[CLUE-Talk] Another Bush lie

[Randy Arabie]

On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:01:41AM -0800, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:

  <---SNIP--->

> It would mean this: We sent a message to the American people that
> taking over Iraq was 1) necessary to the security of the U.S., 2) would
> be mostly a matter of defeating the Iraqi army. 

On your point #2.  That's not the message I got.  And, I don't
recall anyone saying anything that to that effect.  Anyone
who assumed that it would be a simple matter of defeating
the army and then "Volla, we'll be out of there in a matter
of months" is naive.  I do recall many analysts stating that
it could take a very long time - 3, 5, or perhaps more
years.  I recall Rumsfeld and Chaney stating that it could
take more than a year, but were quite vague in their
remarks with regard to exactly how long it would take.  And,
thankfully so, since there's know way they could know for
certain AND anything that deviates in the most minute way
from their statements is considered a LIE by folks like you.

> In fact, the truth is that 1) It wasn't necessary, 2) we (the Bush
> administration) either knew or should have known there would be
> significant resistance on behalf of some of the loyalists to Saddam and
> other Iraqi people and that it is very likely we will be in Iraq now
> for a very long time in order secure peace. This will be extremely
> costly in terms of money and lives. We deliberately underplayed the
> difficulty in securing Iraq in order to win popular support for this
> action. 

The jury is still out on #1 (I've even heard a number of
Democrat's express that opinion).  It's too soon to say "It
wasn't necessary", and there isn't anything there to support
that assertion.  The fact is, as far as anyone knew, Iraq
still had all the WMD they declared themselves to have in
1998.  And, they refused to present evidence to prove
otherwise.  And, we know from Mr. Kay's preliminary report
that Iraq did have ongoing WMD programs.

WRT #2, nobody said there wouldn't be resistance from Saddam
Loyalists and nobody said it wouldn't take a very long time
to secure peace.  I did hear, several times, from Bush,
Cheney, and Rumsfeld that it would take a long time.  

You are just plain wrong on your point #2.  I'll you grant #1 is
debatable, but IMO you don't have any ground to stand on for
point #2.

> > Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "they screwed up."  
> 
> I mean: 1) We didn't need to be there in the first place. 2) They have
> either severely underestimated the resistance or deliberately
> understated the resistance to U.S. forces in Iraq. 3) They have
> ill-prepared the troops for the occupation. The last point (3) is
> simply not debatable -- U.S. forces are having to confiscate weapons
> from the Iraqis due to weapons shortages and the fact that the
> U.S.-supplied weapons do not perform well in Iraq's climate.

WRT #3 immediately above.  That's the first I've heard that.
Care to pass a link to that on?
-- 

Allons Rouler!

Randy
http://www.arabie.org/