Pre-War Vs. Post-War
Just thought I'd stir the pot up a little more. This is a list of quotes about the Iraq war over a 2 month period quoted from a USA Today article printed April 1, 2003:
Changing rhetoric of war
* Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
* March 4, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.
* March 11, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."
* March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."
The war begins
* March 20, President Bush, in an Oval Office speech to the nation: "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict."
* March 21, Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon news briefing: "The confusion of Iraqi officials is growing. Their ability to see what is happening on the battlefield, to communicate with their forces and to control their country is slipping away. . . . The regime is starting to lose control of their country."
* March 27, Bush, at a news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, when asked how long the war would take: "However long it takes. That's the answer to your question and that's what you've got to know. It isn't a matter of timetable, it's a matter of victory."
* March 30, Myers, on Meet the Press: "Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory. This is going to be a tough war, a tough slog yet, and no responsible official I know has ever said anything different once this war has started."
* March 30, Rumsfeld, on Fox News Sunday, when asked whether Iraqis would "celebrate in the streets" when victory is won: "We'll see."
by MG at 4:16 PM
26 Comments:
Anyone know where I can get me a pair of them flip flops that were waived at the RNC?
Convienently in season too.
I can;t wait to see the arguments against this post -grabs a bag of popcorn and plops on the couch to watch the show-
Moreover, some actual GIs have changed their minds about the W, Rove and Co. Have a look:
http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2005/06/gis-are-genuinely-ripping-pissed.html#comments
Slice:
"I am a 23 year veteran Senior NCO with more days in tents drawing imminent danger pay than our current president has in verifiable drill days in the TANG.
This administration has pushed me to the left, just to distance myself from the lying the profiteering and hypocrisy of what has become the Republican Party."
Maybe they were thinking in terms of their fundmentalist-christian bible years... you know, worlds-created-in-six-days, and all that?
just found you...awesome...thanks.
I.D.
Gee whiz, now what makes you guys doubt the capabilities of our leaders? Come on, we all now that direct quotes are only part of the liberal propaganda machine!
Oh no, ID, Thank YOU! ;)
Um...wait a minute. Where are all the snarky conservatives who usually have something to say?
Mr. Conservative Foot, meet Mr. Conservative Mouth. Get comfortable together.
Sorry Evan, once and a while I have log off an actually do my job.
I don't suppose it occured to anyone that these quotes refer to two different things, the former being the war against the Iraqi army (which was incredibly quick) and the latter to the insurgency, which is an entirely different conflict.
Sorry to show up but I thought your arms might be getting tired from patting yourselves on the back.
And man, if I'm becoming a regular feature here you'd think I'd rate as a link your "My Fellow Bloggers"...
Whadda ya say Moxie?
Oh honey, you do plenty of self-promotion ;p
But thanks for the reminder - I need to clear out some of the old links before the new design gets implemented.
"Oh honey, you do plenty of self-promotion ;p"
Guilty as charged, but every bit helps.
I'd be interested in hearing what you thought of this quote (from an anti-war conservative):
"The critical point here, it seems to me, is that whatever you may think of that policy, if you are an American who cares about this country, you will not want the USA to be humiliated and defeated in Iraq. In the increasingly dangerous world we inhabit -- China, Iran, N. Korea -- that would be a geopolitical catastrophe. No American should wish for that. (And it is astonishing and shocking to me that there seem to be quite a lot of Americans who **do** wish for it.) The President's main appeal should therefore be to our patriotism.
The last moment at which we might have withdrawn from Iraq without major loss of face -- i.e. perceived humiliation & defeat -- was after the January elections (when I urged just such a withdrawal). That moment came and went. Withdrawal now would be a disaster for our country. The President should make this clear. The "1975 scenario" -- withdrawal under public and congressional pressure, against the administration's will -- would have dire consequences.
The subtext of the President's remarks should be: "You may think this nation-building project is the dumbest idea ever. You may think that going into Iraq at all was stupid and misguided. Fine. Possibly you are right. When we're through, you can impeach me, and all my colleagues too, if you like. You can string us up from the lampposts along Pennsylvania Avenue, if you've a mind to. But _as of now_, the USA simply has no choice but to see this through. The alternative would be a triumph for those who hate our country, and a collapse in our international prestige, with drastic consequences for us -- for you, for your security and prosperity."
And don't forget, visit http://www.brashlimburg.com today!
Brash - If you think Georgie is going to actually take responsibility for anything to any extent, you have not been paying attention. For a long time.
And if I could see the "insurgency" coming before we went in to Iraq, and I am just a piece of redneck oil field trash, why couldn't my elected leaders?
I had no problem with going in and kicking some ass, if only to get some payback for 9/11, but creating a democracy there is not going to work any more than our attempt to invent one in Vietnam 30 - 40 years ago. And if I could recognize that, well, see paragraph No. 2.
You can be sure that GWB will escape any responsibility for this debacle, as he has his entire life. TANG, youthful indiscretions, and all.
But I don't mean to concentrate on Georgie to exclusion of all others. My old pal Bill, who would have played high school football against me if he actually grew up in Hope, AR (and if he would have played), never took responsibility for anything either.
Is irresponsibility a requirement for elective office that I missed in civics class?
Drat, first comment didn't stick. Here goes round 2.
"The critical point here, it seems to me, is that whatever you may think of that policy, if you are an American who cares about this country, you will not want the USA to be humiliated and defeated in Iraq. In the increasingly dangerous world we inhabit -- China, Iran, N. Korea -- that would be a geopolitical catastrophe. No American should wish for that. (And it is astonishing and shocking to me that there seem to be quite a lot of Americans who **do** wish for it.) The President's main appeal should therefore be to our patriotism."
For some reason he is under the impression that the world still sees us as winning or something and by extracting our troops it would be a crushing blow to our delicate US ego.
For him to suggest that Bush appeal to our patriotism is just silly. Bush had all the patriotism he could ever dream of after 9/11, and he utilized it to further his own personal agenda. Now that he's fucked himself, publicly (via the zero WMDs and now with the DSM, et al), why should we all join up to become fodder? I should join the army simply because Bush put us in a bad position and I don't want the US to "look bad"? That's a laugh. We should clean up the mess he made by sacrificing ourselfs or our children?
The world at large already thinks of us as pushy bullies, and are taking delight in the fact that our dickhead in charge has fallen flat on his ass. What's worse, his failure to admit mistakes and insistance that everything's going as planned makes him look like this joker.
Brash --
(1) They may refer to two separate things in hindsight, but I think it's hard to deny that Rummy and Co. didn't seem to be anticipating this level of post-war resistance, even as a number of scholars and advisors suggested otherwise. Do you really think they would have put up a Mission Accomplished banner had they suspected that literally a thousand Americans would die afterward? And frankly, if they WERE anticipating this level of resistence, then they did a REALLY poor job of planning for it.
(2) A "collapse in our international presitge?" What prestige? Most citizens of the world think we're all fat idiots, we burned up all our sympathy credit from post-9/11 with almost every country out there, and we're fighting a lengthy unilateral battle against terrorists in Iraq, which is wildly unpopular.
I would think a lot of nations would applaud the courage it would take Bush to admit he was completely wrong and define an exit strategy. Hell, *I* would probably applaud him for it, and I think he's possibly the worst President in the history of our country.
It's only American machismo that defines its glory by victories won at gunpoint and by painting broad strokes about winners and losers.
So to Moxie and Evan:
Do we just hang the Iraqis out to dry? Any withdrawal or even a timetable signs the death warrants of all the Iraqis we're trying to help.
Acceptable losses ie South Vietnam?
Very well said Moxie.
I'm sick of having to defend my love for this country, my patriotism and my support for the troops.
During the first Gulf War I worked with many women who were married to service men in the Gulf. They knew that while I found that war rather absurd, I certainly wanted their husbands to come back alive and healthy.
Something really horrible has happened to this country in the past fourteen years. Think it has a lot to do with Repubs thinking that they hold the patent on patriotism, and love for this country.
impeach a great president
steal an election
win this one by a mandate (?)
the list goes on, but I'm totally sick of them
To *some* extent, you or I can't know the answer without having information that we'd be shot for looking at.
But given the opinions of some people who DO have that information and given what we know, I'd say setting a time table for withdrawl and for turning things over to Iraqi forces is prudent, yes.
Rumsfeld himself said that the insurgency won't be stopped by US forces, that it'll have to be Iraqi forces, in the end, who quell this thing. We're just there, apparently, to get the newbie government running.
And it was made clear by a number of these terrorists -- not all, but many certainly -- early on that their entire purpose for being there was to undermine US efforts which were seen as being longer term than the US was letting on. If we leave and the attacks continue, it discredits the terrorists' word. It also means that terrorists would have to be signing up to kill Iraqis, not Americans. Al Queda has said that American presence in Iraq has been helpful for recruiting.
So what conclusions should we draw considering that the violence is escalating the longer we stay?
Either we're just going to have to toss more troops at this thing over and over and over (a la Vietnam) or we're going to have to say at some point, "We've given you the tools to rule, Iraq, now do it."
And by not setting a time table for the latter, we're not really helping to push the matter with the Iraqi government.
Of course, I'm skeptical that we'd ever want to withdraw a presence from Iraq now because so many of our companies have a foothold there, and I'm sure the Bush administration is thinking that it'd be a shame for them to lose out on all those profits and to lose out on all that control of a supply of oil that competitors (like China) could get their hands on if we left.
Brash --
Leaving Iraq would be a catastrophe, like Pol Pot time.
But, let's be real here, we've sidetracked ourselves in a war that perhaps isn't in our longterm best interest. (Or short term, but I digress).
We're as good as dropped out from being a world influencer for a generation. China is itching to flex it's muscles in the Pacific. Meanwhile we're going to be running a day care center in the desert for the next twenty years. Morally and ethically we can't leave, I agree with you, but we need to come to terms with how it will limit us to act and react in the future.
Please rub bastardofaandc.blogspot.com all over yourself and send me a photo.
Isn't today the anniversary of the US handover of sovereignty back over to the Iraqis?
Oh yeah, it is... Know how I know? Because Bush is making a speech about the "clear strategy" for Iraq. Right, very clear. Clear as crystal. Unvarnished, transparent, as though nothing could block the reality of the situation. God I love wordplay. If he says anything but "we're doing great things...we're going to get the insurgents... stay the course...freedom is on the march...blah blah blahbitty blah.", I would be very interested. If he SPECIFICALLY says he is ordering the troops home tonight, I will faint dead away and announce myself a Republican upon coming to.
Andrew Sullivan drudged up a fun quote today:
"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." - Governor George W. Bush, June 5, 1999, on the troops deployed to Kosovo under president Clinton.
Nice one, LB!
Oh wait, I forgot, that kind of thing doesn't apply to Bushie. He does what he wants, when he wants.
Evan,
"It also means that terrorists would have to be signing up to kill Iraqis, not Americans."
Seriously, this sort of thing pisses me off. Do you even read the news reports coming out of Iraq? It is Iraqis being killed, women and children. These terrorists have no qualms about it and certainly won't stop if we leave.
"Of course, I'm skeptical that we'd ever want to withdraw a presence from Iraq now because so many of our companies have a foothold there, and I'm sure the Bush administration is thinking that it'd be a shame for them to lose out on all those profits and to lose out on all that control of a supply of oil that competitors (like China) could get their hands on if we left."
That's just....silly. What a great way to help rebuild, pull out all the commerce. HA
Bobo, thanks for the backup, and nice quote.
Seriously, this sort of thing pisses me off. Do you even read the news reports coming out of Iraq? It is Iraqis being killed, women and children. These terrorists have no qualms about it and certainly won't stop if we leave.
I just heard a radio report today, actually, that suggested -- no, really, flat out SAID -- that all the evidence points to something like 75 or 80% of the attacks over there being directed at US troops or other foreigners and Iraqis are bystanders and that only a smaller percentage of the attacks are clearly aimed at Iraqis themselves.
And look, we KNOW that there are more groups than just one working toward their interests, and we know that some of the biggest groups have an anti-US agenda more than anything else.
So you can be pissed all you want. But the evidence suggests that our presence is what's driving MOST (admittedly not *all*) the attacks over there.
That's just....silly. What a great way to help rebuild, pull out all the commerce.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but you may be misunderstanding me. I'm saying that I think that Bush and company have a clear interest in staying to keep driving US contractor profits *AND* to keep China out of Iraq, oil-wise.
If we were interested in helping Iraqis build an economy, we wouldn't have made them so dependent on US companies in the interim and (possibly) well into the future. The US specifically avoided allowing regional companies to even bid on contracts for a lot of jobs, and they outright denied a lot of European or other Asian companies as well. They fed US companies all the goodies, and that means that if the US companies have trouble, so does Iraq. Not very responsible if you're looking at it from a "helping Iraq" point of view but pretty damn smart if you're only protecting US interests. THAT'S what I'm saying there.
"Insurgent attacks have killed more than 1,323 people, the vast majority of them Iraqis, since April 28, when Prime Minister Ibrahim al- Jaafari announced the formation of his government. According to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, 1,739 American soldiers have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.
In the last week, at least 15 car bombs have targeted Iraqi policemen, soldiers, Shiite neighborhoods and the American military. An ambush last week on a U.S. convoy carrying female troops killed two Marines, both men, and wounded 13, 11 of them women.
Suicide bombers struck a police headquarters, an army base and a hospital around Mosul on Sunday, killing 33 people in a setback to efforts to rebuild the northwestern city's police force that was riven by intimidation from insurgents seven months ago. "
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/dailystar/81587.php
"Extremists have in recent weeks mostly targeted the Iraqi security forces at the forefront of government counterinsurgency operations in an effort to shatter their morale and prevent recruits from signing up."
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/11943538.htm
Let me know when you find a transcript of that radio report...maybe try Air Americas website.
Brash, your quotes illustrate a large part of my point... They're all RECENT attacks on Iraqi security forces because -- wait for it -- there hasn't BEEN an Iraqi security force.
And who's training that force? Americans!
Keep in mind, too, that the overall number of attacks continues to escalate as different groups enter Iraq with different priorities.
And of course, I NEVER said that Iraqis weren't being targeted. Just that they weren't being targeted as much. Over the course of the past year or so, about 20-25% of attacks have apparently been directed specifically at Iraqis and NOT American targets. Now, could that be changing as the government takes hold? Possibly. Especially if terrorists see the government as a puppet of the US.
I just heard a local radio interview with the Imam in charge of the new Arab American center here in Michigan -- the largest such center in the world, by the way...so he's not some random slouch -- and his opinion was that it's time for the Americans to begin a slow withdrawl. That attacks will continue to mount until the US shows that it's serious about allowing Iraq to govern itself.
The report, by the way, was on NPR, not Air America. And the person quoting the statistics was a US general, not a reporter. I don't listen to that talk radio crap.
Post a Comment
<< Home