Downing Street Reporter:BUSH BLAIR WILL ANNOUNCE 'PHASED' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

[kpete]

Bush, Blair to announce 'phased withdrawal' from Iraq

Michael Smith
Published: Monday May 22, 2006

Michael Smith, a reporter for the London Sunday Times, broke the Downing Street Minutes in 2004.

LONDON -- Tony Blair and George Bush will announce that they are to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq at a summit in Washington as early as this week, RAW STORY has learned.

The process has already been carefully choreographed in an attempt to bolster the popularity of both Bush and Blair who have suffered domestically for their handling of the war.

The scope of the phased withdrawal, which will see the 133,000 US force levels cut to around 100,000 by the end of the year and British numbers almost halved, has already been agreed, one senior defence source said.

The actual announcement will come in response to a statement from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that his government believes coalition forces are no longer needed in a number of provinces.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Report_Bush_Blair_to_announce_phased_0522.html


edit to add:
British troops to start leaving Iraq 'in months'
By Philippe Naughton

Britain and Iraq announced an accelerated timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops from much of Iraq today during a surprise visit by Tony Blair to show his support for the country's new government.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2191603,00.html

[tuvor]

1. "Stay the course" has run its course, I guess.

[sabra]

2. November elections seem to change things...

[myrna minx]

3. Well the MIssion was accomplished three years ago.

I guess the powers that be just forgot until now. :crazy:

[LiberalEsto]

7. FLIP-FLOP ALERT!

Stay the course / Phased withdrawal

He's only doing it for the ratings

[democrank]

4. But....but....

what about the embassy?

[Elidor]

5. Let me be the first to accuse them of "cutting & running"

Ala Mean Jean.

[unblock]

10. nice logo!!!

:rofl:

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. Oh! Oh! Oh! Pick me!!!

John Murtha's plan will become reality.

[blm]

8. Thankyous to Murtha and Kerry for keeping the PRESSURE ON these thugs

and not letting up even when being attacked by your own party.

Good on you for holding Bush's feet to the fire as publicly as you could.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Cut & Run......just in time for the elections?

[unblock]

11. peace with dignity?

:rofl:

[meganmonkey]

12. I'll believe it when I see it

Remember "Mission Accomplished"?

Cutting it down to 100,000? Please, how many skirmishes will it take to justify putting the numbers back up where they were? Another load of shit. A devastating, murderous load of shit.

:shrug:

[katinmn]

18. Info like this has been leaked a hundred times

They rotate a few thousand out and send twice as many back in!

[Ganja Ninja]

22. Exactly! Don't count these guys out of Iraq until they actually are.

They'll lie and move a few troops to Kuwait for a few weeks then rotate them back or they'll just play some other numbers game to make the claim that troop numbers are coming down when they aren't.

[Nickster]

13. Dubya has lied to us before, guess he couldn't possibly be lying to us

again, right? I can't help but thinking "bullcrap" when I read this. It's not real hard to manufacture a return of 30k troops and then sending them right back after the elections. They did the same thing when the first Iraqi elections happened, troop strength jumped from 138k to about 160k and the gradually brought it back down to where it is now.

Leaving 100k troops out there to hang in the wind doesn't make me feel a damn bit better about anything. The 138k were stretched thin as it was, so does this mean that we are going to surrender a boatload of Iraq to the insurgents or stretch an even more depleted troop pool over the same areas? Will that be the pretense to bring the recently rotated troops back in, flare up in violence in the areas they hand over?

This crap stinks to high-heaven to me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. See also 2 threads in LBN

One on the Times article: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2299339

and one saying late 2009 for "all but some non-combatant foreign soldiers" (headline did say '2010', but Reuters have now changed that):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060522/ts_nm/iraq_dc

So 'start' just seems to mean "pull a few out for PR purposes".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Will the "phased withdrawal" be from the roof of the embassy?

[babylonsister]

16. So does this mean Iraqis now enjoy a democracy and are FREEEE? nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. No surprise. They asked their constituents what their number

one concern was, and it was Iraq. So, bingo, act like they give a shit, hide what their real goal is (permanent bases), and make a show by dribbling people out. It really pisses me off, but if it means people come home, out of harm's way, it is a good thing. On the other hand, if the permanent bases being operational, and from that vantage, cause more harm later....

[Guaranteed]

19. Oh, so you're putting the last 100,000 AT RISK, for your own POLITICAL

BENEFIT...

YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT????

[politicasista]

20. He knows the GOP is in trouble

He is scared of November. But kudos are given to those who have spoken out and called for withdrawal from Blinky's war.

[OneBlueSky]

21. uh oh . . . less troops = more aerial bombings . . .

this is just a publicity stunt . . . they'll compensate for fewer troops by pumping up the air war . . . we need ALL troops withdrawn by the end of the year . . .