Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...
This is just a lie. I'd suggest you look it up, but I have some sympathy to your religion preventing you from admitting any weakness in a democrat party member. To other people: look it up, the withdrawal schedule was actually set before Obama's election. To his credit, he saw the wisdom in it and didn't change a thing. Recognizing your own weakness is step 1. from wiki
Ratification by Iraqi ParliamentOn November 27, 2008, the Iraqi Parliament ratified a Status of Forces Agreement with the United States, establishing that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011,
but allowing for further negotiation if the Iraqi Prime Minister believes Iraq is not stable enough. The pact requires criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and requires a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that are not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors will be subject to Iraqi criminal law. If U.S. forces commit still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they will be subject to the still undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certifies the forces were off-duty.[1][2][3][4] A referendum of Iraqis will be held in mid-2009 on the pact, which may require Coalition forces to leave by the middle of 2010.[34] Parliament also passed another U.S.-Iraqi bilateral pact called the Strategic Framework Agreement, aimed at ensuring minority Sunni interests and constitutional rights.[8]
In Iraq's Parliament, the pact was supported by 149 of 275 members (~54%) from SCIRI, Dawa, the two Kurdish parties and members of the Sunni-based Iraqi Accord Front.[35] The pact was opposed by 35 members, mostly from the Sadrist bloc.[36] 91 members did not vote, fearing for their future if they said yes, others fearing the same if they said no.[10]
[edit] Approval by Presidency CouncilThe Presidency Council of Iraq consists of one President and two deputies, or Vice-Presidents.[37] The Council currently consists of Kurdish President Jalal Talabani, Shi'a Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi, and Sunni Vice President Tariq Al-Hashimi. The Council must agree to all decisions unanimously.[37]
On December 4, 2008 Iraq's presidential council approved the security pact. "Nothing has been changed (in the accord)", presidency secretary Nasir al-Ani said after it was reviewed by the body. The council decision marks the final hurdle for the pact in terms of Iraqi government or legislative approval.[25]
[edit] Reaction to approval[edit] U.S.Some anonymous U.S. officials and specialists who follow the war have argued they believe that parts of the agreement may be circumvented and that other parts may be open to interpretation, including: the parts giving Iraqi legal jurisdiction over United States soldiers who commit crimes off base and off duty, the part requiring for US troops to obtain Iraqi permission for all military operations, and the part banning the U.S. from staging attacks on other countries from Iraq.[38] For example, administration officials have argued that Iraqi prosecution of U.S. soldiers could take three years, by which time the U.S. will have withdrawn from Iraq under the terms of the agreement. In the interim, U.S. troops will remain under the jurisdiction of America's Uniform Code of Military Justice. Michael O'Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution research group, said there are "these areas that are not as clear cut as the Iraqis would like to think."[16]
U.S. President George W. Bush hailed the passing of the agreement between the two countries. "The Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq", Bush said. He continued that "two years ago, this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament."[39]
Army planners have privately acknowledged they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000, but maybe as high as 70,000, for a substantial time beyond 2011. Pentagon planners say those currently counted as combat troops could be "re-missioned" and that their efforts could be redefined as training and support for the Iraqis.[40] Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has also said "three years is a long time. Conditions could change in that period of time."[41]
In a letter to U.S. military personnel about new rules of engagement, Gen. Ray Odierno said that U.S. forces would reduce their visibility but that this does not mean "any reduction in our fundamental ability to protect ourselves." Odierno wrote that U.S. forces would coordinate "operations with the approval of the GoI (Government of Iraq), and we will conduct all operations by, with, and through the Iraqi Security Forces." "Despite some adjustments to the way we conduct operations, the agreement simply reinforces transitions that are already underway, and I want to emphasize that our overarching principles remain the same", he further wrote.[42]
General Raymond Odierno said that some U.S. forces would remain at local security stations as training and mentoring teams past the June 2009 deadline specified in the status of forces agreement. In contrast, Robert Gates estimated U.S. troops will be "out of cities and populated areas" by June 30. "That's the point at which we will have turned over all 18 provinces to provincial Iraqi control," he predicted.[43] A spokesman for Odierno, Lt. Col. James Hutton, reiterated that the soldiers staying in cities would not be combat forces but rather "enablers," who would provide services such as medical care, air-traffic control and helicopter support that the Iraqis cannot perform themselves.[44] Odierno's comments sparked outrage among some Iraqi lawmakers who say the U.S. is paving the way for breaching the interim agreement.[45]
When asked by Charlie Rose in a PBS interview how big the American “residual” force would be in Iraq after 2011, Secretary of Defense Gates replied that although the mission would change, “my guess is that you’re looking at perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops.”[15]
Simply put the agreement was written does not call for an ironclad agreement to pull out all troops, but rather "allows" the Iraq PM to request keeping them. Then, when reading the quotes of the Secretary of Defense AND other Army brass, its pretty easy to see where this was heading. I can also post quotes from McCain and Romney if you'd like, but I'm thinking you might want to concede the point of Republican Presidential nominees keeping us in Iraq post Bush II had they been elected.
Do you actually work or contribute to society?
