Richardson asks the question that none of the front-runner candidates want to answer:
All the major Democratic candidates say they are eager to end this war, and they all say they don't believe there is a military solution in Iraq. Why, then, do they maintain that we must leave an indefinite number of troops behind for an indeterminate amount of time to work hopelessly towards a military solution everyone says doesn't exist?
It is time to get a straight answer from all the other candidates: how many troops would you leave behind? For how long?
Bowers notes how obnoxious it is that the top candidates refuse to answer this very simple question.
I applaud Richardson's efforts on this front, just as I applauded MSNBC when they attempted to get straight answers from candidates on how many troops they intend to leave in Iraq if they become President. However, if my experience on this front is any indication, even if this question is asked at the Univision debate, in all likelihood no one except Richardson and Biden will answer the question (Kucinich and Gravel might, since it is hard to predict what they do). The question will be labeled hypothetical, and the response will be that they will listen to the commanders on the ground. And then, the debate will move on to the next question.
The more I think about this dodge from Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on how many troops they intend to leave in Iraq, the angrier I become. Why is an inquiry into how many troops they intend to leave in Iraq a hypothetical question not worthy of an answer, but inquiries into how much their health care plans will reduce the cost of insurance premiums a hypoethical question worthy of prominently displaying an answer to on your website?
Why would they dodge? It's not from fear of alienating the Democratic primary electorate. The clearer the stance on getting the hell out of Iraq, the more applause they'll get. It can't be from fear of alienating the general electorate. Independents want out of Iraq just as badly as Democrats. And it can't be from fear of alienating the war mongers. Those 25% dead-enders aren't abandoning their GOP heroes.
So what can it be?
The only thing that makes sense is fear of alienating David Broder, Joe Klein, and Tim Russert. You know, the Very Serious People.
And it's that ridiculous and unwarranted fear of the DC Beltway Cocktail Party crowd that ensures I remain undecided at this point.
And unless they start answering that question unequivocally, my choice may end up being Richardson, despite his obsolete DLC-style rhetoric, as the only two candidates not too afraid to answer the simplest freakin' question they will ever get all year.
"How many troops will you leave behind in Iraq."
Anything above the security detail for the US embassy in Baghdad (all U.S. embassies in the world have Marine guards) is one troop too many. You want advisors to train Iraqi troops, you want a strike force to hit terrorist camps and whatnot, stick them over the horizon in Kuwait.
But if nothing else, can we please just get a clear answer to that damn question?
Comments are closed on this story.