[goldstategop]

Its all hypothetical. The Democrats don't have a plan either for withdrawal or for that matter the moment beyond it. And the MSM wants us to take them seriously? Yeah, right.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[airborne]

That’s not a question to which Democratic leaders gave a precise answer Tuesday.

Even if they answered, you couldn't believe them!

[Dr. Frank fan]

It's a dumb question anyway. Who cares "how many" U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq at some given time? What if the number is 135,832? What if it's, instead, 123,905? Which number is "correct"? This makes for a nonsensical discussion.

There's no real valid reason for a congressman to have some sort of set position on "how many soldiers should be stationed in country X" in the first place. That we've reached this point only illustrates the absurdity of the disingenuous Democrat faux-argument re: Iraq in the first place. This reporter made the mistake of taking their phony arguments at face value and trying to pin down their insincere positions.

The notion of Congress trying to write a bill specifying the number of troops that ought to be stationed in a location in which there is ongoing conflict and flux is pretty fricking stupid. Instead of taking the bait and wading into these shallow, shallow waters to discuss the Democrat "position", we should instead be simply ridiculing it for the insular and self-serving political posture that it is.

[DakotaRed]

Does it escape them that leaving behind a smaller force would just be another slaughter? Or do they even care how many actually get killed?

[RightWhale]

How many in the near future depends on the upcoming elections. How many in the long term depends on demand for oil, but it won’t actually matter since it won’t be producable and there will be worldwide shortages. Forever.