George W. Bush on War & Peace President of the United States, Former Republican Governor (TX)

Sub-sections under War & Peace:
• Afghanistan
• Iraq
• Iraq Criticism
• Mideast
• Other issues under War & Peace

2003: Sent warships to force Liberian president to resign

The President wanted to know what his options were in dealing with the Liberian crisis. "Why should I do something in Liberia?" he asked Colin and I.

"Because Liberia is ours," I replied. We talked about the history of the country that had been founded by freed American slaves. "Even the Liberian flag imitates the Stars and Stripes," Colin added.

The President was determined to do something about Liberia. The President reiterated that Taylor had to leave and said that the US would "participate with troops." Ad-libbing the last part of the statement, the President had committed the US to a military role.

In the face of international pressure and US resolve, Charles Taylor resigned the presidency of Liberia as three US warships drifted into view and two US helicopters hovered overhead.

2008: Trivialize shoe-throwing journalist to avoid frenzy

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

Promised Iraq war would cost $1.7B; actual cost $750B

In the run-up to the war, General Eric Shinseki told Congress that a successful occupation of Iraq would require "several hundred thousand" troops on the ground. US deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz told Congress he found that "hard to imagine." But when defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld's attempt to win the war on the cheap failed, everyone acted shocked Who could have known?

The Bush administration also told the public that the rebuilding of Iraq would cost taxpayers more than $1.7 billion. To say the administration massively underestimated would be a massive understatement. Who could have known?

OpEd: Chose to confront North Korea; then they built nukes

In Sep. 2005, under international pressure, Washington agreed to turn to negotiations, within the 6-power framework. They achieved substantial success. North Korea agreed to abandon "all nuclear weapons and existing weapons programs" and allow international inspections, in return for international aid & non-aggression pledge from the US. The ink was barely dry on the agreement when the Bush administration renewed the threat of force.

After Washington scuttled the promising Sep. 2005 agreements, North Korea carried out a test of a nuclear weapon.

We need a president who understands the lessons of 9/11

Feb. 2001: Bombed Iraq; routine enforcement of no-fly zone

Pardoned Scooter Libby for PlameGate & leak of CIA identity

Neither man ever sought to correct the record when he could have. So both Rove and Libby deliberately allowed me to tell the public falsehoods on their behalf--a clear abuse of the White House press secretary's role. But I hold myself responsible for allowing that to happen. I should not have put myself in such a position--period.

It's also clear to me that Scooter Libby was guilty of the perjury and obstruction crimes for which he was convicted. When the president commuted Libby's prison sentence and thereby protected him from serving even one day behind bars, I was disappointed. This kind of special treatment undermines our system of justice.

OpEd: Fought Venezuela's Chavez to protect oil wealth

Oil reform threatened the country's traditional oligarchy. With the tacit approval, and perhaps more, of the Bush Administration in the United States, it began plotting a coup d'etat. Chavez was arrested,; the US State Department applauded the coup. But when the poor heard, they were furious.

The OAS and the Carter Center then negotiated an agreement between both sides, in which there would be a referendum on the presidency in August 2004. Chavez mobilized his substantial support among the poor and the others and won the referendum by a healthy margin of 57% to 43%

We will not allow Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons

Hezbollah t The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. With the other members of the Quartet--the UN, the European Union, and Russia--we are pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land, and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security.

We’ve Never Been Stay The Course

• BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]
• BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]
• BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]
• BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]
• BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04 ]
• BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]

Terrorists would move the battlefield to our own shores

War on Terror is not about intelligence and law enforcement

BUSH: I don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about bin Laden. That’s kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course we’re worried about bin Laden. We’re on the hunt after bin Laden. We’re using every asset at our disposal to get bin Laden. Kerry said this war is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement. No, this is a war as a matter of using every asset at our disposal to keep the American people protected.

Enlisted in Texas Air National Guard in 1968

Of course, young George was not the only son saved from Vietnam by his powerful father. Of the 234 sons of senators & congressmen who came of age during the war, only 28 went to Vietnam, and only 19 saw combat--a stark testament to rank and privilege.

I wake up every day thinking about protecting our country

Confront threats to America before it is too late

Will defend America every time

Freedom is the greatest fear of the terrorists

9/11: I'm amazed that there is hatred of America

When others probed for a deeper answer, they were charged with "blaming America first." With due respect, these answers insult the intelligence of a second-grader. Did the Japanese attack us at Pearl Harbor because we were free, rich, good, and how low marginal tax rates?

We are not hated for who we are. We are hated for what we do. It is not our principles that we have spawned pandemic hatred of America in the Islamic world. It is our policies. If we wish to avert a clash of civilization, we need to listen to what they say--not what we say--about America.

During Vietnam, did not protest, & counseled supporting war

As president, Bush would look back at Vietnam as an example of how not wage war. If a war was worth fighting, it had to be to win, Bush would say. He called Vietnam a “politicians’ war,” one where the politicians made military decisions.

But at Yale, he was acutely aware that anything he did or said could harm his father’s political career. “George didn’t have that luxury [of engaging in protest],” Laura Bush would later say. “He really didn’t. He was absolutely devoted to his father.”

Bush Doctrine: harboring terrorists treated as terrorism

By using the broader term “harbor,” Bush had not only expanded the definition of the enemy, he shifted the burden of proof of the United States would use in going after those who support terrorism. Instead of having to show that another country was aware of and permitted terrorists to operate within its borders, the US would now use military force or apply diplomatic pressure on countries simply because terrorists lived there. The declaration became known as the Bush Doctrine. It was a sea change in foreign policy, one that would make all the difference in the war on terror.

Op-Ed: Bush maintains power by inspiring fear & nationalism

After 9/11, Bush was compelled to adopt a strategy of diverting mass discontent--about social and economic policies--into nationalism. Karl Rove outlined how voters trusted Republicans on national security issues, and how Bush would be portrayed as a wartime leader by 2004. The “imminent threat” of Iraq was conjured up just in time, in September 2002. For the 2002 midterm electoral campaign, the strategy worked--just.

The National Security Strategy was announced in September 2002. Manufactured fear provided enough of a popular base for the invasion of Iraq, instituting the new norm of aggressive war at will.

This is a new war: Pearl Harbor in the 21st century

OpEd: 1960s enlistment was into privileged non-combat unit

Barnes ran an underground railroad that quietly moved the sons of privilege from Selective Service offices into a safe haven in Texas Guard units. The unit that accepted Bush included the son of former Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen, the son of former Texas governor John Connolly, and enough rich young men to field a polo league. It also included a few black Guardsmen--several members of the Dallas Cowboys football team.

It is likely that this is just another instance of how privilege has worked for W. Bush over the years, without his thinking there was anything wrong about it, or even thinking about it at all. In brief, because George W. Bush was the son of a Congressman, he got an easy out from Vietnam.

Greatest regret: not bringing bin Laden to justice

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.

2002: Rejected bipartisan bill for more Afghanistan funding

Biden returned conveying a plea for urgent help, and Powell joined it, but while Bush "was agreeable and willing to listen, he was also noncommittal," Biden wrote later. Though Bush talked of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan, he had other ideas, and was already giving Cheney and Rumsfeld "the force and resources they requested for a new target"--Iraq.

By now it was becoming increasingly clear to Biden that a critical pivot was under way from the unfinished business in Afghanistan to the neoconservatives' vision of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East, starting with deposing Saddam Hussein.

Biden and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel introduced a bill providing more money for Afghanistan, but the administration opposed it.

2006: Deploy troops out of bases and into hotspots

FactCheck: Bush DID say he was not concerned about Osama

BUSH: Bush: Gosh, I just don’ think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. It’s kind of one of those exaggerations.

FACT CHECK: Bush stumbled when he denied making some remarks about Osama bin Laden that Kerry had accurately paraphrased. In fact, Bush said almost exactly what Kerry quoted him as saying. It was in a news conference at the White House on March 13, 2002, after US forces had overturned the Taliban regime in Afghanistan:

Q: (March 13, 2002): Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that?

BUSH: So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him , to be honest with you. I truly am not that concerned about him. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country.

FactCheck: new al Qaeda recruits reduce 75% capture figure

FACT CHECK: As The Associated Press reported Oct. 1, Bush was referring to the deaths or arrests of 75 percent of bin Laden’s network at the time of the September 11 attacks- not those who are running the terrorist organization today. The AP also reported that the CIA said earlier in the year two-thirds of those leaders are gone; at his acceptance speech in September, Bush increased his count to three-fourths based on unreleased intelligence data. Furthermore, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted “conservative” intelligence estimates as saying that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries.

Busted the A.Q. Khan network and convinced Libya to disarm

Increased spending by $15B to fight terrorism

Afghanistan was a “different type of war”

Bush expressed his pique at the media. “They don’t get it,” the president said. “How many times do you have to tell them it’s going to be a different type of war? And they don’t believe it. They’re looking for the conventional approach. That’s not what they’re going to see here. I’ve talked about patience. It’s amazing how quickly people forget what you say, at least here in Washington.“ The quagmire stories made little sense to him. They had a good plan. They had agreed to it. ”Why would we start second-guessing it this early into the plan?“

In a later interview, Bush recalled dealing with ”the scenario where we may need to put 55,000 troops in there“ [if the original Northern Alliance plan had failed].

Afghanistan model-successful plan first-used for Iraq

At first, this remark seemed to suggest he was leaning toward an attack on Iraq. Earlier, however, he had said, “I’m the kind of person that wants to make sure that all risk is assessed. But a president is constantly analyzing, making decisions based upon risk taken relative to what can be achieved.” What he wanted to achieve seemed clear: He wanted Saddam Hussein out.

Bush added that he had not yet seen a successful plan for Iraq, he said. He had to be careful and patient. “A president,” he added, “likes to have a military plan that will be successful.”

Homeland security focus: bioterror; airports; intelligence

My budget nearly doubles funding for a sustained strategy of homeland security, focused on four key areas: bioterrorism, emergency response, airport and border security, and improved intelligence.

We will develop vaccines to fight anthrax and other deadly diseases. We’ll increase funding to help states and communities train and equip our heroic police and firefighters.

We will improve intelligence collection and sharing, expand patrols at our borders, strengthen the security of air travel, and use technology to track the arrivals and departures of visitors to the US.

Homeland security will make America not only stronger but in many ways better. Knowledge gained from bioterrorism research will improve public health. Stronger police and fire departments will mean safer neighborhoods. Stricter border enforcement will help combat illegal drugs.

Pre-9-11, Saddam was a manageable problem, but not after

• 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.

"Mission Accomplished" banner was a big mistake

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.

"Bring 'em on" comment left wrong impression

1. The American people. Their support was essential to funding & fighting the war.
2. Our troops. They needed to know I stood firmly behind their mission.
3. 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.
4. The enemy. They believed acts of savagery could affect our decisions. I had to make clear they never would.

Biggest failure of Iraq war: cutting troop level too quickly

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.

Saddam wanted everyone to believe he had WMD; & everyone did

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.

2007: Fully fund troops, with no timetable for withdrawal

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.

Saddam posed unique threat post-9-11

In the wake of 9/11, these actions made Saddam Hussein a unique threat. This dangerous combination of factors--a post 9/11 world, Saddam Hussein in violation of a slew of U.N. resolutions, and the evil nature of his regime--made Iraq a unique threat in our eyes.

2003: If they want to attack us in Iraq, bring 'em on

"Any remaining violence is due to thugs, gangs, and terrorists."
--Rumsfeld, 3/14/04

"There are some who feel that the conditions are such that hey can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."
--George W. Bush, 7/2/03

"You know, the country is basically peaceful."
--Paul Bremer, 9/24/03

2001: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists

"If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us."
--George W. Bush, Oct. 12, 2000

"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
--George W. Bush, Sept. 20, 2001

2003: We will find WMDs; Saddam destroyed some & hid some

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

"We know that the regime has them; we know that as the regime collapses we will be led to them."
--Tony Blair, April 8, 2003

"We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. This is what this war was about and is about."
--Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."
-- George W. Bush, April 24, 2003

"We will find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
--George W. Bush, May 3, 2003.

"I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found."
--Gen Michael Hagee, Marine Corps commander, May 21, 2003

2007 surge: 20,000 more troops with aggressive engagement

2002: Clear that war vote was to strike Iraq, not diplomacy

A day after the speech, she had a rare opportunity to explore whether he was. Hillary and a few other senators met privately at the White House with the president and some of his advisors. The president had “no recollection of Sen. Clinton asking a question” at the meeting.

Given the subsequent revelations regarding the Bush administration’s inaccurate statements during the run-up to eh war, it is impossible to know if the president and Rice were telling the truth about the exchange with Hillary. But both seem to agree that Hillary’s opportunity to push the president regarding diplomacy--if for no other reason to get it on the record that she had done so--was squandered.

Terrorists aim to seize power in Iraq

Their aim is to seize power in Iraq and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world. Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they murder children at a school in Beslan or blow up commuters in London or behead a bound captive, the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the earth. But they have miscalculated. We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it.

Sudden withdrawal from Iraq would abandon our Iraqi allies

2002: Keep the peace by authorizing use of force in Iraq

It sounds counterintuitive that Bush would want an authorization to use force in order to avoid war. But Bush claimed that that's what this was all about. Here's an exchange between Bush and a reporter from September 19, 2002, just before the vote in Congress:

Reporter: Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?

Bush: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, "We support the administration's ability to keep the peace." That's what this is all about.

Saddam was a unique threat because of the potential WMD

UN sanctions were not effective at removing Saddam

KERRY: The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam. It was to remove the weapons of mass destruction. And, Mr. President, just yesterday the Duelfer report told you and the whole world they worked. He didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, Mr. President. That was the objective. And if we’d used smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of Iraq, and right now Osama bin Laden might be in jail or dead. That’s the war against terror.

Had the right plan with the right troops level invading Iraq

KERRY: You rely on good military people to execute the military component of the strategy, but winning the peace is larger than just the military component. General Shinseki had the wisdom to say you’re going to need several hundred thousand troops to win the peace. Military’s job is to win the war. Bush’s job is to win the peace. Bush did not do what was necessary. Didn’t bring in enough nations, didn’t deliver the help, didn’t close off the borders, didn’t even guard the ammo dumps. And now our kids are being killed with ammos right out of that dump.

Went to the UN hoping the world would listen to our demands

Saddam Hussein was systematically deceiving the inspectors

The front on the war on terror is more than just one place

A free Iraq is essential for the security of America

KERRY: The other day in Wisconsin, a couple of young returnees were in the line, one active duty, one from the Guard. And they both looked at me and said: We need you. You’ve got to help us over there. Bush’s father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra. And the reason he didn’t is, he said - he wrote in his book - because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land. The only building that was guarded when the troops when into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn’t guard the nuclear facilities. We didn’t guard the foreign office.

Calls on UN to do more in Iraq

A democratic Iraq has ruthless enemies, because terrorists know the stakes in that country. They know that a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a decisive blow against their ambitions for that region. So a terrorists group associated with al Qaeda is now one of the main groups killing the innocent in Iraq today-conducting a campaign of bombings against civilians, and the beheadings of bound men. Coalition forces now serving in Iraq are confronting the terrorists and foreign fighters, so peaceful nations around the world will never have to face them within our own borders.

Deny terrorists a base of operation in Iraq

Saddam loyalists have joined with foreign terrorists

These groups and individuals have conflicting ambitions, but they share a goal: They hope to wear out the patience of Americans, our coalition and Iraqis before the arrival of effective self-government and before Iraqis have the capability to defend their freedom. Iraq now faces a critical moment. As the Iraqi people move closer to governing themselves the terrorists are likely to become more active and more brutal. There are difficult days ahead. Yet our coalition is strong. Our efforts are focused and unrelenting. And no power of the enemy will stop Iraq’s progress.

We’re constructing democracy; terrorists can only destroy

The terrorists only influence is violence and their only agenda is death. Our agenda in contrast is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people. And by removing a source of terrorist violence and instability in the Middle East we also make our own country more secure. Our coalition has a clear goal understood by all. To see the Iraqi people in charge of Iraq for the first time in generations.

$389M in 2002-2003 for CIA to overthrow Saddam

In March 2002, [CIA director George] Tenet met secretly with two Kurdish leaders who would be critical to covert action inside Iraq. Tenet had one message: The US was serious, the military and the CIA were coming. Bush meant what he said. It was a new era. Hussein was going down.

When Tenet took problems to Bush, the president asked, Well, what’s a solution? How do you take the next step? It was a new ethos for the intelligence business. Suddenly there seemed to be no penalty for taking risks and making mistakes.

Saddam a “madman” who could make WMDs

We haven’t come this far to falter unfinished

We have faced serious challenges together, and now we face a choice: We can go forward with confidence and resolve, or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us. We can press on with economic growth and reforms in education and Medicare, or we can turn back to old policies and old divisions.

We’ve not come all this way, through tragedy and trial and war, only to falter and leave our work unfinished. Americans are rising to the tasks of history, and they expect the same from us. In their efforts, their enterprise and their character, the American people are showing that the state of our union is confident and strong.

Saddam had WMD-related program activities

Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the UN and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world. Iraq’s torture chambers would still be filled with victims-terrified and innocent. The killing fields of Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of men and women and children vanished into the sands, would still be known only to the killers. For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein’s regime is a better and safer place.

Saddam captured: War on terror is a different kind of war

Conflict with Iraq dominated war against terror

Although the administration did not at the time conclusively establish Saddam’s complicity, over the next eighteen months looming conflict with Iraq came to dominate the war against terror. Arguments and evidence would be presented; the case taken to Congress, the US and the American people. And ultimately the US would act.

“Axis of Evil” links Saddam with 9/11

Bush needed something to assert, something that made clear that Sept. 11 & Saddam Hussein were linked after all and that for the safety of the world, Saddam must be defeated rather than deterred.

The more I though about it [as speechwriter], the more the relationship between the terror states resembled the Tokyo-Rome-Berlin Axis. The Axis powers disliked and distrusted one another, but shared resentment of the West and contempt for democracy. [Now], much as they quarreled with each other, Iraq, Iran, and al-Qaida shared beliefs.

Bush edited the speech [and settled on the term “Axis of Evil.”]. He understood all its implications. He backed them with all the power of his presidency.

Bush to Arab World: terrorism must stop, or else

“We must unit in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. There is no such thing as a good terrorist. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong, can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences.“

Everyone understood who the governments were that rejected Bush’s principle: They included the greater part of the governments of the Arab world, including many of America’s traditional Arab allies. For 30 years, the UN had been the playpen of these Arab states. Bush delivered an ultimatum to the Arab world: The terrorism must stop-or else.

Getting rid of Saddam allows progress elsewhere in Mideast

[British Prime Minister Tony Blair] said he felt there was a 20% chance Saddam would cooperate, but Bush said he didn't know what cooperation meant. Blair believed the regime would crumble pretty quickly, and Bush said both our secret services needed to be put to work to help that. He felt Saddam was making Blix and the UN look like fools. He also felt if we got rid of Saddam, we could make progress on the Middle East.

UN founded to fight threats like Saddam and 9/11

In one place-in one regime-we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the UN was born to confront.

If Iraq’s regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the US should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced-the just demands of peace and security will be met-or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Fight freedom’s fight against Axis of Evil

Our goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September 11, but we know their true nature.
• North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
• Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom.
• Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade.

OpEd: Saddam had reasons to NOT use WMDs until we invaded

The tough talk was rousing, but it made no strategic sense. Saddam was a notoriously sinister dictator whose top priority, as with all dictators, was his own survival. It followed that he viewed his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons (as most of us believed he had) as an insurance policy to keep him in power. He would only part with them voluntarily if it would benefit his personal security--an unlikely course for someone who did not trust America. But actually using them would almost certainly lead to his destruction, so he had every reason to sit on his weapons if he had them. The only scenario where he might use them would be if he had nothing to lose by doing so--and now by invading, we were poised to create that very situation. Logically, this meant that an invasion would be very costly & bloody for American troops.

Reason for invading Iraq: Saddam was a threat

None of these theories is true. The reason we turned our attention to Iraq was much more straightforward: we believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to America's national security. This view reflected a significant shift in the president's thinking after 9/11, and it was a view he repeatedly laid out in public speeches.

OpEd: Tortured prisoners to connect al-Qaeda & Saddam

OpEd: Iraq war came from post-9-11 terrorism mindset

So, then, did Bush lie us into war? Absolutely not.

So why did President Bush choose to go after Saddam Hussein in the first place? Wasn't it a diversion from what should have been the real goal, which was to defeat al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Part of the reason why the president felt strongly about Iraq has to do with how the attacks on 9/11 affected his mind-set and that of the administration, Congress, and the country. After 9/11, we believed Iraq represented a deeply dangerous threat--a rogue regime with WMD, no constraints on using them, and a record of support for terrorists.

OpEd: Iraq was a war of conquest, in search of oil

Mission evolved from WMDs to stability to nation-building

OpEd: Knowing misrepresentations plus self-deception

The comparison with George W. Bush's push for war against Iraq is revealing, on several counts. Like Roosevelt, Bush endeavored to educate the American people, to persuade Congress to either approve or stand aside, and sometimes to ignore Congress entirely. But unlike Roosevelt, Bush's war was based on actual fictions on the ground and knowing misinterpretations as well as self-deceptions.

Roosevelt also had immense respect for American and British intelligence professionals. One reason that the D-Day invasion succeeded against immense tactical odds was that US and British intelligence of German troop movements and defense plans was superb.

By contrast, when Bush and Cheney did not like the intelligence reports they received, they fired the messenger and made up their own intelligence.

9/11: Persisted in seeking Iraq link to terrorist attacks

The day after the attack, the president did not ask about Osama bin Laden. He did not ask Mr. Clarke about al-Qaeda. He did not ask about Saudi Arabia or any country other than Iraq. When Clarke responded to that first question by saying that Iraq was not responsible for the attack and that al-Qaeda was, the president persisted in focusing on Iraq.

Campaign to sell the Iraq War began with 2002 UN speech

"If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purpose of the US should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose it power."

Of course, not all Americans supported the idea of confronting Iraq. But more than 8 in 10 believe the regime of Saddam Hussein supported terrorist organizations intent on attacking America, and more than 9 in 10 believed it possessed or was developing WMD. A majority also believed--erroneously--that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

2004: Unwilling to admit mistakes in invading Iraq

Finally th president came out with a rambling, rather incoherent, ultimately unsatisfying response: "Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein. We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time."

[In the debriefing afterwards], Bush said, "I kept thinking what they wanted me to say--that it was a mistake to go into Iraq. And I'm not going to. It was the right decision." His tone was cocksure & matter-of-fact.

Iraq was top issue at start of presidency, even before 9/11

Iraq would continue to be a top issue of administration focus and media interest in months to come. The National Security Council made Iraq an early priority of the policy formulation process. As for that first day, with no new policy in place, we simply told the press that the president expected Saddam Hussein to live up to his agreement with the United Nations that his regime not produce weapons of mass destruction.

OpEd: Bush had decided by Nov. 2001 to invade Iraq

Bush's foreign policy team had always held Saddam in low regard. Even before 9/11, the Bush team advocated tougher measures against the Iraqi regime than those employed by the Clinton administration.

But after 9/11, the president and his team took an even closer look at Iraq. They quickly came to view the war on terror as a broad war with many fronts--potentially including an invasion of Iraq. This was why Bush pulled Rumsfeld aside in a private one-on-one discussion in late Nov. 2001, and instructed him to update the Pentagon's war plans for Iraq. That meant, in effect, Bush had already made the decision to go to war--even if he convinced himself it might still be avoided. But as I would learn upon reflection, war was inevitable given the course of action the president set from the beginning

2003: No difference if Saddam had WMD or trying to get WMD

In a Dec. 2003 interview with Diane Sawyer, Bush said the intelligence had been sound and that "there was no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a threat." He repeated his assertion that he had made the right decision regardless of the presence or absence of WMD. "Saddam Hussein was a danger and the world is better off because we got rid of him," he said.

Sawyer focused on the distinction between WMD and WMD programs, since the administration had previously asserted "that there were WMD, as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons."

Bush's response was telling: "So what's the difference?" Bush asked. The president's response was criticized by Democrats, some of whom noted that the rationale had been that the Iraqi regime posed an urgent threat that required preemptive action.

No difference between war of necessity and war of choice

Following the interview, Bush seemed puzzled and asked me what Russert was getting at with the question. Surely this distinction between a necessary, unavoidable war and a war that the US could have avoided but chose to wage was an obvious one.

But evidently it wasn't obvious to the president. It strikes me today as an indication of his lack of inquisitiveness and his detrimental resistance to reflection.

Most objective observers today would say that in 2003 there was no urgent need to address the threat posed by Saddam with a large-scale invasion, and therefore the war was not necessary. But this is a question President Bush seems not to want to grapple with.

OpEd: Selling war instead of open debate damaged presidency

I still like and admire George W. Bush, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people. But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. Had a high level of openness and forthrightness been embraced from the outset of his administration, I believe President Bush's public standing would be stronger today. In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his national security advisers.

OpEd: Linked Saddam & al-Qaeda despite lack of evidence

There was never any reliable evidence or intelligence linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda or any terrorist group. But the Bush administration continued to propound this fabrication. They knew that America, thrown tragically off balance by the terrorist attack of 9/11, was susceptible to incessant administration warnings that more terrorist attacks were coming unless we acted against Saddam Hussein--one of the triumvirate of Bush's "axis of evil."

Decision to invade Iraq was certain by fall 2002

One CIA analyst asked Tenet if it really looked like war. “You bet,” Tenet said bluntly. “It’s not a matter of if. It’s a matter of when. This president is going to war. Make the plans. We’re going.”

Tenet didn’t think that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. But Tenet never conveyed these misgivings to the president. Bush had never asked him directly for his bottom-line counsel, although Tenet felt that Bush had nonetheless opened the door to the point where Tenet could have said, “No, we shouldn’t do this.” But Tenet never said it.

Claimed 946 WMD sites “known”; none found

Then on May 29, Bush declared, “We have found the WMD. We found biological laboratories. They’re illegal. They’re against the UN resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong. We found them.“

Bush made similar remarks in other interviews. The only problem was that the weapons hadn’t actually been found. Despite a series of highly publicized false positives, each time the military found a smoking gun--an alleged stockpile, a vat or even a small vial of biological weapons--it would soon be discredited.

Kay Report: WMDs never existed; hence WMD-related activities

In his state of the union speech in Jan.2004, Bush did not refer to “WMD,” but to “weapons of mass destruction related program activities.” Kay urged others to follow the president’s lead, to stop talking about WMD, and to stop building a case for the Iraq war based on the actual weapons, “because you’re not going to find that.”

“I don’t think they existed,” Kay said when asked about the WMD. “We were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself. It is important to acknowledge failure.”

How did US intelligence miss all this? “We missed it because the Iraqis actually behaved like they had weapons,” Kay said. Saddam didn’t have WMD but wanted to appear as if he did. His purpose was deception.

CIA’s Tenet considered “slam dunk” his dumbest 2 words ever

But a public case for war could hardly be a “slam dunk“ if the CIA Director did not believe that the underlying intelligence was also a ”slam dunk.“ Obviously, Tenet had believed it was, based on the NIE of three months earlier. Tenet has a strong case when he asserts that his ”slam dunk“ assertion did not cause the president to decide on war. Tenet believes Bush had already made the decision.

In 2005, Tenet was asked publicly about the ”slam dunk“ comment. ”Those are the two dumbest words I ever said,“ h replied.

OpEd: Bush's lack of doubt meant more men fell for "honor"

Powell said he had the same question. If you don't have self doubt, Powell said, if you didn't get up in the morning wondering if you're doing a good job, you're not worth much.

But doubt never seeped into the president's public rhetoric. And as far as Powell's and Armitage's experience went, he was the same in private. "What the president says in effect is we've got to press on in honor of the memory of those who have fallen. Another way to say that is we've got to have more men fall to honor the memories of those who have already fallen."

I had explored the issue of doubt with Bush in several interviews. He volunteered the following: "I have not doubted what we're doing. There is no doubt in my mind we're doing the right thing."

Saudis recommended paying Iraq Army; Bush declined