Can anyone explain the rationale behind not setting a timetable

[pdxmom]

to leave Iraq? I know that they say the terrorists will just wait us out if we give them a date that we're leaving. Aren't the going to just wait anyway, specific date or not?

Or are we planning to stay there forever, so that they can't wait us out?

One day, are all the Iraqis just going to wake up one morning and find that the US troops have just disappeared out of their country in the dark of night? And that it will so take the terrorists by surprise that they won't go on a tear?

Someone needs to call Bushco on this crap. No one does.

[meganmonkey]

1. Bushco says a timetable will make the insurgents think they are winning

or some such shit :puke:

[Democrats_win]

5. Insurgents will know how long they can lie low before they start a war.

It´s the curse of occupiers. We can never leave.

[pdxmom]

6. That's what I was thinking. They can lie low until we leave,

however long that might be. So we can't leave.

Of course, if what's going on now is laying low, I'm dreading what it's going to be like afterwards.

[HereSince1628]

11. My suggestion is to announce the date after which we will BILL Iraq

for security services.

I KNOW this sounds like charging someone for the priviledge of breaing all their china. BUT, this would certainly encourage Iraq to get their forces in place. Americans aren't going to be the cheapest force available. Blackwater or Halliburton can arrange the details if the French Foreign Legion cannot.

I think a date of June 2006 would be a good one. It provides plenty of time to get the basic training done for a new Iraqi army. It gives time to get the basic equipment and support infrastructure in place.

[Mass]

2. Feingold did - several times

[WilliamPitt]

3. They don't want to leave.

They never intended to leave.

That's why.

[Canuckistanian]

7. That's the one thing that changed in the bill

From "we have to let the Iraqi people know that we will be leaving" to "we have to let the Iraqi people know that we will stay as long as necessary.

And how long will it be necessary? Could be 10 years, 15, 35, 50 years. Those military bases were made to last.

[ThomWV]

4. Of Coure I Can Explain It

It is the notion of opposites.

Republicans are the opposites of Democrats.

Republicans are to be treated the opposite of Democrats.

When Clinton was a Democrat

Bush is a Republican.

The demands placed on Bush must be, therefore, opposite of those placed on Clinton,

Even Bush himself demanded a timetable from Clinton and so it is appropriate that it be Bush himself that denys a timetable from himself.

Make sense?

[pdxmom]

8. Thanks. That now makes it as clear as the fog that

clouds Bushco's mind. <g>

[Just Me]

9. The real one or the fake one?

:shrug:

The real one involves maximizing corp profits and power.
The fake one is ensuring freedom and democracy and all that.

[Spazito]

10. Their excuse for no timetable is ludicrous on it's face

Everyone with one eye and half an asshole, including the 'terraists', know the bush admin is going to have to, at the very least, draw down the troop numbers in Iraq sometime next year in an attempt to protect their majority in the House and Senate.

Their ridiculous excuses can only be accepted by those who believe those in the Middle East communicate via drums and runners, are barely above caveman status when, as is very evident in Iraq, the opposite is true.

Edited to correct punctuation error