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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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 ) 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]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

"Mission accomplished"?

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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

"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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

Bush is not quoted there

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 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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Bush is not quoted there

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 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.