WASHINGTON (AFP) - The former US governor of Iraq (news - web sites) gave a public endorsement of President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s decision to invade Iraq as he distanced himself from Democratic critics amid a heated election campaign.
But Ambassador Paul Bremer refused to back down from his view that the United States did not have enough troops in Iraq, particularly at the initial stage of the occupation, acknowledging that this was one of his "tactical disagreements" with other members of the administration.
"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 (news - web sites)," Bremer wrote in The New York Times.
"The president was right when he concluded that (Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was a menace who needed to be removed from power."
Bremer touched off a political storm late Monday, when he said the United States "never" had enough ground troops in Iraq to establish firm control of the country, directly contradicting assertions by Bush and top Pentagon (news - web sites) officials that the US military had what it needed to win the war.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041008/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_bremer_041008182914also, here is some of what Bremer said in the NYT...
What I Really Said About Iraq
By L. PAUL BREMER III
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.
....
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... 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
