No President ever had to fight a war with a faceless enemy. He did. Its pretty easy for critics to lob grenades at him from the cheap seats, but noone ever had to do what he did before. I bought all the other books (Reagan, Clinton, even *gulp* Obama), and I'll read this one too.

I'm usually not a big fan of memoirs, but I'm always anxious to get a little more insight into the men who've served as U.S. presidents. At the moment, I'm in the middle of an ongoing project to read at least one biography of every American president. It's too early to get a good read on most of what happened during his terms for a biography to be much use from an historical study perspective (I think anything more recent than Reagan's presidency has this same problem), but I'm definitely excited to read this.

The problem I have with the interviews I've seen is when President Bush says that he was highly upset and bothered when he found out that there were no WMDs BUT he says they later determined that Saddam had the "capacity" to produce them. That doesn't seem to jive with what was found. I'd have a lot more respect if he said simply "it was a mistake." We would never have gone to war IF the truth was known at the time of the vote.

 

He comes across well otherwise but I just can't get around that issue.

I'm very anxious to read this.

 

I'll say it one more time...I firmly believe history will view GWB's presidency a lot more favorably than it currently is.

The problem I have with the interviews I've seen is when President Bush says that he was highly upset and bothered when he found out that there were no WMDs BUT he says they later determined that Saddam had the "capacity" to produce them. That doesn't seem to jive with what was found. I'd have a lot more respect if he said simply "it was a mistake." We would never have gone to war IF the truth was known at the time of the vote.

 

He comes across well otherwise but I just can't get around that issue.

 

Great post. I feel much the same way. I have softened my opinion of Pres. Bush quite a bit. However, this was always one of my main sticking points.

Watched the interview with Lauer. I was very impressed. I've always been a fan of W the person and I look forward to reading his book. Going to be the first purchase on my Kindle.

The problem I have with the interviews I've seen is when President Bush says that he was highly upset and bothered when he found out that there were no WMDs BUT he says they later determined that Saddam had the "capacity" to produce them. That doesn't seem to jive with what was found. I'd have a lot more respect if he said simply "it was a mistake." We would never have gone to war IF the truth was known at the time of the vote.

 

He comes across well otherwise but I just can't get around that issue.

 

I think the deal with WMD's is just another sign of GWB's stubbornness and pride. Remember the 2004 Presidential debate (I think the Town Hall one) where he was asked about mistakes he'd made & what he'd do differently about them if he could? He struggled big-time with that question. I believe Bush is a patriot, but the man is 100% stubborn, that's for sure.

 

From my vantage point, the WMD thing wasn't a big deal. It was obvious Saddam had them, because he'd used them in the past. And I believe both U.S. & world intelligence showed that Saddam did have them, but for some reason, everyone was wrong.

 

I thought the entire interview was very informative. Thought Matt Lauer did a good job & thought GWB did extremely well. The one-on-one, let's-sit-at-a-table-and-chat format is right down Bush's alley. Stick him behind a podium, however, and it's a completely different matter entirely.

 

Wasn't going to purchase the book, but after this interview, I probably will. So I guess it's mission accomplished for Bush in that regard...

I think the deal with WMD's is just another sign of GWB's stubbornness and pride. Remember the 2004 Presidential debate (I think the Town Hall one) where he was asked about mistakes he'd made & what he'd do differently about them if he could? He struggled big-time with that question. I believe Bush is a patriot, but the man is 100% stubborn, that's for sure.

 

..

 

Read the article in USA Today. He readily admits to his mistakes including thinking that tax incentives and rebates would stave off a recession.

 

From my vantage point, the WMD thing wasn't a big deal. It was obvious Saddam had them, because he'd used them in the past. And I believe both U.S. & world intelligence showed that Saddam did have them, but for some reason, everyone was wrong.

 

..

 

So the fact that he used them in the past was enough to justify the lives and expense? Shouldn't we have shown that he either HAD them NOW or had the capacity to do so?

So the fact that he used them in the past was enough to justify the lives and expense? Shouldn't we have shown that he either HAD them NOW or had the capacity to do so?

 

Do we wait until they used them? If he had them in the past, wouldn't that show that he had the capacity to do so? He had already displayed a willingness to use them. Such difficult decisions.

Do we wait until they used them? If he had them in the past, wouldn't that show that he had the capacity to do so? He had already displayed a willingness to use them. Such difficult decisions.

 

No question about the difficult decision and that's why his hair went gray so fast. However, we had inspectors in there and they weren't finding any signs of WMDs or the capacity to produce them. President Bush says that the world is a better place without Saddam and he's right. However, it's a classic case of the end not justifying the means. When we vote to send our young men and women into harm's way it HAS to be with good information and patience. If it was found that WMDs were there or capable of being produced I would be all for taking him and them out. We never showed that yet 4,000+ have died.

 

I can't justify their deaths.

I think you are missing what he is saying about the WMD's. Based on the information he was provided and the agreement of those in the intelligence business both in this country and others who thought for a fact Saddam had them, (Remember Saddam himself said in an interview that he was doing things to make every think he DID have them for a fact because he thought it was a way to stave off Iran from invading. He MADE sure the whole world thought he had them.) invading was not a mistake. BASED on the information he was provided. That simple.

 

He was told by everyone that Saddam had them and it was the right thing to do.

 

That is the point of it wasn't a mistake.

 

He was making the correct decision based on all the information INCLUDING Saddam doing things to make sure everyone thought they KNEW he had them.

I think you are missing what he is saying about the WMD's. Based on the information he was provided and the agreement of those in the intelligence business both in this country and others who thought for a fact Saddam had them, (Remember Saddam himself said in an interview that he was doing things to make every think he DID have them for a fact because he thought it was a way to stave off Iran from invading. He MADE sure the whole world thought he had them.) invading was not a mistake. BASED on the information he was provided. That simple.

 

He was told by everyone that Saddam had them and it was the right thing to do.

 

That is the point of it wasn't a mistake.

 

He was making the correct decision based on all the information INCLUDING Saddam doing things to make sure everyone thought they KNEW he had them.

 

I fully understand. He stated that even if there were no WMDs that Iraq still possessed the "capacity." That was never shown to be true. IMO he's trying to justify his decision to diminish the fact that he got bad info. I'd have to spend some time doing some googling but I seem to remember that there wasn't exactly a consensus that he was given bad info about the WMDs.

 

Again, my problem is him using what seems to be inaccurate info to say he would have still advocated going to war even without WMDs.

 

Again, my problem is him using what seems to be inaccurate info to say he would have still advocated going to war even without WMDs.

I have not seen him say this. I have seen him say that based on the information he was provided, it was the right decision.

I have not seen him say this. I have seen him say that based on the information he was provided, it was the right decision.

 

History judges you on the decisions you make. Sometimes history doesn’t judge you on the absence of a decision. And I believe Saddam Hussein in the Middle East today, if he were there in power he would be enriched, he’d be emboldened. He would still have the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction,

 

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/11/02/excerpts-from-nbc-news-matt-lauer-reports-interview-with-george-w-bush-airs-monday-november-8-at-8pm-et/70650