Bush Admits.....
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 08-27-2004 - 8:37pm |
Bush admits Iraq miscalculations
8/27/2004 10:00:00 AM GMT
http://www.aj-review.com/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_ID=3226
Bush told the newspaper he would continue diplomatic pressure.
Source: Reuters
For the first time, Bush admitted on Thursday that he had miscalculated post-war conditions in Iraq, according to the New York Times.
The paper quoted Bush as saying during a 30-minute interview that he made "a miscalculation of what the conditions would be" in post-war Iraq.
However, Bush still insists that the 17-month-long uprising was the unintended by-product of a "swift victory" against Saddam Hussein's military, the New York Times reported.
He claims that his strategy had been "flexible enough" to respond. "We're adjusting to our conditions" in places like Najaf, he was quoted as saying.
969 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since the invasion, 828 of them since April 30, 2003. An additional 6,690 service members have been wounded, most of them during the occupation, according to the Pentagon.
Bush also discussed the issue of North Korea and Iran's nuclear ambitions, saying that he would not be rushed to set deadlines.
"Bush displayed none of the alarm about North Korea's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq", according to the paper.
It quoted him as saying about the leaders of North Korea and Iran: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators."
Bush told the newspaper he would continue diplomatic pressure. It said he gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.
"I'm confident that over time this will work -- I certainly hope it does," the newspaper quoted Bush as saying of the diplomatic approach.

Pages
Wasn't the country told at the beginning of the war that Iraq's oil would pay for the war?
Well that was easier said then done, now the U.S. taxpayers are paying for Bush's war.
Bush hasn't made money on the war not because he didn't plan to - he hasn't made money on the war because nothing turned out the way he thought it would - and that's because he never gave it any thought - he just bombed.
So in other words he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. I suspect that's why all politicians are so reluctant to admit anything-if they do admit it, they are either crucified for the admission or accused of it being "too little, too late". They can't win, so they're really better off not being honest in today's climate. Whatever they do say is usually worse for them than saying nothing. Luckily this president doesn't usually base his statements on the whims of public opinion.
Don't know where you get yours. Kerry said recently that even knowing that Saddam does not have WMDs he still would have voted the same way. Perhaps you should check again.
What about Hallliburton and Cheney? Cheney used to be the CEO of Halliburton-he no longer is. Halliburton has been a government contractor since World War II and actually since having been awarded the Iraqi contracts their profits are down. How exactly do you expect George W. Bush to profit fromt he fact that Dick Cheney used to work for Halliburton? By the way, are you aware that Halliburton has connections to the inner circles of virtually every administration in recent history, including Clinton's?
I agree. It's too bad we didn't, we could have avoided all of this.
It bothers me that some of our intelligence was mistaken, yes. It bothers me that France, Germnay and Russia cared more about making a buck then they did about terrorism, the Iraqi people, or the credibility of the UN security council, yes. But I do not believe that the lives that have been lost are in vain, by nay stretch of the imagination. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives will be saved by our action over the course of history.
Well that was easier said then done, now the U.S. taxpayers are paying for Bush's war. >
Yes, I believe that is exactly what I just said. No one is making money from this war-that doens't mean it was the wrong thing to do. The aftermath was miscalculated, the financial costs greater than anticipated. But even if that had not been the case, how exactly was W supposed to profit from this war? Still haven't been able to figure that accusation out.
Oh I see, Bush knew that the war in Iraq would cause oil prices to soar-wait a minute, I thought he went to Iraq to get our hands on all that oil-wouldn't that cause oil prices to drop? Which is it, which scenario exactly WAS the evil Bush's master plan?
Halliburton got a no bid contract because Halliburton was the only company with the capability of performing the work in question. The contract has been investigated and proven to be completely legal and proper. Halliburton's profits are down since it started working on Iraqi contracts-they are highly specialized, very expensive and risky projects to carry out, rebuilding a nation's infrastructure amidst terrorist attacks. Not too many companies with the equipment or security resources necessry to perform that task.
Pages