"I admit that I don't have my shtick down"

But Joe Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has said that he has talked to people who say that it will take as many as 5,000 to 10,000 Marines to protect the embassy.

No, I think that's excessive. I would listen to a military argument. But where I object to the Biden and Clinton and other positions is that if you look at the Reid-Feingold [redeployment] legislation [currently before the Senate], it does not specify how many [troops would remain]. In fact, there is a [potential] number that is close to 50,000. And it says for the following purposes -- which I believe leaves a huge, gaping hole in the residual forces issue. It talks about to train Iraqis. To protect against terrorism. That's the same mission. You're either in or you're out.

But if it said 1,000 [troops] to protect the American embassy, that's fine with me. It's a Marine detachment. It's part of our diplomatic corps. I wouldn't even consider that a residual force. Of course I would permit that. But residual forces -- 5,000 to guard an embassy -- that means that the embassy is not safe. I would pull the embassy if it is not safe.

You talk about Darfur, our failure to intervene in Rwanda, the lessons of Bosnia. If we pull back our troops to Kuwait, as you advocate, and there was a level of near genocide between the Shiites and the Sunnis, could we just watch this unfold on Al-Jazeera television? Could we just sit in Kuwait and watch this happen?

You never preclude any option. Those troops in Kuwait would be for protection against international terrorist threats against this country. And if you have a real conflagration [in Iraq], you never limit the options. But the option mainly for shifting those troops to Kuwait and to Afghanistan is terrorism, al-Qaida.

My plan is that there be an all-Muslim peacekeeping force that would involve Iran and Syria, who wouldn't want a genocide because there would be thousands of refugees in their territory. But also a diplomatic plan that allows and permits a coalition government. And possible partition. A sharing of oil revenues. A political deal that sets up a framework for a future Iraq. Iraq is not exactly helpless.

All these people say it's going to go into civil war. They have 330,000 security forces and 150 billion reserves of oil. They've had three elections. They have some democratic institutions. It's not exactly like they're helpless. They should tend to their own security. We have done our job. Our troops have done a magnificent job.

Iraq is not just a question of a genocide or a civil war in Iraq. We're talking about American foreign policy shifting so many resources into Iraq that we're neglecting other priorities. Like terrorism, like North Korea, like Iran, like nuclear proliferation -- the need to secure fissionable materials -- like global climate change, like so many other issues. We're virtually out of NATO. We don't participate. We're not part of the international community because of this obsession.

You have been talking about some sort of protest of the 2008 Olympics in China because of Chinese resistance on Darfur. But you say that we will be going to the Olympics eventually. But in 1980, Jimmy Carter didn't send us to the Moscow Olympics over Afghanistan. He was ridiculed at the time domestically, but in hindsight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan proved to be a pretty important event. So is there a situation where you would like us not to go to the Olympics?

What I said is that I would use the Olympics as a tool, as a threat. There is nothing wrong with that. To be part of an international group that threatens China because they don't use their leverage. They're the country that could probably stop the Darfurian genocide more than anyone else. So I would keep the option open.

I know it is not practical. But to suggest that it is totally separate, it isn't. Genocide is more important than sports. In the end. But I'm not running on that. I threw it out as an option. And a lot of people liked it and a lot of people didn't.

Had you thought about throwing it out as an option before you mentioned it in the New Hampshire debate in early June? Or was it something that occurred to you right onstage?

Right there, onstage. Though I had said before that citizen action was really important in the Darfurian issue. Mia Farrow and George Clooney had probably had a more positive effect than any of us put together.

I sort of see a contradiction in your domestic policy. You talk about your support for a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. This would have been approved during the era of the Gingrich Congress if Bill Clinton had not been opposed to it. If it went through in a Richardson administration with you supporting it, wouldn't that rule out the funds for any expansion of healthcare or education or other major domestic initiatives?

If you recall, the Clinton deficit-reduction plan, which passed by one vote [in 1993], caused the resurgence in the economy. We grew 20 million more jobs, a [budget] surplus. When we pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, first of all I would never pass it if a recession or a war was going on. But you stage it, [over] several years. You commit yourself to certain steps.

No, I believe it would immediately send a signal to grow the economy, make more budget funds available. And I still believe that you could reshift priorities and spend more on healthcare and education. I think you could do it.

I was able to do it. I cut taxes in New Mexico. I increased spending for healthcare and education and had a surplus because the economy grew. I am a believer in growing the economy and being a pro-growth Democrat. I'm not somebody for whom every solution is a tax increase or more spending.

Next page: "I don't want to fight with you"