regrets "bring 'em on" taunt

 Friday May 26, 06:39 AM

ASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush has admitted that his bellicose "bring 'em on" taunt to Iraqi insurgents was a big mistake, as he and Prime Minister Tony Blair carefully avoided setting a timetable for removing troops from Iraq.

Meeting at a time when a new Iraqi unity government offers the promise of a way out of an unpopular war that has damaged their standings at home, Bush and

Blair were remarkably reflective on some of the grievous mistakes that critics say has intensified anti-American sentiment in the Middle East.

At a joint news conference with Blair, after three years of war that has killed more than 2,400 Americans and thousands of Iraqis, Bush was asked what mistake he most regretted.

The Texan said that he regretted saying "bring 'em on" when responding in July 2003 to a question about the Iraqi insurgency.

On Thursday, Bush said the remark was "kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong message to people."

"I learnt some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner, you know. "Wanted, dead or alive"; that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted," he said.

He also cited the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal as "the biggest mistake that's happened so far, at least from our country's involvement in Iraq ... We've been paying for that for a long period of time," he said.

Blair said the effort to rid Iraq's army of members of Saddam Hussein's Baathists -- a process called "de-Baathification -- could have been done better.

"I think it's easy to go back over mistakes that we may have made. But the biggest reason why Iraq has been difficult is the determination by our opponents to defeat us. And I don't think we should be surprised at that," Blair said.

PRIME MINISTER'S GOAL

The two leaders are under pressure at home to show progress in Iraq so they can start withdrawing their forces. There are now about 132,000 U.S. troops and 8,000 British troops in the chaotic country.

Blair said he believed it was possible to meet new Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's goal of having Iraqi security forces in control of all of Iraq by the end of 2007.

"Listen, I want our troops out -- don't get me wrong," said Bush. "But I also understand that it is vital that we do the job, that we complete the mission."

He said he would consult with his military commanders in Iraq about the security situation, as well as with the new Iraqi government about its needs and that any decision would be made based on the conditions on the ground.

Blair said that "Inevitably, over time, we have to transfer responsibility" because it will be easier for an Iraqi interior minister "who is the product of an Iraqi-elected government to go in and take the really tough measures sometimes that is necessary to sort some of these issues out."

But as for now, he said, "This directly elected Iraqi government has said they want us to stay until the job is done."

Both leaders acknowledged the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 had been divisive, but agreed it was time to look to the future now that the Iraqis had gone to the polls and freely elected a new government.

"It is our duty, but it is also the duty of the whole international community to get behind this government and support it," Blair said.

In Baghdad, gunmen shot and seriously wounded a senior Defence Ministry official, in what appeared to be part of a campaign to target top figures in Iraq's U.S.-backed administration. It was a reminder of the uphill struggle Maliki faces.

The new prime minister, in an interview with Arabiya television, said there was no reason for the array of armed gangs and militias in Iraq, now that the country had an elected government. He said the real problem for the government was the armed gangs, rather than the organised militias

Aloha:

From www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/300606waste.htm  Their breaking story. (second paragraph from the end)

reply

Thanks again, posted.

Brian

Bush to reporter on Gitmo: 'I'm sorry you had to waste your question'

Raw Story | June 30 2006

President George W. Bush and reporters sparred over the future of Guantanamo Bay inmates after a Supreme Court ruling that current tribunals are illegal.

Video and related transcript follow:

BUSH: We've agreed to take two questions a side. Walking in, I reminded the Prime Minister of one of Elvis's greatest songs, "Don't Be Cruel" -- (laughter) -- so keep that in mind, Hunt, when you ask your question.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You've said that you wanted to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, but you were waiting for the Supreme Court decision that came out today. Do you intend now to close the Guantanamo Bay quickly? And how do you deal with the suspects that you've said were too dangerous to be released or sent home?

BUSH: Thank you for the question on a court ruling that literally came out in the midst of my meeting with the Prime Minister -- and so I haven't had a chance to fully review the findings of the Supreme Court. I, one, assure you that we take them very seriously. Two, that to the extent that there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so.

The American people need to know that this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street. In other words, there's not a -- it was a drive-by briefing on the way here, I was told that this was not going to be the case. At any rate, we will seriously look at the findings, obviously. And one thing I'm not going to do, though, is I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people. People have got to understand that. I understand we're in a war on terror; that these people were picked up off of a battlefield; and I will protect the people and, at the same time, conform with the findings of the Supreme Court.

QUESTION: Do you think the prison will close?

BUSH: Well, I haven't had a chance to fully review what the court said, Terry. I wish I had, and I could have given you a better answer. As I say, we take the findings seriously. And, again, as I understand it -- now please don't hold me to this -- that there is a way forward with military tribunals in working with the United States Congress; as I understand certain senators have already been out expressing their desire to what the Supreme Court found, and we will work with the Congress. I want to find a way forward.

In other words, I have told the people that I would like for there to be a way to return people from Guantanamo to their home countries, but some of them -- people need to be tried in our courts. And that's -- the Hamdan decision was the way forward for that part of my statement, and, again, I would like to review the case. And we are, we've got people looking at it right now to determine how we can work with Congress if that's available to solve the problem.

[..]

QUESTION: Yes, Mr. President. We can assume you've at least been given some of the broad strokes of the Supreme Court's decision on Guantanamo --

BUSH: I just gave you the answer on that. I'll be glad to answer another question -- I gave you the broad strokes I've been given.

QUESTION: Right, but this -- can you comment on what looks like a judicial repudiation of your administration's policy on the treatment of terror suspects post-9/11?

BUSH: Matt, I can't -- I wish I could comment, and would, obviously. I'm a person who generally comments on things. I haven't been briefed enough to make a comment on it, except for the following things. I'm sorry you had to waste your question, but we will conform to the Supreme Court, we will analyze the decision. To the extent that the Congress has given any latitude to develop a way forward using military tribunals, we will work with them.

As I understand, a Senator has already been on TV. Haven't seen it, haven't heard what he said, but as -- they briefed me and said he wants to devise law in conformity with the case that would enable us to use a military tribunal to hold these people to account. And if that's the case, we'll work with him. But that's -- I can't comment any more than I have just done in the first question. Otherwise I would have. I just haven't been fully briefed enough to answer your question, Matt.