Posted on 07/12/2007 3:34:39 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Iraq has achieved only spotty military and political progress toward a democratic society, the Bush administration conceded Thursday, an unenthusiastic assessment followed quickly by a House vote to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.
The measure passed 223-201 in the Democratic-controlled House despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September.
"The security situation in Iraq remains complex and extremely challenging," the administration report concluded. The economic picture is uneven, it added, and the government has not yet enacted vital political reconciliation legislation.
As many as 80 suicide bombers per month cross into the country from Syria, said the interim assessment, which is to be followed by a fuller accounting in September from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in the region.
"I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must," Bush said at a White House news conference at which he stressed the interim nature of the report.
Describing a document produced by his administration at Congress' insistence, he said there was satisfactory progress by the Iraqi government toward meeting eight of 18 so-called benchmarks, unsatisfactory progress on eight more and mixed results on the others.
To his critics — including an increasing number of Republicans — he said bluntly, "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops."
Democrats saw it differently.
A few hours after Bush's remarks, Democratic leaders engineered passage of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days, and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.
The vote generally followed party lines: 219 Democrats and four Republicans in favor, and 191 Republicans and 10 Democrats opposed.
"The report makes clear that not even the White House can conclude there has been significant progress," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
To Bush and others who seek more time for the administration's policy to work, she said, "We have already waited too long."
Republicans sided with Bush — at least for now. The bill "undermines Gen. Petraeus, undermines the mission he has to make America and Iraq safe," said the House GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio. "What we have here is not leadership, it's negligence."
The 25-page administration report was issued in the fifth year of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,600 U.S. troops and is costing U.S. taxpayers an estimated $10 billion a month.
Bush announced last winter he was ordering thousands of additional troops to the war zone, but the full complement has only arrived in recent weeks. "The full surge in this respect has only just begun," the report said.
It warned of "tough fighting" during the summer as U.S. and Iraqi forces "seek to seize the initiative from early gains and shape conditions of longer-term stabilization."
The president sampled the report at his nationally televised session with reporters.
"Iraqis have provided the three brigades they promised for operations in and around Baghdad. And the Iraqi government is spending nearly $7.3 billion from its own funds this year to train, equip and modernize its forces," he said.
But in other areas, he added, they "have much more work to do. For example, they've not done enough to prepare for local elections or pass a law to share oil revenues."
The report was blunt at points and more opaque at others.
While Iraq has begun to show progress in providing services, "citizens nationwide complain about government corruption and the lack of essential services, such as electricity, fuel supply, sewer, water, health and sanitation."
At another point, it added, "The prerequisites for a successful militia disarmament program are not present."
In addition to citing a Syrian connection for terrorists, it also said Iran has continued to foster instability in Iraq.
It cited measured progress on the economic front. "Unemployment has eased slightly and inflation is currently abating," the report said. It omitted mention of a June 1 Pentagon report estimating an annual inflation rate at 33 percent and the Iraqi government estimate of joblessness at 17 percent.
In an evident jab at critics of Bush's war policies, the report also said progress toward political reconciliation was hampered by "increasing concern among Iraqi political leaders that the United States may not have a long term-commitment to Iraq."
Despite rising pressure from Republicans in Congress for a change in course, Bush was adamant.
"When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq, it will (be) because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not because pollsters say it'll be good politics," he said.
Before Thursday's House vote, GOP aides said they hoped to suffer only a few party defections, but the administration faced a more volatile situation in the Senate. There, three Republicans have already said they intend to vote for a separate withdrawal measure, and several others have signed on as supporters of a bipartisan bill to implement a series of changes recommended last winter by the Iraqi Study Group.
Even so, it appears the president's allies have the support to block a final Senate vote in a showdown expected next week.
If the report changed any minds in Congress, it was not immediately apparent.
"It is time for the president to listen to the American people and do what is necessary to protect this nation. That means admitting his Iraq policy has failed, working with the Democrats and Republicans in Congress on crafting a new way forward in Iraq and refocusing our collective efforts on defeating al-Qaida," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
But Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said Congress has already decided it will be September before the administration's strategy can be evaluated properly. "Certainly the young soldiers and Marines risking their lives today on the streets of Baghdad and Ramadi would agree — and they deserve our patience."
Well said!!! Well said!
LLS
Just what is going on??? I saw Mike Pence sounding like he was beginning to waffle also! Have I entered into the Twilight Zone????
OK but how about making sure we go after all the Dims the voted for this travesty. All but two. What do ya say?
The Democrats have a knack for a comedic timing! Mirror, mirror in the wall - who are the biggest fools of all? The people who voted to inflict a defeat upon America on April Fools' Day!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
We put up with a lot of total BS from politicians but one thing is not negotiable: We demand that the government keep us - and our children - safe from foreign enemies
Its time to get ugly both in the domestic political and military theaters. We want final victory in Iraq, we want Radical Islam beat down to the point where it won't be a threat for generations.
Anyone in congress or the media who sides with the enemy is a traitor. A quisling. A Benedict Arnold. A collaborator. And we must hold them accountable, even if they are Republicans.
Every GOPer in congress needs to understand that they are deciding where they stand forever if they cast a vote for surrender. There will be no forgiveness in November '08 or ever again.
Man, I find your post OUTSTANDING!
LLS
Exactly right. This is purely for show. They don't have the authority to pull us out anyway.
Yes it has; the collective memory is equivalent to the life span of a fruit fly.
This is what happens when "conflict resolution" trumps guts.
Then we can see who has the balls to actually vote for it.
Spineless, disgraceful, bastards. The lot of them.
George Soros spent a lot of money on this expensive collection of stupid cowards.
What gets me know is that these vapid, disingenuous arguments are starting to work on a lot of conservatives too. The country has lost its backbone and is now susceptible to the stupidest of arguments.
Painful, but true. It points up the fact that many so-called conservatives are all up for freedom, but have no moral compass.
Fascinating.
I was always against us getting into the middle of this in the first place, but to cut and run now, is unbelievably stupid!
I concur with that statement 100%
I am a hard core supporter of the war. I have not wavered, tired, faltered, or failed. I know that peace and freedom will prevail.
I will say this. I think the problem with some of the Conservatives is anger. A lot of them are angry about the fence, spending, and not droppin the hammer in Iraq. I hear what they say and I understand some of the frustration. But I do not let the anger effect what is right.
This is the right fight. Even if we had a Demorat in the WH right now (God forbid and I have to a do a mental reset for even thinkin of such a nightmare), I would be supporting the war. My anger would not effect my decision to stand behind the President in a time of war. Reason is this:
I am not privy to the information that the CnC is. He has intel, Generals, and boots on the ground providing him info. And then decisions are made on the execution. I will support those decision and show resolve. I will understand that mistakes will be made. Mistakes are made in all wars. We made mistakes in WWII and we won. But I will always show resolve until the end. We debated going, we will debate it when it is over. As for now, show resolve.
But that is me. Some people get angry and they let that anger dictate the moment. I don't want to be that way with Troops in the field. I stood against Bush on the border security issue, but I stand in support of him in regards to the war.
They have no authority to remove the military from action. These democrats need to run for and win the presidency if they want that power.
This is the basic problem with democrats; they do not understand the country in which they live, thus they hate it, want it to be different and go about their business as if it is different.
The President needs to backhand them a good one, if not physically, at the very least politically.
"the fence" and "spending" (whatever "spending" connotes exactly) have nothing whatsoever to do with what is going on in Iraq or how best strategically to proceed. You're right of course that many conservatives are letting their anger over these things infect their thinking re: Iraq (and shame on them for it).
"droppin the hammer in Iraq", meanwhile, sounds good, and I do understand the appeal of the all-out-war or nothing argument. However: what, pray tell, does "dropping the hammer" actually mean? Bombing an entire city? Where to bomb? Really, such people should state coordinates, or remain silent.
Conservatives getting all frustrated that we're not "dropping the hammer" in the present situation makes about as much sense as a baseball fan getting mad that his team isn't hitting grand slams with the bases empty.
Um, news flash to the "hammer" conservatives: we already "dropped the hammer" in 2003. There's no conceivable, achievable way to "drop the hammer" in the present situation that doesn't entail just full-on indiscriminate genocidal slaughter. Is that really what you advocate, and if so, why?
Some people get angry and they let that anger dictate the moment. I don't want to be that way with Troops in the field. I stood against Bush on the border security issue, but I stand in support of him in regards to the war.
If only that were true of more.
They say Bush spent money like a drunken sailor. I say, we are at war and we may have to spend some money.
"dropping the hammer" actually mean? Bombing an entire city? Where to bomb?
That is a good question you ask. I am not speaking for all, but I guess I can say that sometimes I get disgruntled and I say that I would like to turn the ME into the Ground Zero Ocean. I know that it is not the right thing to do, right now and don't push me brother, but I guess I find it to be an entertaining thought.
I don't know, but I wish that we could understand the situation. Know that dealing with Bush is a lot better then dealing with any Demorat.
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.