Goldtalk Forum  

Go Back   Goldtalk Forum > Archives > Election 2004
Portal FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Election 2004 Topics relating to the 2004 primary and general election. This topic is locked!. Please use the 'Politics', 'Politicians And Other People' or another thread as they may apply.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-04-2004, 10:10 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will Edwards use leaked Bremer speech on Cheney?

This WP article on Drudge, has a secret speech the WP obtained by Paul Bremer, in which he initially says what Kerry said in the debate - we lost the peace in Iraq due to incredibly poor planning and because they did not take the recommendations of General Shinseki seriously. Do you think Cheney can handle these startling new revelations about Iraq War mismanagement? Do you think the WP timed it for this debate?

Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels
Ex-Overseer of Iraq Says U.S. Effort Was Hampered Early On

By Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 5, 2004; Page A01

The former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said yesterday that the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.


"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Bremer's comments were striking because they echoed contentions of many administration critics, including Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who argue that the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in Iraq after the invasion. Bremer has generally defended the U.S. approach in Iraq but in recent weeks has begun to criticize the administration for tactical and policy shortfalls.

In a Sept. 17 speech at DePauw University, Bremer said he frequently raised the issue within the administration and "should have been even more insistent" when his advice was spurned because the situation in Iraq might be different today. "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" the occupation, Bremer said, according to the Banner-Graphic in Greencastle, Ind.

A Bremer aide said that his speeches were intended for private audiences and were supposed to have been off the record. Yesterday, however, excerpts of his remarks -- given at the Greenbrier resort at an annual meeting sponsored by the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers -- were distributed in a news release by the conference organizers.

In a statement late last night, Bremer stressed that he fully supports the administration's plan for training Iraqi security forces as well as its overall strategy for Iraq.

"I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq," he said in an e-mailed statement. He said all references in recent speeches to troop levels related to the situation when he arrived in Baghdad in May 2003 -- "and when I believed we needed either more coalition troops or Iraqi security forces to address the looting."

He said that, to address the problem, the occupation government developed a plan that is still in place under the new interim Iraqi government.

Bremer also said he believes winning the war in Iraq is an "integral part of fighting this war on terror." He added that he "strongly supports" President Bush's reelection.

The argument over whether the United States committed enough troops to the mission in Iraq began even before the March 2003 invasion.

Prior to the war, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, said publicly that he thought the invasion plan lacked sufficient manpower, and he was slapped down by the Pentagon's civilian leadership for saying so. During the war, concerns about troop strength expressed by retired generals also provoked angry denunciations by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In April 2003, for example, Rumsfeld commented, "People were saying that the plan was terrible and there weren't enough people and . . . there were going to be, you know, tens of thousands of casualties, and it was going to take forever." After Baghdad fell, Rumsfeld dismissed reports of widespread looting and chaos as "untidy" signs of newfound freedom that were exaggerated by the media. Rumsfeld and Bush resisted calls for more troops, saying that what was going on in Iraq was not a war but simply the desperate actions of Baathist loyalists.

In yesterday's speech, Bremer told the insurance agents that U.S. plans for the postwar period erred in projecting what would happen after Hussein's demise, focusing on preparing for humanitarian relief and widespread refugee problems rather than a bloody insurgency now being waged by at least four well-armed factions.

"There was planning, but planning for a situation that didn't arise," he said.

A senior defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said yesterday that Bremer never asked for more troops when he was the administrator in Iraq -- except for two weeks before he left, when he requested forces to help secure Iraq's borders.

Bremer said in his speech that the administration was clearly right to invade Iraq. Though no weapons of mass destruction have been found, he said, the United States faced "the real possibility" that Hussein would someday give such weapons to terrorists.

"The status quo was simply untenable," he said. "I am more than ever convinced that regime change was the right thing to do."

Source, login req'd:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Oct4.html
  #2  
Old 10-04-2004, 11:59 PM
mjporter mjporter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 52
mjporter has disabled reputation
Default

Bremer still supports the efforts in Iraq. Where does he say that "we lost the peace" ?

There were many aspects of the war that were also well planned.
The very fast major combat operation
No flood of refugees
No environmental disaster
No major damage to the infrastructure

Tommy Franks believed a smaller number of troops with a very high speed assault would be a force multiplier. His book American Soldier has some very good insight on the planning and operation of the war. Tommy Franks was very critical of the Pentagon 4stars and TV analysts. We should also look at how well we did under Franks command in Afganistan. A country that could not be taken with several hundred thousand well -armed soviet forces. They suffered 50,000 deaths and lost. The critics before the Afgan war said we would get bogged down and there would be a humanitarian crisis (critics said the same about Iraq).

With Kerry's track record, I don't give him much credability to do a better job.

Bremer

Quote:
I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq," he said in an e-mailed statement. He said all references in recent speeches to troop levels related to the situation when he arrived in Baghdad in May 2003 -- "and when I believed we needed either more coalition troops or Iraqi security forces to address the looting."

He said that, to address the problem, the occupation government developed a plan that is still in place under the new interim Iraqi government.

Bremer also said he believes winning the war in Iraq is an "integral part of fighting this war on terror." He added that he "strongly supports" President Bush's reelection.
  #3  
Old 10-05-2004, 1:03 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dude, this story is exploding all over the place. Apparently there is another interview Bremer gave that is even more damaging. Looks to me like Mr. Bremer just torpedo Mr. Bush. It certainly is odd that all this comes out a day before the Cheney debate, perfect ammo for Edwards to beat Cheney over the head with. Given that Cheney was Bremer's boss, perhaps a little pay back here? or perhaps Kerry has a little Sec Def job waiting for Bremer? After all, Clinton's Def Sec was Republican. That would also certainly explain why he doesn't condemn the entire war, as well. Hell, maybe Bremer's about to go Dem. There is no way in hell Bush WASN'T blindsided by this.
  #4  
Old 10-05-2004, 7:23 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Man, this one really hit the Repubs in the chops. I was watching CNN this morning and Bush spokesperson Mary Matlin was so flustered she looked like a kid trying to make up a story. Bremer has essentially said that what Bush's detractor's have said about the war all along, is in fact true. Is the Bush spin machine unspun? Combined with Rumsfeld flip-flopping on al-Queda, it looks like the Republican Party is eating itself alive this morning.
  #5  
Old 10-05-2004, 1:40 PM
mjporter mjporter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 52
mjporter has disabled reputation
Default Bremer and Iraqi Army.

Bremer's actions of dismissing the Iraqi army were thought to contribute to the instability in Iraq. I think were are in a hindsight is 20/20 situation.

Quote:
For Mr. Bremer's newly renamed Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA, last week's decision to dissolve the Iraqi military is a necessary step in the road to refashioning Iraq. But for many of the nearly 400,000 Iraqis who served in the military, it is a shocking move aimed at enfeebling the country - and one that leaves them jobless.
from:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/adv...605jobless.htm
  #6  
Old 10-05-2004, 2:01 PM
Fox's Avatar
Fox Fox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,245
Fox is a jewel in the roughFox is a jewel in the roughFox is a jewel in the rough
Default

I think it is pathetic that the best arugment against one of the most successful military operations in history is that a few more troops might have made things even more successful.

We have gone from a hopelessly impoverished country that suffered from structural neglect headed by a terrorist supporting dictator to a nation that at worst is looking at 75% of the country participating in national elections in less than two years!!!!!!! This is an unprecedented achievement!!!!!!!!

This could not have been accomplished without the kind of plan that avoided the wholesale destruction and carpet bombing of cities and troops losses that have accompanied so many military operation of equivelent size and scale in the past that were considered great successes.

To call this operation a failure, you would have to call virtually every military operation in our nations history a failure.
__________________
"There is much talk about 'jingoism'. If by 'jingoism' they mean a policy in pursuance of which Americans will with resolution and common sense insist upon our rights being respected by foreign powers, then we are 'jingoes'." - Teddy Roosevelt
  #7  
Old 10-05-2004, 9:46 PM
David David is offline
The Host
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 62,531
David is a splendid one to beholdDavid is a splendid one to beholdDavid is a splendid one to beholdDavid is a splendid one to beholdDavid is a splendid one to beholdDavid is a splendid one to beholdDavid is a splendid one to behold
Default

AP

Bremer Now Defends U.S. Actions in Iraq
AP Wire | 2004-10-05 | By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN, Associated Press Writer


EAST LANSING, Mich. - The former U.S. ambassador to Iraq (news - web sites) on Tuesday defended U.S. actions there — a day after faulting troop strength following the ouster of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

L. Paul Bremer, appointed by President Bush (news - web sites) as head of the Iraq occupation, said Monday that U.S. forces failed to stop widespread looting after toppling Hussein, and "paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness."

During a speech Tuesday at Michigan State University, he said his remarks had been somewhat distorted by the media.

"We certainly had enough (troops) going into Iraq, because we won the war in a very short three weeks," Bremer said.

But he added: "As I look back now ... I believe it would have been better to stop the looting that was found right after the war.

"One way to have stopped the looting would have been to have more troops on the ground. That's a retrospective wisdom of mine, looking backwards. I think there are enough troops there now for the job we are doing."

Bremer's latest comments differed somewhat from those of Bush campaign spokesman Brian Jones, who in an unusual public acknowledgment of internal dissent said Bremer and the military brass had clashed on troop levels.

"Ambassador Bremer differed with the commanders in the field," Jones said. "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 than a dozen people were escorted outside during Bremer's speech. One woman accused Bremer of being a war criminal and another asked, "What do you get when you go into a country and kill innocent people?"

Several people also chanted "Paul Bremer, you can't hide. We charge you with genocide."

"I'll tell you one thing, if people had behaved like this in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, they would be dead," Bremer said at one point.
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:48 AM..


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2007, Goldtalk