Iraq supports Obama's Iraq Plan

Does this help?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/white-house-acc.html

Someone at the White House emailed the story to the wrong distribution list.

 

I don't think this line of argument is going to serve well for those who were wrong about the ENTIRE WAR in the first place.

 

they've been wrong for five years about increasing troop presence, but now they get to claim moral authority for being right for six months. don't you see how that works

 

Correct, but it's a very valid point to make. At the same time, the more that line gets repeated, the more obvious your statement will become. And pgabs, you hit the nail on the head. So many years of denying more troops were needed will not be forgotten.

Unless I'm missing something, the latest news in Iraq chops McCain's legs out from under him. All this recent talk about flexible timetables, moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and ENGAGING IRAN has the morphed the Republicans into Obama.

 

Equally bad, if not worse, is the fact that the Bush Administration fought the attempt to increase the size of the ground pounders in our military, the Army and Marine Corps. Had they done that, which was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, but not enough Republicans to make Bush do something, we would easily have that 10,000 troops Obama and McCain now say they want in Afghanistan, and more.

More brute stupidity by Bush. Now he tries to claim he supports the idea, when for years he refused to consider it.



U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time
President Plans to Expand Army, Marine Corps To Cope With Strain of Multiple Deployments

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 20, 2006


President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.

As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."

In another turnaround, Bush said he has ordered Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps, heeding warnings from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill that multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the armed forces toward the breaking point. "We need to reset our military," said Bush, whose administration had opposed increasing force levels as recently as this summer.

A substantial military expansion will take years and would not immediately affect the war in Iraq. But it would begin to address the growing alarm among commanders about the state of the armed forces. Although the president offered no specifics, other U.S. officials said the administration is preparing plans to bolster the nation's permanent active-duty military with as many as 70,000 additional troops.

A force structure expansion would accelerate the already-rising costs of war. The administration is drafting a supplemental request for more than $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the $70 billion already approved for this fiscal year, according to U.S. officials. That would be over 50 percent more than originally projected for fiscal 2007, making it by far the costliest year since the 2003 invasion.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has approved more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as for terrorism-related operations elsewhere. An additional $100 billion would bring overall expenditures to $600 billion, exceeding those for the Vietnam War, which, adjusted for inflation, cost $549 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

For all the money, commanders have grown increasingly alarmed about the burden of long deployments and the military's ability to handle a variety of threats around the world simultaneously. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, warned Congress last week that the active-duty Army "will break" under the strain of today's war-zone rotations. Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell, a retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on CBS News's "Face the Nation" on Sunday that "the active Army is about broken."

Democrats have been calling for additional troops for years. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) proposed an increase of 40,000 troops during his 2004 campaign against Bush, only to be dismissed by the administration. As recently as June, the Bush administration opposed adding more troops because restructuring "is enabling our military to get more war-fighting capability from current end strength." But Bush yesterday had changed his mind. "I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines," he said. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates, and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."

In describing his decision, Bush tied it to the broader struggle against Islamic extremists around the world rather than to Iraq specifically. "It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace," he said.

Bush chose a different term than Powell. "I haven't heard the word 'broken,' " he said, "but I've heard the word, 'stressed.' . . . We need to reset our military. There's no question the military has been used a lot. And the fundamental question is, 'Will Republicans and Democrats be able to work with the administration to assure our military and the American people that we will position our military so that it is ready and able to stay engaged in a long war?' "

Democrats pounced on Bush's comments. "I am glad he has realized the need for increasing the size of the armed forces . . . but this is where the Democrats have been for two years," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the new House Democratic Caucus chairman. Kerry issued a statement calling Bush's move a "pragmatic step needed to deal with the warnings of a broken military," but he noted that he opposes increasing troops in Iraq. Even before news of Bush's interview, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told reporters that the military is "bleeding" and "we have to apply the tourniquet and strengthen the forces."

The Army has already temporarily increased its force level from 482,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 to 507,000 today and soon to 512,000. But the Army wants to make that 30,000-soldier increase permanent and then add between 20,000 and 40,000 more on top of that, according to military and civilian officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Every additional 10,000 soldiers would cost about $1.2 billion a year, according to the Army. Because recruitment and training take time, officials cautioned that any boost would not be felt in a significant way until at least 2008.

Bush, who has always said that the United States is headed for victory in Iraq, conceded yesterday what Gates, Powell and most Americans in polls have already concluded. "An interesting construct that General Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing,' " Bush said, referring to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, who was spotted near the Oval Office before the interview. "There's been some very positive developments. . . . [But] obviously the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with."

Asked yesterday about his "absolutely, we're winning" comment at an Oct. 25 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. "Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121900880.html


John Kerry called 4 years ago for an increase in the size of the armed forces, particulary the Army and Marines. He wasn't the only one, or the first, but he did it while running for President. Too bad he lost. As a result, we may lose Afghanistan, the one clear success, IMO, that Bush has had as President.



Impeach Bush/Cheney.

 

Delusional as always.

 

Bush leaned on Maliki to retract story.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/20/maliki_aides_statement_came_af.html

 

It has legs!

------------------------

Maliki's Endorsement

The fact that Iraq's prime Minister has endorsed, by name, Barack Obama's plan to withdraw most U.S. troops from his country in 16 months is a huge, huge deal. Most commentary has focused on the political repercussions -- as a GOP strategist succinctly put it to Marc Ambinder, "We're ****ed" -- and that certainly seems to be the case. How can John McCain paint Obama's plan as wildly naive or irresponsible when the Iraqi government favors it too?

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/20/maliki-s-endorsement.aspx

Can't wait to see what else happens this week!

 

It would seem so. This whole fiasco could prove pivotal. I'm gonna wait until after Obama comes back before concluding anything. Land mines lay ahead. So far, he's hit a grand slam home run and he's only been to Afganistan.

Regarding your prior post, it's understandable Bush's people would lean on Maliki to retract. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself.

 

false, dishonest legs.

 

The story no one wants to talk about.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oNGevn8vHRg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oNGevn8vHRg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

Hussein wanted to withdraw all troops since 2005,denied the surge would work, then said the opposite.

If Barry Hussein had had his way in 2005, Iraq would be an Al-Qaeda terrorist state by now.

This neohpyte is extremely dangerous in his ignorance

 

if the idiots would have never attacked, it would have never been in "danger" of becoming a terrorist state

 

"Alqaeda" makes up less than 2% of the insurgent fighters in Iraq, how would they take out the Shia, Sunni, and Kurd militias to control Iraq? I'd really like to know wher you got your info.....

 

Iraq has been a terrorist state since the 80's

 

the people with good judgement

 

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Damn! Gordon Brown signs on to Obama's timetable. McCain's world is getting smaller and smaller --

Brown Plans to Withdraw Troops as He Backs Obama Over "War on Terror"

Basra - Gordon Brown prepared the ground for a historic realignment in the "war on terror" yesterday by setting out a four-point plan for withdrawal of British troops from Iraq by the end of next year.

Although he is refusing to set a detailed timetable for withdrawal, it is clear Mr Brown is in agreement with the US presidential candidate Barack Obama on the need for military action in Afghanistan to take priority. Both appear to be working to a 16-month timetable.

http://www.truthout.org/article/britains-pm-backs-obama-plan-iraq-and-afghanistan

 

A highly secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

The Salman Pak biological warfare facility was located on a peninsula caused by a bend in the Tigris river, approximately five kilometers (km) from the arch located in the town of Salman Pak. The facility area comprised more than 20 square km, and might have been known as a farmers (or agricultural) experimentation center. The peninsula was fenced off and patrolled by a large guard force. Immediately inside and to the east of the fence line were two opulent villas: the larger built for Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the other for his half-brother, Barazan al-Tikriti. A main paved road ran through the center of the Salman Pak facility/peninsula. [GulfLINK]

Plans were made in the mid-1980's to develop the Salman Pak site into a secure biological warfare research facility. Dr Rihab Taha, head of a small biological weapons research team, continued to work with her team at al-Muthanna until 1987 when it moved to Salman Pak, which was under the control of the Directorate of General Intelligence.

Located at the facility are several buildings. The probable main research building at the site is a modern building, composed of twenty four rooms, housing a major BW research facility. Using current technology the research area alone had sufficient floor space to accommodate several continuous-flow or batch fermenters that could produce daily sufficient anthrax bacteria to lethally assault hundreds of square kilometers. Adjacent to the research building is a storage area which contains four munitions type storage bunkers with lightning arrestors. Two of these bunkers have facilities for storage of temperature sensitive biological material. Approximately a mile down the road from the research area is a complex US intelligence believed to be an engineering area. One building in this complex was thought to contain a fermentation pilot plant capable of scale up production of BW agents. A construction project comprising several buildings was begun in early 1989 adjacent to the engineering area, and was near completion in 1990. This new complex was assessed as a pharmaceutical production plant. As such, this facility would have an extensive capability for biological agent production. [GulfLINK]

Salman Pak, located 30-40 km SE of Baghdad, engaged in laboratory scale research on Anthrax, Botulinum toxin, Clostridium, perfringens (gas gangrene), mycotoxins, aflatoxins, and Ricin. Researchers at this site carried out toxicity evaluations of these agents and examined their growth characteristics and survivability.

Equipment-moving trucks and refrigerated trucks were observed at the Salman Pak BW facility prior to the onset of bombing, suggesting that Iraq was moving equipment or material into or out of the facility. Information obtained after the conflict revealed that Iraq had moved BW agent production equipment from Salman Pak to the Al Hakam suspect BW facility.

The Qadisiya State Establishment [aka Al-Qadsia], involved in the program to produce Al Hussein class missiles, is apparently located nearby, along with the Al-Yarmouk facility which according to some reports was associated with the chemical munitions program [and which other reports place at Yusufiyah.

Iraq told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror training camp for Iraqi special forces. However, two defectors from Iraqi intelligence stated that they had worked for several years at the secret Iraqi government camp, which had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995. Training activities including simulated hijackings carried out in an airplane fuselage [said to be a Boeing 707] at the camp. The camp is divided into distinct sections. On one side of the camp young, Iraqis who were members of Fedayeen Saddam are trained in espionage, assassination techniques and sabotage. The Islamic militants trained on the other side of the camp, in an area separated by a small lake, trees and barbed wire. The militants reportedly spent time training, usually in groups of five or six, around the fuselage of the airplane. There were rarely more than 40 or 50 Islamic radicals in the camp at one time.