The 10 Things Bush Should Regret Most

In an interview with Charlie Gibson excerpted online and set to air on ABC tonight, George W. Bush will discuss his two-term presidency as it comes to an end. Not all his days in office were happy ones, he concedes, but overall the 43rd U.S. president says that "every day has been pretty joyous."
When Gibson asked him if he felt responsible for what's happening with the economy, Bush replied that he was "a little upset" about not pushing reform on insurers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in time because "it would have helped a lot."
His biggest regret? As he told Gibson, it "has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. ... And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess."
And while President Bush doesn't "spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history," here are 10 other things he should regret:
1. September 11, 2001
While many rate the image of Bush standing on the rubble of the World Trade Center as a strong point in his presidency, he was not the first to appear in front of television cameras that day to address the nation -- New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was. It's difficult to watch the footage of Bush as he waited for seven minutes, frozen in that elementary school classroom after hearing the second tower had been hit.
2. Ignoring Al Qaeda
The 9/11 Commission determined that indeed on August 6, 2001, after months of intelligence reports warning of al Qaeda's growing sophistication, Bush received a Presidential Daily Brief titled, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US."
3. Weapons of Mass Destruction
In 2004, the CIA released a report that found that there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion and that Saddam Hussein had relinquished any plans for a nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War. More disturbing were reports that CIA Director George Tenet had delivered secret intelligence to the president in September 2002 revealing that, in fact, there were no WMD. Bush dismissed the intel and pushed ahead.
4. Declaring Mission Accomplished in Iraq
On May 1, 2003, Bush announced victory in Iraq. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11th, 2001, and still goes on," he told those present on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean. Nearly six years later, there are still 146,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq.
5. Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo
Few in Iraq or elsewhere will forget the images of American soldiers abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib. And the U.S. prison at Guantánamo Bay has proved to be the recruiting tool of Osama bin Laden's dreams.
6. Not Firing Donald Rumsfeld Sooner
This one is a no-brainer -- since Bush's first secretary of defense left the scene, his successor has had to clean up one mess after another.
7. Waiting Too Long on Israeli-Palestinian Peace
President Bush waited seven years to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Annapolis process he initiated -- called a charade by some -- was unlikely to succeed given the short time frame allotted and the degree to which the situation had deteriorated.
8. Botching Hurricane Katrina
The timeline leading up to Hurricane Katrina leaves much room to blame Bush. Afterwards, he was little better. The photograph of Bush surveying the devastation from Air Force One speaks volumes about his distant, botched handling of the disaster. The 600-plus-page report put together by a bipartisan committee, "A Failure of Initiative," determined that "earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response."
9. Ignoring Afghanistan
However misdirected, the Bush administration put all of its eggs in the Iraq-war basket. But the worst part? Despite warnings from the military, Bush diverted key resources away from the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda in order to invade Iraq. Iraq may be stabilizing, but we're now paying the price for the neglect of Afghanistan.
10. Strengthening Iran
Today, David Ignatius gives the Bush administration an "F" for its handling of Iran. "The strategic balance between the two countries is the opposite of what Bush had hoped to accomplish: Iran is stronger than it was eight years ago, and the United States, fighting costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is weaker."
Originally Posted via Foreign Policy
- FILED UNDER: Guest Blogger, 9/11, ABC News, ailout, al qaeda, Bush, Charles Gibson, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Gitmo, Iraq, Obama, September 11, WMDs
- December 2, 2008








Based on lies.
Who could possibly believe that the US didn't know what Iraq did or didn't have?
Hello, we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait destroying half of their military. Iraq then had an 8 year war with Iran devestating the rest of their military and depleting a generation of men and boys.
Iraq had no industry or manufacturing and they purchased EVERYTHING from other countries while under sanctions. Even their poisen gas came from Western Europe.
Is it only conservatards that believe that we would go to war (the Gulf War) against a country and then turn away and not keep tabs on them? Who would be so stupid? Duh?
When you start dragging the oh so obvious facts out into the light of day all you can say is "OH MY GOD". How could Bush do this to us? Bush, you shitstain! I hope you pay!
- Email this page
By deanrddDecember 2, 2008 - 1:38pmBy deanrdd December 2, 2008 - 1:38pm
Actually, you have the order reversed. Iraq had the war with Iran, when Saddam was our friend, before we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait.
- Email this page
By ExpatinEUDecember 2, 2008 - 2:05pmCorrect me if I'm wrong. My name is NOT Momo.
True, Iraq - Iran was 1980 to 88 and Kuwait was, I think, 1990.
The point was we knew EXACTLY what Iraq had. Iraq was under sanctions from 1990 to 2001. There military was totally devastated. The reason Saddam used gas against the Kurds (if it was Saddam)was because that was all he had left when they wanted secession. Some people think secession is a bad think. It's why we had a Civil War. How many died during that war. Palin's husband, the first dud, thinks it's a good thing.
The bottom line is that we fought with Iraq. Of course we are going to keep track of what they had after the war. The CIA has been decimated from people leaving in disgust from that shitstain Bush.
.
.
.
.
A War Crime Or An Act of War?
Who really gassed the Kurds?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1148.htm
- Email this page
By deanrddDecember 2, 2008 - 8:25pm