Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

[SteveLaura 0]

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003

Nov. 15, 2002

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program. "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."

Jan. 10, 2003

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

“Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.”

Feb. 7, 2003

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." —to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy:

Mar. 16, 2003

####### Cheney

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . [in] weeks rather than months."

Mar. 25, 2003

Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board

I can't tell you exactly how many days or how many weeks. But by

historical standards, this will be a short war.

Mar. 27, 2003

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary

There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

[GaryC 7]

You must admit however - that this wasn't spelled out when this thing was being sold. Quite the opposite in fact - as I remember Rumsfeld made public claims that we would be out there by the end of 2005. That and similar comments made by other officials about the 'insurgency being in its last throes' simply weren't true.

Both sides are guilty of this. It is obvious that there are some in America that only get their news from sound bites. A large proportion of the population do not take the time to understand what the real truth is. So you have the "pro-war" sides giving sound bites like "last throes" and "continuing success" while the anti-war types are giving sound bites like "we can't win" and "we have lost". That is the political side of these things. If a dummy like me can see what the long term struggle was going to be I am sure Bush and company saw the same thing. They just couldn't spell it out because it would be misunderstood by the general population and demonized by political opposition. This isn't a rep or dem thing, it's a general political thing.

True - but those things were said by senior officials who were essentially the architects of this policy. For them to turn around and get it so wrong in their public statements about (i) how things are going; and (ii) how long they imagine it will take - that doesn't inspire confidence. To say the least.

I guess my point is that both sides have grossly got it wrong. While the pro-war side is making overly optimistic statements the anti-war side is making equally overly pessimistic statements. I just heard on the radio that Murtha has said the report I posted yesterday was a "total fabrication". He can't find a way to allow any good news even when it's true. It's just the way of politics.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That may be true - but I still mostly blame the architects of this policy being apparently so massively out of touch.

[GaryC 7]

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003

Nov. 15, 2002

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program. "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."

Jan. 10, 2003

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

“Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.”

Feb. 7, 2003

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." —to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy:

Mar. 16, 2003

####### Cheney

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . [in] weeks rather than months."

Mar. 25, 2003

Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board

I can't tell you exactly how many days or how many weeks. But by

historical standards, this will be a short war.

Mar. 27, 2003

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary

There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

This is proving my point. There are two separate things that happened. The mission to kick out Saddam is what all these statements are referring to. And in that context they were true. The aftermath however was not being addressed in any of these statements. I always knew that it would take a long term occupation to stabilize things. The government also knew this. There is where the political realities come into play. If Bush would have laid it all out on the table "The war to defeat Saddam will be quick but we will need to be there long term to rebuild the country" then the political opposition would have been able to stop them. I don't like it much but that is what has to be done to get the desired result. Before you go saying that this is the "lies" that Bush told to start the war you must understand that the Dems in congress also understood that this would be a long term thing. It was in the Dems best political interest to OK the war. That is why they gave the authorization to start it. When the public glow of getting Saddam began to fade and the reality of the long term consequence's began to dawn on them the Dems again did what they thought would be in their best political interest. The started to oppose the war and started saying they were deceived. Politics is a dirty business. It's not just a Bush thing, it's politics in general.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said though specific comments were made by the architects of the policy - about troops being withdrawn by late 2005, and more recently, that the insurgency having been effectively defeated. That clearly wasn't the case at all. Politics aside - statements like that are in hindsight rather misleading and you do have to wonder what that suggests. If nothing else that the 'head' was out of touch with the rest of the body.

[Dan J 277]

With the way the administration has handled facts and the truth about this war, I would be vary hard pressed to take a report, from someone who for all we know is just saying what the administration wants him to say. Especially when many other organizations show conditions to be the opposite of the administration says they are.

[GaryC 7]

As I said though specific comments were made by the architects of the policy - about troops being withdrawn by late 2005, and more recently, that the insurgency having been effectively defeated. That clearly wasn't the case at all. Politics aside - statements like that are in hindsight rather misleading and you do have to wonder what that suggests. If nothing else that the 'head' was out of touch with the rest of the body.

Not out of touch, just playing politics. Give Bush more credit than that. He knows the score. He had something that he thought was best for America and he did what he needed to do to make that happen. I guess I am in the minority on this. I think that Bush truly believes that what he is doing is in the best interest of the country.

To be honest I really hate politics in general. So much of it is lies and misdirection. But that is what has to happen when each politician must convince a majority of the public to re-elected and to keep support for their individual issues.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It really depends on what criteria the general is assessing 'progress' on. There's mention that he's going to be assessing political and economic aspects in addition to the peacekeeping situation - but clearly a lot depends on the measures that he is using. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, but certainly it is difficult to ignore the reports of human rights organisations who are concerned specifically with the day to day quality of life of the civilian population.

[GaryC 7]

With the way the administration has handled facts and the truth about this war, I would be vary hard pressed to take a report, from someone who for all we know is just saying what the administration wants him to say. Especially when many other organizations show conditions to be the opposite of the administration says they are.

The report was from the Brookings institute. They have issued many scathing reports on the war in the past. I saw an interview with them on CNN and Criss Mathews. Mathews did his best to discount what was reported but the reporter stuck by his guns.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not out of touch, just playing politics. Give Bush more credit than that. He knows the score. He had something that he thought was best for America and he did what he needed to do to make that happen. I guess I am in the minority on this. I think that Bush truly believes that what he is doing is in the best interest of the country.

To be honest I really hate politics in general. So much of it is lies and misdirection. But that is what has to happen when each politician must convince a majority of the public to re-elected and to keep support for their individual issues.

The problem is specific statements like that, when they turn out to be not only wrong but 'completely wrong' create 2 distinct impressions. First that the claims were deliberately fabricated/exaggerated in an attempt to mislead the public; and second that the person making the claims had little direct knowledge of the current situation to make an authoritative statement. Both are problematic IMO.

As far as that goes - on an issue like this (i.e. a war), that's beyond the pale of responsible political dialog.

[SteveLaura 0]

[T]he claims were deliberately fabricated/exaggerated in an attempt to mislead the public...

Which we know was done.

Downing Street Memo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Problem is - that debate didn't get any airtime in the US. But certainly it indicates that at an early stage the Blair Govt was thinking much the same thing as the British public. That they then went out of their way to deny those kinds of claims did irreparable damage to his reputation IMO.

[GaryC 7]

Not out of touch, just playing politics. Give Bush more credit than that. He knows the score. He had something that he thought was best for America and he did what he needed to do to make that happen. I guess I am in the minority on this. I think that Bush truly believes that what he is doing is in the best interest of the country.

To be honest I really hate politics in general. So much of it is lies and misdirection. But that is what has to happen when each politician must convince a majority of the public to re-elected and to keep support for their individual issues.

The problem is specific statements like that, when they turn out to be not only wrong but 'completely wrong' create 2 distinct impressions. First that the claims were deliberately fabricated/exaggerated in an attempt to mislead the public; and second that the person making the claims had little direct knowledge of the current situation to make an authoritative statement. Both are problematic IMO.

As far as that goes - on an issue like this (i.e. a war), that's beyond the pale of responsible political dialog.

But unfortunately this is the world in which we live. It happens on both sides and on all topics. That is why I don't like politics. There is no such thing as a (publicly)honest politician.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Unfortunately on an issue as divisive as this I don't think that's good enough - to use military interventionism as an excuse to further crass business interests.

[Dan J 277]

With the way the administration has handled facts and the truth about this war, I would be vary hard pressed to take a report, from someone who for all we know is just saying what the administration wants him to say. Especially when many other organizations show conditions to be the opposite of the administration says they are.

The report was from the Brookings institute. They have issued many scathing reports on the war in the past. I saw an interview with them on CNN and Criss Mathews. Mathews did his best to discount what was reported but the reporter stuck by his guns.

Which one?

http://www.brook.edu/press/books/clientpr/...terthesurge.htm

Shows the surge is not working, but making things worse

http://www.brook.edu/press/books/thingsfallapart.htm

Is about Iraq falling into civil war.

I don't see how any reports from the Brookings Institute is making your case that things are improving.