n 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. Posted on 10/08/2004 8:25:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
n 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.
Dan Rather (of Ratherblather fame) has said he does not have an agenda!
Let's see if this is reported on CBS. Foxnews will most likely pick it up. Radio will pick it up. And, thanks to Free Republic and Kaslin, it has been picked up on the Inet.
L. Paul Bremer said it straight: "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."
Kerry twists what he wants. He is an unrepentent LIAR!
Bump
it is posted a few times.
What I Really Said About Iraq (Bremer)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1238640/posts
Posted on 10/08/2004 12:01:06 AM CDT by neverdem
I don't know about the front page, but NYT does have an article regarding the matter.
What I Really Said About Iraq (Bremer)
NY Times ^ | October 8, 2004 | L. PAUL BREMER III Posted on 10/08/2004 12:01:06 AM CDT by neverdem
Yes, but what he originally said was considered "news." Now what he says is "just opinion."
...get out in front of the cameras and..."
Good show JC! I've added as favorite and posted to Word so the message can get wings.
Thanks for posting this
Bremer tried to clarify his remarks Tuesday at Michigan State University, saying they had been somewhat distorted by the media. He said he believes the US had enough troops in Iraq at the start, "because we won the war in a very short three weeks." But, looking back, he said it would have been better to stop the looting that was widespread after Saddam was toppled. Bremer said: "One way to have stopped the looting would have been to have more troops on the ground. That's a retrospective wisdom of mine, looking backwards. I think there are enough troops there now for the job we are doing." The White House says the President accepted the judgment of US military commanders that they had all the troops they needed.
This is why I NEVER take the original stories at face value. The same thing happened in the media with Duelfer's report about WMD. Definitely more heat than light. I always wait until I've seen the original documents, or the author of the documents has the chance to speak, unfiltered through the press before forming an opinion on the report.
Bremer should not have been speaking to anyone off the record. The media did not know what Bremer had said because they were not invited to the entire Its not like he was born yesterday.
Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels
A Bremer aide said that his speeches were intended for private audiences and were supposed to have been off the record. Yesterday, however, excerpts of his remarks -- given at the Greenbrier resort at an annual meeting sponsored by the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers -- were distributed in a news release by the conference organizers.
The media did not know what Bremer had said because they were not invited to the entire meeting.
Mr. Bremer performed above and beyond duty in Iraq. I was angered when I read the "out of context" quip; and because I've read a great deal by this man; his speeches; this man is a whole-hearted man. I'm very glad he insisted on writing this. And insisted it be published.
bttt
What it meant was that no matter what Bremer said, the media will pull a negative quote out of it. That's why the title of his piece is "What I Really Said About Iraq".
Bremmer knows that, but what's he suppose to do? Make no speeches or comments to the media? The only thing possible is to strike back, as he did, to correct the record.
"You should know" means that you, I and every other Freeper should know that ANYTHING reported in the press MUST be taken, not with a grain of salt, but a f'ng bolder.
Now the opposition will just say that the Bush administration "got" to him and made him state a retraction of what he "really" said!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.