President Bush regrets his legacy as man who wanted war

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Jun 10, 2008.

  1. From The Times
    June 11, 2008

    President Bush regrets his legacy as man who wanted war

    ’I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric’
    Tom Baldwin and Gerard Baker in Ljubljana

    President Bush has admitted to The Times that his gun-slinging rhetoric made the world believe that he was a “guy really anxious for war” in Iraq. He said that his aim now was to leave his successor a legacy of international diplomacy for tackling Iran.

    In an exclusive interview, he expressed regret at the bitter divisions over the war and said that he was troubled about how his country had been misunderstood. “I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric.”

    Phrases such as “bring them on” or “dead or alive”, he said, “indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace”. He said that he found it very painful “to put youngsters in harm’s way”. He added: “I try to meet with as many of the families as I can. And I have an obligation to comfort and console as best as I possibly can. I also have an obligation to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain.”

    The unilateralism that marked his first White House term has been replaced by an enthusiasm for tough multilateralism. He said that his focus for his final six months in office was to secure agreement on issues such as establishing a Palestinian state and to “leave behind a series of structures that makes it easier for the next president”.

    Mr Bush is concerned that the Democratic nominee Barack Obama might open cracks in the West’s united front towards Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. At the EU-US summit in Slovenia, he pressed for tougher sanctions against Iran unless it agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment programme verifiably: “They can either face isolation, or they can have better relations with all of us.”

    Mr Bush told The Times that when his successor arrived and assessed “what will work or what won’t work in dealing with Iran”, he would stick with the current policy.

    Shaul Mofaz, a hardline Israeli minister, has suggested that a military strike on Iran is “unavoidable”. But Mr Bush said: “We ought to work together, keep focused. His comments really should be viewed as the need to continue to keep pressuring Iran.”

    The President was keen to bind his successor into a continued military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, but offered only cautious optimism about a recent decline in violence. Asked about corruption allegations dogging Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, Mr Bush insisted: “I have found him to be an honest man.”

    He also offered words of encouragement for another ally, Gordon Brown, whom he will meet on Sunday. He said that he needed no advice on coping with political adversity. He is “plenty confident and plenty smart, plenty capable — he can sort it out”.

    But he delivered a thinly veiled warning to Mr Obama that his promises to renegotiate or block international trade deals were already causing alarm in Europe and beyond.

    “There is concern about protectionism and economic nationalism,” he said. “Leaders recognise now is the time to get ahead of this issue before it becomes engrained in the political systems of our respective countries.”

    Acknowledging that his refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol once created consternation in Europe, he said that there was now a recognition that that richer countries needed to “transfer out of the hydrocarbon economy”. He insisted, however, that any binding emission targets would have to include China and India to be workable.

    The President knows that Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain will have to distance himself from the current Administration. "He's an independent person who will make his decisions on what he thinks is best."

    Asked if the US is ready for a black president, Mr Bush says: "I think the fact that the Democratic Party nominated Barack Obama is a statement about how far America has come.

    "Having that all that, it's going to be important for the American people to figure out who can handle the task of the 21st Century. It's a challenging job."

    President Bush has admitted to The Times that his gun-slinging rhetoric made the world believe that he was a “guy really anxious for war” in Iraq. He said that his aim now was to leave his successor a legacy of international diplomacy for tackling Iran.

    In an exclusive interview, he expressed regret at the bitter divisions over the war and said that he was troubled about how his country had been misunderstood. “I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric.”

    Phrases such as “bring them on” or “dead or alive”, he said, “indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace”. He said that he found it very painful “to put youngsters in harm’s way”. He added: “I try to meet with as many of the families as I can. And I have an obligation to comfort and console as best as I possibly can. I also have an obligation to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain.”

    The unilateralism that marked his first White House term has been replaced by an enthusiasm for tough multilateralism. He said that his focus for his final six months in office was to secure agreement on issues such as establishing a Palestinian state and to “leave behind a series of structures that makes it easier for the next president”.

    Mr Bush is concerned that the Democratic nominee Barack Obama might open cracks in the West’s united front towards Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. At the EU-US summit in Slovenia, he pressed for tougher sanctions against Iran unless it agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment programme verifiably: “They can either face isolation, or they can have better relations with all of us.”

    Mr Bush told The Times that when his successor arrived and assessed “what will work or what won’t work in dealing with Iran”, he would stick with the current policy.

    Shaul Mofaz, a hardline Israeli minister, has suggested that a military strike on Iran is “unavoidable”. But Mr Bush said: “We ought to work together, keep focused. His comments really should be viewed as the need to continue to keep pressuring Iran.”

    The President is keen to bind his successor into a continued military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, but offered only cautious optimism about a recent decline in violence. Asked about corruption allegations dogging Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, Mr Bush insisted: “I have found him to be an honest man.”

    He also offered words of encouragement for another ally, Gordon Brown, whom he will meet on Sunday. He said that the Prime Minister needed no advice on coping with political adversity. He is “plenty confident and plenty smart, plenty capable — he can sort it out”.

    But he delivered a thinly veiled warning to Mr Obama that his promises to renegotiate or block international trade deals were already causing alarm in Europe and beyond.

    “There is concern about protectionism and economic nationalism,” he said. “Leaders recognise now is the time to get ahead of this issue before it becomes engrained in the political systems of our respective countries.”

    Acknowledging that his refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol once created consternation in Europe, he said that there was now a recognition that that richer countries needed to “transfer out of the hydrocarbon economy”. He insisted, however, that any binding emission targets would have to include China and India to be workable.

    The President knows that Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain will have to distance himself from the current Administration. "He's an independent person who will make his decisions on what he thinks is best."

    Asked if the US is ready for a black president, Mr Bush says: "I think the fact that the Democratic Party nominated Barack Obama is a statement about how far America has come.

    "Having said all that, it's going to be important for the American people to figure out who can handle the task of the 21st Century. It's a challenging job."

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4107327.ece
     
  2. George Bush is a Colossal DoucheBag.

    They were pining for war with Iraq as soon as he got into Office.

    How many Dead Iraqi Innocents?

    100,000? 500,000?? A Million???

    Who cares, right? The Pentagon won't release those numbers. Bad for business!

    And we got 15,000 Dead Americans.

    Only some 4,000 by the Pentagon count. They only consider combat deaths as fatalities inside Iraq. Not wounded shipped to Germany that later died of complications.

    Statistics really are a great discipline. Good for lying!
     
  3. Sam321

    Sam321

    I trust what the Pentagon says over some foreign scum bag with the confidence that he can brainwash people like YOU if they run a blog or pose as a journalist.

     
  4. McCain will pick up where Bush left off.
     
  5. Is body count the only score card of war?
     
  6. Not surprised you Neoconned Retards still blindly trust the Pentagon after they 'missed' 911 and sold us lies to get us into Iraq.

    Real clever. Bet you voted for Bush, twice. Didn't ya?

    Not all of us have that blood lust to kill hundreds-of-thousands of innocents. But hey, you got "resolve".
     
  7. It must be at least two million, if not three million. I have it on good authority (some comment on DailyKos) that our troops are raping and killing at least 5,000 Iraqis every day. It's medieval out there, akin to what the Mongols did when their enemies didn't surrender. Within a few years left, there won't be any Iraqis left! Then Iraq becomes the 51st state, and wham! We've got the oil!

    Oh, our gubment is evil AND sneaky, I tell you!

    I hear it's more like 100,000 dead Americans. Another poster on Daily Kos whose girlfriend's brother's cousin's dentist's nephew is in Iraq, heard that our guys are being blown away at the rate of 500 or more a day. This is being hidden from the media by massive Halliburton payoffs to TV and newspaper owners, and from families of dead soldiers by faked letters saying their loved ones are on extended R & R tours that may take years.

    Pretty soon all our soldiers and Marines will be dead, and wham! Hello draft!

    Damn our gubment is just rotten, I tell ya!
     
  8. No, its the Evil Liberals and Constitutionalists who are Sneaky! Always faking 'bad news' about Iraq, reporting body counts and bombs every day! Jeez, it just gets so mundane after awhile. Why can't they just report all the happy stuff and great "progress' we're making over there! Bad for moral and all, Darn it!

    Cut the shit, Hapless. Its getting old.

    What are the numbers? Seriously? Theres a huge number of Dead Iraqi civilians left in the wake of this Invasion.

    Want to be put a number on it? Even guess? Its between 100,000 to a Million. Those are respected sources.

    And save the BS about the Pentagon Truth Tellers for another day. These guys won't let caskets get photographed and just got caught paying retired Generals to shill for the War Effort. Pure propoganda. But in your World, thats just a 'legal business transaction between two willing parties'. Nothing wrong about that!


    Seems like you spend a lot of time over at DailyKos. Is that your hobby? Ferreting out Neoconserviate enemies and 'exposing' them. Wow. You really know how to have a good time.

    The Pentagon has a vested interest in keeping the War Effort palatable to Americans. That means no dead bodies shown in the press, limit the horror stories to a minimum, only glowing progress reviews allowed, etc etc.

    Problem of managing war in a Democracy is people actually get tired of it. Can you believe it?? Geesh. And to think if we lose Iraq that tidal wave of Calaphytes will land on Americas shores the next day!! And then we better start praying to high heaven then!!
     
  9. Sam321

    Sam321

    hundreds-of-thousands of innocents. Yea, right. That's what you want to believe. No peoples of 26 million would stand for such loss. You think most Iraqis are as foolish as you believing in WMD's. I never did. But taking Iraq for geopolitical reasons made sense, and we did it with the least amount of bloodshed.

    Blame the Islamists and our incompetence for not facing them early for the loss of life (but no where near 100,000). We are kicking their asses now. The Surge is working. So get over it.

     
  10. Please explain.
     
    #10     Jun 11, 2008