Troop

Hi everyone I’m K-tuck from k-tucky.blogspot.com. It’s a blog about food and travelling. I’m still a secondary school student and you all can tease me with Kentucky if you all want to (k-tucky = kentucky). First of all, I would like to thank Benghan a thousand times for letting a newbie blogger like me to be [...]

- Scott Miller January 2007, this was Barack Obama’s position on the troop surge in Iraq (video) Now we have his campaign saying Obama’s always thought the surge would work (video)… addthis_url = 'http%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativepost.com%2FWordPress%2F%3Fp%3D488'; addthis_title = 'Obama+Vs.+Obama+on+the+Troop+Surge'; addthis_pub = '';

Thank you......NELLY??!?......for bringing back the New York classic isht.  One of the first truly hip-hop brands, b-boys, nefs, and dealers all rocked Troop at one point or another, made popular by none other than Ladies Love Cool J.   But when a rumor got on the hood wire that TROOP stood for "To Rule Over Oppressed People," and was owned by the KKK, TROOP (whose volume was 95% African

July 9 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government rejected calls by Iraq to set a timetable for withdrawing troops from the country and said the planned reduction in force levels will be dictated by conditions on the ground.The U.S. and Iraq are negotiating an agreement that will lay the legal boundaries for the operation of coalition forces after their United Nations mandate expires at the end of Decembe

Troop - Mayday [1998]Mayday link 2Although having limited airplay and label backing, this frontline R&B group is back!This is a close tie with A Lil Sumpin' Sumpin',but since that album didn't contain the whole group,this one wins hands down.The harmonies are tight too! Troop did this whole album themselves and did it their way.Troop - A Lil Sumpin' Sumpin' [1994]A Lil Sumpin' Link 2The cd was

Troop Leader 705 said "The girls LOVE the shirts...the colors and designs!!! Other Girl Scout leaders asked me where we made our shirts and I referred you!!! My High School son wears the free advertising shirt you sent to school all the time!!!" Thanks Genea! By the way, we will work for cookies :)

~Snooper~Seeing that a Democrat has recently revealed and let the proverbial cat out of the bag, admitting that the democrats lied their way into Congress in 2006, I wonder how many other lies a Democrat will "accidentally" own up to. I say accidentally because a Democrat Party leader hasn't the moral fortitude to actually fess up and tell the truth about anything. If some one knows of an instan

General Petraeus who is in charge of US troops fighting in Iraq told the Senate Armed Services Committee it might be possible sometime this fall to reduce the size of forces in Iraq by as much as an entire brigade. He said violence had declined to its lowest level in almost four years and there [...]

~Miss Beth~Ladies and gentlemen, once again the not so bright Congress is trying to force amnesty down our throats. This time, it's been sneaked into the troop funding bill.Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is trying to sneak in an agricultural amnesty into the troop funding bill. This has been confirmed by both Democratic and Republican sources. It was passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee M

The moral of the Repsol Mitsubishi Ralliart crews is not the best this Thursday morning of April 28th. Their lack of performance yesterday is bothering them. Therefore at the morning breakfast, the team manager, Dominique Serieys, took the matter on hand: "Our objective is to win. We know...

A study by the RAND Corporation has found that over 300,000 troops suffer mental health problems. According to the study: Billed as the first large-scale nongovernmental survey of its kind, the study found that stress disorder and depression afflict 18.5 percent of the more than 1.5 million U.S. forces who have deployed to the two war zones. This level of stress is also having a severe economic impact: AND, a private research organization, estimated that stress and depression among returning soldiers cost $6.2 billion in the two years following deployment, mainly due to lost productivity, medical costs and a higher risk of suicide. British PM Gordon Brown snubs Bush as he goes to meet up with all three presidential contenders before sitting down with Mr. 28%. Their relationship hasn't ha

The top U.S. military commander in Iraq told a Senate panel Tuesday he has recommended a 45-day moratorium on troop drawdowns following the removal in July of the last unit sent as part of President Bush's troop surge, which began last year.

General Petraeus has assured the American Congress and people the situation in Iraq is improving and there is an excellent chance troops dispatched for the surge would be able to return home. However, there is growing uncertainty how the current fighting in Basra will impact plans for reducing the size of the American armed force. [...]

I saw this article at USA Today and one particular paragraph got me a little wound up, so I decided to do a special edition of the podcast today. Here is the paragraph in question. The recent spike in violence may feed debate in Washington over whether further troop reductions will leave the U.S. military without [...]

Gen. David Petraeus's surge has been so successful in reducing violence that some officials at the Pentagon and the State Department, not to mention in the Democratic Congress are wondering whether Petraeus can accelerate his timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Petraeus summarized the good news about security in an interview Tuesday in his office in the Republican Palace. He described the remarkable improvements since the U.S. troop surge reached full strength over the summer. Behind him was a chart outlining his "anaconda strategy" against al-Qaeda. Like the giant snake, Petraeus said, the American military is destroying its prey by "squeezing, squeezing, squeezing." The U.S. commander said the level of violence in Iraq is down about 60 percent from summer's peak in every major category overall attacks, U.S. casualties and Iraqi civilian casualties. In Anbar province, once the epicenter of the insurgency, the number of attacks has fallen from 1,350 in October 2006 to fewer tha

That's according to a Pew Research study, which finds that while most acknowledge that the surge has managed so far to appreciably suppress sectarian and insurgent violence, many do not see a compelling reason to continue our present military commitments there.Two-thirds of Republicans (67%) currently favor maintaining troops in Iraq, little change from February (71%). Just 39% of independents and 21% of Democrats want to keep troops in Iraq.If these numbers are accurate, it adds another reason to be skeptical about the data we keep seeing from old-fashioned telephone polls that rank candidates. That 33% bloc of Republicans not in favor of maintaining troops in Iraq have only one candidate to turn to if they intend to vote in the GOP primaries.And let's not kid ourselves. If Republicans are to have a prayer in the general election the party will need to court Democrats as well as independents. Playing solely to the base will ensure a defeat. And yet apart from Ron Paul, all the othe

Citing a "Phenomenal" drop in the Violence in Iraq, a Financial times article says;"When you understand you are dealing with the complexity of a counter-insurgency operation which can take years to resolve, to have this dramatic a success in a short period of time, it's unprecedented", he said.LINKOn this wonderful day for giving thanks, I am thankful for moron left-wingers on 5th grade level blogs who made idiotic predictions.

Ron Paul is all for troop withdrawal from Iraq along with most other people but as an ex troop who has served in Iraq I really cannot see this happening, all the troops are doing out there is peace-keeping and training the Iraqi forces to not much success. To my experiences all that was happening were inter-tribal fights and I.E.D explosions which in some cases cause fatality to a battle group, all our troops in Iraq are a target to violence. Although most Iraqi personnel are all for the troops in Iraq a small minority are not, this is what you don’t see on the news. Although I was in a troubled area of Iraq I am disgusted with all the pictures you see on the news and in the papers where troops are walking the streets in a relaxed state playing with the locals! It is not like that whatsoever, we always have to be alert and in full fighting order at all times, this does indicate to me that our job out there is far from over. Although Ron Paul wants to see all troops withdrawn I real

This is an interesting development in that the most intense pressure for Bush to reduce troops levels was some time ago. Back when the President was initially pushing hard for the Surge would be my guess as to when he was getting the most pressure. Yet after the Surge has been widely acknowledged as successful he starts talking about dropping troop levels. Very interesting. The President is not known to easily change his mind. Anything but. Therefore, I have to wonder what this is about. Is there some behind the scenes pressure we are not seeing? Alternatively, is it just more eyewash like the phony immigration raids they are play-acting at? I don’t know but I expect that we will see more of it soon. ~RJH Washington Post story link Bush Moves to Put Himself in a Position For Troop DrawdownReduced U.S. Presence in Iraq Is Hinted AtBy Michael AbramowitzWashington Post Staff WriterSunday, September 9, 2007; A18As he prepares to provide Congress and the nation a progress report on Iraq th

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — As the Bush administration mulls options for withdrawing forces in Iraq, fault lines are beginning to emerge in a debate between commanders in the field who favor slow reductions and senior generals at the Pentagon who favor cutting the number of combat troops more deeply. Among others, Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, are said to be leaning toward a recommendation that steep reductions by the end of 2008, perhaps to half of the 20 combat brigades now in Iraq, should be the administration’s goal. Such a drawdown would be deeper and faster than Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, is expected to recommend next month, administration officials said. “If you’re out in Baghdad you might have a different priority for where you want the troops,” an administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the White House has not authorized public remar

  As can be read in this article major attacks are down significantly in Iraq since the beginning of the surge. The number of truck bombs and other large al-Qaeda-style attacks in Iraq have declined nearly 50% since the United States started increasing troop levels in Iraq about six months ago, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq. The high-profile attacks — generally large bombs hitting markets, mosques or other “soft” targets that produce mass casualties — have dropped to about 70 in July from a high during the past year of about 130 in March, according to the Multi-National Force-Iraq. Military officers say the decline reflects progress in damaging al-Qaeda’s networks in Iraq. The military has launched offensives around Baghdad aimed at al-Qaeda sanctuaries and bases.“ The enemy had the initiative and the momentum in ‘06,” said Jack Keane, a retired general who is a chief architect of the increase in troop levels and mentor to Gen.

Srinagar, July 24 (IANS) Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad has deputed top civil and police officials to New Delhi Tuesday to sort out the bottlenecks in relocation of troops from certain parts of the Jammu and Kashmir. (more…)

U.S. Marine Corps Pfc. Christopher Kluser, machine gunner with Battalion Landing Team 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, stays alert while on the up gun in the turret located in a 7-ton truck in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, July 9, 2007. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Timothy M. Surge progress may lead to troop reductions in northern Iraq, general says 15 July 07 by John J. Kruzel American Forces Press Service BAGHDAD — Now at full strength, the U.S. troop surge in Iraq is showing “definitive progress” and the number of forces serving in Iraq’s Multi-National Division-North could be halved by summer 2009, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon said. A reduction of U.S. forces under the general’s command could begin as early as January 2008, he told Pentagon reporters via videoconference. Stewman.Mixon, commander of both Multi-National Division-North and the U.S. Army’s 25th Infantry Division, is responsible for six Iraqi provinces in northern

I don’t like to mention politics but i thought i would put this under the Good News Day section; the US House of Representatives has passed a bill for most of all of US combat troops to be pulled out of Iraq by April 2008; this is good news for all the families of the troops that are currently there and also for the troops themselves, which in my opinion should not have been there in the first place. I hope Mr Bush comes to his senses and does not veto the legislation for the sake of the families of the troops and the brave men and women that are still fighting there.

Flavor Flav of Public Enemy was quite vocal about his support for the jailbird heiress outside of Mr. Chow in Beverly Hills on Tuesday night (June 12). The rapper and reality show star also lashed out at President Bush, saying, "Tell Bush to bring th

2 GOP senators back troop reduction in Iraq - Their support for the nonbinding resolution is one more indicator of Republican discontent with Bush's strategy - Los Angeles TimesExcerpt:"In another sign that congressional Republicans are losing patience with the White House war strategy, two GOP senators Thursday got behind new legislation designed to encourage the Bush administration to reduce U.S. military involvement in Iraq.Sens. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Gordon Smith of Oregon are cosponsoring a nonbinding resolution by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) that urges decentralizing the Iraqi government and creating semiautonomous regions for Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Biden has been championing the plan for more than a year.That comes a day after five GOP senators signed on to separate legislation that would enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which envisioned most U.S. combat troops coming home by early 2008.That legislation — proposed by Sens. Lamar Al

Jammu, June 2 (IANS) The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), a partner in the ruling coalition in Jammu and Kashmir, Saturday warned the central government of negative consequences if there is any delay in the reduction of troops from the state. PDP patron and former chief minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed said there has been no substantial progress after the central government constituted committees March end to remove troops from orchards and other civilian properties. “Any move to hold back this confidence building process would have highly negative consequences for the state and the region,” he said. Mufti’s observations came after the media’s recent criticism of the party for being a part of the state government and at the same time voicing the call for demilitarisation without any result in sight. The state government had recently submitted a report to the central government saying that demilitarisation was not possible. Moreover, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Ministe

When Cindy Sheehan retired from whatever the hell she was doing, I guess it was her job as a professional protester, she said she would sell her property next to President Bush’s ranch that was used for war protesters for any reasonable offer. Now a group has stepped forward. Move America Forward, which bills itself as the nation’s largest grassroots pro-troop organization, says it plans to buy the land near President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, where Cindy Sheehan has waged her anti-war protests. The group said it plans to build a monument to America’s war heroes on the five-acre site. A sketch of the planned monument shows a pillar topped by a cross. “This land has been used as a staging ground for anti-war activists to denounce and denigrate the heroic service of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces,” said Melanie Morgan, chairman of Move America Forward. “It is our intention to turn this around and make this a site that

It would seem that the President is bowing somewhat under pressure to reduce our military footprint in Iraq. A leak has said that he is considering a possible 50% cut in troop levels by 2008. It was interesting to see Bill Kristol speaking rather bluntly as to how certain factions in the Bush administration are playing power games via this sort of leak to the press. And the Presidents staff left no doubt with Kristol that he was livid about it. Kristol did attempt to soften the impression that it was some major change in direction by the White House but nevertheless it's rather obvious that it is. ~RJH Video here. Hat tip to Crooks & Liars for the video.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards called Wednesday for pulling US troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, in the first major foreign policy statement of his campaign. The former senator, speaking on the NBC television network, discussed a proposal to withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops immediately and the rest [...]

Higher troops levels are a major contributor to the success of operations in Iraq, especially in cities like Fallujah, a U.S. commander of troops in the western city said during a news conference today. Building on the successes of the combat teams before his, Marine Col. Richard Simcock, commander of Regimental Combat Team 6, said the biggest advantage he has over his predecessors is the number of troops available to secure and stabilize the city. "We can do more because we have more," Simcock said. "Troop levels have allowed us to go places our predecessors couldn't." He told reporters that his 6,000 troops have been able to break the "whack-a-mole" cycle of securing an area and then moving on only to have the enemy to come back in afterward. "We can go into a particular area with a large force, establish security and set conditions for Iraqi security forces to come in behind us to transition into securing the area," Simcock said. He said his troops, with coalition and Iraqi forces,

Why lookie here at how them troops are standing up to da Defeatocrats! They’ve issued an Appeal to Courage, they sure have. The Appeal for Courage, a petition signed by more than 2,700 U.S. service members since February 2007 asks Congress to fully support the mission and reject calls for retreat. According to the site, 60% of the signatories are serving, or have previously served, in Iraq. Blogs for Bush: The White House Of The Blogosphere: Troops Petition Congress To Stop Calls For Retreat Twenty-seven hundred troops so far. Out of what? 158,000 or so (currently serving). Wow. That is what? A percent? Staggering. Overwhelming. Gosh that Bush sure has a strong base. Note too that only about 60% of the signatories “are serving, or have previously served, in Iraq.” Sheesh! Nothing like making something of nothing.

Why lookie here at how them troops are standing up to da Defeatocrats! They’ve issued an Appeal to Courage, they sure have. The Appeal for Courage, a petition signed by more than 2,700 U.S. service members since February 2007 asks Congress to fully support the mission and reject calls for retreat. According to the site, 60% of the signatories are serving, or have previously served, in Iraq. Blogs for Bush: The White House Of The Blogosphere: Troops Petition Congress To Stop Calls For Retreat Twenty-seven hundred troops so far. Out of what? 158,000 or so (currently serving). Wow. That is what? A percent? Staggering. Overwhelming. Gosh that Bush sure has a strong base. Note too that only about 60% of the signatories “are serving, or have previously served, in Iraq.” Sheesh! Nothing like making something of nothing.

The Washington Times reports that in raids against terrorists forces (conducted on March 3rd), American and Iraqi soldiers killed six and captured another 41 in their ongoing effort to destroy the multiple warring groups terrorizing Iraq. In response to this success both the Iraqi government and some Iraqis themselves say the situation has improved since February when the US stepped up its security measures. Thanks to the success Iraqi officials are pushing back the nightly curfew from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. and individual Iraqis feel that several neighborhoods are now safer. Staff Sgt. Brian Long sees progress but admits that it is “too early to tell if the surge is working.” Still, he said, “even coming to an agreement to not kill each other is a step in a positive direction; it has happened in some neighborhoods.” The article concludes by noting that most Iraqis are adopting a wait and see attitude but that some see the U.S. forces as the only thing preventing complete cha

Senate republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, defeated a Democratic bill to begin withdrawal of American troops by a margin of 50-48. Democratic senators: Mark Pryor (D-Ark), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut crossed the isle to vote with the republicans.Fully understanding they did not have the majority for a big win without Republican support, Democrats realize they can only take incremental steps to limit the president's power to conduct the war. As Joe Biden (D-Del.) puts it " This is a process." He and Senator Carl Levin were the driving force behind pushing for a vote on a new Iraq authorization resolution. The passage of the bill would have changed U.S. military campaign in Iraq, requiring American troops to shift into a support role for the Iraqi army without emphasis on carrying out counter-terrorism operations. In addition, see the beginning of the withdrawal of Americans by March 31, 2008, followed by combat units out of the country in 120 days later.

This morning, Tony Blair announced a part withdrawal of troops from Iraq over the comeing months. Unfortunately the rumours from late last night of a full withdrawal being announced by No.10 Downing Street were unfounded. Britain will withdraw about 1,600 soldiers from the Southern part of the country, handing control of it over to Iraqi forces. This will bring the UK’s forces in Iraq to under 5,000 by the summer, down from nearly 40,000 at the time of the conflict. Last night, the proposed press conference and announcement of withdrawal was leaked, which lead to many false accounts of what could actually be on the table. The rolling TV and radio news channels were full of speculation that Blair might have at last capitulated to the British people’s stance on the war. All opinion polls and surveys on the matter show that the majority want out, and as soon as possible. But it seems this was much ado about nothing. British troops are now committed to staying in Iraq until at

This morning, Tony Blair announced a part withdrawal of troops from Iraq over the comeing months. Unfortunately the rumours from late last night of a full withdrawal being announced by No.10 Downing Street were unfounded. Britain will withdraw about 1,600 soldiers from the Southern part of the country, handing control of it over to Iraqi forces. This will bring the UK’s forces in Iraq to under 5,000 by the summer, down from nearly 40,000 at the time of the conflict. Last night, the proposed press conference and announcement of withdrawal was leaked, which lead to many false accounts of what could actually be on the table. The rolling TV and radio news channels were full of speculation that Blair might have at last capitulated to the British people’s stance on the war. All opinion polls and surveys on the matter show that the majority want out, and as soon as possible. But it seems this was much ado about nothing. British troops are now committed to staying in Iraq until at

The House has rejected the President's call for a troop surge of 20,00 for Iraq by a vote of 246 to 182. By denouncing his appeal, many Democrats see this action as a way to shake some sense into the Commander -in-Chief, as they plan a strategy to end the war. A vote follows in the Senate, but many question: Is this all sizzle and no steak--given without limiting funding for the war effort, nothing is likely change. As chief executive, the president is resolute on his decision to crush Iraqi insurgent/terrorists. How will this pan out? Waiting to see.Cutting funds for the war is a two edged sword for the Dems given how this move is interpreted by hawks who think this war cannot be won diplomatically, the GOP thinks using the power of the purse, shows no support for the troops, some make a comparison to old Rome-Nero fiddles while Rome burns-- a whole lot of talk --at least 400 members of the House spoke on the floor. But the Democrats have a mandate expressed in the 2006 elections--fi

Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, now controlled by Democrats, voted 12 - 9 against President Bush’s plan to send 21,500 more troops to fight in Iraq.  They said that this plan is not in the best interest of the American people; however, the Bush administration is planning on moving forward with the plan anyways. The only Republican to vote against the troop surge was Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, who said this war “is a pingpong game with American lives,” and that “there is no strategy.”  Dick Cheney, on the other hand, has said that the President has made his decision and the Bush administration is going to move forward with its plan. The White House and Democrats are continuing to butt heads, as you have the Democrats trying everything they can to change the strategy in Iraq and President Bush who is trying to exercise his right as commander in chief.  So while there are Americans dying everyday in Iraq we have politicians who are doing

[Cross-Posted at The Right’s Field] Senator John McCain’s (R-Arizona) said that he is satisfied with President Bush’s plan of sending 21,000 more U.S. forces into Iraq. On January 5, along with Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), expressed reservations of the rumored number of forces and their proposed length of deployment. He called for a “substantial and sustained” escalation of American forces. CNN’s Political Ticker: WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who had advocated sending as many as 35,000 troops in order to Iraq to make a so-called “surge” successful, said Wednesday he is satisfied with President Bush’s decision to send in just over 21,000. “I think so,” McCain said when asked if it was enough. “Because of the number of brigades.” […] The president’s plan reportedly calls for five Army brigades to be sent to Baghdad and 4000 Marines to Al Anbar. “I think it me

[Cross-posted at The Right’s Field] Robert Novak, writing in the Washington Post, says that presumed GOP nominee Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) is increasingly finding himself alone on the troop surge in Iraq. It is a plan that former North Carolina Democratic Senator John Edwards labeled the “McCain Doctrine.” Both McCain and Edwards are either running or considering a run for the presidency in 2008. Announced and potential candidates — Edwards, Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois), Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York), Governor Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico), Governor Tom Vilsack (D-Iowa), Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), and Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) — have all publicly opposed McCain’s plan. As the architect of the surge, McCain, naturally, supports an increase in U.S. forces in Iraq. It is a position that Dick Bennett, president of the American Research Group, says “appears to be hurting him.” Governor Mitt Romney (R-Massa

Reports indicate the Iraq Study Group will recommend to the President that all U.S. Combat Units be pulled out of Iraq by early 2008, leaving behind training units and advisors.The call to pull out combat brigades by early 2008 would be more a conditional goal than a firm timetable, predicated on the assumption that circumstances on the ground would permit it, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the commission's report will not be released until next week. But panel members concluded that it is vital to set a target to put pressure on Iraqi leaders to do more to assume responsibility for the security of their country.

From DeMediacratic Nation at Townhall: When the going gets tough, just back down!To Quote a statement from CNN:"the revised policy involving a war that has lasted nearly four years, claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops"I'm somewhat surprised CNN said the war "has lasted nearly four years," V.S. "nearing the fifth year...." Be sure to keep an eye/ear out as we close in on the end of the fourth year....it will change to "in the fifth year...." This is how it was referred to last year; the msm did not have time to keep it correctly at three years...most references were this was the fourth year.(The legislation is) "not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It's an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq." - Sen. Joseph Biden, D-DelawareHey "Slow Joe" - what the president is doing is not an attempt to embarrass the Senate; he is just trying to save you all from continuing your significant mistake with regar

Wednesday Night President Bush spoke from the White House seeking support from the American people for a troop increase in order to curb the violence in Iraq so that a future withdrawal would be possible. Bush stated "If we increase our support at this crucial moment... we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home." Bush also admitted for the first time that he had not sent enough troops the previous year which allowed the capital to become entrenched in violence between Shiites and Sunnis. According to the Washington Post, a document released just before the speech by the White House said that the previous strategy was based on poor assumptions about the stability of the Iraqi government.Bush's plan also called for $5.6 billion dollars to be spent on the troop increases and more than $1 billion dollars in new economic aid for Iraq. The president warned of more bloodshed in Iraq and that it will take time to see improvements in the region. President Bush also put pressure on Pri

Democratic party Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) (L) talks with Democrats Jim Webb (D-VA) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting on Iraq resolution. REUTERS/Jason ReedIn a 12-9 vote the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's plan to increase the troops in Iraq by 21,500.Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) was the only Republican to join the Democrats on the committee voting in favor of the resolution. He was also a co-sponsor of the resolution along with Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) and Joseph Biden (D-Delaware).The resolution could come to a vote by the full Senate as early as next Wednesday and it is expected that there will be other similar resolutions. Democrats even agreed to change some of the language to make it more agreeable to Republicans so that it will send a bipartisan message to President Bush.Joseph Biden who is now chair of the committee said, "This is not designed to say, "Mr. President, ah-

US Senator Obama talks to the media about Iraq on Capitol Hill in Washington. Photo by Reuters.Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) offered the first legislation on the Senate floor last night that would set a date for troop withdrawals of all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. This date falls in the suggested timetable set by the Iraq Study Group which recommended that troops be removed by the first quarter of next year. The legislation is entitled the "Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007".Obama is the first among the leading Democratic candidates to go forward with a specific timetable for a full troop withdrawal. Hillary Clinton would not commit to a troop withdrawal and is against the Bush increase asking to cap troop levels at the Jan. 1 numbers. John Edwards has proposed an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops but did not set a firm date for when troops would be sent home.Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is another prominent Democrat to set a date for troop withdraw