Talk:Paul Bremer/Archive 1

A Message From An Iraqi to Bremer
(reference: )

"I was taking a walk in the street with one of my friends when suddenly I heard a shout “Dr. Mohammed!” I turned back to see who it was and I found that it was one of the nursing staff who worked with me in Samawa and got transferred to Baghdad. After greetings and asking about each other’s health he said “I was just thinking of you” why?, I asked.

“Do you still run that website?” he asked. I said “yeah”.

-Can you do me a favor?

-Sure.

-Do you know Abu Haider’s (Mr. Bremer) e-mail address?

-No! Why?

-I want to send him a letter.

-What for?

-To say thanks. Actually it’s not only me, it’s my mother Al-Hidjiyah; she made me promise her to send a letter to Mr. Bremer.

-Me too. I want to do that but unfortunately I don’t have his e-mail. -Can you ask your American friends. Because I really feel bad that the man didn’t get the reward he deserves for his great efforts; we could at least make a party for him or a decent celebration. Did you listen to his farewell speech? it was incredible. -Yes, it was and I’ll try to get his mail although I think it’s difficult but what did your mother exactly want to tell him? ... We miss you Sir and we know that it’s been difficult for you too. Your speech has touched the hearts of all the Iraqis I have met just as your efforts have contributed in drawing the outlines of the bright future of Iraq, the new free democratic Iraq and we will never forget you. You worked hard as if you were a true son of Iraq and in fact you’re one of Iraq’s sons, that’s how we look at you.

I never heard anyone talk badly about you, I heard people say a lot of bad things about GWB and the GC members but you were the most respected and loved political character among Iraqis and I can say I’m almost sure that if there was a poll about who’s the most popular person in Iraq, then you would’ve been the winner. You maintained an equilibrium in a very intricate situation and at a very difficult time and I doubt that someone else would’ve been able to do that.

You’ve understood the mosaicism of the Iraqi people and the desires, fears and demands of each group and dealt with them in the wisest possible way.

You were working hard to convince one group and satisfy another one to guarantee the progress of the process and you faced one crisis after the other and an attack after the other but all that didn’t affect your morale, stamina and high level of professionalism.

You were keen on leading Iraq to the shores of peace despite the harsh environment, and most Iraqis recognize that you succeeded in your mission.

Sir, Iraq loved you just like you confirmed your love in your farewell speech. We were touched just as you were. You have taken a place in our hearts just as you said we’ve taken our places in your heart. We will be waiting for you to return with your grandchild Sophya (as you promised in your speech) and we’ll share your will to teach her the history of Iraq and I’m sure that she’ll love Iraq as you do.

Yes, we’d like you to come back to your country, Iraq. And we’d love to have you share the moments of joy with us as you shared the moments of sadness. We would like you to live the moment of victory with us as you lived the moment of hardships.

I was never surprised when none of the western media broadcasted your impressive speech because I doubt their interest in showing the world the nature of the relation between you and the people of Iraq. But I’d like to tell you this: Iraq loves you just as you love her.

''These are the verses which Mr. Bremer used in his farewell speech. They are too difficult to translate (in fact they’re difficult to understand even for Arabs, as it’s an old verse with difficult vocabulary that’s no longer used in daily life) and I’ll post them in Arabic, but they generally say:''


 * I’ve left my heart in the hands of God in Baghdad
 * I said good bye to him when I wished instead..
 * That I would say good bye to the days of my life.

أستودع الله في بغداد لي قمرا ..... بالكرخ من فلك الأزرار مطلعه ودعته وبودي لو يودعني ..... صفو الزمان وأني لا أودعه

عاش العراق ..عاش العراق ..عاش العراق

By Mohammed."

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

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 [] 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)


 * Alas, Geo Swan, my contributions to both articles are supported by publicly available data...I don't personally know Amb. Bremer,,,matter of fact, never met the world-famous, celebrity person....,,,,BR>>


 * 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 No personal attacks, Wikiquette and 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?

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 -->    This article was considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please vote on and discuss the matter. See this article's entry on the Votes for Deletion page. You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, nor remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Votes for Deletion.

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)

Copy/Paste from Archive
 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)

Paul Bremer
Article needs to be completely deleted or drastically revamped Ariele 19:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) See further explanation at Why Vote for Deletion?
 * Keep - Please read Deletion policy before nominating this article in VfD. If you think it has NPOV, cleanup, etc., issues then discuss on that article's discussion tab, then put a template tag. Right now, the person is definitely notable and it is not listed as a "Problems that may require deletion." --Chill Pill Bill 19:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "...Only administrators have the ability to delete and undelete pages within the system...." I am only submitting the idea.  If you only knew how difficult it was for some to keep this article on here as NPOV as possible during its early development.  There were issues and attempts at removing or revising its contents before.  Ariele 21:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh by the way, the VfD listing is not a joke. Press releases indicate Bremer allegedly criticized the newly elected Bush administration back in 2000 for not doing enough "home-land securitying". If only there were more (links would be good) on his Congressional testimonies prior to the year 2000 as the article suggests that Bremer was a "regular" on Capitol Hill. Questioning what I have read. Ariele 03:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is, again, not a reason for deletion. If you don't like the POV, fix it yourself, or slap a tag on it. You seem to have done some research on this subject already; why not apply it to the article? There's currently no discussion on the article's talk page about the issues you raise (unless they've been archived or removed, forgive me if that's the case as I haven't the time to go through the talk history) so it seems to me that no effort has been made to fix the article. Bremer is an important figure and warrants an article – why do you want it deleted? If you brought it here just to get more eyeballs on the article, this is the wrong forum, as you can see from the responses. Listing it at WP:RFC would be the way to go, IMO.  A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D TALK EMAIL  16:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * And therefore, your vote is necessary to KEEP or DELETE. If you recall, this article was submitted by someone else for deletion and I (a newcomer at the time) supported "DELETE".  My opinion has not changed. And yes, I have attempted to "fix" the problem but as you can see in the discussion, there were indeed issues and anti-Bremer sentiments.  If you were watching this article, you will find that the direction this article will be taking is not going to be a favorable one.   Ariele 16:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 22:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * erm, exactly what is wrong with this article? Keep The JPS 19:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. DS1953 19:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important article - should be developed further. --Ian Pitchford 19:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep notable person. --InShaneee 20:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep nothing wrong with it as far as I can see, it doesn't seem to have any NPOV issues or any other problems. --Sstabeler 21:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep No immediate POV problems that I can see, and no real reason for deletion.
 * Keepimportant international figure, important figure in the history of Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Bush Administration. Deletion would be a mistake
 * Keep. POV issues are not reason to delete an article, and the reasoning given at Chill Pill Bill's talk page does not make it sound like the POV is unfixable. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  23:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Highly notable person. Article needs some POV balancing or more careful phrasing but the article should definitely remain. I'm surprised it wasn't already in the Wikipedia, actually. The article on Chill Bill Pall's page appears to imply that because he doesn't feature on GWB's page he must therefore not be notable; that is just an oversight on GWB's page.-Splash 00:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * The article isn't new. It was a feature article in 2004 until it was demoted recently. I should have phrase my sentences better. --Chill Pill Bill 03:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Detailed article on notable person. Capitalistroadster 01:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Is this VFD a joke? --Bletch 02:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Come on now. We could just delete George W. Bush right along with this one. POV can be fixed without a VfD.  -- Jonel 03:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I do dislike Bremer so. I still cannot understand this VfD's reasoning. Xoloz 04:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extremely notable figure in Iraq. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 100% Keep &mdash; was this nomination some type of joke? &mdash; RJH 16:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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.

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? Are you implying that someone else other than yourself did this?


 * 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? How have you established evidence of "failure" with an old "to do" list?  Are we suppose to find this out from a "book"?  I scanned the KPMG audit report and its findings.  The report noted that under the former Saddam H's regime, oil smuggling was common and that the CPA did establish internal controls.  The report also pointed out that the problems it found were minor and that such discussions took place with the CPA.  What was the problem and so called "disastrous" results from using a single entry accounting method?  I saw the notation in the report.  Why did you not mention that the CPA had the department of defense internal auditors and IG at their disposal too?  I suppose there's more but I don't think there's room here.  Ariele 15:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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 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.


 * Ariele 19:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

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.


 * 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.


 * 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....


 * Ariele 03:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

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.


 * 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)

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)


 * pic which you removed illustrates one such example when natural moral law becomes a "non-issue".  By blocking my accounts from editing this article to remove propaganda, contradicts your own policy.  Your actions indicate Wikipedia is a private foundation - not a public one.  And since you are disseminating information publicly via the world wide web, you should have had the sense of public duty to exercise due diligence in your responsibilities so that the information you release to the public does not misguide or misinform others (esp. young minds).  Such actions could lead to "disastrous" (another one of your favorite words) consequences.  This is called broadcasting, something which you are likely very familiar with.


 * This is the version I reverted back to on the 17th that led to my being blocked from editing.. GEO SWAN's version as it appears now, presents to the reader that the American coalition did not follow through on its responsibilities - placing blame on Bremer.  The tone which this is written has cause for concern.  The other concern has to do with GEO SWAN's insistence that Bremer has abused his authority and is to blame for the unaccounted for funds.  And more recently, GEO SWAN posts that Iraq has "limited" sovereignty.  GEO SWAN, it is not your responsibility to tell me what I should be thinking.
 * 65.4.88.9413:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC) formerly, Paradigmbuff, Puffydoogle, Sweeper, Ethanol, and Ariele

discussion of content, as of 2005/08/19

 * Here is one of the edits that got you blocked, here is the other one


 * You blocked me from editing on August 17th [2005] when I removed your "propagandist" material. This discussion would never have taken place if some dude named "Abe" had not knocked up some Egyptian girl.  Those two chicks and their decendants have been at each others throat ever since.  And Oh, by the way, it is "rumored" that the Koran permits a muslim man to have up to 4 wives; nothing about a married woman having multiple hubbies.  Maybe you know something about this.


 * I assume that is you Ariele. Why have you stopped signing in?


 * Are you inquiring whether the response is from Ariele or are you making a statement that Ariele has 4 hubbies? This is another reason why Ariele seems to think you are foreign and that the English language is not your native tongue.  So, to respond to the most insidious of your questions, Ariele does not and did not have 4 hubbies.  It's against Ariele's religion to practice that form of idolatry and deception.


 * I don't know how many times you have to be told this. I didn't block you.  The administrators became aware of your vandalism without any help from me.


 * It is contrary to the convention to stick your comments in the middle of someone else's. Could you please be more careful?


 * You've called my contributions "propaganda" again, without making any attempt to explain why. Please stop doing that.  --  Geo Swan 01:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me suggest that it is incorrect to call the versions left after your vandalism was reverted my versions. Those were the versions that represented the then current wikipedia consensus.


 * Yes, I said that Bremer did not fulfill his responsibilities. But, this is not just my opinion.  This is not editorializing, on my part.  It is undeniable.  You are making me repeat myself here.  UN Security Council Resolution 1483, and his second regulation obliged him to put in place fiscal controls.  He did not put them in place.  And the CPA reply to KPMG audit of the Development Fund for Iraq acknowledges the responsibilities went unfulfilled.


 * Yes, I put the blame on Bremer. Because I think the documents I cited make clear it was his responsibility.  I think I have documented that it was his responsibility.  If you think it was not his responsibility can you cite any documents that let him off the hook?  Can you cite any documents that would make it a shared responsibility?


 * As for the tone with which it is written... I welcome any constructive suggestion you, or anyone else, can make, in a civil manner, about how those documents I cited were summarized.  You made edits to the document a few days ago trying to represent the facts of where his responsibilities lay, or whether he fulfilled them, as in dispute.  I argued that these edits should not stand, because they were counter to the documented facts.  I have said before that I welcome civil collaboration from other wikipedians.  This is not my article.  It is the wikipedia's article.


 * In my opinion you did not make a meaningful effort to back up your edits. You know what?  It is okay to say, "I was wrong.  I made a mistake."


 * You say that I wrote that Bremer abused his authority? That suggestion disturbs me.  Whether his failure to put proper fiscal controls in place represented simple incompetence and negligence, or whether it was purposeful, so workers within the CPA, or their contractors or business associates could embezzle funds -- "abuse" as you call it -- remains unclear.  I don't think the wikipedia should take a stand on that, until and unless a further inquiry can prove who profited.  If you can find a place, in the article, where I say "Bremer abused his authority", I will say, "I was wrong.  I made a mistake."  And I will fix it, because the article shouldn't go farther than can be documented.


 * But, by failing to put fiscal controls in place Bremer set the stage. The lack of fiscal controls made fraud and embezzlement easy, and, possibly, untraceable after the fact.


 * Yes, this makes him ultimately responsible for the unaccounted for funds. Over the last couple of years there have been a number of CEOs of big American corporations who have stood trial, and used the defense, "I am only the CEO.  I know nothing about finances.  The fraud that was committed in my name was done by my tricky CFO and his staff.  They cooked the books!"  I don't think Bremer can use that argument.  Regulation number two.  He committed to hiring a firm of accountants.  And he never, ever did so.  This was not trickery on the part of his subordinates.  This was Bremer failing to fulfill his obligations.


 * I know you really admire him, and would like the record to show he was above criticism. But the record just doesn't show that.


 * As to Iraq's limited sovereignty -- I said why I thought it should be described as limited on June 28th, 2004. You replied to my comment.  But I don't see anything in your reply that is a meaningful challenge to my assertion that the sovereignty transferred to the Iraqi interim government was truly limited.


 * As to whether you have the right to think what you want? Of course you do.  We both do.  I am not trying to tell you what to think.  I am trying to engage in a civil discussion of the content of this article, which should only contain what can be substantiated.


 * Thanks for writing your own comments, rather than editing mine. But, by the convention for adding comments, you would have added those comments, at four indents, below my comments of 5:17, 19 August, because you made it later, not at two indents preceding those comments.  --  Geo Swan 16:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * First off -- I didn't block you. Nor did I report your name calling, or your accusations, or your the extreme edits you made without any attempts to reach a consensus.  The administrators found you without any help from me.


 * Second, the genocide picture has nothing to do with your Bremer quote. And you haven't explained what your Bremer quote has to do with his statement that Americans should not be concerned about the unaccounted for $9 billion, because it was just Iraqi money.


 * Third, are you know accusing me of being a propagandist? If you really think you see "propaganda" in this article, why don't you take one or two of what you consider the worst examples, and quietly, and civilly explain why- you consider them propaganda?


 * Fourth, "due diligence"? I think the effort I have made to summarize fairly, and cite the documents I summarized, can stand comparison with any other wikipedians.


 * Fifth, I am very disappointed. I thought you might have dropped your hostility.


 * Listen, you might want this article to only contain material that flatters Bremer. But if the facts don't support a flattering description, the article has to include the unflattering material as well.


 * Now, if you think the way I word what I wrote was too harsh, nothing prevents you from suggesting different wording. If you think any of the information that I put in this article is incorrect nothing prevents you from initiating a civil discussion of those points.  Inserting the qualifications you put in a few days ago wasn't civil.  I backed up the contributions I made.  How should I feel that you didn't look to the documents I cited before making your extensive revisions?    I think if you assumed goodwill you would have discussed your changes here on the talk pages first.


 * The closest you came to a civil request was when you said: You are giving the appearance of or assuming details from excerpts of a report which readers do not have access to. . So, I supplied links to my sources, in more detail.  Here is your reply:
 * 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.


 * This was not, IMO, a meaningful reply. You asserted I was citing documents ordinary readers didn't have access to.  But when I showed you did have access to them, you didn't give a humble reply.  You didn't thank me for the effort I had made on your request.  And, significantly, once you had been reminded how to access the documents, you didn't review them, and then bring to the talk page civil arguments explaining how my summaries were incorrect, or could be improved.


 * I know what I have written about Bremer has made you angry. You don't like reading that his job performance left the Iraqi funds he was responsible for wide open to embezzlement and abuse.  But you are getting angry at the wrong person.  I am merely the messenger.  The person you should really be disappointed in is Mr Bremer.  He did not live up to the high opinion you hold of him.  It is undeniable.  Even if the evidence that Bremer didn't take his responsibilities seriously wasn't iron-clad enough for you, we have that quote from his speech at Clark University, where he said: "I suggest you not worry, as that $9 billion was Iraqi money, not US money."


 * Why shouldn't we regard Bremer's Clark University statement as a confession that he did not take his responsibilities seriously? --  Geo Swan 05:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

end of the coaltion
The article currently reads:
 * "He served in this capacity from May 11, 2003 until the dismantling of the coalition on June 28, 2004."

This sentence has been rewritten many times, by many contributors. Yet it remains factually incorrect. The coalition, ie, the "Coalition of the Willing", was not dismantled. It was the Coalition Provisional Authority whose term of responsibility came to an end.

Speaking of the end of the coalition -- missing from both this article, and the CPA article, is any mention that the date of the handover had originally been months later. It was moved forward. The original date, the date the decision was made to move forward the limited handover of sovereignty, and the role, if any, of Bremer's job performance, deserve mention here.


 * Geo Swan, the wording was changed to "...ceased to exist". Who deleted it?  Ariele 05:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The history mechanism can tell you when a change was made. --  Geo Swan 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Expand the "Post-Iraq" portion
Some stuff should be moved into the Post-Iraq portion of his biography, including his honourary degree, and his awarding of the Presidential medal of freedom.

Arrival in Iraq
The document by which the President, or SecDef, or whomever appointed Bremer should be cited, and a link provided, if one is available.


 * Geo Swan, you have not requested for documents before w.r.t other appointees? Why this one?  Ariele 05:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Because someone has asserted, without attribution, that Bremer had powers and responsibilities that I have concerns about. The article has said that Bremer was authorized to alter Iraqi society.  Altering a society sounds like it could be a war crime.  So, the exact wording is important.  It is also possible that the statement in the article was too enthusiastically paraphrased, and suggests Bremer had powers and responnsibilities he did not actually have.  If that is the case the assertion should be removed.  --  Geo Swan 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How odd? I don't know if anyone can say that altering Iraqi society can be associated with War Crime because the U.N. itself doesn't have a concise definition of the word "War Crime".  Look for yourself if you don't believe me.  Plus, why are you worried that Bremer (AKA:Abu Haider) could be associated with war crimes?  Ariele 02:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As a member of the general public, this is what I saw on television: Bremer was appointed by the President of the United States.  I believe the press called Bremer the special presidential envoy to Iraq.  Sometime later, another news suggested Bremer's title changed to "civil administrator".


 * Why is it written such that Bremer reported directly to the DOD? The policies may not have been the same if Bremer was the civilian administrator and was not actually serving under military chain of command.  Can someone explain why my previous edits were removed?......Ariele 17:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Bremer's mandate
The article currently reads:
 * Bremer was empowered to issue decrees to modify Iraq's society and infrastructure."

Who empowered him to modify Iraq's society? He was not empowered to modify Iraq's society by UN resolution 1483. Was he empowered to do so by some other UN resolution? If some document really tried to empower Bremer to modify Iraqi society this article should link to it.


 * Should there be documents linked to other government appointees too? Ariele 05:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe. Depends on the circumstances.  The article links to source documents that created the Development Fund for Iraq, and the Coalition Provisional Authority Program Review Board.

De-Ba'athification
De-Ba'athification deserves a sub-section of its own -- one that more fully explores the criticisms of this policy -- together with the arguments in favour of the policy, if any can be found.

High-ranking Ba'athists have been rehabilitated, including the new head of the secret police. --


 * And who has the utmost authority to present arguments in favor and against this policy, Geo Swan? You?  Dear readers, you would have gathered by now there were controversies surrounding this decision and will likely be picked to death for years to come.  Actually, the arguments between myself and GEO SWAN & RAMA have resorted to name calling, personal attacks, and the use of Wikipedia computer resources such as Blocking me from editing at the same time, along with calling me a vandal.  All of this illustrates how impassioned these two Wikipedia account users have been and have proceeded to fuel their endeavors by portraying the subject matter as someone who no one really likes or would like.  This in itself makes for a very interesting story  indeed.


 * Ariele 18:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ariele, first, could you please show a greater regard for accuracy? The record shows that you are the only one who has resorted to name calling.  Although you attribute your various blockings to wikipedia insiders picking on you, this is completely untrue.  I know I asked you a question, on February 13, 2005, which you interpreted as a personal attack.  I didn't understand what triggered your flood of abuse over the next several days.  And, when I did figure it out, I apologized.  With the exception of that question I do not think you can point to any attacks mounted against you.  But, you, on the other hand, have mounted well over a dozen serious personal attacks.


 * Actually, I beleive you had already predicted my reaction to your questioning. I am here because I am only searching for the truth.  I still don't know why you asked the question - because it does seem out of place and inappropriate.  But you persisted and persisted and even attempted to reveal my identity here.  Hence the reason for registering under different names you tofu head.  Now I have to behave myself and not post any of the good stuff here.
 * Ariele 02:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Rama has not anything to do with this article since March.


 * Why shouldn't any wikipedian who thinks they can find a clear, civil way to insert information they think is pertinent, feek free to go ahead and do so? --  Geo Swan 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Decree protecting Mercenaries from Iraqi law
The CPA, the US Army, and foreign firms hired several tens of thousands of mercenaries. This is one of the dirty secrets of the occupation. One of Bremer's more outrageous decress established that contractors, while fulfilling their contractual duties, would be immune to legal action under Iraqi law. The mercenaries are subject to almost no controls whatsoever. They are not subject to US law while in Iraq. They are not subject to Iraqi law. And they are not subject to the UCMJ. The Mercenaries are widely hated in Iraq. They are seen as brutal and trigger happy, and show no regard for Iraqis who get in their way, blasting away at Iraqi vehicles that come to close to their convoys, or driving them off the road.

Setting rules to control the mercenaries was, I believe, Bremer's responsibility. The lack of policy was, in and of itself, a policy.

"Staunch" Roman Catholic paragraph
The article currently reads:
 * Bremer, a "staunch" Roman Catholic, took the nickname Jerry from a renown Bible translator and religious historian known today as St. Jerome[4], 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 and even threatened him with physical harm.

Does it really matter what his nickname was, and where it came from? Do the sentences about Bremer's Catholicism really belong in the section on his administration of Iraq?


 * Yes it does because the information only points to the fact that Bremer is a man of faith. Ariele 05:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Why should his proclaimed faith be mentioned in the section on his administration of Iraq? Was leading prayer sessions part of his duties?  --  Geo Swan 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Does his wardrobe really need to be mentioned?


 * Yes. Why not?  Bremer has made a fashion statement.  Ariele 05:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So what? --  Geo Swan 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Can a source for the assertion that he was popular and well-liked be found? I am highly skeptical. My impression is that moderate Iraqis were willing to extend to him some benefit of the doubt. But that he blew it with his heavy-handed decrees.


 * GEO SWAN, based on the information I've found to prove to readers how absolutely wiley you are, it doesn't seem like Bremer (AKA: Abu Haider) blew anything with his decrees. And you know that there were no serious personal attacks from me.  So stop making things up.  Your credibility is somewhat "wanting".  Ariele 01:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI: As explained by a blogger of "Iraq the Model", the Arab name just stuck.  Similar to other Asian cultures, a person's name usually has a meaning.  Unfortunately, this name also belongs to a fella who was charged for illegal wire transfer(s)  ).  I don't think it was intentional.  This has to be purely coincidental.  Ariele 21:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Can be found in one of the linked press releases - Newseek's maybe. Ariele 05:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope. Not Newsweek.  I remain skeptical.  --  Geo Swan 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Proclaimed Faith: This part was not in the section on Bremer's administration of Iraq before.  The latter part of this article was re-written by none other than GEO SWAN and the flow changed.  Ariele 01:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * GEO SWAN, I know the reference is there. Here is another from a blogger expressing gratitude for Bremer's efforts in Iraq.  Bremer's farewell speech was very touching and here is a sample of one such show of admiration and affection from an Iraqi.  I'm certain you already know the answer to your skepticism. Ariele 01:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Governing council
The article currently reads:
 * Though the council was given several important powers (such as the appointment of a cabinet), Bremer retained veto power over their proposals. Reportedly, his method of creating the Iraq Interim Governing Council was compared to that of "shepherding." Upon creation of the governing council, members held more public appearances and responsibilities thereafter.

The appointment of a cabinet, from within their number, is not an important power, if the governing council doesn't have other important powers. Other important powers need to be mentioned.

The shepherding sentence is flawed. "Reportedly"? Who reported it? Compared to "shepherding"? Who made the comparison, and what, in heaven's name, is this supposed to mean? If it is not meaningful it should be omitted.


 * How are you going to portray Bremer? Someone who wanted the Iraqi people to govern for themselves or someone who wants to govern for them?  Ariele 05:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. What you and I should be doing is summarizing how others portray him, and summarizing what the documentary evidence states.  You aren't addressing the point I was trying to make about how the article describes Bremer's association with the governing council.  The article shouldn't say reportedly unless an actual report of someone noteworthy saying it can be quoted.  And the phrase "compared to that of 'shepherding'/" is suspiciously awkward.  I am highly skeptical that this is an exact quote, because it doesn't really make sense.  --  Geo Swan 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The final sentence also doesn't make sense. Obviously, prior to the creation of the council, they held fewer responsibilites.


 * Pls. clarify what you mean by the last sentance not making any sense?


 * The sentence "Upon creation of the governing council, members held more public appearances and responsibilities thereafter.''" doesn't make sense. --  Geo Swan 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, isn't that true? I am going by memory.  The first thing I hear in the morning is the "news".  I keep posted with the "news" on the radio and on TV simultaneously.  Working on the flat screen getup for my computer hookup.  You could say that I'm a news junkie.  Well, as the GC progression took place and more speedily as June approached (has it been that long?), the news would announce "Bremer" turned this over and "Bremer" turned that over and so on.  And it would seem public appearances went along with the new responsibility.  So, stop raining on the parade GEO SWAN.  Ariele 02:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Shepherding: GEO SWAN, I did not come up with the analogy.  This is a sample (but not the exact one)  dated August 29, 2003 which pre-dates my contributions.  Plus, I really really try my best to avoid plagiarism.  Ariele 01:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Interim constitution
This is the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period, isn't it? Why doesn't the article say so?


 * Is the interim constitution actually the TAL?

Inspector General(s)
The first sentence is unclear. It could be refering to the appointment of Stuart Bowen, to the position of the Inspector General for the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Bremer's claim that the scale of corruption within the UN oil-for-food program only started to become clear in March 2004 is nonsense. Even if the exact scale was not entirely defined, that is no excuse for not starting to put fiscal controls in place on day one of his administration.

Jeremy Greenstock
As Ariele pointed out, the article should detail what is known about the discord between Greenstock and Bremer.

Bremer's decrees and regulations
The most controversial of Bremer's decrees and regulations should be detailed somewhere. I don't know if this article is the right place however.

Ariele's {cleanup} tag of 2005/9/4
On September 4, 2005 Ariele added a {cleanup} tag, and an AOL user removed the tag.

Ariele responded to that user's talk page.  Her response included the accusation that my contributions were "anti-American". I told her that I thought the AOL user was correct to remove her {cleanup} tag because she didn't supply an explanation on the talk page as to what aspect she thought needed cleanup. -- Geo Swan 20:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought my general questions were for the IP addressee only. Most of my questions I asked of the IP addressee did not focus around Iraq or on the American diplomat.  So, why did you paste my questions to the IP addressee here?


 * And as for the cleanup tag, you yourself alluded to the obvious that this article is not very well written. To quote exactly from you "What you and I should be doing is summarizing how others portray him, and summarizing what the documentary evidence states".


 * If I were to dissect your words (word by word), it would appear to me this article does not tell the reader that your contributions summarize how others portray Bremer. I debated over this issue and could not decide between a POV or a CleanUp tag. I chose the CleanUp tag.  Someone else gave it a date and then the IP addressee removed it and described his/her action as removing the contribution by a known vandal who uses the VfD and other tags rather liberally.  Ariele 01:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Bremer's Book
Amb. Bremer's book 'My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope' will be published on January 1 2006. .


 * Publication in January 2006. Ariele 01:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

For those who have to write a book report about this person, you have the option of purchasing the compact disk at a cheaper price on-line from another bookseller (hint: if you were to visit their stores, you can also get coffee and dessert.  But for now, the stores will not be able to pre-order for you so you'll have to go on-line to their website.  Unfortunately, if you pre-order today, the CD will not ship until January 28, 2006.  You can try using the old excuse "my dog ate it", but I don't think the teacher will believe it). Ariele 15:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent Updates
Edits made: Ariele 01:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Deleted link to "Victory of Freedom" award given on or around 2/3/2005. Article was either removed or archived.  If found again, feel free to edit it back in.
 * To replace, added quote and link to Harry Walker's bio of Bremer.
 * Updated link to American Rhetoric's speech bank.


 * "Falling out" betw. Amb. Bremer and Jeremy Greenstock still remains unsubstantiated, indicating it was just that a "rumor" therefore removed. If anyone finds the assertion to be indeed truthful, then please do substantiate with reliable source.  Review of edits indicate mostly surprisingly, from Americans, those residing in the States, or possibly subscribers of American internet services.  Source of Article indicating No. 10 blocking envoy's book should be verified as well.  -Cheers....Ariele 02:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Came across the Arabic version of that other rumor and linked it to "Dar Al-Hayat"
 * Included a new link from Hayat's news publication in Arabic (that was released about the same time). Apologize to readers ... don't read Arabic so unable to translate into English.  -Cheers....Ariele 02:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

TRIVIA: The "Bremer Look"
Is this for real? According to one account (user:82.111.242.175), the CPA called Ambassador Bremer's suit and boot ensemble the "Bremer look".

Cap'nKrunch 23:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Ariele was the one who added this, and other human interest items, like the allegations about taking an Iraqi wife, that he is an expert cook, that he is nicknamed Jerry, after St Jerome. Ariele also added the claim that he was popular with Iraqis -- based on a story told to a non-notable anonymous blogger.    --  Geo Swan 03:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Geo Swan,


 * You MAY find among the external links, an Iraqi reporter made a statement to Bremer that the Iraqi people like (or liked) him. Bremer responded back with something along the line of 'well yeah...just the ones that aren't trying to shoot at me' [I want to point out that I am paraphrasing and that he did not use those exact words].


 * Oh, one more thing. I am not the contributor of the "bremer look".  It was User:82.111.242.175,,,,cheers.,,,Ariele 03:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Rumor for Early Departure

 * As for the allegation..., that surfaced from a transcript dated August 23, 2003. A [inaudible name] Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty female reporter asked Bremer:


 * Q: We heard a rumor that you are going to leave Iraq. Is that right? And the -- and there is another question, sir. They say that Paul Bremer is going to marry Iraqi girl. Is that right? (Laughter.)


 * And I have --


 * Bremer's response:


 * MR. BREMER: That's enough. That's enough. No, you only get four. You only get four [questions].


 * Let me answer the last one first. I have answered it before. I have the maximum number of wives permitted under my religion. (Laughter.) I have no intention of leaving Iraq, either. [i.e. before the scheduled June 30th turnover].


 * REFERENCE:  available until June '06


 * Geo Swan, is this the allegation you're referring to? ,,,,Ariele 03:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Although Bremer's personal security issues were not specifically mentioned, Al-Hayat's English version of the rumor suggested Ambassador Bremer left his Iraqi lover behind. But the Arabic version pointed out that the Iraqi woman was having an affair with a top U.S. official.  There were more than one top U.S. official in Iraq at the time.  If you have the actual Arabic to English translation, please clarify if my theory of "mistaken identity" is incorrect.  Geo Swan and Brian1975, please don't re-arrange this again. Thankyou.,,,,Ariele 03:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments About Bremer: What Bloggers Were Saying

 * As another contributor pointed out, Bremer was ambassador to The Netherlands for a while toward the end of the cold war. There is something to the suggestion that his ambassadorship was odd, but it was not odd in the way suggested. As a young FSO (all of whom serve in diplomatic postings, by the way - it is ambassadorships only a few get), he served as filter of incoming news for the 7th floor at State. That puts one in direct contact with Assistant and Deputy Secretaries, maybe sometimes the boss himself. Bremer made an impression on Al Haig. Haig pointed Bremer out to Kissinger. Thus a career was made. He got his appointment to The Netherlands because we wanted to place theater nukes in Western Europe, and the Dutch were among the hold-outs. If The Netherlands would accept nukes, the rest of Western Europe was in the bag. Schultz was told that Bremer could do the job. It was very much the sort of closely orchestrated, daily contact with the powers in the administration sort of thing that characterizes his present job. He won that one. No surprise that he has been called on to try again. Folks, he may be self-serving, he may not know as much about the Middle East as the FSO quoted saying his knowledge of Iraq wouldn't fill a thimble, but don't mistake him for dumb. He was "the ambassador with the floppy disc brain" to the Dutch (sort of dates him, doesn't it?).....

Reference: Archives

Calling on Kade to engage in "calm discourse" over the {npov} tag they applied...
User:Kade made an excision earlier today, of a quote they didn't like, with the explanation that the quote came from Indymedia. But they didn't say why they considered Indymedia a source so suspect that articles posted there were not worth quoting. I reverted their edit, and in my edit summary invited them to engage in a dialogue on the talk page.

When I took a closer look at the section they clipped, and its surrounding context, I saw that they had clipped one reference from Indymedia, but left another. I found that inconsistent and hard to understand. I left a message on their talk page. In their reply, on their talk page, they said they hadn't actually bothered to try to read the article that was being cited. They said it was "too long". In my opinion, before one clips a quote one has an obligation to follow the link to its source.

Kade also responded here, by placing an {npov} tag on that section, with the edit summary: Fine. Let's just put a little boilerplate here since you don't seem to be interested in calm discourse.

I don't know where Kade got the idea I am not interested in calm discourse. They left a couple of replies on my talk page, where they said I accused them of "jingoism". (I didn't.) And accusing me of being "anti-American".

What they haven't done is explain their edit, or explain why they feel that L. Paul Bremer section should be tagged with an {npov}.

Kade I am calling on you to engage in a calm discourse, and explain yourself. The {npov} tag directs readers to the talk page for discussion. Surely Kade, applying this tag obliges you to initiate a section, here on the talk page, where you explain why you applied the tag. -- Geo Swan 17:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Tag: Post-Iraq
Dear User:Kade:

What aspect of the quote merits a NPOV tag? This tag should be removed. And User:Kade's excessive use of certain four-letter metaphors is not helping his/her effort to disqualify the reported information. If there's no response to this suggestion, I will assume consensus and will remove the tag.,,,,,Ariele 20:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we describe Bremer as a "staunch" Catholic?
That Bremer is a member of the Roman Catholic Church is an objective fact. Whether he is "staunch" in his religious observance is a matter of opinion. We can't include such an opinion without attributing it, because we should not endorse the opinion ourselves. In this instance, the term comes from an unsigned comment on the Ave Maria website. That's not an opinion worth reporting. Furthermore, even if we had an Archbishop saying it, I'd be dubious about including it. It's pretty vague -- does it mean he never performs abortions or that he donates generously to the Church or that he agreed with the guidance of Pope John Paul II in opposing the death penalty and the invasion of Iraq? This anonymous one-word evaluation of the depth of Bremer's religious commitment doesn't add anything to the reader's knowledge, which is why I've removed it. JamesMLane 16:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Ambassador Bremer:
 * Are you saying you're not a "staunch" Roman Catholic?
 * Ooops, my bad! wrong person....

Dear Mr. User:JamesMLane,


 * Yes, we should mention "staunch".


 * Your comment Mr. User:JamesMLane suggest that you are of the opinion that Bremer is not a "staunch" Roman Catholic. You're right in saying OPINIONS are irrelevant.  However, the use of the word "staunch" is the actual word used to describe the Ambassador's personal beliefs.


 * You're the second person to mention "abortion" in this article. Wikipedia does have a separate article on the subject, and your contributions and expertise on the church's position on the topic of abortion would be better served there instead of here.,,,,best regards, Ariele 20:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

p.s. I interpret the word "staunch" when I read the article as the belief and having faith in one God, belief in Jesus as Lord and savior, the choice of one wife (spouse) i.e. "Francie", and there's likely a whole bunch more to the word "staunch", which is way too personal for Wikipedia and NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.


 * You surmise that I'm "of the opinion that Bremer is not a 'staunch' Roman Catholic." To the contrary, I have no idea whether he is or not.  My point is that neither do you.  All we know is that some anonymous person who was told to say something about him on the Ave Maria website chose that word.  As information, that's close to valueless.  If "staunch" were the actual word used by Bremer, then it would be NPOV for us to say something like "Bremer has described himself as 'a staunch Roman Catholic'".  (It would be NPOV but it would still be somewhat tangential to the article.)  As it is, the only NPOV formulation would be something like, "Bremer has been described as 'a staunch Catholic' by someone writing on the website of Ave Maria University."  That wording would be NPOV but would expose the weakness of the support for the decription.


 * The other problem I mentioned is the vagueness. You respond by explaining how you interpret the word "staunch".  I have nothing against your interpretation, but others are possible.  Abortion is probably too volatile an issue to be a good example -- let's look at the others I mentioned.  Can someone be a "staunch" Roman Catholic if he meets your definition but never makes such contributions?  Opinions probably differ.  What about if he takes a major role in a war denounced by the Pope?  Some Catholics strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq and highlighted the Pope's condemnation of it.   They might well object to the assertion that Bremer is a staunch Catholic.  I agree with you that judging Bremer's soul is really none of our business.  On that view, "staunch" has no place in the article. JamesMLane 22:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I found that User:JamesMLane deleted "staunch" again. User:JamesMLane has NOT proven that he/she is acquainted with the Bremers EITHER.  Recall that both the Ambassador and his wife converted to Catholicism in 1995 1994.  Both are actively involved with their local parish (i.e. "Little Flowers") as eucharistic ministers.  Both established a charity to help build a Catholic school inner city youths.  His wife, Francie, is actively involved in a prayer network which she would spend many many hours in prayer for others.  There's more (i.e. strong faith in the healing power of God)....The SOURCE for the "anonymous" writer for the word "staunch" would have come directly from the Bremers unless proven otherwise.,,,,Ariele 15:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As for the anonymous writer, two points: First, we don't simply assume, until proven otherwise, that an anonymous writer was relying on a specific source when the writer didn't even make that claim. (In this instance, it's at least equally likely that the writer was a school employee who was just engaging in a bit of friendly puffery about the recipient of an honorary degree.  It's not a situation where one expects candid evaluations.)  Second, even if your assumption were correct, to say that Bremer is "staunch" (or the anon's substitution, "devout") is still an opinion.  We can't state it as fact simply on Bremer's own say-so.  I wouldn't be surprised if Hans Kung considers himself a devout Catholic.  Even if we knew for a fact that Bremer had made such a statement, we couldn't go any further than "Bremer describes himself as a 'staunch' Roman Catholic" or the like.


 * More generally, you're right that I don't know, personally, whether Bremer is devout or lax about his faith. I also don't know whether, as a New England native, he's a fan of the Boston Red Sox.  Does that mean I have a free shot to state it either way in the article, and the burden of proving me wrong is on anyone who tries to delete it?  No, it means that, lacking verifiable information, we don't say anything about the subject.


 * The specific facts you mention are a different story. Whether he's devout is an opinion, which shouldn't be included without attribution, but whether he and his wife established a charity to build a Catholic school is an objective, verifiable fact.  It would be appropriate for the article to have a separate section about his religious involvement.  As you point out, he was a Catholic long before his work in Iraq, so the whole subject is really out of place in the "Administrator of Iraq" section anyway.  If you have sources for the specific facts you mention, we should present the facts in an encyclopedic way -- for example, his wife belongs to a prayer network dedicated to praying for others, but omit the "would spend many many hours" part.  Wikipedia style is that we present facts such as those ("Bremer established this Catholic charity"), without telling the readers what conclusions they should draw from the facts ("Bremer is a staunch Catholic"). JamesMLane 16:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Addendum: OK, I see that while I was writing the above, you added a source for these facts. It would be better to summarize and paraphrase instead of block-quoting such a chunk of text -- an encyclopedia reader doesn't need to know that Bremer's wife stopped at a fire station to ask directions.  I'm not motivated enough to undertake that effort, though.  What I will do is move the whole issue to a new subheading in his biography, while deleting "staunch" for the reasons stated.  (Also, under the WP:MoS, there's no reason to italicize an indented quotation.) JamesMLane 16:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Another source: ,,,,>>>Ariele 17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that User:JamesMLane separated religion from the man. How can one separate Bremer's belief and faith in the power of God from the challenges faced?  Since he himself quoted that the task was not something one man or a group of people can do on their own without divine intervention.  Whether you or other readers believe the existence or non-existence of God is NOT the issue being discussed here.  The point is, Bremer's faith in God is likely what helped him through and from his experiences, he PROBABLY discovered something about himself as well -- hence back to the word "staunch".  <<<<>,,,Ariele 02:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm that anonymous user. I work for Jerry's brother (a lawyer) and his wife (a headhunter). I've also been friends of their family for years. It was Jerry's sister-in-law Michele who told me this story. One day she asked Nina, Jerry's mother, "So why do you call him Jerry?"

Nina answered, "Well, when he was born, we named him after his father Lewis Paul, but there was a lady in the hospital bed next to me who had named her son Jerry. And I just liked the name!"

Jerry has been known by that name for his whole life. Reading this Wikipedia page is the first I'd heard of him calling himself after St. Jerome. I'm not saying this isn't true, but how much sense does that make if he only converted to Catholicism in 1995?

This is the first Wikipedia page I've ever edited, because it's the first time I knew something about the subject not included. Jonahb52 01:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Halooo....glad you said something. Feel free to re-edit your contribution back in.  My skepticism has a great deal to do with "bullocks" I've seen come and go.  The "St. Jerome" info. was discovered in one of several external links posted here.  If I find it again, I'll link it again here in the talk page....,,,BR<<<Ariele 04:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A devout Roman Catholic (his nickname, Jerry, comes from his patron saint, Jerome), Bremer has framed on his desk, right next to his computer, a Latin inscription that is his life's guiding principle. NON SUM DIGNUS: "I am not worthy." It's what a Catholic says at mass before receiving the host. "What is significant about it is that every Catholic says it, even the pope," he says.


 * Reference: "Racing the Clock"....happy reading,,,Ariele 05:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Proconsul
A Google search of +Bremer +proconsul -Wikipedia yielded 74,500 hits. That Bremer has often been compared to an imperial proconsul is fact. Sources include: Harper's Magazine, the Washington Post, Washington Monthly, TIME magazine (and also the online edition), Asia Times, the Guardian, and even the right-wing National Review Online. Reporting this fact is most assuredly not "vandalism". I'm restoring the information. JamesMLane 17:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I remember reading this phrase numerous times...


 * I am going to weigh in on the "staunch" Roman Catholic issue. I am not religious.  I think I know what a devout RC is, but not a staunch one.  And the addition of quotes makes it more confusing, opening the possibility that the word is being used ironically, not literally.  I suggest the word be removed, or, possibly, replaced, with an authoritative source that is less ambiguous.  I agree with the contributor who argued that an anonymous PR person, at a college giving someone an honorary degree, is not an authoritative source.


 * Don't almost all Americans identify themselves as religious? Is Bremer especially religious?  I wonder why his faith should be mentioned, at all, unless he is especially religious.  --  Geo Swan 18:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * He may well be especially religious, but we shouldn't try to reach a conclusion about whether he is or not. We should just present the facts, such as his volunteer work for and donations to religious causes.  The reader can decide whether that makes him "staunch" or devout or whatever. JamesMLane 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Staunch, Proconsul,....whatever
I added the "staunch" which I copied from a press release for Ave Marie. I, personally, don't really care how you folks end up portraying the ambassador -"staunch" or not; "roman empire proconsul" or not..... Frankly, this debate is really getting very old and a waste of my spare time (time which I would rather spend verifying articles in Wiki's backlog). If you User:Geo Swan know of some mysterious and dark secret about Bremer, then say so instead of dropping inuendos - making your readers sit on the edge of their seats wondering if the other shoe (boot) will drop. It's no secret that his "sex appeal" has captured the attention of Iraqi females (and at least the heart of one Iraqi woman that we know of). The photos of him illustrate that. Or at least the readers are led to believe there was some romance involved - New England boy meets Iraqi girl and finds love instead of WMD. If you're in the deletion mode, then go ahead .... have fun! chop away!<<<<<lots and lots of laughs!,,,,,,,Ariele 21:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)