Vislack sounds like a coward. At least Obama is giving Iraq a chance to get it's act together before a US troop pullout.

Vislack would have us drop Iraq like a hot potato, all because he's afraid another American might be hurt.

That's not leadership. It's cowardice.

Len...you sound ridiculous. Vilsack, like many of our Generals, has said move our troops out and let the Iraqi troops handle their own security. Our troops need to be securing the borders. I guarantee you: with US troops gone, the Iraqis will "magically" find a political solution. What that country needs is a strong man as leader...oh yeah, that's right...he was just hung! George Bush has destroyed America's position in the world for decades. This is what happens when you elect a D-plus student from Texas. No more. Vilsack is smart, thoughtful, and I guarantee you this...he will be the next President of the United States!!

Many cowards have made terrific contenders. Our presence in Iraq has only worsened the situation there from the beginning. What wise owl really can predict what would happen if our destabilizing presence is removed? Or if we leave? At present, we are too cowardly to leave!

Good for Vilsack. The Feingold proposal is the way to go. It cuts funding six months out, so there is plenty of time to ramp down the occupation.

The Iraqis won't step up while the US troops are there. They would basically be regarded as traitors by most of the home crowd.

Obama is pretty cautious and not leading on the issue, which is the issue of the day.

We invaded Iraq in March of 2003. Just how much time are we supposed to give them to get their "act together"?

And how, exactly, are we supposed to know when they've got their act together? It's a civil war, it's stupidity to put our troops in the middle of it.

Vilsack is right. Why should more Americans and other humans die because we refuse to withdraw from an immoral, ill-advised, illegal war? We should engage in a diplomatic surge and withdraw our troops now.

Vilsack is upset that his former co-workers in Iowa endorsed Obama. Hillary Clinton is the front-runner and if Vilsack really meant what he said he would also attack Clinton not just Obama.

If you are so brave, are you willing to go over to Iraq and die for oil? We have no business being there, and the president and YOU have no business telling Americans it is their duty to die there.

Vilsack supported the invasion in 2002....he has no credibility when it comes to iraq, just like hillary, richardson, dodd, edwards and biden.

You cant trust Vilsacks judgement!!!!

This has nothing to do with keeping the troops safe from harm and everything to do with keeping the war profits coming in while privatizing the oil. Dennis Kucinich who is also running for President has a very well thought out 12-step plan to end this war IMMEDIATELY. Money is in the pipeline that can be used to pull them out. The only way that happens is to stop funding for more military adventurism in that region. The U.S. can easily negotiate with the world community to bring in a multi-national peace keeping force to police the region as we remove our forces. The world would be happy to see us end this brutal occupation that is simply deteriorating into pure chaos. The whole thing was a disaster from day 1 for everyone but the death merchants who have made obscene profits at the expense of the soldiers and the peasants. Only Kucinich, of all the candidates, had the clarity and the foresight to vote against quthorizing the war and voted each and every time against funding this blatant attempt at colonialism.

I am glad to see someone challenge Obama on this issue. He's had an easy ride so far.

Who is Vilsack to tell Obama what his plan should be ? He must have noticed that if you say any sentence with the word 'Obama' in it now days, then you get print or airtime.

Say what you want, Obama is the only contender with a solid plan to bring the troops home by 2008. He also was against the war from the start. Unless Gore wins, he has my vote.