He misrepresents Edwards with regard to the issue of residual forces.

Edwards called for an immediate reduction of troops by 50,000.  Yes, that leaves 90,000, but they will be steadily withdrawn and out within a year.  Then, the ONLY troops in Iraq will be those who are there to protect the American Embassy.

See the Edwards interview with Josh Marshall:

http://www.veracifier.com/episode/TPM_20 070912

In fact, Edwards said this in his speech at Pace University on September 7:

   Rethinking our approach to terrorism also means rethinking our approach country by country, cell by cell. And in each place where terrorism has taken root, there is a lot more we can do.

      We must begin with one of the greatest generators of terrorism in the world today: Iraq. George Bush's failed management of the war in Iraq has made the problem of terrorism worse. The war provided Al Qaeda with a powerful tool for recruiting terrorists. It gave them a battlefield for training. It gave them an attractive target, in American troops. And it diverted the resources of the U.S. military, weakening our force structure in the process.

      Even though the presence of U.S. troops has served as an attractive target for terrorists, our eventual withdrawal will not remove the threat. As president, I will redeploy troops into Quick Reaction Forces outside of Iraq, to perform targeted missions against Al Qaeda cells and to prevent a genocide or regional spillover of a civil war.

http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/a-n ew-strategy-against-terrorism/

Richardson's web site has been changed, but it recently said this:

      "While all American troops in Iraq must be removed, we need to maintain a military presence in the region, in countries like Kuwait where they are welcome. We must always have the capacity to use air power, special forces and other means to strike Al Qaeda anywhere. We do not need American troops in Iraq to perform this essential task."

Others have talked of residual forces IN Iraq, but not Edwards.  

Will Richardson say anything to get elected?  

Poor Edwards and Obama. They are outfoxed by Richardson on the left flank.

It is not a meaningful policy issue.

It really does not mean anything.

Richardson free fall in the straw poll means that Dodd broke through a little bit because of the leadership opportunity presented.

I thought Richardson's gimmick was weak. Apparently others agreed with me.

Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war.  

Our troops have become the targets in a civil war.  The Iraqi government, in turn, is dependent on the U.S. for security that the Iraqis themselves should provide.  Richardson notes: "The Iraqis won't take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good."

As long as the green zone exists there will have to be troops inside...INSIDE

Everyone else...OUT..
I have no problem with Richardson raising the Bar.
This Thursday's debate should be a good one...

The chart that compares the candidates positions cites 2 articles for their characterization of Obama's plan to end the war (footnotes #4 & #5). Why don't these 2 footnotes contain links to the articles like nearly every other footnote? Intentional omission? Sloppiness? The title and date of the New York Times article citation is incorrect as well.    

Here are the links Richardson's people omitted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/pol itics/12dems.html?ex=1344744000&en=c 21796fabe40d997&ei=5124&partner= permalink&exprod=permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082202400. html?referrer=google