Why did Bush Administration announce pullout of 50,000 troops ??

[kentuck]

Won't that just embolden the terrorists if they know we have a timetable? Didn't Bush say that in a speech just a few days ago?? And today I read that They have announced a pullout of 50,000 troops next year? Won't they just wait until we are gone and do their thing? Does their left hand know what their right hand is doing?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. " M u r t h a " and 34% polls.

all the answer that you need.

[Deja Q]

2. Is * losing it? Now making such obvious flip-flops that'll make it easier

for him to be indicted?

If terrorists aren't supposed to know these things, and then we announce we're going to do it, doesn't that make us - well - vulnerable?

[Nimrod2005]

3. Flip flop flip flop flip flop...

[kentuck]

7. Maybe McCain could explain this for us ??

Since he was spouting the same bullshit, as I recall?

[Nimrod2005]

21. I am sick of McCain...

[msongs]

4. it will make HILLARY look like a warmonger nt

[mmonk]

5. and it helps create the facade

that we aren't there to stay while stemming criticism. The neocons can still proceed and the politicians can pretend.

[spanone]

6. For 'political' reasons only. Not because our soldiers are dying

at an alarming rate. They are plotting for next years elections. It's the only reason this administration does anything.

[converted_democrat]

8. Is it 50,000? I thought I heard 60,000. n/t

[kentuck]

9. May be ?

But the Repubs can put some lipstick on their upcoming campaigns and say, "Wow! Look at that beautiful pig! "

[converted_democrat]

18. I get what you're saying, but I think people are smart enough to see

through it. Well, I hope that people are smart enough to see through it. It will be hard for them to explain why they are condemning some for an action or a proposal, and then turn around and do the same thing themselves. That is hard position to explain away, no matter the scenario.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

10. Lookin' for a little poll bounce, Stretch...just a little bounce.

:evilgrin:

[kentuck]

12. If the polls go up....?

Then the Repubs running for re-election will interpret it how? That the war is a drag on their campaigns? Maybe they want to such a few of those "war-mongering" Democrats out into the open and then change their minds and say it was not a feasible idea? :)

[havocmom]

11. Only way to LOOK like they are in charge & 'leading'.

Jump on bandwagon, push, shove their way to the front.
Try to convince others are following them.

Typical coward politician as opposed to real leadership by real leaders.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

14. The Republicans are ALREADY spinning that one, hard and heavy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10175425/

From the Tuesday (Nov. 22) Hardball:

MATTHEWS: We're back with Deborah Orin of the “New York Post” and Chuck Todd, editor in chief of the “Hotline.”

I guess the hottest story this week, as we go into Thanksgiving, and I think this was somewhat planned, according to Howard Fineman of “Newsweek.” And I think the timing was planned, I don't know, but that's how he's reporting it.

Jack Murtha's basic decision to go public, in a very passionate way, with the position he's sort of been developing for months, if not a year, he's been against the war in Iraq, the decision to go in.

The idea of doing that before this long two-week period, so that people would go home and check at home. Then I'm reading in the major papers today, stories about back home in Pennsylvania. Apparently, it's going over with mixed results, his decision to say we have to pull the troops home.

Deborah, your reading on that decision, by this working-class congressman, Western Pennsylvania, to raise the issue of an immediate pullout?

ORIN: Well, I think the Democrats were trying to have it both ways. They were trying to talk up the idea of a pullout, but they didn't want to have a vote on it.

MATTHEWS: So they wanted a canary in their minds, and he goes out and does it for them? And they don't have to—Pelosi can keep her hands off of it?

ORIN: Yes, and it's also important to remember that this is not somebody, contrary to a lot of the media reports, Murtha was not a strong supporter of the war.

MATTHEWS: Of the war, you're dead right.

ORIN: In fact, right at the beginning, he almost didn't vote for it.

So this whole promotion of a hawk turns dove is not exactly accurate.

MATTHEWS: No, he's historically been a hawk, but not on this issue.

ORIN: Well, he's pro-defense, but not on this particular war. The thing I thought was most fascinating was that yesterday, Hillary Clinton came out and said it would be a mistake to pull out of Iraq. And her husband said it would be a mistake to pull out of Iraq. Where last week, he said it was a mistake to go into Iraq.

So you're right, the canary...

MATTHEWS: ... well, it gets deeper and deeper with Clinton, because he's always interesting to watch as he positions himself. He said, as if he'd never heard this proposal before, he said, “I'm going to have to study this proposal of Jack Murtha's more carefully,” which is even more interesting.

Like, everybody's trying to position themselves—Chuck, nobody wants to take a, we're staying forever position, except maybe McCain. A few people are willing to say, we'll stay as long as it takes. If it's nine years, it's nine years. Or maybe the “Weekly Standard,” but most politicians are saying, I'm somewhere between—we can't pull out this second and we better start doing something next year to begin to come out. That seems to be the position that most people take, right?

TODD: Which is something I think the White House is nervous about, that this is going to bubble. I heard an interview with a relatively new Republican member of Congress, Thad McCotter who is in Michigan, represents a leaning Republican district, blue collar—very blue collar district. And he is like—you know, he's getting questions at home, how long are we going to be there? I was for this thing at first, but I'm not interested in being there the whole time.

So—by the way, the other thing with Murtha is, Murtha is on that side. Don't forget, you said he is pro defense, he is pro military. And there's a difference. He is not into this Defense Department. There has been this split between the civilian leadership and the uniform guys. And I think that split.

MATTHEWS: He's not an—he doesn't have this idealistic notion of going out and spreading democracy.

TODD: No. And I think Murtha splits back a little bit. I think he was speaking for members of the military in the Pentagon for the uniform guys.

ORIN: I went through something else, which is I think we are close to starting to pull troops out. Talk to people at the White House and the Pentagon, they feel the Iraqis really are stepping up. And some of them, if you want to be conspiracy theorists, think this was all a Democratic game so that when we announce after the elections in December, that they are a success and when we start pulling troops out, Democrats can say see, we are responsible. We did it.

MATTHEWS: You think they are that smart?

TODD: You're giving them a lot of credit.

ORIN: But I do think we are—I do think that by 2006 election, we will be starting to pull the troops.

MATTHEWS: That would make political sense.

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/Pictures/Persons/010497/010497-183728-06.jpg

[marylanddem]

13. I'll believe it when I see it. nt

[kentuck]

15. There was a number, perhaps 50,000, whose second tours would end...

in this coming year? Does anyone have the statistic on that? I noticed it on the screen scroll but I did not get a good look...

[teryang]

16. because they don't have a choice

they've played out the guard and reserves and their troop rotation plan is grinding down the active duty forces. These people are cynical criminals and pull policies out of their butts based upon expediency alone.

They have shot their wad at this point. They either have to retrench or prepare for a major mobilization. Their idea of mobilization involves lining their pockets not getting involved in a real challenge to American military power on the ground. This is why a rich but disabled Iraq made a perfect target. A mobilization is not going to fly. A real mobilization involves curbing contractor excesses and making corporations and top one percent non tax payers pay taxes. The latter is unacceptable.

[Marr]

17. The funny thing is that it won't help them.

You don't gain popularity by pulling out of a war *you started*. Bush is identified with the Iraq occupation. He's spent the last four years first explaining repleatedly why we needed to invade, and then droning on about why we have to stay there.

If he does some sort of half-assed pull out, it's going to be seen for what it is; a political stunt, and the response of a weak president who really doesn't know what to do.

[kentuck]

20. But they are setting it up already as " the Iraqis are stepping up.."

so now, we can step down. It doesn't have to be true, and judging from everything this Adminsitration has told the people, it is probably a bald-faced lie...

[TahitiNut]

19. When Nixon announced force reductions in Viet Nam in 1969 ...

... actual in-country troop strength went up by about 10,000. This isn't new.

How do I know? "Strength Accountability" was my day job in Nam. (I was an acting 11-bravo at night.)

[catmandu57]

22. I thought there was a planned draw down already

in the works. They increased troop strength to cover the phoney ass elections, and were intending to draw down afterwards, sometime after the first of the year.
They are spinning this to look like they're responding to public desires, and like what was stated above they have to, we're running out of people and equipment, where in the wide world of sports are they going to get replacements?

[Jackpine Radical]

23. A foolish consistency

is the hobgoblin of little minds.