#2
The no reg Spiegel copy. Thanks to belmontclub.blogspot.com.
Posted by: ed ||
10/08/2004 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
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.
L. Paul Bremer III, former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, was the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/08/2004 10:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
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.
You know, Bremer needs to make an ad for Bush in swing states, and point the above out about the lying swines in the jackass party.
#6
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.
There's a money quote for you; not that it will show up in the mainstream press.
#7
Am I alone in thinking that the MSM's breathless dispatches will not persuade anyone to change his vote, or influence any swing voter's vote, between now and the election?
#2
Alternatively, you can get Krauthammer at Jewish World Review without having to register.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/08/2004 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Can't we get a picture of Kerry holding up his arms in a Nixonesque fashion and saying I am not a crook liar? And then we can inform the public about this:
In 1968 Richard Nixon ran and won on a similar platform ââ¬â Vietnamization ââ¬â and got us out of Vietnam almost precisely by the end of his first presidential term.
Nixon, remember, was vilified by Kerry and his antiwar colleagues for prolonging the suffering and dying in Vietnam for four unnecessary years. Yet here is Kerry, after 30 years of torturous reexamination of Vietnam, coming full circle and running as Nixon 1968: mysterious plan, Iraqification, out in four years. A novelist could not have written this tale. It would be too implausible
#4
Krauthammer's article is also on Town Hall, where I read it this morning.
One of the reasons we're having so many problems these days with Washington is that we the people have allowed politicians to get away with crimes that would have had the rest of us locked up for life. John Kerry's treason in 1971 is a prime example. It's time to stop, it's time to start bringing the hammer down on those that treat our Constitution as so much trash, and to do so in such a painful way that no one will EVER try to pull these stunts again. I think hanging John Kerry from the Beltway Potomac bridge by his testicles for a month would be a good start.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/08/2004 20:12 Comments ||
Top||
EFL - bizarre and theater-like when thought of against the current position being espoused by the DNC.
United Nations - CIA-Iraq chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, whose report cast doubt on Bush administration claims that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction, was blocked from reaching that same conclusion in 1999-2000 by the Clinton White House. Before officially joining the CIA weapons hunt earlier this year, Duelfer spent more than 8 years hunting WMD at the United Nations, first for the noted Swede Rolf Ekeus, than the flamboyant Aussie Richard Butler.
Duelfer, succeeded Butler in July 1999, and later resigned in March 2000, when Hans Blix was recruited to carry on the secret Iraqi weapons hunt. During Duelfer's tenure at the U.N., it was the Clinton White House who drove Iraqi policy in the Security Council.
In December 1998, Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox against Iraq. The air attacks against suspected WMD factories and storage facilities grabbed headlines, but in the end, never produced hard evidence that any illegal weapons had been destroyed. It was at that point, the Clinton White House made a critical decision to "shelve" the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM). UNSCOM was created shortly after Operation Desert Storm in 1991 to uncover Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programs. By 1996, UNSCOM had not only uncovered most of Saddam's hidden programs but had privately come to the conclusion that what else may still remain was not of "signifcant" consequence.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Super Hose ||
10/08/2004 2:03:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yes, but...then French intelligence served up their forged documents showing that Saddam Hussein was actively seeking out yellow cake uranium, for which he could only have one purpose, and WMD immediately moved to the front of the the front burner.
#2
Duelfer spent more than 8 years hunting WMD at the United Nations,
Well, I think the problem lies here. Instead of rifling through drawers and purses at the UN, he should have been looking in places like Iraq and Iran.
I mean what idiot would think they would hide the stuff at the UN itself?
From the various insurgencies of the Peloponnesian War to the British victory over Communist guerrillas in Malaya, there remain constants across 2,500 years of time and space that presage victory or defeat. Drawing wisdom from that past, there are at least four critical issues that must always be addressed if we are to create a stable Iraq under the auspices of a broad-based consensual government. So far the occupation has been plagued by mistakes, false assumptions, and incompetence — and yet we find ourselves still with a good chance of success.
WHAT TO LOOK FOR
First, is the United States winning its engagements on the ground? The answer is an overwhelming yes — whether we look, most recently, at Samarra or at the thrashing of the Mahdists in Najaf. The combination of armor incursions, constant sniper attack, and GPS bombing in each case has led to decisive tactical defeat of the insurgents. Our only setback — the unfortunate pullback from Fallujah — was entirely attributable to our wrongheaded constraint, as if we somehow felt that releasing the terrorists from our death grip would either placate the opposition, empower the Iraqi government, or win accolades from the international community. (See here, here, here, and here.)
In fact, our retreat achieved the opposite effect. Thus the withdrawal from Fallujah will be taught for decades as a textbook case of what not to do when suppressing insurgents. Nevertheless, we have reestablished the fact that we can crush all the opposition on the ground, our willingness to restart real hostilities dependent only on how much flak from our critics in the Middle East and Europe we are willing to take.
Continued on Page 49
Article requires registration.
Sindh, along with Baluchistan and the NWFP all had prominent leftist, secular movements until the last few decades. Since then the Islamists have systematically taken over the NWFP, and is working on the other two provinces with the help of petrodollars. The Army is supporting the effort because they saw the socialists and 'liberals' as anti-nationals.
Cracks have begun to emerge in the politically secular fabric of Sindh, the land of the Sufis. Signs of sectarianism and religious extremism are emerging, the clearest indicator of which is the 100,000 students who are studying at 1,000 madrassas operating in different parts of interior Sindh. Surely, the madrassa culture, which was until now only rampant in Punjab, some parts of the NWFP and the Pashtoon dominated areas of Balochistan, has succeeded in getting the better of the people of Sindh. Over the years, Karachi, which once used to be the most modern and liberal city in Pakistan, has turned into the biggest centre for madrassas. There are over 3,000 madrassas in Karachi alone where hundreds and thousands students, most of them from impoverished tribal families, seek religious education. About 130,000 students, of whom 10,000 were women, appeared in the religious seminaries' annual examination last month. After acquiring an "Alim-Fazil" degree, at least 5,000 of these students either join a mosque or a madrassa as teachers or carry out research for religious organisations. Thousands of others, however, join different religious and sectarian parties or become jihadis and work for jihadi outfits.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
10/08/2004 1:24:59 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Prior to 9-11, there was a major Sindh separatist movement, against Punjabi domination. After Bush decided to subsidize the terror state of Pakistan, jihadis moved into Sindh. Currently the MQM and PPP parties are in a state of siege, as a result of Musharaf's free hand to the MMA Islamofascists, with whom his party - PML (Q) - shares power in Balochistan. US taxpayers also subsidize jihad-terror from North West Frontier Province, which is totally run by the MMA, who have banned films and music. NWFP terrorists get 8.4% of all US aid to Pakistan, under the constitutional distribution formula. After the decision to whitewash Saudi government complicity in the 9-11 terror, Bush's second stupidest decision was to ally with the terror entity of Pakistan.
Machiavell says: vote Kerry, then force the hard secular line on him, that Bush-Halliburton won't implement in deference to their slave-masters in Riyadh.
#2
One step at a time, Anon4336. Afghanistan was the prime necessity after 9/11,and Iraq the low-hanging fruit because of the 1991 ceasefire violations.
Bush can't go after Saudi Arabia until a replacement supply of oil is secured (ie Iraq is pumping consistently at a much higher level than historically), else the economy of the entire world will go belly up -- Saudi only supplies about 20% or thereabout of U.S. oil, but is the major supplier to much of the rest of the world.
And Pakistan, with its tribal regions and barely accessable mountain ranges riddled with tiny valleys full of Taliban cousins, will be a good deal less easy to pacify than Afghanistan or Iraq. Certainly the British never managed it, and they owned that part of the world for centuries. That's why the Tribal Regions were established in the first place, after all.
Merely cutting off funds won't do it, nor dropping a few Daisy Cutters -- this is a major, long-term, Special Forces operation, and I can't imagine we have nearly enough trained manpower for such a thing. Remember, we had eight years of a "peace dividend" under Clinton, and I imagine the SF guys are pretty high cost to get trained up right.
Machiavelli would be wrong anyway, Anon Troll; Kerry wants to be loved by his internationalist Tranzi friends -- the UN/NGO/EU types who want nothing less than that American forces only be employed for UN goals, never in American interests. He won't be amenable to being forced to extend a war that to him is only another Viet Nam -- secularizing or no. And, while you may think Bush responds to the Saudis, the Saudis most emphatically do not. In fact, they hate Bush about as much as you do, although for opposite reasons.
You seem to know a geat deal about Pakistan, but you need to learn a great deal more about the Muslim world and the rest of the world, so that the next time you spout off you don't sound like an undereducated fool. Or like the typical PhD candidate, who knows more and more about less and less, until he knows everything about nothing at all.
At least that's the opinion of this little housewife.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/08/2004 8:22 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Nice, TW.
The only thing I would quibble with is that I think Iraq was more than "low-hanging fruit" in that it is our foothold in the region. One of the things we've always lacked in dealing with the growing menace of Islamic fanaticism is a large land base for our military forces.
And now we've got one, right next door to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. We may not use military force on any of these countries, but the fact that we now have the option of doing so is a BIG improvement over what we had before, which was nada.
Let's hope we don't elect to throw away that advantage on November 2nd.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/08/2004 8:45 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Re #1 (Anon4336 aka Dog Bites Man aka Dog Bites Trolls): ... the terror state of Pakistan .... the terror entity of Pakistan
After 9/11 the Musharaf government declared that it would collaborate with the USA in our war against Al-Qaeda. After that declaration and after the collaboration began, the USA helped the Musharaf government by removing various sanctions and by providing various benefits. The USA could not have attacked Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan without the collaboration of the Musharaf government.
To characterize Pakistan as a "terror state" is to mischaracterize it. Pakistan indeed has supported terrorist warfare, but those efforts targeted only 1) the Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan and 2) what it considers to be the Indian occupation of Kashmir. The first effort has certainly ended, and the second effort probably has ended, as far as government support is concerned.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/08/2004 8:59 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Mike,
Musharaf is and always will be a dictator. He came to be president, through a military coop. We canât pick and choose our dictators. A dictator is a dictator. Just because a dictator is on our side doesnât mean we should coddle him. The U.S has moral standing in the world and if we were to continue that standing, we cannot pick and choose dictatorâs that we like. We can no longer allow anyone throw our morals down the gutter. As far as your statement about not being able to attack Afghanistan without permission from the Musharaf government, you couldnât be more DEAD wrong. After 9/11 attack, the U.S. wanted blood and when the American people are that pissed, NO country in this world can stop us.
"what it considers to be the Indian occupation of Kashmir"
Pakistan has forgotten their history and in essence has their head in their proverbial ASS.
For those that are blathering about Indo-Pak without researching any history, I am here to help. Here is a small nugget from the link below. India and Pakistan
"Great Britain, after negotiating with the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, eventually agreed to divide India. The parties agreed to establish borders making the northeast and northwest corners of India into a single country with two territories âEast Pakistan and West Pakistanâ located one thousand miles apart. The process of division itself, called âpartition,â was an extraordinarily disruptive and destructive event. Millions of people found themselves on the âwrongâ side of hastily drawn borders between India and Pakistan. Ten million people moved from one new nation to another. Mob violence accompanying the refugee movement and resettlementâcaused by religious conflict that was often stoked by politicians spreading stories of atrocitiesâcost an estimated one million lives.
India and Pakistan immediately went to war in 1947 over the disputed territory of Kashmir, a thinly populated province between the two nations. The local Hindu maharaj (ruler) of Kashmir, given the choice to join either Pakistan or India, chose India despite the fact that its population was mostly Muslim."
#8
*bows* I thank you for your generous approval. But I have sat at the feet of masters (and mistresses, should they so choose to characterize themselves) and hope always to reflect favoribly upon your teaching.
Mrs. D, I thought he might be a troll because he coughed up "Halliburton" and "slave-masters in Riyadh". Am I getting better?
Dave, I quite agree that Iraq is not merely low-hanging fruit, but it really was too early in the morning. The kids are still young enough that I need to be around when they get ready for school, but old enough that I needn't supervise closely. Hence, Rantburg!
Mike, how clever of you to realize my Anon is Dog Bites Man. Must be one of those non-end user abilities. But I think Pakistan is one of those places that has to be approached with nuance ;-)
Pakistan is still partnered with Saudi Arabia in weapons development, and there are many in the government/army still hoping to form the Caliphate on Pakistani nukes and weapons fodder coupled with Saudi financing. As another article posted today reports, Pakistanis are moving up in the Al Quaeda management structure as the original Arabs have been captured/killed. And this is supported by entirely too much of the society, regardless of where Musharraf himself actually stands (or wriggles as he tries to balance internal and external pressures).
#9
#7 (Poison Reverse):
Please tell me how we could have attacked Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan without the collaboration of Pakistan? Through which country would we have attacked, if not through Pakistan?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/08/2004 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#10
OK, who's going to make the "peccavi" joke? I got nothin'.
#11
Mike,
You are right in the sense that Pakistan is better route in attacking Afghanistan. But, that is not what I am talking about. The impression that you are leaving is that we had to SUCK up to Pakistan, to get fly over permission. Do you really think that if Pakistan were to deny flyover permission, the U.S Government is going inform the American people that we canât attack the country that was involved in killing 3000 Americans, because Pakistan wonât give us flyover permission? No way in Hell. If Pakistan were to say no, they would pay a heavy price, one way or another. In other words, Pakistan had choice but to say, yes.
Now, getting back to your question, if you look at the map below, there are several other places in the north of Afghanistan to attack from. Most of the fire power came from B1âs, B2âs, and B52âs, which were deployed from the base(s) in Diego Garcia and U.S. If memory serves me right, I believe the ground assault was deployed from one of the âistanâ countries to the north of Afghanistan e.g. Uzbekistan.
#12
Poison Reverse, to bomb Afghanistan from Diego Garcia, we have to fly over Pakistan or Iran. The countries north of Afghanistan would not allow us to attack from their bases -- they would allow us only to fly humanitarian and rescue flights. Besides, they are no less dictatorial than Pakistan is.
Why are you so eager to make an enemy out of Pakistan? Pakistan was our ally throughout the Cold War, and it's our ally now. We have a lot of disagreements with Pakistan and we would like Pakistan to be a more democratic society, but it seems to me that our current collaboration is morally acceptable and strategically advantageous.
If the USA adopted your proposed policies toward Pakistan, then what do you think would be the major advantages? I suppose we would give Pakistan less foreign aide, but I think we would eventually pay more money on the alternatives.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/08/2004 16:04 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Are we working with countries with savage interpretations of Islam, pressuring such countries to change or else, or are we hostile to them and just biding our time? It seems to me Pakistan could have been a lot worse in its dealings with us, but it is still infused with forms of radical Islam every bit as ugly as those within Saudi Arabia.
#14
Mike,
I don't know what else to tell you. The relationship that you see on TV between Bush and Musharaf is just a smoke screen, marriage of convenience. Pakistan WAS (past tense) our ally, Bush is just playing a political game with Musharaf, so Musharaf will command his troops to help find Osama Bin Laden. Once Osama, Zawahiri and a couple of others are found or killed, Bushâs relationship with Pakistan will come to an immediate termination. Why? Because Bush knows that Pakistan is a breeding ground for Islamofascists. Also, Bush knows that the Saudiâs has put forth large amounts of money into the Pakistani Madrasses, a breeding ground for Islamist killers. The Saudiâs do not like Bush. The Pakistanis are fighting a proxy war, using Egyptians, Syrians, Palestinians, Jordanians, and Sudanese, in Kashmir, killing Christians and Hindus.
The U.S has already has and have scheduled future live war games with India. The relationship between India and Israel is getting deeper and deeper. The last time I checked the U.S and Israel are allies. After Bush gets what he wants from Pakistan, he can pursue an open and deeper relationship with India and other democracies. Mark my words, currently; you are witnessing the last stages of a dying relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan. The Cold War Day relationships are flickering and eventually will die out. This is a war about the future of civilization. Pick your friends carefully.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
