Bush: I was “unprepared for war”
posted at 12:30 pm on December 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
ABC will broadcast an interview with George Bush that begins nine weeks of valedictory messages from the outgoing President — and he has a few things to get off of his chest before Barack Obama takes the oath of office. Bush tells Charlie Gibson that he came into office “unprepared for war,” and that he regrets the faulty intelligence of Saddam Hussein’s WMD. However, he refused to say whether he would have done anything differently had the intelligence been more correct:
Looking back on his eight years in the White House, President George W. Bush said he was “unprepared” for war and pinpointed incorrect intelligence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction as “biggest regret of all the presidency.”
“I think I was unprepared for war,” Bush told ABC News’ Charlie Gibson in an interview airing today on “World News.” “In other words, I didn’t campaign and say, ‘Please vote for me, I’ll be able to handle an attack,’” he said. “In other words, I didn’t anticipate war. Presidents — one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen.” …
When pressed by Gibson, Bush declined to “speculate” on whether he would still have gone to war if he knew Hussein didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.
“That is a do-over that I can’t do,” Bush said.
“Unprepared for war”? That admission won’t help him in the final weeks. I think it’s also inaccurate. The Bush administration was prepared for war in Iraq, but they were not prepared for the occupation that followed. If he’s referring to 9/11, he was just as prepared for that as the Clinton administration, and for the same reasons. No one wanted to believe we were already at war with Islamist terrorists — and some people refuse to believe it even today. John Edwards called the war on terror a “bumper sticker”, and unfortunately he’s hardly alone.
Bush has a few other regrets. He wished he could have passed his immigration-reform bills, and he lamented the “tone” of the debate it generated. Bush wanted the world to see America as a welcoming place, he says. But what has that to do with illegal immigration? We welcome legal immigrants, more than any other country, and give them an opportunity to assimilate fully into our society that even other Western nations do not. The debate involved illegal immigration and national security, and in that sense, we should be a lot less welcoming than we have been up to now.
The President also says that he regrets not being able to elevate the tone in Washington. Unfortunately, that required an opposition willing to meet him halfway on that goal. Instead, we got eight years of unhinged Bush Derangement Syndrome, with non-stop conspiracy theories and unparalleled vitriol flung in his direction. The blame does not belong at his feet for that nonsense.
We’ll see the difference during the transition. Unlike the bitter, petty acts committed by the outgoing Clinton administration, including prying off the Ws on the computer keyboards, Bush commits himself to a smooth and classy transition for Barack Obama. He has invited Obama to briefings to get him quickly up to speed, including one for the Citigroup bailout. Bush says, “The more we can work together, the better off our country will be,” and unlike his predecessor administration, actually acts as though that means something to him.
What will Bush do with his free time after January 20? He plans to write his memoirs, get back to a private life, and work on policy. That book should be fascinating — and perhaps the place where the 43rd president settles a few scores.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I wonder if Bush voted for Barkey Obama. There is a part of me that thinks this quasi liberal did vote for him. Bush would have been right at home in the LBJ administration.
Hilts on December 1, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Btw although I loathed the Clinton administration – that story of his staffers prying off the “W’s” on keyboards was false.
Hilts on December 1, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Of course Bush wasn’t.
He was too busy extending olive branches to the mad Dems after the ‘Bush vs. Gore’. Remember?
Sir Napsalot on December 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I hope the Magnificent Bastard writes his memoirs, also.
lodge on December 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I don’t care what most people have said about G.W., he wasn’t that bad. He did what he could with limited information and problematic people whom should have given him more information.
I don’t blame Bush in many of the problems going on right now. I blame those who tried to screw Bush over.
upinak on December 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I wasn’t President Bush’s biggest supporter, but, let’s put his in perspective:
1. He came into power during the recession caused by the Dot-Com bubble burst of 2000.
2. Eight months after he was in office we had 9/11, which was brought on by the failed foreign policy of President Clinton.
3. He came into power after the failed impeachment of President Clinton and the questionable election results of 2000. The Democrats were angry and revenge oriented, and did everything in their power to undermine him. This was intensified after the election of 2004, where the Democrats did everything in their power, even at the cost of putting our country at risk, to make him fail so they could get control of Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008.
4. Because of the failed intelligence gathering he bought into the theme that Sadham was nearly nuclear and immediate actions were needed, hence the invasion of 2003. This wouldn’t have happened if the CIA hadden’t been gutted during the Clinton years.
5. He tried to reform Fannie and Freddie several times and was blocked by Democrats in Congress.
Yes, the Republicans also have had their faults, which I won’t go into during this post because they are already well pointed out in the press, sometimes less than fairly.
DL13 on December 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Who is prepared?
Kini on December 1, 2008 at 12:35 PM
He wasn’t, and no could have been, prepared for this type of war…an war like no other.
right2bright on December 1, 2008 at 12:36 PM
History will treat him better then we have…
I think people will look back and see what a daunting task he had, and that he steadfastly held to the belief that a nation can be free from tyranny…what will be argued is “at what cost?”.
right2bright on December 1, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I shudder to think what would have happened if someone like Bubba or Barry would have been in office when 9/11 happened.
kingsjester on December 1, 2008 at 12:40 PM
DL13 on December 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Kini on December 1, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Both great points! About what I would have said. So, I will be lazy. I agree with both points totally! Bush wasn’t that bad. Lets see how Hoppynchange does. Which he won’t.
sheebe on December 1, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Get ready to find out… soon, unfortunatly…
Mark Garnett on December 1, 2008 at 12:47 PM
My guess is that he misspoke and meant to say he didn’t anticipate war when he ran for office, not that he was unprepared. Not having seen the interview, it’s hard to tell, however.
sheesh on December 1, 2008 at 12:48 PM
He brought respect and dignity back to the Oval Office after 8 years of adolescent and narcissistic behavior by the previous occupant.
a capella on December 1, 2008 at 12:48 PM
hate clinton too, but if they did tear up whitehouse….so did George Washington for John Adams, kinda a tradition I guess?
anyway:
part of me thinks the establishment GOP wanted a Democrat, to force them to have to govern which should in someway moderate the Unhinged left on National Security and the war. We seem to already be seeing some of this.
had McCain won, BDS and all the idiotic america hating and conspiracy theories would have intensfied for another 4 years. Imagine the media after 4 more years of that
jp on December 1, 2008 at 12:52 PM
It would be fun, however, to pry all of the H’s off of the keyboards for He Who Must Not Be Named by All of His Names.
Joan of Argghh on December 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Apparently Ed Morrissey knows Bush better than Bush does.
Grow Fins on December 1, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Given how the Bush White House said they KNEW there were WMDs in Iraq, it’s not surprising President Bush and the rest of his sorry crew didn’t have a clue about the wisdom of going to war or the subsequent occupation either.
starfleet_dude on December 1, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Bill Clinton had been President for eight years, so if it had happened on his watch, he would have taken a great deal of s### from most Americans for his intelligence failures, and the Republican Congress would have launched hearings immediately.
As for Obama? Who knows. He comes in with as much foreign policy experience as Bush (possibly more), but many would have still faulted him, because it happened on his watch, a criticism Bush rarely faced from the mainstream.
YYZ on December 1, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Why Charlie Clinton Gibson and not Bret Humes ?
I can not stand Gibson. . . . . .
Texyank on December 1, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Help him the final weeks? Why does it matter? Regardless of what he says the Left, the media, and many Republicans will still criticize him. And this is a prime example…who is exactly prepared for war? Anyone really think Obama is? Bush gets criticized for not admitting mistakes, then he’s criticized for simply suggesting that war wasn’t something he mapped out or planned on when he took office. OMG! Frankly, the stuff about wishing the immigration crap had gone through and bemoaning the tone of the debate is more disturbing, but whatever.
changer1701 on December 1, 2008 at 1:02 PM
I suspect so too. It is really a dumb thing to say. Everyone who runs for president has to be prepared for anything. The title “Commander-in-chief” means something.
President Bush should not underestimate himself nor be modest. But he is a humble man. He was great as commander, kicking terrorist ass with help of our military, and keeping us safe. He was also a dignified man who did not go down the scum level of Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Schumer, and Obama.
jencab on December 1, 2008 at 1:02 PM
When at first you’re unprepared blame the Clintons.
Nonfactor on December 1, 2008 at 1:03 PM
8 years ago, I would have disagreed with your assertion that Bush is a “quasi-liberal.”
But I now agree with you.
I wish I had not bought into Bush’s “compassionate conservatism.”
The first sign for me came when Bush pushed so hard for the Medicare prescription plan, a future liability that nobody knows how we are going to pay for it. The second sign was his lack of veto pen usage, despite spending gone haywire.
The final straw occurred when he pushed on 3 separate occasions his amnesty program despite the following facts:
the Fort Dix terrorists were illegal aliens , and that the 9/11 terrorists were illegal aliens who had over-stayed their visas; the base and the American people were overwhelmingly opposed to his amnesty provision.
For me, it is kinda silly to invade a sovereign country to “weed out the terrorists” while providing a pathway to USA citizenship for those here that have simply over-stayed their student or tourist visas.
ColtsFan on December 1, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Bush will frustrate and fluster thoughtful supporter to the end (and beyond, probably).
He misstates his own war rationale here. It was the proven, irreversible POTENTIAL for WMD development (and the proven aggressive recklessness) that made the Iraqi regime intolerable, not just X tons of unaccounted-for VX stocks. The “intelligence” is never completely correct – or even often correct – and making our security hostage to the perfection of intelligence penetration of closed societies would be madness itself. Which is why sensible leaders like Bush won’t do it. But he simply CANNOT explain his own, well-founded actions.
Ed, you’re falling into the trap on “prepared” for occupation. It’s similar to the obsession with “planning” for things. Of course you plan the best you can (ditto prepare). But there’s a reason for the aphorism about the war plan not surviving first contact with the enemy. The main thing is adapting and overcoming (from the grunt on up to the top brass) – not magically “planning” a perfect campaign. It’s in those respects that things went awry in 2004-2006. And it was obvious, and the fixes were fairly obvious. And they didn’t involve any amazing new or subtle “COIN” strategy – it was pretty much common sense.
I won’t watch the interview, so I wonder whether the other great towering myth – that did so much damage to Bush and his party – that of the federal response to Katrina, will be addressed. Every “critic” was wrong on every major point about that. The federal response was fine, even excellent. The state/local response – for anyone who knows how disaster response is managed, funded, even the legal authority constructed – is the major part. THAT part utterly failed with Katrina (in LA – in MS and AL, uh, which suffered far far worse damage – no stink about state response, since it was competent).
The Obama victory of course is the crowning disaster of this phenomenon, but it’s terrifying and frustrating to see how a major country can proceed largely on wildly inaccurate or ignorant premises in so much that it does. And Bush will only futher cloud the waters, it seems.
IceCold on December 1, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Is the U.S. (and the world) prepared for Obama?
albill on December 1, 2008 at 1:05 PM
I agree with DL13. No, Ed, President Bush will not “settle scores” with anyone. As much as I would love it, he just isn’t the kind. No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Supplement he backed were better products until he started compromising with the left. Examples of his trying to set a better tone in Washington. I can’t defend him on the illegal immigration part, though when forced he did do some good on the fencing.
Oleta on December 1, 2008 at 1:08 PM
A few comments –
(1) The “I was unprepared for war” sound bite will hurt his legacy, as it will be seen by historians as an admission that the Bush people incompetently handled everything related to Iraq. I’d have to watch the entire exchange to get the context, though, before I could opine as to whether Bush was intending to refer to the occupation or to 9/11 itself.
(2) Bush was dead accurate with his comments about the “tone” of the immigration debate. Our immigration system is a shambles and an embarrassment to this nation. No, people shouldn’t overstay visas or sneak across the border to find jobs, but the fact is that most “illegal” immigrants do hold down jobs–even if they are still a net loss to society for other reasons. A guest worker program with no citizenship path for these illegals makes at least some sense. But, because the immigration thing blew up spectacularly, with no serious compromise, the MESSAGE that came out was “Republicans hate Hispanics.”
Outlander on December 1, 2008 at 1:12 PM
The President should never say he’s unprepared for anything. So shame on President Bush for making this huge mistake.
SoulGlo on December 1, 2008 at 1:13 PM
I give Bush a pass on the whole WMD question. The whole world believed Saddam had them, and he was playing rope-a-dope with the whole question among his own people to the point that they believed they had them. Saddam himself said that he kept the illusion of WMDs because was more afraid of Iran than of a US/Western attack on his supposed WMDs.
Further, I give Bush and Rumsfeld a pass on the difficulties with the Iraqi insurgency. The idea that we should have a small footprint there to allow the Iraqis to take the burden of defending Iraq was central to the Rumsfeld approach, and it is exactly what the D’s have sought all along. That they ran Rumsfeld out of office for doing exactly what they wanted only speaks to their wish to regain power at the expense of our national interests.
I’ve got plenty of issues with which to disagree with Bush over. Signing McCain/Feingold. Medicare Rx benefits. Tons and tons of spending he could have vetoed. Basically all of his big government Compassionate Conservative agenda (which is an oxymoron, if you ask me).
But with regard to foreign policy: I could not have asked for a better President.
azlibertarian on December 1, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Much though it pains me to say, a President McCain could have been bad for the country during this economic crisis. The guy shoots from the hip, fighter-pilot style. That’s great for a fighter pilot; not so great for a President. And his judgment isn’t what it once may have been, as evident by his famous “suspension” of his campaign (the sole apparent effect of which was to blow off his appearance on Letterman).
It remains to be seen how Obama will govern. I suspect he’s going to govern from the left, even though, to his credit, his economic and national security advisors have a lot of centrists among their number.
Outlander on December 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Did Charlie ask him what the Bush Doctrine was?
Valiant on December 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM
you would be praying to mecca 5 times a day as required by law, burqua’s would be the latest fashion statement,all men would have a beard as required by law.
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on December 1, 2008 at 1:17 PM
I wish the conservatives in the Senate would have united around these American patriots.
But then again, it might not have mattered because the mainstream media was pushing hard for the amnesty bill, and insinuating that you are a racist if you oppose it.
ColtsFan on December 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM
No it wasn’t-the GAO confirmed it. Read their report.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
Del Dolemonte on December 1, 2008 at 1:19 PM
That book should be fascinating — and perhaps the place where the 43rd president settles a few scores.
Pop-up books aren’t generally that negative.
SKYFOX on December 1, 2008 at 1:23 PM
To Outlander:
That was a democratic talking point. You want erratic Obama was first for social security taxes on everyone then against it. Obama was all over the map on taxes.
Obama said he was on the banking committee.
Obama has no background in business or economics.
Obama said 10,000 people died in a tornado in kansas.
Obama said 57 states.
Obama said 100 million died in burma.
Obama is terrible with numbers. He said a few years ago he didn’t understand the stock market. He pressured banks to get bad loans.
McCain voted against the medicare bill. McCain voted against the bloated highway bill.
Oh yeah it is great that Obama, Reid and Pelosi will bankrupt it.
McCain would have vetoed the 700 billion stimulus package that Obama will sign.
McCain said we already had a stimulus package.
McCain was against the auto bailout. Obama will sign it.
Substance matters. Our presidential election is about sytle points. It has become american idol. Policies don’t matter.
McCain was shoot from the hip.
Obama was such a great leader he said if you need me call me during the crisis.
Obama has never run a business. He has no background in economics. He has never even been on a committee dealing with the economy.
Obama is a lawyer who is terrible with numbers who became an economics expert according to the media. Obama who said I agree gas prices going up gradually is good.
ryandan on December 1, 2008 at 1:27 PM
And is largely responsible for helping to usher 8 more years of narcissism and adolescent behavior back in.
JiangxiDad on December 1, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Today’s crop of “historians” won’t be kind to Bush, as they are all infected with BDS. Until he died, the worst was the “Dean” of American “historians”, Arthur Schlesinger, who compared Bush’s foray into Iraq with the Imperial Japanese Navy’s attack on Pearl Harbor.
It will take a generation of historians who have not even been born yet to soberly assess what Bush did, free of the raging BDS that has poisoned and consumed academe since November 2000. The same is true of any President-we still don’t have an unbiased legacy for John F. Kennedy, because the “historians” writing it are even now still former JFK Administration members.
Remember, Harry Truman was vilified as one of the worst-ever Presidents when he left office. Now he’s considered one of the better ones.
Del Dolemonte on December 1, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Dunno if there was a White House at that point, besides the original GW was too much of a gentleman for that sort of shennigans, as have been most of his successors.
billhedrick on December 1, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Too bad people don’t get it, Ed.
Kinda like Iran, Iraq, Russia, China, etc…
None of them want to meet anyone halfway, either.
More diplomats from Obama are NOT going to solve any problems.
More talk just gives more time to the bad guys to do more bad things.
Meanwhile, here we sit on our a$$e$, talking about change.
Badger40 on December 1, 2008 at 1:33 PM
This is a good and strong man who also made a very good President in very difficult times.
I am proud to have worked hard for his election in 2000 and re-election in 2004.
Was he perfect,of course not.
But I genuinely felt that he meant what he said and worked his ass off for what was best for this country,not what was best for him politically.
Thank you President George Bush.
A true leader and liberator of over 50 million people.
Baxter Greene on December 1, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Huh?! There was no white house then. Adams got to live in it near the end of his term.
And from all I know of Washington, I hardly think he would have done that sort of thing. He was a gentleman with honor.
Badger40 on December 1, 2008 at 1:35 PM
To Outlander:
McCain would have been far more likely to veto the spending from Pelosi and Reid.
But some how you think it is a good thing that McCain isn’t in charge of the economy.
Yeah it is a good thing Obama will bankrupt us with universal health care.
Obama who said the defecit doesn’t matter. Yeah but McCain was a fighter pilot.
But what really matters is style points. Obama the marxist won the american idol style points.
Now we have a dem filibuster senate. The dems have 58 senators plus the two from maine.
With McCain you would have needed 67 dem senators to pass bills. Now dems have a filibuster and can pass anything.
The washington post today had a list of all the far left wing dem policies that will now pass.
Forget the six liberal supreme court obama picks. No what matters is McCain cancelled Letterman and was a fighter pilot.
Dems will now give DC a seat in congress.
Dems will now allow trial lawyers to sue if a gay or trans worker is fired.
Hate speech against gays from the pew will have the trial lawyers partying.
Dream act will be signed by Obama now they have the 60 votes.
Card Check signed by Obama.
This chambliss election is meaningless.
Dems already have a filibuster proof senate with collins and snowe.
This centrist bull about Obama just wait until he starts signing every far left liberal bill. Obama will check mark every far left dem special interest group with legislation.
Bush never had a filibuster proof senate. Everything he had to do had to go through reid.
Carter didn’t have 6 supreme court justices over the age of 70.
When Carter was president dems had many southern blue dog senators. Today they are gone.
Obama will install the obama supreme court for the next 40 years and pass legislation that will stand.
But McCain cancelled Letterman. I hate the politics in this country with every fiber in my body.
ryandan on December 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM
And is largely responsible for helping to usher 8 more years of narcissism and adolescent behavior back in.
JiangxiDad on December 1, 2008
If that was all we could expect (Clinton redux) I wouldn’t be so afraid. I expect a soulless, marxist megalomaniac with “the vision thing”.
SKYFOX on December 1, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Instead of governing, leading, the recent ones spend way too much time propping themselves, or their legacy, up.
It makes no difference who they are any more: Clintons, Bushes, Obamas…they’re all the same – it’s all about them.
Entelechy on December 1, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Bush set the stage for his own problems 8 years ago when he defined himself as a “compassionate conservative.” By virtue of that, he played instantly into the enemy’s hands and wrongly put a permanent stain on conservatism. May the next GOP president not feel obligated to apologize for being conservative. After all, neither Gore, nor Kerry, nor Clinton nor Carter ever referred to themselves as “patriotic liberals.”
whitetop on December 1, 2008 at 1:47 PM
GW did his job…he cut taxes, kept this country strong,and no 9/11 type attacks happened in 7 years.
He never defended himself against political attacks and he never attacked his political opponents personally..publicly.
Thanks GW….
dec5 on December 1, 2008 at 1:49 PM
If Clayton Williams in 1990 had kept his mouth shut he would have beat Ann Richards for governor and Bush wouldn’t have been able to run in 1994 for governor and then wouldn’t have been able to run for president in 2000.
Without Bush in 2000 McCain would have won.
The republican party would be a lot better off now if McCain was elected in 2000 than Bush.
McCain would have never let spending get out of control like this.
McCain was against the bloated medicare bill. McCain was against the bloated highway bill.
There would be no president Obama without a president Bush.
There would be no democrat filibuster without a president Bush.
ryandan on December 1, 2008 at 1:51 PM
In his interview with Bush, did Charlie Gibson assume the “nation’s schoolmarm” role that he appropriated for himself in his interview with Sarah Palin? Lord knows we need a wise man like Charlie to help us figure out which of our politicians is qualified for office.
Cicero43 on December 1, 2008 at 1:56 PM
This exchange between President Bush and Charlie Gibson illustrates one of my frustrations with Bush: he is clumsy with his choice of words in a way that allows people to easily mischaracterize him.
If you look at his later explanation of what he meant by “unprepared for war,” he explains that he was referring to the “unexpected surprises” that are cast upon a President which completely transform a President’s agenda. So, while President Bush was “prepared” to take action on an agenda that he campaigned on, September 11th changed everything. After 9/11, Bush had to engage in a war on terror that he could not have anticipated under any circumstances. Thus, Bush is misusing the word “prepared” for “anticipated.” And he also fails to clarify that he is taking about the war on terror, as opposed to the war in Iraq. Now, the media can lambast Bush because he has finally, according to them, admitted that he was unprepared for the war in Iraq.
While I admire President Bush because he made a number of tough decisions under difficult circumstances, the Republicans must learn that it is important to place a higher premium on a President’s ability to articulate his or her ideas clearly so that it will not allow for easy misinterpretation by a hostile media. This is especially true given that President-Elect Obama will not make the same mistakes. So, when Republicans choose a candidate in 2012, it is critical that they choose someone who is significantly more articulate than President Bush. While there are many Republicans who fit within this description (Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, Mike Huckabee), Sarah Palin is, unfortunately, not one of those people. She can give a great speech in the same way that President Bush can give a great speech. But she cannot articulate her thoughts clearly and forcefully in the way that many of the other Republicans nominees can. Her interview with Charlie Gibson was actually worse than President Bush’s interview. Republicans cannot endure another eight years of a leader who cannot adequately articulate and defend his or her position on key decisions. More important, I don’t think the American public will allow them the opportunity if such a person is nominated.
RedSoxNation on December 1, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Palin’s interview with Couric was the worst.
The health care reform answer about the bailout.
The newspapers.
I’ll get back to you answer.
The wierd expression about Putin.
Not naming one supreme court case.
Sarah Palin did what I thought was impossible to give that nitwit Couric gravitas.
Palin has destroyed the republican party and left us with this marxist.
How after the damage she has done can she say I will plow through the door running for the presidency.
She is a curse to the republican party.
Not bad enough Palin gave us Obama and a democratic filibuster senate.
ryandan on December 1, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Wasn’t John Adams the first president to occupy the White House? Or is my sardar out of tune?
DarkCurrent on December 1, 2008 at 2:02 PM
I don’t get how you are confused.
the quote:
He said, “in other words..”…he didn’t expect to be attacked. He’s not the greatest speaker, but there is no confusion in what he meant here…not to me.
bridgetown on December 1, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I would note that McCain was originally against the tax cuts. Maybe he would have changed his mind later, but, if not, we would still be on the wrong side of the Laugher curve. Granted, he might have kept spending down better.
Count to 10 on December 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM
ryandan on December 1, 2008 at 2:02 PM
lol, are you trying to be funny?
Palin is the only reason Obama didn’t win in a landslide.
And, by the way, the American people gave us Obama. Not Palin.
bridgetown on December 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM
As much as I regret his losing the election, face it a McCain presidency would be a holding pattern at best. You would have a strong Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, McCain Derangement Syndrome in the media and Hollywood, and a POTUS who was at best a luke-warm conservative who gets an orgasm “reaching across the aisle”.
Hilts on December 1, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Agreed. Considering the doddering old fart the GOP primary voters (the stupidest peopel in America in my opinion) gave us, an unpopular President who is of the same party, the subprime meltdown (actually not really Bush’s fault at all), a slavish media who refused to scrutinize Obama – we actually did pretty good losing only by 6% points.
Hilts on December 1, 2008 at 2:17 PM
I deeply regret Bush’s massive expansion of federal government spending.
No Entitlement Left Behind.
Ares on December 1, 2008 at 2:19 PM
That was the frustrating thing. People such as us had to do the defending of him, he acted the role of a passive President. I think he tried to live his faith in office but as President it would have been nice to have seen some fire in his belly. The only time he got worked up was the wrong times – Harriet Miers, Dubai Ports, and Shamnesty.
Hilts on December 1, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Bridgetown, you are missing the point. President Bush’ inability to be clear and forceful in articulating his policies and actions is a liability. While you may understand what he is trying to say, others in the media and elsewhere will easily misrepresent what he means because it is not clear on its face. He shouldn’t have to repeatedly say, “What I mean is…” If our next Presidential candidate has the same problem, Republicans will not return to the White House in 2012. And that means Republicans cannot nominate Sarah Palin in 2012 no matter how much Republicans admire and respect her.
RedSoxNation on December 1, 2008 at 2:23 PM
For all my criticism of G.W. Bush I must say he probably was the most (or one of the most) decent human beings to occupy the Oval Office in the past 100 years at least.
Hilts on December 1, 2008 at 2:23 PM
For all my criticism of G.W. Bush I must say he probably was the most (or one of the most) decent human beings to occupy the Oval Office in the past 100 years at least.
Hilts on December 1, 2008 at 2:23 PM
I would agree with this wholeheartedly. President Bush is a very good man and history will treat him very well. He will be similar to President Truman, who also made difficult decisions before leaving office with low approval ratings.
RedSoxNation on December 1, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Godspeed, G.W. Even given all your shortcomings, you are a far better man than either your predecessor or your successor.
whitetop on December 1, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I do fault President Bush for – at a time when the American public needed it most, a time of war, he couldn’t find one competent person to be his spokesman to the press, and more importantly, to the American public. Ari had tire tracks on his back and McClellan was as nothing as nothing gets.
Marcus on December 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Thank you! I hate when the childish tantrums of the outgoing Clintonistas is denied. They did it, all right. Unfortunately, at the time, President Bush downplayed it, presumably in hope of furthering the “new tone”, and the BDS-ers immediately pounced on that as proof that nothing must have happened.
Jackals from the start, all of them.
Kensington on December 1, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Marcus on December 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Take it back. Tony Snow was awesome.
bridgetown on December 1, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Please, the damage was well beyond repair by Tony-time.
Marcus on December 1, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Of course he wasn’t prepared for 9/11 and therefore war, nobody could have been. But for an unprepared guy or anyone else he did a great job. Al Qaeda has been destroyed around the world basically and Iraq is now free.
lavell12 on December 1, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Well, looks like it’s official.
The left has hated GWBush for 8 years.
Now the right is joining them.
Poor George. I still love ya GW.
bridgetown on December 1, 2008 at 3:01 PM
I’ll be glad when the transition is complete so we can stop listening to the whining liberals and all their wharped ideals. Fortunately for them their asses are still intact after 8 years of a so-called idiot. A president’s number one responsibility is to protect the nation and all its citizens. Make an argument for that all you pu$$ie$ who can only bitch when you’ve given nothing to the effort.
.
.
I agree! Although I don’t think he had shortcomings attributed to him. I also believe that history will view him as an excellent president in the way he has shielded us from terrorists.
stacman on December 1, 2008 at 3:08 PM
all of you defending Bush- how are your 401K’s looking today?
Noneya on December 1, 2008 at 3:30 PM
I can’t say its Bush’s fault much like recovery won’t be to Bommies credit when it inevitably comes. The system freezing up I don’t think can be traced to any one person or thing. It just happen to occur on Bush’s watch. Maybe the foreign countries who own us have the belt too tight.
johnnyU on December 1, 2008 at 3:34 PM
oh, and my 401K sucks the big one.
johnnyU on December 1, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Well, not so good. Guess that is what we get for putting liberals in charge of spending the money and the economy.
If you trolls would understand that it is congress that controls the budget, you would realize that the liberals are the ones spending the money.
Here is the question for you…Who was in charge of every economic committee for the past 2 years while this disaster was developing? How are your liberal leaders looking today?
And BTW, what happened to the liberal chant of “the only way out of a recession is war”? That was what the liberals always claimed, that we entered a war to help the economy and thus helped the wealthy.
right2bright on December 1, 2008 at 3:36 PM
That was the real cost of the war (not discounting our brave soldiers).
He had to go along with the budget, or he would not have had the support for the war in congress.
A bitter trade…
right2bright on December 1, 2008 at 3:38 PM
That is a little too simplistic. It is legitimate to criticize President Bush for his failure to clearly and forcefully articulate and defend many of his key policy decisions. And that failure has undermined his effectiveness as a President because effective communication is critical to being an effective politician. Moreover, Bush’s failure to hire effective press secretaries before Tony Snow only exacerbated the problem. How are these criticisms of Bush’s ineffective communication equal to the hatred leveled by the Left over the last eight years?
RedSoxNation on December 1, 2008 at 3:39 PM
I don’t know how to feel about Bush, The best of ideals coupled with one of the worst executions imaginable. A pity really…
abobo on December 1, 2008 at 3:42 PM
ofcourse, blame reid and pelosi instead of the president for the last 8 years. whatever happened to accountability? in india, officials are resigning in disgrace for the attack there last week. but the bush administration? not ONE firing or forced resignation for 9/11. tenet gets a medal, even. pathetic. then again maybe if bush had paid more attention to his intelligence briefings 9/11 could have at least in part been prevented.
Noneya on December 1, 2008 at 3:42 PM
This is a shocking revelation!
benny shakar on December 1, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Agreed. Bush’s greatest fault was his loyalty towards incompetents who repaid him back with base ingratitude and treachery – Scott McClellan, George Tenet, Paul O’Neill (not the Yankees Rightfielder but the Treasury Secretary), Colin Powell, Michael Brown, Norm Minetta, Anthony Zinni, the list is very long indeed. Even Donald Rumsfeld a man I liked, hung around long enough to do him damage. Tony Snow though was an excellent W.H. press secretary.
Hilts on December 1, 2008 at 3:53 PM
George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain – how about nominating a principled conservative the next time?
Hilts on December 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Hilts: You are right. Bush’s greatest deficiency as a President was his inability to pick more talented people who could implement his vision of conservatism. As an executive, he should have done a better job pikcing the right people for key positions. McCellan and O’Neill were really inexcusable.
RedSoxNation on December 1, 2008 at 3:56 PM
RedSoxNation
Don’t forget Colin Powell.
Outside of Richard Nixon (whom the Left at least had a modicum of respect for his political skill, nobody claimed Nixon was an idiot – until Watergate), has there been a more undeservedly reviled President then George W. Bush? The heap of abuse that man had to endure (without fighting back) for 8 years makes me think that anyone from the GOP who wants to be POTUS is insane.By the way Maverick how well did that friendship with the Washington Press corps work out this year once the rubber hit the road?
Hilts on December 1, 2008 at 4:00 PM
IMHO Bush did not have a vision of “conservatism” (alas) other then a GOP noblesse oblige type of watered down liberalism.
Hilts on December 1, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Colin Powell’s actions in hiding Richard Armitage’s actions in the Plame affair and then endorsing Obama knowing full well that BHO had zero experience to be POTUS was utterly despicable. It was the Bush I and II administrations (along with Ronald Reagan) who raised that mediocrity to the highest positions and what was their payback? George Tenet’s act should have been shut down on or around Sep. 11, 2001. Too many Establishment Republicans (including Nixon’s daughter and Eisenhower’s granddaughter) got weak knees and humbled themselves before The One. I’ll bet that the Bush twins voted for The One.
Hilts on December 1, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Dude! Haven’t seen you since the Captain’s Quarters days.
Unfortuntately for you, your first statement is hogwash. Most of the intel that Bush used re. the WMDs came from the previous (Democrat) administration. Even our new Secretary of State-to-be said that she based her yes vote for the war not on what the evil Bush said about WMDs, but what Mr. Bill’s intel people told her when they briefed her.
Del Dolemonte on December 1, 2008 at 4:12 PM
To be fair, the GAO report did conclude that some of the stuff the Clintonistas leaving the WH were accused of doing did in fact never happen. However, the W keyboards thing did happen.
Del Dolemonte on December 1, 2008 at 4:15 PM
What a sad, self-abasing end. But I am not surprised.
Why is it so inconceivable to me that he might reaffirm the extraordinary bravery and competence of our military in winning the war, and the crucial imporance of this victory the Middle East and the world.
Or that he might instead regret that he didn’t speak up to defend himself and the military against the numberless slanders of the anti-war movement.
Or that he might regret that the “loyal opposition” turned so swiftly and dishonestly against the war three months after voting for it.
Or that he regrets that his many attempts to improve the tone on Washington were summarily spit upon by the Left.
Why is it so inconceivable that, in the vein of Eisenhower, he might give a speech on the “Academic-Media complex” of the Left that is corrupting our national communication upon which democracy depends and destroying civil discourse in America?
I’m so sick of this dry-drunk apologist for himself, this partisan ignoramus, I could puke. George Bush’s legacy to America is the rise of the Left. It appened under his watch. It happened while he watched, and said and did nothing. Good riddance. I only hope we can recover.
rrpjr on December 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Bush is a lot of things but partisan he is not. As I previously wrote I would not be surprised if he voted for “the fine, young, articulate man Obama”.
Hilts on December 1, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Right, Hilts, I agree. I meant non-partisan, or rather an ignoramus when it comes to being partisan.
rrpjr on December 1, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Maybe if Bush stopped trying to be “the good Christian turn the other cheek” President and had a bit of Truman or dare say Clinton in him he would have told his enemies where to go and would have won the respect of those of us who voted for him.
Hilts on December 1, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Bush made some mistakes, show me a President that hasn’t. But for my money and my vote, W is okay with me.
BiasedGirl on December 1, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Bush’s error was in trying to play nice with the Democrats, who were only interested in smearing him. The irony is that he will be blasted by them for the next 10 years as a “divider, not a uniter.” Needless to say, the msm will turn this into the conventional wisdom for the foreseeable future.
If you learn to look at everything Democrats say in a mirror, you’ll be about right.
tom on December 1, 2008 at 5:32 PM
By the way, it’s disappointing to see so many on the right join in the condemnation with only slightly different reasons.
tom on December 1, 2008 at 5:33 PM
A good example of backwards thinking, and adopting the media’s assessment. Bush is the opposite of an apologist for himself. He would have been more successful if he had spent more time defending himself and his positions. Partisan? If he had been more partisan, he would have spent more time concerned with helping the Republican party rather than just trying to do what was best for the country. Unfortunately, his lack of interest in partisanship helped the Democrats. It’s a great trait overall in a President to be willing to step back and let the next generation of leaders take over. If the next generation of Republican leaders hadn’t been John McCain, it might have worked. In fact, if the economy hadn’t taken such a nasty turn at just the right time, McCain still would have won.
Unfortunately, if McCain had won, the pressure for a Democrat to win the presidency the next time would have been just about irresistible. It was bad enough this time to put an empty suit in.
tom on December 1, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Two errors made in Iraq:
1. We should have forced an Iraqi surrender, not capitulation.
2. We should not have enforced a de-Baathification policy.
Anyone who has studied warfare in any detail would know that these policies were not a good idea. There is no such thing as a “conventional” war. All wars are “unconventional” at some level. Going into Iraq was a good thing for a number of reasons. It was the execution, namely the two policies I listed above, that lost us the momentum.
Send_Me on December 1, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Del, all I know is that when someone tells me they KNOW something to be a fact only to then find out otherwise, I have good reason to doubt their word.
And as we all know from later revelations about the subject of WMDs in Iraq, they were deliberately used by the Bush administration to sell the war in Iraq to the American people, as clearly described by British intelligence when they said the facts about WMDs were to be “fixed” around the unstated Bush policy of going to war in Iraq.
starfleet_dude on December 1, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »