General sacked by Bush says he wanted early elections

[Emillereid]

David Leigh
Thursday March 18, 2004
The Guardian

Jay Garner, the US general abruptly dismissed as Iraq's first occupation administrator after a month in the job, says he fell out with the Bush circle because he wanted free elections and rejected an imposed programme of privatisation.

In an interview to be broadcast on BBC Newsnight tonight, he says: "My preference was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can, and do it with some form of elections ... I just thought it was necessary to rapidly get the Iraqis in charge of their destiny."

Asked by the reporter Greg Palast if he foresaw negative repercussions from the subsequent US imposition of mass privatisation , Gen Garner said: "I don't know ... we'll just have to wait and see." It would have been better for the Iraqis to take decisions themselves, even if they made mistakes, he said.

"What I was trying to do was get to a functioning government ... We as Americans like to put our template on things. And our template's good, but it's not necessarily good for everyone else." ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1171689,00.html

Looks like the Bushits didn't want democracy in Iraq if it actually meant the Iraqis determining the direction of the country themselves -- heaven forbid -- they might do things 'our' way.

[arcane1]

1. "rejected an imposed programme of privatisation"

dammit, Jay, privatization was the whole bloody POINT to the invasion! Get with the program!

We had to liberate the Iraqis from the burden of managing (and profiting from) their own resources and industry :crazy:

[Kolesar]

6. ...and the Iraqis also need a big tax cut while we are at it

It worked here, did it not?

[RamboLiberal]

8. Nah - the Iraqis are the experiment for Forbes Flat Tax

Remember last year when Bremer instituted a 15% income tax? Wonder if the Iraqis are paying? :evilgrin:

[RobertSeattle]

2. Just a clarification: RETIRED General Garner

Not sure why the article omits this critical piece of info. A retired General is a very different character than an active duty one.

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=394118

[nolabels]

7. He was active duty, they could put him the brig for court martial

couldn't they? We would continue with this questioning, but I guess * did declare it a crime to speak out if contracted with the military, if I am not mistaken. Is it really a wonder why that happened.......... oops sorry no more questions :silly:

[maddezmom]

3. more bad press for bushco

folks are climbing out of the woodwork today.

Wonder if there is any connection to the "high-value" target in Pakistan? :tinfoilhat:

[Terran]

4. Wasn't it Garner...

...who went around saying publicly in Iraq that the US forces should all pumped up and proud of what they'd done? Maybe that sort of contributed to his dismissal too, just a guess. He was pissing off the Iraqi public.

[bobthedrummer]

5. This is a good thing to air in public, the truth is coming out piecemeal.

Maybe it should be read in the context of Karen Kwiatkowski's story of her experiences with the neo-conservative cabal in the Pentagon.

The New Pentagon Papers
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KWI403A.html

[Emillereid]

9. My impression too -- that the screws are being tightened

on the lying, scheming Bushits by the people they screwed.

[lostnfound]

10. Kick -- a great article to pass on to educate fence-sitters nt

[eridani]

11. Garner's intentions were far from innocent.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17923

Garner added, ''Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East."

Al Sistani is already saying that he won't tolerate a permanent military presence there.