Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Bush Unsure about Iraq War (kinda)

Our current president (remember him? The one in the way of Barack Obama fixing things?) had an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson in which he talked about a wide variety of things and spent most of the interview insisting that he was right and of course, inspiring confidence. Here he is inspiring confidence about the economy:

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.

Emphasis mine. You can read the full interview here. The most remarkable point in the interview is when he almost admits that the Iraq war was based on bad intelligence and then says that he doesn't know if the war would have happened had he known that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Catch it below:

GIBSON: You've always said there's no do-overs as President. If you had one?

BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?

BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.

GIBSON: No, if you had known he didn't.

BUSH: Oh, I see what you're saying. You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.
Seriously, I don't get this man. I don't understand him. "That's an intersting question?" Wow.

Yeah, I'd like to have a beer with him, maybe, but how did he win an election? How did he technically win two elections? Will historians regard him as a passing blip in history? Will he be a president the teacher makes fun of on the way to studying our first black president? The equivalent of Herbert Hoover? Because this is what I learned about Herbert Hoover:

"From 1929-1933 there was a President named Herbert Hoover. People became poor, lost their houses and created shanty towns called hoovervilles. He battled the bonus army. Most importantly he ushered in FDR and the New Deal, which we'll now spend the next month discussing." -My US History Teacher

Just saying...49 days. Also for those who will be in the area, DC has extended last call at all area bars to 5 a.m. for the days around the inauguration. Again, just saying.


Anonymous said...

This is a bias sight and this article sucks the big one.

Pablo Kenney said...

Are you angry about my comments re: Herbert Hoover? My thoughts about Bush's comments? Or perhaps my comments about D.C.

I ask because I will defend the objectivity of my comments about DC to the death.

I said:
"Also for those who will be in the area, DC has extended last call at all area bars to 5 a.m. for the days around the inauguration."

No Spin There.

But seriously, we don't claim to be objective. The blog is called the Carleton Democrats. The club is not objective, the blog is not objective.

I will tell you one thing, while my analysis maybe biased (I don't like Bush), the facts I reported (the quotes from the transcript) are completely accurate.

Thank you for your civil and
sophisticated retort.