White House press secretary Tony Snow this morning said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was "flat wrong" yesterday in her description of Gen. David Petraeus' recommendations for the way forward in Iraq.
Mrs. Pelosi, after emerging from a White House meeting with President Bush, his Cabinet, and other congressional leaders, said Gen. Petraeus had advised "a 10-year or more commitment for a long-term occupation of Iraq."
"I don't think anybody's arguing that that's going to be the case," Mr. Snow said.
Mr. Snow said that, despite Democratic calls for a full withdrawal of troops from Iraq, "you have seen a shift in mission."
Mr. Bush sent a "surge" of 30,000 additional troops from January to July, and Gen. Petraeus said Mr. Bush could reduce U.S. forces to pre-surge levels by next summer without endangering progress made in the last seven months.
Mr. Bush will say in a nationally televised address tomorrow night that he plans to accept the general's recommendations, though White House officials have said the troop cut will be a few thousand less than 30,000.
The administration and Gen. Petraeus envision a significant U.S. troop presence in Iraq for several more years, though the strategy is to transition American forces from a leadership role in Iraq to an "overwatch" position, where they back up Iraqi forces.
Mr. Snow said that Gen. Petraeus' testimony described a "success story" and predicted that Democrats would continue to fail in their efforts to force the president into a full withdrawal.
"I think you're going to find that there are going to be a lot of people in both houses [of Congress] who are going to be supportive of trying to continue a successful way forward," Mr. Snow said.
-- Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times
Comments (6)
Though it pains me to concede the principle, Tony Snow is full of it.
We need to bail from Iraq and now. It is a bottomless pit for money and troops. Cheney, above all, has gotten us into a terrible mess. He, and his corporate buddies, and his Arab "friends" are cleaning up in this war.l
In my worse nightmares, I see Democrats elected as far as the eye can see, and the ball and chain around republicans collective necks will haunt us for many, many years.
George Bush truly turned out to be, without question, the dumbest president since the founding of the republic.
sincerely,
Bobby Taylor
Posted by bobby Taylor | September 12, 2007 11:23 PM
Trust the word and advise of General Petraeus! And Tony Snow said it correctly "Nancy Pelosi is flat wrong"! The mission is getting accomplished! The General should know!
Posted by OLDARMYOFFICER | September 13, 2007 12:10 AM
Nancy Pelosi has not provided any evidence that she can think past the next election when it comes to Iraq. Not enough is a Miss Universe world hunger answer. If Bush's plan is not enough, then what is and WHY? WHY must have at least two components. First of all, where is the Pelosi's "redeployment" plan? Precipitous withdrawal is not a plan. Secondly, and more importantly, where is the contingency plan if the redeployment brings about the worst case scenario, i.e. the collapse of Iraq and the escalation to a regional and finally a global conflict with nuclear weapons potential? When she provides the details on how to manage those issues, then she will have enough credibility to move out of the 19% area. Until then we need to stay with a strategy that has tangible feedback and risk management. When are we going to get away from this nation dividing rhetoric and solve the problem?
Posted by Larry Stone | September 13, 2007 2:15 AM
"We need to bail from Iraq and now. It is a bottomless pit for money and troops. "
We need to protect and defend democracies, like In Iraq, as they are worth it. Or do you believe that democracy is NOT worth defending?
Posted by Ray | September 13, 2007 11:28 AM
There are two questions that really scare Democrats:
Question 1) What if the fighting ends in Iraq or is reduced to a very small level between the Shia and Sunni? Do we then go home and risk having everything fall apart again with outside forces (such as Iran or Syria) trying to destabilize the country? Or do we stay and make sure that the central government in Baghdad takes root and then governs the country? For those of you who think that it can't be done, just look at Lebanon. They had a Civil War that lasted for 15 years and nobody thought that a country so politically divided by religion could ever come together on anything. Yet they did and now they even snuffed out an al Qaeda uprising in their own country.
Question 2) If attacks against Americans end in Iraq and we are still wanted by the Central Government in Baghdad, why don't we want to maintain a base or bases there? We've been in South Korea for over 50 years and in Germany and Japan for over 60 years. If the Iraqis don't mind us staying there, why don't we maintain a base in a country that is right in the center of the Middle East.
Of course, most Democrats want us out of there yesterday. But what if they face an "unbearable" possibility, like victory?
Posted by Libertyship46 | September 20, 2007 11:59 AM
PERSPECTIVE:
If Al-Quaida were to take over the world, that would be quite good because this is where it gets controversial, the term Jihad means to clean up the world, not start a war. This is the reason that we need to get rid of Bush and get a Muslim Cleric to be our next president. Al-Quaida is a term that is supposed to mean something as a correction of things, not being terrorists. Bush has a penchant for twisting concepts and causing problems. Let us vote for Osama Bin Laden to be our next president. Thank you!
Posted by David Dunn | September 24, 2007 5:04 PM