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.
Nice prediction and thanks for the link. I just got a form letter from Admiral Hoffman today. The Swiftees could use more sheckles. So could the NRA-PVF. Hmmm
Parallels
"I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it"
John Kerry
"We believed what the witness told us before he realized he'd been duped"
Dan Rather
"I believe Paul Bremers statement was true when taken out of context"
John Kerry
 THE 24% CANDIDATE  |
   John "V" Kerry now admits he was at the VVAW Executive Steering Committee Meeting in Kansas City, Missouri from November 12-15, 1971 This was John "V" Kerry's first US Senate vote. Kerry claims he voted "Nay". Isn't that special! |
   |
Almost ROFLMAO as I try to be serious. That's pretty d@mn good, and it rhymes with Jerry!
My father always used first initial middle name ...as his father's first name was also his.
If he hates his first name, why use the initial?
"Nevertheless he should have kept has mouth shut before the election..."
by patriciamary.."
Pretty well sums it all up.
[Nice response, nobody will read it, Bremer should have stayed on the sidelines.]
You would have respected, and trusted my father who used first initial, middle name.(His father was called by my father's first name)
I am overwhelmed with the feeling that Kerry has seen his peak and President Bush is about to pull away.
dvwjr has consistently shown that Pres. Bush holds a 4-7 pt lead, when polls are properly weighted and averaged, and counsels mature calm and patience.
Vice Pres Cheney has shown how to deflate Kedward's massive egos and show them to be, generously, disingenuous.
Afghanistan will hold elections immediately
RCP shows the electoral situation to be optimistic.
Alawi has spoken strongly of his confidence; the PM of Poland has expressed his regard for Pres. Bush and his utter disgust with Kerry.
Deufer has spoken truth - it cannot be hidden!
Bremer has taken his stand in our favor
And Howlin just keeps on, well, HOWLIN - !!!
I live three blocks from Washington University in St. Louis, and my wife works there - the security is astonishing, as usual for these (wife will be escorted on and off campus tomorrow).
(Fortunately) I will spend the weekend in the woods helping train 72 new adult Boy Scout Leaders (with 21 other dedicated volunteer trainers). I will miss FR, but i am curiously looking forward to the refreshing break and a return to action Monday.
Be Well All
To distinguish us from our fathers, and to fill the blanks in those damned bubble forms from the 60's.
I am *. **** *******
"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."
ping
You would have respected, and trusted my father who used first initial, middle name.(His father was called by my father's first name)
No offense was intended. I was only trying to convey my initial impression. I do my best to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. My father disliked his first name. He preferred the colloquial of his middle name.
You didn't offend me..I just wanted you to know it is done by ordinary people for various reasons.
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.
$$$$$$
Thanks for the ping, Howlin. This is a very important op-ed, and much more in keeping with the Bremer we have been watching for the past 18 months.
In common usage, he is John Smith. His legal signature is X. John Smith, just as with Bremer. Bremer doesn't go around calling himself L. Paul Bremer...the press does that because it is his legal name.
Remember, at the time of the Iraq attack we went in early because we had intel that gave the probable location of Saddam to the President. They missiled the place and launched the war.
It was a good reason to enter prior to being fully prepared. Cut off the head of the snake, and many times you kill the snake.
It had us enter the war WITHOUT the Army Division that Turkey would not permit to cross their country. This would have been many more boots on the ground, it would have had a number between the number that attacked and Shinseki's higher number. One extra division would have covered a wide geographic area.
In sum, we had more than enough to win a war in record time. We had planned more than necessary to simply win the high intensity war phase, and they would have provided additional security. We did not get to use them because of Turkish reluctance.
We went ahead without them for a solid military reason, the decapitation of Iraq's leadership.
BTTT!!!!!!!
His full statement will never see the light of day in the press. That's the kind of partisan nation in which we live. Is there any hope that this will ever be corrected?
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.