Ryan Lizza's profile starts with Richardson eating a hot dog and ends with him wanting another hot dog, mocking him along the way as a clumsy guy "who will do anything to be loved" and aspiring to be "frat-boy-in-chief."

Bill Richardson has always had a playful side but he's made to look like a buffoon by Lizza. One would not learn from reading Lizza's profile that when Richardson served in Congress, he was regarded as one of the hardest working members, respected for his intelligence and detailed knowledge of the issues. "You won't find a person who works harder," stated Rep. Dan Foley, the Republican whip in the New Mexico House of Representatives, earlier this year in an interview.

When rightly criticized by the Richardson campaign, Lizza responded in The Hill, "I understand they're disappointed that the piece wasn't a more glowing assessment of their boss."  Lizza couldn't admit that his profile was a hit piece.

Other journalists have been influenced by Lizza's work.  Washington Post political blogger Chris Cillizza and touted the article, and added it painted "a troubling picture" of Richardson. LA Times political editors mentioned the Lizza profile on their blog, contrasting it with a "flavorable story" by their own reporter "that captured the essentials of the Richardson candidacy."

These political writers and editors failed to appreciate is that actions and statements by Richardson that contradicted Lizza's story line - which was Richardson is a candidate without substantive accomplishment despite his decades of public service - were omitted.

The key section of the profile, in my opinion, was where Lizza sought to create the impression that Richardson joined forces with neocons in support of the invasion of Iraq.  Then Lizza accused Richardson of reversing himself on Iraq by advocating on the campaign trail the complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq.

Lizza wrote:  

"[Richardson's new position is about as far as possible from his old one: He wants all the troops out of Iraq this calendar year--"The difference I have with the other candidates is I'm saying no residual troops at all," he told me."

What was Lizza's proof that Richardson was of the same mind on Iraq as the neocons?  A press release issued after the invasion commenced by a non-partisan organization of which Richardson was a director is the answer.

Here is what Lizza wrote:

On March 20, 2003, the day after U.S. bombs dropped on Baghdad, Bill Richardson signed an optimistic neocon statement on the war. "Together with successful democratic reform in Iraq," it read, "the Gulf has the potential of making a clean break with a past rooted in repression and entering into the growing global community of democratic states." The statement was released by Freedom House, the human rights organization beloved by hawks and the interventionist wings of both parties. Richardson was a trustee of Freedom House and had been the organization's chairman before he became governor. Other signatories included Kenneth Adelman, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Diana Negroponte, and James Woolsey.

Sounds terrible, right?  Richardson is guilty in words and by association.  But the reality is that Lizza used a selective quote, linked Richardson with others highly objectionable and employed derogatory phrases and words ("neocon statement" and "hawks").

First, let's look at the entire statement issued by Freedom House:

In response to the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq, Freedom House today issued the following statement, signed by the trustees listed below.

In 1941, Freedom House was created by Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie and other Americans at a time of impending war to be a voice for democracy and freedom in the world.

In the last sixty years, whenever U.S. troops are in harm's way, Freedom House has been consistent in voicing its appreciation of their valor and sacrifice. We fervently hope that the war effort American forces are now engaged in goes well and that Saddam Hussein's tyranny falls with minimal loss of life.

We have great confidence in the professionalism of U.S. troops and the commitment of the U.S. military to respect basic human rights. But while the war with Iraq is likely to achieve the immediate purpose of Saddam Hussein's removal, for it to have a lasting positive impact on the stability and peace of the region, the U.S. and other democracies must make a firm commitment to the establishment of democracy in that country.

The post-war effort to bring democracy to Iraq will not be easy. There are many at home and abroad who are skeptical of even making an attempt to establish democratic governance in an ethnically and religiously complex country ruled for decades by a brutal tyranny. Such concerns cannot be lightly dismissed. But, we are confident of one thing: that the Iraqi people-- like the peoples of post-war Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Central and Eastern Europe-- desire peace, seek the protections of human rights rooted in the rule of law, and want democracy.

Democracy is not a Western concept, it is a universally desired goal. It has been defined and reaffirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Warsaw Declaration of the Community of Democracies and the OSCE Copenhagen Document among others. Freedom House urges a commitment to free elections, multiple political parties, freedom of association, independent trade unions, women's equality and rights, an independent judiciary, separation of religion from the state, an independent press, and religious tolerance in Iraq and throughout the region.

Building democracy will require care and attention to the participation of all the Iraqi people-whether Sunni, Shi'a, or Christian; Arab or Kurd-in the effort to establish democratic rule. But it will also require international leadership and commitment to promoting democracy.

The building of a democratic Iraq will require a serious long-term commitment of time and resources. Freedom House will do its part to press our government and other governments to make a serious commitment to this effort. For we believe that if the effort is made, it can have major positive implications for the future development of the Middle East, particularly the Gulf Region.

Throughout most of its history, the oil rich Gulf region has been prey to colonial rule and domestic despotism.

But the potential for democratic change in the Gulf is now increasingly evident. The Gulf monarchies of Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar are moving toward constitutional rule in which significant power resides with democratically elected representatives. There is widespread democratic ferment and overwhelming public support for democracy in Iran.

Together with successful democratic reform in Iraq, the Gulf has the potential of making a clean break with a past rooted in repression and entering into the growing global community of democratic states.

Look at what Lizza has done:  he took the final sentence of the press release to create the false impression that Freedom House and Richardson supported the invasion of Iraq.  

No endorsement of the U.S. decision to invade Iraq existed in the Freedom House statement.  Instead, the statement wished, as I'm sure was true of most people worldwide, that the war would end quickly and "with minimal loss of life."  

Freedom House's statement can also be read as an implied criticism of the spin by Rumsfeld and Franks leading up to the war that the U.S. could and would get in and out of Iraq quickly.  The U.S. Army was not made for nation-building was a theme Bush used during his run for President in criticizing Clinton and Gore.  For the U.S. to have a "lasting positive impact on the stability and peace of the region," Freedom House cautioned that the U.S. wouldn't be able to leave Iraq as soon as Saddam's government fell.  

Lizza slammed Freedom House as a hawkish body and claimed the   board of directors of Freedom House, which included Richardson, were neocons.  This too was a gross distortion.  

I am not in a position to evaluate every public statement by Freedom House over its 66 years in operation, but what has been true from its founding to the present is that Freedom House is a non-partisan organization with directors from both sides of the political spectrum.  Here were the individuals listed on the statement:

Peter Ackerman
Kenneth Adelman
Brian Atwood
Ned Bandler
Barbara Barrett
Peter Collier
Stuart Eizenstat
Sandra Feldman
Steve Forbes
Samuel Huntington
John T. Joyce
Max Kampelman
Jeane Kirkpatrick
Mara Liasson
Bette Bao Lord
Jay Mazur
John Norton Moore
Diana Negroponte
Mark Palmer
Bill Richardson
Walter Schloss
James Woolsey

I have not researched the background of each person, but it's clear Lizza cherry picked names that would support his attack on Richardson.  Lizza deliberately omitted several liberal Democrats, including Stuart Eizenstat who served in key roles in both the Carter and Clinton Administrations and labor leader Sandra Feldman who served as president of the American Federation of Teachers.  

Finally, Lizza grossly mislabeled the mission of Freedom House.  It is an organization dedicated to promoting the rule of law and respect for human rights worldwide. In July 2007, Freedom House Executive Director Jennifer Windsor testified before Congress stating,

The U.S. should never retreat from its role as a defender of human rights, one whose support struggling democratic activists around the globe have looked to for decades. While adherence to democratic principles and respect for human rights cannot always be the sole foreign policy consideration for the U.S. in its bilateral relations, they can and should always be a key element of U.S. relations with all countries. The U.S. should demonstrate a preference for democracy whenever it can.

Windsor called on the Bush Administration to be more proactive in promoting human rights. Specifically, she pointed out that the U.S. government should protect civil society programs operating in Azerbaijan from government pressure; meet with and give greater support to human rights advocates in Cuba; and continue to speak out about the need for political reform in Egypt.  

What is perhaps most disturbing of Lizza's hit piece is that Lizza has the gall to criticize Richardson on Iraq when Lizza and The New Republic beat the drums of war for Iraq as loudly as anyone in the media as did many Democrats, but Richardson was not one of them.  Richardson urged caution and diplomacy.

On FOX news on February 26, 2003, Lizza praised Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards for their vote for the Iraq war resolution, commenting they knew "why we need to do what we're going to do in Iraq."  Two week later, on March 7, 2003, Lizza on CNN said, "Bombing Iraq and leaving isn't going to be enough, we need to overthrow the regime."  During the same period,  editor Peter Beinart of The New Republic stated on CNN: "I'm for this war."

During the run up to the invasion many Democrats were voicing opinions as strongly in favor of the war as Bush and the neocons. Edwards stated on October 7, 2002, the same day President Bush in a televised address called on Congress to support his objectives for Iraq, that:

My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that is presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.

In February 2003, the Democratic Leadership Council praised Edwards for his views on Iraq and criticized Democrats who advocated continued diplomatic outreach with Iraq through the United Nations:  

Unfortunately, some Democrats are echoing the faulty logic of the French, who say Powell's presentation just shows the need for more inspections of Iraq. What would be the purpose of those inspections now that continued Iraqi defiance of its "final opportunity" for compliance with the United Nations has been established by the inspectors themselves?

Which Democrats were the DLC referring to as using faulty logic?  Richardson was one.  

On March 11, 2003, eight days before President Bush announced the U.S. was at war with Iraq, Richardson criticized the Bush Administration's rush to war in an interview on CNN. At the time, most Americans supported going to war and were critical of the U.N. Richardson defended the work of the U.N.  Richardson accurately predicted that a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq would undermine the U.N. and hurt the prestige of the U.S. abroad:

CROWLEY: I want to ask you the question, first, if there is no Security Council resolution approving of a war on Iraq, and if the Bush administration should go ahead, who loses in that scenario?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think the United Nations loses because it shows a lack of relevance to this crisis.

And, secondly, I think, Candy, that the United States loses because we're going into a major conflict without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, without some of our major allies like France and Russia, and also those 10 other members of the Security Council, the 10 non-permanent members that have a voice right now.

So I think it would come at considerable cost especially if we're to win the war, which we would, issues relating to a post-Iraq configuration to the prestige of the United States worldwide to bring some kind of order to the Middle East and bring some kind of Persian Gulf-lessening attention. So, I think everybody would be a victim. The United Nations, the United States and, certainly, our NATO allies. I think would be hurt, too, because if they don't support us the breakdown of the NATO alliance might be next to go.

CROWLEY: Well, I want to cite a couple of figures for you. One of them just came from a CBS/New York Times poll, which showed that right now only about 34 percent of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a good job handling this situation.

Fifty eight percent think it's doing a poor job. On top of that, we also found that 55 percent would support an invasion, even if the Security Council says don't do it. What does that say about how Americans view the U.N., and has that changed since you were the ambassador?

RICHARDSON: Well, the United States as a populous, here in new Mexico, there's not much support for the United Nations. But at the same time, Candy, what everyone should understand is the United Nations does a lot of things that we, the U.S. as the only superpower, don't want to do.

They get involved in conflicts in Kosovo, in the Congo in Africa, in Guatemala and Latin America. Immigration issues, AIDS, refugees. We don't want to get directly involved in these, but we use the arm of international support, legitimacy of the United Nations to do it.

Now, in the Persian Gulf, conveniently, the U.N. supported our efforts in 1991 to get a broad coalition. And I think we've used the U.N. in the war on terrorism to get international support.

But clearly in this Iraq crisis, the U.N. has to step up and simply enforce its [1441] resolution. And it's not doing that. So, it's going to be a big loss for the U.N. in terms of its peacekeeping relevance, unless it really steps up and gets tough on Saddam Hussein. I think that's the issue.

CROWLEY: So, am I right, am I hearing you correctly that you believe that the U.N. Security Council should pass the resolution that Britain and the U.S. are proposing?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would go a little differently, Candy. I think the U.S. and Britain should compromise. That's the essence of diplomacy. To get nine votes, if it means postponing for 30 days, or 15 days or 10 days, a new resolution with benchmarks on Iraq's behavior, let's do it. I think that France and Russia are basically gone.

They are going to veto. But it would be a partial victory if we get nine votes for a victory of a majority in the Security Council. If we don't do that, I think it's going to be tremendous prestige loss overseas. I think, domestically, it's going to cause more problems for the administration. The Congress will be divided. This is a time when it's frustrating, but what's the rush, really. Iraq is not heading down Baghdad into the United States.

Again, it is a threat, but it's not an immediate threat. It's not something that is like the war on terrorism, where we're under alert from a potential terrorist attack in this country. So let's be judicious. Let's be calm. Let's be patient.