Transcript: Bush Interview

President Spoke to 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley At Camp David

(CBS) 
PELLEY: Fair to say there are not enough American troops on the ground to provide security for Iraq?

BUSH: Let’s let the historians work it out. But there's not enough troops on the ground right now to provide security for Iraq, and that's why I made the decision I made.

PELLEY: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?

BUSH: That we didn't do a better job or they didn't do a better job?

PELLEY: Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion.

BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. 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 Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.

PELLEY: Americans wonder whether . . .

BUSH: Yeah, they wonder whether or not the Iraqis are willing to do hard work necessary to get this democratic experience to survive. That's what they want.

PELLEY: You are gambling a lot, Mr. President, on the [Iraqi] Prime Minister [Nouri] al-Maliki. Why do you think that's a gamble worth making?

BUSH: Scott, I'm actually counting on the unity government of which Maliki is the head. Prime Minister Maliki and others who I talk to in the government understand that our patience is not unlimited.

PELLEY: Let’s be blunt. You're a plain speaker. Let's be blunt. What have you told Maliki he has to do?

BUSH: I told him it's time to get going. He's got to provide the troops he said he would provide inside Baghdad and we'll help him, and that's why I've called for more troops. I said: when our guys get moving along with yours, you can't get on the phone for political reasons and stop the troops from going after killers. What they'd do is, we're going after this killer, and they say, well he's, for political reasons, don't. Killer is a killer. And we expect them to go after both Shia and Sunni murderers in order to provide the security for Baghdad. We expect them to have local elections. And I expect them to do the political work necessary to help reconcile this country. But the problem is, is that the sectarian violence in Baghdad started getting out of control so they fell behind the power curve, and we need to help them get their forces in place, embed with their forces, go alongside their forces and get control of the security situation in Baghdad. And that's why I have problems with these plans to say, well, get out of Baghdad. You know, we've got people in Congress, good people, saying need to withdraw. Now's not the time to withdraw. Now's the time to help them get a hold of the situation.

PELLEY: Is Muqtada al-Sadr an enemy of the United States?

BUSH: Anybody who murders innocent people or frustrating the ambitions of the Iraqi people and the United States.

PELLEY: I was on the battlefield in Najaf when al-Sadr's people killed your United States Marines.

BUSH: Right. And we killed them, as you recall.

PELLEY: Is Muqtada al-Sadr an enemy of the United States?

BUSH: If he is ordering his people to kill Americans, he is.

PELLEY: Without al-Sadr, there's no Maliki government.

BUSH: Well, Mr. Maliki has said publicly that militia, including Jaysh al-Mahdi, will either put down their arms or will be dealt with by Iraqi and US forces. And we're gonna hold them to it.

PELLEY: You don't fear that al-Sadr's actually running the show?

BUSH: He may wanna be but, no, I don't think he is.

PELLEY: Did you see the video of Saddam Hussein's . . .

BUSH: I saw some of it.

PELLEY: . . . execution?

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: What did you think when you saw that?

BUSH: I thought it was discouraging. You know, obviously could have handled this thing a lot better. And I knew it'd be, you know, one of those incidents where it would call into doubt . . . it would create further skepticism. You know, it's important that-- that chapter of Iraqi history be closed. They could have handled it a lot better.

[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