« 
Huckabee Challenges Thompson To Do Lincoln-Douglas Debates | Home | 
Maine Newspaper Responds to Conflict-of-Interest Accusations — Two Editors Recuse Themselves »
Huckabee Challenges Thompson To Do Lincoln-Douglas Debates | Home | Maine Newspaper Responds to Conflict-of-Interest Accusations — Two Editors Recuse Themselves »
Richardson Blasts Hillary, Obama And Edwards On Iraq
Bill Richardson attacks his top three Democratic opponents by name in a guest column today for The Washington Post. In the piece, he promotes his stance that the United States must withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible, without leaving a residual force — and excoriates his opponents for being too cautious:
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.
Advertisement
Richardson has disappointed me a number of times, but he's absolutely got this right. It is heartening to hear a candidate add a moral dimension to the usual amateur "stragic" points. As reporter and filmmaker Nir Rosen keeps pointing out, we've destroyed Iraq -- it no longer exists. It is a land area run by numerous militias, one of which is the US military.
He was interviewed on my local NPR station yesterday. I think anyone at all interested in Iraq policy and reality owes it to themselves to listen: http://www.wbez.org/Program_WV_Segment.aspx?segmentID=13188
September 8, 2007 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
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-new-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/issues/iraq
Will Richardson say anything to get elected?
September 8, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson is obviously more interested in peddling a self-serving misrepresentation of the Edwards position than in doing anything to move the current debate over a funding/timeline.
September 8, 2007 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, Richardson seems to have picked a sentence to just repeat over and over again without fully understanding it.
Campaign Diaries
September 8, 2007 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both political parties seem to be self-destructing.
September 8, 2007 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to cherry pick and parse what Edwards is saying.
If Bill Richardson is misrepresenting Edwards, why won't Edwards issue a statement that he will not leave any residual troops?
And don't try to bring in the false arguement over the Marines that guard the US Embassy in Iraq.
There's a huge difference between saying you're going to redeploy our troop sinto quick reaction teams and standing behind ending this war and leaving no troops behind.
September 8, 2007 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson remains the most Clintonian candidate in the mix . . . I often wonder if Hillary's campaign keeps sending him cash to prop up his campaign so he'll say the things that she does not want to appear too right-wing or too mean-spirited by saying. It is only on those occasions that his less than razor focus lands on the Clinton campaign that keeps me from scrambling for the tin foil to construct myself a hat.
As for Richardson being wrong about Edwards . . . The right-wing continues to slander most Democratic of the Democratic front runners precisely because they fear him the most . . . This includes Richardson.
September 9, 2007 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen Chris Bowers at open left detail Edwards saying he will leave residual troops, to protect the embassy and other such things, probably 10-20,000.
Still, Richardson IMO is flatly wrong here. We have 200,000 private contractors, an incredible amount of equipment, and millions (1 in 6 Iraqis in the country) of refugees to deal with.
It's simply not possible to withdrawl in the amount of time he's suggesting without saying "F it" about the equipment and refugees. I don't see how adding even more arms to the militant groups in Iraq, while simultaneously abruptly removing the protections of countless refugees, is "responsible". We'd essentially be sentencing at least tens of thousands to death needlessly.
September 9, 2007 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink