WASHINGTON - More than three years after sending their troops to invade Iraq, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair cannot escape questions about their decision to go to war even as they acknowledge far-reaching mistakes.

Defensive when they would prefer to celebrate the recent political success in Baghdad, the trans-Atlantic allies reflected on the price of overthrowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

In a joint news conference Thursday night that had a somber tone, Bush acknowledged the bloodshed has been difficult for the world to understand. Blair called the violence "ghastly."

But, Bush said at the White House, "Despite setbacks and missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing."

Those missteps include the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, though Bush said those responsible have been jailed. More personally, the president said, he learned not to use so much "tough talk" — saying Osama bin Laden was wanted "dead or alive" and challenging America's enemies to "bring it on."

"I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner, you know," Bush said softly.

Blair said the leaders did not accurately predict immense challenges such as the strength of the insurgency. "It should have been very obvious to us," the prime minister said.

The press conference came after Bush and Blair had a private meeting and ended when the two left for dinner upstairs in the president's residence.

Blair was continuing his Washington visit Friday with a speech at Georgetown University and a private lunch with Bush before heading home.

Blair briefed the president on his discussions in Baghdad on Monday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who said his forces are capable of taking control of security in all provinces within 18 months. Iraq's new government was installed last week.

"I think it's possible to happen in the way that Prime Minister Maliki said," Blair said. "For that to happen, obviously, the first thing that we need is a strong government in Baghdad that is prepared to enforce its writ throughout the country. My very strong feeling, having talked to the leaders there, is that they intend theirs to be such a government."

Neither Bush nor Blair would give specifics on when soldiers from their countries can begin to go home.

"We're going to work with our partners in Iraq, the new government, to determine the way forward," Bush said. He said the goal remains "an Iraq that can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself."

He said one problem was the lack of an Iraqi defense minister, and he urged Maliki to fill the post soon.

Bush declined to discuss news reports that the Pentagon hoped that the U.S. force, now at 131,000 troops, could be reduced to about 100,000 by year's end.

"We'll keep the force level there necessary to win," Bush said.

Britain has about 8,000 troops in Iraq. Blair said the goal remains that Iraqi security forces could "take control progressively of their own country."

On another topic high on the agenda, neither Bush nor Blair would reveal his thinking on possible incentives to draw Iran back to negotiations over its suspected nuclear weapons program.

"Of course, we'll look at all options. But it's their choice right now — they're the ones who walked away from the table," Bush said. "I think we ought to be continuing to work on ways to make it clear to them that they will be isolated."

Bush was dismissive of recent back-channel overtures from Tehran, including a letter to him from Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Bush said he read the letter. "I thought it was interesting," he said.

But, he added, the Iranian leader "didn't address the issues of whether or not they're going to continue to press for a nuclear weapon. That's the issue at hand."

link

No kidding?? A hundred years ago the Brits got thier butts kicked in Afghanistan. A few years back the Russians got thier butts kicked in Afghanistan. Iraq is not Afghanistan but the middle east has been fighting since before biblical times. They are very good at it, and get very serious about it.

How could our leaders underestimate them?? That is almost scarier than a totally illegal, and immoral war.

Well at least they admit it, partly. But this is the one that got me:

Normally most presidents have this down prior to being president.

I agree it's scary they underestimated the enemies capabilities in such a bad way.

You'd think with the USA and UK's enormous financial resources and budget allocation for intelligence and the military, they'd have planned the war better and got better results.

I wonder how many brave soldiers from both our countries and others, have died due to poor planning and research into the enemies capabilities.

I think it's not so much underestimate, but not really care.

It doesn't take much intelligence to figure the only way to beat them is to erradicate them. Seriously, did they really expect having the families of those deceased from 9/11 cry in front of Mouassaui (sp?) during his trial have ANY effect on him other than make him smile. That's what's wrong with this country and the general thought process, everyone feels sorry for anything, feel sorry for the victims, feel sorry for the criminals because they were forced to be criminals...

Not too many, we knew the capabilities, nothing that killed our soldiers came out as a shock. They were tactics they've used forever, piano strings across underpasses to decapitate gunners, roadside bombs, IEDs, and mortars for indirect fire, and ak-47s/RPGs for direct fire.

The problem was our brave soldiers were put in shackles too early, what was it, 2 weeks we were on the offensive, then we started re-building. Well, I don't know about you, but I definately did not feel comfortable surrounded by Iraqi's, kids running everywhere, adults and kids invading personal bubbles, while trying to gain their trust and support by cleaning their streets, fixing their power, re-building their schools, and not knowing which kid was "strapped".

Having spent 6 months out there during and after the initial push, here's my opinion... we should have been on the offensive for atleast 6 months more.

Just for the record, what was your opinion on the atrocities Saddam Hussein committed against his own people, and did you express as much disgust for them as you do for this totally illegal, and immoral war?

I agree something had to be done after 9-11, but I don't think we went about it the right way. Look back at Pearl Harbor. After the Japanese attacked us, we did not wait around for a year or two, then go in, poke around a bit, and then try to rebuild. We turned right back around and took care of business.

War is horrible. War is harsh. People will die. Personally, I think we should avoid war if possible. However, if someone brings it to your doorstep, and there is no avoiding it, then I believe you should hit back as hard as you can. Has America grown too weak and PC to effectively be a world power anymore?

I was always against Saddam and Ossama. I never thought the US should have given so much support during the Reagan years. But as long as they were against the Russians the US liked them. We helped them get into power, we helped them build up thier power base.

Remeber the hearings with Oliver North? When asked about why he spent so much money on a home security system he said that he had to protect his family from the most evil man he has ever known. That's right Ossama. After the Senators fumbled with the name a few times and laughed about it they asked what we should do about Ossama. North said we should go take him out before he has a chance to really do something bad. They said it was a good thing Olly was not in charge of our military. By the way, we could not take him out then because we were still building him up.

If the US really cared about any of the treatment of the people there why don't we care about the genocide taking place in parts of Africa, or South America??

We (meaning the US government) don't care about South America or Africa because they don't have oil. They have drugs and diamonds. The drugs come in on a regular basis and the diamonds are controlled by DeBeers. No problems there. WE can't get involved in other countries internal problems there for some reason?? South America and Africa have begged for our help and Dumya says we can't get involved in the internal conflicts of other countries. Why is Iraq getting special attention?

This war of Dumya's has little to nothing to do about human rights violations.

During the first Gulf War we had an clear exit staregy. You NEVER go into a battle without an exit strategy. In Irag we have no exit strategy and it looks like we we're not getting one. As a Veteran, from the first Gulf War era, I support the Irag Veterans Against the War. For some interesting reading you might check out http://www.ivaw.net/

Last I heard, Rwanda took place on Clinton's watch, not Bush's. Darfur is taking place on Bush's watch, but he already has two wars to fight and got enough grief for "going it alone" in Iraq. The US has been almost alone in characterizing Darfur as genocide, which the UN hasn't the balls to do (just like in Rwanda). Last I heard, the UN, not the US, was in charge of resolving genocide situations worldwide.

Oil in Venezuela, presided over by a wannabe dictator and best buddy of Fidel Castro, for example? Oil in Sudan, where the Darfur Genocide is currently being carried out by Islamofascists? Oil in Nigeria? The "war for oil" rubbish won't wash. And again, the US is not the sole source for solving the world's problems.



Like in Germany and Japan after WWII? We're still in those two countries, last I noticed. Can you show me the exit strategy there?


IVAW? Aren't those the guys that let "Ranger" Jessie MacBeth make unsubstantiated claims of US atrocities without even checking to see if he had a legitimate DD-214? HorseLaugh!

FYI: I'm a US Navy veteran myself, 1980-1984.

In a word, yes.

But really, your being to PC about it, America is one huge pu__y now.