Betrayal of Trust
Before the surge, George Bush had 130,000 troops stuck in Iraq. |
In January 2007, there were “currently more than 130,000 U.S. troops” in Iraq. [UPI, 1/10/07] Bush announced on January 10, 2007 that he planned to augment the more than 130,000 forces in Iraq with the additional 21,500 troops. [Associated Press, 1/17/07] |
Americans had elected a new Congress to bring them home. Instead, Bush sent 30,000 more troops. |
In March 2007, the top general in Iraq asked for an additional 2,600 soldiers in Baghdad and western Iraq bringing the administration's surge to 30,000 troops. [ABC News, 3/16/07] In January 2007, there were an estimated 132,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. In September 2007, there are an estimated 168,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. [Brookings Institution, “Iraq Index,” 9/10/07; http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf ] [T]he Iraq surge of an additional 30,000 troops -- about six brigades -- creates pressure on the stretched U.S. military to generate troops. [UPI, 3/28/07] |
Now he's making a big deal about you guessed it...pulling out 30,000. |
President Bush will endorse the broad outlines of a plan to bring home 30,000 troops from Iraq by the middle of next year if conditions are favorable, a senior administration official said yesterday. [Boston Globe, 9/12/07; http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/12/bush_set_to_endorse_plan_for_troop_cuts/] George W. Bush is on Thursday night expected to endorse plans to withdraw 30,000 US troops from Iraq by next summer, but will make the cuts conditional on improvements in security. [MSNBC.com, 9/12/07; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20746751/]
At a September 13, 2007 evening press conference President Bush will tell the nation that he plans to reduce the American troop presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 by next summer, but will condition those and further cuts on continued progress. [Associated Press, 9/12/07; http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iOG8DKrBRIw7wFsd8i6-IFzLumVA] |
So, next year, there will still be 130,000 troops stuck in Iraq. |
About 168,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq now. Bush's order is expected to bring that number to around 132,000 — about where it was when Bush announced a major buildup on Jan. 10. [Associated Press, 9/12/07; http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq] Ken Pollack, an Iraq expert in Washington, said he believes President. Bush will drop troop numbers in Iraq to pre-surge levels of about 130,000 troops by some point next spring. [Christian Science Monitor, 9/12/07; http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0912/p01s01-woiq.html] |
George Bush. A Betrayal of Trust. |
January 10, 2007 Wednesday 2:42 PM EST
Bush policy to push Iraqis
LENGTH: 368 words
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Jan. 10
President Bush's new plan for Iraq makes clear it's time for the Iraqi government to "perform" and meet specific achievement benchmarks, U.S. officials said.
The senior administration officials, speaking on background in Washington Wednesday, said those benchmarks included increasingly taking over security and maintaining order, disarming Sunni and Shiite militia's, passing and implementing legislation for oil revenue sharing among all ethnic and regional groups, and bringing untainted, former Baath Party members back into government, and other moves aimed to bring about reconciliation.
"It (the new strategy) calls it like it is," a senior official said. "It's time to perform."
A change in U.S. strategy, to be announced by Bush Wednesday night in a crucial address to the nation, follows three months of informal and formal consultations within the administration and with non-administration experts.
Officials said Wednesday the benchmarks for the Iraqi government were actually set and given to President Bush by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
No definite dates for achieving specific benchmarks were given out in advance of Bush's speech by U.S. officials. However, it was made plain the administration impressed on Iraq it would frown on foot-dragging.
Iraq had promised additional military brigades to quell violence in Baghdad, an official said, and the United States expected to see the first on the streets by Feb. 1, as promised, and two more by Feb. 15.
It was made clear "Iraq has to meet the benchmarks they set," an official said. "It is time fo them to perform. They have concluded that as well."
The new strategy includes about 20,000 additional U.S. troops deployed to Iraq to help the Iraqis regain control of Bagdad and the surrounding 30 miles, where about 80 percent of the violence in Iraq occurs.
There are currently more than 130,000 U.S. troops in the country.
More U.S. soldiers would also be be embedded with their Iraqi counterparts who will take the lead in military and security operations, officials said. And the embedding, to better train them, will go down to the company level.
The aim is for Iraqi forces to take the lead on security, with Americans acting as support.
January 17, 2007 Wednesday 6:45 PM GMT
Democrats ready resolution stating opposition to Iraq war
BYLINE: By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
SECTION: INTERNATIONAL NEWS
LENGTH: 856 words
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
Senate Democrats working with a well-known Republican war critic are developing a resolution that will declare that President George W. Bush's troop buildup in Iraq "is not in the national interest," said people familiar with the document.
The resolution also would put the Senate on record as saying the U.S. commitment in Iraq "can only be sustained" with popular support among the American public and in Congress, according to officials knowledgeable about the draft.
These officials would speak only on condition of anonymity because the resolution proposal still is being drafted. Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican and potential 2008 presidential candidate, is helping Democrats with the wording of the anti-war resolution.
"It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating U.S. troop presence in Iraq," it says.
The resolution will be co-sponsored by Sens. Carl Levin and Joseph Biden, both Democrats, as well as Hagel. Levin chairs the Armed Services Committee, and Biden the Foreign Relations Committee.
The Senate's Democratic leaders are expected to propose the resolution by Thursday, with debate planned around the same time that Bush delivers his State of the Union speech Tuesday.
Hagel's agreement to help Democrats champion the resolution amounts to a setback to the administration and to Bush, who has argued vehemently that some 21,500 additional U.S. troops are needed to help the Iraqi government calm sectarian violence in Baghdad and Anbar province.
Bush announced on Jan. 10 that he planned to augment the more than 130,000 forces in Iraq with the additional 21,5000 troops.
Earlier, Bush summoned Republicans skeptical of the war to the White House to discuss the issue as Democratic House and Senate leaders maneuver for votes to gauge Republican opposition to Bush's policy.
The White House refused to say who was invited to meet with Bush.
The resolutions in Congress seemed likely to be largely symbolic as they would not affect the Pentagon's war budget or challenge the president's authority over U.S. forces. Such votes, however, could be a warning to Bush that Congress' new Democratic rulers will be more active in their reaction to his war plans than Congress was under Republican leadership.
The resolutions also would help Democrats measure Republican support for more aggressive legislative tactics, such as refusing to provide money to conduct the war.
Such a vote puts many Republicans in an uncomfortable position. They will have to decide whether to stay loyal to an unpopular Republican president and risk angering voters disillusioned by the war or buck the party line.
Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday she thinks there should be a cap on U.S. troops in Iraq, and she wants "to condition American aid to the Iraqis on their meeting political benchmarks."
"I am opposed to this escalation," she said on NBC television. "The Bush administration has frankly failed to put any leverage on this government," said Clinton, considered by many to be the early front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, even though she has not yet entered the race.
Bush has been trying to sell his revised war plan to the public in a series of television interviews. He told PBS's Jim Lehrer in an interview broadcast Tuesday that keeping his old policies in place would have led to "a slow failure," but withdrawing from Iraq, as some Democrats and other critics suggest, would result in an "expedited failure."
"I am frustrated with the progress," Bush said. "A year ago, I felt pretty good about the situation. I felt like we were achieving our objective, which is a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself. No question, 2006 was a lousy year for Iraq."
Several congressional members from Bush's party have offered only lukewarm endorsements of the president's plan.
Republican Rep. Chris Shays, who scraped by in the November elections while his Republican Connecticut colleagues Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson lost their seats, said his vote would depend on what Democrats come up with. He said he supports the troop push if there are guarantees offered by the Iraqis that they will reach a political settlement.
Lining up behind Bush in the Senate are Republican stalwarts and a few members who have long backed sending more troops to Iraq, including Sen. John McCain, a probable 2008 presidential candidate.
Acknowledging their party is divided on Iraq, Republican leaders are trying to stave off a showdown in Congress by casting Democratic efforts as a political ploy to embarrass the president.
Republicans also are discussing alternative proposals, including one resolution in the House of Representatives that would promise to keep funding for troops in combat.
The White House cautioned lawmakers about the consequences of voting against a buildup.
"The one thing the president has said is, whatever you do, make sure you support the troops," press secretary Tony Snow said at the White House. "And the question people who support this resolution will have to ask is, how does this support the troops?"
March 16, 2007 Friday
SHOW: WORLD NEWS NOW 3:00 PM EST
ABC NEWS NOW/WORLD NEWS NOW
ANCHORS: CHARLES GIBSON
LENGTH: 373 words
CONTENT: VALERIE PLAME, CIA, IRAQ MILITARY TROOPS, KARL ROVE, TONY SNOW, HARRIET MIERS, UNITED, JETBLUE, MARYLYN, MAINE
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) Good day. I'm Charles Gibson at ABC News Headquarters in New York, and I welcome you to the 'World News" webcast.
GRAPHICS: WORLD NEWS
GRAPHICS: I, SPY
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) So the headlines today, well, she was at the center of one of the most disruptive scandals of the Bush administration. And for the first time, she has spoken publicly.
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Voiceover) On Capitol Hill, former CIA operative, Valerie Plame accused the White House of leaking her identity in order to discredit her husband Jo Wilson, who had criticized the administration's case for going to war in Iraq. Plame warned that the CIA might lose future recruits if the agency couldn't guarantee their identities would remain secret.
GRAPHICS: MORE TROOPS
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Voiceover) The top general in Iraq is asking for an additional 2600 soldiers in Baghdad and western Iraq bringing the administration's surge to 30,000 troops, not the 21,000 the President Bush originally called for. This new brigade will be made up of helicopter pilots and their support staff.
GRAPHICS: DISMISSED ATTORNEYS
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) One day after an e-mail revealed that Karl Rove, the President's top political adviser had inquired about firing all 93 US attorneys in 2005.
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Voiceover) Spokesman Tony Snow said he could no longer guarantee that Harriet Miers, the former White House Counsel, was the first one to float the idea as Snow and the White House had first claimed.
GRAPHICS: WINTER RETURNS
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) And if you live in the northeast, you don't need me to tell you that the weather outside is just miserable.
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Voiceover) As much as two feet of snow and rain is falling from Marylyn to Maine, 1500 flights have been cancelled including all of United and JetBlue's flights into and out of New York City.
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) And you can check in with the 'World News" broadcast for more on today's headlines.
ANNOUNCER
This is 'World News" available anytime, anywhere you want it.
April 11, 2007
Iraqi Government Spokesman Opposes Premature Troop Withdrawal
SECTION: VOA ENGLISH SERVICE
LENGTH: 437 words
DATELINE: Washington
Iraq's government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, spoke out Wednesday against what he called a "premature" withdrawal of U.S. forces from his country. He said U.S. troops should not leave until Iraq is ready and its security forces have received sufficient training. VOA's William Ide reports from Washington, where the Iraqi official made his remarks.
Al-Dabbagh says there will come a time when Iraq is ready for the withdrawal of foreign troops. But he warned that such a withdrawal should not be "premature." He said an early withdrawal could trigger more instability and would have local, regional and global implications.
"It is not the right solution to have a premature withdrawal of the troops," he said. "Troops should continue and finish their job. Part of their job is the training of the Iraqi security forces, a neutral Iraqi, professional Iraqi security forces."
In an address at the congressionally funded United States Institute for Peace in Washington, al-Dabbagh warned that an early withdrawal would create more room for Iran and al-Qaida to make deeper inroads into Iraq.
"The premature withdrawal of the American troops will create a vacuum," he added.
His comments come as President Bush and Congress are in a tense political fight over a supplemental funding bill that in part seeks to set timetables for the complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq sometime next year.
The president has invited congressional leaders from both parties to meet with him at the White House next week. President Bush says he wants a supplemental funding bill that does not set deadlines for the withdrawal of troops. He has threatened to veto any bill that does.
Democrats have threatened to cut funding altogether by early next year if the president vetoes their final version of the funding bill.
Al-Dabbagh says early next year is too soon.
"The end of 2007 and 2008 will be the time for part of the American troops to be withdrawn," he explained.
The United States is currently increasing the number of American troops in Iraq in a bid to stabilize Baghdad and other violent areas of the country. The Pentagon says 30,000 troops being deployed to Iraq as part of the "troop surge" will remain there until at least the end of August.
Al-Dabbagh said he hopes that, once Iraq stabilizes, it will have a positive impact on the Middle East.
Al-Dabbagh also spoke about measures his government is taking to help stabilize the country, such as allocating some $14 billion to create new jobs. He says the Iraq government has also set aside funds for the construction of new hospitals and some 200 new schools.
March 28, 2007 Wednesday 3:04 PM EST
Extended surge could extend deployments
LENGTH: 273 words
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, March 28
If the U.S. "surge" in Iraq lasts past this summer the military will have to look at extending troop deployments beyond a year, a top U.S. general said Wednesday.
If the surge extends into February 2008, it may mean some units will be deployed back to Iraq before they have had a year to rest and retrain back at their bases, said Air Force Gen. Lance Smith, commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command.
"There is a high possibility we would break some 'dwell time' for a small number of units," Smith told reporters.
While the Iraq surge of an additional 30,000 troops -- about six brigades -- creates pressure on the stretched U.S. military to generate troops, the war in Afghanistan is also exreting pressure. The military needs another 3,300 troops to train Afghan soldiers and police.
The U.S. Army's Forces Command has offered up a brigade to meet the requirement, but Smith said that mix of troops may not work. Training foreign troops requires experience, special skills and the kind of confidence and patience unlikely to be resident in the many junior enlisted soldiers in a brigade, Smith said.
The other option is to "cherry pick" soldiers and Marines from across the military. However, said Smith,that depletes brigades of commanders and non-commissioned officers, making the units difficult to deploy.
Congress is considering language now that would require troops to have a year "dwell time" after a year's deployment, a restriction Smith said is unworkable.
"Without taking absolutely a significant risk in other places, it would be very, very difficult," he said. "Are we willing to pull a brigade out of Korea to meet those timelines?"
