WAPO: Democrats Assail Withdrawal Plan

[BuyingThyme]

Democrats Assail Withdrawal Plan
Obama Meets With Hill Leaders Over The Number of Troops Staying in Iraq

By Anne E. Kornblut and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 27, 2009; Page A03

President Obama sought yesterday to quell growing complaints from members of Congress about his plans for drawing down troops in Iraq, inviting lawmakers to a White House meeting on the eve of a North Carolina speech in which he is expected to announce that he will pull out many combat troops by August of 2010.

After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) complained that the level of troops -- 50,000 -- who would remain in Iraq is too high, other senior Democrats voiced similar concerns. Not one member of the Democratic leadership, except for Sen. Richard Durbin (Ill.), defended the new Obama plan, which will take three months longer than he promised and still leave a significant force structure on the ground.

White House officials said Obama had reached his decision after consulting with military commanders and would unveil the details in his address today during a trip to Camp Lejeune, N.C. Yet even before making the plan official, Obama faced stiff resistance from members of his own party as well as from some Republicans who argued that the idea of a withdrawal would not have been possible had it not been for the additional troops -- the "surge" -- that he opposed.

...

Of the Democratic congressional leaders, only Durbin has defended the plan, saying that it is not easy to meet Obama's campaign promise of a nearly complete withdrawal in such a short time frame without posing a risk to the soldiers that are left behind to help with embassy security and further training of Iraqi security forces. "I think what the administration is trying to do is strike that balance," Durbin said. While Durbin is generally the most antiwar member of the leadership, he also is Obama's closest ally on Capitol Hill. In Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a statement declaring that he is not concerned about the eventual U.S. departure. "We have faith in our armed forces and our security services, to protect the country and consolidate security and stability," he said. "We have no worries for Iraq if American troops pull out. Thank God we have succeeded in ridding ourselves of sectarianism and racism."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022603416.html?wprss=rss_world/mideast

[FrenchieCat]

1. Every Democrat who I heard talking about the Prez' plan for Iraq

were quite respectful...and those were Feingold, Boxer and Kucinich.

They said they'd like less of a residual force, but overall each was quite satisfied that things were going into the right direction.

I don't know where this "Assail" came from!

[babylonsister]

2. Rec'd! How great is this? Dems have issues, and the President listens?

I bet he'd even listen to rethugs.

I love it, and I'm listening.

[ProSense]

3. Now that's change.

The debate is now entirely about getting out in months.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. I hope conditions make it so he can change his mind and

withdraw every single last person. Not one more should die. This is a ridiculous tragedy.

[nakanishi oshi]

5. Has the Washington Post said anything about Pelosi's call for criminal prosecution of torturers?

I have seen nothing yet. Because the near-totality of the Washington Post opinion page has called for pardons (Cohen, Ignatius, Ruth Marcus, etc.)

[BuyingThyme]

6. Welcome to DU, Nakanishi Oshi

:hi:

[MasonJar]

7. We do not need 50,000 troops in Iraq. We never should have been

in Iraq; now we must leave and help the Iraqi people with financial support to rebuild all the systems and structures our "selected" government destroyed.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. Disagreeing does not equate to "assailing".

Grown ups have conversations to determine the best course of action, not screaming matches. I hope the grown ups can work with Obama to bring those levels down.

[ProSense]

9. Here's the best part of the article

"Whatever number the president approves as of the date he approves is a way station, because if there is no new agreement, under the SOFA, that number has to be zero at the end of 2011."

Zero!

[BuyingThyme]

10. Who ever looks under the sofa?

[Pirate Smile]

11. This looks like another crappy headline - unless you consider this comment by Reid "assailing"

"I'm happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president, but when they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I had anticipated," Reid said.

Wow - that's brutal. :sarcasm:

I hate it when they do this crap with headlines.