Posted on 10/07/2004 10:01:06 PM PDT by 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.
good for Bremer. I only wish our Republican senators and congressional reps had as much spine!
Bottom line. Thanks, Kat.
Exactly........what the heck is he doing giving speeches about Iraq in the first place?
Kerry is a joke. It's disgraceful that he's still in the race. Dubya needs to take the gloves off and cream this joker tonight.
How about G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt?
good article..and he is right, it is not about just Iraq, it is about the entire middle east...it is a snake pit, and we set up a snake farm right in the middle of it. BUSH DOCTRINE ROCKS!
The Associated Press
B A G H D A D, Iraq, May 13 The new U.S. civilian administrator for Iraq faced daunting tasks during his first full day in Baghdad today: restoring security, power, clean water and other services to an Iraqi capital demanding them back.
L. Paul Bremer, who arrived in the U.S.-occupied country Monday, made his first stop in the southern city of Basra, where he conferred with British officials in charge of establishing order. He then flew to Baghdad, where his reconstruction agency is headquartered.
Bremer will become the boss of the current U.S. administrator, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, who has faced severe criticism in Iraq and ridicule in foreign capitals for his slowness in re-establishing public order, preventing looting and restoring utilities and other basic government services throughout the country.
Remember the following:
US forces to spread the word by shooting looters on sight
May 15 2003
United States military forces in Iraq will be given the authority to shoot looters on sight, officials said.
The new US administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremer, briefed senior staff on new security measures on Tuesday.
"He made it very clear that he is now in charge," an official who attended the meeting said. "And I think you are going to see a change in the rules of engagement within a few days to get the situation under control."
Asked what this meant, the official replied, "They are going to start shooting a few looters so that the word gets around" that assaults on property, car hijacking and violent crimes will be dealt with using deadly force.
Probably in the same breath he asserts that Gen. Shineski was fired and that Tommy Franks objected to troops being "diverted" from Afghanistan.
Right. It's like a loop for him!
someone or some of the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers leaked like a sieve and told the media what they wanted to release and what the media wanted to hear.
And then the media divulge whatever to the poor undecided, uninformed, clueless American peoples.
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.
Liddy eventually proved himself to be trustworthy. Hunt was accused of being involved in JFK's assassination. Both served time in jail for Watergate which was a catastrophe for this country and the countries of Southeast Asia. Do I need to write more?
Mr. Bremer, first let me say that I greatly appreciate your service to our country. We all owe you our thanks. Second, let me say that if you're waiting on John Kerry or the DNC to be honest with the American people, you will wait forever. These fifth columnists shun honest dialogue like a vampyre recoils from the light of day.
"Bye, Bye Kerry Wrong AGAIN!" ~ Bump!
ping
In the debate with Cheney, Edwards brought up criticisms by Bremer & Sen. Lugar. Now, Cheney gave a great answer which shut the pup up, but it would really be nice if the Old Media were honest & pointed out that Lugar & Bremer are voting for Dubya.
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.