'Freedom fries' politician calls for Iraq pullout

WASHINGTON: North Carolina Republican representative Walter Jones, who previously had pushed for french fries to be renamed "freedom fries", backed a congressional resolution today calling for a US troop withdrawal from Iraq in a reflection of growing American unease, but the White House and the Pentagon rejected the idea.

The resolution, also backed by Hawaii Democratic representative Neil Abercrombie, calls for the Bush administration to develop a plan by the end of this year to pull out all American troops from Iraq and to begin the withdrawal by October 1, 2006.

Jones said US forces had removed Saddam Hussein, given Iraqis a chance at democracy and were training their military.

"After they're trained, what else should the goals be? Do we want to be there for 20 years or 30 years?" he said.

In 2002, Jones voted for the resolution that gave Bush the authority to launch an invasion of Iraq. He also wanted the House cafeteria to rename french fries "freedom fries," as a snub to France because of its opposition to the war.

Today's resolution on Iraq withdrawal was introduced in the House of Representatives as White House aides said President George W Bush plans a more determined effort to defend the Iraq war amid growing public doubts.

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said setting a withdrawal date would send the wrong message to Iraqi insurgents.

"This message would say to the terrorists: 'All you have to do is wait until that day when our troops leave and then you can start carrying out those attacks and just hold out.'" he said.

The resolution is not expected to get far in the Republican-led Congress, which, though critical of aspects of the war, has supported the president's efforts.

About two-dozen House Democrats held their own hearing on a British government memo that says that by July 2002 US intelligence was being "fixed" around a policy that would inevitably lead to war with Iraq. US-led forces invaded Iraq in March 2003.

"If these disclosures are true. . . they establish a prima facie case of going to war under false pretenses," said representative John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House judiciary committee who led the forum.

Conyers showed up at the gates of the White House with several other members of Congress to deliver the signatures of 122 congressional Democrats and 560,000 citizens on petitions seeking a response on the memo.

"We want an answer to our letter and if we have to send him 1 million signatures or 10 million, we're going to keep collecting them," said Conyers, who asked to deliver the bundles of documents in person but was told instead by White House staff members to pass them through the gate.

Dozens of protesters shouted "Let Conyers in" as they carried signs that said "Bushame on you. You lied, they died."

At the Pentagon, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. James Conway, director of operations for the military's Joint Staff, also did not support any deadline and expressed disappointment over opinion polls showing waning American support for the US presence in Iraq.

Bush is facing some of the most pessimistic views on Iraq since launching the war two years ago. A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press said this week that American support for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is inching up – from 36 per cent last October, to 42 per cent in February, and 46 per cent now.

Bush will play host to Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari at the White House on June 24 and will deliver a speech about Iraq on June 28 to mark the first anniversary since the transfer of sovereignty from a US-led coalition to Iraqis.

Vice President Dick Cheney boldly asserted recently that the Iraqi insurgency, which is killing dozens of people daily with brazen suicide attacks, was in its "last throes." Bush has offered a more sober picture while stressing progress is being made.

Jones voted for the October 2002 congressional resolution that gave Bush the authority to launch the invasion of Iraq the following March.

Whatever it takes! We, and a couple of other western nations, located the oil, developed the fields and have been the running the entire process since day one. And yes, the plan has been to carve out a buffer zone in the middle of that very unstable area from which we can protect and if necessary launch protective strikes against any 'nut group' that want's to stir up the status quo. It is going to take a long, long time. Bush's only mistake has been in the area of information - although he told us that it was going to take a long time he has failed to follow through with aggressive statements and explanations. I would imagine that many Americans still don't get it.

Well, it's worth keeping in mind that the reason our troops are still in Korea is because the reason that they went there in the first place is just as urgent and valid as ever.

As for Japan and Germany, our troops are still there because it's more convenient than moving them elsewhere.

Quite true. It's also true that both reasons apply to Iraq today.

We, and a couple of other western nations, located the oil, developed the fields and have been the running the entire process since day one.... I would imagine that many Americans still don't get it.

Always glad to find a fellow realist.

Yes, they have been derelict about being realistic and truthful with the American people.

It's understandable. It's more palatable to say what has been said, than to directly state "The oil is ours (the West's), and we're going to stir up the stuff in these Middle East dungpiles; we're going to put them under the watch of a longterm American presence; and we're going to topple their vile, barbaric, and degenerate regimes one country at a time, over the long term."

I'm not sure that finessing the PR is the best approach, but that's what they're doing.

Well, there was the Zimmermann telegram, intercepted by
Royal Navy cryptanalysts in London, which promised Mexico
its lost territories back in exchange for a pact with
Germany.

There was also the resumption of unrestricted submarine
warfare which resulted in the sinking of US vessels
in the "war zone" declared by Gerrmany.

I believe these were the reasons cited by President Wilson.
There also was a popular fervor resulting from the lurid
Allied propaganda of the time.

WW1 was a chemical reaction - those ridiculous monarchies
were bound to destroy themselves one way or another ...
too bad it turned out to be a useless war fighting over
squat.

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.