ALRIGHT! Whats going ON here?

[irishgrl]

McCain faults administration on Iraq

By JOHN McCARTHY, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 57 minutes ago

Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a staunch defender of the Iraq war, on Tuesday faulted the Bush administration for misleading Americans into believing the conflict would be "some kind of day at the beach."

The potential 2008 presidential candidate, who a day earlier had rejected calls for withdrawing U.S. forces, said the administration had failed to make clear the challenges facing the military.

"I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required," McCain said. "Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I'm just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be."

Those phrases are closely associated with top members of the Bush administration, including the president.

Bush stood below a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003 after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. The war has continued since then, with the death of more than 2,600 members of the U.S. military. Vice President Dick Cheney said last year that the Iraqi insurgency was "in its final throes."

The Arizona senator said that talk "has contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today because they were led to believe this could be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking."

McCain was campaigning for Republican Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record), who faces a tough fight in his re-election bid against Democratic challenger Rep. Sherrod Brown (news, bio, voting record). Ohio was decisive in the 2004 presidential election, ensuring Bush's win, and is certain to be critical in 2008.

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, said Tuesday that the best way to encourage Iraqis to get their political house in order is to begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq by the end of this year. Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said the longer the U.S. stays the course in Iraq, "the weaker we're going to be in the war on terrorism."

Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was glad to hear McCain has realized "we need more than tough talk" on Iraq.

"It's time we win the war on terror," said Reid. "To do that we must change the course in Iraq."

On Monday, McCain said at an appearance in suburban Cleveland that if U.S. troops announce a specific date to leave Iraq, insurgents will bide their time until they have an opportunity to act without interference.

"The chaos that would ensue would have direct implications for our national security," McCain said.

DeWine said Congress would not have had the chance to authorize the war if the intelligence on Iraq's military capability and intentions were accurate.

"It would never have come up for a vote so it would have been an entirely different situation," he said.

___

[strandinthewind]

That beach comment is utter crap. I am no fan of W, but he never said that. In fact, he has consistently said over and over again that it was going to take a long time and involce lots of hard work. So, McCain is wrong here.

[irishgrl]

That beach comment is utter crap. I am no fan of W, but he never said that. In fact, he has consistently said over and over again that it was going to take a long time and involce lots of hard work. So, McCain is wrong here.

Ah, I think you are being too literal. No, Bush never used those words (that I know of) but I think he DID try and portray this conflict (especially early on) as one that was easily winnable, and one which would be amenable to a democracy being installed. How wrong he was (as usual)

[irishgrl]

The fact of the matter is, Mc Cain is seeing the writing on the wall, and realizes that Americans are against this war and is now trying to salvage some last minute polling points. IMO.

[estranged4life]

The fact of the matter is, Mc Cain is seeing the writing on the wall, and realizes that Americans are against this war and is now trying to salvage some last minute polling points. IMO.

to me.

Hell, almost all the political ads for todays runoff elections have had a mention of 'supporting the war on terror'....Sounds like scoring of brownie points to me.

[strandinthewind]

Ah, I think you are being too literal. No, Bush never used those words (that I know of) but I think he DID try and portray this conflict (especially early on) as one that was easily winnable, and one which would be amenable to a democracy being installed. How wrong he was (as usual)

No he did not - he always cautioned America that it would be a long and difficult process and that we must stay the course. In fact, he is still saying that :shrug:

[irishgrl]

No he did not - he always cautioned America that it would be a long and difficult process and that we must stay the course. In fact, he is still saying that :shrug:

I seem to recall, not long after 9/11 that Monkey Boy said something to the effect that the war should be won by years end. If you'll allow me some time to research, I will get you the proof. (be afraid. be very afraid) His LATER comments about staying the course were after cooler heads warned him he was WRONG.

[gldstwmn]

"Mission accomplished"?

[strandinthewind]

I seem to recall, not long after 9/11 that Monkey Boy said something to the effect that the war should be won by years end. If you'll allow me some time to research, I will get you the proof. (be afraid. be very afraid) His LATER comments about staying the course were after cooler heads warned him he was WRONG.

I do not remember that one, though if he said it, he also said from the beginning that it was going to take a long time, etc.

Now, he lied about how we were going to pay for it (Iraqi oil :rolleyes: ) and about the plan for winning the peace and number of troops needed. And, for that, he is even more of an ass and I despise him.

[estranged4life]

"Mission accomplished"?

"Mission accomplished" as in finding the WMD's in Iraq :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

"Mission accomplished"?

I always thought that sign was for the people on that boat and the major invasion, etc. - and not in reference to the entire war/invasion in Iraq - though the media really tried to portray it that way and it was stupid for him to do it. Clearly, we were still at war and the plan (or lack thereof) to win the peace had yet to be implemented.

Note - I think it was a silly political stunt to have the Pres. "fly" the plane on that ship. I do think, however, there is a long history of the President of the US giving pep rallies, etc. for the troops and the troops on that ship had performed admirably and deserved praise as the initial invasion went very, very well :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Here he was in 2003 saying it was going to take a long time, etc.

U.S. Faces Long Stay In Iraq, Bush Says
(July 2, 2003)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Wednesday, July 2, 2003; Page A01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Americans' Faith in Postwar Success Fading

President Bush acknowledged yesterday that the United States faces a "massive and long-term undertaking" in Iraq, but said U.S. troops would prevail over what his administration described as well-trained militants that have been killing and injuring U.S. forces.

Bush delivered his statement of resolve -- some of his most extensive remarks about Iraq in the two months since he declared that heavy fighting was over -- at a time when Americans are expressing concern about the unrest in U.S.-occupied Iraq and some lawmakers are accusing the administration of understating the task ahead.

At least 31 U.S. and British military personnel have been killed and 178 wounded in combat in Iraq in the nine weeks since Bush announced that major combat operations had ended. The U.S. administrator in Iraq said yesterday that "professional operations" with ties to the government of former president Saddam Hussein are responsible for the regular attacks on U.S. forces. At least six U.S. soldiers were injured yesterday in two separate attacks.

Bush, in a Rose Garden speech marking the 30th anniversary of the end of the military draft, spoke of "terrorists, extremists and Saddam loyalists" who have attacked U.S. forces, intimidated Iraqis and destroyed infrastructure. He warned of foreign fighters entering Iraq, al Qaeda-related groups waiting to strike and former Iraqi officials "who will stop at nothing" to recover power.

"These groups believe they have found an opportunity to harm America, to shake our resolve in the war on terror and to cause us to leave Iraq before freedom is fully established," Bush said. "They are wrong and they will not succeed."

Amid reports of lawlessness and anti-U.S. violence in Iraq, Americans have begun to show ambivalence about the mission. In a Gallup poll for USA Today and CNN, only slim majorities of 56 percent thought that the postwar situation was going well and that the war was worthwhile, while Americans were split on whether the United States would be able to kill or capture Hussein, find weapons of mass destruction, establish democracy and stop attacks on U.S. soldiers.

L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of Iraq, said the attacks on troops were the work of Hussein's former military and intelligence agents. "These are professional operations," Bremer said of the five- to- seven-man teams. "These are not spontaneous attacks by angry laid-off workers." Bremer said there is no sign yet that the attacks are centrally coordinated, but he said they appeared to have been organized before Hussein's authority collapsed in early April.

Bush, like Bremer and other administration officials, expressed confidence that the attacks would not succeed in weakening American resolve. "There will be no return to tyranny in Iraq, and those who threaten the order and stability of that country will face ruin just as surely as the regime they once served," the president said.

Bush cast the struggle in Iraq as part of the ongoing war against terrorism in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. He said that some of those attacking U.S. forces in Iraq were from the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam and that the U.S. government suspects fighters tied to Abu Musab Zarqawi, whom he called an al Qaeda "associate," are preparing to attack.

"Less than two years ago, determined enemies of America entered our country, committed acts of murder against our people, and made clear their intentions to strike again," he said. "As long as terrorists and their allies plot to harm America, America is at war."

As part of the justification for the war in Iraq, Bush and his lieutenants described ongoing ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. A still-classified national intelligence report from that time, however, raised doubts about those ties, intelligence officials have said.

According to a poll released yesterday by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, 71 percent said they believed that the Bush administration implied that Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, while 25 percent believed, incorrectly, that Iraq was directly involved in the attacks.

Bush, while allowing no doubt that Iraq will be swiftly converted to a stable democracy, spoke of the menace to the 230,000 U.S. troops in and near Iraq. "Our whole nation, especially their families, recognizes that our people in uniform face continuing danger," he said. "As commander in chief, I assure them we will stay on the offensive against the enemy and all who attack our troops will be met with direct and decisive force."

Of the 195 U.S. military personnel killed in combat and accidents since the war started on March 20 (42 British soldiers have been killed), nearly a third have died since Bush, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier on May 1, declared major combat over.

The messiness of postwar Iraq had provoked criticism that the administration did not adequately prepare for the difficult task of rebuilding. Bremer has appealed to the administration to dispatch dozens of people -- particularly Arabic speakers -- to reinforce his modest civilian staff and shift the burden from U.S. military forces that are needed to establish security. Before the war, Bush spoke optimistically about a clean transformation of Iraq, arguing that U.S. troops would not remain in the region "for one day longer than is necessary."

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said last week that the U.S. presence in Iraq would be necessary for "at least five years" and criticized Bush's rhetoric. "This idea that we will be in just as long as we need to and not a day more -- we've got to get over that rhetoric," he said. "It is rubbish. We're going to be there a long time. We must reorganize our military to be there a long time."

The administration, which declines to forecast the duration of the U.S. presence in Iraq, is due to decide by the middle of the month whether it needs more troops there. Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, yesterday played down the attacks as "pockets of violence" and said it is not surprising that Hussein loyalists are attacking U.S. troops.

Staff writer Peter Slevin contributed to this report.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Link:
--http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60716-2003Jul1.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[gldstwmn]

On the March 16, 2003, broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation, Cheney stated: "I think [the war will] go relatively quickly." When host Bob Schieffer pressed the vice president to offer a more precise estimate of how long the war would take, Cheney replied: "Weeks rather than months." On NBC's Meet the Press the same day, Cheney stated, "my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators [by the Iraqi people]."

In a February 7, 2003, appearance at Aviano Air Base in Italy, Rumsfeld projected that the Iraq war "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

In a February 13, 2002, Washington Post op-ed, Ken Adelman, at the time a member of the Defense Policy Board, stated: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508260004

[strandinthewind]

On the March 16, 2003, broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation, Cheney stated: "I think [the war will] go relatively quickly." When host Bob Schieffer pressed the vice president to offer a more precise estimate of how long the war would take, Cheney replied: "Weeks rather than months." On NBC's Meet the Press the same day, Cheney stated, "my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators [by the Iraqi people]."

In a February 7, 2003, appearance at Aviano Air Base in Italy, Rumsfeld projected that the Iraq war "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

In a February 13, 2002, Washington Post op-ed, Ken Adelman, at the time a member of the Defense Policy Board, stated: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508260004

Bush is not quoted there :shrug:

But, I do think that the former struggle in Iraq suggested that the Iraqi forces would lay down their arms and run like they did before. And, in many ways they were correct - the Iraqi forces were relatively quickly defeated :shrug: The problem came from the insurgency factions, which I believe were mostly unrelated to the official Iraq army - though I could be wrong.

In any event, the soldiers were in fact met as liberators. But, then Rumsfeld's lack of any coherent plan to win the peace allowed the insurgency factions to rise. I do think, and I base this on the people I know who have been there, that the vast majority of Iraqi people are happy SH is gone and like the American forces in general, but would also like for the place to be peaceful enough for them to be gone. I think it is important to remember that not all or even the majority or a significant minority of Iraqis are attacking our soldiers. Rather, our soldiers and innocent Iraqis are being targeted by the insurgents (on edit) but that is a different battle than the original invasion which lead to the fall of the government.

On edit - this goes along with why I loathe the Bush Administration. They seemingly always start off well and then cannot close the deal. Just like in Katrina - the declaring of the disaster area ahead of time was a good thing and then four days of no troops. Similarly, a rahter impressive invasion and taking control of Iraq and then BAM - no plans in place at all other than saying it was going to take a long time. Incompetent idiots.

[irishgrl]

Bush is not quoted there :shrug:

But, I do think that the former struggle in Iraq suggested that the Iraqi forces would lay down their arms and run like they did before. And, in many ways they were correct - the Iraqi forces were relatively quickly defeated :shrug: The problem came from the insurgency factions, which I believe were mostly unrelated to the official Iraq army - though I could be wrong.

In any event, the soldiers were in fact met as liberators. But, then Rumsfeld's lack of any coherent plan to win the peace allowed the insurgency factions to rise. I do think, and I base this on the people I know who have been there, that the vast majority of Iraqi people are happy SH is gone and like the American forces in general, but would also like for the place to be peaceful enough for them to be gone. I think it is important to remember that not all or even the majority or a significant minority of Iraqis are attacking our soldiers. Rather, our soldiers and innocent Iraqis are being targeted by the insurgents (on edit) but that is a different battle than the original invasion which lead to the fall of the government.

On edit - this goes along with why I loathe the Bush Administration. They seemingly always start off well and then cannot close the deal. Just like in Katrina - the declaring of the disaster area ahead of time was a good thing and then four days of no troops. Similarly, a rahter impressive invasion and taking control of Iraq and then BAM - no plans in place at all other than saying it was going to take a long time. Incompetent idiots.
my understanding is that the insurgency is affiliated with Saddam. its in their best interest to keep this whole mess roiling.

[irishgrl]

US Miscalculated security for Iraq


August 28, 2006
The bodies of five people killed during last Tuesday's United Nations bombing in Baghdad arrive in coffins draped with the U.N. flag, at the Amman airport, en route to their home countries.
(AP)

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Top Bush administration officials grudgingly acknowledge that their post-Saddam Hussein plan for rebuilding Iraq has been substantially flawed on the security front.
Some defense officials said privately in interviews that the plan in place for security after Baghdad's fall has been an utter failure. They said it failed to predict any significant resistance from Saddam loyalists, much less the deadly combination of Ba'athist holdouts and foreign terrorists preying daily on American troops.
"Every briefing on postwar Iraq I attended never mentioned any of this," said a civilian policy adviser.
Since President Bush declared an end to major hostilities on May 1, guerrillas have killed 65 American troops. That is far short of the 112 killed in action during the six-week war to topple Saddam. An additional 78 have died in accidents and other noncombat circumstances since May 1. Since the war began March 19, 177 Americans have been killed in action and 103 in nonhostile actions.
Officials say the prewar miscalculation is providing a new opportunity for the Bush administration. Iraq, like Afghanistan, has become a battlefield for fighting violent Muslim fundamentalists. A second U.S. victory in Iraq, after toppling Saddam, would deliver a significant defeat to Islamist terrorists and perhaps lessen their appeal in the Arab world, officials believe.
This week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who vigorously defended every aspect of his post-Saddam plan, acknowledged some shortfalls but chalked them up to unforeseeable circumstances.
Asked by a reporter whether conditions in Iraq were deteriorating, the defense secretary said, "With respect to the planning that took place, it began well before there was a decision to go to war. It was extensive. Like any planning, once you hit reality, the plan needs to be adjusted and modified."
Then Mr. Rumsfeld asked, "Was it possible to anticipate that the battles would take place south of Baghdad and that then there would be a collapse up north, and there would be very little killing and capturing of those folks because they blended into the countryside and they're still fighting their war?"
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said in an interview this week with regional reporters that the Bush administration "underestimated" two developments.
"The first is that 35 years of Saddam Hussein's reign instilled into the hearts and into the souls of the Iraqi people a greater degree of terror than we understood," Mr. Armitage said. "The second was the nature or the extent to which Iraq had become full of criminal enterprise."
Mr. Armitage suggested that U.S. forces were facing thousands of resisters when he listed the varied enemy: two divisions of Republican Guard soldiers who did not fight during the invasion, Ansar Islam terrorists, foreign fighters, Ba'athists and "a certain amount of criminal enterprise."
Richard Perle, a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, told the Le Figaro, a French daily, that the postwar plan failed to provide for the Iraqis themselves to take control as soon as possible.
"Of course, we haven't done everything right," said Mr. Perle, a strong proponent of toppling Saddam. "Mistakes have been made, and there will be others. ... Our principal mistake, in my opinion, was that we didn't manage to work closely with the Iraqis before the war, so that there was an Iraqi opposition capable of taking charge immediately."
Mr. Rumsfeld and other officials said it was not possible to predict that thousands of Saddam fighters would leave the battlefield unscathed, reorganize and launch a deadly insurgency that would continue 4½ months after the fall of Saddam's statue in Baghdad.
In candid remarks delivered after a fact-finding trip to Iraq, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said, "There was a plan, but as any military officer can tell you, no plan survives first contact with reality. ... Some conditions were worse than we anticipated, particularly in the security area."
He listed three: Contrary to U.S. hopes, no Iraqi army units defected to the allies where they could be used to impose law and order. Second, the Iraqi police department needed a "massive overhaul" before officers could be put back on the street.
"Third, and worst of all, it was difficult to imagine before the war that the criminal gang of sadists and gangsters who have run Iraq for 35 years would continue fighting, fighting what has been called a guerrilla war," Mr. Wolfowitz said
Once U.S. Central Command realized it had a guerrilla war on its hands, it changed tactics. It organized a series of sweeps in the area known as the Sunni Triangle north of Baghdad. Soldiers arrested hundreds of Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters, and seized tons of armaments.
By June, commanders also realized they had underestimated the massive caches of weapons that Saddam had stored across the country. Bomb-making equipment, rifles, ammunition and rocket-propelled grenades now seem to be in endless supply.
The resistance's most effective weapon is the improvised explosive device, or IED. Iraqis place a remotely controlled bomb on a roadside and simply wait for an American convoy to approach. While the 70-ton M1-A1 tank can withstand such explosions, Humvees and trucks cannot.
In July, commanders noticed the guerrillas, or their jihadist allies, had turned to outright terrorism by attacking civilians and assassinating Iraqis who cooperated with the coalition.
"This enemy is not like any enemy we've fought before," Gen. Richard B. Myers, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, told the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention this week. "They are still very shrewd, and they are still evil."
Lost in the weekly casualty count of American dead is the progress being made. Officials point out that many feared disasters, such as food shortages and oil well fires, haven't happened. Schools, banks and many businesses are open.
"Our forces helped deliver more than a million tons of food and thousands of tons of medical supplies," Gen. Myers said. "Of course, there are still many challenges and much room for improvement, but there is no food or medical crisis in Iraq despite dire predictions."
The death toll went up by another two soldiers yesterday, as IEDs exploded in Baghdad and in the troubled town of Fallujah.
The administration also missed projections on oil revenue. Mr. Wolfowitz said before the war that Iraq's oil wealth would fund reconstruction. But the coalition discovered that Iraqi wells, refineries and pipelines needed long-term upgrades before they could pump significant amounts of oil. What's more, looters capitalized on the lack of security by stealing critical oil-pumping gear.

[gldstwmn]

Bush is not quoted there :shrug:




And your article is dated July 2003, well after the mission accomplished speech and when the insurgency had started to take hold. :shrug:
Let us not forget that in the first several years of his presidency, Bush rarely spoke publicly at all. Most of the talking was done by people like Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney and Scott McLellan. Trying to quote him directly on any subject during that particular time would be difficult.

[irishgrl]

No he did not - he always cautioned America that it would be a long and difficult process and that we must stay the course. In fact, he is still saying that :shrug:

well, Jason today is a new day and Ive re-read the original story and once again, you committed a red herring:

faulted the Bush administration

so.........Im thinking it was probably Rummy that ORIGINALLY figured this was going to be easier than it was. Which is why he only sent the number of troops he did initially.

[strandinthewind]

I agree that the insurgency could be related to SH, but I think that is mostly unlikely in that the insurgency appears to be part of a power struggle and there is no way SH will ever be in power again, much less be alive after the next year.

So, I stand by my statement that the initial US invasion was well done and its mission was indeed accomplished. If there are any facts to support that the initial invasion and removal of the prior administration was not a success, I do not recall them :shrug:

However, as pointed out in that article, it is the administration's lack of a coherent or realistic plan after the toppeling of SH that has lead to the current sad state of affairs we are dealing with now.

In any event, W and his administration have consistently said the entire campaign in Iraq will be a long struggle and the quotes Goldie gave only refer to the initial invasion, where, again, history suggested we would be met with little opposition, which sadly was not the case.

[strandinthewind]

well, Jason today is a new day and Ive re-read the original story and once again, you committed a red herring:



so.........Im thinking it was probably Rummy that ORIGINALLY figured this was going to be easier than it was. Which is why he only sent the number of troops he did initially.

Again, two events occured, the initial invasion, which most experts agreed would be relatively easy and it was -- in fact, we were as predicted mostly greeted by the population as liberators as demonstrated in that footage. No one ever said the initial invasion was going to be hard, long, etc.

Then, the plan for rebuilding Iraq, which has been a fiasco. But, even in that, my recollection is Bush has always cautioned America that it would take a long time. In fact, he is still saying that :shrug:

[irishgrl]

the comments that Mc Cain objects to:
"Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I'm just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be."

Those phrases are closely associated with top members of the Bush administration, including the president.

[strandinthewind]

And your article is dated July 2003, well after the mission accomplished speech and when the insurgency had started to take hold. :shrug: . . . .

Right, but the initial invasion was over and it was accomplished with a fair amount of ease. Again, I cannot recall anyone in the Bush Administration or Bush himself saying that the rebuilding of Iraq could be accomplished in weeks like the initial invasion, etc. My recollection is the opposite consistently was said as evidenced by that July 2003 article.

To be clear, I think the Bush Administration's plan for rebuilding Iraq has been horrible. But, I cannot say that they said it was going to be easy, which is what McCain said they said.

[irishgrl]

Again, two events occured, the initial invasion, which most experts agreed would be relatively easy and it was -- in fact, we were as predicted mostly greeted by the population as liberators as demonstrated in that footage. No one ever said the initial invasion was going to be hard, long, etc.

Then, the plan for rebuilding Iraq, which has been a fiasco. But, even in that, my recollection is Bush has always cautioned America that it would take a long time. In fact, he is still saying that :shrug:

yes, because to say otherwise would be rank stupidity :shrug: I always thought he was saying that the fight against terrorism would take a long time, not the Iraq invasion? Also, why are you separating the initial invasion from the rebuilding? Isnt it all ONE campaign?

[strandinthewind]

the comments that Mc Cain objects to:

The mission was accomplished :shrug: He clearly was not referring to the entire rebuilding of Iraq, which you seem to want to associate that banner with. It had not even begun to occur yet :shrug:

And McCain's statement "it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be" - is a red herring because he refers to the comments lauding the success of the initial invasion and ignore the consistent warning about how hard it would be as evidence by the July 2003 article, etc.

[irishgrl]

Right, but the initial invasion was over and it was accomplished with a fair amount of ease. Again, I cannot recall anyone in the Bush Administration or Bush himself saying that the rebuilding of Iraq could be accomplished in weeks like the initial invasion, etc. My recollection is the opposite consistently was said as evidenced by that July 2003 article.

To be clear, I think the Bush Administration's plan for rebuilding Iraq has been horrible. But, I cannot say that they said it was going to be easy, which is what McCain said they said.

Go back and look at the phrases he highlighted....whenever there were setbacks, the Bushies pooh-pooh'd them. brushed them aside as if they were nothing to worry about...THAT'S what Mc Cain is talking about! And the President himself goofed when he said "Mission Accomplished" prematurely....

[strandinthewind]

yes, because to say otherwise would be rank stupidity :shrug: I always thought he was saying that the fight against terrorism would take a long time, not the Iraq invasion?

He said both.

Also, why are you separating the initial invasion from the rebuilding? Isnt it all ONE campaign?

I am separating them because they were, though related, essentially two different events. The campaign to invade and liberate Iraq was fought with massive airstrikes and troops on the ground. Once the govt. had been secured and relatively most of the country under control (e.g. mission accomplished) - the campaign moved to phase two, which was the rebuilding of Iraq, which required a different kind of effort altogether. I get that they are related, but the comments cited earlier refer to the initial invasion and not the rebuilding, the latter of which has always been said by the administration to take a huge effort, long time, etc.

So, I again conclude that McCain is full of bull when he said or implied that the administration said or implied that the entire Iraq war would be a day at the beach. The facts do not support him here.

[irishgrl]

The mission was accomplished :shrug: He clearly was not referring to the entire rebuilding of Iraq, which you seem to want to associate that banner with. It had not even begun to occur yet :shrug:

And McCain's statement "it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be" - is a red herring because he refers to the comments lauding the success of the initial invasion and ignore the consistent warning about how hard it would be as evidence by the July 2003 article, etc.

I think he's looking at the overall picture :shrug: And I clearly remember Rummy and Cheney making "stuff happens" sort of comments.

[strandinthewind]

Go back and look at the phrases he highlighted....whenever there were setbacks, the Bushies pooh-pooh'd them. brushed them aside as if they were nothing to worry about...THAT'S what Mc Cain is talking about! And the President himself goofed when he said "Mission Accomplished" prematurely....

The mission he refered to on that boat was accomplished. The people on that boat had successfully and with relative ease invaded and liberated Iraq. Do you not see that?

Moreover, W and his administration consistently said the task of rebuilding Iraq would would long and arduous. If you can find quotes where W or his administration said essentially "Hey, the initial invasion is over and in about two weeks the neew govt. will be in place and everything will be hunky dory" let's see them. My research indicated that while the administration has always pointed out the good things and the progress made, they always cautioned that we would be there a long time, etc. Thus, I conclude that McCain's statments are false.

But, if you can come with the quotes to the contrary, I'll gladly admit I am wrong.

[irishgrl]

He said both.



I am separating them because they were, though related, essentially two different events. The campaign to invade and liberate Iraq was fought with massive airstrikes and troops on the ground. Once the govt. had been secured and relatively most of the country under control (e.g. mission accomplished) - the campaign moved to phase two, which was the rebuilding of Iraq, which required a different kind of effort altogether. I get that they are related, but the comments cited earlier refer to the initial invasion and not the rebuilding, the latter of which has always been said by the administration to take a huge effort, long time, etc.

So, I again conclude that McCain is full of bull when he said or implied that the administration said or implied that the entire Iraq war would be a day at the beach. The facts do not support him here.

but he's pointing out (and objecting to) the actual comments the Bushies used whenever there were setbacks :shrug:

[irishgrl]

The mission he refered to on that boat was accomplished. The people on that boat had successfully and with relative ease invaded and liberated Iraq. Do you not see that?

Moreover, W and his administration consistently said the task of rebuilding Iraq would would long and arduous. If you can find quotes where W or his administration said essentially "Hey, the initial invasion is over and in about two weeks the neew govt. will be in place and everything will be hunky dory" let's see them. My research indicated that while the administration has always pointed out the good things and the progress made, they always cautioned that we would be there a long time, etc. Thus, I conclude that McCain's statments are false.

But, if you can come with the quotes to the contrary, I'll gladly admit I am wrong.

Jason, we havent liberated Iraq~ those people are going thru even more Hell than they were when Saddam was in
power!

I have to get ready for work, but I'll be looking for material later.

[strandinthewind]

but he's pointing out (and objecting to) the actual comments the Bushies used whenever there were setbacks :shrug:

But, he does not tell the whole story. Please find me one quote in the last three years where W or anyone in his administration has said or implied that the rebuilding (not the initial invasion) of Iraq would be a day at the beach.

Interestingly, W is correct when he says that there will be setbacks, though saying stuff happens in probably not the best way to say it, no surprise there.

[strandinthewind]

Jason, we havent liberated Iraq~ those people are going thru even more Hell than they were when Saddam was in
power!

I have to get ready for work, but I'll be looking for material later.

When I say liberated Iraq, I am talking about from SH, which the initial invasion did. Interestingly, most of Iraq is fairly peaceful in that the insurgencies seem to be in a particular area.

To hear you tell it, all of Iraq is in total chaos, which it is not :shrug:

Interestingly, the US has indeed made fairly large strides towards an independant Iraq. That being said, there is still a fairly long way to gao, but that IMO is fast becoming the problem of the Iraqi govt. and we should being a phased pull out as soon as possible. I do think the insurgents are scared of that because the US is bound by a certain code of conduct (I get that a few soldiers did not adhere to that, but they were bound nonetheless) - the Iraqi govt. is not. In other words, the Iraqi govt. will rule with an iron fist and I think the insurgents are a little scared of that.

[irishgrl]

Interestingly, most of Iraq is fairly peaceful in that the insurgencies seem to be in a particular area.

To hear you tell it, all of Iraq is in total chaos, which it is not :shrug:

That is the impression I get :shrug: To see you state otherwise, is a bit of a surprise :shocked:

[irishgrl]

But, he does not tell the whole story. Please find me one quote in the last three years where W or anyone in his administration has said or implied that the rebuilding (not the initial invasion) of Iraq would be a day at the beach.

Interestingly, W is correct when he says that there will be setbacks, though saying stuff happens in probably not the best way to say it, no surprise there.

There wont be any such quotes in the past 3 years and you know it because its generally agreed upon that we are now in a quagmire.

I think Mc Cain is most likely looking at the Iraq picture as a whole, not separating the initial invasion from the rebuilding. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

That is the impression I get :shrug: To see you state otherwise, is a bit of a surprise :shocked:

What I mean by total chaos is 90 percent of the nation fighting each other, hundreds of thousands rioting in the streets with little law and order. That is not happening. While bad and horrible, the insurgent efforts are mostly limited to a certain area and are fairly well controlled in that relatively few are being killed. I get that any insurgency is unacceptable, but it is not total chaos in that there is a government in place, etc.

Again and so there is no confusion, post invasion Iraq is a mess that the US has made by the US' lack of a plan to rebuild. But, strides have been made and hopefully they will continue so we can get out of there. Sadly, that may not happen for awhile and that is due to W's lack of planning.

[strandinthewind]

There wont be any such quotes in the past 3 years and you know it because its generally agreed upon that we are now in a quagmire.

I agree and you make my point for me

I think Mc Cain is most likely looking at the Iraq picture as a whole, not separating the initial invasion from the rebuilding. :shrug:

To me, that is factually unsupported because only the initial invasion was referred to as fairly easy, which it was. No one in the Bush Admin. has ever said anything after the initial invasion would going to be a day at the beach. Thus, McCain is wrong.

[irishgrl]

Again and so there is no confusion, post invasion Iraq is a mess that the US has made by the US' lack of a plan to rebuild. But, strides have been made and hopefully they will continue so we can get out of there. Sadly, that may not happen for awhile and that is due to W's lack of planning.

well, at least we can agree on THAT ;) maybe its best to leave things on a positive note :nod:

[strandinthewind]

well, at least we can agree on THAT ;) maybe its best to leave things on a positive note :nod:

No.

I wanna hear you admit I was right about McCain being wrong.

You know I was. Just say it :wavey:

[irishgrl]

To me, that is factually unsupported because only the initial invasion was referred to as fairly easy, which it was. No one in the Bush Admin. has ever said anything after the initial invasion would going to be a day at the beach. Thus, McCain is wrong.

Mc Cain is correct because I remember Rummy and/or Cheney saying "stuff happens" which indicates "no big deal" when setbacks occur, thus his characterization that the Administration implies a day at the beach :shrug:

[irishgrl]

No.

I wanna hear you admit I was right about McCain being wrong.

You know I was. Just say it :wavey:
No you werent. *sigh* I guess it was too much to hope for...:eek: :lol:

[strandinthewind]

Mc Cain is correct because I remember Rummy and/or Cheney saying "stuff happens" which indicates "no big deal" when setbacks occur, thus his characterization that the Administration implies a day at the beach :shrug:

I disagree because no implication can be made when the same speaker in the same speech says though these things will happen, it is important to remember it is going to take a long time and it is going to be hard, require sacrifice, etc. So, I conclude McCain was wrong and the facts mostly support me.

[irishgrl]

I disagree because no implication can be made when the same speaker in the same speech says though these things will happen, it is important to remember it is going to take a long time and it is going to be hard, require sacrifice, etc. So, I conclude McCain was wrong and the facts mostly support me.

drum roll:



















I think you have a point there, because I do recall that as well. DONT FAINT!

:eek: :lol:

[strandinthewind]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/strandinthewind/places_to_visit_parks_big.gif

Note - Bush is still a sphincter

[irishgrl]

YAY! we can end the thread on a positive note after all! :angel:

[strandinthewind]

Cloris Leachman - Revolutionary Paris - Insurgent Meeting

AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[irishgrl]

I wish there was a head scratching smiley because I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!

[strandinthewind]

I wish there was a head scratching smiley because I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!

In the Mel Brooks movie "History of the World" - Cloris Leachman plays the part of a slatterny revolutionary leader who says let's end the meeting on a high note and then belts out a high note.

[irishgrl]

Oy! *smacks head*

[DavidMn]

I wish there was a head scratching smiley because I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!Dear, we all have our moments....:) :xoxo:

[irishgrl]

Dear, we all have our moments....:) :xoxo:

*spanks David*:eek:

[DavidMn]

*spanks David*:eek:Harder!!!!:lol: Perv here!:lol:

[chiliD]

No he did not - he always cautioned America that it would be a long and difficult process and that we must stay the course. In fact, he is still saying that :shrug:

And, he's still the most inept, incompetent, corrupt president the US has ever had...so, in that, he's REALLY "staying the course". The f***ing idiot.

[DavidMn]

And, he's still the most inept, incompetent, corrupt president the US has ever had...so, in that, he's REALLY "staying the course". The f***ing idiot.Dont mess with Texas!:laugh: :rolleyes: :lol:

[strandinthewind]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,1328477,00.html


Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2006

Behind McCain's Blast
At Bush Over the War

Analysis: in accusing the White House of misleading America, the senator is flashing his independent credentials

By JAMES CARNEY/WASHINGTON

John McCain has been President Bush's indispensable political ally on the war in Iraq. So what was the Arizona senator and top-shelf 2008 presidential contender up to yesterday in Ohio when he unloaded on the Bush Administration's handling of the war in a speech that, with a few tweaks, could have been delivered by an anti-war Democrat? "I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required," McCain said. "Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders," he went on, citing some of the, ah, less-than-accurate assessments of the Iraq venture made over the years by the President, Vice President and secretary of defense. That kind of overly optimistic talk, McCain said, "has contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today because they were led to believe this could be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking." Several factors are at work here. First, McCain was speaking at a campaign event for fellow Senator Mike DeWine, who needs all the help he can get in his uphill re-election battle. DeWine is the perfect example of the kind of incumbent Republican who would win in a normal mid-term election year but will likely be swept away if anti-Bush, anti-GOP, anti-war sentiment turns voters towards Democrats this fall. Republicans are in trouble for a lot of reasons this year, but Iraq is the biggest. By criticizing Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on Iraq, McCain was trying to help DeWine, who desperately needs to distance himself from an unpopular president and unpopular war. But McCain had another, more personal agenda. His bid to transform himself from the insurgent challenger of the 2000 campaign into the establishment front-runner in the 2008 field has led him into some unlikely alliances — including the one formed by his peace-making visit earlier this year to see Jerry Fallwell at Liberty University. And it has led to charges, from Democrats and the camps of some presidential rivals, that McCain is sacrificing his straight-talk reputation for the support of big GOP donors and power-brokers. McCain's aides know the senator's reputation for independence and integrity is his most valuable political asset. They monitor its health closely. They knew that McCain's efforts to ingratiate himself with the party establishment would lead to stories suggesting the Senator had compromised his principles in order to appease conservatives. They counter those stories by citing the number of times McCain has opposed the President and what it has cost him politically with conservatives. But sometimes McCain himself has to do the reminding, as he did in Ohio. "John didn't say anything he hasn't said before — he's always been critical of the way the war's been handled even though he supports the war and thinks we have to win," an adviser told Time.com this morning. "But sometimes it's a good idea to remind people that he's still John McCain, telling it like it is. "



Copyright © 2006 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

[irishgrl]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,1328477,00.html


Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2006

Behind McCain's Blast
At Bush Over the War

Analysis: in accusing the White House of misleading America, the senator is flashing his independent credentials

By JAMES CARNEY/WASHINGTON

John McCain has been President Bush's indispensable political ally on the war in Iraq. So what was the Arizona senator and top-shelf 2008 presidential contender up to yesterday in Ohio when he unloaded on the Bush Administration's handling of the war in a speech that, with a few tweaks, could have been delivered by an anti-war Democrat? "I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required," McCain said. "Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders," he went on, citing some of the, ah, less-than-accurate assessments of the Iraq venture made over the years by the President, Vice President and secretary of defense. That kind of overly optimistic talk, McCain said, "has contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today because they were led to believe this could be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking." Several factors are at work here. First, McCain was speaking at a campaign event for fellow Senator Mike DeWine, who needs all the help he can get in his uphill re-election battle. DeWine is the perfect example of the kind of incumbent Republican who would win in a normal mid-term election year but will likely be swept away if anti-Bush, anti-GOP, anti-war sentiment turns voters towards Democrats this fall. Republicans are in trouble for a lot of reasons this year, but Iraq is the biggest. By criticizing Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on Iraq, McCain was trying to help DeWine, who desperately needs to distance himself from an unpopular president and unpopular war. But McCain had another, more personal agenda. His bid to transform himself from the insurgent challenger of the 2000 campaign into the establishment front-runner in the 2008 field has led him into some unlikely alliances — including the one formed by his peace-making visit earlier this year to see Jerry Fallwell at Liberty University. And it has led to charges, from Democrats and the camps of some presidential rivals, that McCain is sacrificing his straight-talk reputation for the support of big GOP donors and power-brokers. McCain's aides know the senator's reputation for independence and integrity is his most valuable political asset. They monitor its health closely. They knew that McCain's efforts to ingratiate himself with the party establishment would lead to stories suggesting the Senator had compromised his principles in order to appease conservatives. They counter those stories by citing the number of times McCain has opposed the President and what it has cost him politically with conservatives. But sometimes McCain himself has to do the reminding, as he did in Ohio. "John didn't say anything he hasn't said before — he's always been critical of the way the war's been handled even though he supports the war and thinks we have to win," an adviser told Time.com this morning. "But sometimes it's a good idea to remind people that he's still John McCain, telling it like it is. "



Copyright © 2006 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

So, Jason, what do you think? :shrug:

I myself think McCain SHOULD make the break, the Republican party aint what it used to be...

[strandinthewind]

So, Jason, what do you think? :shrug:

I myself think McCain SHOULD make the break, the Republican party aint what it used to be...

The election is up for grabs as of now. The only likely not to win is Hillary and that could change given her opponent.

The sad fact is the one who plays to the middle will win because that is where the most votes are.

I wish Guiliani would run. Though I know he did some questionable things regarding law enforcement, I'd vote for him in a minute because of his social policies.