Bremer Says U.S. Was Short on Troops for Occupation of Iraq

[zimv20]

link (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bremer-Iraq.html?oref=login&hp)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House refused to say Tuesday whether the top U.S. civilian official in Iraq after Saddam Hussein's ouster had asked the president for more troops to deal with the rapid descent of postwar Iraq into chaos.

In remarks published Tuesday, the official, L. Paul Bremer, said he arrived in Iraq on May 6, 2003 to find ``horrid'' looting and a very unstable situation -- throwing new fuel onto the presidential campaign issue of whether the United States had sufficiently planned for the post-war situation in Iraq.

``We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness,'' Bremer said during an address to an insurance group in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. The group released a summary of his remarks in Washington.

``We never had enough troops on the ground,'' Bremer said, while insisting that he was ``more convinced than ever that regime change was the right thing to do.''

White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to say whether Bremer had pleaded with Bush for more troops. ``We never get into reading out all the conversations they had,'' McClellan said.

Later, in an unusual public acknowledgment of internal dissent, the Bush campaign said that Bremer and the military brass had clashed on troop levels.

``Ambassador Bremer differed with the commanders in the field,'' said campaign spokesman Brian Jones. ``That is his right, but the president has always said that he will listen to his commanders on the ground and give them the support they need for victory.''

(more)

[blackfox]

Is this, in combination with Rumsfeld's declaration the other day, a bizarre Election strategy?

If not, it would seem the house that lies built is a crumblin'...

Either way, it's a horse race between Bushspeak and Reality with four weeks to go...

[zimv20]

Is this, in combination with Rumsfeld's declaration the other day, a bizarre Election strategy?

actually, there was a bunch of stuff i didn't quote, including the following. i thought it wasn't strictly relevant, but i was wrong!

The final report by the American weapons inspector in Iraq -- Charles Duelfer -- will come out this week. In drafts, Duelfer found that Saddam did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but left signs that he had idle programs he someday hoped to revive.

Even before the final report was issued, McClellan said it bolstered the White House's contentions on Iraq.

The report will assert ``that Saddam Hussein had the intent and the capability, that he was pursuing an aggressive strategy to bring down the sanctions, the international sanctions imposed by the United Nations through illegal financing procurement schemes,'' McClellan said. ``That's something that's very revealing.''

``The fact that he had the intent and capability'' to build weapons of mass destruction, and that he was ``trying to undermine the sanctions that were in place is very disturbing, and I think the report will continue to show that he was a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was going to begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction,'' McClellan said.

McClellan ticked off a litany of what he said were links between Iraq and al-Qaida. Both were ``sworn enemies of the free world, including the United States''; both ``celebrated the Sept. 11 attacks on America,'' he said.

``There are clearly ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaida,'' McClellan said. ``There (were) clearly some disturbing similarities that existed as well.''

``We know there were senior-level contacts between the regime and al-Qaida -- the 9/11 commission documented that,'' McClellan said.

In fact, the 9/11 report said that while there were ``friendly contacts'' between Iraq and al-Qaida and a common hatred of the United States, none of these contacts ``ever developed into a collaborative relationship.''

Indeed, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a speech Monday that he knew of no clear link between the al-Qaida terror network and Saddam Hussein, although he later backed off the statement and said he was misunderstood.

Asked to describe the connection between the Iraqi leader and the al-Qaida terror network at an appearance Monday at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Pentagon chief first refused to answer, then said: ``To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.''

Several hours after his appearance, Rumsfeld issued a statement from the Pentagon saying his comment ``regrettably was misunderstood'' by some. He said he has said since September 2002 that there were ties between Osama bin Laden's terror group and Iraq.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Looks like everyone got taken for a CHENEY ride. including george. :D

[blackfox]

Nevertheless, same question.

Because it is an interesting strategy.
STEP 1. Co-opt and diffuse criticism by acknowledging reality.
STEP 2. Remind people that running a country is hard and that you are bound to break some eggs making an omelette.
STEP 3. When pressed on step 1, backpedal and qualify previous admissions, or insist you never said it in the first place.
STEP 4. Crank the spin-machine and pundits up to "blend"

Result: a whole lot of confusion, at least temporarily (like four weeks)

[solvs]

Wait... so Saddam might have eventually had weapons of mass destruction, which other nations already had; and Bremer wanted to send more troops to stop something that wasn't there in the first place. Rummie says they were, then they weren't, now they are again. Cheney says they are a threat, but keeps changing the reasons why. Richard Clarke warned them all, yet no one listened, even after he turned out to be right.

And John Kerry is a flip-flopper because he supported the President based on bad intel, then changed his mind when the truth came out?

And we should send MORE troops to Iraq!?! Who? What? Where are we going to pull them from that we haven't already? Aren't the terrorists other places? Aren't they only in Iraq to fight us because we're there? I was on the fence before, but everyday I grow more and more fond of Kerry, simply because I am sick of the Bush administration not being able to admit his mistakes.

[Lyle]

There's an interesting Op-Ed piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/opinion/08bremer.html?ex=1254974400&en=e61ed84a3498ded0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland) by Paul Bremer in today's New York Times entitled "What I Really Said About Iraq". A few quotes that really stood out to me:
"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... 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."

[skunk]

There's an interesting Op-Ed piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/opinion/08bremer.html?ex=1254974400&en=e61ed84a3498ded0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland) by Paul Bremer in today's New York Times entitled "What I Really Said About Iraq". A few quotes that really stood out to me:
None of which has any bearing on the troop levels. Good work.