I disgaree with so much of what you said, but I suppose I can't be too excercised by your Rose-colored glasses. Its to be expected given the battle you're fighting.
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I posted the partial text of a Bush speech pre-invasion a week or so ago, in response to a statement that Bush never made this sound like it would be hard. It says exactly what you ask. He said it was going to be a long, costly process. Pre-invasion. In fact, that was the subject of much pre-invasion public discourse - whether we should become involved in something that promised to be such an incredibly hard slog - the remaking of a blasted country. For anyone to now suggest that Bush made them believe it would be easy or cheap is the height of disingenuity. (Is that a word?)
|
Ok. But you're sticking with the words that came from Bush's mouth in one or two speeches , and not the words and conduct of the Administration as a whole over the period of months preceding the invasion. You haven't really hit the substance of what I tried to say. I may be incorrect, but I am not being disingenuous.
To pick simple and concrete examples -- (a) What about the Rumsfeld position on the likely troop strength required and the likely time/duration of an occupation? Either they knew what was likely to come, but didn't say, or they were pretty damn surprised at what happened. (b) Was the refusal to discuss anticipated costs, etc. and the down-playing of the troop strength required for pacification all part of the acceptable hard-sell?? To refuse to give even any projections, but just spout truisms such as "We know that the cost of action will be less than the cost of inaction" (paraphrase)?
P.S. All of those truisms were based on the premise that Hussein had all these WMD -- and might just turn them over to terrorists.
Well, even now you say you don't think we'll ever find any WMD -- but require PROOF OF A NEGATIVE (i.e. none existed at all in Iraq in March, 2003) before you'll even grant that the administration seemins to have said something incorect. Oh, come on!
Look -- if your principal points are that Hussein was a bastard who deserved what he got, the world will be better off without him ruling Iraq, the invasion was the right thing to do. I agree with (a) and (c), and (b) seems likely unless things collapse horribly in Iraq. However, that doesn't/shouldn't render the Administration immune from all criticism over what was done, how it was done, and how they "sold" the war. It is not all meaningless partisan carping -- although the administration/GOP strategy at this point is clearly to try to hang on and make it all work out well in the end.
If it does, much of this criticism will fade, and we can get back to discussing GWB the environmentalist and champion fundraiser, who has "seen into [Putin's] heart" and discovered that he is good man dedicated to democracy.
S_A_M
