President Bush's Interview with Diane Sawyer, December 16, 2003
The following are extended excerpts from an interview President Bush gave to Primetime's Diane Sawyer on December. 16. It was the president's first one-on-one interview since the capture of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on December. 13.
WMD Intelligence
DIANE SAWYER: Fifty percent of the American people have said that they think the administration exaggerated the evidence going into the war with Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, connection to terrorism. Are the American people wrong? Misguided?
PRESIDENT BUSH: The intelligence I operated one was good sound intelligence, the same intelligence that my predecessor operated on. The -- there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a threat. The -- otherwise the United Nations might -- wouldn't a passed, you know, resolution after resolution after resolution, demanding that he disarm. ... I first went to the United Nations, September the 12th, 2002, and said you've given this man resolution after resolution after resolution. He's ignoring them. You step up and see that he honor those resolutions. Otherwise you become a feckless debating society. ... And so for the sake of peace and for the sake of freedom of the Iraqi people, for the sake of security of the country, and for the sake of the credibility of institu -- in -- international institutions, a group of us moved, and the world is better for it.
DIANE SAWYER: But let me try to ask -- this could be a long question. ... ... When you take a look back, Vice President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell said 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons and now the inspectors say that there's no evidence of these weapons existing right now. The yellow cake in Niger, in Niger. George Tenet has said that shouldn't have been in your speech. Secretary Powell talked about mobile labs. Again, the intelligence -- the inspectors have said they can't confirm this, they can't corroborate.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.
DIANE SAWYER: -- an active --
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.
DIANE SAWYER: Is it yet?
PRESIDENT BUSH: But what David Kay did discover was they had a weapons program, and had that, that -- let me finish for a second. Now it's more extensive than, than missiles. Had that knowledge been examined by the United Nations or had David Kay's report been placed in front of the United Nations, he, he, Saddam Hussein, would have been in material breach of 1441, which meant it was a causis belli. And look, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person, and there's no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that, and there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.
DIANE SAWYER: Again, I'm just trying to ask, these are supporters, people who believed in the war who have asked the question.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer's gonna be the same. Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him.
DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still --
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
DIANE SAWYER: Well --
PRESIDENT BUSH: The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That's, that's what I'm trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be de -- dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man's a danger. And so we got rid of him and there's no doubt the world is a safer, freer place as a result of Saddam being gone.
DIANE SAWYER: But, but, again, some, some of the critics have said this combined with the failure to establish proof of, of elaborate terrorism contacts, has indicated that there's just not precision, at best, and misleading, at worst.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. Look -- what -- what we based our evidence on was a very sound National Intelligence Estimate. ...
DIANE SAWYER: Nothing should have been more precise?
PRESIDENT BUSH: What -- I, I -- I made my decision based upon enough intelligence to tell me that this country was threatened with Saddam Hussein in power.
DIANE SAWYER: What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.
DIANE SAWYER: And if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction [inaudible] --
PRESIDENT BUSH: Diane, you can keep asking the question. I'm telling you -- I made the right decision for America --
DIANE SAWYER: But-
PRESIDENT BUSH: -- because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. ... But the fact that he is not there is, means America's a more secure country.
Dec 18 The Diane Sawyer Interview with George W. Bush
You probably noticed that there was a link to ABC News that contained an artical and video, but is no longer existent. There is still a web site, however, that contains the complete interview.
Dec 18 The Diane Sawyer Interview with George W. Bush
...
..
.
I see you are into latent heat. Is it the same as nuclear energy or if not how is it different?
ReplyDeleteHi Chicago Native. Thanks for posting. I'm not sure what latent heat is...reference to LNG? I have done some posts on that subject.
ReplyDeleteMany people in Oregon are against LNG ports in this state. The corporate government has been pushing really hard on five proposed sites here.
To me...hauling this highly expolosive cargo half way around the world makes about as much sense as hauling ice bergs to Los Angeles to solve water problems.
We have many alternative energy options to explore, and they would be better addressed if they included "We The People".
Nuclear power plants generate steam which the long and short of it creates power to move turbines and a lot of chemicals give off latent energy (or heat) alcohols for example. But I am not sure which latent heat you are referring to. By one process (nuclear fission) energy which goes through a water source to create heat which is steam which moves a turbine which the long and short of it creates energy, so I don't know if this is truely latent energy or which type of energy you are referring to?
ReplyDeleteBut as far as nuclear waste that can be made safer through a lot more processes (yes, more plants, more money etc, costs, costs, costs, people to run plants, people, equipment to transport it) and you don't make money doing this, it just costs, anyhow it could be done but who pays?
LOL
ReplyDeleteI get it now. You were looking at my profile. Actually by calling myself a specialist in latent energy, I meant personal energy...Being a senior citizen, I need a lot of coffee in the AM, which seems to somehow replenish my energy level. I am actually a retired antique dealer.
I don't believe that nuclear power plants are a solution to the enrgy problem either. My solutions, if any would be more philosophical. For instance, the most perfect solar energy converter is the plant life on this planet, so should be of primary importance in our considerations. Science will never approach the plant leaf in the production of oxygen from carbon dioxide by photosynthesis.
Hydrogen from geothermal sources, solar panels, and wind generators are things that we should be pursuing. And free enterprise must be returned to the people, so that anybody can work on these solutions. For instance...It is a travesty that corporate government won't allow the production of cars that get over 100 miles per gallon.
OK, I get it now. I did not know if you were a retired engineer or what.
ReplyDeleteYes windpower, solar etc are clean. Nuclear power is generating nuclear waste which can be cleaned up but it would more than eat into all the profits. Alos you must employ a lot of people and have scheduled outages where a reactor is taken down and the water, bolts all kinds of timely and costly maintance must be done.
Yes we need to replace plants, especially since so many are lost in fires. Yes we could make better cars if there is more incentive. Why some people insist on driving big SUVs etc. I don't know, and they are usually by themselves, makes people like me worry about getting in an accident with them.
Hopefully people will wake up to global warming sooner than later. I am glad there is more and more cities, counties etc going smoke free, that will help those of us who don't smoke as well.
This WH is all for itself, they have raped and pilage this country terrible. But I can go on and on here. Have a nice day. Come visit my blog sometime.