Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (386841)	4/6/2003 11:33:49 PM
From: David Howe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

<< exposed many of the Bush lies and Bush propaganda about the war. They talked about about how easy it was going to be >> It's been shockingly easy. Much easier than W ever suggested it would be. << the costs of the war >> The cost of the way was right about what was expected. << and reconstruction >> Ditto << the problems with creating a democracy, the potential for civil war >> How is this different from what was discussed prior to the war? It hasn't even started yet so how could it be more difficult that projected? << the propaganda about this being waged by a coalition etc. >> It was waged by a coalition. The participants are the only countries on earth that still have the military force that it takes to pull something like this off. This has been a spectacular success and the media has made sure that the world can see how much care was taken to protect innocents and how remarkable the results have been. << Was like a breath of fresh air. >> In contrast to your post which smells like puke. IMO, Dave

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (386841)	4/6/2003 11:34:05 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 769667

"They talked about the misinformation about how easy it was going to be," Ah yes, misinformation, but from whom????? Success of Plan B is real indicator of how war in Iraq is proceeding 04/06/03 CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER The First Gulf War took six weeks. Afghanistan took nine. Kosovo, 11. We are now just past two weeks in the Second Gulf War. It's time for a bit of perspective. This campaign has already been honored with a "quagmire" piece by The New York Times' Johnny Apple, seer and author of a similar and justly famous quagmire piece on Afghanistan published just days before the fall of Mazar-e Sharif and the swift collapse of the Taliban. The drumbeat of complaint for the first two weeks from the media, retired generals and anonymous administration malcontents has been twofold: the "flawed plan" and the raised expectations. With American troops in and around Baghdad, the plan is looking pretty good now. But even when things looked tough in Week 2, the frenzy of the critics was a bit weird. It's an old military cliche that all plans look great until the shooting starts. Then the plan is thrown out. Nonetheless, Tommy Franks' plan has fared better than most. It may not have anticipated the level of initial resistance in the south. But this is a campaign of staggering complexity. The fact that but a single element was miscalibrated without significant damage to the overall campaign is, on the contrary, testimony to a plan of remarkable prescience. Even more impressive was the speed of the military's adaptation to the new circumstances. For a military establishment as large, mechanized, integrated and complex as America's to be so nimble in adapting to the tactics of Saddam's Baathist die-hard irregulars in southern Iraq is nothing short of astonishing. Why deny it? Take credit for it. This flexibility will have a far more decisive effect on the final outcome than the silly charge that the original blueprint did not perfectly predict the future. The other major complaint has been raised expectations. It is true that before the war there were expectations of a quick and bloodless victory. It is not fair to say that the administration orchestrated the expectations. It is fair to say that the administration allowed that impression to grow. <font size=5>For example, former President Clinton said, "This war is going to be over in a flash" and, "You're looking at a couple weeks of bombing and then I'd be astonished if this campaign took more than a week." President Bush said nothing of the sort.<font size=3> But the administration did little to dispel the conventional wisdom that Clinton was reflecting. This passivity is taken by administration critics to be a cynical attempt to manipulate U.S. public opinion in support of a dubious war. Nonsense. The administration already had remarkable across-the-board support for the war. Why raise expectations at home? It is an axiom of political life that you never raise expectations, whether in a political or military campaign, because your defeats are then magnified and your victories discounted. It is true that the administration did not contradict the general view of an easy war. But not for domestic political reasons. It did so for obvious and very good military reasons. The target audience for these inflated expectations was not the American people but Saddam's henchmen. Plan A for the war was a quick and devastating attack that would cause a collapse of the regime and lead to the ultimate military outcome -- the Sun Tzu ideal of victory with barely a shot fired. Plan A had several parts: an intense initial "shock and awe" air attack; a bold rush of armor to the gates of Baghdad; and, fortuitously, a first-night decapitation strike on Saddam's own bunker. But the key to Plan A was a further psy-warfare element: planting in the Iraqi leadership the idea that an American victory was inevitable, that the war would be quick and that Saddam's collapse would be immediate -- and therefore they should be prepared within hours to either flee or defect to the winning side. The point of allowing expectations to remain unrealistically high was to encourage waverers in Saddam's entourage to turn against the regime very early and end the war even before it began. It was a good idea. It did not pan out. But given the possible benefits, it was certainly worth a try. The regime did not collapse overnight. Hence Plan B, an adapted version to the original war plan. It involves real fighting and real losses. Plan A, in contrast, while always plausible, was a hope for the miraculous. It was a kind of anti-war plan, as it would not have required any real battles at all. The miracle having not happened, we are now fighting a conventional war. And winning -- thanks to the Franks plan and its flexibility, and despite the carping of those who in conflict after conflict see Vietnam in anything short of immediate immaculate victory. 2003, Washington Post Writers Group Charles Krauthammer can be reached through the Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th St. N.W., Washington, DC 20071-9200. oregonlive.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (386841)	4/6/2003 11:38:14 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 769667

Mr. Bush's chief spokesman, Ari Fleischer Q You did very little to lower expectations in the run up to this. Even if you didn't raise them yourself, you did nothing to lower what we were hearing from the Pentagon and from other outside pundits about how well, how quickly this war would go. MR. FLEISCHER: I could not dispute that more strongly, and let me cite it for you. If you take a look at what the President said on October 7th in Cincinnati in a major speech to the country, the President said, "Military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. There is no easy or risk-free course of action." That's what the President said some six months ago, five months ago. And certainly in many of the statements that I've made from this podium, I said, even prior to any action beginning, I said on March 18th, "I think people have to prepare for the fact that it may not be short." On March 21st, even before the air campaign began over Baghdad, in my morning briefing I was asked about talks for unconditional surrender, how were the talks for the unconditional surrender. I said, I think it's important for the American people to remember that this still can be a long, lengthy, and dangerous engagement. This is, as the President said, the opening phase. It can be a long, lengthy, dangerous engagement because this is war. scoop.co.nz Mr. Bush's chief spokesman, Ari Fleischer (news - web sites), cited remarks from the president last October, in which Mr. Bush warned that a war might not be quick and easy, and that Mr. Hussein's forces might resort to "cruel and desperate measures" to stave off defeat. Mr. Fleischer also noted his own remarks, a few days before the military campaign began, that a war might not be short. And he told reporters that Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites), who said he expected a war to last "weeks rather than months," had added the caveat "but we can't count on that." story.news.yahoo.com.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (386841)	4/6/2003 11:40:03 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

The truth shall set us free. Let freedom ring. Unlike the Sean Hannity version, a type where we have open, honest and free debate.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (386841)	4/6/2003 11:45:02 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

when Bush announced the war on March 19, he offered a warning that has been echoed throughout the administration in the 10 days since: "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict." Speaking to veterans yesterday, he warned again that "the fierce fighting currently underway will demand further courage and further sacrifice." On CBS's "Face the Nation" on March 16, Cheney said the fight would be "weeks rather than months. There's always the possibility of complications that you can't anticipate, but I have great confidence in our troops." Cheney also predicted the fight would "go relatively quickly, but we can't count on that." That same day on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney said, "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." It was then he predicted that the regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle," and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside." Asked if Americans are prepared for a "long, costly and bloody battle," Cheney replied: "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." On September 2002, he said that "you always plan for the worst," but he also said, "I don't think it would be that tough a fight; that is, I don't think there's any question that we would prevail." In a speech in August, he cited a scholar's view that "the streets in Basra and Baghdad are sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans." White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said yesterday that Cheney's "weeks rather than months" formulation may yet be proven correct. And he noted that the president did not make any predictions about the war's duration. A spokeswoman for Cheney echoed Fleischer's view that it is premature to dismiss Cheney's predictions about the conflict. Fleischer cited three remarks Bush made about the conflict's risks. On Oct. 7, the president said "military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures." On Jan. 3, he said: "I know that every order I give can bring a cost. . . . We know the challenges and the dangers we face." And in the Jan. 28, State of the Union address, Bush said: "The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come." Fleischer said these comments show that Bush was upfront about the risks involved in attacking Iraq. "I think the American people, from the very beginning, when they heard the president on September 12, 2002, talk about the possibility of the United States using force to disarm Saddam Hussein, they started to understand that if we're going to use force, it, of course, entails sacrifice," he said. "I think that's one of the reasons that the American people have accepted the way they have the realities of this war, the risks of this war, and still support it as strongly as they do." Though other officials often provided caveats about unpredictable dangers, they also spoke of the conflict in optimistic terms. For example, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a breakfast meeting earlier this month that the goal was "a short, short conflict." Last September, Myers said that "Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the early '90s," when it was routed in the Persian Gulf War. Right up to the hours before Bush announced the war's start last Wednesday, leading officials voiced confidence. "The campaign will be unlike any we have ever seen in the history of warfare, with breathtaking precision, almost eye-watering speed, persistence, agility and lethality," said Vice Admiral Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf. At a news briefing with Rumsfeld yesterday, Myers spoke in a more measured way about forces approaching Baghdad. "It was necessary to try to bring down this regime as quickly as possible," he said. "I didn't say quick; I said as quickly as possible. "You've heard us both stand up here and say this is going to take some time, and the tough part is yet ahead of us." A senior administration official who briefed reporters Monday on condition of anonymity said Rumsfeld "has right along said that he thought that fighting was likely to last weeks, not months." Rumsfeld told troops last month that "it could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Rumsfeld also contradicted the Army chief of staff, who told the Senate that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to occupy Iraq. "Far off the mark," Rumsfeld said. Some officials' predictions may yet be realized, even if early signs have not been encouraging. For example, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz said in a speech earlier this month that "the Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator." Wolfowitz said yesterday that "we probably did underestimate the willingness of this regime to commit war crimes," but he said other forecasts were on course. Other forecasts seem increasingly improbable. Richard Perle, until this week chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, said last summer that Hussein is "much weaker than we think he is." Calling the regime a "house of cards," Perle said "support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder." In an interview on PBS, Perle said he "would be surprised if we need anything like" 200,000 troops, and predicted only 10 percent of Hussein's troops would be loyal. Though warning of "contingencies," he predicted an internal revolt against Hussein, adding: "It will be quicker and easier than many people think. He is far weaker than many people realize." Yesterday, in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Perle said of the war: "There is some resistance, of course. I don't know anyone who thought this would be a war without resistance." washingtonpost.com.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (386841)	4/6/2003 11:47:04 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 769667

In case you didn't read who really hyped expectations, besides the press it was............ <font size=5>For example, former President Clinton said, "This war is going to be over in a flash" and, "You're looking at a couple weeks of bombing and then I'd be astonished if this campaign took more than a week." President Bush said nothing of the sort.<font size=3> oregonlive.com.