ABC obtains report of Troops Staying until at least 2009, then pulls story

[illinoisprogressive]

Raw Story reports that ABC printed a story online that secret plans have been drawn up to keep troops in iraq until at least Feb. 2009 and possibly 5 to 10 years beyond.
Then, they pulled it down several hours later without explanation.
Evil is alive and well in the white house and free speech is still being stomped on.
Raw Story was able to have the link to the original story before it got pulled and you can read the full story at this link;
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/IraqCoverage/story?id=3236822&page=1

There is also discussion of how long a reduced force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates envisions "some presence" on the part of the United States that, he said, "provides reassurance to our friends and to governments in the region, including those that might be our adversaries, that we're going to be there for a long time."

A senior official said one long-term plan would have 30,000 to 50,000 U.S. forces in Iraq for five to 10 years beyond 2009.

During that period, the bulk of the troops would be deployed to bases at strategic points throughout Iraq to respond to crisis in those areas. Camp Victory would continue to operate as the U.S. military headquarters in Baghdad.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. oops. you can only get page one. page two is now down.

[papau]

3. It is a short Article - the plan is worse than I had feared but I think it is tossed out to see the

reaction.

The "Plan" appears to be no reduction in the surge level of 150,000 troops until Feb. 2008 with 110,000 troops still there 12/31/08, with that level decreasing over time to 50,000 which stays there for 10 years, deployed to the 14 permanent bases we have already built in Iraq.

Of course the 110,000 might be only 100,000 on 12/31/2008, and the 50,000 might be 30,000 long term, and "long term? might be only 5 years beyond 2009 rather than 10, all of these "might be's" being mentioned so the plan is not written in stone allowing our enemy to know our plan, thereby allowing our enemy to mass 100,000 troops at the border to get us once we are only 50,000 or 30,000 :-)

What a load of bull they are throwing on the wall to see our reaction.

[Joanne98]

2. ABC is sure totting the line these days. They won't release the DC Madame names either.

It makes me wonder if Cheney's name IS on that list.

[mitchum]

8. ABC is never going to release those names...

because some of the best DC friends of the broadcasting industry are listed there

[Turbineguy]

4. Did anybody seriously think

that Bush is going to bring the Troops home while he is president?

[rurallib]

5. So when Dems are back in full control in 2009

will the news media start playing up to those in power or will they continue their RW bullshit?

[gobblechops]

7. They don't

do that for Dem's anymore,and you can bet we wont limit access with strong arm tactics like this administration does.

there corporate advertisers will demand blood and there is the added effect of Dem's holding there leaders accountable unlike the as long as i get mine Republicans who care less about the truth and more about winning.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Some Democratic candidates are complicit in the plan to keep troops in Iraq beyond 2009

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda. It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.

-- Hillary Clinton

Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the New York Times

If Elected... Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain

by Michael R. Gordon and Patrick Healy

WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-02.htm