Senators: "weren't the Iraqi's supposed to take lead?"- first sweep carried out with only 200 Iraqis

[sabra]

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/02/iraqi_security_.html#more

Iraqi security sweep challenged

The president's new security plan for Baghdad is supposed to rely on Iraqi-led forces, with the increase in U.S. troops there playing a supporting role.

So why, senators of both parties are asking, was the first major sweep of the Iraqi capital carried out with 200 Iraqi police and soldiers and 2,500 Americans?

...

``That falls far short of the public representation made by the administration that this would be a joint operation and that Iraqis would take the lead and we would be in a support role,” said Warner, who sponsored a resolution opposing a planned surge of 21,500 more American troops.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) the committee chairman, expressed ``dismay” at the reported reliance on U.S. forces, saying it ``runs counter to what we were told the surge would be and how it would be handled.”

...

Gen. Peter Schoomaker, chief of staff of the Army, and Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, told Warner Thursday they were not familiar with the details of the described security sweep. But Conway added, ``It is counter to what I understand to be the plan as well.”

[radfringe]

1. why just 200 iraqi police and 2500 AMERICANS???

just a hint: because bush freaking LIED again

[leftyladyfrommo]

2. Why would anyone think Bush told the truth about anything?

We just keep falling for it over and over again.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. It's a wonder there were that many. Is anyone surprised?

I'm not.

[Jacobin]

4. Oh, the Iraqis are taking the lead, alright

they just aren't doing it with the U.S. forces. As soon as these 'sweeps' are finished, they'll come back and start fighting us and each other until a victor is determined who will set up a government....Hey, WE had a civil war....why can't we let them have theirs?