Richardson asks a question we all should be asking of Clobama: How many troops? 50,000? 75,000?

Note: Edwards has stated the only troops he would leave behind are those to protect the embassy. Presumably all the candidates would do this, since every American embassy has a handful of troops protecting it. However, Richardson is spot on with respect to Clinton, Obama, and also Biden. I like Biden a lot. I am one of the few non-Biden supporters here who like him. However, he is wrong on leaving a "residual" force in Iraq.

How many troops? 50,000? 75,000?

Dear DMC,

Some say that all of the Democratic Presidential candidates have basically the same position on Iraq. I disagree.

I'd pull all of our troops out in 6-8 months. The other major candidates would leave some troops behind indefinitely.

That's a major difference -- any way you look at it.

On Sunday, at the ABC debate in Iowa, I asked the other candidates point blank: how many troops would you leave behind? 25,000? 50,000? 75,000? For how long?

I didn't get an answer.

The big campaigns, with their huge media budgets, think they can drown out our differences and control the conversation on Iraq.

My campaign depends on the grassroots support -- people like you -- to help us carry the truth of our message across the country.

Make a contribution -- just $20 is enough to make a difference -- and I'll invite you to join other supporters on Thursday, August 30th for a conference call on which I will present my plan for how we can end the war quickly and get all of our troops out.

No dodging the tough questions -- I want to tell you directly why I believe anything less than a plan that pulls out all the troops as quickly as possible isn't a plan to end the war at all.

The Iraqis must rebuild their own country, and they won't make the tough political compromises until they know we're serious about turning the country over to them. It is becoming increasingly clear you can't end the war AND leave troops behind. Pulling our troops out won't cause a civil war; our troops are targets in a civil war right now. We must redeploy them out of Iraq and then secure the region.

The Bush Administration has been using half-measures since this war started, and now we have to make a decision -- it is either in or out; now or after more people die. You can't have it both ways.

Saying that all Democrats have the same position because "any" Democrat would end the war eventually is a cop out. Saying there is no military solution in Iraq and then advocating leaving US troops behind to find the military solution you just said doesn't exist is nuts.

I am the only candidate committed to changing the conventional wisdom on Iraq. I am the only candidate with the diplomatic experience to get all our troops out and bring the Iraqi factions together. Join me on August 30th and I'll tell you how.

We'll have much to discuss on this conference call. I'll explain the plan, take your questions and we'll strategize on how to get my message out to more Americans.

There are options. There are solutions. We don't have to choose between change and experience. We don't have to leave troops behind.

There is another way.

Thank you for your help,

Governor Bill Richardson

He said that we should leave some troops ONLY if we were asked to by their government, AND they weren't getting shot at. Do you have a link to a paper, speech, or quote that says otherwise?

Mrs. Clinton, as usual, is for withdrawing troops AND leaving them there, the latter not being an option. All things for all people, vagueness being the key.

Very, very different positions.

==is for withdrawing troops AND leaving them there, the latter not being an option. All things for all people, vagueness being the key.==

I agree. You can't say that for HRC and not for BO, though, since they are identical on this.

Obama in his own words: "We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda."

Sound familiar? That's right... That is exactly the Clinton position.

The fact this question even had to be raised by a BO supporter is a testament to how misleading Obama has been as to his actual Iraq plan. :(

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p10/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

The beginning of Obama's quote that you left out was "e must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq.". He's calling for leaving some troops in the region, not in Iraq, to use as needed if needed.

Clinton, on the other hand, simply wants to leave troops in Iraq:

While Mrs. Clinton declined to estimate the size of a residual American troop presence, she indicated that they might be based north of Baghdad and in the western Anbar Province.
"It would be fewer troops," she said. "But what we can do is to almost take a line north of -- between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis."

Big difference in the two positions.

==we seek no permanent bases in Iraq.".==

Irrelevant. He could use "temporary" bases there for 8 years.

==He's calling for leaving some troops in the region, not in Iraq, to use as needed if needed.==

When has he ever said that? You are basing that on another vague triangulating statement by Obama. He said "region" but he didn't mention where. Wonder why? Edwards and Richardson, who want to take all the troops out of Iraq, are clear on this. Why do you think Obama did not bother to mention this "minor detail" in a 7 page article? He was triangulating, as usual. He threw a bone to his netroots supporters by giving them more "hope" that he meant the troops would be outside Iraq while also being vague enough to please those who believe we should keep troops in Iraq for several more years.

The fact we are even having this discussion is sad. His position should be clear. Sadly, apparently the only times Obama has mentioned this was in that Foreign Affairs article, in which the Harvard lawyer was intentionally vague in order to triangulate, and his January Iraq bill.

==Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met.==

Sound familiar? That is exactly the Clinton position.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

It is kind of a big deal...