Quotes on length of war

[Stephanie]

Alrighty kids - here's a few articles that I found;

Was Bush given full picture?
By Warren P. Strobel
Inquirer Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - President Bush's aides did not forcefully present him with dissenting views from CIA and State and Defense Department officials who warned that U.S.-led forces could face stiff resistance in Iraq, according to three senior administration officials.

Bush embraced the predictions of some top administration hawks, beginning with Vice President Cheney, who predicted in the weeks before the war with Iraq that Saddam Hussein's regime would be brittle and that Iraqis would joyously greet coalition troops as liberators, the officials said.

The dissenting views "were not fully or energetically communicated to the President," said one top official, who like the others requested anonymity. "As a result, almost every assumption the plan's based on looks to be wrong."

Instead, Bush embraced the views of Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and other hawks, who have long advocated using force to overthrow Hussein, the official said.

In varying degrees, those views assumed that many Iraqi forces, including part of the elite Republican Guard, would surrender or at least not fight; that Iraqi civilians would revolt, and assist U.S. and British forces; and that the entire conflict might be over in a matter of weeks.

Top political and military leaders insist that the war to oust Hussein and neutralize his weapons of mass destruction is on course. Army and Marine units are within 50 miles of Baghdad, troops are pouring into Iraq, and increasing swaths of Iraqi territory have been taken from the regime's control.

But debate over the war's course roiled Washington on Friday. Confronted with questions, administration officials insisted that they had never promised an easy conflict and accused the news media of making snap judgments 10 days into the war.

Rumsfeld said it was "premature" to ask whether the administration miscalculated the Iraqis' desire to rise up against Hussein.

But some senior U.S. officials now acknowledge that they might have underestimated the threat from Iraqi paramilitary units, who have engaged in guerrilla warfare against U.S. and British forces, and threatened or executed Iraqis trying to surrender.

Although administration officials did not underestimate Iraqi resistance, "I think we probably did underestimate the willingness of this regime to commit war crimes," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said.

Another senior official said planners expected tough fighting from the irregulars, called the Fedayeen, and Republican Guard units, but only "in the red box outside of Baghdad."

The surprise has been that the units have been spread throughout the south, preventing anti-Hussein revolts among the populace and regular army units, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"One could say maybe we should have thought of that," the official said.

The President has been careful not to describe the war as easy or cost-free.

"A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict," Bush said in a March 19 speech to the nation, shortly after the first cruise missiles struck Baghdad.

But some of those predictions came from the White House.

In a televised interview three days before the Bush speech, Cheney said: "I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators."

A Cheney aide said the comments were made in the context of a question about whether troops would be greeted as conquerors rather than liberators. It is "too early to make a judgment" on his prediction, the aide said.

While conceding that there could be a battle in Baghdad, the vice president said: "My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces and are likely to step aside."

So far, Republican Guard units have not surrendered.

Cheney, appearing on NBC's Meet the Press, said his assessment was based in part on meetings with Iraqi exiles, many of whom have long predicted a quick collapse of Hussein's regime after an invasion.

The exiles, led by Ahmed Chalabi, and some U.S. officials had proposed that the job be done by a far smaller force than what is now in Iraq. The force would have relied heavily on small bands of U.S. special forces linked with U.S. airpower and opponents of the regime inside Iraq.

Richard Perle, an influential former Pentagon official who is close to Rumsfeld, reportedly gave a briefing to Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs 10 days ago in which he predicted that the war would last no longer than three weeks. "And there is a good chance that it will be less than that," he said.

U.S. intelligence agencies insist that they warned policymakers and war planners about the risks of Iraqi unconventional warfare.

A Feb. 3 CIA report predicted that Iraqi irregulars might employ hit-and-run tactics and dress in civilian garb, a U.S. official said. The report suggested that militias could pose the greatest threat to coalition forces, said the official, who requested anonymity.

Analysts at the CIA and the Departments of Defense and State were far more skeptical that Hussein's regime would fold quickly, that Iraqis would greet invading troops as liberators, and that post-Hussein Iraq would become a democratic model for the Middle East, the senior officials said.

The hoped-for anti-Hussein revolts in southern Iraq have failed to materialize because of fear of the regime and distrust of the United States, which called for an uprising in 1991 but stood by as Baghdad slaughtered its opponents, they said.

The United States will still be greeted as liberators "after the witch is dead," the first senior official said.

Perhaps no one was more publicly optimistic than former Reagan administration official Kenneth Adelman, who predicted in a February 2002 column that overthrowing Hussein would be "a cakewalk."

Adelman said that the word was "too casual" but that "the thesis was right." The war will be over in less than the six weeks the 1991 Persian Gulf War took, he predicted.

Adelman's article was in response to one by Brookings Institution scholars Philip H. Gordon and Michael O'Hanlon, who warned "U.S. casualties could number in the thousands."

O'Hanlon said he stood by his analysis. "We were regrettably accurate," he said.

and...

Risks for Bush, nation grow as war goes on
Backlash against U.S. among fears
By Susan Page, USA TODAY (PARTIAL)


WASHINGTON -- The United States faces an enemy in the attack on Iraq as implacable as any military division Saddam Hussein can deploy: the calendar.

The invasion is a week old, and President Bush has been trying to dampen expectations that the conflict will be short or easy. Television footage of firefights and U.S. soldiers being exhibited as prisoners of war have caused many Americans to adjust their assumptions about how long the war will last and how many casualties the United States will suffer.

Officials are concerned about the possible consequences if the war lasts longer than expected. It could undermine some of the benefits the administration saw from targeting Saddam and exacerbate the risks. A more protracted struggle would increase the toll on Iraqi civilians, inflame anti-American sentiment in the region and even spur terrorist recruitment, diplomats say. Economists warn that it would drive consumer confidence down and oil prices up, damaging an economy that is stumbling already.

And analysts say it would be only a matter of time before the French and others who opposed the war began to say: I told you so.

Critics say Bush rarely discussed the costs and difficulties of a war when he was arguing that it would be the right thing to do.

"We really overpromised both our own people and others on the timing of this war," says Edward Walker, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt who is now president of the Middle East Institute, a think tank in Washington. "It is not as easy as some people liked to think it might be."

"All of us are trying to adjust our expectations," says Sung Won Sohn, chief economist for Wells Fargo. Last week, when it seemed possible that Saddam had been killed before the fighting had begun, the stock market recorded its biggest weekly gain in 20 years. On Monday, amid more sobering news from the front, it plunged.

Just how long is longer than expected?

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Army Gen. Tommy Franks, the top commander in the region, have refused to set a timetable. But in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press 10 days ago, just before the war began, Vice President Cheney predicted that the regular Iraqi army wouldn't put up a fight and even some in the Republican Guard were "likely to step aside." Administration officials said the war would last "weeks, not months" -- ending by, say, early or mid-April.

Diplomats see a later benchmark on June 2, when Bush is scheduled to meet in France with heads of state who opposed the war -- French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Russian President Vladimir Putin -- at the annual Group of Eight economic summit. His closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, also is slated to attend.

If war is still raging then, it will have lasted two months and 15 days. That would make it close to the longest war the United States has fought in more than a quarter-century, although military missions to Somalia and elsewhere lasted longer. Since the Vietnam debacle, Americans have become accustomed to wars -- such as those in the Persian Gulf, Kosovo and Afghanistan -- that may be fierce but are over fast.

[JQ Public]

maybe we shouldn't have broadcasted that they thought the war woulda been so easy...then they wouldn't have put up such a fight ..... jk i really think the administration thought this would be done by now...remember how they were saying of fox news everyday that "heck we're only 50 miles from baghdad in 3 days"....aren't we still about 50 miles away now. I guess we shouldn't have been so cocky

[streetsoldier]

They shoulda listened to Yogi Berra.."It ain't over 'til it's over."

[cycloneye]

The US is still 50 miles from Baghdad but as time goes by more forces are joining in Iraq so the perifery of the capital will be all around with the coalition forces and when all the pieces are there then they will make the entrance to Baghdad.

[Aslkahuna]

this all reads like what some of us here (myself included) have been saying all this past week.

Steve

[Stephanie]

this all reads like what some of us here (myself included) have been saying all this past week.

Steve

Yes it does. I thought it was important to post something that stated it as a fact.

[southerngale]

You guys blow my mind! They're doing the right thing for the right reason and the right way. And the biggest criticism seems to be to try and twist their words to make it look like they said it would go fast and easy and then 10 days later blame them when you don't think this is fast enough. The quotes that come from "administration officials" are a hoot. You can say whatever you want and credit it to phantom officials.



Stephanie wrote:

But in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press 10 days ago, just before the war began, Vice President Cheney predicted that the regular Iraqi army wouldn't put up a fight and even some in the Republican Guard were "likely to step aside."

Talk about taking something out of context!! These quotes read like a ransom note...a word snipped from here...a phrase snipped from there...all put together to try and make it look like this administration said something that they did not say. Nobody in their right mind thinks this whole war plan is a failure because it did not end in 10 days! I have read the transcript from Dick Cheney's appearance on Meet the Press though it doesn't look like anyone else has. Cheney never even addressed a war timetable much less made it look like it would be fast and easy.



And for the record, "weeks, not months" was a quote from President Bush himself referring to how much time Saddam had to comply to UN resolutions before we took action, despite the fact that it's been taken out of context and attributed to nearly everyone under the sun. And it's more than just taken out of context, it's been given a whole new meaning! And never, as far as anything I can find, was applied to the length of the war.

[southerngale]

maybe we shouldn't have broadcasted that they thought the war woulda been so easy...then they wouldn't have put up such a fight ..... jk i really think the administration thought this would be done by now...remember how they were saying of fox news everyday that "heck we're only 50 miles from baghdad in 3 days"....aren't we still about 50 miles away now. I guess we shouldn't have been so cocky

Oh my!

Do you seriously think the administration thought the war would be over within 11 days?? Who thought it would be so easy?

And when Fox News anchors talk about how close we are to Baghdad, that doesn't reflect anything on the White House, just Fox News.

[southerngale]

this all reads like what some of us here (myself included) have been saying all this past week.

Steve

Yes it does. I thought it was important to post something that stated it as a fact.

Stated what as fact?

[Stephanie]

Excuse me southerngale???

I didn't snip & paste any of the information from those articles. If you want to keep you head in the sand, that's up to you, but don't you dare suggest I'm making things up!

I'm getting my information right from the media - right or wrong, just like you are. I read the transcript also and did reply stating I did not see that quote from Dick Cheney either. At least I don't have a problem stating that there maybe a problem with information that I have been reading.

BTW - who was the one who posted the quote from former President Clinton? Sounds in a way he was actually agreeing with the phantom administrators. Gee, imagine that, a Democrat agreeing with a Republican! That must be morally unacceptable to you!

[southerngale]

:grrr:

Excuse me southerngale???

I didn't snip & paste any of the information from those articles. If you want to keep you head in the sand, that's up to you, but don't you dare suggest I'm making things up!

I'm getting my information right from the media - right or wrong, just like you are. I read the transcript also and did reply stating I did not see that quote from Dick Cheney either. At least I don't have a problem stating that there maybe a problem with information that I have been reading.

BTW - who was the one who posted the quote from former President Clinton? Sounds in a way he was actually agreeing with the phantom administrators. Gee, imagine that, a Democrat agreeing with a Republican! That must be morally unacceptable to you!

Stephanie,

I didn't say YOU were snipping and pasting anything!! I was referring to the quotes in the articles. I was not attacking your integrity at all and I'm sorry if you got that impression. But I do think there is a deliberate attempt in the media to take a little of this and a little of that and jumble it all together to give a false impression. They are creating a story that does not exist. The war is going well and they are trying to undercut that by giving the impression that it's not moving as fast as expected, which is utterly false. If you look at the Clinton cakewalk thread, you'll see that wx247 admitted he was deceived by media reports on the Cheney quote instead of going to the source himself.

As for Clinton, it sounds to me like he was setting himself up to be able to criticize if it's not wrapped up in lightning speed, but I could be wrong. In fact, I'm hope I'm wrong. As you all know, I don't have a lot of respect for that man, but I can't help it. I'm suspicious of just about anything he says. I can't help that either.

Of course a Democrat agreeing with a Republican is not morally unacceptable to me! I'm always happy when someone sees the light.

[streetsoldier]

One of FoxNews' British battlefield commentators did let an interesting piece of info slip through. He said that the 1st Marines were "40 km from here (Baghdad)"; translated, that means they are 24.6 miles out...not 50, as has been previously reported, which means that we are within artillery range of hitting the Big Date Palm on the Tigris.

[Stephanie]

:grrr:

Excuse me southerngale???

I didn't snip & paste any of the information from those articles. If you want to keep you head in the sand, that's up to you, but don't you dare suggest I'm making things up!

I'm getting my information right from the media - right or wrong, just like you are. I read the transcript also and did reply stating I did not see that quote from Dick Cheney either. At least I don't have a problem stating that there maybe a problem with information that I have been reading.

BTW - who was the one who posted the quote from former President Clinton? Sounds in a way he was actually agreeing with the phantom administrators. Gee, imagine that, a Democrat agreeing with a Republican! That must be morally unacceptable to you!

Stephanie,

I didn't say YOU were snipping and pasting anything!! I was referring to the quotes in the articles. I was not attacking your integrity at all and I'm sorry if you got that impression. But I do think there is a deliberate attempt in the media to take a little of this and a little of that and jumble it all together to give a false impression. They are creating a story that does not exist. The war is going well and they are trying to undercut that by giving the impression that it's not moving as fast as expected, which is utterly false. If you look at the Clinton cakewalk thread, you'll see that wx247 admitted he was deceived by media reports on the Cheney quote instead of going to the source himself.

As for Clinton, it sounds to me like he was setting himself up to be able to criticize if it's not wrapped up in lightning speed, but I could be wrong. In fact, I'm hope I'm wrong. As you all know, I don't have a lot of respect for that man, but I can't help it. I'm suspicious of just about anything he says. I can't help that either.

Of course a Democrat agreeing with a Republican is not morally unacceptable to me! I'm always happy when someone sees the light.

I stand corrected then. However, I did see the quotes from "Face the Nation" that Wx posted. Maybe Cheney was backed into a corner, but you know something, if we're going to sit here and say we can't trust what the media is saying, even if it is a direct quote, then how can we believe that we are actually doing as well as can be expected 11 days in? What can't just listen to information/reports and believe what we want to believe. I made sure that the information came from credible news sources like the Inquirer (Philadelphia) and the USA Today - not anything reported by a specific party or cause.

As far as what you stated Bill, I would think that anything that comes from the horse's mouth would be the most truthful. Either it hasn't been reported to Cencom (I think that's right? :? ) or are things being deliberately withheld?