Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush: on War & Peace
Colin Powell:
2001: Counseled against Iraq at same time as Afghanistan
Saddam's brutal dictatorship was widely considered the most dangerous country in the world."Dealing with Iraq would show a major commitment to antiterrorism," Don Rumsfeld said.Colin cautioned against it. "Going after Iraq now would be viewed as a bai
and switch," he said. "We would lose the UN, the Islamic countries, and NATO. If we want to do Iraq, we should do it at a time of our choosing. But we should not do it now, because we don't have linkage to this event."
Dick Cheney understood the threat
of Saddam Hussein and believed we had to address it. "But now is not a good time to do it," he said. "We would lose our momentum. Right now people have to choose between the US and the bad guys."
Unless I received definitive evidence tying Saddam
Hussein to the 9/11 plot, I would work to resolve the Iraq problem diplomatically. I hoped unified pressure by the world might compel Saddam to meet his international obligations. The best way to show him we were serious was to succeed in Afghanistan.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.189-191
Nov 9, 2010
Colin Powell:
Pre-9-11 goal: Keep Saddam in his box
By early 2001, Saddam Hussein was waging a low-grade war against the US. In 1999 and 2000, his forces had fired 700 times at our pilots patrolling the no-fly zones. For my first eight months in office, my policy focused on tightening the sanctions--or, a
Colin Powell put it, keeping Saddam Hussein in his box. Then 9/11 hit, and we had to take a fresh look at every threat in the world.- Saddam didn't just sympathize with terrorists. He had paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
-
Saddam wasn't just a sworn enemy of America. He had fired at our aircraft, issues a statement praising 9/11, and made an assassination attempt on a former president, my father.
- Saddam didn't just threaten his neighbors.
He had invaded two of them, Iran in the 1980s and Kuwait in the 1990s.
Before 9/11, Saddam was a problem America might have been able to manage. Through the lens of the post 9/11 world, my view changed.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.228-229
Nov 9, 2010
Dick Cheney:
2001: Counseled attacking Iraq after Afghanistan
In Sept. 2001, we considered confronting Iraq as well as the Taliban. "Dealing with Iraq would show a major commitment to antiterrorism," Don Rumsfeld said.Colin cautioned against it. "We would lose the UN, the Islamic countries, and NATO. If we want
to do Iraq, we should do it at a time of our choosing. But we should not do it now, because we don't have linkage to this event."
Dick Cheney understood the threat of Saddam Hussein and believed we had to address it. "But now is not a good time to do
it," he said. "We would lose our momentum. Right now people have to choose between the US and the bad guys."
I welcomed the vigorous debate. Unless I received definitive evidence tying Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 plot, I would work to resolve the
Iraq problem diplomatically. I hoped unified pressure by the world might compel Saddam to meet his international obligations. The best way to show him we were serious was to succeed in Afghanistan.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.189-191
Nov 9, 2010
Donald Rumsfeld:
2001: Counseled attacking Iraq at same time as Afghanistan
In Sept. 2001, we considered confronting Iraq as well as the Taliban. Before 9/11, Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship was widely considered the most dangerous country in the world."Dealing with Iraq would show a major commitment to antiterrorism," Don
Rumsfeld said.Colin cautioned against it. "We would lose the UN, the Islamic countries, and NATO. If we want to do Iraq, we should do it at a time of our choosing. But we should not do it now, because we don't have linkage to this event."
Dick
Cheney understood the threat of Saddam Hussein and believed we had to address it. "But now is not a good time to do it," he said.
I welcomed the vigorous debate. Listening to the discussion and divergent views helped clarify my options. Unless
I received definitive evidence tying Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 plot, I would work to resolve the Iraq problem diplomatically. The best way to show him we were serious was to succeed in Afghanistan.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.189-191
Nov 9, 2010
George W. Bush:
2003: No WMD, but it was not a major point against Saddam
In the summer of 2003, our troops in Iraq had not found the weapons of mass destruction we all expected, and the media's scramble for a scapegoat had commenced. In my 2003 State of the Union address, I had cited a British intelligence report that
Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger. The single sentence in my 5000-word speech was not a major point in the case against Saddam. The British stood by the intelligence (In 2004, the nonpartisan Butler
Report concluded that the statement was "well-founded.") Yet those sixteen words became a political controversy and a massive distraction. In July 2003, former ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote a New York Times column alleging that the administration had
ignored his skeptical findings when he traveled to Africa to investigate the Iraq-Niger connection. There were serious questions about the accuracy and thoroughness of Wilson's report, but his charge became a prime talking point for critics of the war.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.102-103
Nov 9, 2010
George W. Bush:
Greatest regret: not bringing bin Laden to justice
I thought back to Oct. 2001 when I announced the opening of the war. A country dominated by one of history's cruelest regimes was now governed by freely elected leaders. Women who had been prisoners in their homes were serving in parliament. While still
danger, al Qaeda had lost the camps it used to train 10,000 terrorists and plan 9/11. The Afghan people had cast their ballots in multiple free elections and had built an increasingly capable army of 79,000 soldiers.I also knew I was leaving behind
unfinished business. I wanted badly to bring bin Laden to justice. The fact that we did not ranks among my great regrets. It certainly wasn't for lack of effort. For seven years, we kept the pressure on. While we never found the al Qaeda leader, we did
force him to change the way he traveled, communicated, and operated. That helped us deny him his greatest wish after 9/11: to see America attacked again.
In 2010, the war in Afghanistan continues. I strongly believe the mission is worth the cost.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.219-220
Nov 9, 2010
George W. Bush:
Pre-9-11, Saddam was a manageable problem, but not after
For my first eight months in office, my policy focused on tightening the sanctions. Then 9/11 hit, and we had to take a fresh look at every threat in the world.- Saddam didn't just sympathize with terrorists. He had paid the families of Palestinian
suicide bombers.
- Saddam wasn't just a sworn enemy of America. He had fired at our aircraft, issues a statement praising 9/11, and made an assassination attempt on a former president, my father.
- Saddam didn't just threaten his neighbors. He had
invaded two of them, Iran in the 1980s and Kuwait in the 1990s.
- Saddam didn't just violate international demands. He had defied 16 UN resolutions, dating back to the Gulf War.
Before 9/11, Saddam was a problem America might have been able to
manage. Through the lens of the post 9/11 world, my view changed. I had just witnessed the damage inflicted by 19 fanatics armed with box cutters. I could only imagine the destruction possible if an enemy dictator passed his WMD to terrorists.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.228-229
Nov 9, 2010
George W. Bush:
"Mission Accomplished" banner was a big mistake
I had said, "You won't see us doing any victory dances or anything." On May 1, 2003, aboard the USS Lincoln, I said in my speech, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth
every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq."I hadn't noticed the large banner my staff had placed on the bridge of the ship, positioned for TV. It read, "Mission
Accomplished." It was intended as a tribute to the folks aboard the Lincoln, which had just completed the longest deployment for an aircraft carrier. Instead, it looked like I was doing the victory dance I had warned against. "Mission Accomplished" becam
a shorthand criticism for all that subsequently went wrong in Iraq. My speech made clear that our work was far from done. But all the explaining in the world could not reverse the perception. Our stagecraft had gone awry. It was a big mistake.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.256-257
Nov 9, 2010
George W. Bush:
"Bring 'em on" comment left wrong impression
I said in July, "There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. My answer is 'Bring 'em on'." Anytime I spoke on Iraq, there were multiple audiences listening. I thought about four in particular.- The
American people. Their support was essential to funding & fighting the war.
- Our troops. They needed to know I stood firmly behind their mission.
- The Iraqi people. The vast majority of Iraqis wanted us to stay long enough to help a democratic societ
emerge. It was important that I communicate my resolve.
- The enemy. They believed acts of savagery could affect our decisions. I had to make clear they never would.
My "bring 'em on" comment was intended to show confidence in our troops and signal
that they enemy could never shake our will. But the firestorm of criticism showed that I had left a wrong impression with other audiences. I learned from the experience and paid closer attention to how I communicated with each audience in the years ahead
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.260-261
Nov 9, 2010
George W. Bush:
Biggest failure of Iraq war: cutting troop level too quickly
Over the years, I've spent a great deal of time thinking about what went wrong in Iraq and why. I have concluded that we made two errors that account for many of the setbacks we faced.
The first is that we did not respond more quickly or aggressively when the security situation started to deteriorate after Saddam's regime fell. In the ten months following the invasion, we cut troop levels from 192,000 to 109,000.
Many of the remaining troops focused on training the Iraqi army and police, not protecting the Iraqi people.
While there was logic behind these assumptions, the Iraqi people's desire for security trumped their aversion to occupation.
Cutting troop levels too quickly was the most important failure of execution in the war. The other error was the intelligence failure on Iraq's WMD.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.268-269
Nov 9, 2010
George W. Bush:
Saddam wanted everyone to believe he had WMD; & everyone did
[A major error] that accounts for many of the setbacks we faced was the intelligence failure on Iraq's WMD. Almost a decade later, it is hard to describe how widespread an assumption it was that Saddam had WMD. Supporters of the war believed it;
opponents of the war believed it; even members of Saddam's own regime believed it. We all knew that intelligence is never 100% certain; that's the nature of the business. But I believed that the intelligence on Iraq's WMD was solid. If Saddam didn't have
WMD, why wouldn't he just prove it to the inspectors? Every psychological profile I had read told me Saddam was a survivor. If he cared so much about staying in power, why would he gamble his regime by pretending to have WMD?
Part of the explanation
came after Saddam's capture, when he was debriefed by the FBI. He told agents that he was more worried about looking weak to Iran than being removed by the coalition. He never thought the US would follow through on our promise to disarm him by force.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.269
Nov 9, 2010
George W. Bush:
2006: troop levels for victory in Iraq, not victory in polls
In Sept. 2006, with the midterm elections approaching, my friend Mitch McConnell (R-KY) came to the Oval Office. Mitch has a sharp political nose, and he smelled trouble. I asked, "What do you want me to do about it?"He said, "bring some troops home
from Iraq." He was not alone. As violence in Iraq escalated, members of both parties had called for a pullout.
I said, "I believe our presence in Iraq is necessary to protect American, and I will not withdraw troops unless military conditions warrant."
I made clear I would set troop levels to achieve victory in Iraq, not victory at the polls.
What I did not tell him was that I was seriously considering the opposite of his recommendations. Rather than pull troops out, I was on the verge of making the
toughest and most unpopular decision of my presidency: deploying more troops into Iraq with a new strategy, a new commander, and a mission to protect the Iraqi people and help enable the rise of a democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.355
Nov 9, 2010
George W. Bush:
2006: For first time, worried we might not succeed in Iraq
The summer of 2006 was the worst period of my presidency. I thought about the war constantly. I was deeply concerned that the violence was overtaking all else. An average of 120 Iraqis a day were dying. The war had stretched to more than three years.
By a margin of almost two to one, Americans said they disapproved of the way I was handling Iraq.For the first time, I worried we might not succeed. If Iraq split along sectarian lines, our mission would be doomed.
We could be looking at a repeat of Vietnam--a humiliating loss for the country, a shattering blow to the military, and a dramatic setback for our interests. If anything, the consequences of defeat in Iraq would be even worse than in
Vietnam. We would leave al Qaeda with a safe haven in a country with vast oil reserves. We would embolden a hostile Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.367-371
Nov 9, 2010
George W. Bush:
2007: Fully fund troops, with no timetable for withdrawal
After a day of heavy violence in April 2007, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) declared, "This war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything." The majority leader of the US Senate had just used his platform to tell 145,000 American troops and their families
that they were fighting for a lost cause. He had written off the surge as a failure before all of the additional troops had even arrived. It was one of the most irresponsible acts I witnessed in my eight years in Washington.On May 1, Congress sent me
war-funding bill mandating a troop withdrawal deadline later in the year. Setting an arbitrary pullout date would allow our enemies to wait us out and would undermine our ability to win over the local leaders who were critical to our success.
I vetoed the bill. Democrats didn't have the votes to override the veto. On May 25, I signed a bill fully funding our troops with no timetable for withdrawal.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.382
Nov 9, 2010
George W. Bush:
2008: Trivialize shoe-throwing journalist to avoid frenzy
On Dec. 13, 2008, we held a press conference in Baghdad. The room was packed tight. During the first question, a man in the Iraqi press rose abruptly. He let out a loud bark, then he wound up and threw something in my direction. What was it? A shoe?Th
scene went into slow motion. The wingtip was helicoptoring toward me. I ducked. The guy had a pretty live arm. A split second later, he threw another one. This one was not flying as fast. I flicked my head slightly and it drifted over me. I wish I had
caught the damn thing.
Chaos erupted. People screamed, and security agents scrambled. I had the same thought I'd had in the Florida classroom on 9/11. I knew my reaction would be broadcast around the world. The bigger the frenzy, the better for the
attacker.
I held up my hands and urged everyone to settle down. "If you want the facts, it's a size-ten shoe that he threw," I said. I hoped that by trivializing the moment, I could keep the shoe thrower from accomplishing his goal of ruining the event
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.391-392
Nov 9, 2010
George W. Bush:
2002: Palestinian peace not possible with Arafat in power
In 2002, the Israeli navy intercepted a ship in the Red Sea with an arsenal of deadly weapons headed from Iran to Gaza. Yasser Arafat sent a letter pleading his innocence. "The smuggling of arms is in total contradiction of the Palestinian Authority's
commitment to the peace process," he wrote. But we and the Israelis had evidence that disproved the Palestinian leader's claim. Arafat had lied to me. I never trusted him again. In fact, I never spoke to him again. By the spring of 2002, I had concluded
that peace would not be possible with Arafat in power.I said on June 24, 2022, "There is simply no way to achieve that peace until all parties fight terror. I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror."
While I considered Arafat a failed leader, many in the foreign policy world accepted the view that Arafat represented the best hope for peace. By rejecting Arafat, the heralded Nobel Peace Prize winner, I had upended their worldview.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.400-405
Nov 9, 2010
George W. Bush:
Prevent Iranian nukes to avoid WWIII
We worked with the UN Security Council to ban Iranian arms exports, freeze key Iranian assets, and prohibit any country from providing Iran with nuclear weapons-related equipment.Persuading the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese to agree on the sanction
was a diplomatic achievement. Every member faced the temptation to take commercial advantage. I frequently reminded our partners about the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. In 2007 a reporter asked me about Iran. "I've told people that if you're intereste
in avoiding WWIII," I said, "It seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
My reference to World War III produced near hysteria. Protestors showed up outside my speeches with
signs that read, "Keep Us Out of Iran." Journalists authorized breathless, gossip-laden stories portraying America on the brink of war. They all missed the point. I wasn't looking to start a war. I was trying to hold our coalition together to avoid one.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.418
Nov 9, 2010
Harry Reid:
OpEd: 2003 Iraq vote unmistakably authorized war
Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid would later claim that they were not voting to authorize war but only to continue diplomacy. They must not have read the resolution. Its language was unmistakable: "The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the US as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.240-241
Nov 9, 2010
Harry Reid:
2007: War is lost; surge not accomplishing anything
The new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution that declared," Congress disapproves of the decision of Pres. George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional US combat troops to
Iraq."After a day of heavy violence in April, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) declared, "This war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything." The majority leader of the US Senate had just used his platform to tell 145,000 American troops and their
families that they were fighting for a lost cause. He had written off the surge as a failure before all of the additional troops had even arrived. It was one of the most irresponsible acts I witnessed in my eight years in Washington.
On May 1,
Congress sent me a war-funding bill mandating a troop withdrawal deadline later in the year. Setting an arbitrary pullout date would allow our enemies to wait us out and would undermine our ability to win over the local leaders. I vetoed the bill.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.382
Nov 9, 2010
Hillary Clinton:
OpEd: 2003 Iraq vote unmistakably authorized war
Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid would later claim that they were not voting to authorize war but only to continue diplomacy. They must not have read the resolution. Its language was unmistakable: "The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the US as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.240-241
Nov 9, 2010
Howard Dean:
2006: Just plain wrong that we can win Iraq war
For the first time, in the summer of 2006, I worried we might not succeed. If Iraq split along sectarian lines, our mission would be doomed. We could be looking at a repeat of
Vietnam--a humiliating loss for the country, a shattering blow to the military, and a dramatic setback for our interests. If anything, the consequences of defeat in Iraq would be even worse than in Vietnam. We would leave al
Qaeda with a safe haven in a country with vast oil reserves. We would embolden a hostile Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.With the 2006 midterm elections approaching, the rhetoric on Iraq was hot. "The idea that we're going to win this war
is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," DNC Chairman Howard Dean proclaimed. "We are causing the problem," said Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania, one of the first prominent Democrats to call for an immediate withdrawal.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.367-371
Nov 9, 2010
Joe Biden:
OpEd: 2003 Iraq vote unmistakably authorized war
Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid would later claim that they were not voting to authorize war but only to continue diplomacy. They must not have read the resolution. Its language was unmistakable: "The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the US as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.240-241
Nov 9, 2010
John Kerry:
2003: Believed Saddam had deadly arsenal of WMD
As part of the debate on the congressional war authorization, leaders on Capitol Hill asked the intelligence community to prepare a National Intelligence Estimate analyzing Saddam's WMD programs. The CIA compiled the
NIE using much of the same intelligence it had been showing to me for the past eighteen months. In a summary sentence later declassified, the NIE concluded, "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of
UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."The intelligence had an impact on members of Congress. Sen. John Kerry said, "When I vote to give the president of the
US the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat."
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.240-241
Nov 9, 2010
John McCain:
2007: No guarantee with surge; but no surge surely fails
Amid the near-universal skepticism, a few brave souls defended the surge [adding 20,000 troops in Iraq in early 2007]. Foremost among them were Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), a lifelong Democrat who had been cast aside by his party for supporting the war;
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC); and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).McCain and I had a complex relationship. We had competed against each other in 2000, and we had disagreed on issues from tax cuts to Medicare reform to terrorist interrogation.
Yet he had campaigned hard for me in 2004, and I knew he planned to run for president in 2008. The surge gave him a chance to create distance between us, but he didn't take it.
He had been a longtime advocate of more troops in Iraq, and he supported the new strategy wholeheartedly. "I cannot guarantee success," he said. "But I can guarantee failure is we don't adopt this new strategy."
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.378-379
Nov 9, 2010
John Murtha:
2006: We are causing the problem in Iraq
For the first time, in the summer of 2006, I worried we might not succeed. If Iraq split along sectarian lines, our mission would be doomed. We could be looking at a repeat of
Vietnam--a humiliating loss for the country, a shattering blow to the military, and a dramatic setback for our interests. If anything, the consequences of defeat in Iraq would be even worse than in Vietnam. We would leave al
Qaeda with a safe haven in a country with vast oil reserves. We would embolden a hostile Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.With the 2006 midterm elections approaching, the rhetoric on Iraq was hot. "The idea that we're going to win this war
is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," DNC Chairman Howard Dean proclaimed. "We are causing the problem," said Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania, one of the first prominent Democrats to call for an immediate withdrawal.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.367-371
Nov 9, 2010
John Rockefeller:
2003: Believed Saddam had biological & chemical weapons
The National Intelligence Estimate analyzing Saddam's WMD programs concluded, "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during
this decade."The intelligence had an impact on members of Congress. Sen. John Kerry said, "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a respected Democrat on th
Intelligence Committee, followed up: "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, this parties, which have
contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.240-241
Nov 9, 2010
Joseph Lieberman:
2002 UN report on Iraq: a "12,000-page 100-pound lie"
When the UN deadline arrived on Dec. 7, 2002, Saddam submitted a report. I viewed it as a key test. If he came forward with honest admissions, it would send a signal that he understood the message the world was sending. Instead, he submitted reams of
irrelevant paperwork clearly designed to deceive. Hans Blix, who led the UN inspections team, later called it, "rich in volume but poor in information." Joe Lieberman was more succinct. He said the declaration was a "12,000-page, 100-pound lie."
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.242
Nov 9, 2010
Joseph Lieberman:
OpEd: Cast aside by his party for supporting the Iraq war
On Jan. 10, 2007, [I made this speech]: "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them--five brigades--will be deployed to Baghdad."
Amid the near-universal skepticism, a few brave souls defended the surge. Foremost among them were Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), a lifelong Democrat who had been cast aside by his party for supporting the war; Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC); and
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).
I knew McCain planned to run for president in 2008. The surge gave him a chance to create distance between us, but he didn't take it. He had been a longtime advocate of more troops in
Iraq, and he supported the new strategy wholeheartedly. "I cannot guarantee success," he said. "But I can guarantee failure is we don't adopt this new strategy."
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.378-379
Nov 9, 2010
Mitch McConnell:
2006: Bring some troops home from Iraq or GOP loses seats
In Sept. 2006, with the midterm elections approaching, my friend Mitch McConnell (R-KY) came to the Oval Office. Mitch has a sharp political nose, and he smelled trouble. I asked, "What do you want me to do about it?"He said, "bring some troops home
from Iraq." He was not alone. As violence in Iraq escalated, members of both parties had called for a pullout.
I said, "I believe our presence in Iraq is necessary to protect American, and I will not withdraw troops unless military conditions warrant."
I made clear I would set troop levels to achieve victory in Iraq, not victory at the polls.
What I did not tell him was that I was seriously considering the opposite of his recommendations. Rather than pull troops out, I was on the verge of making the
toughest and most unpopular decision of my presidency: deploying more troops into Iraq with a new strategy, a new commander, and a mission to protect the Iraqi people and help enable the rise of a democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.355
Nov 9, 2010
Ted Kennedy:
Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam
Shortly after the 2006 elections, I invited a group of senior lawmakers to the Oval Office. Afterwards, I pulled Ted Kennedy aside. Unfortunately, our relationship had deteriorated since the days of No Child Left Behind. I knew
Ted disagreed with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein. But I was disappointed by his vitriolic speeches, in which he claimed I had "broken the basic bond of trust with the American people," compared me to Richard
Nixon, and called Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam."His harsh words were such a contrast to the affable, polite man I'd come to know. I was particularly surprised given that Ted had been on the receiving end of so many nasty political attacks over the
years. One of my regrets is that I never sat down with Ted for a talk about the war. I wouldn't have changed his mind, but he was a decent man, and our discussion might have persuaded him to tone down his rhetoric.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.304
Nov 9, 2010
Tom Daschle:
2001: Counseled caution on use of term "war" on terror
Members of Congress were united in their declaration to protect the country. Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic majority leader, issued one cautionary note. He said I should be careful about the word war because it had such powerful implications.
I listened to his concerns, but I disagreed. If four coordinated attacks by a terrorist network that had pledged to kill as many Americans as possible was not an act of war, then what was it? A breach of diplomatic protocol?
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.142
Nov 9, 2010
Page last updated: Aug 18, 2011