Comments (37)

NCProsecutor wrote on February 6, 2007 9:47 AM:

What a difference an election makes.

r€nato wrote on February 6, 2007 9:51 AM:

I wonder if they will ask him to return his Medal of Freedom?

Steve wrote on February 6, 2007 9:56 AM:

Were I him, I'd wear the Medal of Freedom to the hearing.

TheraP wrote on February 6, 2007 9:56 AM:

It's hard to believe that Bremer alone was making such decisions.

Is this another case of someone being the scapegoat for cheney (the man behind the wizard?)

Anonymous wrote on February 6, 2007 9:58 AM:

It would be great to see this former assistant to Kissinger and Haig and Reagan appointee give up the goods on someone new.

We know that the Heritage Foundation was recruiting for the Pentagon and State Department for most professional government jobs in the CPA -- and employing people like Michael Ledeen's 24 year old daughter -- but would be great to hear just whom Bremer is going to pin this on.

My guess is that Don Rumsfeld is going to have a really bad day today.

bzzd1 wrote on February 6, 2007 10:02 AM:

Actually, according to Rajiv Chandrasekaran in Imperial Life in the Emerald City Bremer was alone in the deBaathigication decision. Apparently, he wanted to come in and make a bold decision to show that he was in charge. Apparently, everyone in Washington was in shock.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on February 6, 2007 10:03 AM:

C-Span has the hearing scheduled for radio at 10 a.m. (starting now) and television on C-Span II at 12:30 p.m.

Go, Rep. Waxman!

Anonymous wrote on February 6, 2007 10:16 AM:

bzzd1

Bob Woodward's book somewhat refutes, somewhat reimforces your point about de-Baathification.

Woodward paints Bremer after arriving in Iraq as singularly focused on getting de-Baathification started and done.

But Woodward also says that Paul Wolfowitz (and possibly Rumsfeld) was the de-Baathification policy architect and a force majeure on making sure that was going to be Bremer's task #1.

Also from Woodward, outgoing CPA czar Garner apparently strongly disagreed with the Wolfowitz/Bremer de-Baathification focus [recognizing that gutting the Iraqi government and military (all Baathists) would leave no one to pull the levers of governmnet]. Another suspicion that turned out to be very true.

dweb wrote on February 6, 2007 10:17 AM:

How do you LOSE $12 Billion? You don't LOSE $12 Billion....you steal it, you wilfully look the other way, you hire the college kid children of Heritage Foundation zealots who know about as much about accounting as I know about string theory to manage the books. You cheat, you lie, you steal.

There are somethings for which the death penalty may be appropriate. This is certainly one of them.

Zakman44 wrote on February 6, 2007 10:20 AM:

Wasn't Jay Garner cashiered because the decisions he was making were not in accord with the White House party line? That would seem to argue that Bremer was chosen specifically for his willingness to toe that line.

Aunt Deb wrote on February 6, 2007 10:24 AM:

Will he be wearing his nifty boots to the hearing??

MK wrote on February 6, 2007 10:31 AM:

I believe Bremer also played the "I was only following orders" hand when he appeared on Jon Stewart's show last year.

chimpeach wrote on February 6, 2007 10:41 AM:

Zakman44: "Wasn't Jay Garner cashiered because the decisions he was making were not in accord with the White House party line?"

That's correct. In fact, it was Rumsfeld who, after hearing what Garner was planning to do, told him not to unpack. And he was replaced right away.

Bremer can either take the fall or point the finger at Rumsfeld. That's who wanted the Iraqi army disbanded and didn't want facilities guarded against looting.

markg8 wrote on February 6, 2007 10:47 AM:

I expect Bremer will exit from the hearing as fast as he bolted Iraq after he handed over the reins.

Ricks corroborates Chandrasekaran on Bremer in Fiasco.

Lawnguylander wrote on February 6, 2007 10:49 AM:

What would have happened if de-Baathification had not been the policy? Wouldn't the Shia have mounted an insurgency of their own against the old political order with Saddam now out of the way? Would we not then have found ourselves battling Shia insurgents in place of Sunnis who if still in power would have been happy to have us killing Shia for them? Civil war would have eventually set in anyway. This is not a defense of de-Baathification. Once we had arrived there were no good decisions to be made. Chaos was pre-ordained the moment we invaded. If the dems do their job here they'll demonstrate that his decisions reflected the administration's policy directives but will also show that Bremer was handed an impossible task without any planning. Odious as Bremer may be, making him a scapegoat for Cheney et, al does more harm than good.

klyde wrote on February 6, 2007 10:56 AM:

Wasn't Jay Garner cashiered because the decisions he was making were not in accord with the White House party line? That would seem to argue that Bremer was chosen specifically for his willingness to toe that line.

ding, ding, ding, ding! And now l. paul is about to learn what happens to those who fail in service to the boy king.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 6, 2007 11:00 AM:

General Shays . . . Needs to meet the guy that the Administration felt was his better . . . I'm sure there are questions from that side too.

Duke wrote on February 6, 2007 11:05 AM:

How likely is it that Bremer will fall on his sword while Tenet and Tommy Franks are walking around? The guy I would like to see in committee is Jay Garner. That guy has got a story to tell.

Anyone who has read Fiasco will be especially interested in the Bremer hearings.

THROW AWAY THE KEY!

Diane wrote on February 6, 2007 11:26 AM:

Did I hear correctly that the Bush Administration forbade Ambassador Tim Carney from testifying before this hearing? Can someone clarify that for me? What utter horseshit.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on February 6, 2007 11:31 AM:

Diane, If I have this straight, the State Dept. first told the committee that Carney hadn't filled out his paperwork so technically he was not a State Dept. employee. Then Carney was suddenly shipped to Iraq and the State Dept. told the committee that Carney would be available in six months.

rea wrote on February 6, 2007 11:31 AM:

"What would have happened if de-Baathification had not been the policy? Wouldn't the Shia have mounted an insurgency of their own against the old political order with Saddam now out of the way? Would we not then have found ourselves battling Shia insurgents in place of Sunnis who if still in power would have been happy to have us killing Shia for them? Civil war would have eventually set in anyway."

The point is, though, that we would have ended up fighting on behalf of a Sunni/secular alliance, rather than on behalf of pro-Iranian Shiites while simulataneously beating the drums for a war with Iran.

Of course, the war and its aftermath still wouldn't have made a lick of sense, but at least it would have made more sense than where we are today.

Diane wrote on February 6, 2007 11:44 AM:

I always have to chuckle when I see Stuart Bowen. Wasn't SB another Texas crony (like Abu Gonzales or Cornyn) of His Decidership? I'm actually rather amazed that Bowen has been as candid as he has. Iraq must REALLY be a sewer if we're getting reports from Bowen that accounting is 'weak'.

Dennis L. Taylor wrote on February 6, 2007 11:45 AM:

For some real insight into Bremer from a non-partisan source, read Rory Stewart's "The Prince of the Marshes."

Redshift wrote on February 6, 2007 11:53 AM:

"What would have happened if de-Baathification had not been the policy?"

The question is not de-Baathification (some of which would have been necessary for reconciliation), but the radical de-Baathification that prohibited any Baath member from holding a government job, regardless of whether they had been involved in any crimes. Since party membership was required for most government jobs, radical de-Baathification meant throwing out nearly everyone who had any actual experience in running government functions, and making most of them unemployable.

It isn't even a Sunni/Shia thing; while Saddam was a Sunni strongman and oppressed the Shia majority, according to Riverbend, most of the personnel in government were Shia.

DallasNE wrote on February 6, 2007 12:08 PM:

"Bremer made both decisions in Baghdad without extensive consultation with the State Department, the National Security Council or other U.S. government agencies...."

What is this statement really saying. Did Bremer have extensive consultations with the Defense Department? Did the Defense Department, or perhaps the Vice President, in fact force these decisions on Bremer. The statement appears to dump the bad decisions in Bremer's lap but what is not said speaks louder than what is said. In fact, it doesn't pass the smell test.

I hope Bremer pushes back.

abiodun wrote on February 6, 2007 1:29 PM:

I watched the whole pathetic testimony on C-SPAN. Woodward's and Chandrasekaran's books are must-reads. Really, I don't understand why the debate in congress is on the "surge" that was not on the table last november when we went to the polls. We voted on the war, period. Why do we always allow the war mongers to frame the debate?

d wrote on February 6, 2007 1:31 PM:

Wasn't it Rumsfeld, rather than Bremer, who got rid of the Iraqi Army?

Read that in a recent New York Review of Books article.

busdrivermike wrote on February 6, 2007 1:49 PM:

Another corporate writer in a corporate paper preaching the new corporate line to the sheeple.

Another carefully thought out distraction in the greatest gas station robbery of all time.

In this silent movie, the getaway attempt gets more pathetic all the time. Our keystone cops, the Democratic Party, aren't even entertaining in their slapstick antics.

I want my money back. I'm going to the theatre management, Halliburton, to ask for my money back.

Kevin Hayden wrote on February 6, 2007 2:11 PM:

I like the pic USA Today has of Bremer today, as well as his 'money funnel'.

DeanMan wrote on February 6, 2007 4:21 PM:

Here is THE question for Bremer: Did you order the disbanding of the Iraqi army and the sacking of all the Baathists civil servants, on your own, or were you directed to do so by someone else in the Bush administration? If it wasn't your decision, who was the specific individual who instructed you to give the the order.

All of the books on Iraq, "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks, or "Assasin's Gate" by George Packer, for example make it clear that disbanding of the Iraqi army and the sacking of all the Baathists civil servants was greatest single blunder of the occupation and was the event that lit the fuse for the insurgency.

I would bet Cheney gave Bremer the order.

DeanMan wrote on February 6, 2007 4:29 PM:

More on Bremer's order disbanding of the Iraqi army and the sacking of all the Baathists civil servants. It was given over the strenuous, almost frantic objections of Jay Garner, Bremer's predecessor, the CIA and most of the senior US military officials in Iraq. Garner had strongly advised President Bush, and Secretary Rumsefeld to keep paying the Iraqi army and to use them to provide security for the reconstruction. How different things would have tuned out if Garner's advice had been heeded.

Another strange thing: Bremer gave the orderdisbanding of the Iraqi army and the sacking of all the Baathists civil servants almost immediately after arriving in Iraq, without any consultation or discussion, saying he was ordered to do it by someone higer up. Could this have been Cheney's people trying to clear the way for Ahmed Chalabi to seize power?

ebw wrote on February 6, 2007 4:35 PM:

If the GOPpers were really honest, then in addition to criticizing Bremer-- then would frog-march Condi Rice back into the Senate & grill her just as vigorously (and, subsequently demand that she resign or be fired in order to forego impeachment).

Condi Rice was made head of the "Iraq Stabilization Group" by Bush in October 2003-- and, she proved herself to be just as incompetent, dishonest & devoid of sound judgment as she has been as NSA & as Secretary of State.

Rice ignored advise by the British, according to then British Ambassador to the U.N. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, to install the proper management systems in Iraq in order to control the funds (and, thus avoid the "lost" [sic] billions of $$$)... Condi ignored the British advice, as she has ignored warnings about 9/11- as she has ignored pre-invasion warnings that Iraq would devolve into sectarian violence- as she has ignored pre-invasion warnings that Iraq had no WMDs- as she has ignored- ignored- ignored...

Rice is unfit to serve our nation. Bremer is a side-show. Congress is, yet again, ignoring the real criminals responsible for this miserable failure in Iraq:-- Bush, Cheney, Rice & Rove...

chas wrote on February 6, 2007 6:53 PM:

Bremer didn't make any of those decisions on his own. The Pentagon was intimately involved, and so was Cheney's office, including people like Feith and Addington.

Bremer was just a pawn. It's too much to hope for that Cheney would actually get blamed for the debaathification and the disbanding of the army...but you can probably lay those two horrible blunders right at his doorstep...and Rumsfeld's...yet another reason he was fired. Bush's people knew that sooner or later someone had to blamed for what's happened. Rumsfeld will be one goat. Bremer another.

clar@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 1:48 AM:

hello

jimmy@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 12:08 PM:

hello

green@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 1:22 PM:

hello

John wrote on December 5, 2007 12:39 AM:

3yS2x0 gfb7n0ghn60s9d7f34n30bnit5