Democrats have talking tough about getting out of Iraq for months now, almost immediately after taking back majorities in the House and Senate.
But just how far out of Iraq do they want to go?
That is the question Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson asked today in a campaign contribution letter he sent out the afternoon:
"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 six to eight 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."
Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards all made mention of leaving behind a "contingency force" to deal with emergencies, but they haven't said what constitutes an emergency or how many troops are in a contingency force. Sens. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have pretty much said the same.
Mr. Richardson said the "big campaigns," are trying to spin the public with their ample media budgets, but that he wants to talk to the grass roots:
"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."
And taking a shot at Mr. Edwards, Mr. Richardson said:
"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."
-- Brian DeBose, national political reporter, The Washington Times
Comments (8)
You cannot hide the truth, like the sun and the moon, eventually it comes out. And so the truth is starting to come out of the mouths of the Democratic candidates concerning what to do with our troops in Iraq. It isn't because they want to be more honest, it is because more and more American people are not buying the idea that we can just pull out without any consequences. So now they are in their own quagmire of trying to look Presidential, that they can be Commander in Chief, and know something about international affairs in the middle east, and at the same time, need to deceive their voting base on what they would actually do as President so they can get elected.
Posted by Dennis | August 21, 2007 7:15 PM
Get out of Iraq!!!!! Yes Richardson we should get out of IRAQ But your self serving political comments are the stuff the Americans are made of. Let us look at the "friends" we have abandoned; 1953 South Korea, 1956 Hungary, the 60s Greeks, 1962 Cuba, 1991 The Marsh Iraqs (sp), Now possibly Iraq. I am sure there are more peoples we have abandoned for the sake of political harmony. Why do countrys in the world trust us. I bet they don't trust us they only need
us. I wonder if we will ever need them??????
Posted by Mason of Clarksville | August 22, 2007 6:17 PM
There will definitely be consequences if the U.S. pulls the troops out now, but what will be the consequences if we stay? A war with Iran, that's what. And then we will really have a global war of terror. To his credit, Richardson seems to be one of the few front runners who advocates diplomacy instead of pre-emptive attacks. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are trying to hedge their bets by saying they'll keep an undefined amount of troops in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time. I'm not a Democrat, but at least Richards has the guts to take a definite stand on the issue.
Posted by Kyle of Los Angeles | August 23, 2007 8:47 AM
I fully agree with Dennis comment. And I am sure that the war with Iran is impossible. Don't think that Iranian government is so stupid.
Posted by Oleg Tchistyakov | August 24, 2007 6:11 AM
Get out and what? What is the risk of getting out? What is the contingency plan for the risk? What happens if the entire region implodes into the worst case scenario, i.e. first local instability and collapse followed by regional exponential expansion? None of the candidates have addressed the real issues. None of these people have foresight past the end of their noses. I guess they are all depending on the compliance branch of U.N. to handle the contingency plan.
Posted by Larry Stone | August 24, 2007 10:48 AM
I personally think that we should get out. And it's good that candidates are now starting to think about situations like this. Many people have died going into the war and we don't need anymore dying. Think of the families that we have hurt putting their relatives into the war. Pull the troops out now, consequences or not, it'll be saving more lives than killing them off with consequences.
Posted by Laura | August 30, 2007 10:41 PM
I think that personally just simply "pulling" are troops out of Iraq is not going to be as easy as it sounds. We did just that in the vietnam war and look at the after math! however I think that we need our troops here keeping our borders closed and protected. Why are we worring about terroist half way around the world if one could just simply walk across the border and bomb the whole U.S.!
Posted by gov.girl | August 30, 2007 11:16 PM
Richardson does see the need to make comments that separate him from his fellow Democrats, but his response is totaly impractical. Given where things are in Iraq, I cannot think of anyone irrespective of how well-intentioned, who could provide a resolution, without leaving a contingency force behind. Neither a hawk/dove-- would be that dumb.
Getting out of Iraq is great-- but it is "how" that is extending the debate.
www.vernasmith.blogspot.com
Posted by Lee | September 1, 2007 7:55 PM