SierraSong wrote:The same as the Defense Department's Response.
And you just swallow it. No questions asked. The Defense Department has a neat little list of talking points, so why should you use your own brain. Nah. Just swallow, SS, just swallow....
Quote:SUMMARY:
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PROVIDED A BALANCED PICTURE: The Department has always attempted to clearly and accurately describe the challenges our forces face in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Let's have a very brief look at the attempt to "clearly and accurately describe the challenges", shall we:
Quote:* Feb. 7, 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
* March 4, 2003, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.
* March 11, 2003, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "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."
* March 16, 2003, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "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."
So, SS, do you have any original thoughts on the matter? Was Rumsfeld painting a "rosy scenario" when he said that the conflict "could last six days, six weeks." Was it a realistic estimate when he said "I doubt six months?"