Gates seeks to cut a deal with Congress on Iraq.
By on Jul 3rd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Gates seeks to cut a deal with Congress on Iraq.
This morning, the WSJ reported that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is “seeking to build bipartisan political support for a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq by moving toward withdrawing significant numbers of troops from Iraq by the end of President Bush’s term.” As TPM’s Spencer Ackerman notes, “it’s basically a trade-off: cut the surge short in order to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
NO DEAL!!!!
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:04 pmcriminals always want to cut a deal.
RULE OF LAW
IMPEACH THEM ALL
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:05 pmPerhaps we should ask the Iraqi’s what they think of this idea. They are sovereign. RIGHT?!?!?!?
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:05 pmGentlemen, what we have here is a fine hole we’ve dug under our own feet. I suggest we continue to dig indefinitely.
Iraq! The Fifty-first State!
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:07 pmDon’t take the deal
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:08 pmNot if the people vote traitors from both parties OUT.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:08 pmPerhaps we should ask the Iraqi’s what they think of this idea. They are sovereign. RIGHT?!?!?!?
Comment by Crump’s Brother
They’re sovereign as long as they do what Cheney wants, sure. What are you, a commie?
This sounds like Gates trying to set up the “Korean model” without actually coming out and saying the US would keep troops in Iraq forever.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:08 pmThey are sovereign. RIGHT?!?!?!?
Comment by Crump’s Brother
Oh, pssshaw… thre you go w/ that “sovereign nation” stuff again.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:09 pmNah, fukc the Iraqis.
That’s our land now and forever.
There is no more Iraq, hence forth that sandbox will be known as Halliburtoilica.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:09 pmThis can’t come down to political strategery. The kids should come home.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:11 pmPolitics aside, they should come home. Despite whatever gains the Reps might make because of it. If bringing the troops home means losing the White House and both houses of Congress, so be it. Potentially thousands of lives will have been saved. It’s a great trade.
No deal.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:11 pmThey want those permanent military bases with the world’s largest embassy to continue pax Americana over the Middle East and control over the world’s largest proven oil reserves.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:12 pmSounds like a lose-lose.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:12 pmThere is no more Iraq, hence forth that sandbox will be known as Halliburtoilica.
Comment by Mr. President
So, huh, how are you doing w/ that “waste consumption” issue you confessed to a couple of weeks ago?
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:12 pmAnd Satan Bless CHILD MOLESTER Bush and Robert Gates,
two of Master Satan’s MOST EVIL disciples…
Treasonously yours and Satan Bless the Bushes,
Traitor Ronnie and his Master Satan
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:12 pmI want to make a future deal for when the Right is out of power…
..Sure…yep
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm** Yet ANOTHER failed Bush policy. **
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:14 pmheres the plan
1/ Maliki sign long term PSA’s for the Oil
2/ Maliki moves the Parliment to an American superbase for protection
3/ American troops withdraw
4/ after five years of relative peace , American Oil executives move in for the kill
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:14 pmPoor Iraq…We are destroying them for the sake of International OIL Corporations.
Poor US….We are destroying us to bolster the oil companies in their pursuit of more oil.
Poor Earth and our grandchildren….we continue to burn and slash in the name of Corporate profits, thereby destroying our very future.
I am ashamed of what this administration has done and is doing in my name. I cry for Earth and all life upon it.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:16 pmif we stay in Iraq indefinitely, that means the war is never really over… not interested, thanks!
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:18 pmTOO LITTLE, TOO LATE!!!
Withdraw now!!
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:18 pmHa ha ha.
And at last we see what this is really about. Why would we want to leave troops in Iraq if we don’t have enough to provide security to the people? The previous mission in Iraq was to provide interim security so that their fledgling democracy could take over control of the country. Now that’s out. So why leave any troops there? Well, of course, the same reason that’s been lurking all along… if we can’t secure the country, or the people, we may still be able to secure the oil supply chain and American oil development contracts in Iraq.
Honestly, why else should we stay there with 20,000-30,000 troops? Am I missing something?
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:18 pmGotta protect those oil wells..
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:19 pmSecure the oil and make Iraq a state. The empire is ours.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:23 pmHe can’t deal to keep troops in there long-term. It’s the job of the Commander-In-Chief to determine that, and it won’t be his boss for much longer. Possibly, he is dealing for Congress to authorize certain provisions for permanent or semi-permanent bases there, but the next President can just pull all out, close the bases, be done. Gates and Bush will likely have nothing to do with the war past January 2009.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:24 pmCHENEY 2008!!!
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:26 pmIf all this force we have now still cannot defeat the insurgency, how can half or third of this current force will be able to stay in Iraq for a long time.
The plan began to look more clear..It is not about WMDS, it is not about democracy…it is about long term bases in Iraq.
It will be a mistake to think that we can do in Iraq what we did in Korea and Germany by staying a long time.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:27 pmThe Al Maliki government already having rought time controlling the country.It is easy to draw things on paper…reality on the ground is totally a different matter.
Satan BLESS you, Mr. President Bush, CHILD MOLESTER/ABORTIONIST!!
So VERY EVIL!
You’re gonna LOVE hell. I DO!!!
Satan Bless the Bush Family,
Traitor Ronnie and his Master Satan
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:29 pmBy By Mr Bush
A “desperate” Mr Bush is “running out of time” at home and in Iraq, said veteran commentator David Broder. His attempt to avoid a September showdown with Congress looks likely to fail. What the upshot of that showdown will be is still in doubt.
Senate majority leader Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will call a series of Iraq votes this month, on pullout timetables, continued funding, and length of combat tours, to force individual Republicans to show where they stand.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:31 pmConned again. Neo-conned that is.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:31 pmComment by Ronald Reagan and Master Satan — July 3, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Clinton will be there too.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:32 pmHa ha hahaha mr Bush TIMES OUT
The 29,000-strong military surge, ordered by Mr Bush in February, has already been written off as a failure, or not nearly successful enough, by many in Congress and beyond. With US casualties running at roughly double last year’s level, pressure for withdrawal may become irresistible almost whatever Gen Petraeus says.
“The real debate is not about whether the US should pull out troops. That is now inevitable,” said columnist EJ Dionne. “The real challenge is to figure out the right timetable, whether a residual force should be left there, and which American objectives can be salvaged.”
According to foreign policy analysts Steven Simon and Ray Takeyh in the Washington Post, “what the US needs now is a guide to how to lose – how to start thinking about minimising the damage to American interests, saving lives, and ultimately wresting some good from this fiasco”.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:34 pmI smell Bush cutting and running soon
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:36 pmDeal or NO Deal.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:37 pmNO brainer.}}||
NO DEAL!
No f*cking deal.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:41 pmIncentives given by the U.S. to coalition members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq
Turkey – Turkey was offered approximately $8.5 billion in loans in exchange for sending 10,000 peacekeeping troops in 2003. Even though the US did say the loans and the sending of troops to Iraq were not directly linked, it also said the loans are contingent upon “cooperation” on Iraq.[84]
Singapore - In May 2003 the Bush Administration signed a free trade agreement with Singapore, the first with an Asian country. In announcing the deal, President Bush hailed Singapore as “a strong partner in the war on terrorism and a member of the coalition on Iraq.” Asia Times columnist Jeffrey Robertson argued was a reward for Singapore’s support of the Iraq invasion.[85][86][87]
Australia: In 2004 the Bush Administration “fast tracked” a free trade agreement with Australia. The Sydney Morning Herald called the deal a “reward” for Australia’s contribution of troops to the Iraq invasion.[88][89]
Great Britain: As of 2006, the Independent reported that British companies have received at least £1.1bn contracts for reconstruction work in postwar Iraq.[90]
In addition to direct incentives, critics of the war have argued that the involvement of other members of the coalition was in response for indirect benefits, such as support for NATO membership or other military and financial aid. Indeed, almost all of the Eastern European nations involved in the Coalition have either recently joined or are in the process of joining the US-led NATO alliance (namely Bulgaria, Georgia, Albania, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Romania and Slovakia).[91] Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, for example, said on April 21 that Estonian troops had to remain in Iraq due to his country’s “important partnership†with the United States.[92]
At least one country, Georgia, is believed to have sent soldiers to Iraq as an act of repayment for the American training of security forces that could potentially be deployed to the break-away regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.[93] Indeed, Georgian troops that were sent to Iraq have all undergone these training programmes.[94]
El Salvador’s President Antonio Saca has been accused of deploying troops in return for membership in the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA),[95] and as a member of the right-wing ARENA party that was supported heavily by the United States during the El Salvador Civil War, is certainly influenced by the United States.
Conversely, Greece’s non involvement (a poll indicated 90% against the Iraq Invasion), may have led to the US recognising FYROM as ‘Macedonia’
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:44 pmI smell Bush cutting and running soon
Yeah! Satan LOVES the boy!!!
A REAL cut-n-run COWARD!!
Treasonously yours from hell,
Traitor Ronnie and his Master Satan
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:45 pmDid you hear Gen. Petraeus saying that a counter-insurgency operation like this generally takes 9 or 10 years? WTH is he talking about? Where and when have we ever staged a successful counterinsurgency operation? Let’s see, there was Viet Nam . . . umm, bad example. How about the French in Algeria? The Soviets in Afghanistan? ummm, somebody help me out here – WTF is he talking about?
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:46 pmPoland also received from Blair
Free buses to the UK, free work visa and free entry to the UK with council houses , unemployment benefits and free health care
we are now flooded with poles taking over our jobs
——————————————————————–
for what immaginary OIL contracts …………Bad move Mr President
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:49 pmits taken 4.5 years to nearly secure a road from Baghdad airport to the green zone than took win worldII to defeat the German Army in full
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:52 pmFrom the Washington Post:
France and Germany lead European opposition to a speedy attack. But Britain, Italy, Spain, Denmark and Portugal, as well as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, have firmly backed the U.S. position. On Wednesday, 10 more European governments, in the former communist east, jointly declared support for Washington. They were Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
A quick scan of opinion polls reveals that, while governments are supporting the US, the people are solidly opposed to unilateral and even UN action in all but a few countries. This can be explained by diplomatic pressure which has, for now, overcome a distinct lack of popular support in the following countries:
Britain: 86% say give weapons inspectors more time, 34% think that US and Britain have made a convincing case for invasion. »
Spain: 80% opposed to war, 91% against attack without UN resolution »
Italy: 72% opposed to war »
Portugal: 65% say there is no reason to attack now »
Hungary: 82% opposed to invasion under any circumstances »
Czech Republic: 67% opposed to invasion under any circumstances »
Poland: 63% against sending Polish troops, 52% support US “politically” »
Denmark: 79% oppose war without U.N. mandate »
Australia: 56 per cent only backed UN-sanctioned action, 12% support unilateral action. 76% oppose participation in a US-led war on Iraq. Australian Senate voted 33-31 to censure Howard for committing 2,000 soldiers to US action. »
The “Vilnius 10″ is a group of 9 countries that are seeking membership in NATO and Croatia. In many cases, their future security depends on NATO membership. In Estonia, for example, there is a tangible fear that Russia will take over again, given a militaristic enough government and the right opportunity (the–thankfully past–popularity of the fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky was a good indication of this possibility. Zhirinovsky had a map in his office showing the borders of Russia expanded to include the former Soviet Union and Alaska). In any case, it’s doubtful that these governments are supporting the US for any other reason than to get diplomatic points (or conversely, not piss away their chances of NATO membership).
Taking Estonia as an example again, we find that the government has supported war without any debate in Parliament, despite 70% of the people and major newspapers opposed to war in Iraq.
Latvia: 74% oppose taking out Hussein with military force »
Romania: 38% opposed, 45% in favour »
Macedonia: 10% support war on Iraq »
Bulgaria: 21% support war »
Estonia: 30% support war »
Slovakia: 60% oppose sending Slovak soldiers »
Information for Albania, Croatia, Slovenia and Lithuania was immediately available via Google news, but according to this report, Romania is the only country in the “Vilnius 10″ that has a majority of the population supporting the war.
For comparison purposes:
France: 76% against war without UN support »
Germany: 55% against war with UN support, 90% against war without UN support. 57% hold the opinion that “the United States is a nation of warmongers”.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:55 pmCNN Reports that Bush has RESIGNED!!!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/03/write-your-own-caption-32/
He DIDN’T but CNN
DID!!
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:00 pmNo! Bring them home – We should never have been there in the first place!
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:01 pmWhy make a deal on something that’s already been decided? It’s already been decided that we stay a long time. Duh.
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:13 pmDem´s response: Ok, but how much do I get?
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:29 pmplace your bets on when the dems cave on this
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:29 pmWhere is Satan? have a soul to speak to him about.
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:30 pmHere is an idea. Why not use the Israeli model and start making ’settlements’ within Iraq. Hell, in 25 years there could be millions of Americans living in Iraq. You know, just do it. It works for Israel and maybe they could help – they are very good at building walls and checkpoints. I’m sure many many Bush supporters would jump at the chance. Perhaps people like Coulter and O’Rielly could head up the move. It would allow the christian extremists to be much closer to where the armageddon will take place. Write to McCain and Liebermann et al and get some support for this operation. I’m positive the people of Iraq would love to have American towns as neighbours.
/sarcasm partly off
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:32 pmWhere is Satan? have a soul to speak to him about.
Comment by Rick Duncan
My MASTER is RIGHT HERE with ME.
Satan Bless the Bush Family
Treasonously yours in hell,
Traitor Ronnie and his Master Satan
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:45 pmThis was totally predictable. Throw the 70% of Americans a bone of distraction by drawing some troops down, then it’s straight on to Hillary’s plan for indefinite occupation. Of course! Why else build an “embassy” the size of the Vatican?
This will make the transition from Bush to Clinton so smooth you’ll barely recognize that anything happened at all.
That’s what I call bipartisan consensus, just like NAFTA, just like the immigration bill, the bankruptcy bill, welfare reform, the most recent trade bill … just like all the rest of the things both parties are now hired to do for the corporatist class and the Bible-thumping maniacs lulled under their spell to vote against their own interests lest some damn queers destroy their marriage.
Hillary/Condi 2008! Their campaign slogan: “Don’t Ask — Don’t Ask”
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:53 pmwatch this:
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:53 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQHeo-CMQyc&eurl
takes 30 min. but worth it!
The Iraqis (and probably fighters from other countries) will burn the pipelines and wells before they’ll let American corporations have the oil. Watch for sabotage big time if we try to pull that hs*t…and, who knows, China and Russia might have something to say about that.
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:38 pmGates has his teat in the wringer so soon after taking the job. Cheney and the NeoCons need us there to protect the oil and as a hardened base to protect our 51st state, Israel. And in order to keep the stock price up of his corporation. it will be a launchng pad for the next scheduled Halliburton invasion, Iran.
Now he is phucked big-time. He knows there is no win-win on this….asuming the Dems grow some gonads this time around.
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:45 pm“Comment by Ronald Reagan and Master Satan — July 3, 2007 @ 4:29 pm Clinton will be there too.
Comment by Mr. President ”
And, prey tell Mr. President, why will Clinton be in hell? Is he responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Is he responsible for bankrupting (both financially and morally) this once great country? Is he responsible for invading a country who posed no threat to us?
Please tell me what things Clinton did that will qualify him a place at the table in Hell. I can give you hundreds of things that qualify Bush and Chaney, I’ll bet you can’t come up with one thing Clinton has done that would qualify him for Hell.
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:48 pmComment by Katie — July 3, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
He smoked pot.
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:50 pmFortunately for Bill, he didn’t inhale.
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:56 pmThus he has been disqualified.
I wonder when the Trolls here will wake up to what their butt-hole Buddies Darth, Rover, and Dubya have done to them and the US??
They have taken the US Constitution and the Rules of Law and trasehd them like so many used condoms. And they are laughing at the Trolls even harder than they are laughing at the rest of the world, because they USED them and are continuing to use them, till they ride off into the sunset (Dubai and Paraguay, to be precise).
But the Trolss aren’t smart enough to see that, and probably never will.
It’s like wathcing a real-life version of “the Sting”.
July 3rd, 2007 at 7:01 pmNOPE!
NO DEAL! It’s a set up.
July 3rd, 2007 at 7:08 pmWhat Iraqi politician in his right mind would favor Permanenent American Bases in Iraq??
July 3rd, 2007 at 7:21 pmWhat American politician in his right mind would favor continuing or increasing the surge thru November 2008???
Good luck with that Bipartisan Political Support, Secretary Gates.
Hello, I’m Ronald Reagan, former president and TRAITOR to the USA.
Now DEAD and BURNING IN HELL (weeellll)…
I KNOW that the Bushes are A1-TRAITORS and now that I AM IN HELL, know that THEY will soon join me.
My Master, Satan, is waiting for the entire Bush family, as he has a VERY SPECIAL PLACE FOR THEM IN HELL, INDEED.
But ESPECIALLY junior.
My Master Satan wants to play baseball with his TESTICLES.
Weeelllll, BATTER UP!!!
Satan Bless the Bush Family and Amerikkka,
I am, treasonously yours,
Traitor Ronnie and his Master Satan
THERE YOU GO AGAIN WITH THAT PITCHFORK, Master Satan!!!
July 3rd, 2007 at 7:26 pmThrow in the seizing of ALL assets of…
…ALL conervative and neo-con TRAITORS in the Congress…
…who started this mass murder in Iraq…
…to pay back the hundreds of billions STOLEN…
…and neck-tie parties for the head honchos like:
…Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Feith, Perle, Adelman, and their …
…TREASONOUS co-conspirators in the right wing media and corporate thugs…
…and you’ve got my vote…
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:01 pma little off the topic but does anybody have an update on mccain’s trip? – isn’t he supposed to be strolling around baghdad at the minute?
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:33 pmNot good enough!
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:40 pmThis has been plan “a” all along.They have never switched plans,ever.Just filled the media with different assortmants of word arrangements.
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:21 pmHave we seen the photos of the permanent bases?Where are these photos?
Why are they not available?
Does anyone know: starting before the desert slaughter there was a building material shortage in US due to the excessive shipments to build bases to support desert destruction.
That’s just how much building materials have been sent.
There was never a plan “b” and all the chatter is like everything else: a distraction from the absolutely criminal robbery taking place.
Don’t forget kennyron and that business plan.That plan is a working model/playbook for these guys.
Don’t forget secret energy group meetings
And most of all: don’t get distracted.
These guys have a false fact factory working 24/7 and the entire media on the same slip and slide lubed with oil headed for the greasy party reserved for the shrinking number of those who are “with them”
Let aWol, Cheney, Lieberman and his clients occupy Iraq and bring home all the troops.
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:27 pma little off the topic but does anybody have an update on mccain’s trip? – isn’t he supposed to be strolling around baghdad at the minute?
Comment by ipod
Security is so tight on this trip, no one, and I mean NO one, will ever hear of it!
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:28 pmwhere’s the support for gates’ idea going to come from? lugar’s already kinda pissed on gates’ cool awesome idea [which, of course, doesn't take into account what's best for the troops].
i wouldn’t listen to word gates says unless he includes the cost of creating, staffing, maintaining, and securing the bases, the personnel, and the troops for, at least, the next 25 years. put a price tag on this idea and let’s see what kinda support gates gets.
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 pmNOOOOOOO!
July 4th, 2007 at 6:25 amLet Exxon, Chevron, Halliburton et al finance and staff this effort–after all, they are the folks who will benefit from this.
No federal benefits for the contract workers, parallel to the ones the US military gets. I hope people realize just what the current batch of veterans, wounded , deceased or otherwise is going to cost us and our children in the future, as Carl Sagan would say, BILLIONS AND BILLIONS.They get the pay let them assume the risk. Save our Military for protecting us, not use it to wreck countries for overzealous warmongers.
July 4th, 2007 at 8:02 am