more AMMO for KERRY!!!! gotta luv it

[reeds]

White House on Defensive After Bremer Talk

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.

Four weeks before Election Day, Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) pounced on the acknowledgment by former Iraq administrator Paul Bremer that the United States had "paid a big price" for insufficient troop levels.

Kerry said there was a "long list of mistakes" that the Bush administration had made in Iraq.

"I'm glad that Paul Bremer has finally admitted at least two of them," Kerry said, referring to postwar troop levels and a failure to contain chaos.

At a campaign stop in Tipton, Iowa, Kerry said the question for voters was whether Bush was "constitutionally incapable of acknowledging the truth" or was "just so stubborn."

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."

Bush consulted military commanders — not his hand-picked Iraq administrator — for guidance on troop levels, McClellan said, adding, "The lessons from the past, including Vietnam, are that we shouldn't try to micromanage military decisions from Washington."

In an unusual public acknowledgment of internal dissent, Bush campaign spokesman Brian Jones 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."

Kerry said he would listen to both military and civilian leaders if elected.

"Commander in chief means you have to make judgments that protect the troops and accomplish the mission," Kerry told reporters in Iowa. "I would listen to all of my advisers and make the best decision possible."

The White House, meanwhile, sought to put the brightest face possible on the final report by the American weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, due out Wednesday. In earlier drafts, Duelfer found Saddam had left signs he had idle weapons programs he someday hoped to revive, but that Saddam did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and other top administration officials said repeatedly before invading Iraq that Saddam did have such weapons and that they posed a threat not only to Iraq's neighbors but to the United States as well. The weapons were the main justification for the invasion.

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

The report will conclude "that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites) through illegal financing procurement schemes," McClellan said. "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," he said.


Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ignited another brush fire Monday, saying he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. He later backed off the statement and said he was misunderstood.

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," and both "celebrated the Sept. 11 attacks on America," he said.

"There are clearly ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaida," McClellan said. "We know there were senior-level contacts between the regime and al-Qaida — the 9/11 commission documented that," McClellan said.

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

In a reflection of the political significance of Iraq, the White House changed gears on Bush's Wednesday speech, which originally was planned as an address on health care. Now the speech in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., will focus on the war, as well as the economy.

People remain about evenly split on Bush's handling of Iraq, polls suggest. But almost six in 10 say they do not think Bush has a clear plan for successfully resolving the Iraq situation. The same number say Kerry does not either.

[Road Rage]

There was a good post about this on the Belmont Club blog entitled "The Missing Men Attended the Global Test". It's a good read, no doubt above the heads of folks like reeds, knowitall and epitome who have a hard time processing anything more than run of the mill DNC soundbites and trendy protest slogans.

Belmont Club

The gist of the article:

Sullivan's source for Bremer's remarks is the Washington Post which begins its story this way:

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.

What Bremer actually said was:

"We paid a big price for not stopping it (looting) 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."

From that quote the "Washington Post" concluded that:

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's own interpretation of his own comments was rather different. He claimed the coalition was shorthanded when it arrived in Baghdad.

"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."

The article continues by explaining exactly why troop levels were low in 2003. But, you can be sure that the MSM, DNC and it's legions of dedicated leftist moonbats will not allow the facts to get in way of a good rant.

[reeds]

it is what it is...Bremer said it..the Dems will pounce on it..if not tonight, Friday night for sure...the right is already trying to mend it....

[dude1394]

I agree it is ammo for Kerry. He can rightfully argue that the 4th ID wasn't in theatre because his ally france was actively engaged in getting turkey to not support us. France, kerry, germany and the anti-american contingent.

Since kerry could have gotten his friends the french to join up with us the 4th ID would have been in theatre and there would have been more troops in baghdad.

[FreshJive]

Did anyone see the guy on O'Reilly that explained why thier weren't enough troops at the beggining? He said that the Rumsfield and his advisors thought that alot of the people who are now insurgents would be part of the initial invasion resistance. They would have been much easier to kill, but it would have taken our military longer to complete the invasion. When our troops just walked to the center of Baghdad without resistance they realized that they were severly understaffed, and consequently upped the number of troops stationed.

[seal614]

dems call us out for not having enough troops there.... tell me again which dems want to send more over?

what do I keep hearing? "bring them home" is that right? Tell me how you up the number and bring 'em all home too.

- Brian

[dude1394]

It's all talk by those two, nothing in their history indidcates that they wouldn't high-tail it as soon as france asked them to.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: seal614
dems call us out for not having enough troops there.... tell me again which dems want to send more over?

what do I keep hearing? "bring them home" is that right? Tell me how you up the number and bring 'em all home too.

- Brian

See you shouldn't even bother posting stuff like this. It's true, but the chances of either of them actually realizing defeat is 0. You know they're going to either dodge the issue or pretend like it never happened.