On the April 26 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson -- after asking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson whether Clinton had an “unfair advantage” in that day's Democratic presidential candidates debate “because of her sex” -- falsely claimed that, unlike Clinton, “none of the other candidates,” except for “possibly [Sen.] Joe Biden [D-DE],” support keeping “ground troops in Iraq to safeguard our strategic interests in the region.” As Wolfson pointed out, Clinton's support for keeping a limited number of troops in Iraq after a substantial withdrawal is similar to the provision outlined in the Democratic conference report on the Iraq war spending bill, which was passed by the Senate on April 26 with support from Clinton's fellow presidential candidates, Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL), Biden, and Christopher Dodd (D-CT).

Carlson went on to assert that Obama “definitely does not” hold a position on keeping troops in Iraq similar to that of Clinton. In January, however, Obama introduced legislation that, according to his presidential campaign website, “allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.”

In a March 15 article, The New York Times reported that Clinton would “keep a reduced military force there [in Iraq] to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military” as part of her troop-withdrawal plan. During the April 26 edition of Tucker, Carlson noted Clinton's position and asked Wolfson:

CARLSON: Almost nobody said anything about it. This is an anti-war party in the middle of a primary about the war. Why do you think none of the other candidates, none of whom have that position as far as I know -- possibly Joe Biden does, but the others -- Barack Obama definitely does not. Why haven't they gone after Hillary Clinton on that, and do you think they will?

But the provision regarding residual troops outlined in the Democratic conference report on the Iraq war spending bill -- that Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Obama voted in favor of on April 26 -- is similar to Clinton's own proposal for keeping a residual force in Iraq. The provision states: “After the conclusion of the redeployment specified in subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary of Defense may not deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than the following:

”(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the United States Armed Forces.

(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.

(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach.

(4) Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces."

In addition, Dodd is a co-sponsor of the Reid-Feingold Bill introduced in the Senate on April 10, which as Media Matters noted, would allow the continued deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq for three “limited purposes”:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

On his presidential campaign website, Biden also reveals his support for keeping a residual force in the region. He calls for “U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007” and states that the United States should "[m]aintain in or near Iraq a small residual force -- perhaps 20,000 troops -- to strike any concentration of terrorists, help keep Iraq's neighbors honest and train its security forces"

As Media Matters noted, Clinton's position is also consistent with the March 2007 Democratic Senate resolution on U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, which, as The New York Times reported on March 16, “would have redefined the United States mission in Iraq and set a goal of withdrawing American combat troops by March 31, 2008, except for a 'limited number' focused on counterterrorism, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and protecting American and allied personnel.” Clinton -- along with Biden, Dodd, and Obama -- voted for the binding resolution on March 15, which was defeated 48-50, largely along party lines.

From the April 26 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:

CARLSON: We were talking earlier about the difficulty the other candidates face in addressing and maybe even going after Senator Clinton on the stage. It does seem like all who attack Hillary Clinton come out the worse for it. Do you think that's true, and is it an unfair advantage she has because of her sex, do you think?

WOLFSON: I don't think it has anything to do with her gender. I think that she's broadly popular in the Democratic Party, and so, there may not be a huge advantage to attacking somebody who is well-liked.

But I think that may be true across the board. You know, I don't think there is much incentive for any of the candidates tonight to really attack one another. We may see some differences on issues here and there, but I don't think you're going to see real fisticuffs up there.

CARLSON: I was amazed last month when Hillary Clinton came out -- front page of The New York Times -- and said point-blank -- actually, I was impressed, I'll be honest with you -- and said, we will have to keep some unknown but fairly large number of ground troops in Iraq to safeguard our strategic interests in the region, including petroleum. She said that.

WOLFSON: Well, she didn't say “fairly large number,” but she did say that we would have to have a capacity in Iraq to ensure that Al Qaeda does not reform and regroup and gain strength, to ensure that the Kurds are not overrun as they were in the past.

CARLSON: Well, that's not a -- you know, that's not a squad. I mean, that's going to take thousands -- minimum, thousands of people to do that.

WOLFSON: I don't think we know what the number is.

CARLSON: OK, but it's this thing -- I mean, that's not insignificant anyway. Here's my question: Almost nobody said anything about it. This is an anti-war party in the middle of a primary about the war. Why do you think none of the other candidates, none of whom have that position as far as I know -- possibly Joe Biden does, but the others -- Barack Obama definitely does not. Why haven't they gone after Hillary Clinton on that, and do you think they will?

WOLFSON: I don't know whether they will. I don't think that they have because it's my understanding that the bill that the Senate voted on today -- the Democratic bill -- actually has in it a provision that essentially calls for just that. That there should be a residual capacity left in the region to deal with the kinds of threats that I have outlined -- that is essentially the Democratic position.