What I Really Said About Iraq(PAUL BREMER.)...oh really?

[RedEarth]

Sounds like the repub mafia is putting some heat on Paul...pathetic.

What I Really Said About Iraq
By L. PAUL BREMER III

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.

....

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/opinion/08bremer.html?pagewanted=print&position=

[Richardo]

1. Three words: Yadda yadda yadda...

The backpedal express leaving on Track 9. :eyes:

[Moderator]

2. Red Earth

This states in the opening line...OPINION.

[mindfulNJ]

3. Another flip-flop

from the bushies:eyes:

[AndyP]

7. my thoughts exactly

:puke:

[CarolynEC]

4. "Oh, Mr. Bremer... you forgot your shoes..."

[jrthin]

5. LOL. Too funny. n/t

[goodboy]

6. Yawn....I can smell his bullshit from here. nt

[realFedUp]

8. From Josh Marshall on Bremer:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

(October 08, 2004 -- 01:35 AM EDT)
It ain't a pretty sight, Paul Bremer's OpEd in the Times Friday. And though it's a rough and grisly comparison, reading Bremer's column, and watching him try to gobble up his own words, I couldn't help thinking of the imagery of hostages, orange-jump-suited or not, reading out recantations or self-denunciations, on grainy film, on pain of their life.

The last couple days can't have been pleasant ones for Bremer. And the pressure to clean up his mess must have been withering. The point of Friday's column was to try to take his impolitic admissions about troop strength out of political circulation in time for Friday night's debate.

The key passage in Bremer's piece is the fourth graf ...

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.
So it was a small tactical disagreement, focused on the immediate post-war period of looting. And Bremer's not even sure whether he or those he disagreed with were right.

But look at what the Washington Post says he actually said: "The single most important change -- the one thing that would have improved the situation -- would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout."

In the Times today, Bremer's only response seems to be: Even though I said what I said, I wasn't really saying it when I said it.

From there the column is a lockstep recitation of the full Bush Regime Change catechism.

[RedEarth]

9. Great, I'm glad you posted that....was just reading his site...

isn't it tragic how much pressure the bush admin puts on people that speak the truth....you either get in line, or you're...

[PATRICK]

10. Bremer's backward timing

FIRST publish the book, THEN do the denials.

[Skittles]

11. he got taken out to the woodshed

he received a Rove ass-kicking