0
   

What I Really Said About Iraq - Bremer

 
 
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2004 07:31 am
What I Really Said About Iraq
By L. PAUL BREMER III

In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I've made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it's important to put my remarks in the correct context.

In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task. The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine President Bush's Iraq policy.

This effort won't succeed. Let me explain why.

It's no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.

But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition's top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq's security must depend on Iraqis.

Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.

The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.

The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.

President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Mr. Zarqawi's stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.

Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.

Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.

A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision.

link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 858 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
astromouse
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2004 08:29 am
Michael J. Fox Starred in the ABC sitcom "Spin City" Razz
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2004 08:34 am
Republicans have long relied on the fact that Americans don't read things that are longer than 2 or three sentences. That is why headlines and slogans have worked so well for conservatives. Bush owes his popularity to this.

Here is one time that this works the other way. It's nice you read Bremer's wonderful rationalization for his flip-flop. But the rest of America, including the fabled swing-voter, are happy with the headlines.

Bush doesn't look good on this issue.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2004 11:18 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Republicans have long relied on the fact that Americans don't read things that are longer than 2 or three sentences. That is why headlines and slogans have worked so well for conservatives. Bush owes his popularity to this.

Here is one time that this works the other way. It's nice you read Bremer's wonderful rationalization for his flip-flop. But the rest of America, including the fabled swing-voter, are happy with the headlines.

Bush doesn't look good on this issue.


A strangely contradictory (or dishonest) post.

In the first paragraph, ebrown clearly implies that "things that are longer than 2 or three sentences" are, de facto, imbued with The Truth.

And yet when Bremmer produces one of these "2 or three" plus statements, in ebrown's estimation it amounts to "rationalization" and "flip-flop."

I happened to be present at Mr. Bremmer's Greenbriar speech, and I assure you that only the most partisan of listeners heard his comment about the troop strength, post-invasion, as a criticism of the Bush administration. Even those (such as myself) who are attuned to the politics of such issues failed to register his comments as the "blockbuster" the Left alleges them to be.

Bremmer is a public servant in whom Americans of both the Left and the Right should be proud. He was honest enough to express his disagreement with troop levels post invasion, and yet the Left would have it that he is now lying when he contends that he, overwhelmingly, supports Bush's approach.

Viewing everything through a partisan prism is both unfortunate, and simply stupid.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2004 02:48 am
It is because everything after the 2 or three sentences does not take away the key facts. He still said that they didn't have enough troops and they didn't handle the war well after the fall of saddam. We already know that he still agrees with the war because he said that the first time so he really didn't say anything new.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2004 08:05 am
BREMER MISLEADS ABOUT HIS OWN COMMENTS

Some of the administration's strongest allies are expressing their disappointment with the administration's planning in Iraq. For example, former head of the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, L. Paul Bremer, said on Monday that "We never had enough troops on the ground" in Iraq.[1]

Today, in the New York Times, Bremer attempted to limit the damage to the administration. Bremer - in a piece entitled "What I Really Said About Iraq" - claimed he only said it "would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting."[2] Despite the title, that isn't what Bremer said. Bremer said there weren't enough troops at any time. He made similar comments in a 9/16/04 speech at DePauw University, saying, "The single most important change - the one thing that would have improved the situation - would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout."[3]

CNN reports a senior Defense Department spokesperson said that "Bremer never asked for more troops."[4] But on 7/1/03, Knight Ridder reported, "The top American administrator in Iraq [L. Paul Bremer], confronting growing anti-U.S. anger and guerrilla-style attacks, is asking for more American troops."[5]

Sources:
1. "Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels," Whashington Post, 10/05/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=61557.
2. "What I Really Said About Iraq," New York Times, 10/08/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=61558.
3. "Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels," Whashington Post, 10/05/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=61557.
4. "Bremer: More troops were needed after Saddam's ouster," CNN, 10/05/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=61559.
5. "Bremer requests more troops as violence, tension escalate," Mercury News, 7/1/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=61560.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2004 11:39 am
Bremer isn't very good a backtracking, is he?
0 Replies
 
astromouse
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2004 01:18 pm
He should do as dubya does and blame somebody else for his comments.
Or he could go to ABC and ask them to revive :
http://xs.to/pics/04105/Spin_City.jpg
that way , he'll have a job for sure!! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2004 08:01 am
astromouse wrote:
He should do as dubya does and blame somebody else for his comments.
Or he could go to ABC and ask them to revive :
http://xs.to/pics/04105/Spin_City.jpg
that way , he'll have a job for sure!! Laughing


It wasn't all that funny the first time you lobbed it into the discussion.
0 Replies
 
astromouse
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2004 08:25 am
Hey, I'm laughing, that's enough for me! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2004 09:33 am
astromouse wrote:
Hey, I'm laughing, that's enough for me! Laughing


LOL

Good for you!
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 10:15 am
Speaking of spin:

http://www.theexperiment.org/media/ohreallyLG.jpg
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 10:17 am
I think what he meant to say, is,

"I forgot to check with the administration and get the proper clearance before I told the truth to Americans. There was a line that day, and me and Rumsfeld said 'f*ck this' and skipped out for an early coffee. I sincerely hope everyone accepts my retraction of my previous statements. Please?"

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What I Really Said About Iraq - Bremer
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 10:35:37