Bill Richardson might be good on space policy, but I sure don't want him responsible for our national security:

ROBERTS: but there's no indication that they want to get together and no indication that the international participants want to get involved, as well.

GOV. RICHARDSON: no, but you use the leverage of our withdrawal and you engage diplomacy to almost force them to get in there. get iran and syria in there. my point is all these other candidates are still talking about, even though we've had 160,000 troops, they're still ready to leave 50,000 troops behind. i don't. i move them out, deploy them around the region for contingencies, into afghanistan, so there is a difference in our approach, and i believe i got that out in the debate last night and some of your poll tested video groups have been good.

As Kathryn points out, way to go. Hand the place over to the terrorist-supporting enemy regimes that have been destabilizing it.

I've noticed that Richardson's stance seems to be the most along the lines of "getting all the troops out now is the highest priority, and whatever else happens, happens." This stance seems to be most in line with the most radical element of the antiwar left. I've never quite understood if they really think everything will improve if we do that, or if they don't care about Iraqis and simply don't believe that the terrorist threat can ever pull off another 9-11 or worse.

I've payed attention to Richardson because he's my state Governor. My guess is that he's highly unlikely to get the nomination, but a Clinton-Richardson ticket is a good possibility. Richardson says he'd rather be governor than vice president--but what is he supposed to say? "I'm running for president--but if I can't have that, veep is okay!"

From what I hear from citizens who are involved in lobbying the state government for things, Richardson's tendency is to promise people whatever they are asking for, and then simply do the things he was going to do anyway. Perhaps not unusual for a politician, but it sure would be nice to hear "no, we can't get that in the budget" rather than "it'll be there" followed by purposely keeping it out of the budget. Maybe the Iraq thing is that way, but I doubt it.

By the way, has anyone noticed how democrats--and Richardson in particular--are calling for the troops to be out of Iraq in 2008, before the actual next election? What's the reasoning behind that versus going for "elect us and we'll pull the troops out?"

By the way, has anyone noticed how democrats--and Richardson in particular--are calling for the troops to be out of Iraq in 2008, before the actual next election? What's the reasoning behind that versus going for "elect us and we'll pull the troops out?"

Once in power, they won't be able to pull the troops out, politically, because then they'll have to take responsibility for the consequences. They want to force Bush to do it before he leaves, so that he will take the blame for the disaster that ensues.

They want to force Bush to do it before he leaves, so that he will take the blame for the disaster that ensues.

Bang on, Rand. The 21st century Democratic Party is, unfortunately, the party of Senators and movie actors. Folks who like to make popular speeches to adoring crowds, look beautiful and poised, kiss babies, and hand out favors and money to supporters -- but not make tough leadership decisions, not choose between two evils.

Gee, I miss the party of Truman.

But since Bush won't pull the troops out no matter what happens could that mean none of the Democrats truly want to become the next president? ^_^

Sure, move tens of thousands of troops to Afghanistan--because traditional military invasions have worked so well there in the past. Just ask the Soviets.

Rand: "They want to force Bush to do it before he leaves.."

What the Democrats actually want is for Bush to FAIL to pull the troops out. Only then can they use the issue to get themselves elected. They can use their willing partners in the media to spread the lie that if they had been in power the troops would have been home in 2008.

i move them out, deploy them around the region for contingencies, into afghanistan

Anyone asked the Afghanistans how they feel about this?