GOP senator expects a troop reduction

LA Times ^ | May 28, 2007 | Robin Fields

[Sleeping Beauty]

WASHINGTON — A conservative Republican senator who has ranked among President Bush's staunchest supporters said Sunday that he and most other lawmakers expect a reduction in the number of troops in Iraq come September, once the top U.S. commander in the region delivers his report on the war.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the reversal was all but inevitable.

"By September, when Gen. Petraeus is to make a report, I think most of the people in Congress believe, unless something extraordinary occurs, that we should be on a move to draw those surge numbers down," Sessions said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"We have to know that we can't achieve everything we'd like to achieve," he said.

"I don't think we need to be an occupying power," the senator said. "This is a fine line we've walked, and this surge has got to be temporary."

In the past, Sessions has opposed Democratic efforts to impose timetables for U.S. troop levels in Iraq.

His latest remarks echoed a statement by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who said Friday that he expected the president to go in a different direction this fall.

[Sleeping Beauty]

I, personally, do not understand why this sort of message is being presented by Republicans at this time. What purpose does it serve?

[Jeff Chandler]

I, personally, do not understand why this sort of message is being presented by Republicans at this time. What purpose does it serve?

Publicity for the politicians.

[screaming eagle2]

I hate senators with big mouths!

[LibLieSlayer]

Our party has lost what collective mind it had after the last election. They must have put brown acid in the water the Republicans drink. They all sound like kucinich to me.

LLS

[Memphis Moe]

The purpose? To avoid the fact that Bush is surrendering.

[Buckeye McFrog]

on both sides of the aisle, they are thinking of nothing beyond getting this issue off the plate before the ‘08 elections. It is short-sightedness that could get us all killed.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“I, personally, do not understand why this sort of message is being presented by Republicans at this time. What purpose does it serve?”

It tells the Democrats, “If you want us out of Iraq so you can claim credit for it, shut up, let us do what we have to do and troops will start leaving later in the year because that was our intention in the first place.”

[R.W.Ratikal]

It seems clear that both major parties have lost it. The low approval rating of Congress says it all.

Congressmen now go to Congress to vote their own views and not those of the people whose views they are supposed to represent.

To a large extent the people no longer have a say in what the government in Washington governs.

For example: On the politicians are in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, the people are against.

Only politicians are in favor forcing those who believe abortion is wrong to pay for the abortions of those who want abortions. The American people are overwhelmingly against paying for other people’s abortions.

Only politicians are against term limits. The American people want term limits.

Add your own.

[Son House]

Yes, anyone paying attention to whats going on over there has a
pretty good idea the enemy is being eliminated,
and we are going to let the Iraqi’s finish up,
‘stay the course’.

[EQAndyBuzz]

I think there are two wars Americans must fight.

1. Term limits. We should place a litmus test on our candidates. Are they for or against term limits and will they put forth a bill to enact them. If no, then they do not get our vote.

2. Political Correctness. We must bring to light the absurdity of this.

If these two wars are won, everything else falls into place.

[dufekin]

Even the Republicans in Congress have acted ambivalent about the defining issue of our time; this attitude testifies only to the prevalence and contagiousness of insanity on Capitol Hill. Our politicians simply want to line the pocketbooks of their campaign donors through political-pork spending. Our troops inevitably suffer from their foolishness. I can hope only that President Bush can prevail again upon the Congress to fund our troops, but I believe that the anti-American forces will increase their obstruction rather than capitulate again. If necessary, the President probably can spread the already-tiny war supplemental until the end of his term in office but at great hardship to the troops.

President Bush remains the only politician in Washington with our interests at heart notwithstanding his soft spot for illegal aliens. Only the Congress could take a bad idea (amnesty without border security) and make it worse (lifetime rewards for illegal immigrants).

[Wallace T.]

Actually, the Democrats would love to have this issue before the public in the fall of 2008. No-win wars are not popular with the American people; the Democratic debacles of 1952 and 1968 were the result of popular dissatisfaction with no-win wars in Korea and Vietnam, respectively. The GOP paid a big price for the misjudgments of Rumsfeld and the Pentagon in not using enough troops for the occupation and tying the hands of the Army and Marines with Marquis of Queensbury type rules of engagement. Nothing since the November election indicates that the Administration is looking to achieve a military victory. With General Petraeus bloviating over soldiers and Marines who will not turn others into the JAG for violating the rules of engagement, we cannot expect any improvement, we cannot expect anything but more of the same.

Since victory is not an option to those in charge, either the Administration will drag out this no-win war until January 20, 2009, or there will be a withdrawal from Iraq staged to save any GOP hopes next year.