Bush Plans For Iraq: NYTimes Has Bridge In Brooklyn To Sell You

If you buy this one, the Times has a nice bridge to sell you:

The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.

How many times have we heard that one? A lot:

"My commanders tell me that as Iraqi forces become more capable, the mission of our forces in Iraq will continue to change... We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys. As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists." 11/30/05, George W. Bush

And this one:

Now Rumsfeld is quietly moving toward his original goal—three years late. The Pentagon has developed a detailed plan in recent months to scale down the U.S. troop presence in Iraq to about 80,000 by mid-2006 and down to 40,000 to 60,000 troops by the end of that year, according to two Pentagon officials involved in the planning who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of their work. Their account squares with a British memo leaked in mid-July. "Emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction in overall [U.S. and Coalition forces] from 176,000 down to 66,000," says the Ministry of Defense memo.

And this one:

In comments during a visit to Iraq Friday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has says there will be a reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq. Rumsfeld said the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq would be brought down from 17 to 15. This affects two Army brigades that had been scheduled to be deployed in Iraq in the coming weeks -- one from Germany, the other from Ft. Riley, Kansas.

And so on and so on . . .

Shockingly (not), the NYTimes story makes NO mention of all of the past troop reduction plans the Bush Administration has floated. This is what you call stenographic journalism.

< Dodd: The Fight Continues; Obama: Learning To Fight | The Hillary Clinton Books: Stale Coffee Grinds >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I have my own concept (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by chemoelectric on Fri May 25, 2007 at 11:07:31 PM EST
    I have my own concept for reducing troop forces in Iraq. My concept works like this: the troops get on airplanes, and they fly home.

    hey (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sat May 26, 2007 at 04:27:46 AM EST
    sounds like a plan. send an email to the dems in congress, see what they think. :)

    a 2nd surge (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Sailor on Sat May 26, 2007 at 12:00:11 PM EST
    Bush Could Double Force by Christmas

    The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.

    Wow (1.00 / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:22:57 AM EST
    You gotta love it.

    Bush says he's gonna bring troops home and guess what..

    The Left opposes him!!!

    Ya gotta love Jim (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:57:05 AM EST
    Bush says he's gonna bring troops home and guess what..

    The Left opposes him!!!

    The left points out that Mr. Bush falsely cries, "Wolf!" over and over, and Jim says, "No, THIS time there really is a wolf!"

    As Rocky said to Bullwinkle, "That trick never works," unless you pull it on Jim, who now owns every bridge in Texas and is negotiating to buy the Washington Monument before it gets onto the Multiple Listings.

    I love the inner city phrase for what Mr. Bush is doing, "Selling wolf tickets."


    No. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:47:27 AM EST
    The left ridicules Bush and his supporters, whenever he makes the assumption that his supporters, and anybody else, are so stupid as to believe him, jim.

    He is right though, about most of his supporters, I'll give him that much. He has to be right sometimes, everybody gets lucky in spite of themselves once in a while.


    et al (1.00 / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 26, 2007 at 02:20:19 PM EST
    If you want to deny the news reports, and disbelieve Bush, then there is no argument that can change your mind.

    Some call this BDS, I believe Bush Haters At Work - BHAW - is more accurate.

    Of course you do have a reason to be skeptical. After all, the Demos sucked a lot of money, press, hard work and other support out of you last year..

    And Bush signed the new funding  bill into law last afternoon. ;-) You know... The one with no time lines, no set withdrawal time...

    In the meantime all of the Demo Pres hopefuls voted against the funding bill, which passed 80 to 14...... That the other 80 senators political staff mostly likely decided that was what the American public wants seems to have never crossed their minds...

    But don't worry...

    Soon KOS, BTD, etc., will be back explaing to you who you must support the next time around... all of this done, of course, while they condemn Bush for NOT doing what he says....

    Oh you of TOO MUCH faith!!!!

    flip flopper and projectionist (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Sailor on Sat May 26, 2007 at 05:30:01 PM EST
    If you want to deny the news reports, and disbelieve Bush
    only a moron would argue that the MSM's lies are why 63% of Americans don't trust bush on one thread and then endorse the MSM for accurately reporting on bush's lies in another.

    bush is a proven liar. And most Americans have discovered that.

    there is no argument that can change your mind
    that's just plain projecting, no matter how often you are shown facts you continue believe a proven liar.

    That's the true BDS, people who believe bush are deranged.


    Sailor (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 26, 2007 at 07:10:33 PM EST
    gesh... You finally convince me and then you change your mind..

    et al (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 26, 2007 at 03:15:10 PM EST
    And now we have DA shilling for your leaders.

    Who would have thought it from a  person with such wonderful critical thinking facilities?

    BTW - Do you actually claim that 80 Senators voted against the wishes of the American people?

    Wow. Guess I better take back that compliment re critical thinking.

    Tax Deductible? (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sun May 27, 2007 at 03:26:44 PM EST
    No doubt.

    The Times Would do well (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:01:34 PM EST
    to hire up some of the displaced Knight-RIdder employees. McClatchy can't keep them all.