Stephanopoulos understated Dem support for keeping reduced military presence in Iraq
SUMMARY: ABC's George Stephanopoulos said that "even some Democrats have said that's the mission that needs to be done in Iraq over a long period of time," referring to functions of "border security, going after the terrorists, [and] training and equipping the Iraqi forces" laid out by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. But Stephanopoulos understated the extent to which Democrats have advocated such a role for U.S. troops in Iraq; many Democratic proposals have called for keeping a residual force in Iraq to deal with such issues, including a bill that garnered the support of a majority of congressional Democrats earlier this year.
During the September 16 edition of ABC's This Week, responding to an assertion by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that the Bush administration strategy in Iraq will lead to a mission that "would be a fraction of the size of the force that we have there now and one that would carry out limited missions: border security, going after the terrorists, training and equipping the Iraqi forces," host George Stephanopoulos said that "even some Democrats have said that's the mission that needs to be done in Iraq over a long period of time." In fact, many Democratic proposals have called for a gradual redeployment of troops and keeping a residual force in Iraq to deal with ongoing counterterrorism and training operations, including bills offered by the party's leading presidential candidates -- Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) -- and a bill that garnered the support of a majority of congressional Democrats earlier this year.
Stephanopoulos' comments came during his discussion with Gates about President Bush's endorsement of Gen. David Petraeus' recommendation to begin a gradual withdrawal of troops from Iraq in early 2008. Gates stated, "[T]he idea is that we would have a much more limited role in Iraq for some protracted period of time as a stabilizing force ... that would carry out limited missions: border security, going after the terrorists, training and equipping the Iraqi forces, but it would be a relatively small force." Stephanopoulos replied: "That's the mission envisioned by the Iraq Study Group, as well. And even some Democrats have said that's the mission that needs to be done in Iraq over a long period of time."
But in stating that "even some Democrats" have called for a mission similar to that recommended by the Iraq Study Group, Stephanopoulos understated the extent to which the Democrats have advocated a U.S. role in Iraq that is predicated upon a smaller force working to train Iraqi security forces, conduct counterterrorism operations, and provide diplomatic security. In fact, in April and July, a majority of congressional Democrats voted in favor of two key pieces of legislation that proposed just that. On April 26, the Senate passed the emergency supplemental funding conference report, which required that the "Secretary [of Defense] shall commence such redeployment no later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing that redeployment within 180 days." The bill also would:
Prohibit[] the Secretary, after the appropriate redeployment period, from deploying or maintaining members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than: (1) protecting American diplomatic facilities, American citizens, and other U.S. forces; (2) serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; (3) engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations; and (4) training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.
Every Democrat in the Senate, with the exception of Sen. Tim Johnson (R-SD), who was recovering from brain surgery at the time, and a large majority of Democrats in the House voted in favor of the legislation, which President Bush vetoed on May 1. Similarly, on July 18, every Senate Democrat, with the exception of Johnson and Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) (who supported the amendment but voted against it for procedural reasons), voted in support of an amendment proposed by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (MI) and Jack Reed (RI) that called for a "reduction" of U.S. forces in Iraq to begin within 120 days and also stipulated that the United States maintain a "limited presence" of troops there to protect U.S. and coalition infrastructure, train Iraqi security forces, and conduct counterterrorism operations.
Moreover, Clinton and Obama have introduced similar legislation in the Senate. Indeed, Obama introduced legislation in January that would require the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq to begin "not later than May 1, 2007." According to Obama's bill, redeployment of U.S. forces would be "subject to the exceptions for retention of forces for force protection, counter-terrorism operations, training of Iraqi forces, and other purposes." Clinton introduced legislation in February that would call for a gradual redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, cap the number of troops in Iraq at January 2007 levels and provide for de-authorizing the war unless the president certifies that:
a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun ... including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of -- (A) training Iraqi security forces; (B) providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces; (C) protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and (D) participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.
From the September 16 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: So the president's opponents are starting to fill in the definition of what that enduring presence in Iraq will be. The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said it means more than 100,000 troops for at least 10 years at a cost of $700 billion. Is that fair?
GATES: No, I actually think that's a mischaracterization. I think what the president has in mind, what we have in mind is that assuming the conditions prevail in Iraq that allows us to continue the drawdowns that the president has talked about -- the idea is that we would have a much more limited role in Iraq for some protracted period of time as a stabilizing force. A force that would be a fraction of the size of the force that we have there now and one that would carry out limited missions: border security, going after the terrorists, training and equipping the Iraqi forces, but it would be a relatively small force.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's the mission envisioned by the Iraq Study Group, as well. And even some Democrats have said that's the mission that needs to be done in Iraq over a long period of time. You say a fraction of the forces; what are we talking about -- 50-60,000 forces for many years?
GATES: I don't know what the numbers would be. First of all, it would have to be negotiated with the Iraqis to see what they're prepared to -- what they're prepared to accept.
So many Republicans and conservative pundits have been saying that the Democrats want a "precipitous" withdrawl that it must have been the September talking point.
Since every Senate Democrat voted to keep a limited presence in Iraq, even after the vast majority were pulled out, then Stephanopoulos should know that.
"Some" Democrats is misleading. It doesn't seem all that hard to share the facts with his audience.
The facts? Hmmm.....the facts you say? A novel approach but I like it!
Hallelujah! The tide of TRUTH is affecting even the propagandists of our Rightwing "Mainstream" Media.
So, now it's a "Precipitous withdrawal" ... irresponsible in its haste and speed and completeness ... that has the Democrats labelled as UnAmerican.
That's quite an improvement over "Defeatocrats", "cut and runners", being "invested in failure", and only "interested in surrender".
To abandon those powerful images, the tide of public opinion must be showing the rightwing that their over-the-top, radical LYING about the positions of their opponents is just not working. They've had to "fine tune" their criticisms to lies that are a bit more believable.
That's progress, I say.
Well, given the fact that most of the GOP base won't know what "precipitous" means, I think they'll go back to "cut and run" any day now.
This is sort of what is upsetting to me , many Democrats do not want to withdraw. I wish we had total withdrawl from Iraq. We need to end this occupation now before more Americans and Iraqis are killed innocently.
This is why people should NOT be voting Democrat or Republican come '08. Both parties are intent on continuing the occupation and killing Iraqis. Even the Democrats have called on the Iraqi government to sign that odious oil law that hands their natural resources over to foreign (read US) corporations. Democrats show that they too are war criminals only interested in stealing Iraq's oil.
I can't believe that MD isn't going to do a story on the fact that Wolf Blitzer had the third-highest ranking member of the Cuban Government on Late Edition this morning, and Blitzer practically BEGGED him to endorse Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for President. Seriously- Blitzer asked this guy THREE TIMES to make an endorsement. The Cuban official, completely bewildered by Blitzer's obsession, to his credit refused.
So I guess the "Castro Endorsed Hillary-Obama" pseudo-smear hasn't died yet- at least, Blitzer is trying to give it life support.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Gates: What we have in mind??
Protracted military occupation of the oil rich Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, and if Cheney gets his way, Iran, is there end goal!! The extension of the occupation of Iraq into the next Presidential term insures that a draft will be necessary to restore normal troop levels for current deployment requirements that include NATO and normal treaty obligations! The numbers will catch us like it, or not!
A strategic strike force withdrawal to the Kurdish Provinces in force say to Kirkuk and north; where the oil is in serious dispute with the Kurds and Sunnis, not to mention the Turks just itching to put an end to Kurdish independence, allows a welcoming presence from at least 3 of the 4 factions, that being the Kurds, Shia, and Turks!
Of cource the South of Basra and the Swamps between Iran and Iraq require a US Naval Force Protection with an effective element of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary at ready standby along with a Carrier Group Force in the Gulf.
Anbar would be possible to make alliances, opposed to force presence other than the above-mentioned forces that could be quickly deployed as required to maintain an Al Qaeda free Province, Sunnis have been in control of the region for 8 centuries plus, no reason to believe we couldn’t help that trend to our favor!
Their a plan to redeploy, and reduce force protection levels of say 30-50 thousand flexible forces, meaning if another region flares up we will be available, while being able to build up Afghanistan’s forces to levels that can put an end to Al Qaeda!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
This may be off topic, slightly, but I think it's relevant. Has anyone seen Ari Fleischer's "Freedom Watch" propaganda ads urging us to "Stay the course" in Iraq? They're absolutely obscene and dishonest. They've chosen to use a disabled Iraq vet to recite their propaganda points. I guess they think this will innoculate them from the criticism they deserve. These people have no shame...but we already knew that.
Nerzog, yeah I've seen the and they are unbelievable. I did hear that CNBC and MSNBC will not run the ads however Fox and CNN will.
I saw one this morning on Fox- "It would be terrible to give up now that we are making progress, my son is in Iraq, he doesn't want to surrender..." and most obscenely "we've already had one 9/11, we don't need another one." Totally dishonest, totally disgusting. Propaganda at it's worst.
Ari Fleischer came to the admin from a far-right Zionist organization. He's working on behalf of the Israel lobby.