GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Bush To Announce Iraq Troop Cuts On Thursday

by

Just hitting the wires tonight…..

President Bush will tell the nation Thursday evening that he plans to reduce the American troop presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 by next summer but will condition those and further cuts on continued progress, The Associated Press has learned.

In a 15-minute address from the White House at 9 p.m. EDT, Bush will endorse the recommendations of his top general and top diplomat in Iraq, following their appearance at two days of hearings in Congress, administration officials said. The White House plans to issue a written status report on the troop buildup on Friday, they said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Bush’s speech is not yet final. Bush was rehearsing and polishing his remarks even as the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker were presenting their arguments for a second day on Capitol Hill.

In the speech, the president will say he understands Americans’ deep concerns about U.S. involvement in Iraq and their desire to bring the troops home, they said. Bush will say that, after hearing from Petraeus and Crocker, he has decided on a way forward that will reduce the U.S. military presence but not abandon Iraq to chaos, according to the officials.

Nancy Pelosi has already denounced the plan, content on allowing Iraqis to be abandoned to chaos and wanting al-Qaeda to claim victory over the United States. 

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  2. At first, I was about to criticize W for playing politics with soldiers (which I believe he is doing with the announcement which is wrong) THEN Pelosi has to top it by whining about policy. First of all, I do not remember either Petraeus or W saying anything about 10 years in Iraq. And how would that be different from us babysitting, Japan, Germany, Serbia, Italy, Greece, South Korea, Marshall Island, Guam, etc.?

  5. 3: Are you saying that these countries are/will become unstable if US miltary presences pull out of those locations? In the case of Japan and Germany, these were countries that were defeated by US/Allied forces in WWII, but were allowed to re-construct their governments, which the people of those countries were more than willing to do after years of war. The big difference in Iraq is that there is a 3-way civil war being raged in that country, yet Bush & Co continue to label any fighting there as bing caused by insurgents, Al-Queda, etc.

    5: And what lie(s) would that be? Should we go once again through the littany of lies we’ve been told by Bush & Co since all of this started, going all the way back to the still elusive weapons of mass destruction that brought us there in the first place?

  6. All of those countries were in a state of chaos after WWII. The only reason no one is bitching right now is because they are no longer dangerous places for our soldiers, especially Korea, which was a police action not a direct threat to the US and costs us thosands of lives – like Iraq. And if we did not stay in those countries in the immediate aftermath of the war, they would have broken down into civil war or worse – just like Iraq

    And you know this. If you don’t like W (which in my opinion is the *real* reason you are complaining) fine. I never voted for him, if that makes you feel better.

  8. #6 Kevin states emphatically: “……..but were allowed to re-construct their governments, which the people of those countries were more than willing to do after years of war.”

    Sounds like a resonable scenario, but it is not true. The United States reconstructed the government of Japan. It was done from McArthur’s HQ that sat next to the Imperial Palace where the Emperor was demoted from deity to house arrest. Our armed troops swarmed the islands and helped people figure out when they could burp. They had a Constitution written for them and they received enormous help in implementing it. It went well enough, but the rosy scenario Kevin paints just ain’t so.

    Germany was jointly ruled by the US, Britain, France, and Russia at the point of a gun. The Naziis were hunted down, arrested and tried. That goes for the Naziis that fled, as well. To this day, owning or displaying Nazi symbols or items is a felony in Germany. The US wrote their Constitution and controlled its implementation. The Russians, the French and the British had all been badly beaten up by the Germans. The Germans had every reason to fear their occupiers.

    We have not “occupied” Iraq. If we had done so, we would not be even thinking about leaving. Peace and stability there (except in the Kurdish region) is years away. Furthermore, al-Qaeda is on a religious crusade, so dealing with the enemy within Iraq makes it a religious war, whether we wish it to be or not. You can not pretend not to care about the differences among the sects of Islam, because their smoldering fundamental differences are deadly serious to them and the root cause of their terrorism.

    Anyone who wants us out of Iraq now needs to admit that we are running away to fight another day. Or, that they have figured out how to unite the Islamic sects and stop the world wide violence at the hands of the radical Islamists. You could start in the lower provinces of Thailand as your proving ground. Good luck!

  9. Nancy Pelosi lays out the game plan as follows: “….Yet, with his veto pen and the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, the President is preventing the redeployment of our troops, the rebuilding of our military, and the refocusing of our nation’s efforts on fighting terrorism.”

    The Senate needs sixty one votes to cut off funding for the Department of Defense. That would supposedly “check-mate” the Commander in Chief. Then, the troops would be “redeployed” to (Okinawa ala Murtha, home ala Moveon.org, or …. ?) somewhere besides Iraq. Redeployment is the politically correct word for the military word “retreat.”

    Then, the Senate will open the funding and “rebuild” the military. Only Pelosi knows what that means.

    Then we will refocus our nation’s efforts on fighting terrorism without profiling, without disturbing the privacy of their communications, without getting involved in their weapons programs, abandoning the Jews, keeping our borders open and providing amnesty to illegal aliens and bringing legal charges against terrorists so they can be tried in open court. Let us pray.

  10. By “refocusing our nation’s efforts on fighting terrorism”, she means re-focusing our nation’s efforts on fighting personal liberty for ordinary Americans, fighting economic growth, fighting our last shreds of a free medical system, etc. Since those things are, to Democrats, terrifying.

  11. Gee, a whole fifteen minutes?

    While any reduction should have an inverse relationship to security, which are the specific conditions to which the President refers? If he does not lay out a clear strategy for stability/withdrawal including concrete, attainable goals, then this ‘announcement’ only serves to among other things embolden anti-war actvists and their representatives in Congress by allowing them to think they forced the Bush administration into concession.

    However, the eventual drawdown of military personnel is inevitable. If Pelosi were smart, she would recognize opportunity and greet the announcement with a press release and interviews claiming partial victory. But an all-or-nothing approach almost never works in politics and after all, peace and stability is the one scenario the Democrats cannot afford.

  12. It is interesting and eye opening to see lefitsts react when America and our troops are winning. They get up everyday and hope things go poorly and they actually want to see people die as long as their agenda is advanced. I can’t come close to understanding how people get to a point in their lives or their thinking that allows such beliefs and attitudes. I for one am glad when they comeout in the sunshine and show their true selves. Like the moveon.org ad slandering a brave and true soldier like Gen Petraeus. This is who they are. God Bless America.

  15. Ian S, you certainly do dredge up the most amazing sources!

    Without going into IPS and its numerable credibility problems, let us take them at their word that Admiral Fallon and General Patraeus are not on the same page.

    The “old school” war college people do not see the military as an occupying and police force. Never mind that we have used the military in that fashion more often than not in the past half century. The “old school” boys favor a clear objective, overwhelming force and a clear exit plan. Unfortunately, politicians do not sign on to that prescription and the military finds itself having to improvise to facts as they unfold.

    The reason Bush 41, General Powell, James Baker and the rest wanted to scram after the Gulf War is because they did not want to confront an Iraq in turmoil. They chose to leave Saddam in power. If anyone thought the UN was going to straighten things out, that someone fell off a turnip truck.

    This Commander in Chief ordered the end of Saddam’s power. It was accomplished in a matter of days. What was never clear and is still not clear is the exit strategy. That messes up tidy military planning. But it deals with political truth.

    When will the US leave the Balkans? Where is the exit strategy there? Also Korea, Japan, and Germany. What is our exit strategy in propping up Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Thailand, etc.? Sorry, but chalkboard designs for battle strategy and geo-political forces do not often coincide, if ever.

  16. #16: The point is that Gen. Petraeus is not necessarily above saying exactly what his masters – in this case Bush/Cheney – want him to. Indeed, after his unscripted admission yesterday in response to Sen. Warner that he didn’t know if the policy he was recommending would make the US safer, he apparently got an angry call from the White House during a break and afterwards, backtracked on his candid admission. At least according to Joe Klein.

    BTW, I doubt the US has more than a few hundred soldiers in the Balkans at this point.

  20. Should we go once again through the littany of lies we’ve been told by Bush & Co since all of this started,

    Fine, then we’ll go once again through the littany of lies about the litany of lies the left has told about Bush & Co since all of this started,