Bush sorry for using force against Saddam but insists Clinton took decision to change Iraqi regime; supports India for UNSC, believes Osama is alive

New Delhi

31 October 2009

George Walker Bush, a former United States President, said that the

decision to change Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq had actually been taken by

the previous Bill Clinton administration.

Justifying his decision of invading Iraq, Bush said in his speech to the Hindustan

Times Leadership Summit here Saturday that dislodging of the "brutal dictator"

Saddam Hussein was a necessity after the 9/11 attacks.

However, he regretted that military force had to be used to do so as there was no

other choice. He explained that Saddam Hussein's removal was important as it

was "felt" that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and he was not

allowing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors in.

"My hope was to disarm Saddam peacefully... I am sorry we had to use military

but there was no choice," he said, and explained the use of force on the ground

that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) had passed 17 resolutions

calling for disarming of Hussein but the Iraqi ruler was not cooperative.

Saddam Hussein was arrested by the US troops from a hiding place in December

2003 and was hanged on 30 December, 2006.

On Afghanistan, Bush said "America and India must work together to win the war

[there]." He added: "The US and India must continue to stand together to support

the young democracy for the sake of security and peace."

Asked whether Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden could be alive, Bush said: "I

guess he is not dead." He, however, noted that Osama bin Laden is hiding and

"not leading victory parades" or "espousing his cause" on TV. He expressed

confidence that the terrorist will be brought to justice which "he deserves to be"

and it was a matter of time.

Bush favoured a UNSC seat for India. But he cautioned that "politics is difficult"

and pointed out that there were "threshold" questions like how big should the

UNSC be, how many should get veto, and what should be the criteria and

composition. He said that if criteria is taken into account, then Japan has a

chance from Asia. On the size, he said that there are suggestions that the

strength should be raised from present five to 10 and wondered what was the

rationale behind it as "it may be too big."