Sunday, August 07, 2005

Expert prognostications on the war

Vice president Dick Cheney has good news about the Iraq War: regarding the aggression American forces are facing, he says that "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." He went on to add that he expected the war would end during president Bush's second term.

That's good news, right? Well, let's see how good the Dick is at predicting the progress of the war before we decide. Dateline: March 16, 2003 -- that's before we invaded Iraq -- the Dick said to the American people that the Iraq War would last "Weeks rather than months." Hmmm ... that was 27 months ago.

Perhaps only the Dick sux at predicting the progress of the war. Certainly secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld has a much better grasp on the scope of the war, right? At a TownHall Meeting before the war, one of our troops asked him how long Guard and Reserve forces would be deployed for the Iraq War. The Donald responded, "It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Well, I guess it's clear that the people in charge of the Iraq War either have no clue about its scope or progress, or they're simply lying to Americans. That explains why the administration is back-tracking on the Dick's latest prediction. When president Bush was asked if he agreed with the Dick's assessment that the insurgency was in its "last throes," he dodged the question and did not answer it. Since the president wouldn't answer, reporters asked his press secretary, Scott McClellan, to answer the same question. Of course, it's no surprise that he refused to answer it either.

Certainly the administration must be much better at estimating the cost of the Iraq War than predicting its length, then. Let's check. When deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz was trying to convince Congress to support the war, he told them that, "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." Oops, missed again!

Let's ask White House budget director Mitch Daniels instead. He said that the $200-billion figure is "likely very, very high." He told reporters that the cost would more likely be between $50-billion and $60-billion.

That's it -- I give up. I'm going to stop looking to the Bush administration for prognostications on the Iraq War. It was silly of me to think this Commander in Chief would know anything about war. I'm going to start listening instead to Republican senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who said:
"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is, we're losing in Iraq."


Lone Ranger said...

I'm sorry, but could you wrap up the previous war before you start your plans for a mass retreat in this one? What are you and your former president going to do about getting us out of Kosovo?

The Progressive said...

Hmmm ... interesting comment by the Lone Ranger.

I have no idea what it has to do with the post, but apparently the Lone Ranger doesn't realize that George W. Bush is the Commander in Chief. If he thinks we should be getting out of Kosovo, he ought to take it up with Bush. Bill Clinton is so 20th Century.

For the record, my post does not propose a mass retreat from Iraq. Although the administration led us into this illegitimate war on a pack of lies, sadly, now that we're already into it, I'm not convinced that immediate withdrawal would improve this huge mess Bush has made.

The Progressive said...

Here we are a year later and people are still asking Is U.S. Winning? Army Chief Is at a Loss. That Chief, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, says "I think we're closer to the beginning than we are to the end of all this." Let's review Dick Cheney's quote at the top of this Comment: "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." Something doesn't add up.