White House on Defensive After Bremer Talk - AP\Yahoo

[WillyT]

<snip>

WASHINGTON - The White House staunchly defended its Iraq (news - web sites) policy Tuesday as new questions emerged about President Bush (news - web sites)'s prewar decisions and postwar planning: An impending weapons report undercut the administration's main rationale for the war, and the former head of the American occupation said the United States had too few troops in Iraq after the invasion.

And...

In a rare day spent in Washington, Bush had no public appearances. Speechwriters polished an address that White House aides said would be a sweeping indictment of Kerry's Iraq policies, while Bush prepared for his second debate with Kerry on Friday.


Bremer last month, in a speech at DePauw University in Indiana, said he had raised within the Bush administration the issue of too few troops and "should have been even more insistent" when his advice was rejected.


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

<snip>

Link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041005/ap_on_re_us/us_iraq

Let's KEEP them on the defensive!!!

Don't forget to rate the story up, it was just posted an hour ago!!!

:kick:

[mourningdove92]

1. What the hell does McClellans response mean?

It makes no sense to me.

[amber dog democrat]

3. Reading out. You know ?

I guess its like standing on a dias and reading transcripts of the converstions aloud to ..... an audience ?

Why don't you understand?

Its the opposite of " Reading In "... which may be like when a new captain arrives on a command and reads his commission to the ships companly.

McClellan, ( aka mouth of Saroun-Chimp " said something like that I think.

[patdem]

2. That third picture you have there of the soldier..I read about his problem

and though I cannot relate totally, I do know that when I had a seizure I had the inability to control my body and it was the MOST freightening thing that has ever happened to me. It was temporary. This man's problem is permanent. His intellect was not damaged, only his brain's ability to control his body... :cry:

I love this man, and think about his story every time I read your posts. I am glad you have chosen that picture to display.

[Disturbed]

4. Why is Bremmer speaking out?

Is he going to run for an office of some kind and trying to
clean up his resume'?

Bremmer left this upon his hasty departure from the Hell Hole.

The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life - from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi - a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm

*Somebody should ask him about the $$$Billions of missing American Tax Payer $$$.

[slojim240]

10. It's called anti-neocon speak. Many in the administration are getting fed

up with the control that the ultra RW Christian Coalition and the PNAC-neocon cabals have had on Bush policies.

[Voltaire99]

18. Somehow, I don't think Bremer is an anti-neocon

I'll remind you he just spent the past year as the head of an occupied foreign nation, summarily ordering its natives about. And the little shit clearly loved it.

If anything, he's trying to make himself look better.

[WillyT]

6. Thank You...

:hug:

[johnnyrocket]

5. Bush is all over the sweeping indictments, how about defending

his own actions?!!?!?

[central scrutinizer]

7. they gave Bremer's report

exactly as much consideration as the PDB of August 6, 2001. In other words, none, and thousands died as the result of each act of incompetence.

[robbedvoter]

8. "If any of my comanders needs more troops, all they need is ask"

W's mantra is falling down. I mean, yet another one....

[displacedtexan]

9. my favorite sentence...

In a rare day spent in Washington, Bush had no public appearances.

Double entendre, anyone?

[jobycom]

11. Bush is now officially on the defensive.

He can't get his Kerry smear campaign going if he has to answer questions like this. And the more he answers, the more excuses he has to make up, the more defensive he sounds, and the more obvious his lieas and his incompetence become.

I can't wait until tonight!

[hlthe2b]

12. "would be a sweeping indictment of Kerry's Iraq policies"

Now, WHO is the current pResident? How can Kerry have Iraq policies to indict. He has plans, for God's sakes, but he hasn't been in office. That little defective moron has.....! :mad:

[PATRICK]

13. Adding 2+2

is never easy for the media. It is gosh, golly look what he just said!

The generals in place at the top of planning had been weeded out or poorly prepared themselves. So when a civvie comes along and notices while hiding behind his bullet proof desk an obvious point, do you think that he is the first one to make the observation. It is already proven that the military had been roiled and purged for the fantasy. The press should be making the point that Bremer's advice was foredoomed to the trashcan of inconsequence. Add that to obvious truth of his judgment on the ground and we get the story that the papers still side around, that Bush flubbed and still there is no change in the basic flaw, much less accountability or proper use of intelligence(of any kind).

Instead the media can degenerate into a one-upsmanship contest to see if the WH can counter this threat to the lie. Will they win? The press has become a spectator to the infighting of those who would spread more comforting propaganda through their naive and compliant gateways to public opinion.

[90-percent]

14. war planning

on npr today they covered this and mentioned the general who said before the war it would take 250,000 or more troops to secure Iraq. They failed to point out this General was DUMPED after making this public statement. This administration fires people that tell the truth and know what they're talking about!

(Wish I could remember the Generals name? Is this info basically correct, gang?)

bremer also heavily criticized the war before it happened and really changed his tune when he was put in charge. He's the guy that decided it would help win hearts and minds if the US hired ANYBODY but Iraqi's to rebuild their own country.

-85% Jimmy

[Zhade]

16. Shinseki.

NT!

[Keirsey]

15. PNAC

September 5, 2003

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: GARY SCHMITT*

SUBJECT: More Troops for Iraq

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says that, on the security front in Iraq, "it seems to me that the trajectory we're on is a good one." But it is hard to find anyone else who agrees with that assessment. Certainly not the British - who now are thinking about increasing their force levels in Iraq. Certainly not the Shiites - who, for lack of security, are now discussing how to reconstitute their own militias. Certainly not even U.S. commanders - who, if you listen carefully to what they are saying, admit that there are not enough front-line troops to handle what needs to be done in Iraq.

Secretary Rumsfeld's response is that we need to turn things over to the Iraqis as soon as possible. Sounds fine in theory or even over the long run. Yet there is no way to train a large, effective and loyal Iraqi force in the time frame required. Despite this reality, the secretary resists any idea that more U.S. troops are needed.

In doing so, Secretary Rumsfeld puts the president's policy of building a decent and democratic Iraq at risk. At the moment, there are only three alternatives: one, we don't add troops and risk not being able both to provide security in Iraq and conduct the kind of counterinsurgency operations required to root out our adversaries; two, we add even more foreign troops only after giving over Iraq's management to the UN, thereby inviting the dysfunction of the UN into the process of rebuilding Iraq; or three, we augment the size of U.S. forces there, increasing even more the overall burden on the American military. Unattractive as this last alternative might be, it is the only dependable way to secure the president's vision for Iraq.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20030905.htm

*

Dr.Gary J. Schmitt is executive director of the Project for the New American Century. His Background is described here**.

http://www.opednews.com/new%20american%20century.htm


** http://www.newamericancentury.org/garyschmittbio.htm

[Disturbed]

17. loyal Iraqi force

Loyal to the US Puppet Regime?

If the US Force pulled out this US Puppet Regime would last about an hour. PM Allawi would be shot or beheaded in around an hour after he had no protection.