Thats not true. What you've got here is clinton basically adopting the Bush administration's approach.

Troop withdrawal has already begun, in fact, in a gradual mode.

Richardson is not using the word "nearly" improperly and he is not lying. The plan he proposes is fundamentally different than the Bush administrations plan, and Hillary's plan - for a gradual withdrawal.

"They're not even talking about it" isn't good enough, gladiator.  Its anecdotal.  The Bush administration has adopted a slow drawdown approach already. Albeit quietly. Look at the troop numbers yourself if you don't believe it.

The withdrawal has already begun.
With Richardson, its a different approach.
With the others, its basically more of the same.

it creates the false impression that Hillary will bring the troops home in the first year.

richardson and hillary are still doing the tango

That surprised me.

Calling a fellow Democrat a "flip flopper" is a strong attack.

There is a lot of stuff that could go back the other way against Richardson.  He should think about whether he wants to engage in hardball style tactics.

I did provide the link.  It's http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/pol itics/20hillary.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&a mp;oref=slogin&ref=politics&adxn nlx=1198253662-PTA4p1AFNCQofpAF+zCg2A

Here's the key quote:

Mrs. Clinton, who voted to authorize the war in 2002 and occasionally faces questions about her resolve in opposing it now, was asked by an audience member at a forum here in rural Iowa when she would "bring the boys home."

"I think we can bring home one to two combat brigades a month," she said. "I think we can bring nearly everybody home, you know, certainly within a year if we keep at it and do it very steadily."

Look at what Clinton has been saying on Iraq this year and then contrast with her we can get everyone out in a year Mr. and Mrs. Iowa voter claim:

    "A Duty to Mislead: Politics and the Iraq War." By Ted Koppel. All Things Considered. June 11, 2007.
      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story .php?storyId=10947954.

     "But I ran into an old source the other day who held a senior position at the Pentagon until his retirement. He occasionally briefs Senator Clinton on the situation in the Gulf. She told him that if she were elected president and then reelected four years later, she would still expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq at the end of her second term."

   * "Democratic Field Says Leaving Iraq May Take Years." By Jeff Zeleny and Marc Santora. The New York Times. 12 August 2007.

     "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north ... But she has affirmed in recent months remarks she made to The New York Times in March, when she said that there were ''remaining vital national security interests in Iraq'' that would require a continuing deployment of American troops."

   * "Democratic Rivals Caution Against Swift Iraq Pullout; Little Rancor Seen in Iowa Debate." By Anne E. Kornblut. The Washington Post. 20 August 2007.

     "Clinton, Edwards and Obama said in effect that they supported Biden's position, cautioning that it will be necessary to leave some troops behind to assist Iraqi forces and Iraqis who have helped Americans on the ground."

   * "If Iraq Falls." By Josef Joffe. Wall Street Journal. 27 August 2007.

     "Listen to Hillary Clinton, who would leave "residual forces" to fight terrorism. Or to Barack Obama, who would stay in Iraq with an as-yet-unspecified force."

   * "Democrats' Struggle to Change Course in Iraq Had Produced Much Debate, Few Results." By Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz. The Washington Post. 10 September 2007.

     "Asked on Jan. 17 whether she supported a recommendation by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to remove all combat forces by the spring of 2008, Clinton replied, "I'm not going to support a specific deadline.""

   * "General Gets Rough Ride as Senators Fight for High Ground Over Election." By Tom Baldwin. The Times (London). 12 September 2007.

     "Indeed, both Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton -- despite promising to end the war -- acknowledge that they would retain a "residual force" in Iraq for some years."

   * "Planning for Defeat: How Should we Withdraw from Iraq?" By George Packer. The New Yorker. 17 September 2007.

     "In the view of most Democrats, the inevitability of reduced troop numbers, the political stalemate in Baghdad, and the dwindling of public support in America require that a withdrawal begin soon. All the Democratic candidates for President have declared that they will end the war... The report did not impose a timeline, but others have tried to do so. In the Senate, two Democrats -- Jack Reed, of Rhode Island, and Carl Levin, of Michigan -- have introduced an amendment to a defense-appropriations bill which would require troop withdrawals to begin within four months of the bill's passage, leaving behind only a "limited presence." Among its co-sponsors are three Republican senators and three Democratic Presidential candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joseph Biden."

   * "Clinton: I won't fund Iraq war without withdrawal plan" http://beta.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/23/ clinton.iraq/index.html. September 23, 2007.

     "Clinton said, if elected president, she would end the conflict 'as quickly and responsibly as I can,' but said some U.S. forces would likely remain as trainers, to protect Americans and to battle Islamic militants loyal to al Qaeda."

   * "Hitting All the Sunday Talk Shows, Clinton Says a Lot but Reveals Little." By Anne E. Kornblut. The Washington Post. 24 September 2007.

     "Asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos whether she would withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq during a first term as president, Clinton (D-N.Y.) gave a simple answer: She did not know."

   * "Clinton's Game of Dodgeball." By David S. Broder. The Washington Post. 30 September 2007.

     "During the debate, she rarely came out of a defensive crouch, as if determined to protect her favored position. Answering the first question, she said her goal would be to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by 2013, but "it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting" from the Bush administration, so she cannot make any pledge -- as Richardson and others feel free to do. Troops might be needed for counterterrorism work for many years."

   * "Democrats Try to Play Up War Stance." By Angie Drobnic Holan. Saint Petersburg Times. 2 October 2007.

     "As time has gone by, Clinton has urged more forcefully for withdrawal. During the most recent debate, she said she would begin redeployment immediately if elected. Nevertheless, Clinton resists setting deadlines or timetables for withdrawal."

   * "The Value of an Exit Strategy; Clarity on Iraq Could Make Biden and Richardson Contenders." The Washington Post. 2 October 2007.

     "At a debate last Wednesday, each of them refused to pledge that American troops would be out of Iraq even by the end of her or his first term. If the troops will still be there, what strategy would they be advancing?"

   * "Clinton's 2008 Lead is Clear, Though Her Policies Often Aren't." By Peter Nicholas. Los Angeles Times. 4 October 2007.

     "We must begin to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home as quickly and responsibly as we can," the New York senator said. Her call to "begin to end the war" left Clinton substantial maneuvering room -- and since then she has refused even to commit to withdrawing all U.S. troops by 2013, the end of the next president's first term."

Source:  http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/ne wsroom/pressreleases?id=0414

Here's Hillary's full quote from the NY Times:

"I think we can bring home one to two combat brigades a month," she said. "I think we can bring nearly everybody home, you know, certainly within a year if we keep at it and do it very steadily."

This is what she has been saying all along. One to two combat brigages per month.

Those of us who oppose the Iraq war do not believe that Bill Richardson's taking a clear position on Iraq is pandering. Indeed, to suggest in one sentence that candidates should lay out a timetable for withdrawal - and in the next suggest that no one has to take it seriously - is the kind of equivocation that has been all too common among those who want to have it both ways. There is no plausible scenario under which the continued presence of U.S. troops could be justified, and the Register does not even attempt to conjure one ("Outline a Realistic Withdrawal Plan," Dec. 11 editorial).

There is universal agreement that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq, only a political one. Leaving forces behind only enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence.

Additionally, the war, through multiple and extended tours of duty, is breaking our U.S. Army and Marine Corps, which took so long to recover from Vietnam. We are seeing the effects of this on our all-volunteer force in the form of increased moral waivers, which are causing severe problems with unit cohesion and discipline. Our military is exhausted and at the breaking point.

Richardson recognizes that U.S. troops occupying Iraq indefinitely would be a disaster for those troops, for Iraq and for American security around the world. It would lead to thousands of additional dead American soldiers, prevent Iraq from reaching a peaceful settlement and continue to inflame Muslims throughout the world. It is a strategy born of the same naivete tat has consistently failed to make this country safer.

Indeed, since the British withdrew from Basra, violence there has declined by 90 percent. We would be well-served to follow their example as quickly and as safely as possible. It seems that Richardson alone understands this.

Ambassador Dennis Jett and Ambassador Leslie Alexander

Source:  http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/OPINION04/7 12210351/1038

This is why "second tier" candidates are important.
They remind us issues that once were important/or should be important.

I guess should put to rest all the speculatin' that went on that Richardson was sucking up to Clinton II so he could become her veep...

or course the cynical might say
Now that he see's Clinton II vulnerable well...

Me...

Richardson has always been pretty up front concerning Iraq....
Dennis K remains the only candidate with total credibility on Iraq..

I'd hate to be in the "Last" brigade... Although we shouldn't be at war, we are & the last thing we need is someone with absolutely no comprehension of the tactical ramifications of a unexperienced policymakers orders based on what sounds like "A Good Idea."