Thank you, Mr. Resident! What a lovely gift to Democratic candidates!

[Brazenly Liberal]

When asked if he could envision a time when US troops are out of Iraq, Dubya said "That's for future presidents to decide."

So he's committed us to at LEAST three more years. Not really a surprise that he has no intention of pulling out, but I'm sure more than one GOPbot up for election/reelection in November is banging his head against the wall at hearing this commitment to at least three more years.

The blogosphere ought to be all over this one. And let us hope against hope the MSM pulls their collective heads out of Bush's ass long enough to notice and report it, too.

[BOSSHOG]

1. Can you envision a balanced budget?

that's up to future presidents. Can you imagine an administration not tainted with fraud and downright criminal activity? That's up to future presidents. can you imagine a competent person in the oval office? Yeah, when I leave.

You are so right, the last thing republicans running for office want to hear is bush telling the truth.

[cantstandbush]

2. Don't count on the MSM for anything (maybe KO) but we must depend

on ourselves to call him on his lies.

[global1]

3. Three More Years, Three More Years, Three More Years - The Dem Mantra....

going into the '06 election. The Dems need to drive this one home. * says we will be in Iraq for "three more years". Says taking U.S. troops out of Iraq is for "future presidents to decide".

How many more of our soldiers will die in that time? How many more innocent Iraqi's will die in that time? How many more of these inane Press Conferences will we have to endure in that time?

[jlegg]

4. Thank you, Mr. Resident.

I think the main reason for the President's open ended commitment is the fact that he doesn't know how long winning the war will take. Most Americans, believe it or not, are invested in our victory in Iraq. Anything short of winning this war is failure and no one should seek that outcome.

There can be no peace without first achieving victory. - Winston Churchill

[w13rd0]

6. Jimminy...

...he doesn't even know what "winning the war" would be. He can't articulate WHY we launched an invasion on a non-threat, or why we are spending hundreds of billions, much of which his campaign contributors are skimming right off the top, to continue to occupy a nation that doesn't want us there. So no, I don't believe that most Americans are invested in "our victory in Iraq". I think they are concerned with their own neighborhoods and their own situations. Iraqis are getting universal health care while Governor Blunt and Resident Bush decimate the Medicaire/Medicaid system in Missouri. Our military is doing security work for predatory multinational corporations in a war zone while conditions in this country deteriorate for the average american.

So what the hell is "winning this war"?

[Brazenly Liberal]

7. Most Americans are invested in victory? Do you mean South Americans?

Because you couldn't possibly mean Americans as in citizens of the United States.

No, most Americans think any chance for whatever is presumed by "victory" has come and gone. That's hardly what anyone would call invested.

From the conservative Rasmussen Reports:

52% Say History Will Judge Iraq Mission a Failure

"a majority of Americans believe that the U.S. mission in Iraq will ultimately be judged a failure."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/War%20on%20Terror_Monthly_Update.htm

[Ian David]

5. Future presidents like Nancy Pelosi in 2006, I hope!

[LeaveIraqNow]

8. He probably knows impeachment is coming.

And after he is impeached by the newly democratic congress a new president will bring the troops home :)