Well, the conservatives are into a prolonged orgasm of self-righteousness. I’m afraid they’re going to have to skip afterglow, though, and go directly into post-coital depression.
Got that off my chest. 
Ok, so I’ve been watching too much war coverage. I’ve got this stuff ‘imbedded’ in my lower intestine. So much “That’s what we said” going on.
Before actual hostilities started, the public was allowed to believe that this would be a short action. Nobody actually promised anything, but the pro’s (Bush and his people) did nothing to discourage the idea that a few days, maybe a week, would do it. Then there was the imfamous “pause”. There *was['i] a pause, but so what? The only folks to make an issue of it were the military and government. Through their talking heads, the “liberal” media, of course. Now we’re not necessarily after Saddam, but “The Regime”. They’re even hinting that we don’t really need to take all of Baghdad.
Damn. Not much chance of failure, is there?
Bring what’s left of our troops home, asap.
Peace,
mangeorge
Sooo sorry that the war didn’t end in a week. Why would anyone in their right mind think that it would only take a few days to invade and occupy a country?
Exactly. So where did they get such a notion?
I can’t seem to find a Shrub Administration mouthpiece’s prediction of a week-long war. Want to help me out, here, mangeorge?
Where, exactly, did the administration say this would be short? Every quote I can find says that we should be prepared for a long conflict.
So - cite?
Ahem. The OP said that no such statement was made. However, the OP did say that no such statement that it would be long was made, either. Do you have a quote that refers to a long conflict from before March?
[
[quote]
Secretary of State Colin Powell, on the eve of another faceoff at the United Nations over disarming Saddam Hussein, said Thursday the American people should be ``prepared for a fairly long-term commitment’’ in Iraq.](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/13/sprj.irq.wrap/"Feb 14[/url)
Because I dorked up the coding – the first quote is from a CNN site on Feb 14.
I didn’t make my point about the duration, I guess. Try this;
There was a lot of scoffing (after the start of the war) at those who said the invasion would be short. They, the scoffers, said pretty much what msmith537 relates above. Who were those who so thought (short war), and where did they get such an idea? There were quite a lot of them (short war believers), IIRC. It was one of the popular points made by the pro-war crowd. Before the war, that is.
Anyway, that’s ancient history. What about the other stuff?
And what’s all this talk of “payback” for those who didn’t support Bush?
I for one don’t understand what you are saying about the “pause”. The only thing I know about it is that you don’t want to out-run your supply line. It was the fastest advance in history, so to me that makes sense.
I more or less agree about the talk about Saddam, but if he is under 100 tons of rubble I’m not going to go dig him out.
We are taking it easy about rushing into Baghdad to prevent unnecessary deaths and to protect the citizens and infrastructure. Seems reasonable to me.
Who’s saying anything about “payback” for those who didn’t support Bush.
Maybe you should think about a cite, here,there and once in awhile.
I am very confused.
The OP:
Yet my quotes above show that in February, both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense warned that the action could take quite a long time.
Before I can work up any righteous indignation at the people who promised us this would be a short war, I’d like to know who they are.
I’m also unclear what the “pause” comment means.
I don’t understand the significance of the “regime” as opposed to “Saddam”, or the business about not occupying all of Baghdad. What is the point, exactly, that you’re making?
The military paused to, as you say, let things kinda catch up. Makes sense to me, but then they, for some reason, vehemently denied a pause. That’s the thing I didn’t understand.
“Get Saddam”, “disarm Iraq”, and “WMD’s” were the rallying cries, IIRC.
The payback thing was a couple of reporters, on Fox I think, not officials.
Look, I’m not criticizing what they’re doing so much as what they seem to be saying. The official line doesn’t seem to be consistant. And they use all those silly sayings.
Don’t need no freakin’ cites, this here’s IMHO. 
Try to find a specific cite, esp. a historical one, among all the coverage of this war.
They even re-named the friggin’ airport. And made a big deal out of it.
From the idiot TV people who implied that this war would be over in a week. Look, the media is not the same as the government. They are two separate groups with two distinct ways of looking at things. I listened to Bush and Gen Franks:
“This will be a long process”
“This will take as long as it takes”
“No plan survives first contact with the enemy”
etc etc
They have a tough job since any setback is going to be examined in extruciating detail. It seems that the media are the ones who expect everything to go flawlessly without a single loss of life.
This is the same media that questions the conflict every time a helicopter returns home with a bullet hole in it or a Marine gets killed or missing. How many soldiers were killed or missing the first 24 hours of D-Day?
I’m not in the military but even I know that at some point, the Army is going to need to stop to take a break in order to refuel and rearm their tanks.
This article says:
Here are a couple articles that speak to the before and after the start of the war spin I’m referring to;
Reuters Alertnet.
And,
Oakland Tribune.
The general feeling around me was definitely that the war was going to be short, rather than long. That’s changed now. We’ve been prepped for a long occupation, and some feel pretty righteous about the idea.
I’ll try to find something about killing Saddam. And not just his regime.
Boy, sometimes I wish I were a conservative. Life would be so much easier. Isn’t there an operation or something? An -ectomy of some sort? 
No, the operation to change to a conservative is an -otomy, of the “lob” variety.
How witty. And off topic. And just snipy.
There are some interesting cites about halfway down the page here. Make of them what you will.
There’s nothing real surprising here. Of course, the war was sold as a quickneasy one. Of course, the leaders, in the process of selling the war, issued a few solemn statements about “we must be prepared for a long operation” as standard CYA stuff. Of course, those quotes are now being dug up.
And of course, weapons of mass destruction are being found. Maybe they’re real, maybe they’re not, but the importance of finding them was always too great to leave to chance. If Saddam was not consdierate enough to leave a few aroudn to be found, the CIA would have had to plant some.
I’m surprised I have to tell you these things.
There have been second- and third-hand reports that Rumsfeld had talked up a “three-day war” to Bush and others inside the White House, but I don’t recall him making such a claim on the record.