Bush tells biographer: 'I do tears'

Charlotte Observer ^ | Sep. 04, 2007 | By CALVIN WOODWARD

[af_vet_rr]

Yes, because our military should know how to predict the future in a war situation.

Anybody who plans for one and only one outcome is foolish. Even as we were prepping the bombs for Japan, we were pushing more and more soldiers, sailors, and Marines into the Pacific Theater, building more airstrips, hospitals, and everything else that would be needed in case of an invasion of Japan. In the military, you should always have a Plan B (and C and D and E and so on).

Bush made it sound like they only planned on Saddam digging into Baghdad and that they planned on ethnic tensions easing immediately. If they only planned that, then, I don't know what to think, because that's just incredibly dumb.

I can't believe they only had that plan. There has to be something missing from this excerpt/book.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

No doubt the most vilified and misrepresented man in modern history. Even to the point that he has to assure the public that he is human and feels sorrow. No surprise, they will bash him on this too.

Bush has disappointed me in a lot of ways, but I think history will validate his decision to invade Iraq - there's apparently a lot of room to second-guess some decisions (disbanding the Iraqi army, allowing Muqtada al-Sadr to survive, not getting someone like Petraeus in charge from the beginning, etc.), but the removal of a butcher like Saddam was an absolute good. The attempt to bring true democracy to Iraq was one of the most noble acts in the history of US foreign policy and Bush deserves great praise for it.

Bush-hatred is Clinton-hatred x 10. As mainstream media dies, it's establishment moderate-to-liberal views are being replaced with bizarre left-wing kookery on sites like DailyKos and DU. Populist political forums drive the party faithful on both sides now - I'd guess the next president, regardless of party affiliation, will experience even worse.

[Bullfrogg]

Being a President of the US is a weighty job on anyone’s shoulders with responsibilities far reaching around the world. Many heavy decisions to be made, whether it risked life or limb. The presidency is a noble and grand place to acquire, and not to be taken lightly by anyone. We all have our armchair quarterbacks saying they can do this or that when, in reality, the cain’t do squat. We all humans have our destiny, which is laid out before us. It is a map of our life, we follow it unknowingly, and reap the benefits both good and bad. Can you fill the job of the presidency, without shedding a few tears? I bet you the Great Bent One did! I can’t said Clinton brought his wrongs all on himself. He was fulfilling his destiny before the world.

Bullfrog

[Huck]

because it was deemed to be extremely unlikely

Deemed unlikely by morons. To the rest of the world it was a known, you might even say, a likely threat. Hell, a lot of people DID say it was a likely threat.

[American_Centurion]

a lot of people DID say it was a likely threat.

Provide a quote please.

[freekitty]

Crying about it doesn’t get the job done, Mr. President.

[Huck]

Just google it and you’ll find all you could want.

Here’s a story from 2002 that says:

“It is quite possible that if we went in, took out Saddam Hussein, and then left quickly, the result would be an extremely bloody civil war,” says William Galston, the director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at the University of Maryland, who was a Marine during the Vietnam War. “That blood would be directly on our hands.” Most people I spoke with, whether in favor of war or not, recognized that military action is a barbed hook: once it goes in, there is no quick release.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200211/fallows

But that’s just the first one that came up. I’m sure there’s plenty of statements out on the web by Joe Biden and others.

[UndauntedR]

The Cheney ‘94 video.

[Right2BareArms]

The part I don’t get about this whole thing was a supposed excerpt from the book saying Bush has read 87 books this year.

If he’s reading 87 books and crying all the time, then it’s no wonder our borders are so open.

[Dixiekraut]

Are you for real?

They used the worst case scenario to justify an immediate military action...and the rosiest scenario for what would come after.

Ridiculous.

If the overall strategy was to change the whole middle eastern dynamic by establishing democracy there..then they tried to do it on the cheap.

Gen.Shinseki was right about needed troop levels...and Rumsfeld and Co. were dead wrong...3,500 and counting wrong...not to mention the 1,000s of maimed.

No accountability.

Shameful disgrace.

[Shryke]

No accountability. Shameful disgrace.

Mind expanding what you mean here?

Aslo - are you suggesting that the ~3500 American soldiers killed in Iraq so far would be alive today if we had more troops in the area?

[meandog]

It was indeed a shameful disgrace, Shryke. The president put a lot of misplaced loyalty in the counsel of Donald Rumsfeld and it cost him plenty. If we had employed a full surge of troops in the beginning as some of the generals urged, IMO, Bush would have been today enjoying great popularity and looking forward to a well-deserved legacy with the Republican party in full control of the Congress. Instead we got looting of art, ammo, and possibly WMDs; the complete teardown of Iraq's military and paramilitary police force, and disruption of its infrastructure sewage, water and power grid--with more than half of the population out of work.
The article mentions that 7 of his closest advisers urged in 2006 the firing of Rummy, but Bush sided with three (and you can bet Cheney was one of those 3) to keep him--so his misplaced loyalty in perhaps the third most incompetent SECDEF in history (McNamara and Cameron holding the distinction of the other two) have cost him his place in history.

[SmoothTalker]

“I cry when I think of what he’s doing to our country as opposed to what he said he was going to do.”

Me too!

[shield]

ping

[Harrius Magnus]

"The attempt to bring true democracy to Iraq was one of the most noble acts in the history of US foreign policy and Bush deserves great praise for it."

I will continue to support this President, and the decision. However, between you, me, and FR'eep-world, my belief in "democracy" in Iraq has gone the way of my opinion of the Muslim world in general. Furthermore, facing a hostile Leftist tide at home, and future entitlement obligations, I'm much more comfortable with an argument of strategic interests rather than a war born for nobility sake. I count on my President to prioritize with the available facts. The "tears" worry me that his Christianity is inappropriately distributed between his heart and his head.

[COgamer]

“Aslo - are you suggesting that the ~3500 American soldiers killed in Iraq so far would be alive today if we had more troops in the area?”

This is indisputable. Had we had more troops, and crushed the insurgency and militias immediately, then of course there would be less casualties on our side. Do you disagree?

[cmotormac44]

Amen——”who who is without guilt, cast the first stone”-—

[cmotormac44]

Amen——”he who is without guilt, cast the first stone”-—

[Shryke]

This is indisputable. Had we had more troops, and crushed the insurgency and militias immediately, then of course there would be less casualties on our side. Do you disagree?

I disagree with the claim that we would have no casualties - which is exactly how his claim was worded. It's preposterous. People that make claims as such are crazy.

[nmh]

I believe he does shed many tears on a daily basis.

While I may not agree with him on immigration and some other things, he is a stubborn man and DOES love his country and the people in it. He takes his responsibility seriously. He has a heart.