Wouldn't Rumsfeld's announcement of troop reduction (albeit

[zbdent]

in minimal amounts) be considered, if we had a "liberal media", as finally listening to the Democrats's calls for bringing our troops home alive?

[BOSSHOG]

1. I find it part of the gop plan to win reelection in 2006

Everything is politics to bush and his monsters. They are using our kids in iraq as political pawns to stimulate and secure their base. All is well in iraq, see what we did, now our troops are coming home, vote for us. After the elections, our kids who will still be stuck in the desert will have to fend for themselves. That's what happens when monsters are in charge.

[Nimrod2005]

2. Yes, and maybe even worse, isn't this

the kind of stuff they warn about when Dems mention it?

Everytime Dems or someone mentions a timetable they say OH NO!!! All the terrorist would have to do then is wait for us to leave because we gave them a timetable...etc.

Isn't today's announcement that we are leaving a timetable? Guess WHAT?

W E A R E L E A V I N G!!! effective today...

[AnnInLa]

3. It is only being done because of low poll numbers

low poll numbers for bush, and low poll numbers supporting war in Iraq.

They built up the numbers in Iraq before the election, for security purposes, and are now reducing those troops back to before-election numbers, while at the same time, proclaiming that they are reducing troop numbers because we are "winning" the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and the war. In reality,the troop numbers are only returning to "normal." I wish the MSM would point this out as a manipulation for public support of staying-the-course.

[Skidmore]

4. On a superficial level, that could be said. However, I'm inclined to

believe that they need to "redeploy" troops so that they are available for an invasion of Iran.