"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein"

Don't you realize that even if your point is correct - that Richardson validated Bush's contention that no diplomatic actions could be taken - Richardson - as Einstein advocates - showing a different approach to Iraq today?

Your argument, however, on Richardson's views in 2003 on Iraq is off base.  You've selectively edited the quotes and ignored statements by Richardson advocating for continued diplomacy and against the immediate invasion of Iraq.  

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.

Because we aren't the center of the universe. Those countries have their own interests and motivations. Tell me what can we offer Turkey that'll make them forget about the Kurds raiding into their country? What can we offer Iran that'll be more interesting then some indirect control over the oil fields? How do we placate the Saudi about the suddenly dominant position of Iran?

And where is Richardson going to find that all Muslim peacekeeping force in time?

Could you point me to where I even mentioned one of those, or anything like it?

I've been very clear about that we actually do need to go out of Iraq in my comment. I've been a focal supporter for changing the course on this site, I've never made any comment about the troops here or anywhere else and as for what the enemy thinks of us I couldn't care less.

I've never endorsed any of those positions nor have I even come close.

My problems with the Richardson plan is that the timeframe is unrealistic and the problems of the proposed implementation are to easily glossed over. You are looking at a time frame of 2 to 3 years for the UN to take over. During which the US troops are phased out. If you do it any quicker the results will be counter productive. If you leave out the UN you'll cause the collapse the country, if we stay there as we do now, we'll collapse the country as well. If we follow the playbook of the current republican crop, we'll collapse the entire region.

So I'm hardly in agreement with the republicans. Don't confuse my problems with the Richardson plan as anything different then some problems with a specific version of that plan. Casting me as somebody who repeats republican talking points while my critique is entirely based on different issues is counter productive and stifles honest debate.

Problem is that Saudi Arabia is using the current conflict to get rid of it's fanatics, Iran's fanatics are quite loyal to Iran itself.

We simple have little to no leverage over them.  Both countries don't need our protection from their fanatics because an escalation will do the trick for both of them. SA will simply continue to play stupid, while shipping revolutionaries that oppose the house of Saud off to Iraq hoping that they'll get killed. Iran is quite secure right now, and will be even more secure with another Shiite block right next to it.

We might actually have some leverage over Turkey and it's been the most cooperative as far as I know. But if we leave and the Kurds are still active in Turkey who knows what will happen. Erdogan is keeping the nationalists in check but they're on a collision course. An excursion into Kurdish Iraq will be a very valuable bargaining chip. From what I remember the army isn't too happy as well. I'm not that sure how much we can push them into the direction we want.

Currently it looks like we're not protecting as much as keeping a couple of brawlers separated.

The base of the plan isn't bad, it's mostly the timing and the rigidity that make it unworkable. We can remove a part of the troops we have there without problems. The best possible solution will probably be replacing the rest of our troops with UN ones. Our best bet might be Indonesia combined with other non-regional troops. All Muslim probably won't happen. Perhaps combined with a version of Bidens soft partition although I'm doubtful it'll last. But perhaps it'll give us some time.

It's likely it's not even possible to reduce the current level of violence.  The country as a whole is probably finished, the best thing we can do is give the country the softest landing we can. A slow withdrawal will slow the escalation of violence while a fast withdrawal will speed it up considerably.

The result of our withdrawal won't be the same. It's like falling, a series of small falls is likely less lethal then jumping off the top of the empire state building.

That's done purely with comments and discussions. It's an easy mistake to make though. The FAQ on how to rating people's comments isn't that helpful. Especially as 3 is for insightful and good comments. 2 and 1 are for somewhat insulting and trollish comments. When you think somebody went over the line and need a gentle rebuke. A 0 is for comments that are so bad that they have no redeeming value what so ever and should be hidden from view. It's also possible to remove a rating you made if you change your mind about the comment.

I would feel a lot better if you would remove your rating if you think I wasn't trolling.

You already did while I was writing the above comment. My apologies. Thanks!

Actually, It turned out you didn't remove your rating...

It takes some chutzpah to dismiss the candidate with the most experience as a vanity candidate. The truth is that there are 4 candidates right now who have a shot at the nomination: Richardson, Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

"...no budget person uses one time expenses to fund ongoing ones."

Anyone who thinks the annual "supplemental" appropriations for the occupation of Iraq are a one-time expense hasn't been paying attention.

should have their head examined to ever consider supporting Richardson before Kucinich.

richardson couldn't survive the scrutiny so if you're going to support someone who can't win you might as well support the person who's right on the issues (kucinich)

Not trying to start something here, but I have to point out: if Kucinich was really "on the side of the people," wouldn't he, you know, work for the people of his district? You know, his job? Actually represent them and try to make their lives better, rather than continually run for president just so he get appear on stage with candidates who actually have a shot? This is why he'll lose his congressional primary.

Richardson's citation to his false accusation that Edwards supports risidual troops is exactly and wholely what's in the blockquotes.

difference between richardson and Edwards is 6 months versus "9-10".

he's a con man to take away votes that would go to Obama (or less likely edwards)

Bill Richardson has never said he'd pull the Marines from the U.S. Embassy.

I have no idea what I'm getting with Hillary

Chris Bowers had a good analysis of Edwards' position on residual forces here.  He might be right that there's a touch of difference between Edwards and Richardson, and he might not, but let's be honest here.

The question none of us can answer is what truly is doable in terms of a withdrawal (when Hillary asked the Pentagon that question, she was told to stop hurting America).  So everyone's withdrawal plan is aspirational, up to a point.  The stronger someone is committed to a complete withdrawal, the closer they're likely to come to that goal at the end of the day, but in my view there's no point in getting hung up on minor differences since this is all theoretical anyway.

• Used an authorization vote to prove worthiness of being Commander in Chief (Clinton)
• Threatened to send troops into a sovereign country to appear tough (Obama)
• Agree with an opponent to appear equally tough and then misrepresent the opponents position in order to criticize it IN THE VERY SAME INTERVIEW (Edwards)

continue to say withdrawal of U.S. troops in 12-18 months?

Is he making up numbers as he attends debates and is interviewed, or is his staff not keeping up with his positions on the war because they change?