You really have to read it to believe it. Today, The New York Times Web site has the full text of an exchange of letters between President Bush and his Iraq envoy, J. Paul Bremer. They seem to back up Bremer’s claim that the president knew about the decision to dismantle the Iraqi Army in the spring of 2003, a move that would turn out to have seriously detrimental implications, providing hundreds of thousands of angry men to fuel the nascent insurgency. Bremer himself supplied the documents to the Times in an effort to clear his name and counter statements by the president that the dissolution of the army had come as a surprise to him.
Though the letter to Bush from his envoy does seem to cover Bremer, it’s not its most revealing aspect. Rather its Bremer’s tone — breezy, fawning, seemingly unaware of what was happening outside the green zone and of how critical his every decision could be for the future of the country — this is what stands out in the exchange. That’s why I’m happy the Times chose to post the whole thing, because without reading the letter in its entirety, it’s hard to get a sense of how obsequious and disconnected Bremer is here.
He spends the first four paragraphs buttering up the president with observations like these: “As I have moved around, there has been an almost universal expression of thanks to the US and to you in particular for freeing Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny. In the northern town of Mosul yesterday, an old man, under the impression that I was President Bush (he apparently has poor TV reception), rushed up and planted two very wet and hairy kisses on my cheeks.( Such events confirm the wisdom of the ancient custom of sending emissaries to far away lands).”
And only at the end of the fourth paragraph, in the penultimate sentence, does he mention, offhandedly that, “I will parallel this step with an even more robust measure dissolving Saddam’s military and intelligence structures to emphasize that we mean business.”
The article about the letters makes the point that Bremer’s reference to the army is “almost nonchalant.” But it’s toward the end of the piece and is easily lost. It’s a moment when I’m thankful for the Internet, where space is not an issue, and I can see the damning evidence for myself.
Gal Beckerman wrote
It’s a moment when I’m thankful for the Internet, where space is not an issue, and I can see the damning evidence for myself.
padikiller wonders
"Damning evidence".... Of what, exactly?....
Of a supposedly "fawning" tone in Bremer's letter?
The notion of Bremer's conveyance of the thanks of the Iraqis to the Peesident is only "fawning" to an anti-war liberal. The rest of us call it honest reporting of the REALITY.
So what then is this "damning evidence"? Is that the fact that Bremer told the White House he was dismantling the Iraq army?
The White House has admitted that Bremer told them this... But we can't let the mere truth get in the way of some sort of liberal crack dream of a coverup, now can we?
I don't see anything in President Bush's comments that could possibly be construed as a castigation of Paul Bremer- indeed the White House admitted that the poicy changed and that the President was simply trying to explain as much in the interview.
In sum we have a typical non-story here from Mr. Beckerman (regurgitated as usual from the NY Times), who seems to be tilting at windmills again in his loathing of anything President Bush ever did.
Posted by padikiller
on Tue 4 Sep 2007 at 10:46 PM
It is L. Paul Bremer, not J. Paul Bremer.
Posted by alexand
on Thu 6 Sep 2007 at 08:25 AM