DISQUS

Richardson Goes After Clinton on Iraq Flip Flop Richardson has been consistent from Day 1 of the campaign that he would promptly pull ALL US forces out of Iraq.  Clinton has refused to make any firm commitment to a time line on withdrawal. 

What has Richardson gotten for being consistent, repeatedly raising the issue of the war during the campaign and showing the courage to tell it as it is on Iraq?  He gets accused of pandering and being unrealistic (attacked by many in the MSM that thought invading Iraq was a great idea). 

Here is his press release. 

CEDAR RAPIDS, IA-- New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson today issued the following statement on Senator Hillary Clinton's drastic change to her position on the Iraq war:

"Senator Clinton's statement that we could 'certainly get all the troops out within a year' is a stunning flip-flop from what she has been saying all along. She consistently has called for leaving troops in Iraq to fight al-Qaida, train Iraqis, and protect U.S. assets. Has that suddenly been abandoned? If so, why has she changed her mind?

"In a September debate, she said that she could not commit to getting our troops out in five years, let alone in one year. Has anything changed about the logistics besides her position in the polls? It is clear that she is responding directly to my latest ad and my statements that she repeatedly has called for leaving thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely. Rather than defending her position, apparently she simply has changed it."

Since entering the race, Governor Richardson consistently has called for bringing all of our troops home from Iraq, a monumental diplomatic effort to reach a political reconciliation that could be enforced by a multinational peacekeeping force, and a donor conference to infuse the capital necessary to rebuild Iraq.

Recent statements on Iraq by Senator Clinton:

  *

  "Clinton: U.S. troops needed in Iraq beyond 2009"
  http://www.cnn.com/2...

  March 15, 2007.

  "If elected president, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, she would likely keep some U.S. forces in Iraq in a supporting role after 2009 because America has "a remaining military as well as a political mission" that requires a presence there."

  * "A Duty to Mislead: Politics and the Iraq War." By Ted Koppel. All Things Considered. June 11, 2007.
  http://www.npr.org/t...

  "But I ran into an old source the other day who held a senior position at the Pentagon until his retirement. He occasionally briefs Senator Clinton on the situation in the Gulf. She told him that if she were elected president and then reelected four years later, she would still expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq at the end of her second term."

  * "Democratic Field Says Leaving Iraq May Take Years." By Jeff Zeleny and Marc Santora. The New York Times. 12 August 2007.

  "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north

Richardson is the Alternative to Clinton on Iraq Whom do you trust to end the Iraq war?  Candidate A or B.

Candidate A pledges to end the war but has no plan to do so.  Instead, Candidate A intends to ask military and diplomatic advisers to study the issue and develop a plan after taking office.

For advice on presently, Candidate A relies upon persons that believe the war has gone wrong because of poor leadership by the Bush Administration but that the decision to invade was correct.  Many of these same advisers have supported the surge and see the U.S. intervention in Iraq continuing for at least another decade.  When directly questioned, Candidate A refuses to commit to bringing all U.S. troops home by 2013. 

Candidate B says as long as U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq the hard work of reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Candidate B has called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq now, pledges to bring all U.S. troops (both combat and non-combat) home promptly upon taking office and has offered a plan to achieve this. 

Candidate B is being advised by military and diplomatic experts that have been highly critical of the U.S. intervention in the Iraq and strongly advocate an immediate exit from Iraq.

Candidate A is Hillary Clinton; candidate B is Bill Richardson. 

What Richardson said made sense I disagree with your comment about Richardson forgetting that Clinton is his opponent.  So are Edwards and Obama.  Richardson isn't trying to get supporters of Clinton, Edwards and Obama to switch sides and support him by tearing down other candidates.  He is emphasizing his different positions on substantive issues. I think his strategy is fine.

Plus you are discounting that Richardson genuinely believes the Democrats shouldn't engage in personal attacks on each other.  Richardson sought a pledge against personal attacks when he addressed the DNC in February 2007.  At the same time, Richardson is clear that a vigorous debate on the policy differences among the candidates is appropriate, and Richardson outlined where he and Clinton differ on key issues. 

Finally, isn't Richardson on target when he accuses Edwards and Obama of being "holier than though"?  Obama and Edwards make a big deal about not accepting money from lobbyists. Yet they gladly accept donations from corporate officers and directors that retain lobbyists.  Or they won't take money from a lawyer who is also a registered lobbyist, but they'll take a contribution from that lawyer's partners at the same law firm.  It's sytle over substance with Obama and Edwards.

Biden: Wrong in 2002 and Wrong in 2007 Biden should be ashamed that he voted for the war in the first place and to continue voting for bills funding it. 

What Robert Scheer has written is something every Iowan considering supporting Biden should read:

[Biden] rises, not to criticize Caesar, but to one-up him. The panic button that Bush is using this time is the need for more mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles, fortified troop carriers that cost a million bucks a piece but evidently provide better protection against roadside bombs.  Bush wants to spend about a quarter of the new money on the rapid production of MRAPs-a mere $12 billion.  But that's not good enough for Biden, who introduced legislation to increase spending on MRAPs by $23.6 billion, arguing, "We have no higher obligation than to protect those we send to the front lines."

Actually, Senator, you do have a higher obligation: to think through the need for this mission before you vote to put troops in harm's way, as you failed to do when you voted to authorize the Iraq war.  Also, before you rush to create new bottlenecks in the assembly line of the military-industrial complex, producing vehicles that would not be needed if we got out, you might heighten your efforts to force an end to this war. Spending $23.6 billion on fortified vehicles that will take years to produce is an admission that you are planning a long-term occupation of a hostile population in Iraq, and possibly Iran. Recall that Gen. Dwight Eisenhower was able to tour France and Germany in an open-air jeep, waving at friendly crowds, to fully comprehend the different reception Bush gets in what he still calls "liberated" Iraq.

The MRAPs are needed only as a weapon of choice for an occupying army in a country that strongly resists foreigners.  If the Iraqis had greeted us as liberators, as Biden and other hawks anticipated, then they would be throwing flowers at our troop carriers rather than being complicit in planting the bombs that destroy them. Fortified vehicles only further separate the occupier from the population, which will remain fully vulnerable to attack.  The emphasis on the protection of the foreigner-the Green Zone model-is a failed tactic of colonizers that alienates the local populace.

The locals are alienated enough.  In a recent BBC/ABC poll, a whopping 80 percent of Iraqis said that the U.S. and other coalition forces have done "quite a bad job" (32 percent) or a "very bad job" (48 percent) in carrying out their responsibilities in Iraq, and that includes the supposedly happy Kurds. The same poll found that 72 percent feel the presence of American forces in Iraq is making security in the country worse, and 57 percent said it is "acceptable" to attack the U.S.-led forces.

This is not a problem that more armor on vehicles can fix, although those vehicles should have been securely armored from the start if the goal was to occupy an oil-rich country with a fierce tradition of opposing foreigners looking to control that resource.  (Clearly, the U.S. government could have footed the bill by cutting any one of the costly and obsolete Cold War weapons systems.) Nor is it an issue that can be solved by splitting Iraq into three religious and ethnic enclaves-Biden's other brilliant proposal from last week.

From http://www.truthdig....

Richardson is the only major Democrat running for President that understands the situation in Iraq as it actually exists and has the courage to stand up to the Washington establishment and call for bringing all of our troops home without delay. 

Biden's Plan For Iraq Keeps the U.S. At War for Years to Come Biden is knowledgeable on foreign affairs but has he ever negotiated with foreign leaders and reached deals?  Sitting on US Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducting hearing in Washington, D.C. and occasionally traveling abroad is far different than serving as US Ambassador to the UN and negotiating daily with leaders from across the globe.  Richardson stands head and shoulders above Biden in foreign policy experience. 

Keeping over 20,000 troops in Iraq as Biden advocates just means that the tens of thousands of insurgents and militia forces in Iraq will have a much easier time killing our troops.  They can concentrate all of their forces on a much smaller number of U.S. troops.

It was arrogance that got the U.S. into Iraq in the first place - which Biden voted for - and Biden continues to show arrogance.  The Iraqis have no interest in Biden's proposed partition.  It's their nation, not ours.

And Biden wants to spend billions more on Iraq, even more than what Bush is asking for: http://www.thenation...

Richardson gets on Iraq, Biden doesn't.  Our troops have become the targets of all sides in a civil war that we are stuck in the middle of and aren't in any position to end.  It's time to leave Iraq now. 

The candidate with the best plan for Iraq is Richardson because: 1) he call for a total withdrawal of U.S. forces and 2) Richardson has the foreign policy experience and expertise to wage the diplomatic offensive that will be necessary in conjunction with a US withdrawal. 

Thanks for covering Richardson's speech For those interested in learning more about Richardson's approach to foreign policy, I wrote a diary on his global agenda on Daily Kos at http://www.dailykos....

With Richardson we get two for the price of one - a seasoned world diplomat and a can-do leader on domestic issues.

The most significant exchange in the Democratic Presidential debates Last night at the Democratic debate in Davenport, Iowa, Judy Woodruff asked the candidates if they were elected how many U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after their first year in office.

Biden said it depends on how Bush leaves Iraq.  Edwards agreed with Biden, claiming "it's impossible to say."  Clinton echoed Biden's view, vaguely offering "a reasonable and prudent plan" to get our troops out.  Dodd objected to speaking about 2010 and said Congress should not wait that long to act.

Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer: 

Zero troops! . . .  Without getting our troops out you can not have a political settlement. . . . I would take all of our troops out.  We need to end this war now.

Here is the video of the most significant exchange to date in the debates among the candidates in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CBe_nsa3Dho"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CBe_nsa3Dho" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

The most significant exchange of the debate Last night at the Democratic debate in Davenport, Iowa, Judy Woodruff asked the candidates if they were elected how many U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after their first year in office.

Biden said it depends on how Bush leaves Iraq.  Edwards agreed with Biden, claiming "it's impossible to say."  Clinton echoed Biden's view, vaguely offering "a reasonable and prudent plan" to get our troops out.  Dodd objected to speaking about 2010 and said Congress should not wait that long to act.

Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer: 

Zero troops! . . .  Without getting our troops out you can not have a political settlement. . . . I would take all of our troops out.  We need to end this war now.

Here is the video of the most significant exchange to date in the debates among the candidates in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CBe_nsa3Dho"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CBe_nsa3Dho" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>