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.

[elli1]

If he hates his first name, why use the initial?

To indicate that he prefers to be called by his second name. Otherwise, you end up being called by your first name in school, doctor's offices, etc. And, it is possible that his first name is "L.".

[MeekOneGOP]

What I Really Said About Iraq
(Paul Bremer)

Excerpt:

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.

CLICK HERE for the rest of the article (Links to FR thread).

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[MeekOneGOP]

[BluH2o]

Nevertheless he should have kept has mouth shut before the election

Agree ... I, for one, couldn't fathom why Bremer would make such a remark in this political climate ... it was bound to have consequences. However, this article will neutralize the issue ... it won't be ammo for Kerry.

[ThomasMore]

BUMP for later read!

[Born Conservative]

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

Almost as bad as a guy with a hyphenated last name.

[Michael121]

You may be technically correct, but.....

It would seem just as with the 9-11 Commission, who said there was a relationship between Iraq and Alqueda. The critics keep saying Iraq did not attack Us.

But Saddam was a supporter and harbourer.

Bremer's remarks and other who have said something that was taken negatively are it may seem, giving ammo to the enemy.

But I see something different. They are just feeding out more rope. Every time the Dems take one comment and run with it they later have to eat their words. It may seem one sided with the media's drumbeat, but have you noticed their drumset keeps losing pieces.

Soon all they will have is a stool and sticks.

[Chieftain]

I wish W would tell these idiots to engage their brain BEFORE they open their mouth to the press!

They KNOW the liberal media will skew everything, yet they continue to flap their jowls!

[Bahbah]

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

I have the same reaction to this affectation. I generally refer to people who do this by thier initial. So L says....

[reformedliberal]

People are not responsible for their names. Those are given by their parents.

I have a good friend who is a medical professional. He doesn't care for his given first name. Both his names are *family* names, given to perpetuate a tradition. He is not any sort of elite, just a middle-class guy who worked his tail off in the USAF, through 8 years of university and then in his profession. He uses a variation of his middle name.

L Paul Bremer is actually known by his friends as *Jerry*, for some reason. What does that say about him? That he has friends?

[Real Cynic No More]

... no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.

Bears repeating.

[snowsislander]

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.

Yes; in contrast to Senator Kerry, whose ideas were on display at debate ("global tests" and appeasement), President Bush has taken the fight to the enemy. I think most Americans realize this, and President Bush will win re-election, and likely so in a landslide.

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 and Mr. Bremer have their eyes on the goal: destroy terrorism at its roots.

[Tamzee]

My nephew also uses his first initial, ditto he shared the same first name as his father so they called him by his middle name.

I'll double-check, though, and ask him if he is part of some New World Order/Illuminati/State Dept Masons-like Secret Society... if so, his mom will beat the tar out of him ;-)

[Tamzee]

Thanks for the heads-up on this, Howlin... very important to spread this one around :-)

[The Mayor]

we will have to see how much coverage these statements get.

The msm and dems ignore these statements and focus in on the attacks.

[RGSpincich]

This is the second time this bozo has given the dark side a zillion dollar sound bite. "Clumsy me" only works once.

[OXENinFLA]

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.

That's it Paul grab 'um by the throat and don't let go..........

[Calpernia]

Time to call in our bloggers.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1238640/posts?page=50#50

[pabianice]

"John Kerry is a liar."

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Cal, beautiful post.

Thank you.

I'm borrowing the pics!