Richardson: Hillary Is Flip-Flopping On Iraq
Bill Richardson, who previously decried attacks against Hillary Clinton, is now going after her for saying she would withdraw nearly all American troops from Iraq within her first year as president. It's a big change from his previously friendly rhetoric, and might go a way in dispelling the idea that he's just angling for the VP slot.
"Senator Clinton's comments are a stunning flip-flop," Richardson told the New York Times. "She's been saying she would keep troops in Iraq for five years, until 2013, and now she comes up with an inconsistent, incredible turnaround."
Late Update: The Hillary campaign already has their rebuttal posted. Richardson is actually misquoting her by saying she called for all troops to be brought home. This is what she really said:
“I think we can bring home one to two combat brigades a month,” Hillary said. “I think we can bring nearly everybody home, you know, certainly within a year if we keep at it and do it very steadily.” This would still allow for a small residual force.
Comments (33)
DonnaG wrote on December 21, 2007 9:27 AM:Maybe Richardson has watched what happened to the Shaheens in NH when they tried to carry dirty water for Clinton......not so good for their own political future.
bridoc wrote on December 21, 2007 9:29 AM:Someone is looking to be Obama's VP now :P
Richardson is like a rat jumping off a sinking ship. Not that I think Richardson is rat like at all...it is just a figure of speech.
He could be a nice way to balance the "experience" issue, since he does have a pretty impressive resume. I'm all for it. I'd heart Edwards as VP, but it wouldn't do much to balance the ticket unfortunately..
Kefa wrote on December 21, 2007 9:38 AM:He's a hedge better.
Michael A wrote on December 21, 2007 9:38 AM:The funny thing is that nobody, probably even clinton II, knows what her gd position is on a gd thing. She is all over the map on every issue, from staying in iraq forever to who knows what. And we're supposed to be like blind sheep and "trust" this fraud. Give me a break.
bridoc wrote on December 21, 2007 9:54 AM:Oh no Michael A, remember she is going to lead strongly from Day One! :P
colonpowwow wrote on December 21, 2007 9:54 AM:Wow. Strong words from one of the most effectual, influential, and stunning Democratic candidates ever. He's still running, right?
Hey, at least he gives the you-know-who haters here another shot at their favorite pastime. That's a form of usefulness, I guess.
Sorry that the HH season will be ending for you soon and we'll have to turn our venom on the GOP fodder, whoever he turns out to be. That's something sharing and fuzzy for us all to celebrate in the spirit of the season.
Obama in 2016!
savvy wrote on December 21, 2007 9:55 AM:Ditto what Michael A said!
savvy wrote on December 21, 2007 9:56 AM:Not only is he still running colonpowwow but he is also far more experienced than Hillary and has more solid foreign policy credentials too.
Gene wrote on December 21, 2007 10:06 AM:The top three contenders all refused to rule out having troops in Iraq at the END of their term as President (2013). Whatever motivations you want to guess at, he is right - it is a huge reversal of her prior position.
As an aside - I've been perplexed by Hillary taking the position that she is the most experienced. How is that? If it is time in the Senate, then Dodd and Biden blow her out of the water. If it is overall time "around" politics, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd's actual participation still blow her out of the water (plus, I have yet to hear any precise activity she asserts IS experience from her time alongside Bill Clinton). Why is it that I hear no one calling her on this?
bridoc wrote on December 21, 2007 10:07 AM:Yes colonpowwow, it will be fun to turn the targets on the GOP, although honestly if Hillary gets the nomination the election is just going to be a lesser of two evils kind of thing for me, and I really don't know if I could bring myself to vote for either evil after all of the slime I've witnessed from the Hillary camp.
Obama NOW!!
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 21, 2007 10:13 AM:Of course, Clinton wants troops in Iraq for the next eight years . . . Clinton wants to be a fascist dictator . . .
bridoc wrote on December 21, 2007 10:22 AM:Gene, not only those obvious examples, but even Obama's legislative experience dwarfs Hillary's (both in terms of time and leadership/accomplishments). If you actually look at what she has accomplished during her time in the Senate almost all of it is stupid crap like naming buildings after people. Her "experience" is crap, and yes, it pretty much just includes being First Lady and meeting and greeting people, minus a few little speeches.
And no one in the MSM is calling her on this because they are all behind her, they don't want to mess with the establishment, so as a result they don't bother to fact check the very core of her campaign. Basically our media SUCKS in every way imaginable.
dajafi wrote on December 21, 2007 10:37 AM:Richardson has been the biggest disappointment of this year in the campaign. It's still hard for me to believe he's been as bad a candidate as he proved to be. Maybe at this point he's trying to salvage a little dignity.
I still find him infinitely preferable to Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation, with her slimy and dishonest campaign, substance-free apologists, and utter lack of principle other than servicing the same special interests who've already done so well under BushClintonBush.
CalD wrote on December 21, 2007 10:40 AM:Sure, you can pull out the bulk of the troops. You can pull out all the front line combat troops and all the people it takes to support then and stop engaging in day-to-day combat roles. But there are still going to have to be some US military personnel in Iraq for training and advising Iraqi police and defense forces, protecting US facilities, diplomatic personnel and business interests for probably the next decade give or take. Maybe longer. I'm pretty sure we still have people in Bosnia, for example.
There's just no way around that. Barack Obama has essentially the same position, BTW. Richardson is just being a hippie or else trying to draw contrast where none really exists. Either way, if you regard that as a continuation of the current military mission then I am afraid you are likely to be sorely disappointed with the next president regardless of who that person turns out to be.
NCSteve wrote on December 21, 2007 10:41 AM:We can safely bring home one to two combat brigades a month. Hmmmm, hmmm, wonder where she got that idea? Could it possibly be from that naive tyro she's running against who absolutely doesn't know a single thing about foreign policy and military affairs?
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/12/obama_outlines_his_troop_pullo.php
Colon, if you want to see what real completely irrational and utterly irresponsible hatred by a Democrat for a Democratic candidate actually looks like, go read Taylor Marsh's last fifteen or twenty posts over at HuffPo.
NCSteve wrote on December 21, 2007 10:47 AM:Obama has been very clear that he won't promise to remove every last troop from Iraq because a) we'll still have an embassy (although hopefully not that monstrosity KBR is building for Bush) and Marines guard all of our embassies, b) we may still be running SF operations against AQI for a very long time, and c) we may still be doing training.
Richardson evidently sees no need for the SF option or the training. Fine, that's a valid position. However, he really needs to explain who, exactly, he plans on having guarding the embassy after his pullout. Blackwater?
CleverDem wrote on December 21, 2007 10:54 AM:I'd say the chances have increased infinitely that Hillary will be picking Clark for her VP. Especially if McCain is her opponent.
John wrote on December 21, 2007 10:56 AM:“I think we can bring home one to two combat brigades a month,” Hillary said, (co-opting the position held by "naive" candidate, Barack Obama, for more than a year).
Truly shameless! But completely unsurprising.
Liam wrote on December 21, 2007 10:59 AM:Reality Check:
We can start pulling troops out of Iraq, but we can not bring them home. They are needed in Afghanistan. That war is not going well, and that is the real haven for terrorists. They are in control of more that half the rural areas, and they are well funded from the record poppy crops. In addition they have a safe haven in tribal border regions of Pakistan, you know, that place with the real Mushroom Cloud making WMD.
The next president will have to direct most of our efforts to getting Afghanistan turned around. Bush allowed it to happen, while he went off on his Iraqmire vision quest.
Margaret Steerman wrote on December 21, 2007 11:01 AM:She makes me sick!
It's about time those who really know come forward and tell us all the truth. She is a calculating, poll driven political animal with no capability to lead.
Steve McGuire wrote on December 21, 2007 11:12 AM:This whole stupid little thing between Richardson and Clinton is nothing but an extremely shallow and transparent head fake to suck Obama into a fight.
EVERYONE, (including NCSteve) has known Barack's position for over a year.
This stuff about the "one to two brigades a month" thing is pulled directly from Barack's policy on his website.
Hillary and Richardson are betting that they can get Barack to make a stink that she is stealing his positions and engage with her negatively. If he were to fall for this tactic, then Barack might be seen as no worse than her by the Iowa Caucusers as far as negativity goes.
It's not going to work. He is smarter than that.
This whole stupid little thing between Richardson and Clinton is nothing but an extremely shallow and transparent head fake to suck Obama into a fight.
EVERYONE, (including NCSteve) has known Barack's position for over a year.
This stuff about the "one to two brigades a month" thing is pulled directly from Barack's policy on his website.
Hillary and Richardson are betting that they can get Barack to make a stink that she is stealing his positions and engage with her negatively. If he were to fall for this tactic, then Barack might be seen as no worse than her by the Iowa Caucusers as far as negativity goes.
It's not going to work. He is smarter than that.
Margaret Steerman wrote on December 21, 2007 11:01 AM:
"It's about time those who really know come forward and tell us all the truth. She is a calculating, poll driven political animal with no capability to lead."
C'mon NCSteve, Michael A., Richard L. Adloff, DonnaG, et al - help Margaret out a little here, okay!
colonpowwow wrote on December 21, 2007 11:38 AM:Oops.
Anonymous post at 11:33 was mine.
SocraticGadfly wrote on December 21, 2007 1:08 PM:Why do people think Richardson is somehow working for Clinton?
kjoe wrote on December 21, 2007 1:17 PM:One thing which must be driving the Clintons nuts, is that obama's campaign is extremely careful when they examine what Hillary says----he has become pretty adept at matching her parsingness---and still managing to score some points. Richardson swung for a home run, and missed the break on the curve---Obama is capable of bunting a Clinton parse from first to second.
His choices for campaign staff compared to hillary's are the best indication that he is ready to take the job---starting with carefully consiered cabinet choices. Wonder who he will pick as AG---probably will not have to go to a third choice like the immature Bill Clinton did.
colonpowwow wrote on December 21, 2007 1:25 PM:SocraticGadfly wrote on December 21, 2007 1:08 PM:
"Why do people think Richardson is somehow working for Clinton?"
It's another irrational Hillary-hate conspiracy theory from the loony leftist-behind wing of the Democratic Party - you know, the same people who gave us George Bush in 2000 because Al Gore wasn't pure enough for them.
Flip flopping on Iraq? She's held a neocon position on Iraq for years:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4811
GoPsmurderedconscience wrote on December 21, 2007 2:28 PM:Marc Ambinder over at The Atlantic has a simple answer to this doofus:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/did_hrc_flipflop_on_iraq.php
Maybe it's better than trying to occupy Iraq for five more years, but Hillary's "brigade a month" plan is still not good enough. In 2007, about 20,000 people died in Iraq while Congress dithered. How many more in 2008? How many more in 2009?
Michael A wrote on December 21, 2007 3:21 PM:Hi colonpowwow, good one. Now, have I ever said anything even close to that? Nope.
Signed - Member of the looney leftist wing of the party who thinks gore is awesome. I wanted him to run this time. He already won once.
Jan wrote on December 21, 2007 3:41 PM:Michael A wrote on December 21, 2007 9:38 AM: "The funny thing is that nobody, probably even clinton II, knows what her gd position is on a gd thing. She is all over the map on every issue, from staying in iraq forever to who knows what."
This comment is uninformed.
First, try reading her website, where you will find her position on HER top ten priorities. They have not changed since the day her campaign began.
If you don't like her top ten priorities, so be it.
Her number one priority is bringing the troops home from Iraq.
I dare you to find me a place where she has ever said anything in the campaign except that her goal is to have all the troops out of Iraq.
She was asked if she would promise to have them all out by the end of her first term and she said she would not promise.
If you want a candidate to make that promise, your choices are Kucinch or Richardson. They have promised to bring the troops home from Iraq, no matter what the circumstances are on the ground.
None of the others would make the promise.
Yeah Jan, I know I am uninformed, why don't you inform me.
Please provide some examples to support her claim of overwhelming foreign policy experience? How about some treaties and international agreements for starters?
Could you please provide a website outlining her senate voting record? Being a clinton II supporter, I am sure that you know of one. Especially, in light of the fact that the campaign sifted through 4000 of obama's votes in the illinois state legislature. There must be a summary of her record somewhere.
I am really not interested in her website. I'd have better luck trying to figure out her policy position on anything going to a fortune teller.
