I think we would have had to blanket the country with nukes to achieve the effect you envision, but I suppose you do have a point.
[It is not ridiculous to stick around in Iraq and wield influence on the future direction of their government.] I think that is precisely the problem we are having in Iraq. The military should not be nation-builders. They are nation-breakers, trained to kill and destroy.
Well they are inevitably going to have to learn to become "nation-builders" (i.e. government-safeguarders and counterinsurgency-experts). Either that or we are inevitably going to have to spin off a new branch dedicated to such endeavors. Because that is the type of thing our national security tends to require nowadays.
In case you haven't noticed we don't often find ourselves in a position where we can fight army-on-army battles out on a well-defined battlefield somewhere. We are too powerful to the point where no one in his right mind would take us on in that manner. You can hold your breath and say "But that's what armies are for! We should still use our army only for that!" or you can acknowledge the change that has taken place and adjust. Needless to say which approach I favor.
[straw-men about "quick", etc.] Did I say Bush?
Bush is the President. You were describing how you think the war was "sold" (eye-roll). To me, that implies, by the President in some official capacity, before Congress (who is, after all, the audience to which the war had to be "sold").
Ken Adelman said "I believe that demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. .
1. Who the hell is Ken Adelman and how the heck does some utterance of his bear on "how the war was sold"? What was his position in the administration?
2. Read his statement again. In case you didn't notice, demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq was indeed a cakewalk. 3 weeks.
Cheney said, “I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators."
We were greeted as liberators. Not by EVERYBODY but there were (and are) Iraqis who greeted us as liberators.
Anyway, this is nothing but a statement of professed belief by the Vice President. Still not "how the war was sold". Cheney was not allowed to have a belief on how we would or would not be greeted?
Ahmed Chalabi said, “American troops will be greeted with flowers and candy”
1. Kindly state Mr. Chalabi's position in the administration and briefly describe in what official capacity exactly I am supposed to think he participated in "selling" the war.
2. Flowers. Flowers. As for candy, it's more our soldiers giving them candy. Anyway, geopolitical discussions have really sunk to a nursery-school level these past 3 years, with fully half the alleged-adult population seemingly convinced that whether or not a foreigner gives a piece of candy (or how many foreigners give candy, or the percentage of candy-giving, or the candy-giving-frequency perhaps?) to a soldier halfway around the world proves some military-strategical point of some kind.
Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth wrote, "In the run-up to the war in Iraq, administration officials had consistently argued that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the costs of reconstruction."
Well, if Stephen Moore (who?) said it, it must be true. Nice to have such solid info on these unnamed "administration officials" allegedly saying these things.
Richard Perle predicted that support for Saddam would "collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
"Support for Saddam" as such was never that high to begin with. You think it was/is?
Donald Rumsfeld said "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
"unknowable". What a solid ironclad prediction Rummy made there! Yes, he tricked us all.
Paul Wolfowitz said, "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."
You think Wolfy was incorrect about this?
I don't.
I haven't read that Cheney said we would be greeted as liberators by SOME Iraqis, but not by EVERYBODY. I have no doubt that there were and are Iraqis holding that view. The point is that an impression was cultivated that Iraqis in general would greet us as liberators.
Anyway, this is nothing but a statement of professed belief by the Vice President. Still not "how the war was sold". Cheney was not allowed to have a belief on how we would or would not be greeted?
If Cheney, as Vice President, publicly expresses a belief on the friendly reception of American troops in Iraq, do you suppose it is private and not meant to influence?
I said earlier: If the war is now perceived as a failure, its because reality hasn't matched administration pre-war PR. I stand by that, and provided quotes from prominent conservatives both in and out of the administration to back up that claim. You respond with the unsupported contention that its all just a bunch of straw-men created by the left.
You responded: No, it's because reality doesn't match the cartoonishly impossible fantasyland ahistorical standard for success in war which has set up by a hostile media and straw-man-building left.
The "cartoonishly impossible fantasyland" was created by the administration, perhaps you weren't paying attention at the time.
Here is another cartoonishly impossible estimate from Bush's director of the OBM: Mitch Daniels provided an initial budget estimate for the Iraq War of $50 to $60 billion. He said the war would be an, “affordable endeavor” and characterized the estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as “very, very high.”
At some point we have to begin taking responsibility or risk loosing more credibility. Blaming leftist for everything is nearing the end of its shelf-life.
