bush* says we will be down to 100k by may in Iraq

[Egnever]

he says its because we will be standing up Iraqis to replace them.

I was thinking about it though. Dont we have close to 8k wounded or killed allready? At this rate wouldnt we be down to 100k just through atrition?

Is it a ploy to hide the increasing number of disabled soldiers?

[HFishbine]

1. Write it down

Bookmark it, and don't forget it. We'll be adding it to the list of Bush miscalculations in five months.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. No, it is an

exercise in politics and wishful thinking

He knows that the troops dying are BECOMING a liabity to him

Politically the American People have very little tolerance for
casuatlies, UNLESS the war is a nedessary war, read WW I, WW II and Korea (even that one was becoming a hot potato)

Americans are traditinally somewhat isolationist and, in spite of all
the propaganda, not a war mongering people... that is why Somalia was such a cluster fuck politically for Clinton (never mind he did not send the troops initially) and why reagan pulled out of Beirut after
the Marine barracks were bombed.

Now the wishful thinking what the admninstration is attempting to do
is to Iraqitaize the whole mess, not different than the Vietnamization program. Will it work? For the sake of our troops, it better work... did Vietnamization work? Not really.

[kentuck]

3. Yes, it is a decision of necessity....

But they will use it as a political decision...to pretend they are drawing down our troops and replacing them with Iraqi forces. They nevr have lemons - only lemonade.

[radfringe]

4. 100,000 troops or

100,000 jobs remaining?

[Don_G]

5. Get The Transcript Before It's Redacted

Otherwise the White House transcript will read we may be down to 100K in Iraq with no specific date given.