MyDD :: Candidates On Residual Forces

Candidates On Residual Forces

by Todd Beeton, Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:38:12 PM EST

With the news that the Richardson campaign has teamed up with Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers and Siun from FireDogLake to raise the stakes on the residual forces debate among the Democratic presidential candidates, I thought it was worth revisiting the clip from the AARP debate last week in which Judy Woodruff asked the candidates how many troops would be left in Iraq on January 20, 2010 under their presidency (h/t Stephen Cassidy.) It wasn't long ago that Richardson was demanding that this question be asked of all the candidates and finally, at the AARP debate, it was. As you can see, the candidates' answers, other than Richardson's, essentially amounted to "depends."

Richardson has a side-by-side comparison chart over at GetOurTroopsOut.com that sums up their stated positions (or lack thereof.) Richardson deserves credit for demanding clarity on this issue where the other candidates have refused to provide it. It used to be that candidates would punt on whether to withdraw troops at all and then on whether to demand a timetable; as Jerome pointed out earlier, (and as we saw first hand last year) the clearer the distinctions Democrats draw between their Republican opponents on the war, the better they do and this is another important dividing line.

Whether or not it will serve as a compelling point of distinction among Democrats in the primary race may be another story altogether, and Chris has an interesting discussion at Open Left about just that, especially in light of Richardson's free fall in the dailyKos straw poll today.

Tags: bill richardson, iraq (all tags)

Permalink :: 10 Comments :: Post a Comment

Richardson fabricates... (none / 0)

He misrepresents Edwards with regard to the issue of residual forces.

Edwards called for an immediate reduction of troops by 50,000. Yes, that leaves 90,000, but they will be steadily withdrawn and out within a year. Then, the ONLY troops in Iraq will be those who are there to protect the American Embassy.

See the Edwards interview with Josh Marshall:

http://www.veracifier.com/episode/TPM_20 070912

In fact, Edwards said this in his speech at Pace University on September 7:

Rethinking our approach to terrorism also means rethinking our approach country by country, cell by cell. And in each place where terrorism has taken root, there is a lot more we can do.

We must begin with one of the greatest generators of terrorism in the world today: Iraq. George Bush's failed management of the war in Iraq has made the problem of terrorism worse. The war provided Al Qaeda with a powerful tool for recruiting terrorists. It gave them a battlefield for training. It gave them an attractive target, in American troops. And it diverted the resources of the U.S. military, weakening our force structure in the process.

Even though the presence of U.S. troops has served as an attractive target for terrorists, our eventual withdrawal will not remove the threat. 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-n ew-strategy-against-terrorism/

Richardson's web site has been changed, but it recently said 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."

Others have talked of residual forces IN Iraq, but not Edwards.

Will Richardson say anything to get elected?

by citizen53 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:49:59 PM EST

Edwards lacks the confidence to pull ALL U.S. (none / 0)

troops out of Iraq.

Edwards has said he didn't listen to his own concerns but was guided by others when he voted to authorize Bush to invade.

Why then do you trust Edwards to have the confidence in his own judgment and ignore the voices of the political and military establishment saying to leave Iraq flirts with disaster?

Edwards can't speak straight on Iraq. He says one thing on his website and another thing when the TV cameras are on and he's speaking in the debates. Last week 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. Talk about passive, uninspiring leadership.

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."

Bill Richardson: "Get out now. Get all our troops out now. It is the only right and responsible choice."

by Stephen Cassidy on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:05:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Candidates On Residual Forces (none / 0)

Poor Edwards and Obama. They are outfoxed by Richardson on the left flank.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:06:29 PM EST

Re: Candidates On Residual Forces (2.00 / 1)

Ummm, Richardson did not do well today in the straw poll. I do not know if there has been some new polling on the "left flank" but your comment is, not for the first time, rather absurd.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:25:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is NOT compelling (none / 0)

It is not a meaningful policy issue.

It really does not mean anything.

Richardson free fall in the straw poll means that Dodd broke through a little bit because of the leadership opportunity presented.

I thought Richardson's gimmick was weak. Apparently others agreed with me.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:24:20 PM EST

Re: It is NOT compelling (none / 0)

Who cares about the "straw poll"? That's all it is - a straw poll. The group participating are generally wild about Edwards. There is an inverse relationship between what's happening in the Daily Kos straw poll and polling in the early caucus/primary states. Your candidate, Dodd, remains under the margin of error in polling in Iowa and New Hampshire. He's not even in the lead in his home state.

Bill Richardson: "Get out now. Get all our troops out now. It is the only right and responsible choice."

by Stephen Cassidy on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:09:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is NOT compelling (none / 0)

Fair enough.

But Richardson's attempted hook, with strong support from MYDD and Open Left, this silly residual forces business, is a flop.

Richardson has no traction. Dodd got a sliver.

by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:07:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Only Richardson gets it on Iraq (none / 0)

Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war.

Our troops have become the targets in a civil war. The Iraqi government, in turn, is dependent on the U.S. for security that the Iraqis themselves should provide. Richardson notes: "The Iraqis won't take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good."

Bill Richardson: "Get out now. Get all our troops out now. It is the only right and responsible choice."

by Stephen Cassidy on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:10:49 PM EST

Re: Candidates On Residual Forces (none / 0)

As long as the green zone exists there will have to be troops inside...INSIDE

Everyone else...OUT..
I have no problem with Richardson raising the Bar.
This Thursday's debate should be a good one...

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud" ...Arlo Guthrie

by DenverD on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 02:23:18 AM EST

sloppy citation = lack of credibility (none / 0)

The chart that compares the candidates positions cites 2 articles for their characterization of Obama's plan to end the war (footnotes #4 & #5). Why don't these 2 footnotes contain links to the articles like nearly every other footnote? Intentional omission? Sloppiness? The title and date of the New York Times article citation is incorrect as well.

Here are the links Richardson's people omitted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/pol itics/12dems.html?ex=1344744000&en=c 21796fabe40d997&ei=5124&partner= permalink&exprod=permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082202400. html?referrer=google

by MattCowherd on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 06:25:00 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.