G
Guest
Anyone hear about the troops being brought home in march of 2008. Bush and Congress are suppose to fight tonight?
Voice you opinions
Here is an article and there are many.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2029997,00.html
George Bush faces the prospect of losing control over the conduct of the Iraq war, after Democrats yesterday threatened to cut off billions of dollars for troops unless he set a timetable for withdrawal.
In what was being seen in Washington as a bold new political strategy, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives are preparing to push through legislation that would demand all US combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008. To meet that deadline, the US, which has 140,000 troops there, with a further 21,500 being deployed, would have to begin withdrawal by next March. The only troops left after August would be to train the Iraqi army.
In a move which echoes the way the Democrats brought an end to the Vietnam war, they aim to attach the timetable ultimatum to a funding bill, one in which President Bush is seeking $100bn (£52bn), for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House, told a press conference that this was the first time the party had set "a date certain" for troop withdrawal. The proposal is risky: while polls suggest two-thirds of Americans are now opposed to the war, the party would be open to accusations from Mr Bush of denying funding to US troops still in the field. Republicans immediately accused the Democrats of telegraphing to the enemy a US intention to leave.
The Democrats' proposal shows how far their leadership has moved in only a few months. In early January, they were wary of being overly critical for fear of being accused of being unpatriotic. But they are emboldened by public hostility to Mr Bush sending more troops to Iraq.
The Democrats will go to a vote of the House appropriations committee next week, for the full House to debate the move the following week. The party should win in the House but could struggle in the Senate, where they enjoy only a narrow majority.
If Congress approves the plan, Mr Bush faces a dilemma: he could veto the bill, but would then be without the funds to prosecute war. Although he has alternative sources, he would struggle to find $100bn. He appears intent on the US remaining in Iraq, at least until he leaves office in January 2009.
In their proposal, the Democrats suggest that the withdrawal deadline should be brought forward if the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, fails to deliver on promises to deploy more Iraqi troops and taking steps to reduce sectarian violence.
Ms Pelosi first proposed a deadline of December 2008 but was forced to agree August as a compromise with Democrats who favour withdrawal this year. To try to attract Republicans, Ms Pelosi also proposes attaching to the bill increased funding for injured soldiers, a sensitive issue after disclosure of poor conditions at a Washington military hospital. With Republicans in mind, she suggested some of the $100bn be switched from Iraq to Afghanistan.
John Boehner, the leader of the Republicans in the House, accused the Democrats of "telegraphing to our enemy a timetable: Gen [David] Petraeus should be the one making the decisions on what happens on the ground in Iraq, not Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha [another Democratic congressman opposed to the war]."
In Baghdad, Gen Petraeus yesterday gave his first press conference since taking over the Iraq command, saying there was no military solution, and calling for talks with some insurgent groups.
The general is a counter-insurgency expert, and was blunt about the limitations of US military might, even after 21,500 reinforcements. "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," he said. "Military action is necessary to help improve security ... but it is not sufficient." He added that political progress would require talking to "some of those who have felt the new Iraq did not have a place for them".
"This is critical," Gen Petraeus said, adding that such talks "will determine in the long run the success of this effort".
There have been repeated attempts to separate tribal leaders, opposed to the Baghdad government but not considered irreconcilable, from al-Qaida insurgents. But the exponential rise in sectarian killings between Shia and Sunni militias has seriously complicated that task.
A regional meeting tomorrow in Baghdad aimed at stabilising the country will bring together the US, Britain and other major powers with Iraq's neighbours, including Iran and Syria.
Meanwhile, the US military strategy remains the pacification of Baghdad, and the Pentagon has agreed to Gen Petraeus's request for an extra 2,200 military police to be deployed in the capital; the effort in Baghdad had led to a few "encouraging signs", he said. The daily number of sectarian killings has decreased markedly.
Voice you opinions
Here is an article and there are many.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2029997,00.html
George Bush faces the prospect of losing control over the conduct of the Iraq war, after Democrats yesterday threatened to cut off billions of dollars for troops unless he set a timetable for withdrawal.
In what was being seen in Washington as a bold new political strategy, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives are preparing to push through legislation that would demand all US combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008. To meet that deadline, the US, which has 140,000 troops there, with a further 21,500 being deployed, would have to begin withdrawal by next March. The only troops left after August would be to train the Iraqi army.
In a move which echoes the way the Democrats brought an end to the Vietnam war, they aim to attach the timetable ultimatum to a funding bill, one in which President Bush is seeking $100bn (£52bn), for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House, told a press conference that this was the first time the party had set "a date certain" for troop withdrawal. The proposal is risky: while polls suggest two-thirds of Americans are now opposed to the war, the party would be open to accusations from Mr Bush of denying funding to US troops still in the field. Republicans immediately accused the Democrats of telegraphing to the enemy a US intention to leave.
The Democrats' proposal shows how far their leadership has moved in only a few months. In early January, they were wary of being overly critical for fear of being accused of being unpatriotic. But they are emboldened by public hostility to Mr Bush sending more troops to Iraq.
The Democrats will go to a vote of the House appropriations committee next week, for the full House to debate the move the following week. The party should win in the House but could struggle in the Senate, where they enjoy only a narrow majority.
If Congress approves the plan, Mr Bush faces a dilemma: he could veto the bill, but would then be without the funds to prosecute war. Although he has alternative sources, he would struggle to find $100bn. He appears intent on the US remaining in Iraq, at least until he leaves office in January 2009.
In their proposal, the Democrats suggest that the withdrawal deadline should be brought forward if the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, fails to deliver on promises to deploy more Iraqi troops and taking steps to reduce sectarian violence.
Ms Pelosi first proposed a deadline of December 2008 but was forced to agree August as a compromise with Democrats who favour withdrawal this year. To try to attract Republicans, Ms Pelosi also proposes attaching to the bill increased funding for injured soldiers, a sensitive issue after disclosure of poor conditions at a Washington military hospital. With Republicans in mind, she suggested some of the $100bn be switched from Iraq to Afghanistan.
John Boehner, the leader of the Republicans in the House, accused the Democrats of "telegraphing to our enemy a timetable: Gen [David] Petraeus should be the one making the decisions on what happens on the ground in Iraq, not Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha [another Democratic congressman opposed to the war]."
In Baghdad, Gen Petraeus yesterday gave his first press conference since taking over the Iraq command, saying there was no military solution, and calling for talks with some insurgent groups.
The general is a counter-insurgency expert, and was blunt about the limitations of US military might, even after 21,500 reinforcements. "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," he said. "Military action is necessary to help improve security ... but it is not sufficient." He added that political progress would require talking to "some of those who have felt the new Iraq did not have a place for them".
"This is critical," Gen Petraeus said, adding that such talks "will determine in the long run the success of this effort".
There have been repeated attempts to separate tribal leaders, opposed to the Baghdad government but not considered irreconcilable, from al-Qaida insurgents. But the exponential rise in sectarian killings between Shia and Sunni militias has seriously complicated that task.
A regional meeting tomorrow in Baghdad aimed at stabilising the country will bring together the US, Britain and other major powers with Iraq's neighbours, including Iran and Syria.
Meanwhile, the US military strategy remains the pacification of Baghdad, and the Pentagon has agreed to Gen Petraeus's request for an extra 2,200 military police to be deployed in the capital; the effort in Baghdad had led to a few "encouraging signs", he said. The daily number of sectarian killings has decreased markedly.
Last edited:
:
