Skip to comments.WP: Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy
Posted on 01/15/2005 8:39:28 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
With the Iraq elections two weeks away and no signs of the deadly insurgency abating, Bush set no timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops and twice declined to endorse Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's recent statement that the number of Americans serving in Iraq could be reduced by year's end. Bush said he will not ask Congress to expand the size of the National Guard or regular Army, as some lawmakers and military experts have proposed.
In a wide-ranging, 35-minute interview aboard Air Force One on Friday, Bush laid out new details of his second-term plans for both foreign and domestic policy. For the first time, Bush said he will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the top priority for many social conservative groups. And he said he has no plans to cut benefits for the approximately 40 percent of Social Security recipients who collect monthly disability and survivor payments as he prepares his plan for partial privatization.
Bush was relaxed, often direct and occasionally expansive when discussing his second-term agenda, Iraq and lessons he has learned as president.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Dubya speaks truth in the 2nd paragraph. Like it or not.
You're absolutely right! The election was the "accountability". If the American people had thought Iraq was the wrong thing to do - generally - they would have stayed home on election day.
It's this very accountability which the dems don't get. The American people held the DEMOCRATS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR TERRIBLE TREATMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. Ain't it great!!
It's kind of a mystery to me why Bush keeps giving these exclusive interviews to his worst enemies. The Washington Post? The whole article is snide and superior, with constant little zingers thrown in that have nothing to do with the interview itself. The interviewers are certainly not exactly thrilled that the President has given them this big opportunity at a key moment right before the Inaugural.
Also, they try desperately hard to make an issue of Bush's statement that he won't lobby the Senate to pass a defense of marriage amendment. And they repeat again and again that Bush's supporters from the religious right will be very angry with him for refusing to carry out his campaign promise to them.
Nonsense. Look at what Bush actually says. I guess I can't quote it, and it's buried way down deep in the article among admonitions to the religious right to rise in revolt against the president who betrayed them. But what he said, if you look for it, is that the Defense of Marriage Act already does the job, according to advice he has from many senators, and unless time proves them wrong he's willing to wait and see.
Still, why not give interviews to Rush Limbaugh, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and the NY Post, and to hell with the Washington Post?
I concur,obviosly if people didn't like the way "W" was conducting the war in Iraq or the war on terror in general they had the opportunity to vote for someone else.If that "someone else" could have convinced me they would or could conduct that war more aggressively I might have voted for them, but that's not what the opposition was going for was it?
"I did my best to reach out, and I will continue to do so as the president," Bush said. "It's important for people to know that I'm the president of everybody."
Heh... I love that one. "I'm the president of everybody." Damn skippy. The leftist hippies can plunk that down in their bongs and smoke it.
There's a lot here to digest on the President and the gay marriage issue in the senate. The article does accurately point out that there's not enough votes in the senate to pass a marriage amendment. The congress is still closely split and there's too many RINOs like Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins waiting to jump ship on it. I do not believe we'll see the President drop gay marriage as an issue at all - he'll look to the states. Gay marriage was struck down in all eleven states it came up in last November. Do I think ultimately we'll need a federal marriage amendment? Unfortunately yes I think we do. Courts like the 9th Circuit will make this necessary. But we don't have the votes in the senate for it yet. Even after the '06 midterm elections we won't have enough votes for it. We really need to oust the RINOs.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections"
Yep! It drive the Demorats nutty!
A good question. Perhaps the President thinks people will learn more about the news media than about him during such interviews.
Forcing the Senators to vote gives voters a chance to decide if they really do represent them or not.
That's still a big number there.
An excellent point.
But have a great time at your inaugural parties. Somehow my invitation must have been lost in the mail. I'm sure that my under $100 contribution (yet everything I could afford) had nothing to do with that (heh heh).
The public's decision is underscored by Kerry's campaign having pounded the argument that Bush messed up in Iraq, even to the point of Kerry using the "F" word in this regard. Hard to see the public's rejection of Kerry in any other light than a rejection of his main campaign premise.
WHAT ..?? So how many votes over 3.7 million do you require before it's not a "squeaker"??
"But have a great time at your inaugural parties. Somehow my invitation must have been lost in the mail. I'm sure that my under $100 contribution (yet everything I could afford) had nothing to do with that (heh heh)."
Makes no sense, just like the rest of your post.
And "Republican Wildcat calls me senseless. I never made claims to being privy to such, just chided you "bots" for trying to place a mortal being on a pedestal. We got the best candidate our choices afforded - be happy. I'm going to fight him where he's wrong because I believe our predecessors didn't give their efforts and very lives to see this country handed over to the United Nations and bent over to be Mexico's bitch. Please pardon my language, good ladies out there, but I'm at a loss to find any way to put that more delicately.
It was too close for comfort. The bright side is that even with most of the media and almost all of the culture leaders in favor of Kerry, he couldn't raise enough support to get elected.
Look people rejected Kerry, that is not the same thing as ratifying Iraq policy. We will know in a couple of years about that, I think. It will depend on events outside of control and prediction, but that is not W's fault. We tried, and now we will see if we made a difference in the long run.
Agreed. I do think even if Americans don't like the Iraq war they don't want to repeat the mistakes we made in getting out of Vietnam.
He is exposing more about the lefty media than anything else by giving these interviews, imo. That's a bonus.
3% perecentage points is close. He also had the most votes against him than any candidate in history. He won, but "squeaker" is accurate.
You can't spin math.
He also got more votes for him than any candidate in history. You're right. You can't spin math.
Ah, there's the problem. Tunnel vision.
I hope that there was more to what he actually said because I would hope that the President would hold accountable people who gave him bad advice or bad information.
I believe the president says things to deliberately enrage the loony left.
I love it!
2000 was a "squeaker" - 2004 was not .. regardless of your math trumps all attitude. I find it interesting that the dems are all saying the same thing you are .. Hmmmm?
It wasn't a squeaker to me - and if all the illegal votes the dems used were eliminated - it would probably have been more like 5%.
Exactly, we'll put. To argue that it wasn't close doesn't lend any support to a leftist agenda.
Talk about saying things the dems are saying... Let me guess - the illegal votes were a result of Diebold machines... Tin foil hat alert.
Don't try to turn this around and say I'm some sort of kook - we already know some of the tricks the democrats do in order to get votes .. they have been widly publicized .. and no .. I'm not blaming the Diebold machines.
You might find out more if you would check my FReeper page before you start spouting your KOOK stuff! Geeeeeez, all you have to do is look at the election in Washington state and see what the dems do with elections. It's funny .. I don't see Jesse or Conyers out there in WA demanding that every vote count - especially when there are 8400 more votes than they have registed voters.
YOU'RE THE ONE WHO's AGREEING WITH THE DEMS - WHO ARE SAYING THIS ELECTION IS A "SQUEAKER" - NOT ME.
Get an education - seriously.
You poor thing .. can't take the challenge huh??
The challenge of arguing logically with a believer? No I can't - your belief is stronger than my facts. Good luck with that.