Reid: Troop Withdrawal Plan "Unacceptable"

Top Dem Harry Reid Says Gen. Petraeus's Plan To Bring 30,000 Home By Summer Does Not Go Far Enough

(CBS/AP)  Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday rejected the call by the top U.S. general in Iraq for a reduction of up to 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by next summer, saying it does not go far enough.

"This is unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to the American people," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Reid said the recommendation by Gen. David Petraeus, expected to be embraced on Thursday by President Bush in a speech to the nation, "is neither a drawdown nor a change in mission that we need. His plan is just more of the same."

"I call on the Senate Republicans to not walk lockstep as they have with the president for years in this war. It's time to change. It's the president's war. At this point it also appears clear it's also the Senate Republicans' war," Reid told a Capitol Hill news conference.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the troop buildup Mr. Bush announced in January had been intended to give the fledgling Iraqi government breathing room.

Petraeus' testimony "basically gave Republicans who are still with the president on this … a reason to stay with the president," said CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer.

But that government remains dysfunctional and "the president is just going to stay the course indefinitely," Levin said. He said that even Petraeus, in two days of congressional testimony, had acknowledged that the purpose of the military buildup, which the administration has called a "surge," had not been accomplished.

Reid said that Democrats would offer amendments "to change the course of the war" when the Senate takes up a defense bill next week. He said they were reaching out to Republicans for help -- especially those Republicans who had been calling for a change in September.

Mr. Bush held out the promise for such a change, but it is not materializing, Reid said.

Reid wasn't specific about what amendments Democrats would offer, or whether they had the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP stalling efforts and to prevail.

"Al Qaeda is resurgent. We know the Middle East is destabilized and Iraq remains in a state of civil war," said Reid. "It appears the president has dug in, unwilling to recognize his strategy is putting all the burden on our military. And it's simply not working."

Earlier, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that stabilizing Iraq would be a lengthy process that won't end when violence in that country -- and U.S. troop strength -- is reduced.

"We're at the beginning of a transition in the Middle East, we're at the beginning of a long process of dealing with what the president called a long time ago a generational challenge to our security brought on by extremism coming principally out of the Middle East," Rice said.

Mr. Bush was expected to announce that he plans to reduce the American troop presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 by next summer from the 160,000 there now. Rice said Wednesday the U.S. views the task of stabilizing Iraq as not simply improving security within its borders but "to begin to have American forces in lower numbers turn to other responsibilities."

Among those, she said, is "the territorial security of Iraq" with respect to its Mideast neighbors, especially Iran.

"Iran is a very troublesome neighbor," she said on NBC's "Today" show. "Iran is prepared to fill the vacuum" if the United States leaves Iraq.

Rice's comments followed two days of testimony from Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador there. The testimony, though, seemed only to harden positions among lawmakers. GOP conservatives said real progress was finally being made and more time was needed, whereas Democrats said the absence of a political deal in Baghdad meant the strategy failed.

"Now they can say, 'Yes, we, too, want to bring these troops out of here but Gen. Petraeus said it would be dangerous to go faster.' I think that the president is going to be able to hold the Republican support that he has. The Democrats want to go faster, but they simply don't have the votes in my view to get that done."

In a joint press conference with Crocker on Wednesday, Petraeus said Iranians appear to be trying to create a like Hezbollah-like organization in Iraq that they could use to gain influence inside the fractured country.

Crocker said he hoped neighbor states in the region will pressure nations like Iran and Syria, which he said have been part of the problem in Iraq rather than part of the solution.

CBS News has learned that the White House has requested 15 to 20 minutes of network television time for this Thursday at 9 p.m. EDT. Mr. Bush will endorse the recommendations of his top general and top diplomat in Iraq, administration officials said. The White House plans to issue a written status report on the troop buildup on Friday, they said.

Also Friday, the president will travel to a Marine base in Quantico, Va., just outside Washington, to talk further about his Iraq policy, the White House announced. Vice President Dick Cheney will do his part, too, speaking on Iraq on Friday at appearances at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum in Grand Rapids, Mich., and at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida.

While mirroring Petraeus' strategy, Mr. Bush will place more conditions on reductions than his general did, insisting that conditions on the ground must warrant cuts and that now-unforeseen events could change the plan.

For their part, Democrats have rallied against the plan. But they find themselves in a box -- lacking the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home by spring but tied to a support base that wants nothing less.

"We will continue the fight," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Wednesday.

[ioweign]

Harry Reid is "unacceptable", period.

People of Nevada, wise up and get rid of this MoveOn.Org stooge and perennial coward.

When are you going to truly support the troops, Harry? By fighting alongside them.

Instead of for Bin Laden as you seem to enjoy doing.

Reid, Pelosi, The Clintons, Boy Obama, KKK Byrd, Jimmy Carter Edwards Jr., Dean - the Democrats. All MoveOn.Org hacks. All Cowards. All Traitors. ALL OF THE TIME.

Posted by usadwy98 at 01:26 AM : Sep 13, 2007

It is a free country (sometimes) - run for office - enlist - be a part of IT !!

[ioweign]

A quick history lesson:

9/11 happened.

We went to Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

We kicked butt.

Meanwhile, Saddam is still not behaving.

Posted by s1ckd09 at 02:19 AM : Sep 13, 2007

Whoa - s1ckd09

Not so fast!

Up there at the top - Yes before 9/11

Put - George Bush is sworn in as President

Now 10 days later - George has Security Meeting and wants ideas about invading Iraq - You know "Wag the Dog"

Ok - 8 months later 9/11

PS - We evidently didn''t kick butt hard enough because they are back in Afghanistan !!

[realpatriot1]

s1ckd09,

Part 2-

Where I part company with your view is that I see no evidence that Sadaam supported or harbored terrorists. There''s evidence that some terrorists passed through Iraq; most have been in countries throughout the middle east, but no evidence that the government was harboring or sponsering.

Before Bin Laden declared Jihad on the U.S.(during Desert Storm)he declared it against secular Arab leaders with Sadaam and Mubarak being most prominent among them. They were enemies not collaborators.

Most of us who opposed the war are glad that Sadaam is gone but saw what was coming after the fall. We also supported the invasion of Afghanistan(most still do) and the subsequent defeat of the Taliban(who we know sponsered terror).

Al Quaeda is in Iraq but is not all that prominent in the overall insurgency, they are primarily AQ wannabies who are getting their training from battling us. Afghnistan & Pakastan is still the real battleground and where the leadership is.

I don''t agree that Al Quaeda is the primary reason for instability in Iraq. They are responsible for the sectarian violence because they bombed the Golden temple. Our presence provided them with an opportunity and they took it.

The primary reason for instability is the fact that the Iranian backed Shiite majority represented in the government and the militias have a different set of prioriites for the country than we do and that''s not going to change.

[starleo146]

Posted by s1ckd09 at 02:19 AM : Sep 13, 2007

Wow!!who sent you this run down promo BUSH open your eyes and your brain

[realpatriot1]

s1ckd09,

Part1-

I agree with you about the U.N. and the oil for food scandal creating a motive to not act more forcefully on Iraq. I think your argument is the best defense of the Iraq policy that i''ve read(certainly better than any of the proponets in Washington or the media and especially the yahoos generally on here).

I do take issue with it though and here''s why. For starters, Ceasefire Resolution 687, as I understand it(you can correct me if I''m wrong) was about preventing Sadaam from attacking his neighbors again. It wasn''t about preventing him from brutalizing his own people,or establishing a democracy in Iraq. It did prevent him from rebuilding his military beyond what was needed to defend against attack and, along with other agreements, was supposed to prevent him from having WMD and/or nuclear capacity. We knew he had WMD before the war and that afterwards he gassed the Kurds.

[s1ckd09]

A quick history lesson:

9/11 happened.

We went to Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

We kicked butt.

Meanwhile, Saddam is still not behaving.

Saddam openly supports terrorist organizations. Saddam has lots of resources. Terrorists and countries that harbor and support them cannot be left alone.

Iraq has been violating U.N. Resolutions for 12 years, tortures and uses WMDs on it''s own people, committed genocide, etc. The use of force is surely justified, right? At the least, Iraq has violated the cease fire of resolution 687, and have been in violation for 12 years.

U.N. Security council won''t approve it? Why? What, are they in cahoots with Iraq? HAHAHA!!! Oh, wait... what''s this about an oil-for-food scandal? And arms deals between Iraq and France and Russia that violate U.N. Sanctions? Biased? Corrupt? No No NO!!!

We use military force in Iraq to remove Saddam and his army. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Now, we have to stabilize Iraq, but Al-Qaeda knows that they cannot let Iraq become a stable democracy, and declares Iraq as their main battleground.

Now, we are fighting the war on terror IN Iraq, and are no longer at war AGAINST Iraq. Why cannot people see this simple distinction?

Al-Qaeda turns it into a PR war by killing as many civilians as possible and getting the Shiites and Sunnis to fight each other to make the public opinion of this war as low as possible. The gullible anti-war crowd falls for it hook line and sinker. Smart, informed people know better.

[htophet]

As a veteran I wonder if any civilians have any idea what our troops have to suffer through, they have lots of officers that are suppose to be competent and are not. The officers always speak for the troops, when the troops do 95% of the dying. As an enlisted guy I tell all of you if we do not bring them out together as a whole a piece meal, slow collapse will kill more in the end.
Read up on the VietNam episode, it is very similiar in that the same dumb ***** like these swift boat guys are still lying about "free fire zones", proving they were not there or they were paid to destroy another veteran, Kerry. It is the way the military, and all soldiers enemies from within act.

[usadwy98]

Harry Reid is "unacceptable", period.

People of Nevada, wise up and get rid of this MoveOn.Org stooge and perennial coward.

When are you going to truly support the troops, Harry? By fighting alongside them.

Instead of for Bin Laden as you seem to enjoy doing.

Reid, Pelosi, The Clintons, Boy Obama, KKK Byrd, Jimmy Carter Edwards Jr., Dean - the Democrats. All MoveOn.Org hacks. All Cowards. All Traitors. ALL OF THE TIME.

[s1ckd09]

"Your apologist attempt to excuse the anti-Constitutional, fraud-based, illegal war of aggression against Iraq has already been thoroughly debunked for you a number of times."

No, it hasn''t... you just keep repeating yourself, and I keep refuting your claim. You have yet to cite a single instance, besides opinions, that this is an illegal war of aggression. Yes, Annan said it was illegal. Does he have the ultimate power to judge these things? Was it ever determined to be illegal by your precious, corrupt U.N.?
An organization led by a person and a bunch of other countries making millions from the oil-for-food scandal in Iraq didn''t want a war against Iraq? How shocking!!! If you want corrupt, there''s solid PROOF of that, and where are your protests against corrupt U.N.?

The cease fire in Iraq ended when Iraq failed to comply with resolution 687 which created the cease fire.

[usadwy98]

"we will continue the fight"

sez - chief wh*ore Pelosi.

Fight for who? Bin Laden??? Or for the botox treatment???

Not for the American People by a longshot.