Reply #4: Thanks. Here is the language that troubles me.

[JDPriestly]

Hillary opposes permanent bases in Iraq. She believes we may need a vastly reduced residual force to train Iraqi troops, provide logistical support, and conduct counterterrorism operations. But that is not a permanent force, and she has been clear that she does not plan a permanent occupation.

Your link

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq /

That "reduced residual force." It makes me think of the what is "is" language question, the "I did not have sex with that woman" question. How are we going to maintain a "reduced residual force" in Iraq. That is absolute nonsense. There will be no such thing. That's like thinking that revolutionary America would have allowed a residual British force. I do not trust Hillary on this issue at all.