“Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end,” he said. “I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.”
Keeping U.S. troops in Iraq after the departure deadline would require accord of Iraq’s deeply divided government. The Iraqis have not made a formal request for U.S. troops to stay. The White House is prepared to keep as many as 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of the year, amid growing concern that the planned pullout of virtually all remaining American forces would lead to intensified militant attacks, according to U.S. officials.
Keeping troops in Iraq after the deadline for their departure at the end of December would require agreement of Iraq’s deeply divided government, which is far from certain. The Iraqis so far have not made a formal request for U.S. troops to remain, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Some powerful Iraqi political forces are staunchly opposed to a continued U.S. presence.
The Obama administration has been debating how large a force to propose leaving in Iraq. It made its proposal now in hopes of spurring a request from Prime Minister Nouri Maliki’s government, and to give the Pentagon time to plan, the officials said.
The troops would be based around Baghdad and in a small number of other strategic locations around the country, the officials said.
Noting that Iraq had not asked yet for troops to stay, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said: “There’s only so much time here available for the Iraqi government to make such a request. If they do, we will consider it. Otherwise, we are keeping on schedule.”
Of course we all knew this would happen, it would be silly to think otherwise.
We are not at war in Iraq.
To Boobo in #30 – A link? Sure. I went to Google news and searched the term “anthropogenic global cooling.” The first non=blog article that popped up (of many) is a Reuters story: http://bit.ly/mVGtHU
The article is full of scientifics grasping for straws. This is only a temporary reprieve. Someday we’ll stop polluting and THEN you’ll see some warming!!!
The point is this: they admit there has not been any real change in global temps since 1998. They claim we’re still pouring CO2 into the air – even more than before – but the sulphur is protecting us – for now.
And, if it’s not the sulphur, then it’s El Nino and if not The Baby then there’s something else hiding the truth. I think the scientifics are hiding the truth and the truth is: they have no f-ing idea what’s going on.
Actually, to put this slightly back on topic, I think Obama has cured AGW. All the dust in the air from bombing Tripoli and others must be reflecting sunlight and cooling things down. So, get ready Iran – here we come! We don’t want to, but it’s for the good of the world.
Animby, I’m just not getting the link between troops in Iraq and global warming.
#28 With your goofed definition, we are at war today with Japan.
#30, bobbo,
The cement heads that continue to invent their own facts will never accept that climate change is happening. This “Global Cooling” charge is as full of bull as every other denial argument.
And as is typical, denialists love to change the topic to demonstrate their lack of convincing arguments.
Obama hasn’t lived up to his promise. He has reduced the number of troops in Iraq and withdrawn them from active involvement. In my opinion, that is far, far better than McCain’s intent to remain in Iraq for 100 years.
http://tinyurl.com/3cwgkge
Fusion – there is nothing as sad as trying to defend your corrupt president by saying the other guy would have been worse.
That is pathetic.
100 years or not, I’ll wager we will be in Iraq long after this fucker moves on.
Jonesy, there is nothing quite as sad as bitching about a situation that is far better today than it was on Jan 20 2009. How pathetic.
And never forget who put us into Iraq 150,000 strong, 3,500 dead, 20,000 casualties, $1 trillion, for no damned reason at all.
The guy who gets us out of that mess should be commended. The guy who put us there should be in jail.
Am I missing something? Doesn’t the last sentence state “we are staying on schedule”, meaning troops out after 2011?
Some of you are just looking for something to bitch about. Congratulations on being part of the political problem in this country.
# 36 Mr. Fusion said, “denialists love to change the topic to demonstrate their lack of convincing arguments.”
Dear, dear Cold Fusion. If you’re going to refute something, at least read the link. You see this AGC theory is being proposed by the advocates of warming – NOT those who deny it.
#34 Foobar – I mentioned it as an another example of the Newspeak Dallas was spouting. I DID suggest a moderator might want to start a new topic. My deepest and most insincere apologies.
#34 Including the hot air coming out certain pie holes in here, there is a link between troops in Iraq and global warming.
Olo Biggins of Bilgewater – “no damned reason at all.”
So OLO, if there is no reason to be there, WHY ARE WE STILL THERE.
Cry me a freaking river. What happened on Bush’s watch means nothing. When you make a campaign promise you should keep it…period.
Bush should go to jail….followed closely by Obama for this breach and ALL THE OTHER campaign lies he made.
He was elected on that platform and he has failed. And until you get your head out of the Bilgewater, you are part of the problem.
WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN OUT YEARS AGO, BECAUSE, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE THERE..
The worst kind of shill.
Jones, you don’t appear to grasp the issue well enough to even bother.
But you make me laugh, on two levels, for saying Obama should be in jail for breaking campaign promises. Thanks for that.
#33–Animby==thanks. It matters little what “I” might find to support your claim. what I was interested in was what YOU used to make your claim.
I find the study “as reported” is completely in line with AGW. The MAIN POINT: humans are affecting global climate. Of course it is going to change dependent on what we do.
Your argument rhetorically is to reject cause and effect.
You are being Silly Animby. Turn back from the Dark Force, cherish your intellect. Do drugs.
You obviously are getting too many double lattes.
#46 Bobbo – Sitting here with my triple latte in a beautiful garden on what promises to be a stormy day. But, right now, it’s cozy warm and happy in my head. I like to stay in topic. If a moderator takes me up on my suggestion and starts a new topic, I’ll be happy to respond. Otherwise I fear for my safety from ATW proponents (anti topic wandering) like foobar.
You are so stuck in your chant you fail to see what I said. I do not reject the idea of AGW. I don’t even reject AGC. I simply maintain we do not understand it enough to intervene. Someone a few months ago was suggesting we pump sulphur into the air to produce the cooling effect. What if we’d gone with his theory? Would my warm morning in the tropical garden be changed to a shivery morning in a snowsuit? My point is we simply do not know and I think fooling around with such a major force as climate ought to be done from a base of thorough and proven understanding.
I scoff at AGW proponents solely because they scoff at everybody’s else’s theory. There is plenty of evidence that AGW has problems.