Many on the right complain about the support is dropping out from under the war. They blame it on the left, the media, anyone but Bush and his failed administration.
What they never seem to remember is that it was the administration that set the expectations for this war. They failed utterly to live up to the expectectations they set. America did not sign on for THIS WAR in Iraq. They signed up for the one described by the administration in lead up in this way:
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2002/t11152002_t1114rum.htmlBack to that email, Mr. Secretary. Hundreds of people have been awakened with dreams of a war with Iraq quickly escalating into World War III. What can effectively be done to limit the conflict, and what is your opinion about the possibility of a wider war breaking out?
Rumsfeld: In the event that force has to be used with Iraq, there will be no World War III. The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that. And, it won't be a World War III. And if I were to characterize the difference between 1990 and today, the United States military is vastly more powerful. And the Iraqi Army and military capability has declined substantially. The difference is, the reason for needing to disarm Iraq, and that is chemical and biological weapons today, and a very robust effort to develop nuclear weapons tomorrow. And, that is the difference between today and then. ==========================
In answer to questions from the troops themselves (in a townhall meeting at Aviano Air Force Base), he upped the predicted number of days, weeks, months to 6:http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t02072003_t0207sdtownhall.htmlWe don't talk about deployments in the specific, but we have brought a good many Guard and Reserve on active duty. Fortunately, a great many of them were volunteers. We have been able to have relatively few stop losses. There are some currently, particularly in the Army, but relatively few in the Navy and the Air Force. And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. ============================
Right around that time, he was giving more media folks a similar prediction minus the number but still measured in months:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/25/se.21.htmlRUMSFELD: Let me just make a comment on this; it keeps coming back up about expectations.
Analysts say what they think. And quite honestly, they seem to me to be all over the lot. They're not all in one little box of, "It'll be over in 15 minutes." If some analyst wants to say it's going to be a cake walk and it turns out not to be a cake walk, the fact of the matter is, we have said repeatedly we can't say how long it will last. We do not know. It is not knowable. I've said I don't know how many times, days, weeks or months; don't know. ===============================
So that deals with the American people's expectation that this should all be wrapped up by now.
Which brings us to Saddam's supposed WMD stockpiles and the imminent threat they posed, the justification for the war. Rummy had some choice comments on that too:18 Sep 2002 " has amassed large clandestine stocks of biological weapons... including anthrax and botulism toxin and possibly smallpox. His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas... has at this moment stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."
20 Jan 2003 "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons... His regime is paying a high price to pursue weapons of mass destruction -- giving up billions of dollars in oil revenue. His regime has large, unaccounted for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox -- and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons." Cheney on the subject:26 Aug 2002 - "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."And of course the Powell Speech to the U.N.:"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."
Here's what we actually found according to the Dulfer report:http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components.
The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED).So they claimed enough stockpiled chemical weapons agents to fill 16,000 artillary rockets. They found exactly 53 degraded chemical munitions left over from pre 1991 stocks (the ones we sold him for the Iran war) that were apparently misplaced and not distroyed with the large number that clearly were.
No WMD stockpiles, no "imminent threat". America was told repeatedly that an imminent threat existed because of Saddam's "WMD stockpiles". When they failed to materialize, it became clear that the justification for the invasion (and now occupation) was simply not true. Again, The administration set the American expectation level with its own words. In the end their words ring completely false.
================================
That covers length and justification. How about the spiraling cost to the nation? Here's what Wolfowitz was saying before the war:http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htmDeputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “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.” He made that comment just after the White House had fired Lawrence Lindsay for prediction the war could cost as much as 100-200 billion dollars. If only it had actually been that cheap.
=================================
Here's what Don Rumsfeld was publicly predicting:“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.” Here's what Rumsfeld was referring to (while deflating their estimated number even further):Budget Director Mitch Daniels
On September 15th 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated the high limit on the cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget subsequently discounted this estimate as “very, very high” and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion By those publicly stated numbers, the Iraqi oil profits would have already paid for the war in its entirety, including reconstruction costs.
===============================
The same view that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction was still being expressed by Bush a full year into the war:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4734348/And what else was part the question? Oh, oil revenues.
Well, the oil revenues, they’re bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant.
One of the things I was concerned about, prior to going into Iraq, was that the oil fields would be destroyed, but they weren’t. They’re now up and running. And that money is — it will benefit the Iraqi people. It’s their oil, and they’ll use it to reconstruct the country.=================================
Here is how those rosey predictions really turned out.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4825948/"We are not structured for the security environment we're in," Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers told senators and congressmen, including some angry Republicans. As part of his 2005 budget request, Rumsfeld had originally cut the Army budget by 6 percent. But the Army has identified nearly $6 billion in unfunded requests—and more are on the way. "The costs are going to be staggering," says Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who has pestered the Pentagon for months for better estimates. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the House committee that military operations in Iraq are now costing about $4.7 billion a month—a sum that approaches the $5 billion a month (on average) that the Vietnam War cost, adjusted for inflation.And they just passed another appropriations bill bringing the cost to date up to 320 billion dollars.
===================
So, the right blames people for being mad when these were the expectations being set by those making the case for the war? The administration sold us a lemon of historic proportions and it is the media and the left that are to blame for customer dissatisfaction? That is simply nonsense.
If anyone is to blame for declining support for the war, it is those that made the promises and failed to live up to a single one (and frankly, those that blindly accepted them on both sides).
Now, several years into the 5-month war, these people have the nerve to criticize those that either never supported the war from the start or those that have turned against it as a result of their "impatience"? 320 billion dollars into a war that would supposedly cost a fraction of that they dare attack those that question the cost?
With all of its talk of not setting time tables, they sure were happy to set a nice short time table when it served their goal of invading. But, now that they have met their goal of invading, they speak in terms of the long view of history. How we have to think of this as a long process. That any talk of withdrawl of redeployment is just based on UNREASONABLE EXPECTATIONS!
Next time you hear that crap from a winger, remind them who set America's expectations on this war!
Ask them of they would have been willing to lose 2,500 troops, 320 billion dollars and our international reputations over the space of several years for 53 degraded chem shells.
That is certainly not what the salespeople were advertizing.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
