« U.S. to give Abbas forces $86 Million | Main | Oil Drilling Ban Sought for Alaskan Park »
January 05, 2007
Dem Letter to President Bush
"We stongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq"
President George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark.
The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week.
Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.
Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.
In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq:
"I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future. "
Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin t he phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.
Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.
We appreciate you taking these views into consideration.
Sincerely,
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Wild Thing's comment.....
I didn't know that Pelosi was a military strategist!
Face it Dems ( Pelosi and Reid ) , the only thing you care about here is the $300 billion that you'd rather spend on your socialist Utopia and power grabbing entitlements.
The Democrats don't give a DAMN about the casualties. None of the Leadership of your Party does. The Democrat "leadership" wants Bush to fail in Iraq, because they think that will help them win the White House in 2008. The Democrats' interests are aligned with the terrorists and insurgents.
I don't know what all is going on, but I just came home to Obama commenting outside the White House about how is is opposed to the surge. Apparently the President told him he understood his position but disagreed, and guess who gets to call the shots.
Meanwhile, why was Obama there? sheesh!
Posted by Wild Thing at January 5, 2007 03:55 PM
Comments
If GW had any, his response should go something like this, "Thanks for your insights and kind thoughts. Obviously you have thought this through and you care deeply. I understand it pains you to see our country standing on the precipice of defeat in Iraq and I want to make it clear that....I feel your pain. Now kiss my Republican Ass.
Posted by: Billy at January 5, 2007 05:53 PM
But being the ILLEGAL INVADER lover that he's proving to be, and with his RINO side showing, he'll likely do anything SanFranNan TELLS him to do...
I think Bush checked his BALLS and his BRAINS at the door after the '04 election, and the '06 election just wiped him out...
Posted by: TexasFred at January 5, 2007 06:13 PM
Exactly, that's all they care about, the money spent. The Democraps could care less about the troops or how many troops died. If they were so concerned about the 3,000 troops who died, they would be screaming over the number of murders committed in the US. In 2005, NY City had over 500 murders alone...16,600 in the US. It would seem the troops are safer in Iraq than in the streets of America. At least in Iraq, they have the weaponry to fight back and go on the offensive.
Also, the American People don't dictate policy and strategy in war. By listening to the People, we were late in entering WWII. Fortunately FDR learned his lesson or he would have pulled out of WWII prior to 1945 when the American Public had grown weary of the war and the necessary sacrifices. Iwo Jima and the flag raising photo is what re-lit the fire under the American Public
Posted by: BobF at January 5, 2007 06:22 PM
Billy, hahaha gawd I would love to hear him say that and then smile at the end.
That would be awesome.
Posted by: Wild Thing at January 6, 2007 01:30 AM
TexasFred, I wish Bush would let me stand up to Pelosi, it would make my day, week, year to be able to tell her what I think to her face. haha
Posted by: Wild Thing at January 6, 2007 01:33 AM
Bob, yes your so right, in fact look at this......
Iraq has a population of 28,807,000, which puts the murder rate at 56 per 100,000.
In 2005, Baltimore had a murder rate of 42 per 100,000
In 2005, Detroit had a murder rate of 39 per 100,000
In 2005, Washington DC had a murder rate of 35 per 100,000
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_08.html
Is it time to cut and run from the quagmire in these cities?
Posted by: Wild Thing at January 6, 2007 01:38 AM
