Bush Won't Accept Iraq War Timetable

[leobold1]

Bush Won't Accept Iraq War Timetable

Apr 24 12:29 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, standing firmly against a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, said Tuesday that he will veto the latest war spending bill taking shape in Congress.
"I'm disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen this course," Bush said.

"They chose to make a political statement," he said. "That's their right but it is wrong for our troops and it's wrong for our country. To accept the bill proposed by the Democratic leadership would be to accept a policy that directly contradicts the judgment of our military commanders."

House and Senate Democratic appropriators agreed Monday on a $124 billion bill that would fund the Iraq war but order troops to begin leaving by Oct. 1 with the goal of completing the pullout six months later. Democrats would need a two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto.

Democrats said they won't back down and pointed to past remarks by Gen. David Petraeus, the new Iraq commander, that security in Iraq requires a political solution.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who says the war in Iraq is "lost," likened Bush to President Lyndon Johnson, saying Johnson ordered troop escalations in Vietnam in an attempt "to save his political legacy" only to watch U.S. casualties climb steadily.

Bush said U.S. troops should not be caught in the middle of a showdown between the White House and Congress.

"Yesterday, Democratic leaders announced that they planned to send me a bill that will fund our troops only if we agree to handcuff our generals, add billions of dollars of unrelated spending and begin to pull out of Iraq by an arbitrary date," Bush said on the South Lawn.

He said the bill would mandate the withdrawal of U.S. troops beginning as early as July 1 and no later than Oct. 1, despite the fact that Petraeus has not yet received all the reinforcements he has said he needs in the latest military buildup to help secure Baghdad and the troubled Anbar Province.

Democrats have argued that the election that left Democrats in control of Congress was a referendum for a change of strategy in Iraq. Bush used the same election results to argue his point.

"The American people did not vote for failure," he said. "That is precisely what the Democratic leadership's bill would guarantee.

"It's not too late for Congress to do the right thing."

Petraeus will try to persuade lawmakers in a private briefing this week to pursue a difference course. As part of the president's push, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was expected to meet Tuesday with key senators, including members of the Senate Finance Committee, to discuss the funding bill. The topic also likely will be discussed at a policy lunch that Vice President Dick Cheney is having on Capitol Hill.

Radio ads expected to air Tuesday will attack Reid as treating troops like a "political football," GOP officials said.

According to a transcript, an Iraq veteran identified as Capt. Trip Bellard says, "Senator Reid's remarks undercut the morale of our soldiers and undermine our troops on the ground."

As outlined by Democratic officials, the emerging legislation would require the withdrawal of U.S. forces to begin by Oct. 1, even earlier if Bush cannot certify that the Iraqi government is making progress in disarming militias, reducing sectarian violence and forging political compromises.

Another provision in the measure would withhold about $850 million in foreign aid from the Iraqis if the government does not meet those standards.

The Pentagon would be required to adhere to certain standards for the training and equipping of units sent to Iraq, and for their rest at home between deployments. Bush could waive the guidelines if necessary. Democrats assume he would, but they want him on record as doing so.

Under the nonbinding timeline, all combat troops would be withdrawn by April 1, 2008.

After that date, U.S. forces would have a redefined and restricted mission of protecting U.S. personnel and facilities, engaging in counterterrorism activities against al-Qaida and other similar organizations, and training and equipping Iraqi forces.

Democrats jettisoned some of the domestic spending that Bush has held up to ridicule, including funds for spinach growers and peanut farmers. Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others decided to include money to help farmers hit by natural disasters as well as the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

[cato2]

Might be because their own time table was slighly off.

[Snowden]

I don't think you can fight a war using a time table. Certainly the enemy will wait until the time table says you're all home, then attack again and win. It's a stupid concept, and even a 3-year-old child would know better.

[cato2]

But that is exactly what they did when planning the invasion.



Iraq War Plan Assumed Only 5,000 U.S. Troops Still There by December 2006

[Manchu34]

Originally Posted by cato2

But that is exactly what they did when planning the invasion.



Iraq War Plan Assumed Only 5,000 U.S. Troops Still There by December 2006

All the defense budget that the loser mentality, cowards oops, I mean democrats want DOD to do is to quit, admit the war in Iraq and against Terrorism is lost and the US doesn't have the stomach to fight any war to win. But, then the Democrats have been doing just that for around 62 years and 3 wars.

An all that OPLAN is a plan how to fight the war. Its not written in Stone or even blood, it is created as a guideline on how to fight the war or battle if everything goes right. Most war and battle plans RARELY go from start to finish without changes. Anyone, who has ever been involved in the planning or executing the plan knows that.

For the less inform a War/Battle Plan is based on the Goal or mission, the current (at the time of the planning) intelligence of the enemy, course of actions, etc. No crystal ball, no fortune teller, or seer to tell the planners what it will be like in 2 days, a week, month, year, etc.

[cato2]

Well your right about it being flexible. But the changes were from the GOP side of the aisle.

Under pressure from Secretary Rumsfeld for a leaner force (according to accounts in books by Michael Gordon/Bernard Trainor, Thomas Ricks, and Bob Woodward), Zinni's successor, Gen. Franks, reduced the number to 275,000 in the commander's estimate he gave to President Bush on December 28, 2001.

TOP SECRET POLO STEP - Iraq War Plan Assumed Only 5,000 U.S. Troops Still There by December 2006

[Manchu34]

Originally Posted by cato2

Well your right about it being flexible. But the changes were from the GOP side of the aisle.

Under pressure from Secretary Rumsfeld for a leaner force (according to accounts in books by Michael Gordon/Bernard Trainor, Thomas Ricks, and Bob Woodward), Zinni's successor, Gen. Franks, reduced the number to 275,000 in the commander's estimate he gave to President Bush on December 28, 2001.

TOP SECRET POLO STEP - Iraq War Plan Assumed Only 5,000 U.S. Troops Still There by December 2006

Does it truly matter which side made the reduction? In either case it was Politicians who put the pressure to reduce the numbers. I would bet that the first commander's estimate was far more accurate from the military side in order to win the war. The reduction was a result in the indoctrination of 62 years of believing and implimenting a No Win Mentality. The way the war in Iraq is going only supports that claim.