I'm sorry, but you're flat-out wrong.
The Vice President went on talk shows to say that we would be "greeted as liberators" by the Iraqis. The President assured us that we wouldn't need as many troops as the generals were saying.
All the signs were there, that this would be a relatively painless and easy war. I really think that they believed that - they never anticipated that it could turn out as it had, or they wouldn't have so poorly managed the war itself, much less the public relations battle.
Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch, yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.
The State of the Union address, January, 2002
Moreover, VP Cheney's comment on Meet The Press, when taken in context, makes perfectly good sense.
The Iraq War, itself, was relatively short and fully successful. We accomplished our objectives in fairly short order. And, if the elections we made possible are any indication, we were "greeted as liberators" -- by the vast majority of Iraqis.
What has been going on in Iraq ever since is another battle in the War on Terror -- against al-Qaeda and the surrogates of the Iranian mullahs. And we are fighting them in Iraq, on ground of our choice, rather than here in the U.S. or elsewhere. It could just as easily be in Somalia. That it happens to be in Iraq was a strategic choice for the U.S.
A fair reading of Mr. Cheney's comments would reveal this truth. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to find the exact context of Cheney's remarks. Liberals are fond of quoting them, but you have to sort thru pages and pages of Google to find the original transcript -- which you're invited to read (below). Note that the term "liberators" orginates with Russert:
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Our objective will be, if we go in, to defeat whatever forces oppose us, to take down the government of Saddam Hussein, and then to follow on with a series of actions such as eliminating all the weapons of mass destruction, finding where they are and destroying them, preserving the territorial integrity of Turkey. As I say, standing up a broadly representative government that’s preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq and standing up a broadly representative government of the Iraqi people. Those will be our objectives.
Meet The Press, March 16, 2003
Snip...
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.
Now, I can’t say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad. We have to be prepared for that possibility. But, again, I don’t want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there’s no doubt about the outcome. There’s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.
Meet The Press, March 16, 2003