Comments on: Bush: 8,000 Troops Coming Home By Feb.

President Plans To Maintain Current Troop Levels In Iraq Through End Of Year

[tonic1111]

Gee more people have died because we had to win a war that should never have been fought. Now they can "bring them home" AFTER the election. They may, or, may not, but it looks good now.

[misha128-2009]

I fail to see how this helps McCain; all of the "surge" troops will not be out of Iraq until after Bush left office. Anyone remember those additional 8,000 support troops Bush left out of the original surge announcement. They won''t be out until 2009 even though Bush says the McCain''s surge is complete. Meanwhile, both McCain and Bush remain in another Katrina moment; Both have conceded the need for around 10,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. Neither are providing those troops, Bush''s announcement only sends 4,500 troops before the end of the year. McCain claims he can send US troops that do not exist and NATO troops that were not offered into Afghanistan.

[sly_64]

I predicted this, I knew it would happen right before the election so Bush could help McCain. Politics is getting so predictable ! Bunch of liars, cheats and scummmbags.

[armydog2]

He fails to mention that in February it will be time for them to rotate out of Iraq anyway. My son is part of a group totaling 2500 that are due home in February. This is all BULL

[welshwoman-2009]

Two things destroyed any hope for this country - slavery and the welfare system. Within 20 years we will be a third world country just like Mexico and Africa. And it had nothing to do with George Bush or the Iraq war. Do you really think these mentally ill, angry people will not come after you simply because you pull out of Iraq and stay out of the middle east? And if you listen to Obama say Iran is a little country and no threat, remember that it only took 19 individuals to murder 3000 people and do several billion dollars worth of damage. And they still laugh about it. I don''t. I had friends killed in 9/11. You want to blame Bush for everything - I see mental illness and years of living in their own war torn countries and the anger that results. If we hadn''t gone to war in earlier years where would you be and what kind of life would you have? Of course, you don''t know because you don''t study - you just talk off the top of your heads.

[stn_sage]

What a guy! He''s been in charge of this war all along! He could have fought it differently! He could have brought any number of the troops home anytime! But, now he announces troops can come home in the first part of 2009, probably February 2009---after HE''S out of office!

In other words, HE''S trying to make decisions the NEXT president should be making NOT him! This is extremely hypocritical since he makes it a point to stress, that HE makes NO decisions about Iraq now anyway! It''s his COMMANDERS that tell him what needs to be done!

''W'' and the GOP are a disgrace to America! People in that party ought to shut their mouths and hope that the rest of us forget about them!

I guess Carter was a piece of S*** too.Posted by Semperfi2008
--------
Yep.

[txpatriot4us]

Woodwards interviews and story expose the creep in chief. A Body count is all he cares about. Bush is a coward and a criminal. He deserves no respect.

[whitemale08]

Like I said the "surge" has failed.

George W. Bush a Republican hands you guys another "post-dated check" and you accept it.

The man is a failure and indecisive. He is arrogant and believes in "saving face" then in saving the lives of our troops, over 4000 now; more Americans then died on 9/11.

10s of thousands wounded and more Iraqis died then under Reagan puppet Saddam Hussein.

This Presidency is a sham and all you Republicans should hold your head low when Bush''s name is uttered. He''s a disgrace to America.

[semperfi2008]

9/11 took place on Bush''''s watch, not Clinton''''s.... Clinton handed over hundreds of pages on Bin Laden which Bush ignored.... quit standing up for this piece of ***....27% approval rating says it all.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by lucasnico

I guess Carter was a piece of S*** too. He had less of an approval rating than Bush does. The public is fickle. Give them bread and circuses and they will follow you and cheer you. Stop giving them bread and circuses and they turn on you like a hungry wolf. Obama is a perfect example of a "bread and circus" man. God help him when the grain supply does not come from Egypt!

[semperfi2008]

It is quite amazing when you think about all of this from the President''''s perspective. He goes to the Senate and they give their approval for the President to go to war if he wants to. Then the President goes the extra mile, he goes to the U.N. Security Council and by a 15-1 margin they see it the President''''s way and order a deadline for Iraq to comply with the U.N. All the doomsayers were saying how hard it would be to take Iraq away from Sadaam and it happens quickly. He gets almost full approval from the Democrats on everything and all the blame when it goes wrong.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by easeltine

I could not agree with you more! He had the guts to do what needed to be done and the Left hates him for it. All the Dems voted for the Iraq war when it was a popular thing to do and reversed when it turned ugly. Now that Iraq is turning around and the surge is working just like PRESIDENT Bush said it would, all the Dems are jumping onboard and saying that they were for it all along. What a crock! I am amazed that anyone would vote Demoncratic.

[dbor77]

Well the date of the troops coming home is suspicious. Bush will be out of office by then so McCain can decide to keep them there..which is what he''d likely do or send them to another country for his other wars he''s sure to be dragging us into.

[misha128-2009]

Bush and McCain both remain in a Katrina moment they have acknowledged the need for 10,000 more troops in Afghanistan but will only transfer 4,500 there by the end of the year. McCain has already claimed he would send non-existent US troops. Then his campaign claimed NATO troops no one offered also non-existent. When do the lies end in terms of the war on terror? When do we actually go after those that attacked the US on 9/11?

[semperfi2008]

----------------------------------
----------------------------------------
------

Posted by vranger at 10:14 PM : Sep 08, 2008
+ report abuse

Yea, aside from being a Traitor, War Criminal, Mass Murderer, and Subverter of the Constitution, he''''s just swell......LMAO


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by singinrich

And just what do you suppose your President and mine should have after 911? Sit on his hands? Apologize to the terrorists because our twin towers got in the way? Pay compensation to Saudia Arabia for the loss of its citizens? Leave the radical Taliban to rule in Afghanistan and spread their message of hate? The American public would have been clamoring for his impeachment. What do YOU think we should have done after 911? Nothing? That''s what Bill Clinton did before it happened --- Nothing!

[hermitdave]

So the brave crusader in chief has decided to move crusaders from his illegal crusade in ARAQ to his illegal Afghan crusade. This should make the moms and dads happy.

[lucasnico]

You have to wonder where all this "Mr. Bush" stuff in the article comes from.

Its an obvious attempt to draw respect away from the President of the United States. Like him or not, approve of his policies or not, this is our President and has been for almost eight years.

During that time he did what we wanted him to, respond to the 9/11 attacks (which were planned during the President Clinton''''s time in office and inherited by Bush). And there have been NO other attacks on American soil during seven long years.

President Bush has not complained about either the job he was left to do, or the criticism he has taken for it. He did Clinton''''s dirty work, and yours, and has been hammered for doing what everyone wanted after the attacks. Unlike us, his life doesn''''t go back to normal after a while. He must stay with the wheels set in motion at that time, and worry about the threats we never hear of, because the were prevented.

Posted by vranger at 10

9/11 took place on Bush''s watch, not Clinton''s.... Clinton handed over hundreds of pages on Bin Laden which Bush ignored.... quit standing up for this piece of ***....27% approval rating says it all.

[vranger]

You have to wonder where all this "Mr. Bush" stuff in the article comes from.

Its an obvious attempt to draw respect away from the President of the United States. Like him or not, approve of his policies or not, this is our President and has been for almost eight years.

During that time he did what we wanted him to, respond to the 9/11 attacks (which were planned during the President Clinton''s time in office and inherited by Bush). And there have been NO other attacks on American soil during seven long years.

President Bush has not complained about either the job he was left to do, or the criticism he has taken for it. He did Clinton''s dirty work, and yours, and has been hammered for doing what everyone wanted after the attacks. Unlike us, his life doesn''t go back to normal after a while. He must stay with the wheels set in motion at that time, and worry about the threats we never hear of, because the were prevented.

[kno-1]

DEAR CBS NEWS,
Is there legitimate record out there providing information that the U.S. used Neutron bombs, phosphorus or thermobaric weapons in Iraq and/or Afghanistan?
Al Jazeera "reports" that a former commander of the Iraqi Republican Guard, Saifeddin Fulayh Hassan Taha al-Rawi, reports weapons were used at the Baghdad Airport.
David Hambling, author of %u201CWeapons Grade: How Modern Warfare Gave Birth to Our High-Tech World,%u201D speculates that such weapondry, the AGM-114N, might have been used.