our place to come up with a solution. And we the people, the congress, whoever just sit by and listen to this inane rhetoric. I fear for the future of our country, a country who can muster no stronger leadership than a country bumpkin whose command of his own language is an embarrassment to the American people.

[marcodele]

That "where's your plan" is exactly what the spinmasters want repeated on Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, and by Bush and Condy over and over again until the American idiots start believing that the opposition to the war has no plan. "Stay the course" which is the other spin we heard for over a year was also "not a plan."
The war's opponents have a plan: withdraw slowly, turning more security responsiblity over to Iraq. Our presence has caused the turbulence: increasing our presence will only increase the violence. Increasing the number of troops is not a plan, its a tactic.

[don80--2008]

This may not pertain directly to this interview but it is tangent to the theme. Recently George Bush said in the news that if we (the people, the congress, whoever) want to pull out of Iraq, we should come up with a plan. This is so illustrative of our current weak leadership. George Bush and his gold-mongering cohorts have gotten us into this ill-conceived debacle and now he tries the sleaze out from under the responsibility by claiming it is now our place to come up with a solution. And we the people, the congress, whoever just sit by and listen to this inane rhetoric. I fear for the future of our country, a country who can muster no stronger leadership than a country bumpkin whose command of his own language is an embarrassment to the American people.

[don80--2008]

This may not pertain directly to this interview but it is tangent to the theme. Recently George Bush said in the news that if we (the people, the congress, whoever) want to pull out of Iraq, we should come up with a plan. This is so illustrative of our current weak leadership. George Bush and his gold-mongering cohorts have gotten us into this ill-conceived debacle and now he tries the sleaze out from under the responsibility by claiming it is now our place to come up with a solution. And we the people, the congress, whoever just sit by and listen to this inane rhetoric. I fear for the future of our country, a country who can muster no stronger leadership than a country bumpkin whose command of his own language is an embarrassment to the American people.

[acrossamill]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/01/16/another_vietnam