Water-boarding is term that describes strapping an individual to a board, with a towel pulled tightly across his face, and pouring water on him or her to cut off air and simulate drowning. 

When asked directly last week whether he thought waterboarding is constitutional, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey was evasive.  As noted by NPR, Mukasey “danced around the issue of whether waterboarding actually is torture and stopped short of saying that it is.” “If it amounts to torture,” Mukasey said carefully, “then it is not constitutional.”

As stated by Bill Richardson,

Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.

What about the Democrats in the U.S. Senate and other Democratic Presidential candidates?  Will they oppose Mukasey unless he denounces the use of torture by our government?

John Hutson, former judge advocate general of the Navy said last week after Judge Mukasey’s confirmation hearing , “Waterboarding was devised in the Spanish Inquisition. Next to the rack and thumbscrews, it’s the most iconic example of torture.”

The Bush Administration seems to believe that when anyone else does it, it’s torture, but when the U.S. does it, waterboarding  is acceptable.  Rudy Giuliani holds the same view. 

During his confirmation hearings, when asked about waterboarding, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote:

Michael Mukasey suddenly seemed to morph into his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales — beginning with a series of openly evasive answers that ultimately led to what appeared to be a lie. At first, he repeatedly stated that he does not support torture, which violates the U.S. Constitution. This is precisely the answer given so often by President Bush like a mantra. The problem is that Bush defines torture to exclude things like water-boarding. It is like saying you do not rob banks, but then defining bank robbery in such a way that it does not include walking in with a gun and demanding money from the cashier.

The senators pushed Mukasey to go beyond the Bush administration mantra. He refused and then said something that made many of us who were listening gasp: “I don’t know what is involved in the technique,” he said.

In an editorial published this week, the Los Angeles Times states:

Michael B. Mukasey, who once seemed headed to confirmation as attorney general by acclamation, may now be facing a narrower and more contentious vote. That’s the price the retired federal judge from New York will have to pay unless he reconsiders some evasive testimony about torture.

. . .As the 10 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee noted in a letter to the nominee, water-boarding “has been the subject of much public discussion.” What isn’t clear is whether the CIA reserves the right to resort to that appalling practice to elicit information, reliable or otherwise, from suspected terrorists.

. . .Mukasey owes the Senate, and the country, an unambiguous commitment to upholding the Geneva Convention’s ban on “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” The question to him is whether Americans — in any service, for any reason — should be allowed to engage in water-boarding. The only acceptable answer is no.

As noted by Professor Turley, there are only two explanations for Mukasey’s evasion:  either Mukasey is the most ill-informed nominee in the history of this republic or, the more likely explanation: Mukasey is lying.

Where do our Senate Democrats and Presidential candidates stand on torture?  That is what the vote on Mukasey has become.

The candidate I’m supporting for President, Bill Richardson, stated on October 19th:

“Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.

“Torture does not work. Mistreatment backfires and destroys our international leadership, as we saw with Abu Ghraib. Torture also endangers our own troops. The standards we adopt may well be what our own troops are subjected to.

“Anytime one makes a person think he or she is being executed, the very nature of waterboarding, it obviously is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, international law, and basic human decency.

“ABC News has described waterboarding as follows: ‘The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face, and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in, and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.’

“If another nation engaged in waterboarding against American citizens, we would denounce that country and call the practice barbaric, and rightly so.

“We must stand against torture without equivocation, without compromise, and without exception. Torture is a violation of everything we stand for as Americans and as human beings.”

Supporters of Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden and other the candidates – where does your candidate stand on the confirmation of Mukasey?

Let’s rally together and call on all Democrats in the Senate to vote “no” on torture and Mukasey.

Gov. Richardson, Sen. Dodd, and Sen. Edwards have offered both statements and resources for those suffering in our state this week.

John Edwards: “Our thoughts and prayers are with the more than 300,000 families who have been forced to flee their homes to escape the wildfires spreading across southern California. Those affected by this tragedy should take comfort in the fact that their fellow Americans are standing with them and will do whatever it takes to fight the fires and rebuild the homes and businesses that were destroyed.”

Edwards is calling on his One Corps volunteers to assist in local projects in and around San Diego.  You can sign up here.

Bill Richardson: “Today, we all extend our sympathies and prayers to those devastated by the wildfires in California.  Millions of Americans are impacted by this natural disaster.

Neighbors should help neighbors in their time of need.  As Governor of New Mexico,  I ordered two fire crews (strike teams, with 5 engines and 21 crew members each) to California. As a candidate for President, I donated to the American Red Cross ($10,000 -ed.) and I encourage you to do so as well, click here to do so.

But as someone who believes the war in Iraq is a complete disaster and that we need to get our troops out now (www.getourtroopsout.com), I look at the natural disaster in California and feel compelled to also ask President Bush and every candidate who thinks it is okay for our troops to remain in Iraq until 2013 or longer – where is our National Guard?

It is a sad irony that yesterday, the very day I sent fire crews to California, 300 more New Mexico National Guard members were sent to Iraq.  Just when we need them most at home, more of our brave men and women, true public servants, are sent away to a war we cannot win.”

Chris Dodd:  “As you know, Governor Schwarzenegger has had to ask other states for help because so many of California’s National Guard, who provide critical support to the citizens while you are fighting the fires, were deployed to Iraq. In a Dodd Administration, never again will our houses be on fire because our troops are taking fire in Iraq. Never again will our first responders be left without the support they need because our President failed to do what it took to keep our communities safe. That is why in 2008, nothing will be more important than leadership that can get results that make us stronger and more secure. That’s the first responsibility of an American President.”

And, he’s asking for volunteers at California Volunteers.com.

How are the Republicans handling this, you ask?  On the flip…

In case you were wondering:

Rudy Giuliani: Nothing.
John McCain: Nothing.
Mitt Romney: Nothing.
Fred Thompson: Nothing.
Mike Huckabee: Nothing.  A 30-minute interview with Glenn Beck on his front page.
Duncan Hunter: It’s his frickin’ district and it’s hard to find anything outside of this news article.
Tom Tancredo: Nothing.
Ron Paul: Nothing.  And he’s doing a “Hollywood fundraiser” tonight.

They just don’t care.

Today our campaign released a new ad, entitled “Only One,” which details a hostage situation in Iraq that then-Congressman Richardson was called upon to defuse. In the 60-second spot, Bill Barloon, the late David Daliberti, and his wife Kathy Daliberti praise Richardson for obtaining the release of the two men from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in July 1995.

Learn more about Governor Richardson and his plan for Iraq at  No Troops Left Behind

Today, Chase Martyn of the Iow Independent reviewed a major policy speech by Bill Richardson earlier this week on how to improve the welfare of the human race and our environment.  Martyn is no supporter of Richardson, noting “I expected would be ridden with gaffes, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals, and poll-tested mumbo jumbo. Having not seen Richardson stump in person for a period of two months, I had no idea what I was in for.”

Martyn came away highly impressed.  Martyn described Richardson’s speech as “bold and informative.  . . . I dare say he sounded presidential.

In his speech, Richardson set forth  a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war.  Richardson stated:  “A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.” 

In Iowa this week, Bill Richardson gave a major speech on U.S. foreign policy, setting forth a global agenda to address welfare of the human race.  He noted:

For decades, we believed that the only Apocalyptic threat to human civilization was the possibility of nuclear war.

Now we know better. We know that poverty and overpopulation affect us all. Refugee crises. Pandemic diseases. Climate change. Environmental degradation. Resource Depletion. Ethnic and political instability. These are not just the problems of individual nations. They are the problems of an interdependent world.

These threats are insidious. They may take decades to develop. And they respect no borders. Problems that span time and continents can only be solved through coordinated and cooperative global efforts. 

Time is of the essence Richardson argued:

If we wait ten or twenty or fifty years to address these problems, it will already be too late.  Environmental degradation takes many forms, but the most urgent is global climate change. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the planet is getting hotter. This is a fact, not a forecast.

The ice caps and glaciers are melting. Sea levels are rising.
300 million human beings live less than fifteen feet above sea level. Unless we act now, homes, villages, cities, and entire nations will be submerged.

Those not displaced by rising waters may go hungry as our unrestrained addiction to fossil fuels threatens both regional and global food shortages. Already severe drought has cut the world’s maize crops by as much as 15%, and wheat supplies will soon be at their lowest level in 26 years.

In a world where hundreds of millions go to bed hungry, major losses in staple crops foretell a time when we wake up to billions starving.  In America … in a nation that has long fed the world…catastrophically rising temperatures threaten to decimate our farmland.

As a world traveler and peace maker, Richardson has a witnessed in person the challenges facing developing nations: 

But we cannot comprehend the crushing burden of global poverty through statistics alone. Even in America, I have walked in communities with no access to clean water. We have all seen shamefully inadequate housing, and we know that even in our own country there are children that go to bed hungry every night.

In my travels abroad, I have seen human desperation — first hand. In the Sudan, I have been to camps filled with families who have lost every worldly possession. I was on the ground in Turkey during a terrible earthquake, where I saw impoverished mothers on their knees, digging through rubble for their lost children.

I’ve spent time in Darfur which today is the best-known example of environmental pressures cascading into instability and violence. A prolonged drought decimated the region’s grazing lands and nomadic herders moved south in search of water and food. They encroached upon farming land that belonged to other tribes, igniting the conflict that now has turned into a genocide.

We urgently need to find the courage and the will to address such crises. Not only because we are a decent and compassionate people, but also because of this inescapable reality: America will never be safe in a world riddled by poverty, desperation, hatred and violence.

A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.

And unless and until we have the wisdom and the skill to secure all the nuclear weapons and fissile material in the world, that terrorism could result in unthinkable death and destruction.

The key points of Richardson’s global plan as summarized in the Des Moines Register are as follows:

• Work through existing United Nations mechanisms to prepare for the possibility that millions of people could be displaced because of global-warming-related flooding of deltas and coastal areas.

• Focus on education in developing nations, where 115 million children do not receive any schooling.

• Institute a nationwide, market-based cap and trade system that reduces carbon emissions in the U.S. by 80 percent by 2040. Make sure China and India develop clean energy.

• Accelerate research into cellulosic ethanol and other low-carbon biofuels and construct distribution networks for retailers.

• Develop cost-effective methods for harvesting fresh water and cleaning up polluted rivers and streams. Protect tropical rain forests and pursue aggressive reforestation programs.

• Fight cross-border crime, end slavery and make progress to eradicate human trafficking.

Specific to the UN, Richardson reaffirmed that the organization is a necessary and important framework to confront international problems.  He called for reforming and invigorating the UN, and he said he understands better than anyone in the presidential race the organization’s shortcomings.  Richardson added he knows the “incredible power” that the legitimacy of international cooperation can lend to peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, addressing climate change and economic development.

In reviewing Richardson’s speech, Chase Martyn of the Iowa Independent wrote:

If there were an award for “most improved presidential candidate” to be awarded in 2008, no one would deserve it more than Gov. Bill Richardson.  The candidate Iowans got to know through a series of satirical TV ads over the summer is no longer kidding around.  On the campaign trail here this week, Richardson left the distinct impression that he means business.

Kicking off his latest campaign swing Thursday, the New Mexico governor gave a speech on global threats, one which I expected would be ridden with gaffes, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals, and poll-tested mumbo jumbo.  Having not seen Richardson stump in person for a period of two months, I had no idea what I was in for.

Richardson’s address, which he delivered using a teleprompter with unexpected precision and rhetorical skill, was bold and informative.  Far from the repetition I have accustomed myself to in these sorts of speeches over the past few months, Richardson showed his true colors as a man devoted to humanitarianism and global citizenship.  I dare say he sounded presidential.

Martyn was not the only one impressed with Richardson’s speech: 

When he finished, the crowd of over 250 in downtown Des Moines gave him a standing ovation, but the format of the event — and the governor’s schedule — did not allow for questions.

Martyn decided to attend a town hall by Richardson that evening to see “if Richardson’s newfound seriousness would translate to his “town hall” style events or if it was merely a product of his teleprompter.”

I expected the torrential downpour that had lasted for much for much of the afternoon to depress turnout, but when I arrived 15 minutes early, the chairs in the “Story County Outdoor Recreation for Everyone” complex were already full.

True to form, Richardson kept his stump speech short, folding new sections of his speech (based on his address earlier in the day) into his standard talking points.  “I’m troubled by the debate within the party on the war,” he said, before launching into a concise explanation of his plan to withdraw all troops from Iraq as soon as possible, because diplomacy will not succeed until our troops are gone.  “I’m not happy with the congress,” he said.  “They haven’t even made a dent” on Iraq policy.

He quickly concluded his remarks and opened the floor for questions, which covered a wide variety of topics.  I had seen Richardson stumble at this point during previous events over the summer, so I was expecting things to get a little shaky.  Again, my expectations were confounded.

He fielded questions on subjects ranging from peace between Israel and the Palestinians to fuel standards, and his answers were coherent and specific.  He displayed an understanding of the complex problems facing the world, emphasizing the gravity of our situation, but he was careful to note that “I’m not trying to be an alarmist.”

. . . By the end of the event, Richardson had answered every question that audience members had, even if the last eight were done in rapid-fire succession.  Onlookers were impressed enough that several filled out supporter cards, and I was impressed enough to eat a slice of humble pie (look at what I have written about Richardson in the past) and write this post.

(I think a Presidential candidate rates a front-page promotion. – promoted by David Dayen)

This is cross posted at The Huffington Post and posted here for your convenience in case you missed it yesterday.

It’s Time to Make a Choice in Iraq

By Governor Bill Richardson

(body of text on the flip)

Yesterday, twelve former Army captains wrote that short of reinstating the
  draft, “our best option is to leave Iraq immediately.” In an extraordinary
  editorial in the Washington Post, these captains–all of whom served in Iraq–made
  it clear that we need to end this war and we need to end it now. They wrote
  that a ” scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war and it will spend
  more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.”

I strongly urge every American to read this important report
  from those who served in the failed conflict in Iraq. Army captains are the
  staff officers who plan operations against insurgent strongholds. They are
  the company commanders who lead our soldiers through the streets of Baghdad.
  And they are the soldiers who will direct our withdrawal from Iraq.

These men and women know the score. They know that we must leave Iraq. As
  they put it, “It’s time to make a choice.” Americans are fed up with the President’s
  stalling and Congressional failure to act. Frankly, it is well past time we
  make a choice. And the only responsible choice left to us is to get all
  of our troops out of Iraq, with no residual forces left behind–no combat
  forces, no non-combat forces. As President, I will do it. I will get all of
  our troops out within a year after I take office – sooner if we can get it
  done safely.

The other major candidates in this race have said–again and again–that
  they will not. Senators Edwards, Obama, and Clinton have all refused to commit
  to getting all of our troops out of Iraq by 2013. None of
  them are willing to be clear about removing all troops – combat and non-combat.
  It’s unbelievable. Are they looking at the same war the rest of us are? Furthermore,
  they are all advocating precisely the sort of scaled withdrawal that these
  twelve captains are warning against. It doesn’t make any sense. Real leadership
  is about making the tough choices, and knowing when it is time to make bold
  moves. Now is the time for action, not hesitation. Ending this war requires
  real change, not more incrementalism.

Ending this war is the most important issue of our time. And it is the fundamental
  difference between me and Senators Edwards, Obama, and Clinton. I will end
  the war; they will not. I will get all of our troops out; they will leave
  troops behind indefinitely. I will order a safe and rapid withdrawal and have
  our troops out within a year. They have proposed a long, protracted withdrawal
  that will only increase the danger to our fighting men and women and drag
  out the war.

2013 is six years from now – six years. In six years, will
  we have lost 6,000 men and women in Iraq? 10,000? More? In six years will
  this be a $2 trillion mistake? Or $3 trillion? The war has been going on for
  four and half years already. Six years from now, we will have been there for
  more than a decade. Are you okay with that? I’m not.

The choice in Iraq is clear. We need to get all our troops out quickly. We
  need to end this war for real. Go to getourtroopsout.com
  to join Americans across the country in calling for a quick, clear, responsible
  end to the war in Iraq.

Five years ago was critical week in the decision by our nation to go to war with Iraq.  While the Senate was debating the war, Edwards gave a well-publicized speech in Washington, D.C. on October  7, 2002, supporting the Bush Administration’s rationale for invading Iraq. 

At the time, Edwards was busy planning his run for President and seeking to position himself as a Southern war hawk.  He failed to read key intelligence reports available only to members of the Senate that cast doubt the Bush Administration’s claims that Saddam possessed WMD and which influenced those that read them to vote against the war. 

Edwards had made up his mind that the U.S. should invade Iraq.  Edwards’ judgment on Iraq was flawed in 2002 and it remains flawed today.  He refuses to commit to the withdrawal of ALL U.S. forces from Iraq by 2010 or even 2013.

Edwards was the darling child of the DLC in 2002.  During the run up to the invasion many Democrats were voicing opinions as strongly in favor of the war as Bush and the neocons. Edwards stated on October 7, 2002, the same day President Bush in a televised address called on Congress to support his objectives for Iraq, that:

My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I’m a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that is presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he’s used them in the past, and that he’s doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.

In February 2003, the Democratic Leadership Council praised Edwards for his views on Iraq and criticized Democrats who advocated continued diplomatic outreach with Iraq through the United Nations: 

Unfortunately, some Democrats are echoing the faulty logic of the French, who say Powell’s presentation just shows the need for more inspections of Iraq. What would be the purpose of those inspections now that continued Iraqi defiance of its “final opportunity” for compliance with the United Nations has been established by the inspectors themselves?

. . .

And Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) said: “I have long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind. Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act. Saddam Hussein is on notice.”

Which Democrats were the DLC referring to as using faulty logic?  Richardson, the candidate I’m supporting, was one. 

On March 11, 2003, eight days before President Bush announced the U.S. was at war with Iraq, Richardson criticized the Bush Administration’s rush to war in an interview on CNN.

At the time, most Americans supported going to war and were critical of the U.N. Richardson defended the work of the U.N.  Richardson accurately predicted that a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq would undermine the U.N. and hurt the prestige of the U.S. abroad:

CROWLEY: I want to ask you the question, first, if there is no Security Council resolution approving of a war on Iraq, and if the Bush administration should go ahead, who loses in that scenario?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think the United Nations loses because it shows a lack of relevance to this crisis.

And, secondly, I think, Candy, that the United States loses because we’re going into a major conflict without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, without some of our major allies like France and Russia, and also those 10 other members of the Security Council, the 10 non-permanent members that have a voice right now.

So I think it would come at considerable cost especially if we’re to win the war, which we would, issues relating to a post-Iraq configuration to the prestige of the United States worldwide to bring some kind of order to the Middle East and bring some kind of Persian Gulf-lessening attention. So, I think everybody would be a victim. The United Nations, the United States and, certainly, our NATO allies. I think would be hurt, too, because if they don’t support us the breakdown of the NATO alliance might be next to go.

CROWLEY: Well, I want to cite a couple of figures for you. One of them just came from a CBS/New York Times poll, which showed that right now only about 34 percent of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a good job handling this situation.

Fifty eight percent think it’s doing a poor job. On top of that, we also found that 55 percent would support an invasion, even if the Security Council says don’t do it. What does that say about how Americans view the U.N., and has that changed since you were the ambassador?

RICHARDSON: Well, the United States as a populous, here in new Mexico, there’s not much support for the United Nations. But at the same time, Candy, what everyone should understand is the United Nations does a lot of things that we, the U.S. as the only superpower, don’t want to do.

They get involved in conflicts in Kosovo, in the Congo in Africa, in Guatemala and Latin America. Immigration issues, AIDS, refugees. We don’t want to get directly involved in these, but we use the arm of international support, legitimacy of the United Nations to do it.

Now, in the Persian Gulf, conveniently, the U.N. supported our efforts in 1991 to get a broad coalition. And I think we’ve used the U.N. in the war on terrorism to get international support.

But clearly in this Iraq crisis, the U.N. has to step up and simply enforce its [1441] resolution. And it’s not doing that. So, it’s going to be a big loss for the U.N. in terms of its peacekeeping relevance, unless it really steps up and gets tough on Saddam Hussein. I think that’s the issue.

CROWLEY: So, am I right, am I hearing you correctly that you believe that the U.N. Security Council should pass the resolution that Britain and the U.S. are proposing?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would go a little differently, Candy. I think the U.S. and Britain should compromise. That’s the essence of diplomacy. To get nine votes, if it means postponing for 30 days, or 15 days or 10 days, a new resolution with benchmarks on Iraq’s behavior, let’s do it. I think that France and Russia are basically gone.

They are going to veto. But it would be a partial victory if we get nine votes for a victory of a majority in the Security Council. If we don’t do that, I think it’s going to be tremendous prestige loss overseas. I think, domestically, it’s going to cause more problems for the administration. The Congress will be divided. This is a time when it’s frustrating, but what’s the rush, really. Iraq is not heading down Baghdad into the United States.

Again, it is a threat, but it’s not an immediate threat. It’s not something that is like the war on terrorism, where we’re under alert from a potential terrorist attack in this country. So let’s be judicious. Let’s be calm. Let’s be patient.

Edwards is wrong on Iraq today.  Edwards leaves open the door to the U.S. intervention in Iraq for years to come.  Edwards refuses to make any absolute pledge to leave Iraq.  He first has to take office and any withdrawal will depend upon the circumstances. 

When asked at the AARP debate in September in Iowa if he would bring home our troops by 2010, Edwards answer is “it’s impossible to say.”  At the debate in New Hampshire a week later, Edwards response was he couldn’t make a commitment in answer to the question of whether our troops would be out of Iraq by 2013.

With Edwards, his promise to bring our troops home is conditional.  In contrast, with Richardson, it is absolute.

Here is the video clip from the AARP debate: 

Edwards also puts forth another justification for the continued U.S. military intervention in Iraq:  the “embassy argument.”  It is a red herring designed to create confusion and doubt in the minds of anti-war voters that want all of our troops out of Iraq and may be considering supporting Richardson.

Edwards articulated the “embassy argument” recently on Meet The Press:

Under Edwards’ reasoning, the perfect becomes the enemy of the good.  Richardson would withdraw in less than a year 159,000 of our 160,000 troops but somehow his plan is flawed.  We can’t support Richardson’s because we have to have an embassy and with an embassy we have to continue our military intervention in Iraq.

What absurdity.  Edwards wants it both ways – bash Bush for the war but keep sizeable forces in Iraq and not offer any guarantee of a withdrawal.  That way Edwards doesn’t offend the DC political and military establishment by purportedly abandoning Iraq and being weak on terrorism.

Richardson’s view on the embassy is that if we need thousands of troops to defend the embassy then our personnel are not safe and they are coming home and embassy will be closed:  “residual forces — 5,000 to guard an embassy — that means that the embassy is not safe. I would pull the embassy if it is not safe.”

Richardson understands the essential truth about the U.S. intervention in Iraq today:  “Our troops in Iraq are now the biggest obstacle to political change.”

This is where Clinton, Obama and Edwards fall gravely short on Iraq.  They lack this fundamental insight.  While they call for an end to the war in their stump speeches, when directly questioned each refuses to commit to bringing our troops home when they become President.  They say our withdrawal depends upon the situation in Iraq when they become President.  Moreover, they leave open the possibility that our troops will be stationed in Iraq until 2013.

Clinton in particular is playing a “game of dodgeball” on Iraq.  She speaks of the need to “begin to end the war” yet will continue our military mission in Iraq.

If Clinton, Obama and Edwards understood that our troops are unwittingly perpetuating the conflict, they would not keep our troops in Iraq one day longer than necessary for their safe withdrawal. Instead as noted by Helen Thomas they are not providing leadership on the most critical issue of this election, the path out of Iraq:

President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party’s leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy. These Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people want U.S. troops out of Iraq, especially since Bush still cannot give a credible reason for attacking Iraq after nearly five years of war.

Last week, at a debate in Hanover, N.H., the leading Democratic presidential candidates sang from the same songbook: Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, along with former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, refused to promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, at the end of the first term of their hypothetical presidencies. Can you believe it?

When the question was put to Clinton, she reverted to her usual cautious equivocation, saying: “It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting.” Obama dodged, too: “I think it would be irresponsible” to say what he would do as president.  Edwards, on whom hopes were riding to show some independence, replied to the question: “I cannot make that commitment.”

If you want to make an informed choice on whom to support for President and don’t know much about Richardson or have never heard him give a speech, I highly encourage you to watch the video clip below.  It’s from a speech Richardson gave last week.  Likewise if you have doubts about why the U.S. must bring every single troop home from Iraq now, listen to Richardson’s arguments:

To learn about Richardson the person, his upbringing and what events shaped his life, watch a recent ABC news interview or read a summary of the interview.

Bill Richardson gave an extremely thoughtful speech yesterday at Georgetown University on the responsible path out of Iraq. Richardson also outlined a new foreign policy for the U.S., discussed our relations with Iran and explained need to restructure our armed forces. 

On Iraq, Richardson stated, “If you haven’t seen enough to know that we need to get all the troops out then you aren’t watching the same war that I and the rest of America are seeing. I don’t think just changing the mission is enough — we need to end the war.”

Everyone should watch Richardson’s speech and hear the compelling case he makes for ALL U.S. troops to leave Iraq now.  The video clip follows.

My message is part of the candidate series on MyDD.  I am not a member of Richardson’s campaign.

Richardson understands the essential truth about the U.S. intervention in Iraq today:  “Our troops in Iraq are now the biggest obstacle to political change.”

This is where Clinton, Obama and Edwards fall gravely short on Iraq.  They lack this fundamental insight.  While they call for an end to the war in their stump speeches, when directly questioned each refuses to commit to bringing our troops home when they become President.  They say our withdrawal depends upon the situation in Iraq when they become President.  Moreover, they leave open the possibility that our troops will be stationed in Iraq until 2013.

Clinton in particular is playing a “game of dodgeball” on Iraq.  She speaks of the need to “begin to end the war” yet will continue our military mission in Iraq.

If Clinton, Obama and Edwards understood that our troops are unwittingly perpetuating the conflict, they would not keep our troops in Iraq one day longer than necessary for their safe withdrawal. Instead as noted by Helen Thomas they are not providing leadership on the most critical issue of this election, the path out of Iraq:

President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party’s leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy. These Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people want U.S. troops out of Iraq, especially since Bush still cannot give a credible reason for attacking Iraq after nearly five years of war.

Last week, at a debate in Hanover, N.H., the leading Democratic presidential candidates sang from the same songbook: Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, along with former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, refused to promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, at the end of the first term of their hypothetical presidencies. Can you believe it?

When the question was put to Clinton, she reverted to her usual cautious equivocation, saying: “It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting.” Obama dodged, too: “I think it would be irresponsible” to say what he would do as president.  Edwards, on whom hopes were riding to show some independence, replied to the question: “I cannot make that commitment.”

If you want to make an informed choice on whom to support for President and don’t know much about Richardson or have never heard him give a speech, I highly encourage you to watch the video.  Likewise if you have doubts about why the U.S. must bring every single troop home from Iraq now, listen to Richardson’s arguments:

To learn about Richardson the person, his upbringing and what events shaped his life, watch a recent ABC news interview or read a summary of the interview.

At the Democratic debate in Davenport, Iowa, the most significant exchange to date in the debates occurred.  Judy Woodruff asked the candidates how many U.S. troops would remain in Iraq one year after taking office if elected.

Biden said it depends on how Bush leaves Iraq.  Edwards agreed with Biden, claiming “it’s impossible to say.”  Clinton echoed Biden’s view, vaguely offering “a reasonable and prudent plan” to get our troops out.  Dodd objected to speaking about 2010 and said Congress should not wait that long to act.

Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer: 

Zero troops! . . .  Without getting our troops out you can not have a political settlement. . . . I would take all of our troops out.  We need to end this war now.

This is part of the candidate series on MyDD.  I am not part of Richardson’s campaign.

Four years ago, Dean was seen as the Democratic nominee and Kerry had run out of money. My point:  in presidential politics, three months is a lifetime.

Today, in the Democratic race there are 2 frontrunners – Clinton and Obama.  They have tremendous national name recognition and vast sums of money.

And there are 2 challengers – Edwards and Richardson.  Both have sufficient funds to compete with Clinton and Obama in the January caucus/primary states.  Edwards, as the immediate past Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, has strong name recognition too. 

Richardson lacks the national name recognition of the other top candidates. Nevertheless, he has distinguished himself in the early voting states.  As noted by Pollster.com, “for other Democratic candidates, we’ve not seen a substantial upturn anywhere. Richardson stands alone in that respect at the moment.” 

Today, only these four candidates have double-digit support in polls in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada.

Last Sunday, in Indianola, Iowa, Senator Tom Harkin held his “Steak Fry,” one of the key events leading up to the Iowa caucuses.  David Yepsen, regarded as the premier political reporter in Iowa, praised Richardson for giving the best speech:

Richardson gave the best overall speech of the day. He was forceful. He was specific. He gave good sound bites. It’s clear the New Mexico governor is getting better on the stump as the campaign wears on. If one of the top three contenders stumbles, Richardson’s in a position to move up.

Yepsen has been noting Richardson has an opening to do well in Iowa’s caucus.  In his August 30 column, Yepsen wrote:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s uptick in the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign was visible here Tuesday night at a town meeting he held at Coe College.  About 200 people showed up on a steamy summer evening to spend close to two hours listening to what he said was the “short version” of his stump speech – it still went 35 minutes – and then posing questions to him.

In Iowa, Richardson has moved from 1 percent support in the state to a middle tier all his own. That’s more movement than any other Democratic candidate has seen this year. . .

Richardson has set the ambitious goal of finishing in the top three contenders in Iowa, which means he has to beat Clinton, Edwards or Obama, a feat that would deal an almost mortal blow to one of them and slingshot him into serious contention.

While that objective is the correct one – no one who has ever finished worse than third in a caucus fight has ever gone on to win a nomination – those are formidable contenders. Moving into their top tier will be harder than moving out of the bottom ranks.

Still, it’s possible. Edwards’ populism sounds increasingly angry, and voters don’t elect angry people to the presidency. Edwards has seen a clear lead in Iowa shrink to a statistical tie with Clinton and Obama.

Also, many Iowa Democrats are worried about Clinton’s electability. She has moved up in Iowa surveys as she debates well and addresses the issue, but the question hasn’t gone away and remains her single biggest impediment to the nomination.

Obama is vexed by questions about his lack of experience. He also has upset some Democratic constituency groups by blowing off a number of Iowa events and debates because he doesn’t want to be seen with his rivals. . . .

All of which gives Richardson an opening. A growing number of activists believe he puts together an impressive package. He notes in his stump speech that Clinton talks about experience, and Obama talks about change, “and with me you get both.”

A large part of Richardson’s success in the early states can be attributed to his crystal clear plan on the number one issue in the campaign, the Iraq war. 

John Nichols of The Nation, in an article entitled “The Richardson Surge,” observed Richardson is clicking with voters because he emphatically calls for the removal of every single soldier – both combat and support troops – from Iraq:

Against a field of first-tier candidates (Clinton, Obama and John Edwards) who don’t mind savaging the Bush Administration’s management of the Iraq imbroglio but who regularly fall short of proposing clear exit strategies, Richardson offers not just a résumé but specifics–and a sense of urgency. His TV ads in the early caucus and primary states identify him as the candidate with “the only plan that pulls every single soldier out of Iraq.” As the contender with the most international experience–save, perhaps, hapless Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden–Richardson says it is not merely possible but necessary to end the US military presence in Iraq and to replace it with diplomacy and targeted aid initiatives. Rejecting all the dodges of the frontrunners, Richardson argues, “If we are going to get out, we need to do it now.”

Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war.  Our troops have become the targets in a civil war.  The Iraqi government, in turn, is dependent on the U.S. for security that the Iraqis themselves should provide.  Richardson notes: “The Iraqis won’t take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good.”

In an interview with the Associated Press this week, Richardson explained: 

all combat and non-combat troops should be removed from Iraq because their presence is only contributing to violence instead of bringing security.

“There’s no question there’s tribal and ethnic hatreds,” Richardson told The Associated Press. “But when those tribal and ethnic hatreds are fueled by American policy of hostility, then you make the situation worse.”

Richardson criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards – his leading rivals for the presidential nomination – for plans to pull out combat troops from Iraq but leave residual forces behind. He said he would keep the Marines that guard the U.S. embassy in Baghdad but would withdraw all other military personnel.

“Who is going to take care of non-combat troops? The Iraqis?” Richardson asked. He said he would move a small contingent mostly of special forces to Kuwait and more troops into Afghanistan, although he would leave the specific number up to military leaders.

Last night at the Democratic debate in Davenport, Iowa, Judy Woodruff asked the candidates if they were elected how many U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after their first year in office.

Biden said it depends on how Bush leaves Iraq.  Edwards agreed with Biden, claiming “it’s impossible to say.”  Clinton echoed Biden’s view, vaguely offering “a reasonable and prudent plan” to get our troops out.  Dodd objected to speaking about 2010 and said Congress should not wait that long to act.

Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer: 

Zero troops! . . .  Without getting our troops out you can not have a political settlement. . . . I would take all of our troops out.  We need to end this war now.

Here is the video of the most significant exchange to date in the debates among the candidates in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination:

Obama chose not to attend the debate and instead conducted a fund raiser in Atlanta, making two huge mistakes in one day.  Earlier, Obama failed to vote against the Republican resolution condemning MoveOn for its newspaper ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus.