As I said earlier, that's my prerequisite for a candidate. Hillary said a while back that if she were elected president she'd pull us out of Iraq. Not sure if she included no permanent bases, but she said "troops home." Any Democratic candidate should be able to say those words without hesitation if they expect to be the nominee. Good on Richardson.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 11, 2007 03:02 PMBravo for Richardson. He is someone I intend to look at more closely. No Democrat should be a candidate who isn't willing to end the war, and won't commit to a withdrawal deadline.
Posted by Judith at April 11, 2007 03:23 PMMy co-blogger Mike Stabile is backing Richardson. He has more:
"What I would do coupled with that withdrawal, using the leverage of an American withdrawal of forces, would be to convene two very strong diplomatic initiatives, two diplomatic conferences. One, in a US-led effort to get the three entities, the three religious groups, the three sects, the Sunni, the Shia, the Kurds… to put them in a room and I would say, there’s gonna be a coalition government, you’re gonna divide up oil revenues, you’re gonna divide up ministries, cabinet ministries, there’s gonna be three entities in Iraq, based on the Dayton Accords. And what I would do is have an Iraqi central government. Hopefully that would be Iraq’s future political structure.
"This will be tough. This will be difficult but the full force of withdrawal, the full force of American diplomacy, and the full force of bringing other entities Europe, Muslim countries, and the region for a solution. We’ll give Iraq a chance.
"Right now, our current policy is a massive failure. What we have is a civil war. Sectarian violence. We have 30,000 surge of American troops at a time when we need these troops for instance, with graver threats like in Afghanistan, and what we have is a foreign policy that is has been so obsessed with Iraq that we have not focused on the real dangers affecting this country, like the threat of international terrorism, like global climate change, like the threat of nuclear proliferation, or a loose nuclear weapon. This is my plan for Iraq. It would be clear, it would be succinct, it would be strong, it would be almost immediate. I would withdraw within the next 8 months and I believe with this strong diplomacy, we give Iraq a chance to survive security-wise in the future and we protect our interests."
I'm beginning to like Bill Richardson much more.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 11, 2007 03:36 PMDoh! That's what he said in the video!
Posted by Seven of Six at April 11, 2007 03:44 PMWhy wait, Bill? Things are getting steadily worse as everyone knows and as the Iraq Study Group reported. Haven't we met our death quota yet? What's so magical about "this calendar year"? There is a sovereign government in Iraq that we tout, the Iraqi people and their president want us out, GIs are getting blown up as we speak, WHY WAIT? WHY?
Posted by Don Bacon at April 11, 2007 04:20 PMrichardson has the credentials to navigate a nation into the 'new world order' he isnt afraid to engage other nation states.
he has indigenous blood.
to think north america was full of buffalo and passenger pigeons.
Seven,
Please tell us why Afghanistan is "a graver threat" and also what the military can do about "the international threat of terrorism". What does the average American have to fear from these so-called threats?
My answer: The average American has more to fear from a bath-tub slip than from terrorism--despite what the government says. There's no duct tape on my windows, how about you?
Posted by Don Bacon at April 11, 2007 04:27 PMThe Yahoo story actually doesn't bother me. It looks like he declared the contribution as did they and that Yahoo is more guilty of a whisper campaign than anything of substance.
Posted by mainsailset at April 11, 2007 07:34 PMSteve and others,
A major cover-up involving the RNC and White House emails is a brewin':
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-11-white-house-email-probe_N.htm
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0407/White_House_Emails_Are_Missing_Waxman_.html
This is freakin' huge. If they deleted these suckers, it's likely criminal. If they didn't delete them, it's likely those emails has some serious dirt in them, and THEN they'll get criminal charges against them.
Major bind for our dear friends in the White House.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at April 11, 2007 08:14 PMSeven, Please tell us why Afghanistan is "a graver threat" and also what the military can do about "the international threat of terrorism". What does the average American have to fear from these so-called threats?
Did I agree with his statement? No, I just posted it.
I'm with coyote, a prerequisite for a candidate has to be withdrawal from Iraq. The sooner the better.
We definitely need to start repairing our credentials overseas. Seems like Richardson would make a great Sec. of State.
If we're going to redeploy I would like to see a few troops go back to Afghanistan. Aid them in rebuilding their infrastructure, to the best of our abilities without getting too many killed. I think this is how we could win (or have won) over the hearts and minds of the (not so radical) Islamic community. Of course, we would have to be part of a UN mission there. If they don't want us there, then pull out completely.
Of course, bu$h mishandled that mission also, and shot our foot off.
I'd still like us to find Osama. Maybe bu$h, cheney, turdblossom and him can share a cave together.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 11, 2007 08:53 PMseven,
I'm glad to hear you didn't agree with your posting.
Richardson on foreign policy:
To become a respected international leader again, we need a national security policy that is tough and smart, a military second to none, a firm commitment to building diplomatic alliances, we need to defeat terrorism, and that's our number one national security challenge, we need to promote freedom, alleviate poverty, and stop global warming.
The only thing he didn't mention is motherhood--but I respect your judgment and I'll keep an open mind.
Afghanistan is a loser, historically a graveyard for foreign occupiers. Pakistan supports our enemy, Iran helped us but what thanks did they get so they're now dealing with the Taliban, and Russia and China haven't even weighed in yet (that we know of). Every village we bomb and every villager we kill has a multiplier effect--you know. Not worth any American lives. "Without getting too many killed"? Come on, seven, now you're talking like them. How many is too many?
I've got a Bush-lover ex-friend who says Iraq is no sweat, only 3200 GIs dead. Small potatoes. It's "not too many" to him. By the way, he told me that his older brother was killed in WWII and sadly his mother never got over the loss. How many mothers is too many? One was too many for him, but he's in the stock market so Bush is the man and 3200 is not a problem. He's definitely conflicted.
I realize that life does not normally consist of absolutes but I am absolutely against elective wars.
I'm down to the Baja for a couple of weeks--hold the fort for me. Take charge of this post and all government property in view. Report all violations . . .Repeat all calls. . . etc. etc.
Posted by Don Bacon at April 11, 2007 09:46 PMDon, Have a safe trip.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 11, 2007 11:19 PMRichardson's resume is way more impressive than Obama's or, dare I say, Hillary's, after all, he's done what she only could watch.
The difference in that camapign donation story? Nobody's covering anything up, Richardson didn't have a piece of the development pie, and that's what campaign contributors do, they give money to people that help their cause, before or after.
It's just innuendo from the GOP Media.
Posted by Duckman GR at April 12, 2007 07:20 AM