Posted on 11/16/2005 2:47:18 PM PST by jmc1969
BAGHDAD, Nov. 16 -- A top American commander in Iraq on Wednesday denounced calls by some U.S. senators and others for a deadline on withdrawal from Iraq, calling that "a recipe for disaster" for the 2 -year-old war.
"Setting a date would mean that the 221 soldiers I've lost this year, that their lives will have been lost in vain," said Maj. Gen. William Webster, whose 3rd Infantry Division is responsible for security in three-fourths of Iraq's capital.
Webster's criticism of a withdrawal deadline referred to a Democratic proposal that would have required U.S. leaders to fix a rough date for pulling out the more than 140,000 Americans in Iraq.
Senate Republicans, however, joined Democrats in stepping up pressure on the White House to wind down the increasingly unpopular war, approving a measure setting 2006 as a "period of significant transition creating conditions for the phased redeployment of United States' forces from Iraq."
Signaling the intended timing of a withdrawal likely would only cue Iraq's armed factions to lie low for a time, gathering their strength and laying plans for renewed conflict when the Americans leave, Webster said.
In recent weeks, several Iraqi insurgent groups -- not including Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq -- have suggested a truce in return for a U.S. deadline on withdrawal, among other conditions.
"Our troops are trying to get this accomplished," Webster told a small group of reporters. "They believe they're doing the right thing. The soldiers believe they're helping."
While the United States has an exit strategy from Iraq, Webster said, he believed leaders had yet to even privately fix a plan setting dates for phased withdrawals. "I think it's a recipe for disaster," he said of the demands for such deadlines. "Setting a date is a loser."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Man is this Nation in trouble and 86% of the United States Senate don't know it or don't friggin care.
re: Do we have to take to the streets???
It could be reaching that point. We are reaching the point where the average American citizen, tax payer has no ability to control government. A person's vote is worthless if the candidate who gets it refuses to keep the promises made to get that vote.
That was the headline in today's print edition of USA Today (we can't post from there on FR); that's what they want.
See my other posts on similar topics today.
If anyone ever has any doubt what my (Bleck!) Senator Feingold (D, WI) is up to, just imagine the worst possible scenario for the end of this war, and that's what he'll vote for.
He's gunning for the White House. A twice divorced non-practicing Jew (not that there's anything wrong with his heritage, per se) and he has the backing of a lot of midwest lunatic fringe lefties.
Don't say I didn't warn you all. I consider it my Civic Duty. ;)
I had a discussion with an organization yesterday about the recruitment of challengers for some of these illustrious SINators. I just hope it is not too late.
Unfortunately, Warner's term is not up until '08. If he is smart, he won't seek another term.
Actually, this call to wind down during 2006 is quite clever. It will help the GOP candidates in Nov 2006, while making it more difficult for the 'Rats to claim that Bush is trying to influence the elections by bringing troops home (as they would surely try to do).
We have known for a long time that there would be 3 votes held in '05, while training of Iraqi forces continued.
It was stated that once the permanent government was installed and enough Iraqis were trained and ready to handle things on their own, we would begin leaving. You know..."As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down"
Either that has been said repeatedly, or I've been dreaming it. If dreaming - don't wake me.
Sheesh ... </i>troop draw-down in '06
Feingold is one of those in the very dangerous group I've spoken of several times today http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1522930/posts?page=33#33
--the "Yes Yes" group...
I find it most interesting to analyze the votes of the Demodogs who might someday want to run for president or other office:
With two exceptions, they all joined Jumpin'Jim and Chaffee and voted "Yes,Yes" to avoid being tagged: Hitlery, Biden, Dodd, Levin, Reid, even Shoomie, and did NOT co-sponsor.
Obama - Yes Yes ---- but is a co-sponsor of 2519! - bad move, I think but he's a relative neophyte. This was a political miscalculation that will be difficult for him to explain when he looks back on it.
Kerry - Yes, NO ---- doesn't matter... he's locked himself in long ago.
The calculation seems to have been that "yes,yes" was the least offensive to the greatest number of Demodogs.
"I find it most interesting to analyze the votes of the Demodogs who might someday want to run for president or other office:"
Well, old Russ will definately keep you busy with that hobby! ;)
as long as teddy doesn't have to go under water...
alot of these so called republicans are scared to do what is right .....they just want to get reelected....weak,weak,
BUMP!
Hmmm ... top commander disputes our craven pols -- and I thought they all supported the troops.
A pox on the pols and I will remember their words and deeds at next year's polls.
I do believe that if we don't raise up and act, the DemocRATS are going to ruin this Government and the country.
8 posted on 11/16/2005 2:56:16 PM PST by HarleyLady27
Actually the Democrats still run the Country.
I undestand that the Republicans control both Houses of Congress.
However, the Republicans are so cowed by the media that the Republicans let the Democrats call the shots.
The Democrats say,"Jump". The Republcans say "How High".
The Democrats say "S#$@". The Republicans say "How much and what color".
How does the media scare the Republicans? They call them "mean spirited".
While we do have a two party political system, one party has no principles and the other party has no spine or balls.
Therefore it is no contest.
Care to guess which Party is which and which Party actuall runs things?
1. "could" is not appropriate in that sentence.
2. If they had wished, they could have used the word "must" instead of "should" if they meant to state what many people are ascribing to this amendment.
3. A 'sense of the Senate' is completely non-binding, and is more advisory than anything else.
sad isn't it?
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.