Rumsfeld 2/7/03:
“It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Cheney 3/16/03:
“I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months.”
In other words
To put this in perspective: From December 1941 to August 1945, the U.S. government mobilized an entire nation; manufactured a mighty arsenal; played a huge role in defeating the armies, air forces, and navies of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan; and emerged from battle poised to shape the destiny of half the globe. By comparison, from September 2001 to December 2005, the U.S. government has advanced to the point of describing a path to victory in a country the size of California.
The modern conservative movement would describe Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a socialist traitor.
The modern liberal, er, progressive movement would describe FDR as a go-it-alone unilateralist who reacted to Pearl (which, BTW, he knew about beforehand) by attacking the wrong country. (Besides, we all know he was just trying to avenge Teddy anyway.) Then, they would demand the US unilateraly withdraw from Rammstein and Okinawa.
Apples to oranges. Days are shorter now than they were in the 1940s.
Most liberals, including Odub (and myself, for the record) had no problem with going after al-Qaida and the Taliban after 9/11…which is the correct parallel to Pearl Harbor.
Even though Nazis were hiding out in Rio, we didn’t invade Brazil.
Well except that FDR was significantly to the left of even the furthest left of the Democratic party and that he actually beat the enemy who attacked us, in the process securing us and our allies.
The war is over?
You are such a fucking idiot.
Rumsfeld didn’t change his tune until it got clear that this would not just be a weekend operation. I know you guys don’t give a crap as long as the presidency says (R), but stop being so stupid on purpose.
Oliver in your attempt at cherry picking, you forgot to leave out the Rev. war .. because that is the only war that can be compared to what’s going on in Iraq.
The war is over — he [Rummy] was right — it took less than 6 months.
On national security? Hardly. His modern-day equivalent (security hawk, pocketbook liberal) would be … Joe Lieberman.
BD, the Nazis didn’t attack us on 12/7. That was the Japanese. And we responded by invading Africa.
Wow, Ian, great use of talking points.
Tell me who the American insurgency was, and who the occupying power was that was trying to build us an environment for democracy. Then tell me how that occupying power dealt with the insurgency.
The similarities between the American Experiment ca. 1776 and the Iraqi Experiment today begin and end on one point: both were fledgling nations trying to figure out what they wanted of a government structure. The Iraqis didn’t rise up and defy their tyrant. We did that for them.
So Ian, now that the war is over, can we bring the troops home so that the killing of US soldiers can stop? I know you don’t give a crap, since you would never join, but other families want their loved ones home this Chri- holiday.
The Nazis were working with the Japanese and attacked our allies (the French and the British). Joe Lieberman’s not fit to lick FDR’s dirty boots.
We re going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency.
So in addition to going through the growing pains of a young democratic structure, the conflicts within the Islamic culture, and the delicate attempts to grow thei economy, they’ll have to contend with what’s left of the insurgency when we leave. This is a recipe for success, yes it is.
And Farris, please. By the time we entered WWII, it was clearly and proudly stated that the Japanese and Germans were allies. We’re still waiting on definitive proof of Saddam’s alliance with al-Qaida.
Actually the modern liberal would describe FDR as an interning racist.
And all you are doing with those quotes is spinning them in a way that fits your biases. For instance Runmmy was speaking to troops and was undoubtedly talking about major combat operations. At another time he said:
“Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years,” Rumsfeld said. “Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency. We’re going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency.” Detroit Free Press story.
If there had been some intellectual integrity to the first quote, I would look at the rest.
So make yourselves happy with wishful-thinking interpretations, but don’t even pretend they have a semblance of reality.
Dugger, Mission Accomplished!!!
That’s brilliant. So the war they planned for is over, but hundreds of soldiers and thousands of Iraqis have died in the aftermath of those plans. But at least it didn’t happen “during the war.”
Re: factcheck
Did you not support Afghanistan? Why did you not join and serve? Chickenhawk.
You’re like a parody of a Republican idiot… except you’re real. Amazing.
You know, Ian, you are a child- I saw a report on TV tonight with the parents of a soldier who was shot in the head and killed recently in Iraq. He had a wife and FIVE children, and joined the military because there were no decent jobs in the inner city where he lives. He was in his 2nd tour of Iraq.
His Dad said to the reporter: “No matter what he felt about the war, he did his duty and died a hero”.
And you and your buddies sit here spouting talking points and puffing up your chests while poor Americans die.
Looks like I have to teach Save Farris a lesson in military history.
Farris claims FDR knew that Pearl Harbor would happen. This is a long debunked conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory is largely based on the fact the US had ‘broken’ Japanese military codes. Unfortunately, for the conspiracists, the Japanese had changed to a far more complex code which wasn’t decoded until late in 1942.
Farris also claims we attacked the wrong country in response to Pearl Harbor. Again, this isn’t supported by the facts. Germany declared war on the US on 8 Dec 1941 before the US had declared war on anyone. Additionally, the US had been technically at war with Germany for sometime since Germany had no reservation about sinking US shipping and even a Navy destroyer.
Guys, you supported Afghanistan .. why haven’t you signed up yet.
Yeah I guess you didn’t like it when the tables were turned.
“You’re just a child” .. I’m going to be 18 in a bit over 2 months. I will be able to vote in the upcoming Gov. race, I have opinions. I mean if you all you can do is attack me and not the argument, I guess I won.
Face it, Ian, you’re a kid. Yeah, you have opinions but you have no life experience to back those views. It’s pretty easy to think you’ve got the world by the tail when mommy and daddy completely subsidize your existence.
When will you sign up? Seriously, the military’s a pretty valuable life experience–especially for someone like you who isaccustomed to everything being handed to him.
Yes, you just got done attempting to telling me to back up my opinions with life experience, and yet you contradict yourself in the next [and above] paragraph.
Get a job.
Jadegold did you not support the Afghanistan war? Chickenhawk.
Again with the ‘mommy and daddy’ comments — I don’t have a mom and my father is quite liberal. I don’t need daddy’s money .. I make it myself. I don’t need to justify my views to you. Again, go sign up.
Ian –
Here’s the most official definition of chickenhawk I can find:
“Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person s youth.”
It isn’t simply support for a war that makes one a chickenhawk, it’s the wild-eyed, flag-draped, banner-unfurled, aggressive cheerleading for a war — and the subsequent refusal to fight in said war — that makes one a chickenhawk. I’d say comparing the Iraq war to the American Revolution qualifies, aside from its total bafflement factor.
Following on what Concordian said, how can the war be over if the people we went in to fight are still killing us? If the war is over, apparently the Baathists and Hussein loyalists who are still attacking us on a daily basis didn’t get the memo — or the invitation to Bush’s neato photo op on that aircraft carrier.
“I don t need to justify my views to you.”
It’s a little silly, isn’t it Ian, to go out of your way to engage the opposition in a public forum and then get all huffy and say, “I don t need to justify my views to you.” Why the hell else are you here?
Im having some trouble drawing parallels between the Revolution and the Iraq War. When did Iraqis issue their Declaration of Independance to Saddam? Why are the troops fighting this war, by and far, American and not Iraqi? Shouldnt we be fighting an organized army and not an insurgency? Technically, since the Iraqi insurgents are attacking a foreign army (us), would that make THEM the revolutionaries? When Micheal Moore suggested that a while back, cosnervatives predictably went into conniptions. Yet according to your “Revolutionary War” analogy (that im not buying), it fits well.
So you see, its just like the American Revolution, only… not.
Frameone, bingo on the chickenhawk definition. I wouldnt expect every single person who supported the war to go fight it, just the ones that foam at the mouth whenever you question it.
Id also like to add that theres a subtle difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, it is about 120,000 troops. It is Iraq that has spread our forces thin and caused recruitment goals to go unmet. Therefore, this vacuum should be filled by willing participants.
Hear that Ian? Chickenhawk. Your gonna have to go back to the drawing board for a new response to that.
Guys, you supported Afghanistan .. why haven t you signed up yet.
Actually, I didn’t “support Afghanistan.”
Also, I love it wingers make historical analogies. It’s like watching a cat try to operate a doorknob. By all means, wingers, keep it up!
I agree with Ian. The Iraqi war that Rumsfeld planned for is over.
Jade,
I claimed no such thing. I claimed modern liberals would claim that under Oliver’s scenario. Need proof?
You don’t get the Secretary of Defense you want; you get the Secretary of Defense you are left with when you don’t know anyone else.
Farris, I understand that I’m just a thick libtard, but perhaps you can explain to me how an article discussion Cynthia McKinney backs up your assertion that FDR would be regarded as a unilateralist.
One liberal former Rep is “proof” of a “modern liberal” mode of thought?
I’m a modern liberal who doesn’t think Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen, and I don’t think he did it to help his defense buddies.
I do think he was woefully behind on the intel, but that’s not the same thing.
Your claim, Farris, is windbaggery.
Your claim, Farris, is windbaggery.
Surely you don’t mean this! Farris, the eminently reasonable? Fair-and-balanced Farris? A blowhard? I’m shocked, sir…shocked at the very idea. Tsk tsk tsk. [/sarcasm]