Transcript: Bush Interview

President Spoke to 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley At Camp David

(CBS) 
PELLEY: Your military officers say that Iranian agents today are killing American troops on the ground in Iraq. Is that an act of war on the part of Iran against the United States?

BUSH: I think what they're saying is, is that the Iranians are providing equipment that is killing Americans. Either way it's unacceptable. As I said in my speech the other night, we will take measures to protect ourselves. We will interrupt supplies. We will find people that if they are, in fact, in Iraq killing Americans, they'll be brought to justice.

PELLEY: Is that an act of war against the United States on the part of the Iranian government?

BUSH: I'm not a lawyer. So act of war is kind of a . . . I'm not exactly sure how you define that. Let me just say it's unacceptable.

PELLEY: What would you say right now in this interview to the Iranian president about the meddling in Iraq?

BUSH: I'd say, first of all, to him, "You've made terrible choices for your people. You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people, and you've made your country the pariah of the world. You've threatened countries with nuclear weapons. You've said you want a nuclear weapon. You've defied international accord. And you're slowly but surely isolating yourself." And secondly, that "it's in your interest to have a unified nation on your border. It's in your interest that there be a flourishing democracy." And thirdly, you know, "If we catch your people inside the country harming US citizens or Iraqi citizens, you know, we will deal with them."

PELLEY: I wonder if you feel like you've been ill-served by your Cabinet members, [Defense Secretary] Mr. [Donald] Rumsfeld, perhaps even Vice-President [Dick] Cheney. Wrong on WMD. Wrong on the connection between 9/11 and Iraq. And now you're in a fix. And I wonder if you look back and wonder who let you down.

BUSH: Let me correct something on this connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. That was never the case in this administration. You know, I always said we never had evidence that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on 9/11. And so I don't know who continues to say that.

PELLEY: The vice-president suggested there was a connection, not necessarily 9/11, but certainly to al-Qaeda.

BUSH: [Al Qaeda’s Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi was in Iraq. But rather than debating the past, let me get back to the question.

PELLEY: Yes, sir.

BUSH: The vice-president's been a great vice-president. And Don Rumsfeld did a really find job as Secretary of Defense. Quite the contrary, I feel like this country is blessed to have those kind of people serving.

PELLEY: Vice-president involved in these war plans?

BUSH: Absolutely.

PELLEY: As much as he ever has been?

BUSH: Oh, yeah, sure. I mean, I rely upon my National Security Council, and I expect everybody to make contributions, and I expect to hear everybody's opinions. And when I make up my mind, I expect them to salute and say, "Yes, sir, Mr. President."

PELLEY: Final question. How can you escalate the war when so many people in this country seem to be against it?

BUSH: I'm gonna have to keep explaining. That's why I'm doing this interview with you. And I gotta keep explaining, one, the consequences of failure, that failure in Iraq will affect the security of the people here in the United States. And secondly, that we can succeed. And the best way to succeed at this point in time is to increase troops in Baghdad to stop the sectarian violence so that a political process, an economic process . . . so that the will of the 12 million people that voted in Iraq can be realized. Scott, sometimes you're the commander-in-chief, sometimes you're the educator-in-chief, and a lot of times you're both when it comes to war. And I've just gotta continue to take my message to the people and to explain to them this is a well-thought-out decision that is in the interests of the today's generation of Americans and tomorrow's generation of Americans. What happens in the Middle East matters to the security of this country. We learned that lesson on September the 11th. The stakes are very high, and we have got not only to stay engaged diplomatically, but we've gotta succeed in chasing down terrorists as well as helping young democracies survive. What's interesting is that you got a young democracy in Lebanon being challenged. I believe there ought to be a Palestinian democracy. It is being challenged by militants. A young democracy in Afghanistan and a young democracy in Iraq, all being challenged by radicals and extremists. And they may seem like disparate elements, but they share the same vision and same philosophy, and they have the same desire to inflict damage, particularly on the United States of America. I think it's interesting that in the midst of all the troubles, that there are people who are actively fighting a form of government which is beneficial to people, and that's democracy. We are in an ideological struggle, and it's a really classic ideological struggle, and Iraq is part of it. And it's very important for me to not only continue to explain why I believe we can be successful in Iraq but explain to people that what happens in the Middle East will affect the future of this country.

[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