Posted on 05/25/2007 7:19:28 PM PDT by kellynla
WASHINGTON, May 25 — The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.
It is the first indication that growing political pressure is forcing the White House to turn its attention to what happens after the current troop increase runs its course.
The concepts call for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels to roughly 100,000 by the midst of the 2008 presidential election, and they would also greatly scale back the mission that President Bush set for the American military when he ordered it in January to win back control of Baghdad and Anbar Province.
The mission would instead focus on the training of Iraqi troops and fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, while removing Americans from many of the counterinsurgency efforts inside Baghdad.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
ping
Growing political pressures are forcing? I would have said that the pressures on the war effort are decreasing. The Democrat push in congress just failed, although no doubt they will keep trying.
NY Times spin.
What happened is that probably someone throw the idea of the possibility of reducing the troops by 50% if everything goes according to plan in the war. The treasonous New York Times who suffered a crushing defeat yesterday when the democrats withdraw the surrender dates from the war funding bill is taking this theoretical idea and make it as if it is the exact plan that is going to occur in 2008 to portray President Bush as desperate and defeated.
Could it be a conspiracy to smear Bush?
Preemptive strike by the drive-by media... Insulates the RATS... When things go well under General Petraeus, and we can pull 50,000 of our troops out, the drive-by will say things aren’t as good as expected...
Iran will be neutralized by then, and unable to support insurgency.
—The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate—
Ha! So what? It sounds like one of many options in a big debate, and possibly a minority view. Every administration has contingency plans for many possible situations, however remote. There are similar “concepts” to launch a massive retaliatory nuclear attack on Russia, if it strikes us first.
The NYT is cherry-picking again, and engaging in a massive exaggeratory strike on the defenseless public.
LOL! Arabs do live in a fantasy world, and since Islam is essentially an Arab supremacy cult, so do Muslims in general. The problem from our point of view, of course, is that they are so crazy they go beyond quiet hallucinations and into the homicidal maniac category.
It has been a constant vicious campaign by liberals and their media since January 20 2001 to smear the President.
Hey, NYTimes! Look it up. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=surge&x=39&y=17
You’ll figure it out.
“http://www.gop.com/GetActive/";
This is gonna blow your socks.
50%?
Big deal. They’re going to cut troops at the border 100% as the assignment of 6000 National Guard troops expires.
From the NY Times? I find that hard to believe.
(This reply has been given the seal of approval from the Ameican Sarcatic Society)
lol
Exactly.
NY Times. LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.