Article

2004-10-08 Home Front: Politix

What I Really Said About Iraq by L. Paul Bremer

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-10-08 9:46:24 AM|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Thanks for the links to the subscription pages...no thanks. Try cut and paste.

Posted by Johnnie Bartlette 2004-10-08 10:25:10 AM|| 2004-10-08 10:25:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The no reg Spiegel copy. Thanks to belmontclub.blogspot.com.

Posted by ed 2004-10-08 10:41:49 AM|| 2004-10-08 10:41:49 AM|| Front Page 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 2004-10-08 10:58:12 AM|| 2004-10-08 10:58:12 AM|| Front Page 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.

Posted by BigEd 2004-10-08 11:43:56 AM|| 2004-10-08 11:43:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 curses! foiled again!

Posted by LameStreamMedia 2004-10-08 1:00:30 PM|| 2004-10-08 1:00:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#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.

Posted by SteveS 2004-10-08 1:49:05 PM|| 2004-10-08 1:49:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#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?

Posted by lex 2004-10-08 3:39:21 PM|| 2004-10-08 3:39:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Lex, they will easily persuade the sheep who are under the impression that critical thinking is watching a Michael Moore movie.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-10-08 6:46:57 PM|| 2004-10-08 6:46:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Steve D!
Hose man, check out last year's post of your teen years... it's a hoot!

Drop by sometime.

Posted by Shamu 2004-10-08 6:48:57 PM|| 2004-10-08 6:48:57 PM|| Front Page Top

13:52 Uleque Glavise4887
19:42 just another victim
10:41 Ptah
07:17 2b
07:01 2b
00:40 Super Hose
23:56 ex-lib
23:45 Alaska Paul Having a Guinness
23:25 Frank G
23:25 Frank G
20:23 John (Q. Citizen)
20:20 John (Q. Citizen)
20:19 Three Monkies
20:18 Old Patriot
20:15 Old Patriot
20:12 Old Patriot
20:03 John (Q. Citizen)
19:50 Old Patriot
19:41 Barbara Skolaut
19:39 RWV
19:36 Phil Fraering
19:36 RWV
19:34 Phil Fraering
19:32 Steve