Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > Current events > What is really going on? > The War in Iraq
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-24-2006, 04:41 AM
C0m1ngD0wn C0m1ngD0wn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16
Default White House downplays Bush remark on Iraq troop pullout


White House downplays Bush remark on Iraq troop pullout

The White House downplayed President George W. Bush's suggestion that US troops would still be in Iraq when his term ends in January 2009.

Bush answered a question at a news conference Tuesday by saying the decision to withdraw US troops from Iraq would be made "by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."

He refused, meanwhile, to specify a date after which US troops would no longer be on Iraqi soil.

Despite his refusal to set a deadline, Bush's reference to "future presidents" seemed the clearest indication of his thoughts about the duration of the US deployment in Iraq.

"The question was ... when will there be zero or no American troops in Iraq," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "So he was referring to that specific question."

The president did not mean that a strong military presence would be remain nearly six years after the US-led invasion, but merely was addressing a theoretical question about when the troops will be withdrawn, McClellan told reporters.

The United States has 133,000 troops in Iraq. With more than 2,300 killed there since the March 2003 invasion, the daily spectacle of violence and the exorbitant cost of the war, the majority of Americans favor either a partial or total withdrawal.

Bush continued Wednesday to press his case for the war in Iraq. In a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, the president reiterated that the decision on the troop level would take into account the recommendations of military commanders on the ground and growing effectiveness of Iraqi security forces.

SOURCE

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-13-2007, 07:34 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: White House downplays Bush remark on Iraq troop pullout

September 13, 2007

Presidential Speech addressing Iraq War Troop Withdrawal:

Excerpt:

Bush said 5,700 U.S. forces would be home by Christmas and that four brigades — at least 21,500 troops — would return by July, along with an undetermined number of support forces. Now at its highest level of the war, the U.S. troop strength stands at 168,000.


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

27,200 troops to return by July, 2009.

Seems to me this President will be handing the Iraq war over to our next President.

Let's remember this:

There were more than 27,200 troops involved in the surge.

Obviously, this troop reduction is a decrease in the surge.

It in no way, shape or form implies that there is any intention in ending the war in Iraq anytime in the near future.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-14-2007, 02:08 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: White House downplays Bush remark on Iraq troop pullout

Troops may not shrink to pre-surge level By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
17 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Even with cutbacks promised by President Bush, the United States may wind up with thousands more troops in Iraq next summer than before the buildup of forces he ordered in January.

Bush approved the redeployment of five Army combat brigades and three Marine contingents between now and July 2008, but that does not account for thousands of support forces — including military police and an Army combat aviation brigade — that were sent as "enablers" and that apparently will stay longer.

For example, the headquarters staff of the 3rd Infantry Division, commanded by Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, was sent in April to establish a new operational command area south and southeast of Baghdad. They were not counted among the original "surge" forces, and it's not clear how long they will remain.

There currently are about 169,000 U.S. troops in Iraq — the highest total of the war. When Bush announced a buildup last January as the centerpiece of a new war strategy, there were 130,000 to 135,000 in Iraq.

In a visit to the Marine base at Quantico, Va., on Friday, Bush said commanders in Iraq would "have the flexibility and the troops needed to achieve the mission," and he urged Congress to heed the advice of Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, not to withdraw too speedily.

"I also expect the Congress to support our men and women in uniform and their families," Bush said.

He spoke shortly after the White House sent to Congress a report indicating Iraqi political leaders have gained little new ground on key goals such as passing legislation meant to promote a national reconciliation.

Next week the Senate is expected to resume debate on anti-war legislation. Democratic leaders are expected to call for a vote on about a half dozen amendments, including one by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would require troops to spend as much time at home as they do on combat tours in Iraq.

It's not yet clear how large the U.S. force will be by next summer, and the ambiguity is feeding a sense among anti-war critics that progress Bush claims U.S. forces have made in recent months is too fragile to put the administration on a path to winding down the war before the president leaves office in January 2009.

"It's clear that President Bush intends to drag this process out month after month, year after year, so that he can hand his Iraqi policy off to the next president," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "We have to change our policy now."

In a conference call with reporters Friday, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called administration officials "phonies" for suggesting the modest troop withdrawal is the result of gains made in Iraq, rather than the reality that the military is stretched too thin.

Biden, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, added, "There is no plan 'to win.' No plan how to leave. No plan how to end this. It's just a plan to keep ... all the venom from spilling out over the region, and we're using somewhere between 160,000 to 130,000 troops to do that."

When Petraeus delivered his much-anticipated Iraq report to Congress on Monday, he said he had recommended to Bush that they send home the Army and Marine forces that were part of the buildup Bush announced in January. Petraeus did not mention a troop reduction total, but the impression gained by many in Congress was that it was equivalent to the approximately 30,000 in the buildup.

In an Associated Press interview Thursday, Petraeus suggested the number would be less than 30,000 but he would not provide a specific figure. He said his staff was working out redeployment details.

It appears the reduction will be closer to 25,000, possibly less. Forecasts of future troop levels in Iraq are hazardous, as history has shown, because of the unpredictable nature of the conflict. Large reductions were planned for the latter half of 2006, but a flareup in violence killed that proposal.

In the interview, Petraeus mentioned one concrete example of a support element that likely will be kept after the "surge" combat forces leave. He cited some 2,000 military police sent last spring to help manage the extra detainees captured in stepped-up U.S. offensives in Baghdad and elsewhere. Some of those, he said, probably would remain after the extra combat units are withdrawn because detainee control will remain a challenge.

He gave other, largely overlooked examples during his congressional testimony. In an exchange Monday with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., he said other forces were brought to Iraq this year for a variety of tasks.

They include an unspecified number of personnel associated with work on countering the insurgents' weapon of choice, the roadside bomb, Petraeus said. He also mentioned, without elaboration, that additional "intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance assets" were added to the force. He did not say how many would be brought home as the "surge" winds down; he described them as resources and people that "we would have wanted regardless of whether we were surging or not."

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

Synopsis:

The number of troops returning home by July, 2008 will not decrease the number of deployed troops to a level that is lower than before the surge occurred.

Troop level will most likely surpass the number deployed including the surge since Bush has ordered the following to occur between now and July, 2008:

He giveth and taketh away!

Excerpt:

Bush approved the redeployment of five Army combat brigades and three Marine contingents between now and July 2008, but that does not account for thousands of support forces — including military police and an Army combat aviation brigade — that were sent as "enablers" and that apparently will stay longer.

Interesting that Chris Matthews believes BUSH is not conducting this war as COMMANDER IN CHIEF and taking orders from Patraeus.

I have a comment for you Matthews.

First of all, do you actually think any of our President's are truly the Commander in Chief of a war?

Not on your life.

The CFR wanted war. The secret government wanted war. Bush was their conduit.

Those in charge are the men who wear the brass and pins all over their uniforms.

What WAR experience does BUSH have besides being AWOL in the National Guard?

It's called the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

They run the show.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-14-2007, 06:27 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: White House downplays Bush remark on Iraq troop pullout

Gates raises prospect of more troop cuts By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Fri Sep 14, 5:05 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Friday raised the possibility of cutting U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 100,000 by the end of next year, well beyond the cuts President Bush has approved.

Stressing that he was expressing his hope, not an administration plan, Gates said it was possible conditions in Iraq could improve enough to merit much deeper troop cuts than are currently scheduled for 2008.

Asked at a news conference whether he was referring to going from today's level of about 169,000 to about 100,000 U.S. troops by the end of next year, Gates replied, "That would be the math."

It was the first time a member of Bush's war cabinet had publicly suggested such deep reductions, although many in Congress have pushed hard for big cuts to begin bringing the war to a conclusion.

Bush announced Thursday that he had approved a plan recommended by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, to reduce troop levels from the current 20 combat brigades to 15 brigades by July. Gates said it was too early for Petraeus or others to forecast with confidence any additional cuts.

Petraeus said he plans to make a further assessment and recommendations next March.

"My hope is that when he does his assessment in March that General Petraeus will be able to say that he thinks that the pace of the drawdowns can continue at the same rate in the second half of the year as in the first half of the year," Gates said.

"That's my hope," Gates said, adding that experience has shown that hopes can be quickly dashed in a war that has been far more difficult and costly than anyone in the administration had expected.

The defense secretary confirmed that he was referring to the possibility of cutting from the projected level of 15 combat brigades in July to 10 brigades at the end of 2008, and that this would translate to roughly 100,000 troops.

Gates opened the Pentagon news conference with an appeal for a bipartisan consensus on a way forward in Iraq.

"The consequences of American failure in Iraq at this point would, I believe, be disastrous not just for Iraq but for the region, for the United States and for the world," Gates said in his first Pentagon news conference since mid-July.

"No discussion of where and how we go from here can avoid this stark reality," he added.

Gates asserted that all senior military leaders fully agreed with the recommendations Petraeus presented to Bush and to Congress, including his proposal to begin a modest troop withdrawal this year.

Seated beside Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the soon-to-retire chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gates said he deliberately kept quiet in public about his own opinions regarding a way forward in Iraq.

Gates made a point of noting that Petraeus, in his congressional testimony Monday and Tuesday, said troop reductions would continue beyond July 2008, although at a pace yet to be determined.

Gates also raised the possibility that some Army units in Iraq would not have to serve their full 15-month tours.

"Just looking at the mathematics of it, that's a possibility," he said.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-14-2007, 06:46 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: White House downplays Bush remark on Iraq troop pullout

Bush proposed a troop reduction of 25,000 or possibly less by July of 2008 which would leave us under the pre-surge level.

Giveth and taketh away!

Bush approved the redeployment of five Army combat brigades and three Marine contingents between now and July 2008, but that does not account for thousands of support forces — including military police and an Army combat aviation brigade — that were sent as "enablers" and that apparently will stay longer.

So, how many more troops will be deployed in January of 2008?

Bait and switch!

There currently are about 169,000 U.S. troops in Iraq — the highest total of the war. When Bush announced a buildup last January as the centerpiece of a new war strategy, there were 130,000 to 135,000 in Iraq.

Do the math! 39,000 were deployed for the surge and Bush said about 25,000 will be coming home by July, 2008.

If 25,000 come home. That leaves 144,000 troops in Iraq, still above pre-surge levels.

If more troops are deployed in July, 2008 as Bush as proposed, we could be back to 169,000 which was the level after the surge and possibly surpass that level since we don't know how many more troops he plans on deploying in July, 2008.

Gates proposes a reduction to 100,000 BY THE END OF THE YEAR IN 2008.

We have just been told that the war will continue until and after December, 2008, apparently, because Gates has stated leaving 100,000 troops in Iraq at the end of the year in 2008.

I assume by this statement they are predicting a failed US attempt of bringing their so-called democracy to Iraq by the end of the year in 2008.

More bloodshed to come!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-15-2007, 12:00 AM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: White House downplays Bush remark on Iraq troop pullout

The following is the first sentence from the preceeding comment:

"Bush proposed a troop reduction of 25,000 or possibly less by July of 2008 which would leave us under the pre-surge level."

This sentence is inaccurate and should read:

"Bush proposed a troop reduction of 25,000 or possibly less by July of 2008, which would still leave us at "surge" levels."

I don't think I excerpted this sentence from one of the articles on this thread; however, if I did, the writer is mistaken.

The only part I could find that I referenced from one of the articles on this thread was:

"Bush proposed a troop reduction of 25,000 or possibly less..."

I couldn't find the remainder of the sentence in the article:

..."which would leave us at the "pre-surge" levels," so I'm assuming I wrote it and wanted to correct it.

However, if I did not.

The writer is COMPLETELY inaccurate.

If you find the remainder of the partial excerpt in the article, please point it out to me.

I would be interested to see why this inaccurate statement would have been made.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-15-2007, 12:52 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: White House downplays Bush remark on Iraq troop pullout

Bush: More GIs to fill Iraq support role By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 54 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - While "formidable challenges" remain in Iraq, President Bush said Saturday, the United States will start shifting more troops into support roles — in addition to the troop withdrawals announced earlier in the week.

In December, the United States will begin a new military phase in Iraq — one in which "our troops will shift over time from leading operations to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

Bush was following the recommendations of Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

In a televised speech Thursday, Bush announced he had approved Petraeus' plan to withdraw 5,700 troops from Iraq by the holidays and reduce the force from 20 combat brigades to 15 brigades by July 2008.

On Friday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates raised the possibility of cutting U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 100,000 or so by the end of next year — well beyond the cuts Bush announced in his speech Thursday.

The defense secretary confirmed that he was referring to cutting from the projected level of 15 combat brigades in July to 10 brigades at the end of 2008, and that this would translate to roughly 100,000 troops.

It was the first time a member of Bush's war Cabinet had publicly suggested such deep reductions, perhaps offering a conciliatory hand to anti-war Democrats and some wary Republicans in Congress who have been pushing for troop reductions, a change in the U.S. mission and an end to the war.

Next week, the Senate is expected to resume debate on anti-war legislation.

Still, the administration insists that any decisions about cutting U.S. troops will be guided by conditions on the ground, not political reasons or pressure from Capitol Hill.

"If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened," Bush said. "Al-Qaida could find new recruits and new sanctuaries. And a failed Iraq could increase the likelihood that our forces would someday have to return — and confront extremists even more entrenched and even more deadly.

"By contrast, a free Iraq will deny al-Qaida a safe haven. It will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. And it will serve as a partner in the fight against terrorism."

Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Bush's war strategy had failed so far, and a new direction is needed.

"We and the American people already know that the situation in Iraq is grim, and the growing majority of this Congress and of the American people want our troops out," Lantos said in the Democrats' weekly radio address. "Strategically, the escalation has failed."

Lantos argued that the military buildup the president ordered in January was intended to buy time for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other political leaders to find a way to resolve their differences and end civil strife. But political reconciliation has only inched forward since January, Lantos said.

"We can expect the administration to continue asking for more money, more patience and more sacrifices from our troops — all in the belief that our continued intervention in Iraq will eventually bear fruit," Lantos said. "But this approach is not a strategy, and Americans' patience with this war has run out."

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

Excerpt:

It was the first time a member of Bush's war Cabinet had publicly suggested such deep reductions, perhaps offering a conciliatory hand to anti-war Democrats and some wary Republicans in Congress who have been pushing for troop reductions, a change in the U.S. mission and an end to the war.

This is good news! Troop level before the surge at about 139,000. Gates suggests deep cuts to about 100,000 by the end of 2008. That means there is no end in sight to the Iraq war. Did you hear that CONGRESS!?! Your efforts are futile. You have no power and the people have no power, either.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Colbert Lampoons Bush at White House Correspondents Dinner-- President Not Amused? SeC Opinions 2 05-03-2006 09:04 AM
More Treason from idiot in White House New World Order operatives 7 12-17-2005 12:31 PM
Voice of the White House December 5, 2005 What is really going on? 2 12-07-2005 09:15 PM
Voice of the White House What is really going on? 13 09-04-2005 02:16 PM
House of Bush House of Saud nakedsnake War on Terror Charade 9 04-20-2005 02:21 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.