“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.
# 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.
What is sad is we here in the USA now have NO CHOICES anymore, now it is strictly Coke VS Pepsi. All we have anymore is right wing and far right wing, that’s it. And thanks to Citizens united nothing is gonna change that either so our future is more “Hope and Change*” where the fine print is *-I hope they don’t realize the only change whose booty gets preferential kissing.
The Ds like big media and union booty, the Rs like big business and big pharma booty and they BOTH love the taste of the MIC booty. It doesn’t matter what WE, THE PEOPLE want anymore because we can’t hand out big fat checks and cushy private sector jobs. If it did we wouldn’t be in three wars, or building new aircraft carriers like we had WWIII scheduled for next Tuesday, nor threatening to gut medicaid/care, nor allowing our shores to be flooded by illegals and H1-Bs when so many Americans are out of work, nor blowing huge piles of money on a pointless drug war, the list goes on and on and on.
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.