« Cheney Drops To New Low Of 30% In Gallup Poll | Home | Fox News Claims That Majority Of Senators Voted Against Withdrawal »
In New TV Ad, Richardson Calls For Removing ALL Troops From Iraq
Bill Richardson's campaign has launched a new ad in Iowa saying he will remove all troops from Iraq if elected.
This is particularly interesting because it shows Richardson using an ad to highlight perhaps the key way he is indeed different from all the leading Dems: He is adamant about removing all troops from Iraq, unlike the other Dems, who favor leaving some sort of residual force. Take a look:
Advertisement
Is Richardson saying that he'll leave security at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad in the hands of local police? I certainly support withdrawal of as many troops as possible as soon as possible, but saying that his call for "all" troops out amounts to a "key" difference strikes me as disingenuous.
July 18, 2007 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry to nitpick, and i fully admit this is nitpicking.
but no one favors leaving a residual force in iraq.
the other candidates recognize that a residual force will be required for various reasons previously discussed and still open to debate.
July 18, 2007 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we don't leave troops in Iraq then how the hell will we get our oil from underneath their sand?
And what of the billions already spent on PERMANENT bases in Iraq? Do we not know what permanent means? As in "nearly every other country in the world" permanent bases.
OK, OK, I quit. :-)
I totally agree with Bill. Get them all out, excepting for the embassy (which is technically US soil, Blue in IA.)
July 18, 2007 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Technically, Marines guarding the U.S. Embassy in Iraq would be stationed on U.S. soil.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
July 18, 2007 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What embassy?
If you assume a total breakdown in law and order subsequent to withdrawal, there would be no embassy personnel until some semblance of order was restored.
Otherwise the government of Iraq is responsible for protecting embassies rather than a handful of marines.
The idea that troops must remain in Iraq to protect the embassy is a red herring.
I agree completely with Richardson on this. Even wingers can make sense at times. :-)
Richardson is a very odd candidate. He veers to extremes and is nearly incoherent in presenting his views. Despite many fans and even managing to poll higher than Edwards, I doubt seriously Richardson is going anywhere. I concede he is better than his talk.
All JMO.
Best, Terry
July 18, 2007 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there's a US embassy in Iraq there will be Marines guarding it. But like after the fall of Saigon and the revolution in Iran I imagine there will be a period of time where there won't be a US Embassy in Iraq if Iraqis don't want one. I'm sure they don't want the Vatican City size metropolis being built on some of the most prized real estate in Baghdad. The location of the green zone and it's security requirements put a serious crimp in the everyday travel plans of Baghdadis. Making a smaller footprint would go a ways toward lowering resentment.
It's good to see a serious candidate like Richardson state the obvious. Say it again and again, the occupation of Iraq isn't the solution, it's the problem.
July 18, 2007 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Technical distinction duly noted; thank you. But beyond the embassy issue (which WILL mean an extensive military presence in Baghdad, if not 'in' Iraq), I still don't see that there's much real daylight between what Richardson is calling for and Obama's position (all combat troops out) or Edwards' (all combat troops out, no military bases).
July 18, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
One big difference could be in the term "combat troops". Only removing / redeploying combat troops would still leave the thousands upon thousands of support personnel (administrative, engineers, etc). In addition, what defines "combat"? Boots on the ground? Marines only, marines and mechanized? Air force? Naval personnel? Seems like a rather vague term to me.
Plus, there are the 100,000 - 200,000 contractors, which would not be affected by many of the currently debated withdrawal resolutions.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
July 18, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see the ambiguity too, but if the distinction comes down to a continuing role for non-combat forces, I think that Richardson's "clarity" becomes moral murkiness. Does demanding that "all" troops leave Iraq mean that military engineers are *forbidden* to engage in projects aimed at reconstructing Iraq's infrastructure? Or that military administrators can't remain to assist Iraqis who put their lives in danger by helping the U.S. (by arranging new jobs, or emigration)? I do think we owe some moral duty to Iraq to help reconstruct a country we helped destroy, and, at the very least, to assist those people who put themselves at risk by foolishly believing that we might improve the situation there. Is Richardson saying that he won't even consider such non-combat uses of the U.S. military in order to score political points against his democratic opponents?
To be sure, I believe that we should bring as much of the military presence in Iraq home as soon as possible, but I think that in trying to set this up as a "key" difference, Richardson is using a straw man (a residual presence of some sort is equivalent to supporting Bush's war) to burnish his own (rather lacking) progressive credentials.
July 18, 2007 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those are very good questions, and ones that I think the media should be asking ALL candidates. Iraq is such a hot-button issue right now, it seems most candidates use very loaded language. Although candidates say they have plans for this, or plans for that, rarely have I seen anyone actually spell things out, and define what they mean.
For example, what would Clinton or Obama or Richardson or Edwards do about the independent contractors? No one asks them that.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
July 18, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue in IA,
I was once an "adviser" in Vietnam while we were being targeted by the Viet Cong. The first name on the Wall in D.C. was one of us.
What Richardson prescribes is the ending of a military missions, including even such as ours was, as I understand him.
What Obama and others prescribe is continuing training, for instance, of Iraqi troops, which in my view is the training of militias. You think that is good?
I think it would be only right that we offer what aid we can to many who have been on our side and even aid in the reconstruction of the country at some point but IMO there will no longer be an Iraq when we leave and is no longer much of one. Our presence facilitates terror rather than suppressing it.
Richardson is right in this instance in my view though I am not a great fan of his.
Best, Terry
July 19, 2007 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink