That's what <a href=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160008,00.html>Condi Rice</a> said of the US commitment in Iraq. This stands in stark contrast to <a href=http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm>Dick Cheney's assessment</a> in March of 2003 that: <blockquote>...we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months.</blockquote> Or Rummy's statement in February of 2003 that: <blockquote>It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.</blockquote> And, let's not forget <a href=http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1842094>OMB Director Mitch Daniels'</a> rosy outlook, also in March of 2003: <blockquote>The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.</blockquote> We all now know that these optimistic or, more appropriately - unrealistic, estimates were nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. Yet the administration, refusing to accept the estimates of its commanders on the ground continues to cheerily assert that the insurgency in Iraq is in its "last throes". According to <a href=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20050619/ts_nm/iraq_dc_37>General William Webster</a>, the US commander for Baghdad, <blockquote>Certainly saying anything about 'breaking the back' or 'about to reach the end of the line' or those kinds of things do not apply to the insurgency at this point.</blockquote> This administration has been so wrong on so many things about Iraq, not the least of which includes the lack of post-war planning cited in the Downing Street Minutes and other documents. Can we really trust their myopic, rose-colored assessment of conditions there now?