Iraq Retrospective: Read The Quotes That Sent Us To War

As the war in Iraq enters its sixth year, Christopher Cerf and Victor Navasky have published a "definitive, footnoted, hilarious but depressing compilation of experts who were in error" about the war from the beginning. You can read more about the book -- "Mission Accomplished! Or How We Won The War In Iraq" -- here.

Below, an excerpt from the chapter titled "Their Finest Hour: America Readies Itself To Free The Iraqi People."

CAKEWALK!

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02

"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for 'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02

"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03

HOW MANY TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED?

Story continues below

advertisement

"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of 150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq" sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02

"I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."
- Gen. Eric Shinseki, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/25/03

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/27/03

"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to image."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."
- President George W. Bush, 6/28/05

"The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is...beside the point."
- Rich Lowry, conservative syndicated columnist, 4/19/06

WHAT ABOUT CASUALTIES?

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, former First Lady (and the current president's mother), on Good Morning America, 3/18/03

"I think the level of casualties is secondary... [A]ll the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war... What we hate is not casualties but losing."
- Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/03

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?

"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
- Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could be six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/7/03

"It won't take weeks... Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
- Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03

"There is zero question that this military campaign...will be reasonably short. ... Like World War II for about five days."
- General Barry R. McCaffrey, national security and terrorism analyst for NBC News, 2/18/03

"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03

"Our military superiority is so great -- it's far greater than it was in the Gulf War, and the Gulf War was over in 100 hours after we bombed for 43 days... Now they can bomb for a couple of days and then just roll into Baghdad... The odds are there's going to be a war and it's going to be not for very long."
- Former President Bill Clinton, 3/6/03

"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03

Comments

[EdRoberts]

Hillary and George were both on the same page...but that is history.

My question is, what does our wonderful government now think the cost will be of invading Iran? I'm sure we will be able to trust them THIS TIME...

[NotWaldo]

"The implication that there was something wrong with the war plan is amusing."

Donald Rumsfeld

[Tator]

Well aren't those cute!

I see HP is filtering their news to the flock again.

You failed to list the other half of the quotes by Bill, Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, Dashle and the other Democrat leaders that spoke from 1995 on about Saddam and his WMD.s and the need to do something.

Here is the rest of the list...if it makes it past the HP Censors.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!

[NotWaldo]

The post is about lies and exagerated statements that were made about :

How difficult the war will be.
How many troops will be needed.
How much the war will cost.
How long it will last .

I haven't read one statement from a democrat saying that going to war would be a short and inexpensive walk in the park. Democrats are not that dumb!

[Mormondude]

The war WAS over in a short period of time.

We liberated Iraq from Saddam in short order. But in the following years we have been bogged down in what is essentially a peacekeeping mission.

[Viper]

First many of those statements made were pre U.N. inspections which showed no WMD, which BUSH then curtailed because the findings were not to his liking.


Sen Bob Grahm after reading the actual inteligence reports prior to the "WAR" vote ( which was really a vote to use force if Saddam did not allow inspectors in, which he then did allow in), voted for no authorization given the newest intelligence was so thin as to any support for their being WMDs.

So your quotes were made prior to later intelligence reports in 2002 and before the U.N. inspectors went in and found nothing! Chenny threatened to "Swift boat" Hans Blik if he dio not come up with a report that supported an invasion. The Administration did just that attacking the inspectors who went to the places the Admins said all these WMD were and never found any! Again proving our intelligence was all bogus.

We had BUSH claiming IRAN was developing Nuclear Weapons even after he had been given the NI report saying thye had dsicontinued such a program more than 5 years earlier.

When you have the Executive Branch lying constantly.. dont blame those that then repeat their crap becuase you would think the President is suppose to be telling the truth... we all got that wrong...

Regards

[Boboday555]

Tator,
You are correct, many Democrats trusted George W. AWOL, Dick 'WAR DEFEMRENTS' Cheney, et al, when they told the world that IRAQ had WMDs.
Yup...those Democrats were wrong to trust your President because nobody in America could ever, in their wildest imaginations, dream that your President would lie to get our nation involved in an intractable war.
But, don't worry Mr. Tator...nobody on Earth trusts anything your President has to say anymore...except for you.

Hey, Tator, did you know your President is still looking for supporters like you to FINALLY enlist for the Iraq Oil War your support so vehemently.
So, are y’all going to enlist...or do you have other priorities?

[Boboday555]

Dear State-Side Tator,
Maybe if George H. W. Bush hadn't "CUT AND RUN" during Gulf War I and taken Saddam out then, his hapless son wouldn't have had to lie to get America involved in Gulf War II.

Say Tator,
You do know your President is still begging all his supporters like you to go enlist for the Iraq Oil War.
So, what say Tator?
Or do you have other priorities?

[MadJeffersonian]

WOW! The only quote that was correct was from Shinseki. And look what happened to him. Unbelievable!

I think somebody in the media, John Stewart perhaps, should hand out Nostradamus Awards!

[robeson]

Hillary Clinton. In the senator’s war-authorization speech in October 2002, she claimed this:

Saddam “has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.”

[Mormondude]

She was correct!

One clear example is that Zarqawi was in Iraq before we invaded. He had received medical treatment in Baghdad. He made numerous trips to Baghdad before the war, and was part of the Ansar al-Islam camp operating in Iraq. And before all of this he had previously received authorization and funding from Al Qaeda to operate a terrorist training camp teaching the use of poisons and explosives.

Many libs simply don't know the facts.

[Viper]

Excuse me... One Al Qeada person? WOW! We had 19 in our country for a year prior to 911... So does that mean we had a link to Al Qeada? Ther were Al Qeda in Germany also. Wait there were tons of them in Saudi!

650,000 documents and 5 years of questioning Iraqi officials and the official finding of the Defense Department is no connection with Al Qeada.

And pls tell me the last time a peace keeping mission cost over 4000 Soldiers their lives ( 2-3,000 contractors and wounded 23,000 and cost 3 trillion dollars and the death of 1,000,000 civilians, and made refugees out of 4 million?...

Your Peace keeping mIssion in real dollars is now approaching the cost of WW2?

Regards

[rrafiringa]

Wait a minute, is it me or I don't see a single post by the people who dissed Obama over reverend Wright's diatribes here? Perhaps after reading the above they finally got the context?

[CountryBeforeParty]

Save these quotes for their trials for treason.

[julia06]

hear, hear!!

afterdowni­ngstreet.o­rg

[em8chel]

This is old, but still funny to see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mCCYLC-4xA

And this postcard just about sums it up:
http://crypticclarity.com/pic/bush.jpg

[carmen2u]

You guys forgot one on "how much it will cost." On Nightline with Ted Koppel in 2003, Negroponte had the audacity to claim the more would cost no more than $2 billion dollars.

[WilliamPilgrim]

Mission accomplished, we killed 600,000 brown hadji people. To put it into perspective that cons can understand imagine your next 6 NASCAR races. (Each one usually has about 100K attendees) Now imagine walking into the stadium for the next 6 races and at each one everybody in every seat is dead, burned or dying, dismembered, decapitated torsos,stinking rotten corpses. Now imagine that maybe 10,000 of them probably deserved it. The remaining 590,000 were innocent women, children, students , taxi drivers, farmers trying to make it through the day before they were given their " Iraqi Freedom".

[TLV]

EASY! You're going to make the Bushies cry with that NASCAR comparison.

The rest of the story? They couldn't give a rat's ass.

[calirighty]

That total is absolutely false. There is NO CREDIBLE source that claims the death count is that high. And also you seem to forget that the majority of the civilians killed were NOT killed by coalition forces but by their own countryman and other foreign fighters. Exaggerate all you want . At the end of 2007 there were only 90,000 DOCUMENTED deaths. But I guess you'll accept any number that people throw out. Also many people that "claimed" to be many insurgents were not military but civilians. So if you consider someone firing shots at our soldiers to be "innocent civilians" then you are ignorant of the facts. If you attack coalition forces you are NOT innocent. If you AID in the attack of coalition forces you are not innocent. If you allow insurgents to operate from your home or business then you are not innocent. I know where you got your numbers and if you bothered READING the article you would find that over 50,000 people in that number died of disease or other natural causes. And that number also included military casualties. Not only that but they only surveyed 1849 households that had an average of 7 members. Of the 629 deaths reported, 13% or 87 of those deaths came PRIOR to the invasion. So you're telling me that each household had an average of 4 deaths after the invasion? That's a bunch of crock. Strange how every other major study puts the number at under 100,000. Sounds like fuzzy math to me.

[bob72]

"only 90,000"

[wajima]

So you're OK with the way it's all going?

[1differentdrummer]

Are they dead? One is too many if you're that one. So many were killed by their own countrymen, who knew there were sects? How many have fled their home country because it's unsafe?

[Viper]

Wrong those estiomates come from the U.N. and a John Hopkins group. Its based on the death rates per 1000 before we invaded and after. This has been a STD approach for decades in such situations.

A large number of th increase in death were children. All food and Medicne supplies ere interrupted. Most doctors have fled the country. There is not one Dentist left in Baghdad.

Regards

[BushequalsDeath]

Despite the media's claims that no one knew there were no WMD, anyone who heard Scott Ritter or Hans Blix speak knew that no WMD's had been found. But this administration was bent on an invasion.
AND WE'RE STILL NOT PAYING ATTENTION.
PRESIDENT BUSH IS CURRENTLY TRYING TO PASS A BILL THAT WILL NOT ALLOW US TO LEAVE IRAQ.Bush wants a Status of Forces Agreement, which will tie the hands of the next President and leave hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq for the indefinite future What is even more outrageous is that Bush is negotiating this treaty, with the stated intention of having the Iraqi Parliament ratify it, without submitting it to Congress for approval. This is one more step down the road toward the Unitary Executive, the Presidency that decides everything without consultation or oversight.
If this is passed no Democrat will be able to get us out. Ever.

[gcallaghan]

The next president will be free to undo the status of forces agreement just as freely as Bush undid generations worth of treaties, conventions and pacts.

[hmmmmmer]

Sad and unnerving. Where did we go wrong, what evil force took of our great nation? To think that still almost 50% of the country would vote for McSame just boggles the mind.

[gcallaghan]

I hope the asswipes quoted in the article have those same quotes thrown back into their faces every time they try to leave their houses, at restaurants, in airports and eventually in their own cells.

[joeytomatoes]

So sad. So wrong on so many levels.

[bigdaddyvike]

Heart wrenching. Richard Perle should be in prison, with everyone else, for that matter. The funny thing is, Chimpy still feels good about it and says we should be there. Sociopath. Psychopath.