Breaking News

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier this week questioned the need to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq until 2011.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Top Democrats have expressed concern over President Obama’s plan to draw down nearly two-thirds of U.S. forces in Iraq by August 2010, while some key Republicans are offering praise.

At issue: Obama plans to leave between 35,000 to 50,000 residual forces in the war-torn country, serving in a training or advisory role to the Iraqi military.

All U.S. troops have to be out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, under an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government last year. There are currently 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, indicated earlier this week that the residual force Obama is planning to leave in Iraq is too large.

Pelosi on Wednesday told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow: “I don’t know what the justification is for 50,000, a presence of 50,000 troops in Iraq. … I do think that there’s a need for some. I don’t know that all of them have to be in [the] country.” Pelosi clarified her concerns after Obama announced the plan at an event Friday at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

“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,” Pelosi said in a press release. “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.”

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-California, co-founder of the Out of Iraq House Caucus, was critical of the plan.

“I am deeply troubled by the suggestion that a force of 50,000 troops could remain in Iraq beyond this time frame,” she said in a statement Friday. “Call such a troop level what you will, but such a large number can only be viewed by the Iraqi public as an enduring occupation force. This is unacceptable.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said that while he supports Obama’s “step in the right direction,” the new troop plan does not “go far enough.”

“You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war. You can’t be in and out at the same time,” Kucinich said in a release Friday.

And top Senate Democrats echoed some of their House colleagues’ skepticism. “That’s a little higher number than I expected,” Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Thursday. The third-ranking Senate Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, said, “It has to be done responsibly, we all agree. But 50,000 is more than I would have thought.”

On Thursday afternoon, the president briefed bipartisan leaders from the House of Representatives and Senate — including Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, at the White House about the troop plan.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that 50,000 is “somewhat larger” than what he expected. However, he said he has always believed “a few tens of thousands” of troops would be needed for noncombat missions such as training and fighting terrorism.

Before the White House meeting, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat and a close Obama ally, said he was anxious to get the troops home. But he defended the administration, saying it is “trying to strike the right balance” between ending the war and maintaining stability in Iraq.

Rep. John McHugh of New York, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said later that Obama assured him the plan to withdraw all combat forces will be revisited if conditions on the ground in Iraq deteriorate.

“The president’s objective to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq is one we should pray for, plan for and work toward,” McHugh said in a statement.

“However, I remain concerned that the security situation in Iraq is fragile, and we should work to mitigate any risks to our troops and their mission. I specifically raised these points with the president this evening.” McHugh added, “Our commanders must have the flexibility they need in order to respond to these challenges, and President Obama assured me that there is a ‘Plan B.’ “

On Friday morning, McCain, who criticized Obama’s plan to pull combat troops from Iraq in the presidential race, offered warm praise for the new proposal.

In a speech on the Senate floor, McCain said Obama’s decision is “reasonable” and that he is “cautiously optimistic that the plan that is laid out by the president can lead to success.”

McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that a “failing situation in Iraq has been arrested and reversed” due to the “dramatic success of the surge strategy,” referring to President Bush’s plan in 2007 to send additional troops to Iraq.

He also praised Obama’s willingness to leave behind a significant residual force and reassess the situation if conditions change in the future. “We are finally on a path to success” in Iraq, McCain said. “Let us have no crisis of confidence now.”

Obama touted his opposition to the Iraq war during the presidential campaign, a position popular with liberal groups such as MoveOn.org. But according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, many Democrats may not be satisfied with Obama’s plan.

When asked if the U.S. should keep the same number of troops in Iraq that are currently stationed there, 12 percent of Democratic respondents agreed — compared with 58 percent of Republican respondents. Asked if U.S. forces should be removed by “next spring,” 87 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of Republicans surveyed were in favor.

But the survey suggested that half of all Americans think the United States is winning the war in Iraq, the highest percentage since that question was first asked in a CNN poll in 2004.

“This indicates that the public thinks the surge worked, but that hasn’t changed their view of the war in Iraq at all,” said Keating Holland, CNN polling director. “As a result, nearly seven out of 10 favor the idea of removing most U.S. troops from Iraq by next spring, a proposal that was a key part of Obama’s presidential campaign last year.”

The CNN/Opinion Research poll was conducted February 18-19, with 1,046 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Police say blood-stained letters were addressed to President Obama and top aide Rahm Emanuel.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — An Ethiopian immigrant with a history of mental health problems is in custody after being accused of mailing a letter with HIV-tainted blood to Barack Obama when he was president-elect, according to court records.

Saad Bedrie Hussein told investigators that he is an admirer of Obama and that the letter — containing his photo, an admission ticket to Obama’s election night victory party in Chicago’s Grant Park and six index cards containing writing and reddish stains — was his way of seeking government help and tickets to Obama’s inauguration.

Hussein, who has HIV, said he “purposely cut one of his fingers with a razor so he could bleed on the letter,” according to an affidavit by Terry L. Cullivan, an investigator with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

The letter, postmarked December 27 and written in an Ethiopian language, was addressed to Obama at the Illinois Department on Aging in Springfield, Illinois. When the letter was opened two days later, it was found to contain an orange powder, Cullivan said. A state employee then took the letter to another state office, resulting in a two-hour lockdown of the building, affecting more than 300 people, the affidavit says.

During an interview, Hussein was unable to remember what the orange powder was, but tests revealed it to be a drink-mix powder, the affidavit says.

According to the affidavit, during a December 29 interview, Hussein denied mailing any additional letters.

But, the affidavit said, two days later, the Illinois Department of Revenue notified him it had received two similar letters, both with Hussein’s return address. One was addressed to the Illinois Department on Aging, and the second to “Emanuel,” which investigators believe was intended for Obama aide Rahm Emanuel. Both letters contained what appeared to be dried blood and an orange powder.

The criminal complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Illinois alleges that Hussein “knowingly mailed” the letters containing HIV-infected blood “with the intent to kill or injure another.”

In January, a federal judge ordered a mental evaluation of Hussein, saying “there is reasonable cause to believe [Hussein] may … be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent [and] unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him.”

According to court records, Hussein was arrested March 29, 2006, by Chicago police after setting a fire in the middle of a Chicago intersection, waving a Quran in the air and yelling “Allah[u] Akbar” — Allah is great — and other words. Hussein “created a standstill in the traffic and refused to comply” with police commands, Cullivan’s affidavit says.

Hussein’s attorney, public defender Robert J. Scherschlight, could not immediately be reached for comment.

U.S. Postal Service Inspector Peter Rendina said this is the second known case in which a person is alleged to have sent HIV-tainted blood through the mail for malicious reasons. In the other case, which is ongoing, a man sent blood to a person he thought was a business associate.

BAGHDAD – With President Barack Obama set to announce the withdrawal of most U.S. forces from Iraq over the next 18 months, some Iraqis say they fear that such a move could lead to a resurgence of violence.”Terrorists are just waiting for the Americans to leave the country in order to turn things upside down,” said Ibrahim Salman, 55, a Baghdad municipality official.

U.S. soldiers take up position to secure the opening of a water treatment plant in Baghdad's Sadr City on Jan. 21, 2009.

Salman, who lost relatives and friends during the sectarian violence that raged across Iraq during 2005 and 2006, said armed groups could take advantage of the American military pullout to terrorize the country once again.”I am against a hasty evacuation of U.S. troops from Iraq because security is not completely achieved throughout Iraq,” Salman said. “The Iraqi police force and army still need more training, experience, intelligence gathering and sophisticated military equipment.”

Obama’s plan reportedly accounts for further training for Iraqi forces. According to senior administration officials, U.S. Troops will withdrawal slowly over the next 18 months– dropping from the current number of about 142,000 to a residual force of 50,000 that will carry out clean-up and protection operations. These troops also will work closely with the Iraqi military, which is expected to take over all daily combat missions by August 2010, NBC News reports.

‘Responsible and gradual’
Diana Obaedi, a 24-year-old private secretary, said she supported the idea of a “responsible and gradual withdrawal” of American troops. But as someone whose family was displaced by armed groups, she also was concerned that Iraq must be “stable and secure” before the Americans leave.

A barber in his late forties, Sa’ad Yassin, echoed this sentiment.

“Of course, nobody likes his country to be occupied, but I want joint Iraqi and American forces to get rid of the terrorists, criminals, gangs and sleeper cells who are waiting to jump and control the land and people,” Yassin said.

Adel Abdul-Jabbar, a technician in Baghdad, fears there will be a bloodbath after U.S. forces leave.

“Pulling their forces and leaving Iraq to be devoured by Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey? Oh! No!” he said. “No, I am sure al-Qaida and militias will destroy Iraq and Iraqis will be swimming in blood pools.”

‘History repeats itself’
Others expressed disbelief. Abu Ahmed, a retiree, laughed at the notion that the American forces will ever leave Iraq.

“They say ‘history repeats itself,’ I won’t believe the American administration is going to pull its forces out of Iraq. They will stay for decades just like they did in Germany and Japan,” he said.

Still, Amer Qabani, a 33-year-old oil-driller, was optimistic about his country’s future and thinks that Obama is a man of his word.

“He promised in his presidential campaign to responsibly withdraw his troops from Iraq,” said Qabani. “I guess we will have to wait and see. I think Iraqi forces will be ready.”

The nation's economy during the last three months of 2008 suffered its worst decline in 26 years

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The nation’s economic slide during the last three months of 2008 was even sharper than previously estimated, with the broadest gauge of economic activity suffering its worst decline in 26 years, the government reported Thursday.

Gross domestic product, which measures the output of goods and services produced in the United States, fell at an annual rate of 6.2% in the fourth quarter, adjusted for inflation, according to a preliminary report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The decline was worse than the 3.8% drop that the BEA reported in last month’s “advance” reading on fourth-quarter GDP. It was also the largest drop in GDP since the first quarter of 1982, when the economy suffered a 6.4% decline.

Economists had been expecting a 5.4% contraction, according to a survey conducted by Briefing.com.

A big drop in exports and continued declines in consumer spending contributed to the decline. An increase in government spending helped offset some of those declines.

Exports plummeted at a 23.6% annual rate in the fourth quarter, versus an increase of 0.3% in the previous quarter. Earlier in 2008, robust demand for U.S. exports helped keep GDP in positive territory. But that demand has evaporated as the global economy continues to deteriorate.

Consumer spending, which makes up two-thirds of the nation’s overall economic activity, fell at a 4.3% annual rate. That compares with a 3.5% drop in the third quarter.

The decline was partially offset by an increase in federal spending. Government expenditures and investments increased at a 6.7% annual rate in the fourth quarter, down from a 13.8% increase in the third quarter.

In the third quarter, real GDP decreased 0.5%.