Iraq is now like Korea.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by article

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush is looking at the decades-long U.S. troop presence in South Korea as a model for a future U.S. role in Iraq, senior administration officials said Thursday.


More than 38,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea and along the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea more than 50 years after the end of the war on the Korean Peninsula.

The president will compare Iraq to the U.S. deployment on the Korean peninsula in a speech to the nation Thursday night.

During the speech, Bush is also expected to endorse the recommendation of the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, that the U.S. military can begin pulling 30,000 combat troops from Iraq.

But the president will also talk about a long-term commitment to Iraq, the senior officials said, along the lines of the U.S. commitment to South Korea.

Bush is also expected to emphasize what his administration calls "bottom-up" political progress in Iraq, a senior administration official said.

Amid Democratic criticism and Republican concerns that the so-called troop surge has failed to produce national reconciliation at the top levels in Baghdad, the official said the president is expected to argue that grass-roots efforts by Iraqis are "laying the groundwork for national reconciliation" but there is a "long haul and tough work ahead."

Bush ordered nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq in January -- a move known as "the surge" -- in an effort to pacify Baghdad and its surrounding provinces amid rampant sectarian and insurgent warfare.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told congressional hearings this week the surge campaign has met its military goals of reducing sectarian killings by more than 50 percent nationwide and by more than 80 percent in Baghdad. Video Watch Petraeus' view on the situation in Iraq »

And the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, told the hearings that Iraqis have been taking practical action toward reconciliation, such as sharing oil revenues, even though they have been unable to set those steps into law.


Bush also will reiterate that he considers Iraq to be key to the global war on terror, something that Crocker said Wednesday.

"We have to assume that anywhere al Qaeda can find operating room, space, the ability to organize, to consolidate, they're going to use that to come after us," Crocker said, arguing that pulling out of Iraq would leave it open to the terror organization.

The Bush aide said the president will go through the recommendations by Petraeus, which include potentially drawing down U.S. combat forces to the pre-surge level of 140,000 by next July.

Democrats, including presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, have been highly critical of that strategy.

In an open letter to Bush, Clinton said the troop withdrawal "is simply too little, too late, and unacceptable to this Congress."

"The reduction to a pre-surge level is not a change in course," said Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan. "It's something which will happen anyway, just because of the rotation of our troops and the limit of 15 months for that rotation."

Besides Democrats, Bush will be facing a public dissatisfied with his leadership, according to a CNN poll released Thursday.

Sixty-one percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's performance in office, the Opinion Research Corp. poll found. The same number said they believe Bush's policies are taking the country in the wrong direction.

Bush was still refining his speech Thursday morning, White House press secretary Tony Snow said.

Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino said the address is running less than 20 minutes.
advertisement

Iraq war critic Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, will deliver the Democratic response after Bush's speech.

Also, former Sen. John Edwards, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has purchased two minutes of advertising time on MSNBC on Thursday night immediately following Bush's speech, an Edwards aide said. E-mail to a friend

Yes, because Korea is a stunningly successful foreign policy situation for us. SO what now? We rip the country apart and put up three different DMZs? Too bad Shiites are fighting each other and the Kurds are fighting Turkey.

[garbagemanlb]

We need to police the world, is basically what it comes down to.

Yay for giving more ammunition to extremists around the world!

[RMNIXON]

He seems to be talking about troop deployment? I know two people who have served duty in Korea. Those people are damn greatful we held that line. You think that is a major failure?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

We need to police the world, is basically what it comes down to.

Yay for giving more ammunition to extremists around the world!

We need to chose where we need to take action. And when we do be responsible for it. Not just run away at the first sign one side of the electorate is unhappy.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

We need to chose where we need to take action. And when we do be responsible for it. Not just run away at the first sign one side of the electorate is unhappy.

Judging by our past, I'd say we need to choose a bit more carefully.

And if by one side of the electorate you mean the majority of Americans, then ok.

[abregar]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Judging by our past, I'd say we need to choose a bit more carefully.

And if by one side of the electorate you mean the majority of Americans, then ok.

We can't leave Iraq as it is now. For starters Al-Qaeda is there now. Aren't they who the whole war on terror is about. We can't abandon the Iraqi people until the country is on their feet and can stand toe to toe with any country that wishes a piece of the country for themselves.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by abregar

We can't leave Iraq as it is now. For starters Al-Qaeda is there now. Aren't they who the whole war on terror is about. We can't abandon the Iraqi people until the country is on their feet and can stand toe to toe with any country that wishes a piece of the country for themselves.

Al Qaeda represents a very minimal portion of the insurgency, once we leave the Iraqi's will take care of them by themselves, the Shia have ideological differences with them.

The problem with your justification is that the Iraqi people aren't standing up and doing what we need them to, and if, as a country, they're unwilling to learn to crawl, it's unlikely they're going to be able to stand on their own feet.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Judging by our past, I'd say we need to choose a bit more carefully.

And if by one side of the electorate you mean the majority of Americans, then ok.

Sorry, the majority of Americans have real concerns about Iraq. I count myself as one of them. Some have unfortunetly listened to a very vocal minority much interested in a failure for their own perceived political gain. But they want victory.

If the far left thinks they have a majority behind the kind of slander against General Petraeus in the pages of the New York Times then a very rude awakening is near!

[motivez]

Not according to the polls I've seen

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Not according to the polls I've seen

The recent Rasmussen poll I saw concurred with Nixon's statements. Most Americans support Petraeus's assessment and are willing to support his decision. It is the minority of Americans (I think 36 or 34 percent) who disagreed with him.

[motivez]

feel free to link it

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Sorry, the majority of Americans have real concerns about Iraq. I count myself as one of them. Some have unfortunetly listened to a very vocal minority much interested in a failure for their own perceived political gain. But they want victory.

If the far left thinks they have a majority behind the kind of slander against General Petraeus in the pages of the New York Times then a very rude awakening is near!

Yeah, all the people who want out of Iraq supported that stupid ad. Great logic.


As much as you conservatives want to spin this into 'victory or defeat', the Democrats are dealing with the actual reality on the ground, and the actual cost-benefit analysis as opposed to empty rhetoric. The question 'Is victory actually possible, and what does it mean?' seems to be one the GOP is afraid to ask, instead willing to trod along as more men and women die in Iraq.

As for that ad, I was pissed when I read it, but at the same time the actual ad (not just the picture/headline of it) has some interesting factual information. I'm sure you haven't even taken the time to read what was actually ON the ad beyond that stupid headline however.

[P/N]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The recent Rasmussen poll I saw concurred with Nixon's statements. Most Americans support Petraeus's assessment and are willing to support his decision. It is the minority of Americans (I think 36 or 34 percent) who disagreed with him.

Sssshhh - facts confuse them!

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

feel free to link it

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election.

[garbagemanlb]

I also like how Giuliani is coming out hard against the ad, when he quit the Iraq Study Group to line his pockets talking about 9/11.



What a patriot running for the GOP nomination!

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

I also like how Giuliani is coming out hard against the ad, when he quit the Iraq Study Group to line his pockets talking about 9/11.



What a patriot running for the GOP nomination!

A lot of people are talking out against the ad, but not just because it's message as Rudy is doing. Apparently the NY Times printed that ad for pennies on the dollar of their publicly posted rates. Conservatives ads report paying more than their posted rates for ads.

Rudy is running for President and as such most of the Republicans are trying to come off strong against the moveon.org type mentality to garnish Republican support. Rudy has proven to fairly hypocritical this election, I don't think things will change any time soon.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by JaJae

A lot of people are talking out against the ad, but not just because it's message as Rudy is doing. Apparently the NY Times printed that ad for pennies on the dollar of their publicly posted rates. Conservatives ads report paying more than their posted rates for ads.

Rudy is running for President and as such most of the Republicans are trying to come off strong against the moveon.org type mentality to garnish Republican support. Rudy has proven to fairly hypocritical this election, I don't think things will change any time soon.

I read about that rate issue as well, and am interested in knowing why they did it. I heard it had to do with buying a block of ad space instead of individual slots, but who knows.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

I read about that rate issue as well, and am interested in knowing why they did it. I heard it had to do with buying a block of ad space instead of individual slots, but who knows.

The NY Post contacted the director of public relations NY Times to get a quote on ads. They were given a quote and then asked why moveon.org received the price they got. The NY Times director of public relations wouldn't say why. So it's up in the air right now as far as I've last heard. The NY Times isn't telling and I haven't heard anything from moveon.org explaining the discount.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election.

Yeah, I saw that statistic yesterday. I'm not surprised...he is a well-spoken, intelligent, and experienced General. The reason I was so pissed with the MoveOn ad is that their 'title' or whatever basically ruined the rest of the ad, which actually had some good factual information.

For instance, the fact that in the Pentagon's statistics on violence in Iraq, car bombs don't count...and the fact that there have been more deaths the past three months than any summer since we've been there. We won't hear people like P/N talking about that though. Don't question authority! If the general says everything is okay, then it must be!

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Yeah, I saw that statistic yesterday. I'm not surprised...he is a well-spoken, intelligent, and experienced General. The reason I was so pissed with the MoveOn ad is that their 'title' or whatever basically ruined the rest of the ad, which actually had some good factual information.

For instance, the fact that in the Pentagon's statistics on violence in Iraq, car bombs don't count...and the fact that there have been more deaths the past three months than any summer since we've been there. We won't hear people like P/N talking about that though. Don't question authority! If the general says everything is okay, then it must be!

I would have to agree with you there. There's a lot of information, a lot of which Hillary Clinton spoke directly to Patraeus to use to back up their opinion. But rather than making an informative ad, they went with slander, and now the biggest story is the discount they got to slander a US General.

It wasn't a smart move considering most Americans have a positive view of Patraeus. They're only hurting their argument by slandering him. They should have focused their article more on their points. It would have done a lot more justice to their cause.