digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Bush Was Told In Advance About Dismantling of Iraq's Army, Letters Reveal

nytimes.com — A previously undisclosed exchange of letters shows that President Bush was told in advance by his top Iraq envoy in May 2003 of a plan to “dissolve Saddam’s military and intelligence structures,” a plan that the envoy, L. Paul Bremer, said referred to dismantling the Iraqi Army.

Who dugg this? Made popular Sep 5, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

160 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • dgblackout, on 10/10/2007, -17/+49Bush is such an idiot.

  • dukeeeey, on 10/10/2007, -8/+37hes a criminal
  • natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -5/+34No one cares whether it was a bad idea or a horrible one. The issue being discussed here is that Bush got caught in another lie because he's chronically incapable of accepting blame for anything.

    Jesus. There's always this little enclave of right-wingers who camp out, make sarcastic comments, and bitch about the state of Digg. "Yeah, well, none of these idiot liberals remember when Clinton got a blowjob from Saddam Hussein, traveled back in time to blow up the USS Forrestal, and inserted his cigar into Wall Street, causing the sub-prime mortgage crisis!"
  • whiskeymb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21I didn't realize the POTUS lying to the public was irrelevant...
  • falazmah, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20I can't believe it...GW is getting more embarrasing by the day. I totally disagree with Bremer; the events in Iraq today prove that he was an incompetent administrator. But, pleeeeeeze, who would believe that he disbanded the Iraqi army without prior knowledge and approval from the White House? Besides, those letters just published clearly show the President is lying.

    The issue is as relevant today as it was in 2003. Who do you believe is telling the truth here: http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=439
  • SOS84, on 10/10/2007, -9/+27Bushie is using the Alberto Gonzalez "I don't recall" tactic to avoid answering questions regarding this issue.
  • johnhummel, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21The rundown for those who can't RTFA:
    That Bush said "Policy was to keep the Iraqi army intact after the invasion. But - Bremer didn't do that. I don't recall why. I didn't look to find out."

    In which Bremer replied "***** that ***** - here's the letter that says you knew why we were doing it! Don't try to pin this one on me, *****!"

    Whereby Bush will reply "Well, Bremer has those 'fact things' that just confuse the heck out of me - so he must be doing one of those 'exaggeration' things I accused Kerry of when he said I was a big liar. Or something. Hey, look - something shiny!"
  • SuperCUBE, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16You must be the retarded tag-along.
  • whiskeymb, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Does it suck being in the minority?
  • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11It's not 20/20 hindsight. Disbanding an army when occupying a nation is generally a bad idea, and in this case it was... a bad idea. Senior military officers (US) in Iraq at the time saw it as a bad idea in 20/20 foresight. It wasn't the only incompetent decision in the prosecution of this war, but it was an important one.

    Yes, a naive look at the situation suggests that you level everything to the ground--including institutions and infrastructure--and start from scratch. The hope is that our leadership is not naive, and that they have learned something from a few thousand years of history of occupations. One of those things is to understand your enemy. One of the reasons we were able to achieve a military victory so quickly is that much of the Iraqi military was nationalist rather than Baathist, and as eager as we were to see regime change. Although the Shiites were anti-Hussein, so were a large number of Sunni.

    Now we find ourselves trying desperately to build a nationalist military--one that we decimated--and unsurprisingly we are finding that the Iraqis do not trust us. Of course, when members of the military protested that we had broken our promises by disbanding the military, we shot them, so mistrust is not exactly misplaced.
  • omnithought, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10B-b-but...Clinton!
  • BirthTax, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11WTF are you talking about? I don't know a single person who thought it was a good idea _AT THE TIME_. 20/20 hindsight? It is 100% simple common sense that firing thousands of armed, trained personnel is going to cause problems. And its not just the army. What could go wrong with firing everyone who ever had any leadership position from dog catcher on up? Maybe Iraq might end up with an ineffectual government. I think what a lot of people forget is that not all Baathists were evil. You had to be a Baathist to have any governmental position in Iraq.
  • Y2Krieger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9If you're going to harp on "Clinton's failure" to protect the US from terrorism, you may as well include your beloved Reagan and George Senior for supplying the terrorists and their lack of preperation for an attack.

    Oh and for the record, Clinton did counter-attack "the terrorists" you speak of.
  • bugsy187, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Because the politicians are ignoring their citizens on this, and many, issues. We do our part and vote, and they ignore. Our Democracy doesn't function properly.
  • YellowSnot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Because Pelosi would rather make a political move than do what's right.
  • cavergeek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8As a specialist in the Army I have to ask just one question: Why the ***** are we letting civilians make the decisions about how to run a war?
  • plhearn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8As I recall Gore won the popular vote, so the minority voted for Bush too.
  • omnithought, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8To those who would be stupid enough to bring up Clinton:
    If one lie is enough to make you detest one President so strongly, how can you tolerate so many lies from another? I think such people have no actual interest in honesty, but are instead partisan hacks. Partisanship: one of the few remaining socially acceptable forms of ignorant-ass bigotry.
  • vanbacon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8So would you vote for him again
  • maiku00, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13roflmao, the conservative regressives are out in droves today! they sure latched onto this one quick.
    Go on, support your king.
  • johnhummel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Just to ask, because I think you're trying to ask a sarcastic question but - are you addressing me, President Bush, or Bremer?
  • uu2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It's about the lie, not the decision(s).
  • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Please don't insinuate that Savage has a relevant doctoral degree. His PhD is in nutritional ethnomedicine - not exactly related to politics or public policy.

    This is the same tactic "Dr." Laura uses to get people to think she has any idea what she's talking about.
  • LazyLiberal, on 10/10/2007, -10/+16Damn this guy sucks, I'm sorry, world.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Go shine Bush's shoes, boy!
  • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I'd vote for Clinton again. And maybe again after that.

    I miss Clinton.
  • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5No, it was the commander-in-chief's call. That's why he gets the big bucks, because he is "the decider." Bush was not just "some guy," he was Bremer's superior officer. The decision was Bush's to make. Either he thought about it, weighed the evidence and chose badly, or he shrugged his shoulders and said "sure, whatever." Either way, he bears the brunt of the responsibility.
  • evilregis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5When 70% of the population does, you will tend to see that sentiment well-represented in social sites such as digg.
  • Kinkistyle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5YOU read the article. Bremer also states that:

    "Mr. Bremer said he sent a draft of the proposed order on May 9, shortly before he departed for his new post in Baghdad, to Mr. Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon officials.
    Among others who received the draft order, he said, were Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense; Douglas J. Feith, then under secretary of defense for policy; Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, then head of the American-led coalition forces in Iraq; and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    Mr. Bremer said that he had briefed Mr. Rumsfeld on the plan “several times,” and that his top security adviser in Baghdad, Walter B. Slocombe, had discussed it in detail with senior Pentagon officials as well as with senior British military officials. He said he received detailed comments back from the joint chiefs, leaving no doubt in his mind that they understood the plan. "

    Unless everyone, including his own Chief of Staff OK'ed the decision WITHOUT informing the President, which just goes to show you much of an incompetent puppet Bush is and what a loose ship he is supposedly "running"
  • bugsy187, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Bush is basically a high powered murderer. Why don't you help us do something about it?
  • MiDri, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10I seriously don't know whats worse, the people that you are describing or the people like you that just spout non constructive rants.
  • pdotnet, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10history repeats itself, in 15 or so years (with any luck, sooner) we'll see him and his administration on trial on the world stage for war crimes against Iraq and Afghanistan
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Wow, what a ***** victim-fest in here today. Whine whine whine.
  • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"Hmmm.... yup the "We hate Bush" crew is alive and well in here."
    Oh not just in here, in most of the country too. Basically, when you have an appointed king, er president, who has ***** up the world as much as he has, you're bound to have a few people that hate him. He's made us so much less safe than we've ever been, so yeah, we hate him alright. Have a nice day!
  • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6We were an occupying force in Germany and Japan, with international support and enough troops for the job.

    Want to continue to look at the differences between the situations, or not?
  • BryanUT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5As the son of a career Air Force officer, I'll answer your question. It is because America is not a mitlitary dictatorship, that is why civilians control the military.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5 Lets stop pretending the war architects were stupid and instead wake up to the fact that they acted with bad intent. They knew dismantling the army would destabilize the country, that's why they did it.

    Everyone is so quick to think these rich high IQ people are stupid, they're not, they're traitorous creeps.
  • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Clinton's military fired severl cruise missles at bin Laden on more than one occasion, and in more than one location. Bush isn't even trying to find bin Laden at all. But he wouldn't want that anyway would he? After all, when nobody else in the country could fly (not even W's daddy), the bin Laden family was allowed to fly out of the country. Why was that?
  • mtjohnson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I can't tell if you're being serious or not... I'm going to assume you are and say: you're an idiot.
  • Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Nice try again, but Iraq bears about as much resemblance to World War II as a Shoney's Buffet resembles the Last Supper.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8The original plan was to keep the Iraqi army intact. Bremer said he wanted to disband the army. Bush sent him a letter saying he supports his decision.

    So, it was Bremer's call.
  • t1m0j5, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4but using Nazi's for your own benefit is okay? hey at least we recieved rocket tech, nuke........
  • plhearn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Neal Boortz? And you're calling Gore a robot?
  • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No, it's just what people with common sense can see with their own eyes. Nice try though.
  • plhearn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes because the war has been going so well the past few years hasn't it? It was such a great idea. I wish I had though of it. Too bad 75% of Americans are against the war now. Poor mislead suckers. They must all be die hard liberals. I hate the liberals!
  • blaze4metal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I don't blame the 2000 Bush voters. He lied to his own constituency with talk of anti-nation building and small government. And besides, he didn't even win the popular vote (unless you count the courts). The 2004 Bush voters are to blame since they knew what he was up to (you know, opposite everything he said in 2000) but voted him back in anyway.
  • rthakidn, on 10/10/2007, -8/+12RTA not the headlines. Bremmer admits the comment about the Iraqi army was only very briefly mentioned and no details were outlined. One is lead to believe from the headlines, the letter was specifically written to discuss the future of the Iraqi military and offer a plan of implementation. If someone would read the article, they'd see that's not true. Sorry, you'll have to DIGG up some more non-stories about Bush.
  • letsgopens2006, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Not my president
    Hes my dictator
  • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3@ TJATL
    And yeah, let's not even get into Bush v. Kerry on the Vietnam side of things... afterall Kerry was there fighting in river country, but Bush kept the entire North Vietnamese air force out of Alabama.
    How in the hell can you even support that chimp? Please don't pretend to be intelligent anymore... it's just not believable when your comments are in support of Bush. Really. It just looks plain stupid. I'm not kidding. You really just look like a moron supporting the man, his administration, and his/their decisions.
  • ZenFountain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It was Bremer's call, but he had a directive for complete "de-Baathification" of Iraq which, included the army and all civil servants with ties to the Baath party. It was an impossible task so rather than try to weed individuals out they decided to disband the whole army thinking that would give them a clean slate to work with. Everything seems so easy when you're kicking back in one of Saddam's old palaces sipping cocktails I guess. Bremer was a total ***** idiot who had no idea what he was doing, but in his defense the people above him didn't have a clue either and the staff below him administering the occupation were loyal neocons fresh out of college with big ideas and no experience. It was a recipe for disaster and the atmosphere was ripe for local strongmen to raise their own militias and foreign fighters to pour in and fight Mujahideen style, just as Bin Laden had hoped after being being swiftly kicked out of Afghanistan. Rather than admit this reality the Bush administration went into spin control with the public and have been fighting with each other and pointing fingers every since.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 161 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.