Just Guessing...

Yesterday, President Bush responded to the bleak CIA estimates about Iraq's future as follows:

"President Bush, determined to put an optimistic face on deadly conditions in Iraq, said on Tuesday that the CIA was just guessing when it said the war-racked country was in danger of slipping into civil war.

"The CIA laid out several scenarios. It said that life could be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better. And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like," Bush told reporters during a picture-taking session with Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. (...)

"The Iraqi citizens are defying the pessimistic predictions," Bush said

Let me see whether I understand this. Our national intelligence services claim that the likely outlooks for the future in Iraq range from bad to catastrophic. (Contrary to Bush's assertions, they did not say that there was any likelihood that "life could be better" in the foreseeable future.) They say this, presumably, on the basis of all the information they have been able to gather, using all the resources of our government. There are, obviously, problems with our intelligence services; however, I can't really see what source of information George W. Bush has that's not available to them. So what, exactly, is he basing his dismissal of their findings on? A Ouija Board? And what gives him any confidence that this basis, whatever it is, is more trustworthy than US intelligence?

Most likely, he has no basis at all. He's just telling us what he wants to believe, not what's actually true. Making decisions on the basis of unsupported assumptions about Iraq while disregarding the views of people whose job it is to know about it has been this administration's modus operandi all along. That's why we're in the mess we're in right now.

Juan Cole has a really good post on what's going on in Iraq, and what it would be like if it were happening in the US. He starts out with a point that's obvious but worth repeating:

"Violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll."

As he goes on, he really gets into the details of the comparison:

"There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?

What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?

What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with thousands of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city every year?

What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?

What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial? What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?"

And then, of course, the punch line:

"What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?"

Those are just selected excerpts; read the whole thing.

Meanwhile, Britain is planning to cut its troop levels by a third (via discourse.net), and there are more stories of torture:

"Alazawi says that American guards then made her stand with her face against the wall for 12 hours, from noon until midnight. Afterwards they returned her to her cell. "The cell had no ceiling. It was raining. At midnight they threw something at my sister's feet. It was my brother Ayad. He was bleeding from his legs, knees and forehead. I told my sister: 'Find out if he's still breathing.' She said: 'No. Nothing.' I started crying. The next day they took away his body."

The US military later issued a death certificate, seen by the Guardian, citing the cause of death as "cardiac arrest of unknown etiology". The American doctor who signed the certificate did not print his name, and his signature is illegible. The body was returned to the family four months later, on April 3, after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal broke. The family took photographs of the body, also seen by the Guardian, which revealed extensive bruising to the chest and arms, and a severe head wound above the left eye."

But hey, there's light at the end of the tunnel: Donald Rumsfeld assures us that "At some point the Iraqis will get tired of getting killed and we’ll have enough of the Iraqi security forces that they can take over responsibility for governing that country and we’ll be able to pare down the coalition security forces in the country." And besides, Bush's Magic 8 Ball assures us that the Iraqis are proving all this pessimism wrong, despite what those silly intelligence agencies say, so why worry?

Comments

[carsick]

If the facts are against you or the science or the intel or etc...then refute the negative nabbobs and Sell, Sell, Sell.
Am I being paranoid to think that Rove has figured out a slim majority of Americans just don't like to read details so a sound bite from the bully pulpit works well enough?

This administration is running out of professions and experts whose advice they can cavalierly slough off.

[cleek]

there really are two americas: one that reads the news and one that thinks the president is too honest to lie.

[Blue]

"Am I being paranoid to think that Rove has figured out a slim majority of Americans just don't like to read details so a sound bite from the bully pulpit works well enough?"

That's not paranoid to think that... it's arrogant.

I don't mean to be rude, Carsick. But that is what I think.

Despite what the world might think... the average American is pretty smart.

[carsick]

Blue
I'll give in on this one because what I really meant was "Rove has concluded that a slim majority of Americans..."
I don't think it will work so I obviously don't think a slim majority or any majority at all will be swayed by the constant denial of reality coming from the current administration.

[Slartibartfast]

Hmmm...from the same article you quoted Bush from:

In October 2002, a National Intelligence Estimate argued that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and helped the administration justify its decision to go to war. Large stockpiles of such weapons have not been found.

Perhaps Bush has learned to de-weight the SNIEs just a bit?

[Catsy]

Despite what the world might think... the average American is pretty smart.

Perhaps they are. But the lesson I got from three years in tech support is that no matter how intelligent the person is in their area, it translates to ignorance and even stupidity if they're unwilling to educate themselves or listen to expert advice.

I would argue that the average American is unwilling or unable to expend the minimum effort required to dig beyond the soundbites, headlines, and talking head summaries. To find evidence of this fact you need only look at the vast numbers of Americans that still believe any number of demonstrably false and discredited administration talking points simply because of how often they get repeated. These are misconceptions and falsehoods that would not stand up to more than a cursory examination of the facts, such as Cheney's continued assertions of Saddam links to 9/11, or Bush's continued confidence that there's nothing wrong in Iraq and it is ready (really, any day now) to turn the corner into a stable democracy. These serial liars are abetted, unwittingly I think, by the media's persistence in presenting every side as if it were a credible possibility instead of doing real journalism and calling a lie a lie.

That anyone continues to believe what comes out of the administration's mouths can only be chalked up to ignorance, media incompetence, or an inexplicable abiding belief in the honesty of the Bush administration in the face of four years of evidence to the contrary.

I admit that the last category baffles me, because I know more than a few smart, honest people who still think Bush has a shred of credibility left. I don't think I'll ever understand that.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

What if the occupying army left the country to those 275,000 armed thugs in America? Would that improve the situation.

[hilzoy]

Sebastian: no; has anyone here suggested that it would? And how does that bear on the question of Bush's apparently fact-free assessment of Iraq?

[postit]

Despite what the world might think... the average American is pretty smart.

From my perspective we won't know the definative on that until November 3rd, hopefully.

[kenB]

the average American is pretty smart.

Compared to whom? Wouldn't the "average American" be neither smart nor dumb by definition?

[Slartibartfast]

Out, damned italics!

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Italics begone!

"Sebastian: no; has anyone here suggested that it would?"

Actually from reading Mr. Cole I'm not entirely sure.

[Jadegold]

If Bush really believes the CIA is just "guessing," why doesn't he save us all tens of billions of dollars per year and eliminate the agency?

Maybe he could replace the CIA with this.

[postit]

I admit that the last category baffles me, because I know more than a few smart, honest people who still think Bush has a shred of credibility left. I don't think I'll ever understand that.

I think that last category is actually the 'pocketbook' crowd who by dint of hard work or bequest have positioned themselves on the right side of the economic divide and will forgive just about anything to preserve their status, not that they would ever admit same mind.

[Edward]

truly frightening scenario, hilzoy...thanks for passing it along.

My partner, who has lived under a string of the most oppressive societies on the planet (and yes, who loves America), is still able to drive this point home for me again and again: "Put yourself in their shoes before you judge them."

Cole's post does a really good job of that.

What if the occupying army left the country to those 275,000 armed thugs in America? Would that improve the situation.

That truly depends. If those thugs were being recruited primarily in response to the occupation, perhaps it would.

[Slartibartfast]

Damned italics.

[fdl]

actually, random violence would likely decline substantially.

of course, mini theocracies in the style of Fallouja would spring up all over the place as the mullahs establish private armies in order to crush the criminal gangs.

since the US cannot adequately police a country of 25 million with a force of 130,000, this is happening anyway.

but wait! the iraqi defense force (or whatever name is being used this week) is coming to the rescue. all we need to do is hold on just a few more weeks / months . . . until an effective internal constabulary loyal to the central government is established.

[please ignore the example of the Fallouja Brigade. that's completely different. yessir. didn't have the requisite training. even though there is NO central government which holds the respect of a majority of Iraqis, we can create an army loyal to it. And we promise {and this time we mean it} that the new army will not just be another militia loyal to one politician which will collapse when required to fire on its co-religionists.]

yeah, right.

Francis

p.s. great word: "thugs". So neatly encompasses foreign jihadists, criminal gangs, and nationalist insurrectionists all at once. Sound bites are so much more useful than thinking.

p.p.s. If Rumsfeld is right and peace will arrive only when iraqis are tired of dying, why should we be doing the killing? Isn't the better course to allow them to kill each other in furtherance of discovering how power will ultimately be shared?

[Catsy]

If I stretch a bit, I can map Rumsfeld's comment to something resembling a reasonable observation--that a key element in neutralizing the effectiveness of foreign terrorists and militants is the willingness of the Iraqi community to not only not look the other way, but actively resist them.

But to intimate that the insurgency, with all its various facets, continues only because the Iraqi people just aren't tired enough of their friends and family dying is stupid and insulting. And demonstrates an ignorance of the situation so profound as to disqualify him from his job.

Then again, Rumsfeld's track record of incompetence as SecDef would've long since required his resignation in any other administration or corporation for which he worked, so this is just piling it on. The man is an embarassment, and one of Bush's worst liabilities.

[Jesurgislac]

Slartibartfast: Perhaps Bush has learned to de-weight the SNIEs just a bit?

I think Bush is doing in September 2004 exactly what he did in February 2003: he's pretending that if he can get the intelligence agencies to report what he wants to hear, that becomes the reality for him to operate in. It's one of many reasons why he's not fit to be President.

[Slartibartfast]

I see your speculation kung-fu is as strong as mine, Jesurgislac. More inventive, even.

[Jesurgislac]

Catsy - furthermore, given that Rumsfeld's own management of the occupation is a large part of why Iraqis have good active reasons for not supporting it, for Rumsfeld to suggest that it's the fault of the Iraqis is kind of like Anne Rice blaming negative reviews of Blood Canticle on the readers "interrogating this text from the wrong perspective". (cite, and utterly irrelevant to this thread, I'm sorry to say, because it's the nearest approach to real tragedy by Anne Rice that I've read in a long time).

But, back to the facts: Donald Rumsfeld insisted on beginning the occupation of Iraq with mininal boots-on-the-ground: Rumsfeld trivialized and joked about the early failures of the occupation: Rumsfeld is the man ultimately responsible for the horrors of Abu Ghraib and other prisons: for Rumsfeld to blame the chaos in Iraq on Iraqis not yet being "tired of getting killed" doesn't just show shocking ignorance: it shows horrible irresponsibility about his own failures.

[Jesurgislac]

Slartibartfast: I see your speculation kung-fu is as strong as mine, Jesurgislac. More inventive, even.

You were using "speculation kung-fu"? I thought you were just being pointlessly sarcastic.

Bush's behavior is consistent all along, if you assume that he thinks that if he gets the intelligence reports changed reality will change with the reports. Fits his behavior running businesses, too. And his behavior trying to cover up going AWOL from the National Guard.

Of course, it could be that Bush is just lying to get elected, the same way he lied to get American support for the invasion of Iraq. ;-)

[carsick]

Slarti

Go here and read the article about what's actually happening in Iraq then take a look at the unofficial poll.
Americans not believing their president on Iraq?
Why do Americans hate America?

[CharleyCarp]

Of course it doesn't need to be a slim majority to make a difference. In a close race, a relatively small slice of people who are willing to seize on the deniability that the President's remarks create can be enough to make all the difference needed.

And are there plenty of people who are operating on a different reasonability/informational plane than most people reading here? Of course there are. Just thinking about my line of work, the reason we "need" tort reform is that small groups of people -- in Alabama and Texas quite prominently (although not exclusively) -- can apparently not be trusted to exercise common sense in ascteraining liability and damages for simple injuries. There's a reason that your lawnmower has a warning that you shouldn't use it as a hedge trimmer. Have you seen the statistics on the number of people who think that we've been visited by aliens from another planet during their lifetimes, much less the people who think they have had an interaction with aliens? Examples abound. The tobacco industry spent much of the 70s creating deniability for those who really wanted to believe that smoking just wasn't as bad for you as the Surgeon General was saying, and they did so because they were sure it would work. And it did work.

I don't mean to imply that people supporting one candidate or the other are dumber. What I'm saying, though, is that as in 2000, the people managing the Bush campaign have an idea of particular things that need to be said to keep small slices of the population in the coalition. "Uniter not a divider" strikes me as a perfect example of this kind of thing: I'm sure that focus group research indicated that there was some identifiable group of people who really wanted to hear that. They are not a majority in the coalition, or even, in my view, a significant enough minority that real efforts had to be made to follow through. Just a small slice looking for a bit of reassurance. Remark made, slice mollified, slim majority (in the EC) won.

[Blue]

Catsy says:

"I would argue that the average American is unwilling or unable to expend the minimum effort required to dig beyond the soundbites, headlines, and talking head summaries."

I am going to have to support you in this conclusion...

"...Americans that still believe any number of demonstrably false and discredited administration talking points simply because of how often they get repeated."

And this one, too. It seems these people are posting at Obsidian Wings

"These are misconceptions and falsehoods that would not stand up to more than a cursory examination of the facts, such as Cheney's continued assertions of Saddam links to 9/11..."

Let's see if we can reconstruct Cheney's comments with and assist from Mr. Russert....

September 8, 2002

Mr. RUSSERT: One year ago when you were on MEET THE PRESS just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let’s watch:

(Begin Videotape)
September 16, 2001

Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
(End Videotape)

Mr. RUSSERT: Has anything changed, in your mind?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I’m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can’t say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We’ve seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn’t he there, again, it’s the intelligence business.

Mr. RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that and the president?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: It’s credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it’s unconfirmed at this point. We’ve got...

Mr. RUSSERT: Anything else?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is-again, I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we’ve had recently since the operations in Afghanistan-we’ve seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq. We know that Saddam Hussein has, over the years, been one of the top state sponsors of terrorism for nearly 20 years. We’ve had this recent weird incident where the head of the Abu Nidal organization, one of the world’s most noted terrorists, was killed in Baghdad. The announcement was made by the head of Iraqi intelligence. The initial announcement said he’d shot himself. When they dug into that, though, he’d shot himself four times in the head. And speculation has been, that, in fact, somehow, the Iraqi government or Saddam Hussein had him eliminated to avoid potential embarrassment by virtue of the fact that he was in Baghdad and operated in Baghdad. So it’s a very complex picture to try to sort out.

September 14, 2003

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

What did Cheney say again...

"Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I’m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can’t say that."

"There is-again, I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organization."

"We don’t know."

So it seems that it really isn't Cheney who is asserting links between Saddam and 9/11. It's you who is asserting that he holds that position. Should we chalk up your false belief to ignorance, media incompetence, or an inexplicable abiding belief in the dishonesty of the Bush administration?

Of course there is this statment also:

The president on Thursday said that "this administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida."

"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida; for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida, in the Sudan."

The 9/11 seems to support Cheney:

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53
-911 Commission Final Report 7/22/04

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq respondedto this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
-911 Commission Final Report 7/22/04

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with he Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.

According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.

The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”109
-911 Commission Final Report 7/22/04

Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible.He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him.
-911 Commission Final Report 7/22/04

That George Tenet provided the Senate Intelligence Committee this assessment in a closed session on September 17, 2002: “There is evidence that Iraq provided al Qaeda with various kinds of training--combat, bomb-making, [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] CBRN. Although Saddam did not endorse al Qaeda’s overall agenda and was suspicious of Islamist movements in general, he was apparently not averse, under certain circumstances, to enhancing bin Laden’s operational capabilities. As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training are [redacted] from sources of varying reliability.”
That according to a CIA report called Iraqi Support for Terrorism, “the general pattern that emerges is one of al Qaeda’s enduring interest in acquiring chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) expertise from Iraq.”
That the Iraqi regime ‘certainly’ had knowledge that Abu Musab al Zarqawi – described in Iraqi Support for Terrorism as “a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner” – was operating in Baghdad and northern Iraq.

“What we have found is, Were there contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy but they were there,” said Tom Kean

I feel the need to ammend my previous statement:

"Despite what the world might think... the average American is pretty smart."

...the average American is pretty smart as long as they aren't blinded by an inexplicable abiding belief in the dishonesty of the Bush administration.

[vida]

the average American is pretty smart.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. I have practiced law for almost 20 years now, and the most striking thing I have learned about human nature is the amazing ability of people to believe what they want to believe, regardless of evidence.

That said, do you want to believe that your country invaded another country without justification, resulting in death to thousands of innocents? How about that even if "justified" the operation has been carried out in such an incompetent manner that it is now a qaugmire of death and destruction for the foreseeable future? Don't like that? Then why not support the candidate telling you that we are the good-guy liberators, and success is around the corner? Much more pleasant, and probably a winning strategy, so who cares if it is a warm steaming pile.

[Blue]

vida,

If it means anything I was really speaking of street smarts not overall intelligence.

" Then why not support the candidate telling you that we are the good-guy liberators, and success is around the corner?"

Uhmmm... because a) We did liberate them from a oppressive dicator. b) Success is probably around the corner.

Nobody thought this would be a 6 month or even a year long process. We knew going in it was going to be tough work. It's going to take time, but we have to follow thru.

[CaseyL]

Blue: "Nobody thought this would be a 6 month or even a year long process."

Right. Nobody....except Dick "The war will be a cakewalk and we will be greeted as liberators" Cheney. Nobody...except Dick "There will be a statue to George Bush in Baghdad in one year" Perle. Nobody...except George "Mission Accomplished! in May 2003" Bush.

Which particular "nobodies" are you referring to?

[Anarch]

b) Success is probably around the corner.

For what definition of "corner" do you believe success to be just around it?

[CaseyL]

And what definition of "success"?

[hilzoy]

And let's not forget the possibility of an eccentric definition of 'around'...

[Blue]

CaseyL,

I guess you missed Catsy's post:

"I would argue that the average American is unwilling or unable to expend the minimum effort required to dig beyond the soundbites, headlines, and talking head summaries."

I would have thought that might serve as a wake up call to all of us who post here.

The following is the results of my research on your post. Please feel free to correct me if I missed some details. I'm making the effort to dig...

CaseyL claims:

"Right. Nobody....except Dick "The war will be a cakewalk and we will be greeted as liberators" Cheney.

Vice President Dick Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press" March 16:

"The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."

"My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces and are likely to step aside."

First of all, I can find no evidence of Cheney referring to Iraq as a cakewalk. It seems you are attributing that comment to the wrong person.

The Iraqis did want to get rid of Hussein. So that part is accurate.

"British troops walked into the historic centre of Basra yesterday to be greeted by thousands of Iraqi civilians flocking on to the streets to welcome them as liberators.

Iraqi women and children cheer as they see British soldiers enter their village north of Basra Men, women and children rushed to greet paratroopers as they advanced into the oldest part of Basra, completing the capture of Saddam Hussein's second city. The narrow, winding streets had been expected to provide a haven for Fedayeen paramilitaries determined to resist the British soldiers"

SAWFAN, Iraq — U.S. Marines hauled down giant street portraits of Saddam Hussein in a screeching pop of metal and bolts Friday, telling nervous residents of this southern Iraqi town that "Saddam is done."

""Americans very good," Ali Khemy said. "Iraq wants to be free." Some chanted, "Ameriki! Ameriki!"

NAJAF, Iraq,
"Originally, they greeted the Americans as liberators from Saddam Hussein, who repressed Iraq's Shiite majority."

"The Marines were reported to be met by cheering crowds in Sadaam City - a potentially dangerous Shia neighborhood east of the Tigris River over which the Iraqi regime had previously exerted draconian control."

"Joyous crowds of celebrating Iraqis also greeted American forces in central Baghdad, some offering food and flowers to the advancing U.S. troops in scenes reminiscent of the liberation of Paris in 1944."

"Cheers greet Garner in north Iraq"

It seems that the coalition was originally greeted as liberators, so Cheney is right again. I will concede that since the invasion due to the difficulty in fighting different elements within the Iraqi population, foreigners and AQ the dynamics have changed. Cheney's prediction did come true. But, history has yet to give us the final answer.

And finally, we can all agree the significant elements of the Republican guard did choose not to fight.

CaseyL said:

"Nobody...except Dick "There will be a statue to George Bush in Baghdad in one year" Perle."

Could you please point me to a source so that I can analyze the context of this statement. I admit to having limited searching skills, but based on my research I cannot find him saying this.

Nobody...except George "Mission Accomplished! in May 2003" Bush.

After commanding the operation that toppled Saddam Hussein, Gen. Tommy Franks suggested that President Bush publicly mark an end to major combat in Iraq - an idea that led to the president's politically controversial appearance aboard an aircraft carrier.
Bush's announcement, under a banner that read "Mission Accomplished," took place just six weeks after the start of the war, generating harsh criticism as being a premature celebration and political grandstanding.

Franks, who retired a year ago, said he thought a public announcement would send a green light to countries that had balked at joining combat operations but had expressed willingness to join efforts to rebuild Iraq.

Finally, you seem to have your quotes a little confused:

Cakewalk In Iraq
By Ken Adelman

Wednesday, February 13, 2002; Page A27
I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1996-2002Feb12?language=printer

If you read the article he is specifically talking about defeating the Iraqi military. He makes no mention of post-War Iraq. It seems his assessment turned out to be accurate also.

For fun lets throw in some comments we know Perle did make:

"Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991. But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. Now, it isn't going to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."

Turns out he was correct about Hussein also.

In the same interview he also said:

"Of course we need to be prepared, and we need to assume that things will not go as we hope they will. - that engagements will not turn out as we anticipate. We have to be ready for contingencies. I think you can worry the problem to the point where you're paralyzed, where you take no action. It isn't going to be easy. I don't mean to suggest it will be easy. But neither is it the enormously risky undertaking that some people anticipate both because Saddam is weaker and we are stronger. But of course we have to be prepared for things turning out as we did not expect."

[Anarch]

Blue, a small meta-comment on your above post. If you're going to quote news reports, especially from a time of such rapid change as the invasion of Iraq, could you please include both the date and the source of the information (if not an actual link to the original)? It's absolutely essential to be able to evaluate the origin and context of the remark if one wants to respond.

Thanks :)

[kenB]

Perle's comment is from this keynote address to the AEI.

Even given conventional definitions for "success", "around", and "corner", I don't think it's safe to assume that we know which corner success is around, nor that it's staying there waiting for us to find it. Quite possibly by the time we've gotten around that corner, it'll have turned a few more.