Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House Said to Debate ’08 Cut in Troops by 50%
new york times ^ | May 26, 2007 | DAVID E. SANGER and DAVID S. CLOUD

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: iraq; war

1 posted on 05/25/2007 7:19:31 PM PDT by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SandRat; freema; NormsRevenge

ping


2 posted on 05/25/2007 7:20:02 PM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
It is the first indication that growing political pressure is forcing the White House

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.

3 posted on 05/25/2007 7:25:30 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
As usual the New York Times cannot ever make the right analysis about President Bush plans or actions because none in the White House top officials who is participating in the real decision is going to tell the New York Times any of the real plans.

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.

4 posted on 05/25/2007 7:29:38 PM PDT by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Liberals and their media are suffering from a psychological decease call “Arabism”. What is “Arabism”? It is a a very acute state of delusion where those who suffer from it live in a parallel universe where they see themselves all powerful and victorious over their enemies, when in reality they are suffering from utter defeat.
5 posted on 05/25/2007 7:32:27 PM PDT by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

Could it be a conspiracy to smear Bush?


6 posted on 05/25/2007 7:33:44 PM PDT by jedward (Mission '08 - Take back the House & Senate. No Negotiations...No Prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

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...


7 posted on 05/25/2007 7:35:19 PM PDT by advance_copy (Stand for life, or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Why not?

Iran will be neutralized by then, and unable to support insurgency.

8 posted on 05/25/2007 7:35:54 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

—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.


9 posted on 05/25/2007 7:36:01 PM PDT by rfp1234 (Nothing is better than eternal happiness. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
What is “Arabism”? It is a a very acute state of delusion where those who suffer from it live in a parallel universe where they see themselves all powerful and victorious over their enemies, when in reality they are suffering from utter defeat.

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.

10 posted on 05/25/2007 7:36:56 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jedward

It has been a constant vicious campaign by liberals and their media since January 20 2001 to smear the President.


11 posted on 05/25/2007 7:41:24 PM PDT by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
OK. The NY Times reporters are a bunch of lying snakes and this probably isn’t true. But, I wonder if it is true, the reason is because we are going to attack Iran and need the troops over there?
12 posted on 05/25/2007 7:51:14 PM PDT by garjog (Used to be liberals were just people to disagree with. Now they are a threat to our existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Hey, NYTimes! Look it up. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=surge&x=39&y=17

You’ll figure it out.


13 posted on 05/25/2007 7:55:29 PM PDT by OkiMusashi (Beware the fury of a patient man. --- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

http://www.gop.com/GetActive/";
This is gonna blow your socks.


14 posted on 05/25/2007 8:13:12 PM PDT by mirkwood (I started out with nothing and still have most of it left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

50%?

Big deal. They’re going to cut troops at the border 100% as the assignment of 6000 National Guard troops expires.


15 posted on 05/25/2007 8:18:25 PM PDT by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jedward

From the NY Times? I find that hard to believe.

(This reply has been given the seal of approval from the Ameican Sarcatic Society)


16 posted on 05/25/2007 8:51:33 PM PDT by Valin (History takes time. It is not an instant thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Valin

lol


17 posted on 05/25/2007 8:55:25 PM PDT by jedward (Mission '08 - Take back the House & Senate. No Negotiations...No Prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy

Exactly.


18 posted on 05/25/2007 8:57:57 PM PDT by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

NY Times. LOL!


19 posted on 05/25/2007 11:07:45 PM PDT by CTSeditor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

20 posted on 05/26/2007 3:22:36 AM PDT by freema (Marine FRiend, 1stCuz2xRemoved, Mom, Aunt, Sister, Friend, Wife, Daughter, Niece)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson