Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

WaPo has a deceptive title on Bill Richardson's Op Ed piece. They call it "Why We Should Leave Iraq Now." It should be called "Watch Richardson Try To Exploit 'Differences' on 2009 Iraq Policy and NOT Talk About Leaving Iraq Now." Read the first three grafs of the piece:

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly.

In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years -- a tragic mistake.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be "irresponsible." On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal -- not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process -- would be the most responsible and effective course of action.

The fact that there is a Congressional debate in Congress NOW on Iraq does not enter Richardson's thinking in the least. I do not know about you, but I truly detest what Richardson is doing here, selfishly trying to make political hay for himself at the expense of the real issue NOW - the Congressional debate on Iraq. Richardson is my least favorite candidate right now.

Tags: Election 2008, Richardson, WAR IN IRAQ (all tags)

Comments

72 Comments

Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

Good diary, BTD.

Richardson has not impressed me at all.  I think you are correct in his critique.  he seeks to exploit a minor and unrealsitic difference -- leave the embassy unguarded -- and ignores getting out now.

Richardson helps Clinton and may be rewarded with VP.

by TomP 2007-09-08 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

This is exactly why people who support candidates whose only experience is legislative, can be blindsided by the demands of the executive and should think twice before trying to torpedo the only truly qualified candidate.

Here's the deal: The legislative debate is just posturing.  Bush has already said he will veto any bill that passes by his desk with any strong Anti-War provision.

Thats because, Bush is in the executive branch. Richardson has been in the executive branch for
two terms and knows the story.

So instead of waving his hands, he's going for a clear position. One that people on the street can support.  End it. Simply end it.

No endlessly nuanced handwaving. No endless debate about legislation that gets you nowhere. Just end it.

Meanwhile, ah. The embassy. Gee. Maybe we should consider which agency to put there. IMHO the CIA might want to take a crack at hanging out around Bagdhad looking for Al Qaeda... now wouldn't that
be nice, if we could actually catch the people responsible for 911?

by Trey Rentz 2007-09-08 08:17AM | 0 recs
Ironic

that you would write this:

The legislative debate is just posturing.  Bush has already said he will veto any bill that passes by his desk with any strong Anti-War provision.

First, it is laughable that you think Richardson's piece is anything BUT posturing.

Second, it demonstrates a lack of knowledge about what the Congress can do.

Which is, namely, NOT PASS a a funding bill.

Bush can not fund the war with a veto.

All die respect, you need to get up to date on this issue. Your knowledge here is not complete.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 08:38AM | 0 recs
It's called Leadership

We've all learned your favorite word Big Tent - "selfish."

Richardson is providing an intellectual backbone for the Dems to stand up to Bush on Iraq and not agree to a fatally flawed compromise.  

Richardson has been consistent this entire campaign on the need to promptly withdraw our forces.  You can call him "selfish" until you are blue in the face but the reality is no other Dem has put forth in as clear and compelling terms the need for the US to leave Iraq now as Richardson.

Check out what Bowers has to say:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=1231#9706

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-09-08 02:17PM | 0 recs
How do we catch the people responsible ...

... for 9/11 by hanging around Iraq ... they're in Pakistan. Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is the branch operation brought into existence because they have the opportunity of fighting Americans there.

Which is, of course, the difference between the positions of Richardson and Edwards, on the one hand, and Clinton and Obama, on the other. Clinton and Obama, in their plan to have occupation forces in Iraq for an indefinite period of time, focus on giving AQIM precisely what they want ... American troops in Iraq for the purpose of fighting AQIM.

Richardson and Edwards have plans to conclude the occupation of Iraq.

As to what the legislature can do, they can only pass funding with a firm withdrawal deadline, and refuse to pass funding without a firm withdrawal deadline. The House Democracts on their own have the ability to do the first, and both the House and Senate Democrats on their own have the ability to do the second.

Bush's veto pen cannot obtain the funding that he requires to prosecute his occupation of Iraq unless Democrats cave.

by BruceMcF 2007-09-09 06:48AM | 0 recs
Hypocrisy much?

"he seeks to exploit a minor and unrealsitic difference"

Exactly like you sought to "exploit minor and unrealistic difference" by bashing Obama using the Gregg bill (that bill has no meat or teeth of any kind).

Apparently you've milked that some 88 times. term 'Gregg' shows up over a thousand times at DK over the past 1 year, at least half of those are likely some Edwards supporters repeatedly bashing Obama with a bill that doesn't mean jack.

"and ignores getting out now."

The title says: "Why We Should Exit Iraq Now" and in the text, "Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months." He doesn't seem to be mincing words.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-09-08 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Hypocrisy much?

Your last line (your tirade against the other commenter is quite OT imo and I am rating you 1 for it) confuses me.

Are you saying Richardson IS writing about getting out of Iraq now by talking about how his plan FOR 2009 is different from the other caniddates' plan?

In what world is talking about getting out of Iraq in 2009 actually taking about getting out of Iraq NOW?

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Hypocrisy much?

"your tirade against the other commenter is quite OT imo and I am rating you 1 for it"

If you consider comments to be part of Edwards' extended campaign, pointing out the hypocrisy in what they do is not a "tirade." Please retract the TR. I am fighting to make politics more honest (and what I said about the Gregg bill and some Edwards supporters milking it is true and easily verifiable+documentable); you shouldn't penalize that.

~~~

Richardson seems to support the deauthorization approach and not the defunding approach:

From his website,

De-Authorize the War Now

President Bush has demonstrated neither competence nor honesty nor a sense of reality in his conduct of this war. Congress should immediately assert its constitutional authority and pass a resolution de-authorizing the war under Article I of the US Constitution and the War Powers Act.

Troops Out in Six Months

Once it has de-authorized this war, Congress should set a military pull-out date and appropriate funds accordingly for the re-deployment of troops. I believe we can withdraw all the troops within six months of de-authorization, but if it takes a few months longer the key is to get them all out as soon as humanly possible. My military advisors and I believe our continued presence in Iraq only fuels the insurgency, strengthens Al Qaeda, and enables the Iraqi factions to delay making the hard political choices they need to make to end the civil war.

He's not mincing on pulling out, IMO. What's your take on this.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-09-08 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Hypocrisy much?

On the troll rating - your attack on the commenter was completely off topic as your own comment makes clear. You pulled in comments FROM ANOTHER WEB SITE about other issues to attack him in a post that had nothing to do with what your attack was about.

Your comment was a classic OT attack on a commenter, not even on me.

It was clearly trollish behavior. You MUST see that.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 10:35AM | 0 recs
Dishonesty is dishonesty.

I am completely and utterly open to someone referring to what I said at another site, when making an argument.

It was clearly trollish behavior.

Off-topic. Arguable. Trollish, it isn't. I define troll as someone that tells lies and/or makes dishonest/deceptive spins unfounded in facts, repeatedly and insistently.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-09-08 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonesty is dishonesty.

It is trollish BECAUSE it is off topic and a personal attack, whatever the merits of the attack.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonesty is dishonesty.

I said off-topic is arguable. Let me argue that is isn't off-topic.

The diary is talking about Richardson comparing his positions against other candidates'.

I view TomP as an agent and extension of the Edwards campaign, one way or another (at least as a volunteer campaigner/promoter). Therefore, it is valid for me to point out hypocrisy of an extension of Edwards' campaign using their own behavior elsewhere.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-09-08 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonesty is dishonesty.

This diary is NOT about TomP. Hell, it can only barely be considered as being about Edwards in any way.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 11:13AM | 0 recs
Thank you, BTD.

I just saw this now. (Sunday morn).

This diary was about Richardson. You are correct: NL sought to turn it into an attack on me based on comments months ago on a different site with limitted or any relevance to this.  He seeks to attack me, not discuss politics.  

It is unfortunate.  I feel stalked by him at times.  

Anyway, it as a good diary.  

by TomP 2007-09-09 06:22AM | 0 recs
Troll- rated

this whole "TomP is an agent and extension of the Edwards campaign" is pure bullshit. I know Tom fairly well; he doesn't work for the Edwards campaign, isnt their agent, and your accusations just make you look even more like a troll.

Grow up.

by okamichan13 2007-09-09 07:21AM | 0 recs
Maybe NL considers himself

an agent of his candidate, or works for a candidate that is not disclosed and can't separate his activities from how Tomp operates.

I agree the whole agent/campaign issue is not founded.

Since when can't a supporter do what he believes in without being attacked as part of the campaign or and "agent"?

Tomp is a noble Edwards supporter and it is driving many to unblievable extremes.

What a shame, it's about the candidates not the supporters.

by dk2 2007-09-09 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonesty is dishonesty.

NL says:

I am fighting to make politics more honest

What a narcissistic point of view when one person has the audacity to pronounce that he alone is the purveyor of truth.

When such claims are made, hold on to your wallet!
 

by citizen53 2007-09-09 07:54AM | 0 recs
if you can take some criticism, BTD,

I would expect you to have researched Richardson's website to find out what his consummate Iraq position is, before posting this diary.

IMO, your diary will be well-rounded if you can update to mention what he said about de-authorization and quote from his website statement on iraq.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-09-08 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: if you can take some criticism, BTD,

I am writing about the WaPo Op Ed. As for what Richardson may have up on his web site, surely you can understand the difference between the two,

As for whether I can take criticism, does it matter if I can? Criticize all you want. I'll do the same to you when I feel it is merited.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: if you can take some criticism, BTD,

"The fact that there is a Congressional debate in Congress NOW on Iraq does not enter Richardson's thinking in the least."

I give you a point on the fact that Richardson hasn't talked about defunding.

But, clearly, based on his well-laid out position statement on Iraq, he supports Congress doing the following:

  • de-authorizing the war, via the invocation of the War powers act.
  • withdrawing troops in roughly six months
  • leaving no residual troops behind

One can in fact argue that Deauthorization is a better approach than Defunding, as follows:

Defunding has the stigma attached that it's against the troops; we know that's bunk, but coming off the RWNM, a large section of American people will buy that spin. Deauthorization says that this is is no longer a legitimate war. End it. Bring the troops home. Case closed. I am guessing that Deauthorization of a war under the War powers act can't be vetoed by the President. Please correct me if otherwise.

I do not know about you, but I truly detest what Richardson is doing here, selfishly trying to make political hay for himself at the expense of the real issue NOW - the Congressional debate on Iraq. Richardson is my least favorite candidate right now.

In the OpEd, he only says "If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office." He should have expanded on that to explaining both his current recommendations to the congress as well as what he would do if the congress fails. That only makes the oped short on presentation, not some kind of devious game. He is trying to distinguish his position, and Zero Residual Forces DOES indeed distinguish him from the three candidates he cites.

Thanks to your diary, I know Richardson's Iraq positions to better. Before your diary, I was agnostic to Richardson (I like his experience, on both diplomatic and executive fronts, but I was turned off by his lack luster campaign and unforced errors), but thanks to the diary I came to better know his positon on Iran, and I find it credible enough that I am now once again open to hearing what Richardson has to say.

I am also now quite intrigued by the deauthorization approach because of the exchange.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-09-08 11:00AM | 0 recs
.. 'his positon on Iran' ..

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-09-08 11:04AM | 0 recs
that was a typo:

it should be "position on Iraq."

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-09-08 11:05AM | 0 recs
Since I made the typo on Iran, I went

and checked Richardson's positions on Iran. I found some good articles:


Diplomacy, Not War, With Iran

By Bill Richardson
Wash. Post, Saturday, February 24, 2007


and

Bill Richardson's Speech on Engaging Iran
Published June 27, 2007

Engaging Iran- No Preconditions, No Illusions

Now is the time for a New Realist vision of how American leadership, in concerted effort with our partners, can turn the situation around.  This vision cannot be based on regime change and the misapplication of military power.  It must be based upon strong diplomacy backed up by credible military power, solid alliances and partnerships, and economic engagement.

Iran holds the key to many of the crucial security variables of the greater Middle East.  That is why a full-court press on engaging Iran - with no preconditions, and no illusions - is in the American national security interest.

Thank you.


I'm starting to like this guy again.

Readers may also want to see his campaign statement: A New Realism in Foreign Policy

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-09-08 11:17AM | 0 recs
You miss the point

This is a time for urging Congress to do the right thing, not the time tobe trying to score points on so called differences on what the Presidential cnadidates will do in Iraq in 2009.

This is clearly a SELFISH, as in thinking of his own political fortunes first, not thinking about Iraq and the Congressional debate going on now, op ed.

What hsi "official" position is hardly the point. Yes his web siote has some palatable position on that.

The point is he is a Presidential candidate with a bully pulpit and he chose to use it to aggrandize his campaign rather than focus on the Congressional debate.

Your criticism is off the mark.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: You miss the point

"Your criticism is off the mark."

What criticism? I didn't criticize you or anybody in the comment you've responded to.

In fact, I think I made some interesting points for the readers to consider about deauthorization.

"This is clearly a SELFISH, as in thinking of his own political fortunes first, not thinking about Iraq and the Congressional debate going on now, op ed."

Most campaign ARE trying to separate themselves from other campaigns. Here, he is buttressing the "Zero Residual Force" distinction, which one can argue is raising the bar on the Iraq debate.

Yes, I think he should have contextualized his arguments in the OpEd better, but his oped was on substance except for "inside-the-Beltway thinking" line, which is a common toy trick by many candidates, esp. funny since Richardson spent a LONG LONG time inside the beltway. That's minor.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-09-08 11:26AM | 0 recs
Then I missed the point

Carry on then.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: BTD is right

How does Richardson intend to deauthorize the war?  It would never pass congress right now?   or Bush would veto it.

Congress should immediately assert its constitutional authority and pass a resolution de-authorizing the war under Article I of the US Constitution and the War Powers Act.

and this thus makes the rest of his plan impractical and impossible.

From his website:

Once it has de-authorized this war, Congress should set a military pull-out date and appropriate funds accordingly for the re-deployment of troops. I believe we can withdraw all the troops within six months of de-authorization, but if it takes a few months longer the key is to get them all out as soon as humanly possible.

His plan has all kinds of caveats through it.  It is pure posturing meant to undermine Obama's plan in contrast.  It has undermined Obama in NH and so done the job well for Clinton.  Richardson has no illusions that his plan will be taken up and so he can say what he wants.  But he does not indicate any support for current congressional ideas.

His actions do NOT in anyway try to help end the war through congressional action right now.  That is the issue for BTD and he is right.

There are only two roads for ending it now.  Convince all Democrats to pass a bill with firm timelines to withdraw troops and keep sending it back to Bush.  If he vetoes he rejects funding.  Or convince 41 Democratic Senators not to pass a funding bill and/or 218 Congressmen not to pass a funding bill.

Money is the key to ending the war.  With this objective I don't care who achieves it but I want the war to end.  Richardson is distracting the debate and thus his editorial is very selfish.  Once again, BTD is right.

by pioneer111 2007-09-09 06:44AM | 0 recs
Wow. What a jerk.

Man, I like Richardson less everyday. Each time I think that I couldn't like him less, he goes there. Now he's beneath Kucinich on my scale.

1-Edwards
2-Obama
3-Dodd
4-Clinton
5-Biden
6-Kucinich
7-Richardson
8-Gravel

by cosbo 2007-09-08 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

I don't think it's a big deal. He stuck out his own position. He has every right to blame others, it's just politics...

by areyouready 2007-09-08 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

The meaning of this comment escapes me.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re "The meaning of this comment

escapes me," try this link:BTD

by oculus 2007-09-08 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Re "The meaning of this comment

Is that what he means.

Then he did not say it very clearly.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

Richardson's Iraq plan sucks too.  If you go to his website the first thing that has to happen is that congress "deauthorize the war".  That requires a bill to be passed and signed by Bush.  It won't happen.  Richardson is saying the most extreme things that he will never be accountable for.

Even his heralded plan of get out in 6 months

Once it has de-authorized this war, Congress should set a military pull-out date and appropriate funds accordingly for the re-deployment of troops. I believe we can withdraw all the troops within six months of de-authorization, but if it takes a few months longer the key is to get them all out as soon as humanly possible.

is not what he says it is.

Frankly I think he is a DLC candidate working for Clinton behind the scenes to diminish the impact of Obama, Edwards and Dodd.

Blurring the differences between them by saying "Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking" is just lying.

Richardson says anything he needs to to get support.  There is no explanation for his change of mind on the war and other strategies.  

I support Edwards but I would like a louder voice for Dodd because he has been the only senator candidate who IS speaking out to his colleagues.  Richardson's smoke and mirrors have fogged up the various campaigns messages.

by pioneer111 2007-09-08 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

I disagree that the position Richardson has taken to pull out completely and end the war with clarity - represents fog and mirror.

I laud your sense of where we need to go from a legislative standpoint, however.  It is nice to know that you support a candidate to increase his share, Dodd - who is so far behind he is dropped from many polls at this point as he is under the margin of error.

When Tom Daschle, Democrat Minority Leader in the Senate - said - "We support the President's War in Iraq" - I think he sent a message that any other legislative political theatre in the final days of a lame duck presidency  - given he was speaking from a position of similiar lessened power - sent a message to those in the democratic party who want to keep trying to nuance things.

I am surprised that you want to support a candidate who is so far below the mark right now that he is dropped from the statistical averages, because he is underneath the margin of error.

Nevertheless I think its useful for you to have stated outright your affiliation and likely reason for posting.

Turn up the signal. Wipe out the noise.

Please.

by Trey Rentz 2007-09-08 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

What a bizarre comment.

Richardson's chances as a candidate are what exactly in your mind?

If you are focused on chances of winning, your focus on Richardson is ridiculous.

If you are focused on issues, then Richardson's discussion of 2009 in the MIDST OF THE HUGE CONGRESSIONAL  DEBATE that should occur is ridiculous.

Pioneer111 is for Edwards BTW, who has a real shot of winning, as opposed to the incompetent candidate Richardson, who is moving neither as an electable force nor as an issue mover.

Your approach is illogical from all perspectives.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

ITS ANOTHER CONSPIRACY! lol

of cuorse everyone running besides Edwards and Obama are in cahoots w/ Hillary to get her the nomination!

Isnt this getting a bit tiring? Is that the best argument against Richardson? That he's secretly trying to help Hillary? Get over it.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-08 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

Frankly I think he is a DLC candidate working for Clinton behind the scenes to diminish the impact of Obama, Edwards and Dodd.

Please stop your conspiracy theories. It just makes you and your candidate look silly.

by world dictator 2007-09-08 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

He is a DLC candidate.  And I don't think I look silly at all.  I think I show my depth of discernment.  

But you can have your opinion too.  It just is not as insightful as mine.

I stand by my opinion.  It is the only thing that makes sense about his candidacy.

by pioneer111 2007-09-09 07:22AM | 0 recs
Let;s now our constitutional law before speaking

A concurrent resolution de-authorizing the war does not need to be signed by the President.  It also doesn't have the force of law.  However it the symbolism that counts and would express the will of the American people.  That combined with a vote by Congress to appropriate further funds solely to be used for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq is what Richardson is advocaating.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-09-08 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Let;s now our constitutional law before speaki

dude...thats not constitutional law you're refering to. You're refering to various pieces of legislation which specify the power of congress/the president to engage in war and the routes they can spefically choose to do so.

by world dictator 2007-09-08 11:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

Wow, don'tcha just hate it when the candidate you don't like says something that is right?  Doesn't it just make you want to go out and write a nasty diary to vent your frustrations about that candidate and get other non-supporters to jump on in a great big hate pile?

It must make you feel so much better.  Good for you.  

I will stick with Richardson.  He has the best plan for America, and a record of actually accomplishing things (show me who has come close to accomplishing anything among the front runners!)

by liberaltruthsayer 2007-09-08 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

When he says something that is right about ending the Iraq Debacle now let me know.

I love it when candidate supporters come in spewing venom in a diary for the only reason that their candidate was criticized.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

lol -

Its a lot easier to claim "accomplishments" when you are in the executive branch, anything that goes through in the legislature is an accomplishment.  

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-08 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

by liberaltruthsayer 2007-09-08 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

lol, Richardson wants to get out of Iraq totally, and somehow that's a negative issue for someone that wants to end the war. Now that's gotta be the best example of some sort of lunacy.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-09-08 10:36AM | 0 recs
You've never understood this issue Jerome

Your comment is indicative of that.

Richardson is for getting out of Iraq when he is President, or so he says now.

Richardson, and you, have never understood that leadership NOW on Iraq is beating the drum to have the Congress get us out of Iraq now.

Your instrusion in my post of 2 weeks ao demonstrated then you did not understand the issue and your commetn today further confirms you lack of understanding of the issue.

As for whether Richardson's selfish line is going to mean anything for actual Iraq policy, it is my view that it will not.

While he has won over you and Yglesias and others woith this, most people are focused on what the Congress is doing.

Coupled with the fact that Richardson has proven himself to be an inept candidate, it becomes clear that this is all much ado about nothing, including my diary.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 10:41AM | 0 recs
And of course

this is your site, and you can run it as you see fit.

So my use of the word "intrusion" is actually, inaccurate.

You are of course free to do whatever you like on your site. IT was not an intrusion.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

Jerome, I don't understand your point.  Everyone wants us out of Iraq.  But who is actually presenting an idea that will get through congress now?  Richardson's plan isn't even being looked at.  Neither in truth is Edwards' nor Obama's.  

However Edwards at least puts a loud voice on congress following the strongest direction by one of its own members, whether it was Reid/Feingold or some other legislation.

I don't see Richardson doing anything that would shore up the spinelessness of congress.  Dodd is speaking out.  Kerry is speaking out.  Obama isn't.  Clinton sort of - sounded good till I read more.  Richardson could have put pressure on congress he didn't use his op-ed to do that.  That is BTD's criticism and he is right on this.

Further Richardson lied in in Editorial and that is undermining Democrats.  Clinton, Edwards and Obama all have different approaches to ending the war and they are not all beltway insiders.

by pioneer111 2007-09-09 07:33AM | 0 recs
Not the first time...

This isn't the first time Richardson has thrown Democrats underneath the bus

My problem with Bill Richardson is that he's a pro-growth Democrat.

This should not be taken to mean that I'm anti-growth: I hereby pledge to never support a presidential candidate who runs on a platform of economic contraction. (I'm objectively anti-contraction!) That said, it's hard to swallow a Democrat who continually implies that vast swaths of the party hew to an anti-growth platform. It's even harder when that Democrat refuses to name names.

And Richardson refuses to name names. I interviewed Richardson by phone as he drove through rural New Hampshire, his cell phone crackling in and out as his caravan snaked through the mountains. (Full transcript here.) We were talking about his support for a balanced budget amendment -- more about that in a second -- when Richardson trotted out his "look, I'm a pro-growth Democrat" line. He says this a lot, and I've always found it curious. "Can you name some anti-growth Democrats?" I asked. "No," Richardson replied. "I'm not going to do that. But I know some." Well, could he tell me what part of the Democratic Party, or strain of progressive economic thinking, he considered anti-growth? "I'm not going to specify," he said.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article= the_economics_of_bill_richardson

by world dictator 2007-09-08 10:43AM | 0 recs
I understand your point

But my opinion is this is off topic to my diary.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: I understand your point

Fair enough. i'm not trying to hijack the thread. I just viewed this as a "Richardson is lying to elevate himself even though it hurts democrats" hence my post. But my apologizes

by world dictator 2007-09-08 10:50AM | 0 recs
I guess it is

and perhaps it is not off topic, but as Jerome's comments in this thread demonstrate to me, the power of Presidential candidates to influence the debate in Congress now is not at all understood by too many.

Markos and his crew have really picked up the pace on the issue and they are doing a great job.

I think Jerome simply does not understand what I am talking about.

So I really do not want this tobe seen as anti-Richardson per se, though I must admit I think very poorly of Ruchardson;s campaign generally, but of this obvious selfish attempt to make the Iraq debate be about this silly "residual forces" nonsense when right now every good Democrat should, IMO, be focusing on the fight in Congress.

Richardson is focused on trying to help his campaign, by ignoring the debate in Congress.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess it is

Of course you are an expert in foreign and military policy and Richardson has no experience and is a neophyte.

Of course you have served in the military and are an expert in middle east affairs and have had discussions with the leaders of these countries. Richardson has not.

Of course your studies in Academia provide you with much more knowledge and experience tha a neophyte like Richardson.

I guess we should just believe you and tell Richardson to go to hell.

You are the expert he is naive with no real world foreign policy experience.

by BDM 2007-09-08 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess it is

BDM

I thought experience doesn't matter? After all...experienced people got us into Iraq...shouldn't we just dismiss everyone with experience?

Richardson might have experience regarding diplomatic efforts and negotiation but he doesn't have tactical military experience and he certainly doesn't have the tactical military experience that the vast majority of military experts who says immediate and complete pullout would be horrible, do.

by world dictator 2007-09-08 11:19AM | 0 recs
Ummm

Did you read my diary?

Your comment could not be a bigger nonsequitor.

As to the merits of your comment, truth be told, I do not think much of Richazrdson on FP if you want to know the truth.

But you take faith and make sure to listen to all the "very serious people."

Make sure to NOT think for yourself.

Michael O'Hanlon is just the man for you.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Ummm

Why should we listen to you . Your no expert and have no experience in these area's. You are an ivory tower pseudo intellectual who thinks he is an expert.

Many retired military expert's agree with Richardson's views and donot buy into the meme framed by the rightwing that if we don't leave their will be a regional war.

I was in a war and I find it interesting that those who have never gone to war want to continue this war or are the most hawkish in these matters.

Most experts were wrong about Vietnam and that was a quigmire like this war.

I say get out now and this coulsd be down in a year to 14 months. No residual forces are necessary. Unless you think we need to continue the same combat policies with a residual force of 70-80,000 troops. and have an additional 800- 1000 casualities before we are finally forced out

by BDM 2007-09-08 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Ummm

Listen to whomever you want to listen to.

Why should you listen to anyone at all?

My suggestion remains for you to think for yourself.

You search for "serious people" if you like.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 11:45AM | 0 recs
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-n ew-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/is sues/iraq

Will Richardson say anything to get elected?  

by citizen53 2007-09-08 11:13AM | 0 recs
I know for Edwards supporters

that is a big deal. For me, the lack of focus on the NOW is what burns my ass.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 11:23AM | 0 recs
I think it goes to credibility...

of Richardson, that he would blatantly misrepresent.

by citizen53 2007-09-08 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

What pisses me off about Richardson is that he is a dreams seller. He acts like diplomacy= guranteed peace. I doubt there is any democratic candidate who will NOT engage in vigorious diplomatic efforts. But  for once politicians are being somewhat honest. We can't just say
"hey turkey can we fly through your airspace? Cool thanks"

or

"Hey Iran and Syria...our bad ...everything cool?...sweet thanks for changing your mind about extending your regional hegemony"

or my favorite

"Hey Turkey...don't invade Kurd territory...you won't? THANKS!"

by world dictator 2007-09-08 11:15AM | 0 recs
Like McCain

on making the Sunni and Shia "get serious."

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

I hope you volunteer and get your ass over their and fight these bad people. Then you can write me and tell me all about it.

by BDM 2007-09-08 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

What does that have to do with anything I said?

by world dictator 2007-09-08 11:55AM | 0 recs
imo

nothing.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-08 12:10PM | 0 recs
Peace is a dream?

It was dream 6 months ago that North Korea would renounce its nuclear weapons program - then Richardson visited North Korea.

We need more such "dream sellers" in Washington.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-09-08 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Peace is a dream?

Except North Korea wanted foreign aid that we cut them off from and a little attention.

Iran wants regional power, shiites and sunni's want to wipe one another from the face of the map.

If Richardson was the only candidate advocated diplomacy you might have a point. Clearly he's not. Hence why he's trying to make it seem like everything can be solved nice and neatly by diplomacy and withdraw. He's refusing to answer the tough questions and deal with the hard issues. Hence the critisms

by world dictator 2007-09-08 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Peace is a dream?

I'd also like to see how Richardson's magic diplomacy will make Iranians not want to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Because if he knows how to quickly and easily solve the arab/Iranian - Israeli conflict despite 60ish years of the best diplomats around the world trying, I'd be interested in seeing that.

by world dictator 2007-09-08 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: A Military opinion about Richardson's plan

Richardson's plan not realistic from a military standpoint?  Here is what Lt. Gen. Robert Gard says about the plan:

"Overwhelming majorities of Iraqis, both Shia and Sunni, oppose the presence of US troops in Iraq and believe that US troops are more a cause of violence than a solution to it. Our presence in Iraq fuels the insurgency, strengthens Al Qaeda, and distracts us from the urgent task of defeating the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11. It's time for a phased and coordinated, but rapid, withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, and Governor Richardson has a realistic plan to do it."

http://www.richardso...

by BDM 2007-09-08 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: A Military opinion about Richardson's plan

I certainly respect Lt. Gen. Robert Gard service in defending his country. However, considering that he's been retired since 1981 and has worked for leftist organizations since then, I'm going to need a little bit more evidence than "The majority of military experts, both pro war and anti war, with more direct knowledge of the situation are wrong and I'm right just because."

by world dictator 2007-09-08 11:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson's Selfish Op-Ed in WaPo

Truthfully, after declaring major differences, his first few paragraphs are exactly what the others have been saying for months (The troops have done their job,  forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda, etc.,)

He says "It is foolish to think that 20,000 to 75,000 troops could bring peace to Iraq when 160,000 have not."  But I don't think anyone has said those remaining troops would bring peace to Iraq- that's not what leaving some there is about -it's about a presence- it's about knowing what is going on- I think all the candidates say get the combat troops out so he is twisting what is being said.

He keeps saying his is a major difference and then goes through points that everyone has said, as if he is the only one who believes it.  It irked me during one of the debates when he said there was a major difference between him and the other candidates on the stage in that he believed Iraq was already in a "civil war"- but I do believe many had already said that, I'm pretty sure Obama had said something like that months before.  

by reasonwarrior 2007-09-08 08:56PM | 0 recs
Ah

Richardson has some issues.

I think a total pull out is the way to do, I don't want us to stay there to clean up what GWB thinks is winning.

No matter when we leave, now or 15 years from now, there will be a power play in Iraq.

by dk2 2007-09-09 06:21AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads