By GottaLaff
Patrick Kennedy going off on the House floor:
From C-SPAN coverage of the House floor 3/10/10, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) remarks on withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan. He references the press gallery and ex-Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY)."We're talking about Eric Massa 24/7 on the TV?!"
By GottaLaff
As Dana Carvey used to say as Bush 41, "Nah g'a'n doit". This will be a no go:
Liberals in the House, who have spent much of the past year complaining that other congressional Democrats and the White House are insufficiently progressive, will get a chance this week to vent about one of their biggest concerns: the war in Afghanistan.
House leaders will allow three hours of formal debate, probably Wednesday, on an antiwar resolution written by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), one of the leading antiwar voices in Congress. The resolution, which has 16 co-sponsors, calls for the United States to remove all of its troops from Afghanistan in 30 days -- or by the end of the year, if it is determined that trying to do so in a month would be too dangerous.
Peace. Yeah, sounds reasonable.
Nah g'a'n happen:
Whether or not it would have any legal force if enacted, the resolution has almost no chance of being approved in the House, where nearly all Republicans and many Democrats support maintaining or increasing troop levels.
Toldja so.
By GottaLaff
Here comes Dennis:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is offering a resolution calling for a swift withdrawal from the [Afghan] war. His office confirmed the Ohio Democrat will introduce his resolution March 4 with the goal of setting up a three-hour debate and vote on March 10.
By GottaLaff
Iraqi lawmakers reached a minutes-to-midnight deal late Sunday, clearing a path to national elections early next year that are seen as crucial to a smooth U.S. troop withdrawal. [...]
The elections, and Iraq's political stability, are critical to President Barack Obama's hopes of withdrawing all U.S. combat troops by August 2010, leaving some 50,000 U.S. military personnel here. [...]
They said that Obama administration officials pushed hard on leaders of Iraq's ethnic Kurds to accept fewer seats than they were demanding for their semi-autonomous northern region. The Kurds' eventual, if reluctant, agreement sealed the deal.
"If it wasn't for the American intervention in the first degree ... the law today would not have passed," said Salih Mutlak, a Sunni Arab lawmaker. "This is the first time that the Americans use wisdom and logic and pressure the Kurds."
Know why? Come on, guess. Buzz in when you have the answer.
Ding! That's right!
It's because BushCo had neither wisdom nor logic! What's "legacy" for 4,367, Alex?
Oh goody. Now we'll have more troops to send to Afghanistan. We lose. Where's our parting gifts?"The Americans didn't place pressures, but they gave us important guarantees and tomorrow the White House will probably issue a statement about it," said Feriad Rawanduzi, a Kurdish parliament member. The guarantees, he said, include a census next year in Iraq _the country hasn't had one since 1987 — and U.N. help in settling Arab-Kurd disputes over a broad swath of territory, including the oil-rich Kirkuk region.[...]
In the end, all sides appear to have won something from the deal. Sunnis got greater representation, Kurdish areas increased their seats in parliament from 35 to 43, and Shia Muslims, who form Iraq's majority, also got more clout.
By GottaLaff
UPDATE: Not so fast...? (h/t: Plutoniumpage) Every network is reporting this, but:
Screen shot of MSNBC banner:President Obama will not announce a three year time frame for withdrawing U.S. Troops from Afghanistan, despite a CNN report to the contrary.
"That's wrong. The time frame of 3 years is nowhere in the speech," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor told The Cable. He added that Gibbs' statement was accurate but did not elaborate.
By GottaLaff
Iraq seems to be breaking up with us:
The Iraqi government has moved to sharply restrict the movement and activities of U.S. forces in a new reading of a six-month-old U.S.-Iraqi security agreement that has startled American commanders and raised concerns about the safety of their troops.Great. What next...In a curt missive issued by the Baghdad Operations Command on July 2 -- the day after Iraqis celebrated the withdrawal of U.S. troops to bases outside city centers -- Iraq's top commanders told their U.S. counterparts to "stop all joint patrols" in Baghdad. It said U.S. resupply convoys could travel only at night and ordered the Americans to "notify us immediately of any violations of the agreement."
The strict application of the agreement coincides with what U.S. military officials in Washington say has been an escalation of attacks against their forces by Iranian-backed Shiite extremist groups, to which they have been unable to fully respond.
If extremists realize "some of the limitations that we have, that's a vulnerability they could use against us," a senior U.S. military intelligence official said. "The fact is that some of these are very politically sensitive targets" believed to be close to the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The new guidelines are a reflection of rising tensions between the two governments. Iraqi leaders increasingly see the agreement as an opportunity to show their citizens that they are now unequivocally in charge and that their dependence on the U.S. military is minimal and waning. [...]
The Americans have been taken aback by the new restrictions on their activities. The Iraqi order runs "contrary to the spirit and practice of our last several months of operations," Maj. Gen. Daniel P. Bolger, commander of the Baghdad division, wrote in an e-mail obtained by The Washington Post.
By GottaLaff
Cheney argued the Obama administration's policy may produce a new round of violence and squander recent gains. What Cheney neglected to mention is that the Obama administration is simply following through on the SOFA deal negotiated by the Bush/Cheney administration.Take it up with Bush? He never did that while in office, why start now?As Fred Kaplan explained the other day, "[T]he withdrawal is not the doing of President Barack Obama. Rather, it was negotiated during the Bush administration, at -- more to the point -- the Iraqi government's insistence. The Iraqis are the ones who wanted, and ordered, us out. Even if John McCain had won the 2008 election, we'd still be pulling out of Iraq's cities."
If Cheney doesn't like the Status of Forces Agreement, signed in November 2008, he should take it up with Bush.
By GottaLaff
As I posted earlier, the U.S. troops got out earlier than expected, and look how Iraq reacted:
By GottaLaff
From NBC's Jim Miklaszewski
Pentagon and military officials report that the withdrawal of most U.S. military forces from Iraq's major cities has been completed a day ahead of tomorrow's deadline.
According to the officials, within the past 30 days, 30 U.S. military bases have either been closed down or handed over to Iraqi security forces. A total of 150 bases have been shut down or turned over to Iraqis in the past nine months.
Military forces will still be around to advise Iraqi forces, as well as be available to request U.S. military forces and/or U.S. military air strikes if necessary. Some intel will also remain.
Let's hope this is a successful effort. It's not enough yet, but at least it's something. It would be heaven to get our military out of there, but sadly, I don't see that happening.
By GottaLaff
General Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military commander on the ground in Iraq, said Sunday that he believes U.S. troops will be out of the country by the end of 2011.CNN Chief National Correspondent John King asked Odierno to rate his confidence, on a scale of one to ten, that U.S. troops would be out by the agreed upon timeline between the U.S. and Iraqi governments.
“As you ask me today, I believe it’s a ten – that we will be gone by 2011.” [...]
“He’s our commander-in-chief,” Odierno said of President Barack Obama, whose opposition to the Iraq war and to the surge strategy became trademarks during the 2008 White House race. “As our commander-in-chief, we take direction from him.”
“He’s very attentive. He listens. He’s incredibly intelligent. He talks through the issues. . . .He makes a decision and then we execute those decisions and that’s all you can expect out of your commander-in-chief. And I’ve been very pleased with the interaction that I’ve been able to have with him.”
Whaddya know... The commander on the ground gave President Obama high marks. Scratch one Rushpublic (tea) tantrum from the list.
By GottaLaff
Syria's foreign minister said on Wednesday his country would be happy to help U.S. President Barack Obama implement his plan to pull U.S. combat troops out of Iraq."Syria is ready to offer whatever help is necessary" to make a success of the U.S. withdrawal plan, Walid al-Moualem told journalists after meeting Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki during a visit to Baghdad.
The United States had not asked if it could withdraw troops through Syria, he told a joint news conference with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari.
Moualem's friendly tone was a sign of the marked improvement in bilateral relations since Obama became president on January 20.
No, what?! Relations have... improved? With who again? Syria? Since when, again? Ohhh, since Obama became pres-i- dent.
Im. Proved.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad called Obama "a man of his word" in an interview with an Italian newspaper last week and said he hoped to meet him.Think, think... What was it like, say-y, a few months ago? When that swaggering, mouth-breathing, delusional mental amoeba was in office? Why, here's the answer now!
Under former President George W. Bush, relations were extremely strained. U.S. officials accused Syria of doing little to stop the flow of foreign jihadists into Iraq through its porous border, though Syria said it was doing what it could.Bush's little autobiography may have just been reduced to four pages, because he might want to leave this part out.
By GottaLaff
... one hundred-something thousand to go:
Some 12,000 troops will be pulled from Iraq over the next six months as part of a gradual troop withdrawal in the region, the U.S. military said in a statement Sunday.Two brigade combat teams and their support units will redeploy without replacement, reducing the number of combat teams in Iraq from 14 to 12, the statement said.
An additional 4,000 British troops will also be withdrawn from Iraq.
By GottaLaff
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
By GottaLaff
All combat troops out by 2010:
President Obama told congressional leaders Thursday he's planning to pull all combat troops out of Iraq by August 2010, which falls short of his campaign promise of bringing all combat forces home within 16 months, according to three Congressional officials familiar with the meeting. [...]I'm not sure why the media keep emphasizing the three month difference when the real news is that we're finally ending a fraudulent war/occupation. Did it ever occur to them that once he got in office, Prez O was given additional information that he may not have been privy to prior to January 20th, that may have affected the time frame? Or am I just being overly sensitive?Obama also revealed to lawmakers that after combat troops are out, he plans to keep a range of 35,000 to 50,000 support troops on the ground in Iraq, the officials said.
All U.S. troops have to be out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, under an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government last year.
By GottaLaff
Yes, good. Of course, the troops will be sent elsewhere, as in Afghanistan. But at least he is trying to keep a promise:
President Obama "plans to withdraw most of its troops from Iraq by August 2010," 19 months after his inauguration, the AP reports.This should save us a few bucks.
"The withdrawal plan would fulfill one of Obama's central campaign pledges, albeit a little more slowly than he promised. He said he would withdraw troops within 16 months, roughly one brigade a month from the time of his inauguration."
Obama is expected to make the announcement this week.
The plan, expected to be announced later this week, would draw down the number of forces from the current 142,000 to around 50,000.
By GottaLaff
VoteVets called Obama's announcement "most welcome," praising the new administration for promoting "not just a military boost, but a strengthening of our diplomatic and political efforts there."Remissioning statement:
The troop deployment to Afghanistan will be announced as a "remissioning," meaning many, if not most, of the forces were already scheduled to deploy to Iraq but will now be diverted to Afghanistan.
[I]t will be politically characterized as a "drawdown" of U.S. military forces in Iraq, permitting the White House to claim in this one announcement that President Obama is making good on two campaign promises -- withdrawing forces from Iraq and sending additional forces to Afghanistan. [...]
According to senior Pentagon and military officials, President Obama today authorized the deployment of 17,000 additional forces to Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Gates, however, either has or will sign the actual deployment order for 12,000 forces, 8,000 Marines and 4,000 soldiers for Aghanistan.
The deployment order for the additional 4,000, most support personnel, will be signed at a later date when those individual units and troops are identified. The 17,000 number was in one of the earlier orders that was sent up chain of command then back down again a couple weeks ago.
By GottaLaff
President Obama is no George Bush... thank goodness. And unless I'm mistaken, I seem to remember that Obama won the election. However, it sounds like there are a few in the military who haven't gotten word of that yet:
CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.Let's recap: President Obama is the commander-in-chief. He calls the shots. So is it me, or should these military officers defer to their boss rather than try to publicly humiliate and pressure him?But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting. [...]
There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.
A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.
Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."
Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise. [...]
The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy. [...]Obama told Petraeus in Baghdad last July that, if elected, he would regard the overall health of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps and the situation in Afghanistan as more important than Petraeus's obvious interest in maximising U.S. troop strength in Iraq, according to Time magazine's Joe Klein.
But judging from Petraeus's shock at Obama's Jan. 21 decision, he had not taken Obama's previous rejection of his arguments seriously. That miscalculation suggests that Petraeus had begun to accept Keane's assertion that a newly-elected Democratic president would not dare to override his policy recommendation on troops in Iraq.
By GottaLaff
Six months. The top Marine commander says "six months":
The top Marine commander said Friday that his forces already had begun pulling equipment out of Iraq and that nearly all of his troops could be out in as little as six months.One "commander on the ground" has spoken."The time is right for the Marines to leave Iraq," Gen. James Conway, the commandant of the Marine Corps, said at a breakfast with reporters. Any "sustainment force" in Iraq, he added, will be almost exclusively from the Army. [...]
Throughout much of the war in Iraq, Marines were stationed in largely Sunni Muslim Anbar province, which was the heart of the Sunni insurgency and one of the most violent parts of the country.
Marines there faced some of the largest explosives detonated in Iraq and insurgent tactics such as snipers, causing devastating troop deaths. As the violence subsided, however, Conway pushed for the Marines to begin leaving Iraq, arguing that his forces aren't nation builders but fighters.
By GottaLaff
Music to my ears:
Obama has in fact, scheduled a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other top military commanders next Wednesday, his first full day in office. Today on ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos noted the meeting and asked Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod if Obama intends to keep his promise, and order the 16 month withdrawal timetable. Axerod’s answered, “yes”. [...]The anti-Bush.
[T]he Pentagon has already begun planning for Obama’s Iraq withdrawal timeline. “Our military planners do not live in a vacuum,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said last week. “They are well aware that the president-elect campaigned on withdrawing troops from Iraq on a 16-month timeline, so it would be only prudent of them to draw up plans that reflected that option.”
By GottaLaff
Spencer Ackerman is having way too much fun:
Gates is OK with Obama’s timetable for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq in 16 months!I love this transition if for nothing more than articles like this one.[...] Gates was asked about the timetable, and he said working within Obama’s 16-month-ish timetable, with appropriate adjustments along commanders’ recommendations, is an “agreeable approach.” Gates noted that the Status of Forces Agreement compels a full withdrawal by Dec. 2011 and a withdrawal from Iraqi towns and cities by next summer, and said commanders in Iraq are exploring a “potential acceleration” of any drawdown. “I’m less concerned about a timetable,” he said. [...]
All this really speaks to the political wisdom of keeping Gates. The Republican defense secretary who implemented the surge just endorsed withdrawing combat troops from Iraq according to a deadline — something that John McCain, the pre-July George W. Bush and a raft of conservative commenters have said for years would herald the apocalypse. What are they going to say now that Gates is in favor of it?
Chances are, not a whole lot, since they can’t seem to comprehend the idea. Here’s Max Boot on the implications of Gates’ reappointment:
This all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq…
And here’s Mara Liasson, the token liberal commentator on Fox News:
16 months has gone out the window, I think we can say that.
This is how a new progressive-realist consensus on foreign policy gets forged.
.jpg)
