But they don't seem to make the distinction between, on the one hand, a legitimate intention to withdraw carefully and with the Iraqis' (as well as the troops') safety uppermost in their calculations on the one hand and, on the other hand, an indefinite muddling of our way out -- almost as indefinite and muddled as Bush's invasion and occupation.
Are you ready for "indefinite"? Are you ready for more muddle? Are you prepared for witnessing a Democratic mess replacing a Republican disaster?
John Edwards says he would "keep troops in the country to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries."
Hillary Clinton says she would "would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north."
Barack Obama "would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis."
Bill Richardson says he would "get out! get out!" But he "would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal."
Joe Biden is looking for "separate regions for the three major ethnic and religious groups in Iraq until a stable central government is established before removing most American troops."
Christopher Dodd has "called for the United States military to 'begin redeploying immediately.' In a debate this week in Chicago, he said: 'We can do so with two and a half divisions coming out each month, done safely and reasonably well.'”
And Kucinich... ? He has the most immediate and most honest response: "The Democratic Congress has the ability to tell President Bush, you got $97 billion six weeks ago; use that money to bring the troops home and set in motion an international security and peacekeeping force that would stabilize Iraq."
