Talk:Paul Bremer
This talk page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this talk page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This article was last edited by 65.4.88.94 (talk | contribs) 19 years ago. (Update timer) |
Given that the Shiites are the majority in Iraq and that the US doesn't want the Shiites in power, there is no way Bremer can bring legitimate democracy to the country, only "the trappings" thereof. It has nothing to do with the Shiites being "dictatorial" or "undemocratic"; it has to do with their nationalism and their ties to the regime in Iran. Rephrase it if you will but please acknowledge the reality. -- Viajero 23:02, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)
You have your own opinion. We'll have to wait and see how it actually turns out. Until then, since you cannot see into the future, you cannot say whether or not true democracy will come to Iraq. A democratic government does not simply mean turning over an entire country into the hands of one ethnic group. Bremer's job is to establish a multi-ethnic government, currently reflected by the Iraqi council. user:J.J.
Bremer is faced with creating a multi-ethnic, democratic government in Iraq, while ensuring that a fundamentalist Islamic government or other dictatorial group or figure does not win control of the country.
This is simply made up out of propaganda. If he wanted to prevent dictatorship, he would start by retiring. If he wanted democracy, he wouldn't cancel elections. I don't know what his job really is, but it's neither of those things.
Ensuring that fundamentalists do not win control?
The article currently reads that part of Ambassador Bremer's role was: "...ensuring that a fundamentalist Islamic government ... does not win control of the country..." I think this is a controversial assertion. Various Bush administration officials, starting with Colin Powell, assured everyone that the USA would leave Iraq the moment an Iraqi government requested it to do so. I would suggest that living up to this promise is inconsistent with preventing Iraqis from electing a fundamentalist regime. Geo Swan [1]
Historical Perspective
This article is from a historical perspective and should reflect the truth based on facts not assertions.
Ariele 01:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Since we're making assertions here, let's suggest drawing a line in the sand. Fundamentalist can stay on one side and the rest of the free world on the other side. Since we all know how to make goat cheese, I think I'll choose to buy goat cheese made by the happiest goat, one that is free to wander about and cared for by someone who has the most incentive to take good care of his/her goat.
Ariele 18:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Should the "We got him!" thing go in? - Aparajit
The 9 Billion Iraqi Dollars
In January 2005, an official report by the general inspector for the reconstruction of Iraq, Stuart Bowen, cited by Times, stated that 9 billion dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq might have disapeared in frauds, corruption and other misbehaviour. On one perticular salary register, only 602 names among 8206 could be verified. As another cited example, the Coallition Authority autorised Iraqi officials to postpone declaring the reception of 2,5 billions of dollars, which the provisiory government had recieved in spring through the Oil for Food program. Paul Bremer wrote a 8-page reply to deny the accusations. Rama
- The information here comes from Le Monde, and is not linked to the article because Le Monde requires subscribtion for its articles. The article did not specify which Times, though by default, it might by the London Times. A quick google is not conclusive, though there is an AlJazeera [[2]] article which looks very similar (perhaps it will be possible to trace back the original article). Rama 17:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This is another such example that I have discussed before. The above paragraph strongly suggests that Ambassador Bremer has a split personality, suffers from schizophrenia, and is "ethically challenged". Again, the contributor fails to substantiate his/her findings. The link back to "Paul Bremer" is unnecessary. The word "provisory" (not "provisiory") is used incorrectly. This brings to mind another cliche Don't Bite The Hand That Feeds You. The reference to some article written by the "Times" is rather confusing as well. Which "Times"? New York Times? Washington Times? The London Times? Is there a LINK? Can an excerpt be included here to substantiate this claim? Frankly, I question the validity of these reports of missing, unaccounted for funds. FIRST OF ALL, the reported dollar figures aren't even consistent. Some say it's 5 billion. Here it says it's 9 billion. Are you folks talking about compound interest, stupidity, or fishing? Paradigmbuff 16:59, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
- ...pointing out that the IG refused to interview his people during the inquiry and failed to mention that he and his people were working under extraordinary conditions trying to rebuild a nation while a war was ongoing; not to mention a high turnover rate and insufficient number of personnel to carry out some of these tasks. It's such a shame that Amb. Bremer has to be subjected to so much criticism for his extraordinary service. We should be grateful that Amb. Bremer agreed to take on the job (however thankless it appears to be). I and probably others am most anxious to read his book when he publishes it. Paradigmbuff 22:42, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Dogged Defense?????
- Paradigmbuff, do you have some personal connection to Ambassador Bremer? Why is your defense of him so dogged? Your repetition of his defense, "my staff was inexperienced!", provoked me to alternate between laughter and frustration. The classic example of someone illustrating chutzpah is the man who murdered his parents, and asked for leniency because he had just become an orphan. Bremer was responsible for setting the CPA's hiring policies. And the CPA chose absolutely disastrous hiring policies. -- Geo Swan 22:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- For those who don't know French, Paradigmbuff asked: "Are you insane by adding words which I did not say?"
- I stand by my paraphrase of your words Paradigmbuff. Do you want me to go and cite the passages I am paraphrasing? Why do you follow an unconventional style in your responses. You do know that the convention is that your response should have one further indent than what you are responding to? Anything else is disrespectful to your readers, because it makes it much more difficult for them to follow the discussion. -- Geo Swan 11:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The point about Liberty being expensive in terms of suffering in certainly true. However, as far as I have understood, Wikipedia means to be an encyclopedia. Thusly, a careful and exact search for factual accuracy is more de rigueur than "support your own country" (providing the person is Unitedstatesofamerican). Rama 22:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC).
- Paradigmbuff, I don't think that your latest edits contribute very much to the readibility of this page. Also, I am not sure that I find your description of the arguments here very funny ("GEO SWAN's CHOIR" for instance). Similarly, I fail to understand why you took on writing French, which obviously doesn't contribute to the accessibility of this page, not is a language your a fluent in. Eventually, what you said was neither interesting nor polite to the other user. I think we would all appreciate if you could make some effort to be more understandable and constructed in your answers. Thanks in advance ! Rama 16:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Dear Paradigmbuff, you might perhaps be a little bit new here, so I assume you're not familiar with some written and unwritten rules.
- You reformating to the talk page is certainly a good faith attempt to clarify the page; unfortunately, it turns out that moving blocks of text makes this talk page more difficult to read. The common standard is to indent the responses (as you can see on other talk pages). I (and methink my fellow editors as well) would appreciate that you'd use this way too. This is a mere custom, but it'd be nice if you could conform to it.
- Also, please don't edit (even add formating) to other users' comments; you probably couldn't possibly know, but that's regarded as extremely rude.
- I am not sure whether I fully understand you comment
- "You write of being polite and yet, Geo Swan's and some of your contributions have not been indicative of what you "preach"".
- I don't quite understand the connection between politeness and the "preaching"; most preachers I have known were quite polite. As for "preaching", we are not supposed to. Only factual information is supposed to be featured on Wikipedia. As far as I've seen, I have no reasons to think that anyone here is pushing blatantly unreasonable statements.
- You also say
- "I don't agree with you. More importantly, I don't appreciate non-citizens of the U.S. bashing our patriots"
- I understand you have some concern, but could you formulate precise and factual points in the article which you think are not comforming to the best information available in the media ? Again, as far as I have seen, the critics of Mr Bremer which I have seen here seem to be quite factual, I think that it would be exagerated to call them "bashing".
- You say also
- nor do I appreciate your CRIMINAL means of obtaining personal information on me as you pointed out that I do not speak French fluently. So, what's it to you ?
- I am sorry, I didn't realise that I could hurt your feelings by questioning your command of the French language. I just though that a native speaker would say something more like Où est-ce que tu as trouvé ça dans mon discours ?, or Qu'est-ce qui te prend de "citer" des choses que je n'ai pas dites ?; Êtes-vous fou en ajoutant des mots que je n'ai pas dits? just didn't not sound very natural to me, notably because of the word "mots", which is typically not used to refer to constructed sentences.
- Perhaps you will excuse my infering you were not fluent by thinking of your own "I don't appreciate non-citizens of the U.S. bashing our patriots" -- you see that it is hard not to jump to conclusions about your interlocutors.
- The point about this French sentance was mainly that there didn't seem to be a reason to include French on the talk page at the moment. Perhaps you could elaborate as to why you decided to switch languages -- but as you mentionned, it's not an important matter. Whatever, never mind.
- On the other hand, there are written rules on Wikipedia, which you might not be aware of, but which might lead other users to frown at you. You might want to get familiar with Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:No legal threats, notably.
- In particular, I have to urge you to refrain from editing other's comments and call them "criminal". It would be nice if you could assume the good faith of you fellow editors -- as they do yours.
- I hope that this will help bring more confidence here. Cheers ! Rama 07:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Paradigmbuff, I see that you have removed quite a lot of documented material from the article. There wasn't a consensus on this talk page about removing these texts (which motivated my first revert of these deletions). Your comment of this edit says "deletion to avoid libel actions". Could you perhaps elaborate on this, and explain for each point what motivates the removal ? I'm really puzzled, because besides allusions to the official report which criticises Brener, parts of discourses by Brener, and links, have been removed -- things which I cannot imagine could cause any problem in any case. Also, the whole edit seems quite one-sided, so it would really be a good thing if you could explain a little bit. Thanks in advance ! Rama 22:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see. I think that David was refering to you calling me a "criminal", something which I do not intend to make a fuss about. Since the danger is now clear, and that other parts of the article written by other than you seem to have been inadvertantly deleted as well, I'm restoring the text.
Can I please insist taht you refrain from deleting parts of the talk page in the future ? this is really not well considered, and is an annoyance to other users. Thank you ! Rama 23:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
L. Paul Bremer
This paragraph "He was appointed to replace Jay Garner as Director of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance on May 6, 2003. He arrived in Iraq on May 11 and left on June 28, 2004, when sovereignty over the country reverted to Iraqis." was re-written by another with "he reported only to the U.S. Secretary of Defense and exercised authority over coalition troops in Iraq and over the Iraqi government". Where were General Abizaid and Bremer's counterpart Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez?
I have not been able to verify Canoeguy81's statement implicating the former administrator Paul Bremer "exercised authority over coalition troops in Iraq".
Hiring Policies
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Joseph Yoswa said the CPA was satisfied with the quality of applicants. Some staffers may have been young and inexperienced, he said, but "we have people right out of college leading troops on the ground. Yoswa said the recruiting office had to hire quickly for the Madrid donors conference that fall and "turned to the Heritage Foundation, an educational facility, albeit a conservative one, but primarily a place where you can get good, solid people." He said this was a one-time event and that there was no organized effort to hire Republicans. In late October, he said, the Pentagon set up a job site on the Web. Eleven thousand people filled out an application and several hundred of them were hired. "Nowhere did we ask party affiliation," he said.
Geo Swan's persistence at placing the entire four ton weight on Bremer's shoulders is rather interesting. She (presumeably this person is a "she") extracted this piece from an article. I and probably others had been following events leading up to the transition on June 28, 2004. It would indeed be intriguing to see what Amb. Bremer has to say in his book.
Curious, I went looking for the actual "hiring policies" used by Bremer, the former American administrator. I discovered that the link to support Geo Swan's argument were none other than her own and about some Washington Post article. The article is really about how the Defense Department selected the few who were sent to work there and about the experiences one such staffer had in Iraq. Unless of course Geo Swan was there herself or himself.
- Could the subject of not hiring a certain "group" of people influenced the so called debate over "hiring policies" which Geo Swan was alluding to? [3]
Revision to Audio Portion of Keynote Address
It would appear .... upon review....a small portion of Bremer's response during the question & answer session had been edited out from the "audio". Asked of his opinion w.r.t post election results...Bremer responded with something about the Iraqi friend doesn't believe a certain political candidate as being popular... or something to that affect. This audio blip was found before his description of cowboys in old Westerns wearing only "black and white hats" but none found wearing "grey hats".
Please explain what you mean by "Iraq War people"? Ariele 20:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
VfD
This article was once a featured article and later submitted for VfD AGAIN. According to policy,... !-- Please do not remove nor change this VfD message until the issue is settled -->
Ariele 16:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. Postdlf 16:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
POV label should be removed from this article
The pov label for this article should be removed. The same user who vandalized it with a thoughtless vfd (which was soundly and quickly vetoed) has now thrown a pov label on it, without any explanation nor any effort to correct the alleged pov. In fact, the article appears very balanced, including criticism of Bremer, and it was once so highly thought of that it appeared on wikipedia's front page. On a technical matter, I did not see L. Paul Bremer listed in the NPOV disputes page--not listed under L., not listed under Paul, not listed under Bremer.
- You're absolutely correct except I did not "thoughtlessly" VfD-ed this article. In short, a small portion of this article was "thoughtlessly" modified without follow-up to neutralize the contributor's allegation. And therefore, the POV tag was added after the article was obviously considered a "SPEEDY KEEP". Since I wasn't the one who "abandoned" the article with the allegation dangling in the air, I support the idea of further expansion, preferably by those who put it there. No plans to work on this article. Not interesting enough. Ariele 1 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)
Suggestions for Improvement of this Encyclopedia Article
If I may, I would like to suggest Wikipedia Administrators screen for soapboxes and check their accuracy as new articles are created on Wikipedia about Iraq. The latter part of this article and most of those listed below could be incorporated into the article on the former Coalition Provisional Authority. The article on Paul Bremer would flow better with just his bios. The articles listed below could use some major editing and consolidating:
- Coalition Provisional Authority
- Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund
- Reconstruction of Iraq
- Civilian Administrator of Iraq
- Provisional Government
- Development Fund for Iraq
- Coalition Provisional Authority Program Review Board
- International Advisory and Monitoring Board
- KPMG audit of the Development Fund for Iraq
- History of Iraqi insurgency
- Iraq after Saddam Hussein
- 2003 occupation of Iraq
- 2003 Iraq war timeline
- 2003 invasion of Iraq
- 2003 - 2004 occupation of Iraq timeline
- 2005 in Iraq
- Invasion and occupation of Iraq casualties
- Human rights situation in post-Saddam Iraq
- Iraqi insurgency
- Iraq and weapons of mass destruction
- United Nations actions regarding Iraq
- Iraq disarmament crisis
- Iraq Survey Group
- Deployment of Japanese troops to Iraq
- Military rule
- Dover test
Spelling out the words of acronyms would be helpful for those readers unfamiliar with their meaning. Is there an easy access to a spell checker in this editor? Ariele 02:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Spelling out acronyms?
- The convention on using acronyms varies from place to place. A common convention is that an author should spell out the acronym, in full, the first time it is used. Subsequent references use just the acronym, in the interests in brevity. Isn't this the convention that contributors are supposed to follow when working on the wikipedia? -- Geo Swan 16:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- You're writing for an encyclopedia. The "convention" which you refer to here has not been followed consistently.
Rolling articles into a larger article, and spinning article off from a large article
- Both rolling articles into larger articles, and spinning articles off from larger articles can make sense -- sometimes. But not all the time. A lot geographical articles will have sub-heading, with a paragraph or two on the history, or geography, or economy of the geographic entity, followed by something like: "See the article History of ..., or Economy of... for details. That seems entirely appropriate.
- But there are lots of instances where it doesn't make sense. And I don't think the idea of incorporating the articles you list in the Coalition Provisional Authority article makes sense, except perhaps in a couple of instances.
- When considering rolling an article into a more general, or more important article, I would suggest that it is important to consider the articles that link to the roll-in candidate. Will those article still make sense? Consider, for example, Civilian Administrator of Iraq. Take a look at the list of articles that link to it. Among the articles it lists are: List of state leaders in 2003, List of state leaders in 2004, Proconsul. Take a look at them. Do you think the wikipedia would be improved if a reader who was reading the Proconsul article, and clicked on the Civilian Administrator of Iraq link, only to find themselves at the Coalition Provisional Authority article? Don't you think that would be confusing? Now, maybe a case can be made for the change you suggested, for some of those articles. Am I missing the spot where you have put forward your consideration of the side-effects of the change you suggested? I don't think you have made that case.
- Huh?
- Concerning your suggestion that the "latter part" of the article on Paul Bremer be moved to the article on the CPA -- you said it would flow better if the article was just his bio. Are you suggesting the section on his administration of Iraq be moved? Or just the section currently titled "Terrorism and Politics"? Personally, I think the section on his administration of Iraq should be expanded. I have spent some time reading the details from the various audits of the expenditures made under his authority. I have found it hard to write about because, frankly, it is so shocking.
- "...section on his administration of Iraq be moved?" Yes, moved and assimilated into the article on the Coalition Provisional Authority. If no one has volunteered to expand this section, then I think it should move.
- "Or just the section currently titled "Terrorism and Politics?" Yes, this too. But this part is a bit tricky. Originally titled "TRIVIA", several contributors added their information here, which since then have been edited several times. The bits and pieces seem to imply ... let's see, there's mystery, cloak and dagger theme, intrigue, elements of action adventure, back-stabbing, and romance, ... all point to a possible made for TV mini-series (another rumor picked up from bloggers).
- Bremer's failure to take even the most basic steps to ensure his expenditures were conducted in an open, transparent, secure manner is so shocking I don't know how to do the facts justice, without giving the impression of bias. The facts do, largely, speak for themselves, if you take the time to read the details. But those facts are so shocking that honest summaries of those details are likely to seem biased, unless great care is taken. -- Geo Swan 16:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Huh?
Prefixing Bremer's name with "Ambassador" or "The Honorable" ?
An edit today prefixes Bremer's name with "The Honorable", with the explanation "Honorary Degree Recipient of Doctor of Law on June 19, 2005". Being awarded an honorary degree doesn't make one an "Honorable". In the USA the holders of certain offices are entitled to the prefix "Honorable". That list includes Judges, Congressmen, and Ambassadors. But none of the other US Ambassadors who have articles written about them are described as "The Honorable" in their articles. See: David Wilkins, Tony Garza, Tom Schieffer, George Herbert Walker III, Francis Rooney, Dan Coats, John Kenneth Galbraith, Zalmay Khalilzad, Paul Cellucci. Note: None of these other Ambassadors or former Ambassadors has every instance of their name prefixed with the title Ambassador. -- Geo Swan 17:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- See Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing. -- Geo Swan 20:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- What about "Dr."? He has so many titles, "The Honorable" sounds better.
Where to add new links to the external links section?
I can imagine various ways to choose where to add new link to an external links section. It seems to me that the most obvious place should be chronological, by date of publication. The only trouble with this is that a lot of web-sites, as opposed to press-releases or newspaper articles don't have dates. Can we get some kind of agreement on the placement of new links? -- Geo Swan 17:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Iraqi Sovereignty ?
The introductory paragraph to this article currently reads:
- He arrived in Iraq on May 11 and left on June 28, 2004, when sovereignty was returned to Iraq.
At most, limited soveriegnty was handed over to an appointed Iraqi administration. To assert that the Alawi administration was sovereign is a gross distortion. The Alawi administration did not control its own Armed Forces. The US controlled, still controls, the Iraqi Armed Forces. The Alawi administration did not control its own budget. Every Iraqi ministry was overseen by a US auditor.
I'd say that the current Iraqi administration still only has limited sovereignty. Iraqi citizens got to vote for whomever they wanted. Exercising a free choice in the voting booth is one of the essential elements of a real democracy. But, missing was the information needed to make an informed choice.
According to a news segment shown on the CBC, as a security measure, the new Iraqi political parties were not allowed to publicize their political platforms, or biographies of their candidates. Iraqi voters couldn't make an informed choice.
- Americans still control the Iraqi Armed Forces, not vice versa.
- American forces are not subject to Iraqi justice. In other countries where this is true, it is the result a bilateral agreement with the host country. Those agreements are limited. Those host countries take jurisdiction if the US military justice system fails to investigate. This is not true for either Iraq or Afghanistan.
- American contractor, including the tens of thousands of gun-toting mercenaries, are also not subject to Iraqi justice.
- Bremer's highly decrees still carry the force of law in Iraq, including the highly contentious, over-bearing, inappropriate ones.
So, what's my point? I think the POV sentence in the introductory paragrpah should be replaced by a more NPOV sentence, like:
- He arrived in Iraq on May 11 and left on June 28, 2004, when limited sovereignty was devolved to an administration of appointed Iraqis.
-- Geo Swan 22:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- The topic of sovereignty is debatable in the minds of those who support and oppose your view. Therefore, the sentence was further neutralized with ...when the Coalition Provisional Authority ceased to exist. If this is not acceptable either, then you'll have to explain why June 28 was not the day this organization ceased to exist.
- As for your comment about the Iraqi Armed Forces being controlled by American forces, you could have incorporated your observation here Coalition Provisional Authority or here 2005 in Iraq or in here Provisional Government.... rather than here.
This has the appearance of Foxnews network.
God helps those who take a big helping for themselves
In the "Post-Iraq" section I added:
- When asked what he thought of reports of $9 billion missing from the funds to rebuild Iraq he said "I suggest you not worry, as that $9 billion was Iraqi money, not US money."
Someone felt that should be supplemented with:
- The $9 billion was Iraqi money intended for the Iraqi people. To be fair Bremer has also pointed out in a speech he made recently that "Clearly, public service must be guided by a steadfast respect for the natural moral law. The knowledge of and respect for the natural law, in fact, is indispensable for the proper fulfillment of civic duties."
Ariele's comment for this edit was "Geo Swan's version left out this part"
Ariele's first sentence is correct. Bremer allowed Iraqi funds to be looted. But since she just said this, in the preceding sentence, I don't understand why Ariele felt it was necessary to repeat it. This point had already been made several paragraphs above, when the article discussed Bremer's obligations under UN resolution 1483.
If Ariele's comment that the $9 billion was derived from Iraq's oil revenue was really worth repeating I think it should begin a new paragraph.
- GeoSwan,
- I had to rummage around in the archive to find this. To make this very clear to you, Bremer was not the one who pillaged and plundered the oil for food program, nor would he allowed that to happen under his watch. Look it up. The CPA archive has a transcript of his speech and I also took the liberty of copying it here JUST FOR YOUR BENEFIT.
- I didn't say Bremer was the one who looted the oil-for-food program. Nor have I said he looted the DFI, the follow-on for the oil-for-food program, once Iraq's oil revenue was under Coalition control, not UN control.
- See, you are responding to things you think I said, not to what I actually said.
- What I actually said is that Bremer was responsible to make sure proper fiscal controls were in place to prevent a repetition of the scandal on his watch -- and that he did not do so -- did not put in place even the most basic fiscal controls. Did that absence of fiscal controls mean there was looting? Human nature being what it is, an absence of controls as profound as that Bremer was responsible practically guaranteed looting. The absense of fiscal controls means that no one can prove there was no looting. This, in and of itself is a terrible problem. And it was a terrible violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1483.
- His speech, while well-written, doesn't seem particularly meaningful. Actions speak louder than words. It seems to me that his actions seem to show, at best, a complete lack of concern for fiscal responsibility. Where were the internal auditors he committed to hire? Where was the transparency of financial decisions and oversight of contractors? Why didn't the CPA meter the oil pipelines to make sure the oil sales could be audited? The Bush administration has a President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense who were all oil industry executives. They can't claim they didn't understand the importance of this metering. -- Geo Swan 03:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
What, pray tell, is "the natural moral law" ?
What is "the natural moral law" ?
The quote reveals how committed Bremer was to living up to his obligations to be a good steward of Iraq's oil revenue?
The article has made clear that Bremer is "devout". Is "natural moral law" a phrase that only devout people understand? Unless someone can explain how "natural moral law" freed Bremer from honoring his obligations I'd say this passage detracts from the value of the article. -- Geo Swan 05:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- This paragraph was removed recently by a very disgruntled individual under the alias of Geo Swan: Ambassador Bremer, a "staunch" Roman Catholic, took the nickname Jerry from a renown Bible translator and religious historian known today as St. Jerome[6], his patron saint. While in Iraq, Bremer became famously known for wearing tan desert combat boots with his tailored suits. Although well respected and liked by most Iraqis, there were those who were more critical of his presence even threatening intending physical harm. Just one day after reports of Paul Bremer's departure, Dar Al-Hayat, a London based Arabic language newspaper, started a rumor that Ambassador Bremer (who so happens to be happily married to the former Frances Winfield) left behind a young 35-year old Iraqi lover. The newspaper followed up with another article criticizing Bremer's administration of Iraq; adding both Bremer and his "Iraqi lover" are together happily writing "his diary". A more substantial story occurred on March 28, 2004 when the former administrator ordered a controversial Iraqi newspaper Al-Hawza shut down for two months.
- Geo Swan, you have just accused a fair and righteous man of immoral and indecent behavior. The rumor of an extra-marital affair which you speak of was never substantiated. Ambassador Bremer has during his stay in Iraq, been asked repeatedly by reporters if he would take an Iraqi "girl" as his wife. He responded to this sort of questioning diplomatically by saying that his religion allows for only one wife [and not up to four, as is the custom over there]. And if you had read the article published by the Catholic standard "Faith Gives Him Strength" and decipher what it was trying to tell you, his wife of 39 years is truly the love of his life. Furthermore, during his stay, there were repeated attempts to harm this man. If you had played back his speech he made back in February at a T.D. Waterhouse symposium you would have discovered that fact as well. And sure, you're upset that a controversial Iraqi newspaper was shut down. There was a reason for that. The newspaper was inciting violence. You speak of freedom of the press. What about "thou shalt not bear false witness?". Then there's your remark: God helps those who help themselves to a heap of money. Where did this come from? For your information, it was Bremer who established the Inspector General offices [4] to ensure that rampant abuse which you accuse him of, would be detected under the watchful eyes of the inspector general. So, it would seem that you are hell bent on destroying this man's reputation and using Wikipedia for this wicked and evil plot of yours. Who are you accountable to? The papermill?
You've attracted attention and created suspicion indicating that you perhaps are the lover which Bremer is rumored to have had "during his stay in Iraq". When I discovered the rumor, I did a fair amount of research into this and actually found the Arabic version of this account (which was quickly removed from access later). The rumor also quickly spread throughout Europe and found itself posted on a Dutch porn site as well (a rather x-rated version of the rumor). A gilted lover with much to scorn about. If that is who you are or claim to be.
Ariele 02:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
My mistake! Many apologies to the readers. It would seem that Geo Swan is not the "lover" or "romantic" type. Ariele 21:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have asked you many time before to make a greater effort to be civil. In the last couple of days you have dismissed me as "disgruntled"; you have said I am carrying out an "evil plot"; you have made a joke, in very poor taste, associating me with a porn site. Well, I am not going to respond in kind.
- Your contributions does portray this man in a very contradictory fashion. Why? What do you have against this person? Ariele 20:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- You have responded, with outrage, to some of the things I have written, or rather, things you think I have written. Because, it seems to me, that your outrage stems from not properly reading what I wrote. The rumor of Bremer having a mistress predates my first contribution to this article. Let me encourage you to direct your outrage about the al-Hayat accusation to the writers at al-Hayat, and anyone else who put forward that story as if it were true.
- Are you sure that the wikipedia is the correct venue for expressing that outrage? -- Geo Swan 06:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Your contribution is outrageous. Who do you think you are making such childish comments such as "God helps those who help themselves to a heap of money".
- In response to your question "venue ...". My more recent contributions are not a show of "outrage" as you put it. For several months, I have been watching what you're putting down here and all of it seem to indicate you are extremely displeased with the way things were and with Bremer. You have personally attacked his integrity and that of his staff. Your wording has drawn suspicion that seem to indicate Bremer had done something criminal. Furthermore, your persistence has drawn suspicion that you in fact may have been the "lover" or someone in close proximity to him. No one thus far has consistently and persistently written so much criticisms about Bremer EXCEPT you Geo Swan. Now you expect readers to believe that Iraqis have "limited" sovereignty over their own country?
- Let me demonstrate to you what I am truly like when I use Wikipedia as the venue for expressing outrage: You remind me of this fanatic who claimed to be a former drug addict who co-habitated with three women at the same time, who excused himself for talking like a red-neck because he had a tumor removed from his brain, pretended to be a Christian preaching God's message and who along with a bunch of other like-kind fanatics thought that a recorded speech I made with some alterations no doubt (something similar to what you've done here about Bremer & the CPA) would coerce a government into supporting their extravagant (and expensive) way of life. That's called blackmail. And your contribution here has all the components of one.
- Now that is me expressing outrage.
I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to be more civil
- Ariele, I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to be more civil.
- I know you know that accusing other wikipedians of criminal activity is a violation of wikipedia etiquette. You just compared me with a reprehensible con-artist, who tried to defraud the USG. You seem to be saying that both your con-artist acquaintance, and I, were guilty of blackmail. If you didn't mean to accuse me of blackmail I think you should say so right now.
- I urge you, to exercise more caution here. I urge you to exercise more about jumping to conclusions. I urge you exercise more caution about posting here when you are in the grip of strong, intemperate emotions. We are all supposed to assume goodwill here. You keep failing to extend goodwill to me.
- Case in point, you read an edit I made, and you reacted as if I had accusd Bremer of adultery. You are skeptical of the report from the London Muslim newspaper, which didn't provide any details that any other journalists could check? I was skeptical too. That is why I condensed the adultery section when I moved it.
- I am going to point out I said it was a rumor. I didn't say it was proven.
- You read what I wrote, and you were swept by feelings to strong you reposted a long paragraph accusing me of a "wicked and evil plot" right into the article.
- You could have put a question, on the talk page, saying something like: "Geo Swan, I am concerned about your most recent edit of the section on the rumor of Bremer's alleged adultery. When I read it, it sounds like you are arguing the rumor is true. If that is not true, I think you should modify it, possibly by inserting the word 'alleged' before 'affair'.
- Ariele, it is clear you have strong objections to some of the material I put in this article. But do you think your reaction is really how you should react?
- You could ask civil questions about the material you find disturbing, or which you disagree with.
- You could go read the audit reports yourself, so you could form your own opinion. If your own independent conclusions differed from mine you could return here, and we could have a civil informed discussion about the substance of the article.
- Ariele, it is clear you have strong objections to some of the material I put in this article. But do you think your reaction is really how you should react?
- It is possible for people of goodwill to disagree, and yet have reasonable, civil discussions. Sometimes that results in one of those parties modifying their views. Sometimes both parties modify their views. I try my best to never enter a discussion without being ready to give my corresponent's view fair consideration. I try my best to be prepared to acknowledge that I might be wrong, and my correspondent might be correct.
- You just said, I "have personally attacked his integrity and that of his staff."
- I don't see that. My intention is to summarize things that can be documented. I spent considerable time reading the audit documents. Did Bremer do a good job making sure the Iraqi oil revenue he expended on behalf of the Iraqi people was well-spent? Well, the audit reports record what kind of job he did. I tried to give fair summaries of those reports. A fair summary of those reports may leave readers with a low opinion of Bremer, But if my I am fair then I have nothing to apologize for. Instead of criticizing my character, you could write a civil challenge to my interpretations.
- Consider the cash reconciliation:
- Did Bremer's authorization to expend Iraqi oil derive from UN resolution 1483?
- Did resolution 1483 require him to make sure expenditures were made in an open, transparent manner.
- Did resolution 1483 require him to take basic steps to make sure those truly massive amounts of cash could be traced and accounted for?
- Did he take those most basic steps? No, he did not. Not even a monthly cash reconciliation.
- Did I say that Bremer knowingly failed to fulfill his oblgations to institute proper fiscal controls as part of a criminal conspiracy? I do not think I said that.
- Consider the cash reconciliation:
- At this point in time we can only speculate as to why Bremer fiscal controls were so inadquate.
- The explanation he offered was that the CPA was understaffed, and his staff was young and inexperienced. I don't accept that explanation. I don't think that explanation makes any sense. Bremer instituted a deeply flawed, deeply inadequate hiring policy.
- Bremer had very serious responsibilities. He absolutely had an obligation to oversee a hiring policy that lead to a staff of the most qualified people who were available, without regard to their apparent political loyalties.
- But Bremer only hired people who had submitted their resume to the Heritage Foundation. He has given the appearance that his highest priority was choosing employees who shared his ideology.
- Maybe hiring only those who applied to the Heritage Foundation was just a thoughtless mistake. If so it was a very costly one. Possibly very costly for Iraq. Who knows how much more effectively, fairly and responsibly the CPA might have managed the recostruction of Iraq's infrastructure, if he hadn't crippled it with his deeply flawed hiring policy?
- But, IMO, that policy should be very costly for Bremer personally. IMO it should strip from the use of the excuse, "Have pity on my! I had an inexperienced staff!"
- I am going to return to where I started. If you think something someone wrote falls short of the fairness and objectivity that should be practiced in the wikipedia I am going to encourage you to assume goodwill and ask the other contributors civil questions. Civility is important. A lot of your accusations against me, like the accusations around the rumors of Bremer's alleged adultery, are simple misunderstandings.
- I am only human. You must understand that it requires an effort to stop short of simply responding in kind. So, please try harder. -- Geo Swan 01:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ha ha funny. Is that a threat from you?...
- I would seriously hope that the contributions you made criticizing the subject matter can be substantiated. Curiously, you and others have omitted Jeremy Greenstock....
Civility again
- Why do you insist on giving what I write a malicious interpretation? No, my last paragraph is not a threat. It is a plea. It is a plea for you to remove from me the burden of being civil to you when you aren't following the wikipedia etiquette and extending civility to me.
- When you use the words like "failure to" or "was responsible for" with regards to L. Paul Bremer's job performance as Administrator, your words tend to come across as "malicious" and disgruntled. Since his return, Bremer has been applauded for putting his life on the line for his country and awarded a few times including the prestigious Presidential Medal of Freedom. Overall, mainstream media has done an excellent job reporting the story. But a few bloggers have been counteractive if not counterproductive. I have said before that this article interests me NOT. Mainly because of you, Geo Swan.
Your apparent accusation of blackmail remains unexplained
- And what point was it that you were trying to make when you compared me with this con-artist? How is this insulting comparison supposed to be helpful, meaningful or useful?
- You seem to think my comments are all about you? Your contributions does portray this man in a very contradictory fashion. Why? What do you have against this person? Ariele 20:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Substantiating my sources?
- Substantiated? I thought I had already provided sources to the audit documents.
- You are giving the appearance of or assuming details from excerpts of a report which readers do not have access to.
- Ariele, you didn't sign the question you posed above.
- signed. Ariele 20:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC) Anything else?
- Yes. Of course. You have ignored dozens of questions where I have tried to engage you in civil discussions of the substance of edits you have made to this article. I'd like you to either make an attempt to give me some civil answers. Or alternatively, you can let me know I convinced you.
- I provided you with sources for all the edits you made this morning that said that whether Bremer failed to hire internal auditors was in dispute, whether he failed to make sure there was monthly cash reconciliations were in doubt. Are you ready to acknowledge that those challenges were misplaced, and that the CPA has already acknowledged those failures? -- Geo Swan 21:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- I am going to repeat the unanswered questions I posed to the substance of the article at the end of the talk page. -- Geo Swan 21:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Geo Swan, your hatred of me is certainly obvious. But to transfer that hatred towards L. Paul Bremer in your writing is certainly not a good idea. Take my advice, quit while you're ahead or else someone else may think your behavior may be a bit too unusual for that of an ordinary Wikipedia contributor. Wikipedia is a lot more forgiving. Ariele 01:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC) is not so.
- Is this your way of requesting more explicit pointers to the audit report I quote here?
- Here is UN Security Council Resolution 1483, which grants limited authority to Bremer to spend Iraq's oil revenue, and seized Iraqi resources. It also sets up the International Advisory and Monitoring Board.
- Here is Development Fund for Iraq—Appendix—Matters noted involving internal controls and other operations issues during the audit of the Fund for the period to 31 December 2003 the appendiz to the audit that I quote below, It is probably the most important of the documents listed here.
- Here is the official site of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction,
- Here is the most widely quoted of Bowen's report, the one that first described $9 billion in unaccountable expenditures.
- Here is Bremer's second regulation, where he commits to hiring a independent, certified, chartered accountants, to aid in making sure the CPA institutes proper fiscal controls.
- Here is Bremer's third regulation, where he sets up the Coalition Provisional Authority Program Review Board.
- Is this your way of requesting more explicit pointers to the audit report I quote here?
- Regular readers do have access to these documents. If you were having trouble finding them, all you had to do was ask. -- Geo Swan 18:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Again, Your contributions does portray this man in a very contradictory fashion. Why? What do you have against this person? Ariele 20:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- In your last edit of the article, which you made last night, you removed the sub-section heading, and added qualifications to suggest that there is doubt about facts that are not in dispute. I am going to revert your last edit, because I don't believe those facts are in dispute, and you didn't check the source document I cited to see if they are in dispute. Take the monthly cash reconciliations. The auditors said:
- 4.1 Cash on hand
- 4.1.1 The CPA cash instruments were not reconciled to accounting records by the CPA Comptroller until April 2004. A formal reconciliation process is necessary to maintain control over cash balances.
- 4.1.2 Since the CPA Comptroller took over the custody of cash, independent parties (e.g. officials from ohter departments) did not verify cash held in the CPA vault. Independent cash counts improve the control over cash balances held in the CPA vault.
- Here is the CPA’s response:
- The CPA Comptroller established internal controls over the receipt and disbursement of funds. As noted by the auditor, there should also have been an independent verification of cash on-hand. KPMG, as part of its audit, performed that verification and found no discrepancies.
- Or take the cash-based, single-entry transaction list -- here is what the auditors wrote:
- 1.3.1 In accordance with CPA Regulation2 date 15 June 2003, the CPA was required to obtain the services of an independent, certified public accounting firm to assist in the accounting function of the DFI. A firm was appointed in October 2003, and began their work during November 2004. The lead consultant represented to us that they are not a certified public accounting firm but a consulting firm. The consulting firm was tasked to develop a functional accounting system, to be run in parallel with the old system during March 2004, and became operational in April 2004.
- 1.3.2 The CPA had originally implemented spreadsheet-based accounting records that became rapidly insufficient to meet the requirement of the Fund. The revised accounting system consists of excel spreadsheets and pivot tables maintained by one individual from the consulting firm. The accounting system designed and implemented is a cash-based, single entry transaction listing rather than an accrual-based double-entry bookkeeping system.
- Here is the CPA's reply
- The auditor identified an issue with regard to using a cash-based, single entry transaction accounting system, as well as having several separate accounting policies not combined to a single accounting manual. We agree in principle with each of these issues. Immediately following the end of major hostilities, the CPA initiated cash-based accounting processes as a means to control all of the monies used to fund stabilization projects throughout Iraq. This process was an interim measure designed to track the inflows and outflows of the cash while a more robust accounting system was being developed. When 30 June 2004 was established as the projected date of transition to Iraqi sovereignty, the CPA did not believe it appropriate to continue efforts to create an Anglo-Saxon-based accounting system, even though such a system would provide for accrual accounting. An accrual-based system is being developed for Iraqi use. Although the cash-based, single entry system employed by the CPA was an interim solution, the DFI Fund Manager established internal controls to review all entries. It should also be noted that the data obtained from this accounting system was used to prepare the DFI Financial Statement, which received a favorable opinion from KPMG.
- The CPA acknowledges that they had one guy manage their accounts using a bunch of spreadsheets. They acknowledge they weren't using double-entry bookkeeping. And, I believe, because they did not address the criticism that Bremer never fulfilled his commitment to hire an independent, certified public accounting firm, Bremer tacitly acknowledges that he did not fulfill his commitment to hire an independent, certified public accounting firm.
Are you now calling me a "trouble-maker"?
- Your last six sentences don't make any sense to me. 3 accidents? Are we supposed to know what that means? -- Geo Swan 14:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- And you thought you knew everything there is to know about Ariele. If you see Sir Jeremy at his book festival, tell him we say "hi" (oops, not "we"). To re-emphasize, your repetition to "be civil" sounds more like a warning. And warnings can be taken as a threat. I thought you should know that I have been threatened before just to save you the trouble of rephrasing your warnings again. Why not just create a "template"? Because you should know by now that whenenver I (or anyone else) disagree with you, you seem to resort to words like "clearly" and "be civil". You don't have to rephrase yourself. Just whip out one of those Wikipedia templates. And there you have it. Just a couple of keystrokes. And since you're barring others from contributing with their own point of view, well, you could just write your own book just like that Anglo-Saxon fella Jeremy Greenstock is doing.
- Come to think of it ..... I scanned and searched a couple of those audit reports. Sure enough, that's what they are, reports. Too bad they're not in gibrish. Because if they had, then more trees would have to die and be chopped up for the papermill! Do you folks ever think about conservation and protecting the environment? Tree killers.
- Again, Your contributions does portray this man in a very contradictory fashion. Why? What do you have against this person? Ariele 20:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Extra Extra Read All About It!
No 10 blocks envoy's book on Iraq
Written by Martin Bright and Peter Beaumont Sunday July 17, 2005 The Observer
A controversial fly-on-the wall account of the Iraq war by one of Britain's most senior former diplomats has been blocked by Downing Street and the Foreign Office. Publication of The Costs of War by Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK ambassador to the UN during the build-up to the 2003 war and the Prime Minister's special envoy to Iraq in its aftermath, has been halted. In an extract seen by The Observer, Greenstock describes the American decision to go to war as 'politically illegitimate' and says that UN negotiations 'never rose over the level of awkward diversion for the US administration'. Although he admits that 'honourable decisions' were made to remove the threat of Saddam, the opportunities of the post-conflict period were 'dissipated in poor policy analysis and narrow-minded execution'.
Regarded as a career diplomat of impeccable integrity, during his time in post-invasion Iraq, Greenstock became disillusioned with the Coalition Provisional Authority, led by Paul Bremer. Their relationship had deteriorated by the time Greenstock returned to Britain.
The decision to block the book until Greenstock removes substantial passages will be interpreted as an attempt by ministers to avoid further embarrassing disclosures over the conduct of the war and its aftermath from a highly credible source.
Officials who have seen the book are understood to have been 'deeply shocked' over the way in which Greenstock has quoted widely from 'privileged' private conversations with Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and from the private deliberations of the UN Security Council.
Greenstock has been asked to remove all these sections before the book can be cleared for publication. 'I think some people are really quite surprised that someone like Sir Jeremy has done this,' said one source. 'In particular the way he has quoted private conversations with the Prime Minister.' Greenstock is also thought to be scathing about Bremer and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Greenstock's British publishers, Random House, were remaining tight-lipped but it is thought that the book is almost certain not to be published in the autumn as planned. It was also to be serialised in a British newspaper.
Greenstock, now director of the foreign policy think tank, the Ditchley Foundation, was set to give a series of public appearances, including one at next month's Edinburgh Book Festival. The Foreign Office last night issued a statement: 'Civil Service regulations which apply to all members of the diplomatic service require that any retired official must obtain clearance in respect of any publication relating to their service. Sir Jeremy Greenstock's proposed book is being dealt with under this procedure.'
CPA Transcript: Bremer Announces Inspector General Program, March 30, 2004
by L. Paul Bremer, Administrator
"Human weakness is a permanent condition.
One need but read the Code of Hammurabi to know that people have always been tempted to lie, cheat and steal. This is not news to any student of history or the human condition. All societies must wrestle with the question of what to do about it.
Hammurabi recognized that civilization requires a code of laws to deal with inevitable temptation and crime. And thus Hammurabi earned his place in history as the world's first great law-giver.
And as the inhabitants of Hammurabi's kingdom needed a means to deal with those who yield to temptation or corruption, so do all of us in the modern world. Iraqis know this as well as anyone in the world. During Saddam's regime Iraqi children attended dilapidated schools and sought treatment in clinics with no medicine. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein, his family and friends indulged in a Pharonic excess of palaces and collections of expensive cars.
The wake of Saddam's corruption is long and wide. Now, almost a year after liberation we are just beginning to understand the outline of the theft and corruption associated with the Oil for Food program. Both the United Nations and the Iraqi Governing Council have begun investigations into a program initiated to help the Iraqi people instead allegedly diverted Iraq's money to other, possibly illicit, uses.
In order to facilitate these investigations, two weeks ago I ordered that all Iraqi official records in any department or ministry which might pertain to the Oil for Food program administration, sales or purchases be identified, inventoried and secured. The Coalition Provision Authority will do all we can to facilitate these investigations.
Never again should the Iraqi people's wealth be squandered on palaces and Ferraris. Never again should such corruption be allowed to take root.
Ladies and gentlemen, the theft of government property is a particularly odious crime because government property is the people's property. In a democracy money raised from lawfully imposed taxes should be used for the people's benefit as determined by their representatives. That money is held in trust for the people of Iraq by their government. It is not there to ease the lives of government officials or political leaders.
And Iraqis, you the people, know the threat of corruption is real. In conversations with hundreds of Iraqis since liberation, I have heard that stamping out corruption is one of the people's greatest concerns and I agree.
Fighting government corruption is important in any country, but doubly important today in Iraq. If public officials steal or abuse their position here they are not just stealing, they are undermining confidence in the new Iraq's democratic government.
One way to track corruption and waste is to ensure that each and every Iraqi ministry has an independent Inspector General. This person must be authorized to investigate allegations against anyone in the Ministry, including the Minister. And, where he finds evidence of crimes, the Inspector General must be able to refer cases to Iraq's independent judiciary. This is the system I have determined to set up in Iraq.
Thus, Iraq's new Inspectors General have a special responsibility. They will be protecting not just the people's money, but the people's faith in their government.
The Inspectors General will not be alone in their efforts to protect the public from corruption. I am creating two additional independent, but cooperating agencies which will work with the Inspectors General.
The Inspectors General will work with The Commission on Public Integrity and revitalized Board of Supreme Audit.
Working together, the Board, the Inspectors General and the Commission, form an integrated approach intended to combat corruption at every level of government across the country.
Although all three elements are important, the Inspectors General have a unique opportunity to serve their fellow citizens. Seldom does mismanagement, waste, fraud or abuse occur in government without people in the relevant ministry knowing about it. That means that a hard-working Inspector General will have an excellent opportunity to expose corruption.
Best of all, an active Inspector General helps honest people stay honest. An active inspections program lets people know that waste, fraud or abuse, are likely to be detected and those responsible are likely to be punished-- and that helps everyone.
This program has already begun. As of today, I have already appointed 21 Inspectors General and I expect to name the remaining Inspectors General within the next few days.
Man's ancient tendency towards self-enrichment has not been overcome, but a comprehensive system using individuals dedicated to discovering waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement will reduce the temptation for many and help ensure that the corrupt few receive the punishments their crimes deserve. I mentioned that I have appointed 21 Inspectors General and I am very pleased to have several of them here today.
Along with the Transitional Administrative Law, the appointment of these Inspectors General represents yet another milepost on Iraq's progression to sovereignty, elections and democracy, to a future of hope for all Iraqis.
Mabruk al Iraq al Jadeed. Aash al-Iraq!"
Requesting a greater effort at discussion, less unilateral unexplained edits
Ariele, I know you have had it explained to you before that massive deletions, and rearranging of talk pages is considered disruptive. Yes, I know that change was made from an anonymous IP number. But, since you used that IP number for other edits it is pretty clear you made this edit too.
I think it is absurd to call me a "teenage vandal". I keep trying to move the discussion here on the talk pages to the substance of the article. Instead of engaging in a discussion of the substance of the article, which is really the only way we can arrive at a compromise, you ignore those discussions. You have made some absurd accusations, and called me names.
Can you please engage in a discussion of the substance the article, rather than making unexplained changes?
I did a lot of reading of the audit documents. I made a sincere effort to give a fair summary of those documents. You edited the article to represent established facts as in dispute. I explained why I thought those facts were not in dispute. I quoted official documents, where the CPA acknowledged those facts that you represented as in dispute. I called on you to either engage in a civil, reasoned discussion of our conclusions about these facts, or reverse the edits where you represented those facts as in dispute, or invite me to revert those edits.
There is nothing stopping you from agreeing that I have established that those facts are not in dispute, but suggesting alternate wording if you feel my wording is too harsh. We aren't going to reach a compromise unlsee you show more cooperation.
Removing my questions, and calling them teenage vandalism, won't work. FWIW I am not a teenager, and I don't live in DC. -- Geo Swan 23:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Answering Ariele's questions about my motivation
I've asked Ariele to discuss the substance of the article, rather make accusation, call me names, and make unexplained edits. Yesterday they responded to one of those questions with this comment.
- Geo Swan, your hatred of me is certainly obvious. But to transfer that hatred towards L. Paul Bremer in your writing is certainly not a good idea. Take my advice, quit while you're ahead or else someone else may think your behavior may be a bit too unusual for that of an ordinary Wikipedia contributor. Wikipedia is a lot more forgiving. Ariele 01:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC) is not so.
For the record, I don't hate Mr Bremer, and I don't hate you.
I think Bremer did an absolutely terrible job exercising stewardship of Iraq's oil revenue. Back in the winter you wrote:
- It's such a shame that Amb. Bremer has to be subjected to so much criticism for his extraordinary service. We should be grateful that Amb. Bremer agreed to take on the job (however thankless it appears to be).
The wikipedia is not the place for unbalanced biographies, that only report the complementary details of the subject's life.
I am motivated by a regard for the truth. I want the article to fairly represent Bremer's true performance of his duties. If the evidence shows his performance was not extraordinary, but extraordinarily terrible, the article should say that. Hatred of Bremer is not required to want the article to reflect the truth.
As to whether I hate you? I just wrote a couple of paragraphs explaining why I don't hate you. But since you have shown a very poor ability to understand what I really mean, I am not going to inlcude that explanation now.
If you want it, you will have to ask for that explanation.
I realize I said something that triggered your animosity. It was inadvertent. The animosity it triggered is massively unbalanced. I don't think it reflects well on you that you did not accept my apology, and that you do not accept all the attempts I have made to get our exchanges to focus back on agreeing what the article should or shouldn't say. -- Geo Swan 01:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism of 2005/08/17
The article and this talk page were vandalized by Ariele this morning. I am going to take their vandalism as a sign they weren't ready to have a civil discussion to answer the questions I posed them about their contentious edits. Since I have backed up that the facts they said were in dispute were not in dispute I am restoring my original wording.
I am also removing the paragraph Ariele added where they claimed to be quoting Bremer about the importance of "natural moral law". I asked Ariele to explain this edit. They haven't done so. The quote from the account of his speech at Clark University, if correct, is a damning indictment of the seriousness with which Bremer felt he was obliged to honor his obligation to be a steward of Iraq's resources for Iraqis.
Ariele did not name the venue where Bremer uttered the quote they attributes to him. Ariele didn't name the date, other than saying it was "recent". I think this is a valid reason to strike it. Further, what it ias to do with the quote it is intended to counter is entirely unclear. "Natural moral law" is a phrase some religious people use. They use it to contrast with the body of civil law. It is my impression that when religious people use the phrase "natural moral law" they either explicitly say, or imply, that natural moral law transcends civil law. It is my impression that anti-abortion terrorists, for instance, cite natural moral law as their justification for murdering doctors who perform abortions, and the staff who aid them.
If Bremer really uttered the phrase Ariele attributed to them, and, if so, he uttered it in the context of defending his poor management of Iraq's oil revenue, then the article would need an explanation of the code, so the rest of us could understand what he really meant. -- Geo Swan 17:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- I did a google search on Bremer, and "natural moral law". This is probably the recent speech Ariele was refering to. It is a commencement address. He spends a considerable portion of the speech talking about "moral law" -- in the context of abortion -- not in the context of his abrogation of his responsibilities in Iraq. The quote has nothing to do with Iraq. -- Geo Swan 18:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)