After criticizing President Obama's plan for 35-50,000 residual U.S. forces to remain in Iraq until 2012 earlier this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a carefully worded statement today praising Obama's announcement while, at the same time, calling for the number of troops kept there to be "as small as possible."
Specifically, she says: "The remaining missions given to our remaining forces must be clearly defined and narrowly focused so that the number of troops needed to perform them is as small as possible." See Pelosi's full statement below:
President Obama's announcement of a withdrawal schedule for US combat troops in Iraq is good news because it signals that the war is coming to an end. I join the President in commending our troops for the patriotism, courage, and sacrifice which has characterized their service in Iraq.Pelosi told Rachel Maddow this week that up to 50,000 troops didn't sit that well with her. Having only heard reports of what Obama's plan might entail, Pelosi told Maddow, "I don't know what the justification is for 50,000...I would think a third of that, maybe 20,000, a little more than a third, 15,000 or 20,000 [is necessary]...I don't know what purpose he has in keeping them there, whether it is to fight terrorism, train whatever -- the training of the Iraqis, which seems to have been going on forever."
As President Obama's Iraq policy is implemented, the remaining missions given to our remaining forces must be clearly defined and narrowly focused so that the number of troops needed to perform them is as small as possible. The President's decision means that the time has come at last for Iraq's own security forces to have the prime responsibility for Iraq's security.
An ardent opponent of the war (and one whom anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan threatened to challenge from the left in a primary), Pelosi has vociferously called for an immediate withdrawal for years. Today, she tamped down the anti-war rhetoric a bit in her response Obama's announcement, while making it clear that she wants as few troops as possible in Iraq.
Mr. Obama, Democrat Lite or Mrs. Pelosi, Democrat Lite Lite seem both rather pitifully off track. They both believe the government and oil resources of Iraq need to be protected by the US Army (subsidized 100% by American taxes).
How much does Joe America care about vaunted stability in Iraq when his house is being foreclosed because the US Government taxed him out of his house to pay for thousands of US soldiers to tromp around a foreign country?