In fact, now that I think about Point #2 . . . I believe he made this comment somewhere around the first anniversary of President Bush's idiotic performance on the deck of the aircraft carrier.
Now this is just plain silly. Are you *really* ready to pronounce that Iraq would never have been a threat to the U.S. vis-a-vis WMD??? If you are really making that statement then I guess we have little to discuss because it would appear that we live on different planets.
Now... with regard to the actual planning for the war... if taking down a whole country in three weeks with the fewest casualties on *both* sides that has ever occurred in the history of warfare isn't good enough for you... then maybe you need to adjust your powerpoint slides a little. Perhaps then, you could point me to a military campaign in the history of the world that has accomplished more in less time with fewer casualties?
That's absurd. Nobody can make any kind of pronouncement like that. You can't even assure anyone that Great Britain would never be a threat to the U.S. vis-a-vis WMDs -- and I certainly don't expect you (on that basis alone) to suggest that we invade London tomorrow.
You've missed the whole point with regard to the war planning effort. Nothing I heard back in 2003 indicated that anyone underestimated the ability of the U.S. to topple the Hussein government in three weeks (which is a whole other issue, because it points to a clear consensus about Iraq's military ineptitude at the time). The real question people raised at the time was that the Bush administration had no idea what the hell it was getting into once Iraq had to be occupied. They were dead right about that one.