What I Really Said About Iraq (Bremer)

NY Times ^ | October 8, 2004 | L. PAUL BREMER III

[neverdem]

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

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.

[neverdem]

FWIW, I was never comfortable with someone who starts their name with an initial.

[what's up]

Good for Bremer.

[TFine80]

Hey, but this guy had a lot of courage even taking the job he did.

And this statement seems fair enough. I think he intended the original remarks to remain private.

[WOSG]

"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." - Paul Bremer

Excellent rebuttal to MEDIA/MSM/Dem-wit nonsense!

[patriciamary]

Nevertheless he should have kept has mouth shut before the election

[keithtoo]

This article will deflate a lot of balloons that were launced when Bremer was first misquoted earlier this week.

I'm surprised he made it past the NYT censors.

[Kylie_04]

I don't know if it will make a difference at this point, but if handled correctly by W and his surrogates, this could take the wind out of one of Fn's new talking points.

Perhaps Bremer waited a few days to say this to give Kerry a little more rope....

[Dolphy]

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

That's a pretty strong statement. Kerry will now call him a goon who is out of his mind and a puppet of the Bush administration.

[Brimack34]

It is a little late. Watch your words very carefully they will be used against the president. But he did do more then some of the other Republicans.

[armymarinemom]

My husband uses an initial for first name. Why? He prefers not to be called by his first name.

[Howlin]

This is a great find!!! FABULOUS!

[Steven W.]

This is a home run by Bremer and confirms why I was reluctant to criticize him, Perkins or others. The problem here is Kerry & the other Johns who perpetually demean our efforts and take any means necessary to thwart the administration's objectives toward a free Iraq.

[RWR8189]

MSM blackout, count on it.

[vbmoneyspender]

I don't understand that either. If they don't like their first name, why include it as initial in their full name. All they are doing is drawing attention to it.

Putting on my tinfoil hat, I have a suspicion that initializing their first name is some kind of sign that the bi-coastal elites you use to signal to each other that they are somehow affiliated with most destructive American institution of the past 100 years -- i.e. the State Dept.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"...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..."

NY Times story

Bye, Bye Kerry Wrong AGAIN! PING

[Howlin]

I guarantee you John Kerry will STILL mention Bremer's remarks tomorrow night.

[Theresawithanh]

Bremer is, as are the other commanders in this war, a very courageous man. Why indeed would he leave civilian life to take this command, because he believes in what this president is trying to accomplish in Iraq.

That Kerry used his statement in such a way should not be such a surprise, and Kerry will never concede that he took his remarks out of context to fit his own agenda.

I am glad the NYT printed this.

I am reasonably sure President Bush will be re-elected, but the thought of Kerry/Edwards in the WH is too scary to contemplate.

[Mo1]

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.

Well that should put to rest the rumors of Bremer going to work for the Kerry Camp *L*

BTW .. when all the looting occured was in the beginning of the war when our troops were in the process of getting into Iraq/Bagdad

[laurenmarlowe]

Thanks for the ping Tonk!

[Calpernia]

Paul Bremer made a real nice speech at the turn over that the media really didn't give much attention to. I have it on my website. I'm reposting it.

L. Paul Bremer 6/28/04 - Welcome to a sovereign Iraq!

The Coalition Provisional Authority ceases to exist today. I would like to extend my personal thanks to every one who works and has worked at the Coalition Provisional Authority, its predecessor, the Office of Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance and to the fine men and women who have served in the Coalition Forces. Both groups have served with courage in the face of huge risks. Many have paid the ultimate price. We owe them a debt of gratitude which no words can express.

Each of you has participated in a process unique in history. A Coalition of the willing came together and toppled a tyrant. Then, civilian volunteers from around the world came to try not only to repair the ravages of war, but to reconstruct a country devastated by over three decades of misrule.

You have contributed to replacing the tyranny of one man with a broadly representative government pledged to uphold the rights of all.

You have contributed to rebuilding Iraq and modernizing its economy.

You have contributed to making a better life for the citizens of this wonderful country.

These are noble undertakings for which I am deeply grateful.

I thank you for your sacrifice and your service and wish each of you the very best in the coming years.