Tony Snow: No and Yes mean the same thing....

[headscratcher4]

No wonder the Administration can't figure out Iraq and why we're up to our eyeballs in it...

Here is Snow talking about how Gates and Bush both mean the same thing when the President says we're winning in Iraq, and Gates says no, we're not winning...that is until Snow essentially gives up.

Reporter: When Bob Gates says that we're not winning the war in Iraq, you don't see a major difference [between that and what the president has said]?

Snow: Well, if you listen to what Bob Gates said -- he later was asked by Sen. Inhofe, do you agree with Gen. Pace that we're neither winning nor losing? If you listen to what Bob said, what did he say? He said the goal is an Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself and be an ally in the war on terror. He said, this is a time for bipartisanship, as we had during the Cold War. This is a time for shared national commitment. He said that the only way we lose if that if we lose the will to continue and to complete the mission. He also noted that if we did not complete the mission, I believe he said that there would be -- what did he say -- regional cataclysm, I think, was the phrase he used; that was the danger. So he talked about very clear dangers, but also very clear promise.

What you saw is somebody who clearly shares the president's view on this and the President's goals, but is also going to go in and take a fresh look. He did not presume to have complete knowledge of the operational issues, said that one of the first things he would do upon becoming secretary of defense, should he be confirmed by the Senate, is to go out to the region and talk to people and go to Iraq. So I look at that, and it seems to me that it's very consistent with the approach the president has been taking.

Reporter: Can I just also come back to what Steve was asking about. Gates was asked an up or down question, is the United States winning --

Snow: Right, and then he was asked a follow-up question, as well.

Reporter: Yes, I understand that. But he did say -- "Are we winning?" His answer was, "No." The last time the president was asked, it was, "Absolutely, yes."

Snow: What I would suggest is, number one, I know that you want to pit a fight between Bob Gates and the president. It doesn't exist. Read the full testimony and you'll see.

The second thing is that it is really important to realize that there's a lot of stuff going on. I've already referred to a couple of them. You've got the prime minister moving aggressively on a number of fronts, in terms of building Iraqi capabilities. He's dealing on a regional basis with his neighbors. He is talking about a reconciliation conference this month. There has been also a great deal of work on the Iraqi economy.

You look at what Mr. al Hakim said yesterday -- and, again, just run through some of the things he was talking about in the speech. The first thing he talked about is the fact that there's a democracy in Iraq, and that this is something that is an incredible and important difference. But he also said that, number one, you need to conclude joint security agreements with neighboring countries in the region. That was his first priority. He said, number two, enforce our borders and stop infiltration into Iraq. That, obviously, has to do, at a bare minimum, with Syria and Iran. Number three, enforce the Iraqi security apparatus by equipping them with the needed capabilities and movements within the law. Number four, implement the anti-terrorism law. Number five, our arms should be limited to the hands of government forces. And later on he said the country should be clear of militias. He talked about, provide our national support to the current government to assist it in fighting terrorism. Number seven, diplomatic exchange with neighboring countries. Eight, trade exchange to rebuild and improve Iraqi services, and achieve national reconciliation. You put all that together, and what you have is an Iraqi government that is also very actively engaged in trying to build the capability. So there are a lot of things going on here.

[We might observe here that Snow omitted "number six." But we digress:]

Reporter: If the president were asked that same question today, would he say, absolutely, yes?

Snow: I'm not going to tell you what the president would say, but you can look at the p[resident's answer and you can look at Bob Gates. What I would also suggest, though, is you take a look at the Gates testimony, and you see if that's consistent with what we've been talking about, because what you're going to try to take is that one little question, rather than taking a fuller look at --

Reporter: These are questions that Americans typically ask.

Snow: That's right, but the other question that Americans might want to ask is, is it a static situation, and do you see progress on the part of the Iraqis, and do you see a concerted effort on their part to be serious about winning and governing? That's an important thing to, and it's also important to note that the Iraqis --

Reporter: Tony, does --

Snow: I'll finish here in a moment. It's not a filibuster, but I'm trying to wrap up the answer -- that, in fact, you see also the increased willingness and success in actions, for instance, against al Qaida in Anbar and also within Baghdad. There are a lot of things going on. So when you ask a steady state question, you're trying to treat it as a portrait in an unchanging situation. In fact, it's a pretty dynamic situation. There are a lot of things going on, a lot of things that the Iraqis themselves say give them heart and confidence and determination. They know something.

Reporter: Does the president today believe that we are winning in Iraq? It's a very straightforward question.

Snow: I know, but I did not ask him the question today. The most recently asked, he said, "yes."

Reporter: OK, so that might change from day to day. So it may have changed --

Snow: No, I don't --

Reporter: -- he may no longer believe that we're winning the war in Iraq. You don't know.

Snow: I have no reason to think it changed, but also, again, go back and take a look at the broader answer that Bob Gates gave and ask yourself, is this consistent or inconsistent with what the president has been saying? I think you're going to find it's very consistent.

Reporter: Why is it consistent if he said -- he said we're neither winning nor losing. He didn't say we were winning.

Snow: Then he proceeded to talk about the very challenges the president has been discussing in terms of developing capability on the Iraqi side of an Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself. So what you may have are two guys who are looking at different definitions. I don't know. I don't want to try to read their minds. But what I do think is important in taking a full look at what Bob Gates was doing is then to take a look at when he started drilling down. What did he talk about? Precisely the same things that the president has been discussing for weeks and weeks and weeks.

Reporter: Even though it was precisely the same thing, he said, we are not winning, and --

Snow: No, he said -- I believe the answer was, either "yes, sir," or "no, sir."

Reporter: And then he went into the fact that "but we're not losing." But this administration has said we are winning. Leading up to the midterm elections, President Bush was asked pointedly at his press conference, are we winning? He said, yes, we're winning, and he went on to explain why. He explained why we're not winning. You from this podium said --

Snow: No, I don't believe -- what Bob Gates -- I don't believe that Bob Gates said that we were --

Reporter: He supported his statement. And you from that --

Snow: But how did he support it? Did he support the statement by saying anything that was inconsistent with what the president has said? And I don't think he did.

Reporter: But his statement is inconsistent with what the administration says. The president has said, "We are winning." You from that podium said, "We're winning --"

Snow: Right.

Reporter: -- but we haven't won.

Snow: Right.

Reporter: He said -- he agreed that we are not winning. So how is that consistent --

Snow: And he also said we're not losing.

Reporter: But how is that consistent? The president never said, "We're not losing." How is that consistent?

Snow: Because -- OK, because they may have -- I don't know what the definitions are, April. That's why, I think, if you want guidance, you take a look at the broader [answers]. If you want to take a look at one question or two questions asked by senators and ignore the bulk of hours of public testimony, you are free to do so. But if you want to try to get a nuance to full understanding of where Bob Gates stands on these issues with regard to the president and his policies and the definition of what it is to win in Iraq and what it takes, then I think you're going to find that there is -- that he agrees and also that he is committed to the mission. That's what the bulk of today is about. That's what the bulk of --

Reporter: You seem to be describing Gates as having literally no daylight between him and the president on the overall --

Snow: Well, obviously, there was a difference on that answer.

[Garrette]

It would be nice if Snow could have said something along the following lines and have it be true:

You're right. Gates disgrees with the President on the status of the war but not on the goals. What we have are two intelligent people reasonably disagreeing but deciding to work together anyway. The President doesn't want "Yes" men.

That would be a kick ass answer.

[firecoins]

It would be nice if Snow could have said something along the following lines and have it be true:

You're right. Gates disgrees with the President on the status of the war but not on the goals. What we have are two intelligent people reasonably disagreeing but deciding to work together anyway. The President doesn't want "Yes" men.

That would be a kick ass answer.
Maybe you could get a job as a writer for TOny Snow and Pres. Bush. They could use the help for next couple of years.

[Garrette]

Maybe you could get a job as a writer for TOny Snow and Pres. Bush. They could use the help for next couple of years.Thanks, but you overlooked where I said "and have it be true."

[bozothedeathmachine]

It would be nice if Snow could have said something along the following lines and have it be true:

You're right. Gates disgrees with the President on the status of the war but not on the goals. What we have are two intelligent people reasonably disagreeing but deciding to work together anyway. The President doesn't want "Yes" men.

That would be a kick ass answer.

That would be quite the stretch.

[Huntster]

No and Yes mean the same thing....

Hmmmmmmmm...........

What does "is" mean?

[Seismosaurus]

It would be nice if Snow could have said something along the following lines and have it be true:

You're right. Gates disgrees with the President on the status of the war but not on the goals. What we have are two intelligent people reasonably disagreeing but deciding to work together anyway. The President doesn't want "Yes" men.

That would be a kick ass answer.

That would be nice. It would of course lead to banner headlines along the lines of "Snow and President at loggerheads! Battle in the Bush Administration! Has Bush lost control?"

[TragicMonkey]

He should have sought refuge in metaphysics, and claimed that Iraq was inside a box, therefore it was neither won nor lost but both at once, and all the cats in the country were undead, which could be causing the confusion in there.

[Garrette]

He should have sought refuge in metaphysics, and claimed that Iraq was inside a box, therefore it was neither won nor lost but both at once, and all the cats in the country were undead, which could be causing the confusion in there.I like this idea because the decaying (or not decaying) radioactive material would prove WMDs once and for all.

Kill two countries with one stone and all that.

[rikzilla]

Grady,

As well you know it's just another point made in that endless political game called "Gotcha!"

Publicly saying we're "losing" in Iraq was the price of an easy confirmation. It's simply not something anyone associated with this admin would have ever said unless they were forced to.

It's a childish game an I'm well sick of it. As a matter of fact I'm not even done being sick of the earlier gotcha's that were forever being done to the Clintons. I wish to Ed that there was some way that we could do politics without petty little vendettas being acted out on the taxpayer's dime and ultimately to the taxpayer's detriment.

Sorry but I just don't see the wisdom in squeezing a prospective SecDef into saying we're "losing" on a world stage while our guys are fighting and dying in an active guerilla war where the insurgents go on record as often as they can saying they will gladly fight to the last man.

Simply put, we cannot win if we do not have the will to win. So what will it take for the US and allies to gain that will? IMHO I think we'll only find out the answer to that after Iran gains it's bomb and demonstrates the will to use it.

-z

BTW: On Nov 20th I attended the funeral of Army Sgt Lucas White (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003386148_soldier10m.html) @ ANC as a PGR rider. The news that morning was all a-buzz over the "TomKat" wedding as well as the massive lines, near riots, and one shooting which accompanied the X-Box III debut.

Simply put we as a nation are self-absorbed in stupidity. We're steeped in it. We had a brief wakeup call on Sept 11th 2001...but we're safely back in our collective coma again. Every day we lose more people like Sgt. White and we are poorer for it. Meanwhile the cynical idiots we could well do without are bravely sparing with words on Capitol Hill. In their own inimitable way our government is working as hard as they can to make Usama Bin Laden's prediction of Islamic fundy giant-slaying come true. I guess we may as well withdraw behind our borders and await the inevitable. How depressing.

[specious_reasons]

Hmmmmmmmm...........

What does "is" mean?

"We're no worse than the people we despise, decry and criticize." Great argument.

[Ladewig]

Simply put, we cannot win if we do not have the will to win.

O.K. I'll concede your point and admit that what you suggest is necessary.

Will you concede my point that we cannot win if we do not accurately identify where we are in terms of progress?

I'll agree that digging up quotes about what Bush said he would do when he found the Valerie Plame leaker is playing "gotcha" but I don't think asking questions about whether we are winning or losing is playing "gotcha."

In any case, do you think we are winning?

[ImaginalDisc]

Grady,

As well you know it's just another point made in that endless political game called "Gotcha!"

Publicly saying we're "losing" in Iraq was the price of an easy confirmation. It's simply not something anyone associated with this admin would have ever said unless they were forced to.

It's a childish game an I'm well sick of it. As a matter of fact I'm not even done being sick of the earlier gotcha's that were forever being done to the Clintons. I wish to Ed that there was some way that we could do politics without petty little vendettas being acted out on the taxpayer's dime and ultimately to the taxpayer's detriment.


I don't see how making the Bush administration own up to their failures is a "petty" act. It directly effects the lives to millions of people.

[headscratcher4]

Hmmmmmmmm...........

What does "is" mean?

So, there is equivelence betweens Clinton's lies and obfuscations about his sex life...and the Official White House spokesperson trying to saying that we're not winning a war and we're winning a war are the same thing. Makes sense.

Clinton was a putz and a liar...somehow, what Snow was doing seems bigger to me than that.

[hgc]

Grady,

As well you know it's just another point made in that endless political game called "Gotcha!"

Publicly saying we're "losing" in Iraq was the price of an easy confirmation. It's simply not something anyone associated with this admin would have ever said unless they were forced to.Gates lied? He doesn't think we're not winning in Iraq?

It's a childish game an I'm well sick of it. As a matter of fact I'm not even done being sick of the earlier gotcha's that were forever being done to the Clintons. I wish to Ed that there was some way that we could do politics without petty little vendettas being acted out on the taxpayer's dime and ultimately to the taxpayer's detriment.

Sorry but I just don't see the wisdom in squeezing a prospective SecDef into saying we're "losing" on a world stage while our guys are fighting and dying in an active guerilla war where the insurgents go on record as often as they can saying they will gladly fight to the last man.What you call a childish game is what I call the checks and balances of our system of government. Why would you think that questioning the conduct and progress in a war that is costing us many hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives is a petty vendetta? You may have your opinion of the what the right answer is, but to suggest that the question of whether we're winning or losing is not valid is mind-boggling.

Simply put, we cannot win if we do not have the will to win. So what will it take for the US and allies to gain that will? IMHO I think we'll only find out the answer to that after Iran gains it's bomb and demonstrates the will to use it.
You have always put a lot of stock in this so-called "will to win." This is now coming into greater currency with the defenders of the administration policy: blame the American people for Bush's failure to win this war. I've asked you before, and the question still stands - how, specifically, has the attitude of the American people or the actions of Congress gotten us into this situation?

[headscratcher4]

Grady,

As well you know it's just another point made in that endless political game called "Gotcha!"

Publicly saying we're "losing" in Iraq was the price of an easy confirmation. It's simply not something anyone associated with this admin would have ever said unless they were forced to.

It's a childish game an I'm well sick of it. As a matter of fact I'm not even done being sick of the earlier gotcha's that were forever being done to the Clintons. I wish to Ed that there was some way that we could do politics without petty little vendettas being acted out on the taxpayer's dime and ultimately to the taxpayer's detriment.

Sorry but I just don't see the wisdom in squeezing a prospective SecDef into saying we're "losing" on a world stage while our guys are fighting and dying in an active guerilla war where the insurgents go on record as often as they can saying they will gladly fight to the last man.

Simply put, we cannot win if we do not have the will to win. So what will it take for the US and allies to gain that will? IMHO I think we'll only find out the answer to that after Iran gains it's bomb and demonstrates the will to use it.

-z

BTW: On Nov 20th I attended the funeral of Army Sgt Lucas White (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003386148_soldier10m.html) @ ANC as a PGR rider. The news that morning was all a-buzz over the "TomKat" wedding as well as the massive lines, near riots, and one shooting which accompanied the X-Box III debut.

Simply put we as a nation are self-absorbed in stupidity. We're steeped in it. We had a brief wakeup call on Sept 11th 2001...but we're safely back in our collective coma again. Every day we lose more people like Sgt. White and we are poorer for it. Meanwhile the cynical idiots we could well do without are bravely sparing with words on Capitol Hill. In their own inimitable way our government is working as hard as they can to make Usama Bin Laden's prediction of Islamic fundy giant-slaying come true. I guess we may as well withdraw behind our borders and await the inevitable. How depressing.

Good to hear from you Z, haven't seen you in a while.

If we have not the "will" to win just now, it seems to me that is a problem that falls squarely on the shoulders of this Administration -- the one that took us into this conflict.

Even given that all you would argue about a profound, ideological clash of civilizations, that this is a battle between a liberal western ideology and islamo-facism, etc. This Administration's execution -- both on the ground and politically -- has been a disaster.

Again, even buying all of your arguments, this Administration squandered its opporuntiy to "win". It did so out of arrogance, hubris and an inability to be straight with the American people...and, also, in part I would argue, out of a desire to use the battle for poltical ends. It sought polarization in place of building national agreement about aims and objectives.

As a result, as the situation on the battlefiield has changed, as it inevitably does even when you are "winning" the gap -- both real and in the public's imagination -- between what was happening on the ground and the Bush Administration's interpretation grew too large to be sustained.

If we were in fact "winning" -- and that means not just physically on the ground, but also all of the other parts of a war that must be won, i.e. propoganda, etc. -- than all of this "gotcha" as you call it would be moot.

If there was a functional government (or could be) in Iraq, the GOP would not have lost the election last month.

If Bombs were not killing Americans on the ground daily (as opposed to the occasional loss of life), not to mentions too many Iraqis, nothing Pelosi or anyone on the opposition said would matter.

If the Administration had a plan that it could articulate and that the public could see succeeding -- in any capacity -- the nation would rally behind the President.

In short, if this is the great battle of the age that you warn of and feel depressed because the nation is not rallying to the danger, the fault lies with the leadership -- not with the opposition.

In our convoluted world, the leadership rewards incompetence and inflexibility. It tells lies...not to protect security but to protect its political position. It rapes the language and wonders why it has lost credibility.

As you know, as anti-Bush as I am today, when the war started, I supported it. I thought...surely they know something we don't about Iraq. Surely they will find the WMDs. Surely because we can obviously subdue Iraq quickly (remember, we were going to be welcomed as liberators?), they have a plan.

But, as it became ever clearer that they might have had a vision (the one you speak of) they had no plan. And, further, as the situation became confused (as wars will), they fell back on calling domestic critics near traitors as opposed to showing either battle-field flexibility or the ability to reach beyond their ever narrowing constituency.

All of which is to say, again, that had George Bush been competent...think FDR, Eisenhower, Lincoln, Marshall...none of it would have mattererd, the nation would have rallied to him. Even if you are right, it is Bush who squandered the opportunity, because history shows that Americans while soft can be rallied to a fight when they believe and trust the leadership. Bush had the bully pullpit. Bush had both housese of Congress. The media asked few questions. Congress did little oversight. Bush got pretty much everything he asked for from Congress...and still, the doubts crept in and the lies and partisanship became obvious.

In the end, yes, the Snow/reporter exchange is a game of gotcha. But, if we were winning, how would it matter? If we had a plan to win that the public understood, how would it matter?

Bush deservedly lost the trust of the American people. That is his failure...not the failure of our military, the media, the chattering classes or the American people.

[Darth Rotor]

O.K. I'll concede your point and admit that what you suggest is necessary.

Will you concede my point that we cannot win if we do not accurately identify where we are in terms of progress?

I'll agree that digging up quotes about what Bush said he would do when he found the Valerie Plame leaker is playing "gotcha" but I don't think asking questions about whether we are winning or losing is playing "gotcha."

In any case, do you think we are winning?
Joe Montana was often in football games where, in the middle of the third quarter, he wasn't "winning." He often found a way to win, though sometimes he did not.

Not to compare GWB to Joe Montana, Joe Montana comes out ahead on that gross analogy, but the problem of "are we winning" is a rather empty question. Winning what? The perception war is lost already, and has been since about the day Bremer left Baghdad.

The core problem boils down to a few points:

"What are the victory conditions"

"Have you achieved them?"

"Can you achieve them?"

"Can you achieve them in X time frame."

That last piece is critical. Without a time frame, the investment in American blood and treasure in pursuit of whatever political outcome (Peace with Hummus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummus)?) is desired presents itself as an open commitment. Congress is staring at immense fiscal burdens in the out years. Such a commitment isn't popular, and is not sustainable, without the will, and the internal political sales job (like FDR's) to keep the will to achieve "whatever aim" alive.

If the aim is infliction of democracy at the point of a bayonet, that has been achieved: elections have happened, and you now have a form of mob rule in Baghdad. If the aim is getting all persons in Iraq to stand around the campfire and sing Kumbaya, any chance to set the conditions for that seem to have gone missing in late 2003. If the aim is to act as a stabilizing force in the World's Gas Pump, then what? If the aim is to counter Iranian ambitions, then what?

At the moment, the President is undertaking a policy that appears to have a a core aim of making the situation "look good," aka "polishing the turd" aka "plastic surgery for the tarbaby." To that end, the propaganda war/battle, both internally and externally, is a losing proposition right now. If that is what Mr Gates was responding to, he's absolutely right. Given the BushCo's clumsy and slapdash information campaign since about "the axis of evil" speech, it is small wonder Gates and Pres Bush would not see eye to eye.

Having read about half of the Iraq Study Group's paper (and having scribbled all over it) I don't see a clear understanding of the aims are now. I wonder if Mr Gates is in agreement with the President in political aims, and for that matter, if the President has a full grasp on his current war aims.

Given the above, it is small wonder that Tony Snow is sending, and dealing with, mixed messages. The lack of coherence in policy makes for a difficult information campaign, so he, mouthpiece of the White House, dances the verbal Tango.

In the end, yes, the Snow/reporter exchange is a game of gotcha. But, if we were winning, how would it matter? If we had a plan to win that the public understood, how would it matter?

Bush deservedly lost the trust of the American people. That is his failure...not the failure of our military, the media, the chattering classes or the American people.
Well said.
Note: If we were in fact "winning" -- and that means not just physically on the ground, but also all of the other parts of a war that must be won, i.e. propoganda, etc. -- than all of this "gotcha" as you call it would be mute.
I think you meant moot, not mute. ;)

DR

[rikzilla]

I don't see how making the Bush administration own up to their failures is a "petty" act. It directly effects the lives to millions of people.

It's a petty act because the failures are complex and the "owning up" is a soundbyte. It's politics. We won, therefore you must grovel before us. It's a political show. A day in the coliseum. A little humiliation is the price for continued governance, so one does what one must. Pretending that the "lives of millions" are somehow positively effected is sophistry.

Tell me just how this political gamesmanship directly helps our efforts in Iraq...as well as the follow on question which tries to imply a disconnect between Bush and Gates which is obviously manufactured for public consumption and is hence false. Putting Tony Snow in a difficult position may be fun to watch on tv, but I fail to see any substantive gains in doing so.

-z

[Garrette]

My problem with getting Gates to say we're losing is that, regardless if it is true, the motivation was political and not substantive. The proof is in the assumption that there exists a correct, one-word answer.

Simplification has its place, but that place is not in the nomination process for a SecDef. The hearings are politics where they should be an exploration of qualifications and suitability.


ETA: Darth beat me to it. I was going to use the WWII example of whether we were winning after Kasserine Pass, but the Joe Montana thing works, too.

[hgc]

My problem with getting Gates to say we're losing is that, regardless if it is true, the motivation was political and not substantive. The proof is in the assumption that there exists a correct, one-word answer.

Simplification has its place, but that place is not in the nomination process for a SecDef. The hearings are politics where they should be an exploration of qualifications and suitability.
Confirmation hearings are also an exploration of policy -- always have been. I equate your post with yet another way of saying: keep your nose out of our war business, Congress.

[headscratcher4]

Note:
I think you meant moot, not mute. ;)

DR


Indeed...though mute works too, in a strange way. ;)

[Garrette]

Confirmation hearings are also an exploration of policy -- always have been. I equate your post with yet another way of saying: keep your nose out of our war business, Congress.Then you equate wrongly.

If you have read any of my posts regarding how to fight the war in Iraq (and by extension any war), you will know that I am a strong advocate of subordinating the military to the political and that Congress has a role in oversight.

It seems to me that you are equating a false dichotomy (Say we're losing. Come on, say it!) with policy exploration.

I see it as grandstanding masquerading as policy exploration.

[headscratcher4]

It's a petty act -z

If the act was petty, it is because from day one, this Administration has been petty. You reap what you sow. And, in the end, what I said above counts...if this Administration had been competent...even the lies and mistakes it made getting us into the war wouldn't matter.

[Ian Osborne]

http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/images/daily_mirror_bush.jpg

[Darth Rotor]

Confirmation hearings are also an exploration of policy -- always have been. I equate your post with yet another way of saying: keep your nose out of our war business, Congress.
Huh?

If the time in hearings is spent on pursuing qualifications and competence, as well as philosophy and world view of the nominee, rather than playing "gotcha" with Mr Gates, (or Judge Roberts or whoever) then Congress is materially influencing by accepting or rejecting an nominee, hopefully in a positive way, not just the war as importathly but the training and equipping of the military in the longer term. That latter is an explicit duty of the Sec Def to discharge, and in doing so answer to the Constitutionally mandated duty of Congress from Article 8.

Congress can't "keep their nose out of the war" since they have to raise the funds to pay for it. As Garrette replied, no further comment on what you read into that.

DR

[Garrette]

If the act was petty, it is because from day one, this Administration has been petty.True, but one would hope that representatives would do more than say Nyah nyah!

And, in the end, what I said above counts...if this Administration had been competent...even the lies and mistakes it made getting us into the war wouldn't matter.Also true. Success has built-in leeway.

[Darth Rotor]

Indeed...though mute works too, in a strange way. ;)
You are right, it does. I hadn't looked at it that way, though my brain worked it into "muted" rather than "mute" when I followed your train of thought.

DR

[hgc]

Then you equate wrongly.

If you have read any of my posts regarding how to fight the war in Iraq (and by extension any war), you will know that I am a strong advocate of subordinating the military to the political and that Congress has a role in oversight.

It seems to me that you are equating a false dichotomy (Say we're losing. Come on, say it!) with policy exploration.

I see it as grandstanding masquerading as policy exploration.
If I misapprehended your meaning, then my apologies. But the question of whether the Def Sec nominee thinks we are winning is pertinent and valid. If he thinks the issue to too nuanced to be answered yes or no, then he shouldn't have given a yes or no answer. He was going to be confirmed no matter what (witness the 95-2 vote). The fact remains he answered no, and that's what I have to believe he thinks, barring any clarification by him on that point. And that leaves him directly contradicting Bush - which leaves Tony Snow gesticulating wildly.

[headscratcher4]

[QUOTE=Garrette;2156021]True, but one would hope that representatives would do more than say Nyah nyah!

And you believe that because history would lead you to believe that? ;)

[Garrette]

If I misapprehended your meaning, then my apologies. But the question of whether the Def Sec nominee thinks we are winning is pertinent and valid. If he thinks the issue to too nuanced to be answered yes or no, then he shouldn't have given a yes or no answer. He was going to be confirmed no matter what (witness the 95-2 vote). The fact remains he answered no, and that's what I have to believe he thinks, barring any clarification by him on that point. And that leaves him directly contradicting Bush - which leaves Tony Snow gesticulating wildly.Accepted and agreed.

[Garrette]

True, but one would hope that representatives would do more than say Nyah nyah!

And you believe that because history would lead you to believe that? ;)"Hope," dear boy. I said "hope."

[rikzilla]

Good to hear from you Z, haven't seen you in a while.

Long story...but life is better now. Thanks, it's good to be back here.

If we have not the "will" to win just now, it seems to me that is a problem that falls squarely on the shoulders of this Administration -- the one that took us into this conflict.

There no longer seems to be a way to quantify the term "to win". After the last Republican guard tank was torched and the last intact Iraqi army command was surrendered we should have achieved "the win". Hell the Israelis invaded southern Lebanon, laid waste to the place, killed uncountable Hezbollah fighters....and yet Hezbollah gets to declare victory and win national acclaim and Israel? Olmert faces intense opposition!

It's kind of an upside down world. If only Tojo had known that he could hide his Army in population centers and wage guerrilla war while using his people as human shields perhaps we'd still be jonesing for victory in Japan??? Too bad for the Imperial Japanese Army that they had a warrior culture which made them incapable of using women and children as body armor or stealth bombs. Their fanaticism would have otherwise made them ideal jihadists.

We must take back and redefine a "win". Bush tried to highlight the moment of Iraqi military collapse...but he ended up getting laughed at. (Topgun he ain't.) Meanwhile Saddam's double pops up briefly in occupied Baghdad and gets a street parade. Simply put we cannot defeat these people because they won't be defeated. OTOH we are more like the French than we may care to admit.

Even given that all you would argue about a profound, ideological clash of civilizations, that this is a battle between a liberal western ideology and islamo-facism, etc. This Administration's execution -- both on the ground and politically -- has been a disaster.

I agree. However doing something to address a problem badly is often far better than failing to address the problem. The War in Iraq has been a CF, this is true...but the fact that there have been no further attacks on American soil is not some kind of accident. It's a direct result of terrorist organizations being hunted and decimated...also Iraq and Afghanistan gives them all more pressing and local ways to jihad rather than going to the bother of coming here.

Again, even buying all of your arguments, this Administration squandered its opporuntiy to "win". It did so out of arrogance, hubris and an inability to be straight with the American people...and, also, in part I would argue, out of a desire to use the battle for poltical ends. It sought polarization in place of building national agreement about aims and objectives.

I agree...my criticism of politics as usual is not aimed only at Dems.

As a result, as the situation on the battlefiield has changed, as it inevitably does even when you are "winning" the gap -- both real and in the public's imagination -- between what was happening on the ground and the Bush Administration's interpretation grew too large to be sustained.
True.

If we were in fact "winning" -- and that means not just physically on the ground, but also all of the other parts of a war that must be won, i.e. propoganda, etc. -- than all of this "gotcha" as you call it would be moot.
True again

If there was a functional government (or could be) in Iraq, the GOP would not have lost the election last month.
Here I disagree. Corruption was high on the list of voter motivation this year. Nothing motivates quite like a hypocritical sexual predator hunting honor students in the hallowed halls of Congress!

If Bombs were not killing Americans on the ground daily (as opposed to the occasional loss of life), not to mentions too many Iraqis, nothing Pelosi or anyone on the opposition said would matter.

Yes...that's because it would be called "peace" instead of "war".

If the Administration had a plan that it could articulate and that the public could see succeeding -- in any capacity -- the nation would rally behind the President.
Half would...

In short, if this is the great battle of the age that you warn of and feel depressed because the nation is not rallying to the danger, the fault lies with the leadership -- not with the opposition.

Not true. The opposition has an obligation to be a "loyal opposition". This means that the Dems should as a whole be working towards the goal of a coalition victory in Iraq instead of working to gain political power by characterizing such victory as impossible. In the old days they called such defeatism...well....defeatism!

I remember reading an old NYT article published during the darkest days of the Battle of the Bulge...they basically opined that victory in Europe was beyond reach. The difference between then and now is that people back then knew that losing a World War was simply not an option.

In our convoluted world, the leadership rewards incompetence and inflexibility. It tells lies...not to protect security but to protect its political position. It rapes the language and wonders why it has lost credibility.

Yes...Bush ain't no Roosevelt....and a bunch of crazy Muslim's hiding in caves with AK74's sure don't seem as dangerous as the Wehrmacht. I wonder if our collective attitudes will change once "Abnerjihad" has the big bad bomb? Maybe we'll get lucky and he won't have the stones to use it??? No...one thing those nutters have plenty of is stones. :(

As you know, as anti-Bush as I am today, when the war started, I supported it. I thought...surely they know something we don't about Iraq. Surely they will find the WMDs. Surely because we can obviously subdue Iraq quickly (remember, we were going to be welcomed as liberators?), they have a plan.
I thought as much too...

But, as it became ever clearer that they might have had a vision (the one you speak of) they had no plan. And, further, as the situation became confused (as wars will), they fell back on calling domestic critics near traitors as opposed to showing either battle-field flexibility or the ability to reach beyond their ever narrowing constituency.

When domestic critics carry signs that say things like:
"We support the troops when they shoot their officers."
or
"We love NY even more without the WTC."

...then those critics have become traitors. Objectively so.

All of which is to say, again, that had George Bush been competent...think FDR, Eisenhower, Lincoln, Marshall...none of it would have mattererd, the nation would have rallied to him. Even if you are right, it is Bush who squandered the opportunity, because history shows that Americans while soft can be rallied to a fight when they believe and trust the leadership. Bush had the bully pullpit. Bush had both housese of Congress. The media asked few questions. Congress did little oversight. Bush got pretty much everything he asked for from Congress...and still, the doubts crept in and the lies and partisanship became obvious.

Congress should have stopped Bush from the Iraq adventure. I do see that now...but they had their chance and failed to do their own job. Still and all though...we would clearly have different and difficult issues if Saddam had been left in place. The world would not be a place of puppy dogs and lollypops in either case.

In the end, yes, the Snow/reporter exchange is a game of gotcha. But, if we were winning, how would it matter? If we had a plan to win that the public understood, how would it matter?
You're right...it wouldn't. But again, quantify "win". Or better yet let's take a page from Sen. Kerry. We won before we lost!

Bush deservedly lost the trust of the American people. That is his failure...not the failure of our military, the media, the chattering classes or the American people.

This is true. He did it to himself. This is what you get for "believing" in stuff that there is no objective evidence for. A warning for credulous folk everywhere.

-z

[headscratcher4]

"When domestic critics carry signs that say things like:
"We support the troops when they shoot their officers."
or
"We love NY even more without the WTC."


Z: you can quote the fringes all you want...but Democrats and idipendents overwhelmingly supported the President, not just after 9/11, but to go to war with Iraq. Those you quote above never have represented more than a handful of nuts...Bush, Rove, Chaney, etc.have made a real effort to paint all critics all criticism with the same brush...you remember the election? Bush said if the Democrats win the terrorists win...or words to that effect.

[rikzilla]

"When domestic critics carry signs that say things like:
"We support the troops when they shoot their officers."
or
"We love NY even more without the WTC."


Z: you can quote the fringes all you want...but Democrats and idipendents overwhelmingly supported the President, not just after 9/11, but to go to war with Iraq. Those you quote above never have represented more than a handful of nuts...Bush, Rove, Chaney, etc.have made a real effort to paint all critics all criticism with the same brush...you remember the election? Bush said if the Democrats win the terrorists win...or words to that effect.

You said "critics"...therefore you left it open for me to bring on the nuts as they are clearly critics! And treasonous critics to boot!

Not my fault Grady...you left the opening...your leadership is now suspect!!! Your fault!!! GOTCHA!! GOTCHA!!! You are losing! admit your loss!!!

;) or perhaps you prefer to stay the course? ;)

Tails I win...heads you lose! Welcome to America where winning isn't everything...it's the only thing! (except when it isn't)

-z

[davefoc]

I wonder if the nation gets any value out of there being a presidential press secretary.

To briefly defend Bush, winning or losing is a complicated issue in Iraq. It is easily conceivable that both an answer that we are losing and an answer that we are winning could be right depending on exactly what was meant by the speaker. It is also conceivable that the situation is ambiguous and an exact answer to that question is not meaningful.

But none of this could be discussed in a televised press conference where the goal is to obtain a sound bite for the evening news.

As it is though, by most measures it seems to me that Gates spoke the truth and Bush lied. I take the question to be something like this:
Are we moving closer to the time when a stable peaceful Iraq will emerge or are we moving towards civil war and possibly a major regional conflict.

It appears that based on the increasing violence of the situation and the rise in power of various factions that Iraq is moving towards widespread civil chaos. So, from my perspective, it seems that the less misleading answer to the question is that we are not winning.

[Upchurch]

There no longer seems to be a way to quantify the term "to win". After the last Republican guard tank was torched and the last intact Iraqi army command was surrendered we should have achieved "the win".
Except that, arguably, a "win" should encompass "meeting our goals". Simply defeating the Iraqi military was never an end goal. I'm sure I'm missing a few, but our stated goals were to:

Prevent Saddam from providing WMDs to the terrorists
Bring democracy to Iraq
Bring stability to the region
Fight the terrorists there instead of here

You could say that we accomplished number 1, but you could just as easily say that we prevented Saddam from providing leprechauns to the Irish. For number 2, we've had a couple of elections, but I wouldn't call Iraq a democracy. The region definitely isn't more stable and, indeed, appears to be markedly less so. Finally, fighting terrorists in Iraq has not prevented other terrorists from striking England, for example.

We aren't "winning" because we managed to set goals that were either absurd or overly-simplistic.

[headscratcher4]

[QUOTE=davefoc;2156298]I wonder if the nation gets any value out of there being a presidential press secretary.

QUOTE]

Indeed....especially as we now have State media in the form of FOX. ;)

[wastepanel]

The War in Iraq is starting to sound a lot like the Underwear Gnome's plan:

Stage 1: Invade Iraq
Stage 2: ...
Stage 3: Victory!

Unfortunately, the other side is arguing the same thing (just replace "Invade Iraq" with "Change of Plans").

I'm sick of the empty rhetoric on both sides of this issue. And, to get this post back on topic, Snow is an idiot. He basically says (or doesn't say) a lot of words in hopes that people will either tune out or he can double back and claim he misspoke. Once that happens, he can dictate what he really means (but not really because that would require him to say something meaningful).

The only thing good I really saw that came out of the Baker Report is that this administration needs to stop drinking its own Kool-Aid. I suggest we all do, and actually plan a way to get out of this thing.

[rikzilla]

Except that, arguably, a "win" should encompass "meeting our goals". Simply defeating the Iraqi military was never an end goal. I'm sure I'm missing a few, but our stated goals were to:

Prevent Saddam from providing WMDs to the terrorists
Bring democracy to Iraq
Bring stability to the region
Fight the terrorists there instead of here

You could say that we accomplished number 1, but you could just as easily say that we prevented Saddam from providing leprechauns to the Irish. For number 2, we've had a couple of elections, but I wouldn't call Iraq a democracy. The region definitely isn't more stable and, indeed, appears to be markedly less so. Finally, fighting terrorists in Iraq has not prevented other terrorists from striking England, for example.

We aren't "winning" because we managed to set goals that were either absurd or overly-simplistic.

Well we did truly accomplish #1. Both now and in the future there will be no further debate about what Saddam has or to whom he may supply it.

#2 also was accomplished. There were elections, there is an elected representative government ensconced in the protective "Green Zone". However this government is not functioning properly. It is their function to create a coalition that can govern Iraq...not wear nice suits and be chauffeured around in armored cars. Sectarian strife and impending civil war are political problems to be solved by this government...not the US Army.

therefore #3 is not primarily a goal of the US gov't...it is more properly a goal of this do-nothing Iraqi government.

As for #4 we are arguably accomplishing this as well. One can only wonder how much more complex the terror threat worldwide would be if UBL was free to grow his network in untouchable safety?

To my mind our main failure has been in allowing the Iraqi government to use coalition forces as a prop. They need to create a coalition that can marginalize the power of radicals like Al Sadr and craft an equitable compromise with the Sunni. Give em 6 months and all the help we can...if they're still screwing around perhaps it'd be a good idea to withdraw to the Kurdish north where we have more welcome and let the Sunni/Shia war play out without our guys being shot by both sides.

-z

[Mephisto]

BTW: On Nov 20th I attended the funeral of Army Sgt Lucas White (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003386148_soldier10m.html) @ ANC as a PGR rider. The news that morning was all a-buzz over the "TomKat" wedding as well as the massive lines, near riots, and one shooting which accompanied the X-Box III debut.

Simply put we as a nation are self-absorbed in stupidity. We're steeped in it. We had a brief wakeup call on Sept 11th 2001...but we're safely back in our collective coma again. Every day we lose more people like Sgt. White and we are poorer for it. Meanwhile the cynical idiots we could well do without are bravely sparing with words on Capitol Hill. In their own inimitable way our government is working as hard as they can to make Usama Bin Laden's prediction of Islamic fundy giant-slaying come true. I guess we may as well withdraw behind our borders and await the inevitable. How depressing.

I agree 100%, Rik. It's a sad way to look at our society, but Americans are too busy worrying about the wrong things in this day and age. Certainly the news doesn't have to concentrate on doom & gloom, but the fact that American Idle & Dancing With the Stars gets so much attention while young men and women are dying in a useless war proves (to me) that they have no mental apptitude to discern the subtle nuiances used by this administration to cover their tracks.

Maybe we DO need the draft - it'll bring the war into the forefront where it belongs.

[wastepanel]

#2 also was accomplished. There were elections, there is an elected representative government ensconced in the protective "Green Zone". However this government is not functioning properly. It is their function to create a coalition that can govern Iraq...not wear nice suits and be chauffeured around in armored cars. Sectarian strife and impending civil war are political problems to be solved by this government...not the US Army.

therefore #3 is not primarily a goal of the US gov't...it is more properly a goal of this do-nothing Iraqi government.

Hmph...who would have thought that Iraq's representatives would evolve into the equivalent of our elected officials? Is anybody seeing that crappy 80s commercial where the kid tells the dad "I learned it from watching you!" after being busted with drugs.

[Mephisto]

You could say that we accomplished number 1, but you could just as easily say that we prevented Saddam from providing leprechauns to the Irish.

Rumor has it that the leprechauns are being held at Guantanamo until they divulge where their gold is hidden - this war will pay for itself yet! :)

[headscratcher4]

"but the fact that American Idle & Dancing With the Stars gets so much attention while young men and women are dying in a useless war proves (to me) that they have no mental apptitude to discern the subtle nuiances used by this administration to cover their tracks. "

And the children of the nation's leader idle away their time in Argentina while young people of a similar age...who joined the national gaurd to get college money...die in a war that was mis-planned and incompetently managed.

I don't like the idea of draft...but if this is the battle for our future, than it should be shared by all.

BTW...Bush chose to fight this war by assuring the American people that the best thing they could do to support the war effort was consume. Makes one want to cry.

[hgc]

"but the fact that American Idle & Dancing With the Stars gets so much attention while young men and women are dying in a useless war proves (to me) that they have no mental apptitude to discern the subtle nuiances used by this administration to cover their tracks. "

And the children of the nation's leader idle away their time in Argentina while young people of a similar age...who joined the national gaurd to get college money...die in a war that was mis-planned and incompetently managed.

I don't like the idea of draft...but if this is the battle for our future, than it should be shared by all.

BTW...Bush chose to fight this war by assuring the American people that the best thing they could do to support the war effort was consume. Makes one want to cry.
I really don't like this picking on Bush's kids. Jenna works as an intern for UNICEF in Latin America. She previously worked in a DC charter school. Barbara is similarly involved in educational efforts, having done so in South Africa. So what if they take a vacation to Argentina? They do admirable work as far as I can tell.

[rikzilla]

Rumor has it that the leprechauns are being held at Guantanamo until they divulge where their gold is hidden - this war will pay for itself yet! :)

Waterboard those cheeky suckers till their little green suits shrink! :eek:

-z

[Upchurch]

Well we did truly accomplish #1. Both now and in the future there will be no further debate about what Saddam has or to whom he may supply it.
I hope you're being facetious and don't think that we actually accomplished anything in that regard.

#2 also was accomplished. There were elections, there is an elected representative government ensconced in the protective "Green Zone". However this government is not functioning properly.
It isn't functioning at all. As I said, they have held elections, but it is hardly a democracy.

Sectarian strife and impending civil war are political problems to be solved by this government...not the US Army.
And so, once the US Army removes its military support, the Iraqi government will most likely tumble like a house of cards. I hope you are being facetious about #2 being accomplished as well.

therefore #3 is not primarily a goal of the US gov't...it is more properly a goal of this do-nothing Iraqi government.
Fair enough.

As for #4 we are arguably accomplishing this as well. One can only wonder how much more complex the terror threat worldwide would be if UBL was free to grow his network in untouchable safety?
Pure argument from ignorance. One could also wonder how much Saddam was a keeping fundamentalist Islam in check in that region, but that doesn't actually prove anything.

All evidence that I am aware of indicates that Al Qaeda had little to nothing to do with Iraq before we invaded. Regardless, fighing them in Iraq has not prevented terrorist groups from attacking us outside of the region.

To my mind our main failure has been in allowing the Iraqi government to use coalition forces as a prop.
The only reason an Iraqi government exists is because our forces are there to protect them. At this point, it isn't a prop, it is a necessity for their continued existance. (Whether or not the continued existance of this particular government is a good thing is a matter for debate.)

[Darth Rotor]

3. Bring stability to the region
therefore #3 is not primarily a goal of the US gov't...it is more properly a goal of this do-nothing Iraqi government.
Fair enough.
I respectfully disagree with you both. Stability of the region (the PG) is, and has been, a prime foreign policy goal of the US government going back to about 1973, if not further.

Why? It is the world's gas pump. That the Iraq war's initiation put that stability at risk is not the fault of the new, and still "storming and norming," Iraqi government. The instability is directly tied to the decision of the US gov't to put at risk the level of stability that was in place in Feb of 2003, with the aim/hope of increasing "stability" via the spread of "democracy" etc blah blah blah.

Regional stability is not, and cannot be, the responsibility of Iraq's government. It's a collective effort. They have a stake in it, but aren't in a position to create it, any more than Saddam could enforce stability by himself thanks to his various disagreements with his neighbors. (We'll ignore the Israeli security issue for the moment.)

Of all the issues at hand in Iraq, regional stability is the one constant foreign policy imperative of our past six presidents, and a core requirement of the US government to pursue. Let's not dump that on a country ill equipped to handle it in the short to mid term. Internal stability? Sure.

Mexico is also responsible for its internal stability. How many revolutions did it take for them to settle down?

DR

[Upchurch]

I respectfully disagree with you both. Stability of the region (the PG) is, and has been, a prime foreign policy goal of the US government going back to about 1973, if not further.
You are correct, of course. I was conceeding that it was not an express goal of the US for the invasion of Iraq. Although I didn't indicate it, I don't agree that stability in the region is on the Iraqi's plate and not ours.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Hmmmmmmmm...........

What does "is" mean?
So, there is equivelence betweens Clinton's lies and obfuscations about his sex life...and the Official White House spokesperson trying to saying that we're not winning a war and we're winning a war are the same thing.....

Hmmmmmmmm...........

What does "is" mean?

Clinton was a putz and a liar...somehow, what Snow was doing seems bigger to me than that.

Hmmmmmmmm........

What does "was" mean?

[fishbob]

Hmmmmmmmm...........

What does "is" mean?



Hmmmmmmmm........

What does "was" mean?

Is: a state of being.
Was: a former state of being, used to be.
"You is apparently trying to make a point. Unsuccessfully, just like you was doing last time."

[nemo]

Here's my favorite political cartoonist, R.J. Matson's take on Tony Snow.

http://www.rjmatson.com/cgi-local/framesdisplay.cgi?image=NYO442.jpg&date=05/03/2006&title=TONY%20SNOW%20WHITE%20HOUSE%20AND%20THE%20SE VEN%20DWARFS&pub=NYO442

[pgwenthold]

You are correct, of course. I was conceeding that it was not an express goal of the US for the invasion of Iraq.

But I don't even think that is true. Wasn't one of the reasons to make Iraq a democracy to show the middle east how great it was and they would all fall in line and become democracies themselves?

It wasn't just something they hinted at, they were pretty clear this is what they wanted.

[Darth Rotor]

But I don't even think that is true. Wasn't one of the reasons to make Iraq a democracy to show the middle east how great it was and they would all fall in line and become democracies themselves?

It wasn't just something they hinted at, they were pretty clear this is what they wanted.
Yes, it was an explicitly stated war aim, to which the efforts in Phases III and IV of Operation Iraqi Freedom (still its official name) were structured to enable.

DR

[Upchurch]

Yes, it was an explicitly stated war aim, to which the efforts in Phases III and IV of Operation Iraqi Freedom (still its official name) were structured to enable.
Oh. I did a quick search after rik called me on it and didn't find anything that jumped out at me that supported my assertion, so I conceeded. Perhaps I stand re-corrected?

Got a source?

[Darth Rotor]

Oh. I did a quick search after rik called me on it and didn't find anything that jumped out at me that supported my assertion, so I conceeded. Perhaps I stand re-corrected?

Got a source?
I read the Op Plan for Operation Iraqi Freedom when I was deployed to the sandbox. I was working in Phase III and Phase IV (SASO)

Hell, what do I know? :rolleyes:

DR

[Beerina]

He should have sought refuge in metaphysics, and claimed that Iraq was inside a box, therefore it was neither won nor lost but both at once, and all the cats in the country were undead, which could be causing the confusion in there.

Gates and Bush are using two different-sized boxes when "thinking outside the box", so that's how they arrive at two different answers while meaning the same thing.

[Crossbow]

Oh. I did a quick search after rik called me on it and didn't find anything that jumped out at me that supported my assertion, so I conceeded. Perhaps I stand re-corrected?

Got a source?

I looked over your original stipulations and I have to say that they were quite accurate.

To explain, one of the big pushers for the Iraq War, Richard Perle, essentially said that the war would be able to get rid of Saddam, bring democracy to Iraq, show the other nations of the world that the USA now means business. He anticipated that this combination of military power and real democracy would transform the Middle East into a series of democracies that would be allied with the USA which would guarantee a good oil supply and finally serve to sort out the Israel/Palestine problem.

He blabbed about this strategy in a book he wrote and that he touted when it came out (he even showed up on the 'Daily Show' of all things).

Now of course the administration could not go to war on this sort of rationale, so they lied about WMDs and links to terrorism in order to generate just enough legal support for the war.

[Darth Rotor]

I looked over your original stipulations and I have to say that they were quite accurate.
No doubt Perle was an influential advisor, but I think what Upchurch is looking for (corrrect me if I am wrong, Upchurch) is a more substantive statement from a discrete policy maker at the NSC: Pres, VP, Sed Def, Sec State.

I am combing through some OIF stuff, here is from an official briefing about post Saddam planning. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030311-dod01.htm)
Now that process -- I had great hopes for that process, but that's not going to -- it'll happen, but it's not going as fast as I wanted. We've hired several free Iraqis, but we need to hire over a hundred, and we haven't approached that number yet.

We're putting them under contract, and they are for a short period of time, somewhere between 90 and, at the most, 180 days.

What we're doing is we're -- the reason we're bringing them in is because they have lived in a democratic country now. They understand the democratic process. And as we use them to facilitate what's going on, we think that that's a good recipe -- to have people that were born and raised in those provinces but now have lived in a democracy. And they can explain things to the people there, who have been oppressed for the last 30 or so years. These coordinators will then set up committees in each of the provinces. Like I said before, those provinces will nominate to us work that they want to see done.
Without an aim to establish democracy, the above conversation makes zero sense. However, it is an indirect reference.

I may or may not be able to find a Rummy or Cheney press release that is more concise. I'll see what I can dig up at the unclas/public domain level.

ETA: Blast it, half of my old links are broken. Here is a snippet of a Bremer speach, early on.

But we must do more than deal with the past. We will provide the conditions for Iraqis to govern themselves in the future. To that end, the Coalition Provisional Authority will work with responsible Iraqis to begin the process of establishing a government representative of all the Iraqi people.
Finally, I’m delighted to confirm that the United Nations mission here has agreed that the U.N. will use oil-for-food funds to purchase the Iraqi cereal crop, now being harvested. This will be a first. Saddam Hussein preferred to manipulate the cereal harvest for political ends, while he used much of the oil-for-food money to build projects like his Olympic stadium. When I met with the U.N. representative yesterday, we both agreed on the importance of securing a new United Nations resolution to allow the Iraqi people quickly to make use of their money now held by the United Nations. I hope that the Security Council will work swiftly on the draft resolution before them.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/05/iraq-030515-dod02.htm

DR