Damn...
And Edwards was quoting him like a mofo tonight.
Well, who would have thought the MSM would have "mischaracterized" his statement?
Damn...
And Edwards was quoting him like a mofo tonight.
That's what happens when you base your position on the day's headlines or the crowd to whom you're speaking at the time.
Exstatic,
You have 90 seconds, beyitch!
Yeah, that's a total recant."We certainly had enough (troops) going into Iraq, because we won the war in a very short three weeks," Bremer said.
But he added: "As I look back now ... I believe it would have been better to stop the looting. that was found right after the war.
"One way to have stopped the looting would have been to have more troops on the ground. That's a retrospective wisdom of mine, looking backwards. I think there are enough troops there now for the job we are doing."
Bremer's latest comments differed somewhat from those of Bush campaign spokesman Brian Jones, who in an unusual public acknowledgment of internal dissent 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."![]()
I expected something like this, because he didn't realize that his first remarks were going to go public. There were only two options: this, or the adminstration would eviscerate him like they have other people (Paul O'Neill, anyone?)
I think there are enough troops there now for the job we are doing."
You didn't bold the right sentence.![]()
![]()
That's because that sentence had nothing to do with his original remarks, which were that we didn't go IN with enough troops.You didn't bold the right sentence.![]()
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)