Yet Another Liberal Media Lie

k_dawg

New member
they love to only use a few select quotes.. and totally out of context.

Here is what Paul Bremer REALLY said:

NEW YORK TIMES

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
What I Really Said About Iraq
By L. PAUL BREMER III

Published: October 8, 2004

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.

But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition's top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq's security must depend on Iraqis.

Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.

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.

The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.

President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Mr. Zarqawi's stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.

Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.

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.


L. Paul Bremer III, former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, was the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004.
 

bountyh

Moderator
OK: Here's what he said (direct quote):

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.

Now that he has realized that he is hurting Bush, he is backpedaling like crazy.

But the simple fact that none of the Bushies can bury is that they have ALL sung the same tune all along: we had PLENTY of troops to get the job done....

REALLY?

The generals helping Rumsfeld plan the invasion told him he needed AT LEAST THREE TIMES AS MANY as he went in with and they told him why: they would have to keep the lid on the place after we took it.

The bottom line is that they are all lying, but for slightly different reasons:

Bush is lying when he claims that there were enough troops because: he refuses to admit any mistakes were made, because if he did, he would have to explain why nobody (specifically Rumsfeld) has been held accountable for the screw ups.

Rumsfeld is lying and claiming there were enough troops because he is dead set on proving the big lie he is selling: that the US can drastically reduce active duty service ranks and have them fight "like larger numbers" because of our superior technology. In reality, that disaterous philosophy has already been proven wrong and brought about a glimpse of our future: too few active duty will be supplemented by massive reserve and Guard callups yanking people out of their civilian lives for indeterminate time periods. Even a drug dealer gets to hear his sentence from the judge, but reservists are "in limbo".

The bottom line is that Bremer did something HORRIBLE... he accidentally told the truth and didn't realize how many Bushisms it would contradict when he did it. So, don't get behind him because he is running backwards as fast as his legs will go.
 

bountyh

Moderator
Will somebody explain to me how it is "another media lie" when somebody points out glaring inconsistencies in the Bush's public statemements and actions with what is said by the people Bush claims was doing these things........

But whenever Bush and Cheney pull massive U-turns and zig-zags nobody says a word?

Bush finally admits there were no WMD's, and claims he still was right to start a war over them?

Is he brain dead or just making it up as he goes along?
 

Charley

New member
The problem, Bountyn, is that the media implied that Brenner diametrically opposed Bush about the war "in general", when in fact, his points of contention were tactical and limited in nature. Implication is at the heart of many liberal media stories and because of it's very nature, hard for the average joe to even identify. "Brenner in contention with President Bush over the Irag War" (or some similar blib) is how it was presented to the American viewers. The implication is that he was at odds with all facets of the war. A more balanced statement would have been something like: "While Brenner supports the President in the War on Irag, he differs on certain tactical areas, in particular the number of soldiers allowed for post-war securities." This is of course, a less controversial statement and therefore less "news-worthy". No one can accuse the media of "lying" because they could argue that they never explicitly said "Brenner's complaints cover all areas of the war, or that he opposes the war in general". But that is why the courts require you not ony to tell the truth, but to tell the "whole" truth. The media is not required to do so. Implication is just two steps shy of out-and-out propaganda.
 

gburner

New member
I don't care if we had 500,000 troops on the ground. Events exceeded expectations and situations were taken advantage of by folks who were prone to do so. Sadaam didn't release all of his prisoners as a coincidence...
he did it to cause chaos, looting, robbery and general social disorder in country. This is the province of police, not military. The military was busy rounding up Ba'athists, soldiers and other dead enders who were posing a direct threat to our soldiers.

Liberals lie, birds sing, dogs bark, cats meow, the sun rises and sets...nothing new here except the stench of desparation from the left.
 

Fred Hansen

New member
Will somebody explain to me how it is "another media lie" when somebody points out glaring inconsistencies in the Bush's public statemements and actions with what is said by the people Bush claims was doing these things........
:confused:

You of all people (as someone who posts here defending the media's use of forged documents vis-a-vis President Bush) should know that no one will even loan you some credibility when you say such things.
But whenever Bush and Cheney pull massive U-turns and zig-zags nobody says a word?
Surely - with regard to the predominant media at least - you jest. In case you aren't jesting, see above. :rolleyes:
Bush finally admits there were no WMD's, and claims he still was right to start a war over them?
Certainly. To do otherwise would be to pretend that he is prescient and/or omniscient - something that John "Victor Charlie" Kerry claims all of the time. Whenever he answers questions with regard to his not supporting his support for not supporting his support for the war, he supportively says - in that endearingly nuanced way - that he would have invoked his ability to know now what he would have known then to support his non-support for his support. Thus proving that his "PLAN" has been without question 100% on track during this entire campaign. As supportively as ever I might add.

Say, did you know that John "Victor Charlie" Kerry served in Viet Nam?

His lying is nothing new. He has done this all of his life. In the 1970s he claimed to have knowledge of atrocities he participated in, but despite having a movie camera WITH him, he never recorded them. DESPITE having an officer's duty to report them AT THE TIME, he did nothing!!! He recounted for our Senate, our enemies, and the world, his second-hand knowledge of atrocities despite the fact that he had only the word of people like his co-moderator at the Winter Soldiers Project one Al Hubbard; Al - as it was found later - never served in combat. And yet, as a Naval officer (junior grade as it was) John "Victor Charlie" Kerry recounted those stories as gospel truth. Hmmm... he must have been gifted with a second-sight that would allow him to level such heinous accusations at his brothers-in-arms without benefit of a tiny shred of credible evidence, no? Unless of course, in addition to being a pathological liar, he is in fact a traitor.
Is he brain dead or just making it up as he goes along?
You still haven't described for me what it is like to have circles run around you by someone you consider braindead. I'm serious, I would love to know what that is like.

You leftists should have stuck to your America hating guns. You had the perfect candidate in Howie Dean. I mean sure, he goes off his meds now and then, but he has never nuanced his hate for this country. He never even made believe that a bad paper-cut was worthy of a Purple Heart. The man's a true pinko through and through. He would have mobilized your base. Oh! If only you couldawouldashoulda...
 

Quartus

New member
Whenever he answers questions with regard to his not supporting his support for not supporting his support for the war, he supportively says - in that endearingly nuanced way - that he would have invoked his ability to know now what he would have known then to support his non-support for his support. Thus proving that his "PLAN" has been without question 100% on track during this entire campaign. As supportively as ever I might add.

:confused:



Fred, you gotta lay off the sauce! You are starting to sound like the real Kerry!

That's the most amazing piece of double-talk I've seen in a long time! :D


Say, did you know that John "Victor Charlie" Kerry served in Viet Nam?

That's important! If you don't think so, just see his résumé!



(Okay, so that was shameless self promotion of a thread I started. Your point?) :D
 

bountyh

Moderator
Code:
The problem, Bountyn, is that the media implied that Brenner diametrically opposed Bush about the war "in general", when in fact, his points of contention were tactical and limited in nature.
We disagree on that. The real problem is that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have consistently (and angrily) denied that they screwed up the planning by going in without enough boots and rifles. The "limited point of disagreement" that Bremmer had was exactly what Bush's critics have said all along: Bush grossly underestimated the men it would take to control the government, totally misundertood the fact that it would be a guerilla war of attrition, and did not realize the Iraqi's were not going to throw roses and live happily and peacefully despite centuries of ethnic warfare.

I've got a dog that is smarter than that... and she eats her own poop. :eek:
 

Quartus

New member
Bush grossly underestimated the men it would take to control the government, totally misundertood the fact that it would be a guerilla war of attrition, and did not realize the Iraqi's were not going to throw roses and live happily and peacefully despite centuries of ethnic warfare.

I don't know what world you're living in, bounty, but you obviously didn't hear (or want to hear?) any of the things GW said on those subjects before going in there.
 

Fred Hansen

New member
You are starting to sound like the real Kerry!
Ol' Victor Charlie was my Lt. Governor, and my Senator for more years than I care to admit. Much to my chagrin I know that rat inside and out. :eek: :barf:
 

bountyh

Moderator
Code:
I don't know what world you're living in, bounty, but you obviously didn't hear (or want to hear?) any of the things GW said on those subjects before going in there.
Dude, actions speak louder than words. What Bush said, didn't say, conventiently forgot he said, wishes he said, etc doesn't mean jack. EVERY general advising Rumsfeld told him he would need at least 3X the men he had to go in and maintain control. he ignored that. Prior to the war, Bush believed he could win and be out before the elections. Look where we are now. Keep tap dancing, this fiasco is the biggest screw up in foreign policy since Viet nam. Bush just keeps rewriting history (or "changing the time line" if you are a Star Trek fan), but it is what it is and nobody can say with a straight face that the Bush admin has done anything but miscalculate the cause and effects of the situation.

Just once, shock the world and admit:

1) Bush was in chrge so he is responsible.

2) Rumsfeld was in charge of the war, so he should be accountable.

If a Bushnik ever admits this, I think there will be a mass heart attack among the democrats.

On a serious note, step back and take a look at the big picture which resulted from under manning the invasion force:

1) Americans die every day now. The massive stockpiles of conventional weapons were bypassed on the invasion, and they were later plundered by insurgents to get the firepower that they are using to kill our guys every day. That price was because we did not have any forces to secure and control them.

2) Staggering loss of Iraqi infrastructure. Their country was basically gutted and now we have to rebuild it. The cost will be staggering and we will pay it all. The oil will not pay for it becuse Al Qaeda attacks and shuts down the pipes anytime they want.

3) Loss of irreplaceable treasures. The museums of that country held some treasures which were priceless. They were plundered.

4) Loss of civilain life. 10,000 is a very conservative estimate, it could be double or triple that. The bottom line is we annihilated the power structure of the country and did not replace it with anything which could protect the civilains. Ethnic warfare and constant terrorist attacks are the rule of the day, and the civilians die by the hundreds.

So, go on with your story about how Bush planned for the expected outcomes and went in with enough materiel to get the job done.
 

Fred Hansen

New member
So, go on with your story about how Bush planned for the expected outcomes and went in with enough materiel to get the job done.
Nothing he could have done would ever meet with your approval. So why should anyone ever take your questions about President Bush seriously? In fact, since you defend pathetically bad forgery as truth, why should anyone take you seriously about anything?
 
Top