Richardson on Iraq

I'm really not sure that, all things considered, I would want to see Bill Richardson be president of the United States. But as long as he's the only one publishing op-eds feature clear calls to actually end the war in Iraq I would, at a minimum, definitely tell a pollster that I'm voting for Richardson hoping to, if nothing else, try to prompt the other Democrats into shifting in favor of his position.

In both political and policy terms, I think all of the candidates should consider that in the real world they need not Iraq policies that will make sense in the fall of 2007, but Iraq policies that will make sense in January 2009 after over a year of additional political stalemate in Iraq, continued bloodshed and refugee flows, and continued deterioration of the readiness of the American military.

Comments

I would, at a minimum, definitely tell a pollster that I'm voting for Richardson hoping to, if nothing else, try to prompt the other Democrats into shifting in favor of his position.

Could we call this kind of tactic Realpollitik?

Posted by live | September 8, 2007 12:41 PM

He reads from his notes during the debates and is very awkward on stage, sort of lumbering around. Also, he pisses off gay people and may have sexually harassed women (he really hasn't put the rumors to bed, so to speak, as yet). But other than that, what a fine candidate!

Posted by Thomas the Tank Engine | September 8, 2007 12:57 PM

The article is good. The only problem I have with it is the suggestion that the situation is likely to improve soon after we withdraw. I would just like to see one of these guys admit that the sectarian violence is likely to get much worse when we leave, but that staying simply postpones the inevitable.

Posted by ProfD | September 8, 2007 1:13 PM

I really wonder what damm Brainiac is advising the Democratic leadership?

The vast majority of Americans want out of the Iraq clusterfuck -- for obvious reasons. Yet the Democrats in Congress have done NOTHING to show the voters that they are any different from the Republicans.

If they don't stand up to Bush and Fox News, why
should the voters bother to come out and vote for the Democrats next fall??

Even if they can't win a vote, they can certainly make it much clearer to the voters that the Republicans are the ones keeping us in Iraq. They can certainly point out how Bush, Cheney and that deceitful little weasel Lindsay Graham have been deceiving the country.

We all saw how the massive Fox News media machine
and Republican operatives criticized Clinton relentlessly just for a blowjob.

Yet 7000+ AMericans have died on Bush's watch, thousands more crippled for life, and we are almost $4 TRillion deeper in debt.

Yet what criticism does Fox News, Lindsey Graham, and the Republicans receive? NOTHING.

The Democrats get over $300 MILLION of our money per 2 year cycle. It would take maybe $25 Million to send a letter to every US Houseshold documenting exactly how Bush and his supporters have lied us into disaster.

Maybe those damm Democratic "consultants" in Washington should lift their goddamm snouts out of the pig trough and try doing their jobs. I see no reason why we should pay to support a class of "professionals" who are supine, inarticulate, cowards.

Nor do I see why Moveon and Daily Kos should have to do all the heavy lifting while the money goes to a bunch of bland, risk-avoiding useless parasites.

Posted by Don Williams | September 8, 2007 1:27 PM

the democrats are complicit. they are playing what they imagine are safe politics, and essentially betraying their trust.

Posted by pretzel | September 8, 2007 1:54 PM

I yearn to meet Bill Richardson at a gathering. When he approached with his hand extended -- a la politician-running-for-office -- I would refuse to shake his hand, and I would say: "Mr. Richardson,
I have three words for you: 'Wen Ho Lee'".

The devious, unethical way Richarson behaved in the Wen Ho Lee case makes him ineligible for any public office. Once a liar, always a liar. (not unliked many, if not most, politicians!)

Small consolation for Wen Ho Lee, who spent EIGHT MONTHS in solitary, wearing LEG IRONS, while Richardson appeared on television pushing his warped version of the case against Wen Ho Lee -- who was, of course, exonerated when at last he got to court.

Posted by Aspasia | September 8, 2007 1:59 PM

the democrats are complicit. they are playing what they imagine are safe politics, and essentially betraying their trust.

Posted by pretzel | September 8, 2007 1:59 PM

I find it unsurprising that Clinton would be hesitant to adopt Richardson's position--she's demonstrably more hawkish than the others; she voted for the Iraq War Resolution and evidently doesn't regret it; she's loathe to withdraw troops as the first female commander in chief. I think she's wrong on this issue, but she has some unique baggage here that we should take into account before supporting her.

I just find it puzzling that neither Edwards or Obama has shifted their support to this position. I really like Obama, and I am at best indifferent about Edwards, but if either one adopted the Richardson position I would vote for them without question. I just don't see how it's good politics to avoid adopting a position that upwards of 60 percent of the American people agree with (i.e. withdrawal within six months in office). Are they that worried about being attacked by the O'Hanlons and Cheneys of the world? It's not as if it would matter, as a mainstream candidate holding that position (who made the point that the other candidates don't) would be swept into office anyway, solely based on the popularity of their stance on Iraq. It's possible they believe what they're saying, but that don't make me feel any better.

Posted by Lev | September 8, 2007 2:09 PM

I would refuse to shake his hand, and I would say: "Mr. Richardson, I have three words for you: 'Wen Ho Lee'".

That would really show him. I know that if somebody didn't shake my hand and said something hard to hear in a crowded, noisy campaign appearance, I would be totally bummed for the whole rest of the day.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | September 8, 2007 2:59 PM

The vast majority of Americans want out of the Iraq clusterfuck -- for obvious reasons. Yet the Democrats in Congress have done NOTHING to show the voters that they are any different from the Republicans.

They want it done with - but the pollsters that go on to ask if they want a US defeat and retreat just so it is over find 65-35 Americans oppose a loss.
(And of that 35% - some hate America, but Bush especially - so much that they hope for more weekly dead American troops more AQ car bombings because it advances their partisan beliefs and hopefully will put more like-minded defeatists and Lefties in power..)

The Democratic "mandate" such as it was, was about competence, Bush bungling, and cleaning out the Repubican corruption.
It should not be interpreted, as McGovernites interpreted the 1974 post-Watergate election that swept Lefties into office - as a mandate to backstab Cambodia, S. Vietnam. To seek American humiliation, and embrace communist ascendency.

*************************

As for Richardson, he has killed himself so far in the debates as a dull-witted guy who fails to correct his blunders. Not just out of a Presidential slot, but maybe even a VP slot as people wonder if he was just all about affirmative action in his other spots...

His "all troops out in a month" pledge is just that. All military experts consulted say you cannot simply close down all the bases and move all the assets moved in over 4 years in a month. Nor safely remove all the civilians and military brought in. Not without massive abandonment of assets and a withdrawal that becomes for all intents and purposes a rout, a retreat under fire of the victorious Al Qaeda, Sadrist, and Iranian elements.

But Richardson likes it because it "sounds cool" to audiences ignorant of military logistics. And other candidates let him blather away at this point like he was Mike Gravel, Kucinich, or Sam Brownback because at this point - he is 3rd tier and no longer a lead candidate...

Posted by Chris Ford | September 8, 2007 3:18 PM

I think Richardson is misrepresenting Edwards position on this, in a very self serving way. Via EricD in the comments over at TPM Election Central:

Richardson misrepresented Edwards's position.

Just yesterday, in his speech on counter-terrorism, Edwards said:

"As president, I will redeploy troops into Quick Reaction Forces outside of Iraq, to perform targeted missions against Al Qaeda cells and to prevent a genocide or regional spillover of a civil war."

http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/a-new-strategy-against-terrorism/

Richardson's web site says this:

"While all American troops in Iraq must be removed, we need to maintain a military presence in the region, in countries like Kuwait where they are welcome. We must always have the capacity to use air power, special forces and other means to strike Al Qaeda anywhere. We do not need American troops in Iraq to perform this essential task."

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

Doesn't really seem all that different.

Posted by AJ | September 8, 2007 3:43 PM

Re Chris Ford's comment "but the pollsters that go on to ask if they want a US defeat and retreat just so it is over find 65-35 Americans oppose a loss."
-----------
The REAL "defeat" for America is that lying whores get elected and that they can manipulate the powers of government to serve Big Oil, Big Defense, and the Israel Lobby -- at the cost of thousands of lives and $Trillions of tax dollars.

Our soldiers signed up to defend this country. They are not doing that in Iraq -- hence, Bush and the Democratic Congress have no basis for sacrificing their lives.

Why has no Democratic leader pointed out the murderous duplicy inherent in Republicans claiming they are "supporting the troops" when in reality the Republicans are condemming the troops to useless and needless deaths.

NOT to defend the country --but to defend Republican egos and their reluctance to admit to a huge mistake.

Why does NOT ONE Democratic Member of Congress have enough outrage at this situation to stand up and start raising hell??

Posted by Don Williams | September 8, 2007 4:15 PM

The Democratic "mandate"...should not be interpreted, as McGovernites interpreted the 1974 post-Watergate election that swept Lefties into office - as a mandate to backstab Cambodia, S. Vietnam. To seek American humiliation, and embrace communist ascendency.

Take that! you McGovernite Communist Ascendentoids!

Posted by El Cid | September 8, 2007 4:16 PM

The Democrats should vote to withdraw the troops. MAKE Bush veto the bill. MAKE the Republicans uphold his veto. Then put THAT out in several thousand ads next year.

Posted by Don Williams | September 8, 2007 4:21 PM

Chris Ford - ignorant chucklehead or mendacious fuckhead? You decide.

Posted by commie atheist | September 8, 2007 4:50 PM

Great comments all of you; send your submissions to the Peshawar office of Adam Gadahn; he needs
replacements

Posted by narciso | September 8, 2007 5:40 PM

Perhaps Richardson has a decent position on the war, but he is also a rambling buffoon and a nitwit, who can barely put two thoughts together in succession, and is in far over his head. Regrettably, this taints the "get out of Iraq" position by its association with a very poor messenger.

Posted by Dan Kervick | September 8, 2007 6:30 PM

First, the American people are not against the war. They are against losing. They are not for peace; they are not anti-war. They are for winning and against losing.

Second, Bush is not leaving. Focus on this second fact at all times: Bush is not leaving. No matter what. The democrats will be in control of the House, the Senate (if only narrowly) and probably the presidency in January 2009. They seem pretty sure of winning. At least they seem to be counting on it. If so, they better have a plan to win in Iraq because they won't be able to blame Bush from the White House.

Of course the obvious answer is to remove him from office but as a second choice they must blame Bush now, because he ain't leaving.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | September 8, 2007 7:53 PM

Professor D asks that we own up to the inevitable escalation of sectarian violence that will occur after we leave.

In response I state 3 things:

The violence has been escalating with us there. Many people believe our presence is a cause of this violence

The assumption by Professor D and others is that we will leave a vacuum to be filled by evil people. Of course, all the responsible plans I have read call for this void to be filled with assistance from the international community.

Finally, does Professor D assume that Bush's plan is at all concerned with the saving of Iraqi lives?

Posted by Tim Barnwell | September 8, 2007 8:15 PM

Our soldiers signed up to defend this country. They are not doing that in Iraq -- hence, Bush and the Democratic Congress have no basis for sacrificing their lives.

And they are, whacking AQ in Mesopotamia and various other Islamoids, including AQ that ventures out with Taliban in Afghanistan and slowly, slowly, getting Euroweenies to grow a spine, Saudis to grow a spine and fight the radical Islamists. And finally, Euroweenies have grown up enough about the ability of "human rights lawyers" and NGOs to lecture head choppers into submission, and turn around on Iran just needing the right carrots. Out come the sticks on Iran....

Despite Don's delusions, the soldiers in Iraq are saying they are defending America by killing or capturing Islamist bad guys over there, rather than abandon what AQ calls the "Central Front" and wait for Islamists to come here.

They, unlike Don, think they are defending the country and the light casualties and grueling duty is worth it..

As the Democrats nicely set themselves up as the defeatists that will have to figure out a way if they take Congress and the White house NOT to turn Iraq into the S Vietnam and Cambodian genocide backstaps, Soviets on the move, Islamists treating Carter like the punk he was - debacle - of 30-35 years ago.
It took America a long time to shake off that great weakening of America by Lefties, and when we did, we screwed up by leaving Lefties in their media and university bastions untouched...

Posted by Chris Ford | September 8, 2007 8:27 PM

Ford, do you get PAID to post this horseshit or are you stupid enough to do it for free?

"the soldiers in Iraq are saying they are defending America by killing or capturing Islamist bad guys over there, rather than abandon what AQ calls the "Central Front" and wait for Islamists to come here."

Yeah, you're right - which makes them morons who deserve to get blown up in Iraq.

It's nature's way of eliminating the stupid.

I'm just lucky that when I spent my year in 'Nam I didn't get the same treatment. But I learned.

You obviously didn't.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 8, 2007 9:33 PM

"the soldiers in Iraq are saying they are defending America by killing or capturing Islamist bad guys over there, rather than abandon what AQ calls the "Central Front" and wait for Islamists to come here."

Yeah, you're right - which makes them morons who deserve to get blown up in Iraq.

First off, soldiers say a lot of things, and have a lot of different opinions. It's not just me saying that -- it's them. Their own writing, testimony, polls, not to mention anyone who has actually served in the military knows that your fellow soldiers or sailors are not some sort of stereotyped robot, they're just people, people with jobs to do.

Second, no, no matter what they say or think about the situation, not even if they're some hard core, 'stabbed in the back in Vietnam' nut, not if they are neo-Confederate loonies raving about Southern pride & purity, not even if they believe that after they finish fighting in Iraq they need to go restore fascism in South Africa and throw Nelson Mandela in jail...

...not even if they believe all of these things do any of these soldiers deserve to die in Iraq.

Every single one of them deserves to come home to the life they left behind.

Just as every Iraqi deserves to have every one of their relatives survive this warlord hell with as many limbs and organs as possible.

Don't let anger at a misanthrope's miscreant musings prompt you to callous thoughts about hundreds of thousands of people who are suffering for their government's idiocies.

Posted by El Cid | September 9, 2007 4:34 AM

Yes but the only ones that count for you are Hackett, Reichkoff, Delgado, Mejia, Rappenhagen,
& the like. Like Kerry, Mueller, Kovic, in the
last time we faced a protracted counterinsurgency
from hostile factions. Sadly the sanctions program that so many of you insisted on beqeathed
an ANC government that is indifferent to jihadist
currents and in denial about the very causes and solutions to AIDS. Similarly, the push to drive out Smith and enshrine Mugabe; ignoring the votes
of Muzorewa; leaves a country were the people are reduced to a nearly North Korean subsistence economy. Driving out Mobutu for Kabila hasn't been a great improvement.

Now is that true, if these said Iraqis supported
& even carried out the Anfal campaigns against the Kurds and the Shia. If they supported either the 'insurgency' or the various war lord factions.
Those who supported us, because they sought freedom, need to be protected. But those who plotted the murder of Americans from sanctuaries
in Damascus & Amman, like associates of the Al Banna family.

Posted by narciso | September 9, 2007 10:09 AM

Sadly the sanctions program that so many of you insisted on beqeathed an ANC government that is indifferent to jihadist currents and in denial about the very causes and solutions to AIDS.

Look, feel free all you want to come on to political sites and express your deep heartfelt nostalgia for failed fascist regimes. No one outside your FrontPageMag stinkos has the nostalgia for pre-liberation South Africa that you do. If you're so unhappy about the situation in South Africa, you should take it up with the Nationalist Party fools who instituted and protected apartheid until the near collapse of the whole nation, instead of having the guts to create democracy. You should ask Smith why his government was so incompetent and unrepresentative to fall to the pressures of a guerrilla movement, not whine about the fact that the knucklehead idiot eventually lost power.

If your heroes of your colonialist nostalgia bitten freaks wanted stable democracies, they could have created them at any time, in the 1950s or 1960s, instead of trying pathetically to hold onto racist tyrannies run by nincompoops forever.

I don't particularly understand why you types are so fascinated to come onto what are political blogs where no one outside a small complement of regular trolls in order to express your 'see we toldja how much better colonialism etc. was', but, hey, have at it, get your weird rocks off.

Posted by El Cid | September 9, 2007 10:34 AM