[Mo1]

He said it because it is possible the job won't be done till another Administration comes in

Plus he was sending a message that Americans won't cut and run like some want us to ... including the terrorists

[LZ_Bayonet]

"He said it because it is possible the job won't be done till another Administration comes in

Plus he was sending a message that Americans won't cut and run like some want us to ... including the terrorists"

This is being spun negatively by the MSM, and I'm sure the Administration expected that, BUT it was worth it because it sent a veiled but STRONG message to the enemy (i.e AQ et al, Democrats, and MSM) that Bush will not be withdrawing.

AND as important, it sent the message that if a DEM should win the Presidency, that DEM will have to make a call on it. So the prime question for any Presidential candidate, and most damaging to the Dems (because of the Dem base) becomes: "President Bush says that a President AFTER him will be dealing with the question of whether and how a US presence should be maintained in Iraq. How will you, should you be elected President deal with this?" Sorta of a 403-3 type voting scenario, but the voters are the Presidential candidates.

[joesbucks]

He said it because it is possible the job won't be done till another Administration comes in

Believe me, it won't be done before another admin comes in.

Plus he was sending a message that Americans won't cut and run like some want us to ... including the terrorists

I'm not suggesting that as a course of action. But in a way we're sort of stuck. We really can't even if we wanted to.

So in your estimation, based on what you believe to be happening, when do you see a likely withdrawl of troops?