FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Bush told the British newspaper The Times he regrets using phrases like "bring them on" and "wanted dead or alive" after 9/11. He says it made him seem anxious for war in the eyes of the world. The president says that in retrospect, he could have used a different tone from the cowboy rhetoric that sent the message that he wasn't a man of peace. Now he figures that out.
Mr. Bush talked about how painful it is for him to put youngsters in harm's way, but he said he doesn't regret invading Iraq. He insisted at a press conference today that removing Saddam Hussein was the right decision and made the world a safer place.
President Bush also said that Republican John McCain will have to distance himself from him. He called McCain an independent person who will make his own decisions. There does seem to be one avoidable similarity between the two, however. They both manage to put their feet in their mouths with some regularity.
This morning on NBC's "Today" show, McCain was asked, since the surge appears to be working, if he had a better estimate of when our troops might come home from Iraq. His answer: "No, but that's not too important." He went on to say casualties are more important, that there are Americans stationed all over the world but not in harm's way. My guess is it's very important to the families of the troops who are in Iraq.
Here’s my question to you: Do you think President Bush was misunderstood when it comes to the Iraq war?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
No, he was very clear. He said he had no regrets. He doesn't regret taking the country to war on bad intelligence, he doesn't regret killing hundreds of thousands of people, he doesn't regret the death and dismemberment of our troops, and he doesn't regret destroying a country that didn't attack us. This man sleeps well at night, because these things are not important to him.
No. He and Vice President Cheney have committed war crimes and crimes against our country. There are 35 articles of impeachment introduced in the House and there has been no coverage. If he had been unfaithful to his wife, you would be covering it around the clock.
I do think that he was misunderstood. You can just tell by looking at his face while he is speaking that he feels remorseful. He did what he knew was right, and I fully respect his decision for doing so… Despite what he said, the decisions were right.
Toby from Sedona, Arizona writes:
Misunderstood? Are you kidding? I'm not sure he could have made himself clearer. He even said, once it was obvious to the world WMDs were not going to be found in Iraq, had he known that in advance, he would have made the decision to go in anyway. It was obvious to anyone with a brain that the reason for war kept changing from terrorist threat, to nuclear threat, to biological threats, to chemical threats, to freeing the oppressed, to starting a beacon of democracy in the Middle East to...whatever it is today. (What is it today?) But there was one thing that wasn't changing: we were going to war. Period.
The only "misunderstanding" was that he thought that he knew what he was doing.