Bush on Iraq Interim Report and Being a War President

Bottom Line Up Front: The war in Iraq was Saddam Hussein’s fault and the U.S. is there because of a U.N. mandate; this is not Bush’s War but America’s war.

Pres. Bush today briefed the press on an interim report on Iraq describing which benchmarks thus far have been met and which have not. The video compilation can be viewed HERE (4:37) 

During the Q & A session, flaming liberal reporter Helen Thomas, who apparently didn’t listen to the briefing at all, accused the President of “starting this war” and asked if he understood it was his fault. Bush rightly blamed Saddam and went on to describe the difficulty of being a war president who must own up to his conscience for doing the right thing. He went on to describe what it’s like being a war president and making decisions based on principle, not politics.

(Transcript)

HELEN THOMAS: Mr. President, you started this war, a war of your choosing, and you can end it alone, today, at this point — bring in peacekeepers, U.N. peacekeepers. Two million Iraqis have fled their country as refugees. Two million more are displaced. Thousands and thousands are dead. Don’t you understand, you brought the al Qaeda into Iraq.

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I was hoping to solve the Iraqi issue diplomatically. That’s why I went to the United Nations and worked with the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously passed a resolution that said disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. That was the message, the clear message to Saddam Hussein. He chose the course.

THOMAS: Didn’t we go into Iraq –

THE PRESIDENT: It was his decision to make. Obviously, it was a difficult decision for me to make, to send our brave troops, along with coalition troops, into Iraq. I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. Now the fundamental question facing America is will we stand with this young democracy, will we help them achieve stability, will we help them become an ally in this war against extremists and radicals that is not only evident in Iraq, but it’s evident in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Afghanistan.

On being a war president

Q: How hard is it for you to conduct the war without popular support? Do you, personally — do you ever have trouble balancing between doing what you think is the right thing and following the will of the majority of the public, which is really the essence of democracy?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is. And, first of all, I can fully understand why people are tired of the war.

…Sometimes you just have to make the decisions based upon what you think is right. My most important job is to help secure this country, and therefore, the decisions in Iraq are all aimed at helping do that job. And that’s what I firmly believe.

You know, I guess I’m like any other political figure — everybody wants to be loved, just sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don’t enable you to be loved. And so when it’s all said and done, Ed, if you ever come down and visit the old, tired, me down there in Crawford, I will be able to say I looked in the mirror and made decisions based upon principle, not based upon politics. And that’s important to me.

Trackback URL:  
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1145612

Comments

[wordsmith]

During the Q & A session, flaming liberal reporter Helen Thomas, who apparently didn’t listen to the briefing at all, accused the President of “starting this war” and asked if he understood it was his fault.

Helen Thomas is perpetually stuck on yesterday's arguments. Does she ever ask any new questions, to deal with the here and now?

[Donald Douglas]

I admire President Bush for his incredible vision and resolve. I do think history will show the greatness of this administration. The Democrats are doing their darned best to cut and run, though, perhaps leading the country to defeat before we've given it our all.

Thanks again for a great post! Have a relaxing weekend.

[Johnny]

I agree with Donald: this administration is built on enduring principle and not contemporary convention. History will be exceedingly kind to president Bush and excoriate those who advocated quick-fix/politically expedient international governance solutions.

[Amy P]

Helen Thomas was given a good will gesture by the President. This was his first conference in the new White House Press Room and he offered her a professional opportunity to hit a home run. Instead, she struck out trying to bunt.

Her only real question was "Don't you understand? YOU brought al-Qaeda into Iraq." My first thought was, Did this woman take a nap through the briefing?

What the hell is wrong with liberals? Pres. Bush drove across the Iraqi border and had al-Qaeda operatives from Iran, Syria, Libya and other countries around the world and invited then into Iraq?

Libs have no backbone or resolve. Bush no more brought al-Qaeda into Iraq than he made them hate us thus resulting in 9/11. Liberals are incapable of addressing a problem and taking responsibility or properly placing blame (which is probably why they don't have as many children as right wing religious folk; and they make terrible parents).

Let's blame, here's an idea, AL-QAEDA for going into Iraq! How about that, Helen Thomas! How about demonizing a TERRORIST group that exploited a vulnerable country with a fledgling government the way a cobra exploits the vulternabilty of a newborn learning to stand on its own two feet. How about demonizing THEM rather than the President who helped birth the new found sovereign country, you idiot.

Not only is she an idiot, she's a rude old idiot. Aside from the years of insulting Republican administrations trying to do the right thing while defending Democratic administrations getting way with doing the wrong thing, she this week with the opening of the new White House Press Room said to some reporters that Bush is a liar and sat there acting like the queen of the White House unable to understand why heads of state don't genuflect to her warped ideology.

I have a love for the elderly, but Thomas gives old people everywhere a bad name. She's unprofessional, condescending and arrogant.

[Amy P]

PS.. and don't you love it when Thomas suggest Bush send U.N. peacekeepers to Iraq? If her assertions are right, that this is a civil war and US troops cannot win in Iraq, why the hell would you send a bunch of PEACEKEEPERS in to be slaughtered??

HELLO????

[Donald Douglas]

Amy: Helen Thomas should retire. It's so much easier to blame the U.S. than to think about how well the U.S. is doing in taking it to the enemy! Liberals have no resolve, and they just simply hate the military -- or anything resembling a patriotic ethos. It's gets tiring deflecting the irrationalism, but this is the political situation that we have. The interim Iraq assessment is just that, interim. We'll be able to stay in country for awhile, as our Commander-in-Chief and our Armed Forces continue on toward victory. God bless, and our troops.

Have a great day!

[vestibule]

It's very interesting that the invasion of Iraq is now being spun as a "U.N. mandate" (especially since so many backers of the war detest the UN and believe it should be dismantled - but that's a different story). One would think that if the U.N. "mandated" US action in Iraq, they would have voted in favor of it ...

the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain proposed a UN Resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but U.S. NATO allies Canada, France, and Germany, together with Russia, strongly urged continued diplomacy. Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the U.S. eventually withdrew its resolution

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Wikipedia Backup Source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/armtwist/2003/0317usbritspain.htm

[Elmer]

Here's the problem, and why Helen Thomas sounds like she isn't listening. She asks the same questions over and over because Cheney/Bush doesn't answer! Or he lies. For instance he says he was hoping to resolve the situation diplomatically. Yes he went to the UN the first time, but when Powell asked him to go back, as evidence was mounting that there were no weapons, he refused. Then he kicked out the inspectors and invaded. Then he blames Hussein after he allowed unrestricted access to all the sites. So, as Helen says and Cheney/Bush ignores, this was a war of choice. A recreational endevor to show the world how big his balls are.

And it's all about him, isn't it, in the end. All about his ability to look at himself in the mirror. What a small boy Cheney/Bush is.

[Politically Correct]

Then why the pipeline? If we are there to help Iraq establish a democracy; then, why an American owned Pipeline? Why?

[Leticia]

I saw a little bit of this last night and I still admire our president, and I hope in time this country will appreciate the fact that we had a president who was not afraid to protect this country from terrorists.

He has done the right thing and I will not judge him for his stance in this war that was forced upon this country.

[Goat]

The loony tune liberals need to read Mike Yon's last few dispatches, I wouldn't even call on Helen Thomas or David Gregory if I were Pres Bush unless I just wanted to expose their idiocy for us conservative bloggers.Great posting Amy, I might have to snag a video or two.

[steph]

Hey, Goat. Good to see you. You've been pretty quiet lately... but then so have I.

[Amy P]

American pipe line? You'll have to provide more than that to get a decent reply (I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry).

vestibule:

It's very interesting that the invasion of Iraq is now being spun as a "U.N. mandate"

Spin? The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq signed and authorized by Congress on October 2, 2002, states:

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to:

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

It goes on. No spin here, my friend.

[Amy P]

Elmer, Pres. Bush didn't say the Iraq war was all about him. In fact, he blamed Saddam and rightly so.

The question was how he personally dealt with the intricate complexities of being a war president. His answer was that he did what was right based on principle, not opinion polls.

It's called moral authority. You're just not used to that because you're used to Democrats calling themselves the "most ethical Congress in history" and being the opposite, and the last Dem. president wouldn't notice moral authority if it wore a mini-skirt.

[Goat]

It is summertime in Ca, Steph, I work hard, play hard and visit when I can. I keep the Barnyard updated and sometimes that is a chore.
Go. Amy, Go! Hmm add an R, Go Army!

[Scott B.]

A mini-skirt. Beautiful. Yep, as I said in a post today on my blog, Thomas is still a democrat lemming, even though she's seen the corruption and lies of the last dem president (which she obviously turned a blind eye to)and every administration in general since the White House was built.

[Ruth]

Vestibule;
the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain proposed a UN Resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but U.S. NATO allies Canada, France, and Germany, together with Russia, strongly urged continued diplomacy. Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the U.S. eventually withdrew its resolution

Ruth:
UM, GEE, I WONDER IF THE SWEETHEART UNDER THE TABLE DEAL FRANCE, GERMANY AND RUSSIA HAD WITH IRAQ FOR OIL HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM VOTING AGAINST THE WAR. OR PERHAPS THE DEAL GERMANY HAD WITH IRAQ BUILDING THEM UNDERGROUND BUNKERS, OR MAYBE THE DEAL THE FRENCH HAD WITH THEM SELLING THEM SHELLS FOR MISSLES, HEY, MAYBE RUSSIA WAS AGAINST IT BECAUSE OF ITS ALLIGNMENT WITH IRAN , HMMMM OH, YOU ALSO LEFT OUT CHINA, YOU KNOW THE COUNTRY THAT HAD A DEAL WITH IRAQ TRADING OIL FOR A BLISTER AGENT TO USE WITH IRAQI CHEMICAL AGENTS. YEAH RIGHT THESE COUNTRIES ONLY WANTED TO “GIVE PEACE A CHANCE”.

[CalPatriot]

"bring in peacekeepers, U.N. peacekeepers" - Helen Thomas
Obviously Helen T. is ignorant of what is going on in world of Politics. If she had any claim of legitimacy, in this field, she would have known the UN refuses to offer, to accept, to approve, and to promote U.N. Peacekeepers into the Iraq and Middle Eastern region ( related to this war).
Why do we allow dumb people like her have access to important meetings and events like this?

[vestibule]

Dear Ruth,

Even if your fantastical assessment is 100% correct (and your USE OF ALL CAPS has surely convinced me of your reliability), it does not change the fact that there was no UN mandate to invade Iraq, and it is incredibly disingenuous to use that as a rationalization for the invasion or ongoing operations.

That is all - and WITHOUT YELLING, I might add!

- Vestibule

[Politically Correct]

Amy,
Your response to my question sounds like it came from the president himself.Do you believe that the current war in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with oil? "Much more oil is in the ground than being pumped now, that's likely why a law governing the oil has been held up in the United States as the tool for grand compromise, leading toward the path of more hand-shaking.

President Bush himself, as well as U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in separate meetings in Washington and Baghdad are all regularly urging the passage of the law." (Opposition to American Oil Grab is Unifying Iraqis
By Ben Lando, UPI. Posted July 12, 2007. http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/56513/).
Amy, again...do you believe/know/think that the current war in Iraq has nothing to do with oil? According to your posting and take on the president's speech, it seems that you believe the sole and foremost purpose of this current war in Iraq is to bring democracy to this country.