WH drawdown in Iraq to fall ‘far short’ of Congress’ plan.
By on Aug 18th, 2007 at 10:32 am
WH drawdown in Iraq to fall ‘far short’ of Congress’ plan.
The White House plans “to outline a plan for gradual troop reductions [in Iraq] beginning next year that would fall far short of the drawdown” demanded by Congress. Administration officials said that the “goal of the planned announcement was to counter public pressure for a more rapid reduction,” while arguing “that the troop increase ordered by Mr. Bush had succeeded on several levels.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
53 Responses to “WH drawdown in Iraq to fall ‘far short’ of Congress’ plan.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
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.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
“that the troop increase ordered by Mr. Bush had succeeded on several levels.â€
Yup there are more terrorists to worry about, thus more war, thus more profits for the MIC, and Oil companies.
Other than that the surge is a complete failure.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:36 amIn other words, they’re putting yet another stalling tactic together and the Dems will no doubt take the bait.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:44 amWhere’ the political progress the surge was supposed to “buy time for”??????????????????????
August 18th, 2007 at 10:45 amOh, never mind, the Iraqi gummint is on vacation, along with the chymp.
Which thimble is the pea under now??
August 18th, 2007 at 10:46 amStep right up and put your tax dollars down, which thimble ladies and gents, which thimble??
You mean “demanded by less than veto-proof majority” of Congress, right? Hell, the Dems can’t even get their non-binding resolutions straight. I will enjoy the fireworks (all light and no heat) when Pelosi and Reid return next month.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:46 amCBS News Poll. Aug. 8-12, 2007. N=1,214 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?”
Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
ALL adults
26 69 5
Republicans
62 34 4
Democrats
7 90 3
Independents
21 70 9
70 pct of independents…and 34% of Repugnicants.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:48 amSounds like W broke it.
With fourteen military bases being planned to be built in Iraq, it is highly doubtful if this administration, and even the next administration, Democratic or Republican, has any plans on having the United States leave Iraq anytime soon.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:48 amFor the record, the President of the United States NEVER takes a vacation (day AWAY from work), unlike the U.S. Congress.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:48 amNEVER takes a vacation
Over 460 some odd days in Crawford?
And you don’t think those CongressCritters aren’t working their asses off at home to get re-elected>?
Right.
According to another fairy tale, the denture fairy visited Jake last night and finally cleaned his teeth.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:53 amAnyone else NOT on the “Ignore List” for resorting to presonal attacks when I don’t and/or refusing to answer my questions when I answered every question they asked?
August 18th, 2007 at 10:55 am“counter public pressure for a more rapid reduction…”
The White House, brought to you by KKKarl Rove, politicizing the drawdown of US troops in Iraq. Is there anything left that they haven’t politicized?
August 18th, 2007 at 10:56 amAccording to another fairy tale, the denture fairy visited Jake last night and finally cleaned his teeth.
Comment by RUCerious — August 18, 2007 @ 10:53 am
I can state unequivocally, this did not happen. Better get that bs meter working.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:57 amOK, Jake, I’ll ignore your strawman arguments and is this really a sentence??
August 18th, 2007 at 10:58 amAnyone else NOT on the “Ignore List†for resorting to presonal attacks when I don’t and/or refusing to answer my questions when I answered every question they asked?
Nice going RUC, now Jake pulled out the dreaded “ignore list”. Oh what will we doooooo?
August 18th, 2007 at 10:59 amAnyone else?
August 18th, 2007 at 11:00 amGee Jake, I went back and checked and all I can find are two lame, inaccurate statements made by you and not one question asked of you. So what exactly does this mean “or refusing to answer my questions when I answered every question they asked?”
Here’s a clue, when answers are made up of outrageous deceptions and mistruths, we don’t really consider them answers.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:03 ampresonal attack = personal attack (as an example: “KKKarl Rove”)
August 18th, 2007 at 11:03 amMost sentences have a subject.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:05 amAnd some verbs that are about the subject.
Maybe an adjectival phrase or two.
So let’s see.
Anyone else NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€
Sounds like a subject.
but then, for resorting to presonal attacks when I don’t and/or refusing to answer my questions when I answered every question they asked? is a really long prepositional phrase.
No verbs. Hmm. Do English much?
If anyone NOT on the “Ignore List” wants to discuss the origin of said List (long before this instant thread) and criteria for inclusion, please let me know.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:05 amOK, back on topic.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:07 amI wonder if they’ll have a lottery or draw straws to determine which soldier gets to come home that year.
If anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†did not understand the conversational meaning of “Anyone else?” let me know that too.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:07 amI’m proudly on several Troll’s go fu(kyourself lists!
August 18th, 2007 at 11:08 ampresonal attack = personal attack (as an example: “KKKarl Roveâ€)
Comment by Jake D. — August 18, 2007 @ 11:03 am
That would be a personal attack if you were Karl. But make no mistake, I want to be on your list.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:13 amAnyone asking the black hearted little troll a question.? No.? O,K, troll, back under the bridge….Blessings to every one else..
August 18th, 2007 at 11:15 amNo verbs. Hmm. Do English much?
Comment by RUCerious — August 18, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Don’t you know, this week he claimed to be a lawyer, again. Apparently there is an on/off switch on his law degree. But you’d think English would be a prerequisite even at Regent College.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:15 amIf anyone else does not understand how “an example” of a personal attack does not have to include the subset of “personal attack against me personally” let me know.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:16 amAnyone asking the black hearted little troll a question.? No.? O,K, troll, back under the bridge….Blessings to every one else..
Comment by Sharon — August 18, 2007 @ 11:15 am
Hopefully you have banished him for good this time. Thanks and good morning to you.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:16 amLOL! For the record, I’ve never denied being a lawyer (I am retired though). If anyone else needs something, I will be on the other threads.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:18 amTop O’ the morning Ms Sharon!
August 18th, 2007 at 11:19 amHow’s the lake this morning?
Amber says hi!
If anyone else does not understand how “an example†of a personal attack does not have to include the subset of “personal attack against me personally†let me know.
Comment by Jake D. — August 18, 2007 @ 11:16 am
If anybody else here does not understand that the topic of this thread is not Jake but instead is the very serious topic of the possible drawdown of troops by the White House for its own selfish reasons and not for the good of the troops and the country, feel free to ask Jake a question.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:20 amGood Morning Shane and RUCerious,….Get your shovel’s ready to scoop up after the baby troll’s when they wake….LOL….
I’m off to plant trees and paint a door…..Blessings to you all today…
Blackberries are ready RU….Free for the picking incase you and your family would like the trip out to pick…..
August 18th, 2007 at 11:23 am“goal of the planned announcement was to counter public pressure for a more rapid reduction,”
In other words, it won’t be a reduction aimed at bringing our soldiers home, it will be a PR stunt to stop the public outcry about the morass we are in in Iraq.
Everything the Bush White House does is a PR move. They never do something because it is the right thing to do. Disgusting.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:26 am“and even the next administration, Democratic or Republican, has any plans on having the United States leave Iraq anytime soon.”
Erroll - why do you presume to speak for the Democrats? Are the Democrats responsible for the permanent army bases being built?
August 18th, 2007 at 11:29 am“For the record, the President of the United States NEVER takes a vacation (day AWAY from work), unlike the U.S. Congress.
Comment by Jake D.”
You’re right Jake. He takes “recess” like 4th graders do.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:30 am“Anyone else NOT on the “Ignore List†for resorting to presonal attacks when I don’t and/or refusing to answer my questions when I answered every question they asked?
Comment by Jake D. “
You think much too highly of yourself Jake. To us you are simply a pile of poop on the floor that we need to walk around to get to the heart of the matter.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:32 amIf anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†did not understand the conversational meaning of “Anyone else?†let me know that too.
Comment by Jake D.
Jake is the perrenial virgin. He insists that his purity be maintained, and uses “the list” to supposedly turn away prospective suitors - yet in off moments, his chastity belt slips, and he engages those whom he’s previously spurned. It’s all a badly-maintained ruse, and points to a truly superficial intellect.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:35 amBack on topic. How many troops would be withdrawn over what period of time. Let’s see.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:40 amElection is fifteen or so months away, but campaigning is already going on, so say twelve months to maximize impact.
There’s over 150,000 now, and they can’t draw down say, over 50,000 without endagering the rest.
So that’s only about 4,000 troops per month.
Would that make any difference in bolstering the Republican candidate?
I am to young to remember the Vietnam war, I was born in 1974. I do remember though reading through the history, and watching documentaries on it, that this is almost an exact repeat. The government kept promising to reduce troops and never did. They kept saying just 6 more months, over and over. The US government propped up a series of barely able to maintain order puppet governments that ultimately failed. I thought Rove said Bush was a student of history? Or is Bush trying to prove Vietnam could have been a success in just 6 more months?
August 18th, 2007 at 11:41 amThanks for the offer Sharon, but we’ve got about 8 quarts of blackberries already picked from the greenbelt behind our house!
August 18th, 2007 at 11:41 amTP….Post’s not showing up again…Sure would be nice if the site were fixed..Blessings..
Back at ya RU, give Amber a hug for me..The lake’s way down..A mess.
Bull shit will use the rotation’s as a draw down…There realy will not be a draw down by this lieing war monging administration…Impeachmet is the only answer…Blessings again
August 18th, 2007 at 11:44 amkrazny;
August 18th, 2007 at 11:45 amAs a vietnam war vet, I can attest that you are drawing the correct parallels.
Sorry all..TP site is sending my puter and me into melt down…..Gone..
August 18th, 2007 at 11:48 amIt might be a good thing for the world if American troops are bogged down in Iraq and killed slowly slowly
August 18th, 2007 at 11:50 amAre we surprised?
August 18th, 2007 at 11:54 amThe report is being written by the White House.
Petraeus has already accepted the role of fall guy.
The draw-down will be at a minimum, enough to allow the hawks to claim they are “listening” to the public.
We have 160,000 troops there and we have 165,000 mercenaries. With more than 300,000 there, what difference does the addition or subtraction of a few thousand make?
With no Sunni political blocs currently in the coalitional government, any talk of drawing down troops is awfully premature. If the Sunnis decide to take the oil reserves in Tikrit, and the Kurds defend the area, will the security forces fracture? That is the real worry, not the puppet government’s actions/inactions. If the cobbled-together Iraqi military dissolves into factionalism, our previous efforts will self-defeat any subsequent moves.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:57 amI don’t think it makes any difference at all Marie, it simply allows an unpopular president to say he is listening to the people of this country, without really doing anything. Sort a magicians trick, all smoke and mirrors.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:58 am#33-Bilbobaggins
The reason I made that statement is that, with the exception of Kucinich and Gravel, the Democrats have not announced that they intend to withdraw all military personnel and all the military bases from Iraq. This means, of course, that there is little difference between the two war parties that hold major sway in this country. The last thing that the Democrats, as well as the Republicans, desire is for the Iraqis to actually rule their own country. The United States has no business being in Iraq-period.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:09 pmI agree with Errol, I think unless Kucinich, or Gavel is elected the dems will continue the war policies, that Bush has started. Look at how they rolled over on funding, and everything.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:14 pmhow are we getting the oil? if thats what everyones dying over. If we don’t secure those fields and have a government in compliance then how do we get that 80 percent?
August 18th, 2007 at 2:24 pmThe oil is still the basis on which this war was wager - always was and still is.
August 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pmThe US wants 70-80% control and the Iraqis are crying “foul.”
This president has said he will never withdraw troops and that it will be up to the next president. Petraeus has said he wants troops to stay in Iraq for the next decade. Bush has no plans to remove troops from Iraq just like the Petraeus report was never going to be written by Petraeus. Congress shouldn’t take Bush at his word. Even if a small number of troops are drawn down it won’t be enough if no date for troop withdrawal is set.
August 18th, 2007 at 5:11 pmI can’t wait for the Repulsivescum tax revolt…
…when the bills for Iraq and Afghanistan come due…
…I hope they take to the streets…
…in armed insurrection…
August 18th, 2007 at 7:48 pmIs this withdrawl anything other than the normal rotation of troops ?
August 19th, 2007 at 5:11 pmThe surge can’t be maintained past spring when their extended tours are over anyway.
It’s disengeniunous as usual .
These people )Bush Admin. )are incredulous !!!!!!!!