"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the United States will probably not need to maintain its current troop levels in Iraq "very much longer," though she declined to provide a precise timetable for reduction in U.S. forces.
Rice appeared to set the stage for such a reduction, saying the Iraqi forces are doing a better job of holding their own against insurgents.
"I do not think that American forces need to be there in the numbers that they are now because _ for very much longer _ because Iraqis are stepping up," Rice told Fox News in an interview Tuesday. "This is not just a matter of training numbers of Iraqi forces, but actually seeing them hold territory."
The Bush administration has been under fire in Congress to set a timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq. President Bush has steadfastly declined to set such a timetable and has said the U.S. will stay in Iraq as long as it takes to ensure the country's stability and democracy. Iraq holds parliamentary elections Dec. 15. Rice said Bush will take his guidance from commanders in the field."
BreitBart
Now what's the difference between this and the Democratic proposal that was called treason last week?
2 Comments:
And what happens if the elections do not turn out well, what if the current government pulls a "referendum" on the election and puts themselves in a clear majority? Who wins then?
From your keyboard to gods ear.
Post a Comment
<< Home