Cheney, MTP, 3/16/03: I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

The assertion of the "Downing Street Memo" that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invasion has understandably become a rallying point for the war's opponents. But in some ways more devastating are other recently disclosed documents in which British officials warned that "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." The British worried at the time that "U.S. military plans are virtually silent" on the fact that "a postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise."

The most damaging document supporting this claim is not secret, and remains one of the most important artifacts of the prewar debate. It is the transcript of "Meet the Press" from March 16, 2003, in which Vice President Cheney gave voice to the administration's optimistic assumptions that have now been laid low by reality.

Host Tim Russert asked whether "we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there" in Iraq "for several years in order to maintain stability." Cheney replied: "I disagree." He wouldn't say how many troops were needed, but he added that "to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement."

Russert asked: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?" Cheney would have none of it. "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001177.html

[windbreeze]

1. A little more of their (PNAC) reality

"This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us, years from now".....Richard Pearle


Obviously Cheney/Pearle are/were both wrong, they didn't greet us as liberators, and the children of the future are going to curse us for becoming involved in an illegal war that was the PNAC/Bush's agenda from as far back as 1997/1999 respectively...we need serious answers to whether 9/11 was a deliberate attack to further that agenda...the more I read, the more I become convinced it was...it smacks of the exact type of scenario the higher ups called "Operation Northwoods" back in the early 60's...
windbreeze

[windbreeze]

2. PS...

the DSM simply prove that the "war" WAS planned all along, and NOTHING was going to alter their(PNAC/Bush) determination to invade Iraq..they did fix the policy to fit their agenda...so IF 9/11 hadn't happened, what would Bush have used as justification to go forward with what he intended all along, even before entering the WH?...I keep wondering how and why we can continue to be surprised at any information that comes to light?
windbreeze