Look at what Obama is saying:  he'll keep US combat forces in Iraq for the next 15 months.  If he became President we would be fighting in Iraq through 2009 and into 2010.  

But that's not all - the "combat troops" distinction is highly misleading.  Under Obama's plan as well as HRC's  (and perhaps Edwards), we will have "non-combat" forces in Iraq for years to come - up to 80,000.  These "non-combat" troops will be training Iraqis, operate as strike forces to engage extremists and terrorists, provide security in the green zone and operate our military bases.  In fact, our air force could remain fully deployed in Iraq.  They are not "combat brigades."

The bottom line is Obama and HRC don't have confidence in their own judgment and trust the will of the American public in standing up to the Washington and military establishment on Iraq. They pay heed to the voices in the establishment saying a complete withdrawal will result in chaos in Iraq - as if we don't already have chaos.

The Iraqi government has become dangerously dependent on the US for security.  By keeping tens of thousands of "non-combat troops" in Iraq for years to come this dependency will not be broken.  Moreover, the propaganda advantage the terrorists gain in the Middle East and worldwide from the US occupation of Iraq will continue.

We need to bring every single US soldier out of Iraq - starting now.  Richardson has made the case for this repeatedly, including in a recent Op Ed in the Washington Post:

    Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the Middle East. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders, including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.

   Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage and professionalism, but they cannot win someone else's civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.

   The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq.

   Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route out through Turkey.

   As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq's neighbors will face the reality that if they don't help with stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq's collapse -- including even greater refugee flows over their borders and possible war.

   The United States can facilitate Iraqi reconciliation and regional cooperation by holding a conference similar to that which brought peace to Bosnia. We will need regional security negotiations among all of Iraq's neighbors and discussions of donations from wealthy nations -- including oil-rich Muslim countries -- to help rebuild Iraq. None of this can happen until we remove the biggest obstacle to diplomacy: the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702063. html

Blah blah blah.

Yeah, he gives a nice speech but what does he really do as a Senator? I judge his actions as a Senator as a reflection of what type of President he would be. And the judgment ain't all that favorable.

He opposed the war but when he got to the Senate, he kept voting to fund it.  Does he not know that people realize that?  He keeps disappointing me.

that Obama specifically states that Obama won't support giving any money unless there is a timetable for withdrawal.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/9/ 12/95731/4510/188#c188

I can't find this anywhere in his speech today. Can you find a cite please?

When Obama voted no to the last funding bill, I thought he made it clear he wasn't voting no out of an actual desire to cut funding to protest the president's Iraq policies.

Of course you can infer from his last vote, but an inference is just that. Has he actually said something to this effect?