(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.
Truly ending the war in Iraq will only come about when our troops are no longer targets. That is why Governor Bill Richardson believes that we should not leave behind any of our troops. –Joaquin H. Guerra, Bill Richardson for President.
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.
Today is a historic day in Los Angeles city history. By a vote of 12-2, the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution calling for the immediate return of our troops from Iraq. Originally drafted and spearheaded by the great Councilman Rosendahl, it was great to see the city put on record for this.
More….
Nearly 100 citizens filled the city council in support of the resolution this morning. Of those 100 citizens, roughly one dozen of them (including myself) spoke in 1:30 minute increments about the importance of passing the resolution. There was only one dissenting voice in the audience in opposition to the resolution.
Passing the resolution was important for Los Angeles and the country because of the impact the war is having here at home. California has lost nearly $60 billion in tax revenue because of the war, with Los Angeles losing approximately $5 billion in revenue. In a stroke of perfect timing, the discussion prior the ours was about 17 bridges that are rated structurally deficient in the city of Los Angeles.
Thank you to all of the citizens that took time out of their busy day to attend this and support the resolution. And I’d like to extend a special thank you to all councilmembers who voted their conscience and supported the troops today by calling for their safe and expedient return.
Below is text from the resolution as passed:
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION (ROSENDAHL – PARKS – WESSON – ET AL) relative to the withdrawal of United States military personnel from Iraq.
Recommendation for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE CONCURRENCE OF THE MAYOR:
RESOLVE that the City of Los Angeles include in its 2007-08 Federal Legislative Program the following positions:
a. On behalf of the citizens of the City of Los Angeles, the City URGE the President of the United
States to immediately commence a rapid, humane, and complete withdrawal of United States
military personnel, contractors supporting the military effort, and military bases from Iraq.
b. URGE the United States Congress to appropriate medical, psychological, financial, and educational assistance for veterans.
c. URGE redirection of the financial resources used to prosecute the war in order to address
neglected domestic needs, including health, education, mass transit and infrastructure, and
homeland security.
d. RECOGNIZE that the stability of Iraq is crucial to the security of the citizens of Los Angeles andto all Americans, URGE the United States government to provide the people of Iraq with nonmilitary material aid to support the security of Iraq’s citizens and the rebuilding of Iraq.
(To be fair, I think we should point out that we still need those 15 Rep. votes, even if we get the 8 Dem votes. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)
About an hour ago, my inbox was graced by an email from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, subject line “Heartless.” Inside, she took President Bush to task over SCHIP and his abandonment of the “compassionate” part of conservatism. It used dramatic language like “forbid” and “cruel veto pen” while suggesting:
This was perhaps George Bush’s most heartless act ever — knowing that he could help deliver health care to millions of American children — then, wiping out that hope with a stroke of his veto pen.
We may not be able to change the President’s mind. But, if we work together — make it our mission between now and October 18th — we can find the 15 Republican votes we need to make the President’s cold-hearted veto pen powerless.
That’s right. With my help and yours, maybe Congress can find its way out from under President Bush’s thumb. All we need to do is convince Republicans. And yet, there are eight Democrats who voted against SCHIP. Should we not also be trying to convince them? Change their minds? The Speaker doesn’t seem to think so.(flip)
On the front page of DailyKos right now is a bit about Nancy Pelosi’s plans to fundraise and campaign for Al Wynn in his primary against Donna Edwards. It juxtaposes this with her comments from yesterday saying that wanting to end the war immediately is irresponsible and that it is “‘a waste of time’ for them to target Democrats.”
But the two together and you get a rather strange assessment of Congress. She doesn’t think that constituents should make their views known on major issues facing the country. She also doesn’t think, apparently, that voters in MD-04 should replace Al Wynn, regardless of whether he actually represents their interests well. It’s a depressing and hollow attempt to deny the responsibility of Democrats in failing to make any demonstrable progress towards ending the Iraq catastrophe. On the one hand, she has to cover herself because any failures of the Democratic caucus ultimately will come back to her.
But she’s said that members of Congress will not listen to the voters. Period. It’s a waste of time. And trying to replace members of Congress who haven’t performed as well as their constituents demand, then constituents should lower their expectations. And that’s what it all comes around to- a sentiment we’re all familiar with here. Apparently it isn’t that Democrats aren’t accomplishing enough, it’s that we aren’t selling them short enough. If people would just stop expecting anything from their government, everyone would be much happier.
Well I say nuts to that. She declared Democrats in Congress to be leaders…except nobody’s going anywhere. She declared that the “common folk” are irresponsible and shouldn’t be listened to. She’s signed onto the inviolable sanctity of incumbency, but also declared that the best representation ignores the will and desires of the people. And most of all, she’s declared that her caucus is exactly how she wants it. Given what she’s done with it thusfar, I wonder whether it much matters how she wants it. It’s time to start getting over the notion that “not worse” isn’t the same as “better.”
This is a letter every member of Congress should sign:
Dear Mr. President:
Seventy House Members wrote in July to inform you that they will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.
Now you are requesting an additional $45 billion to sustain your escalation of U.S. military operations in Iraq through next April, on top of the $145 billion you requested for military operations during FY08 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, even more of us are writing anew to underscore our opposition to appropriating any additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq other than a time-bound, safe redeployment as stipulated above.
More than 3,742 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 27,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues.
We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come.
Sincerely,
(more)
There are now 88 (and counting) House members who have signed this letter, including even some Blue Dog types like Ellen Tauscher and Al Wynn. For the most up to date info, please check the Congressional Progressive Caucus page.
The good guys and gals to date are listed below(check link to get updates):
If it weren’t so late, I’d pull out the CA delegation for reference; for now scan the list to see if your rep is already a good guy/gal, and if not please try to make them one! (Sadly, no surprise that Jane Harman is not on this letter — yet.)
I’m heartened that just since this came out yesterday on TPM Election Central, another cosigner’s been added.
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:
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:
(worth being frontpaged. Also, Jerry McNerney, Jane Harman, Adam Schiff, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Jim Costa, Laura Richardson, Joe Baca, Loretta Sanchez, Mike Thompson, Tom Lantos, Dennis Cardoza, Anna Eshoo, Sam Farr, Ellen Tauscher, and Grace Napolitano voted to tell the progressive movement to STFU. So replace Davis’ name with any of them. – promoted by David Dayen)
In a direct slap in the face to anyone who’s ever felt that free speech or the right to protest the government are, you know, Constitutional imperatives, Susan Davis voted today to condemn the Petraeus/Betray us MoveOn ad. That’s what your congress is doing. Not ending a war. Not passing a law that will make people healthier, wealthier, wiser, or safer. Spitting on free speech. Thank you to Bob Filner and the 79 Democrats who stood with him for getting this vote right, and no thanks to the 195 Republicans and the 145 other Democrats in the House who joined Susan Davis in telling the nation to sit down, shut up, and leave governance to the grownups without passionate public input. If you think MoveOn was disrespectful to the troops by running an ad in the New York Times Ms. Davis, where exactly does paying for the troops to get shot at rank?
It’s time to get angry. Congress is telling people what they’re supposed to say and not say. I don’t remember learning about that congressional duty in government class.
Senator Dianne Feinstein wants to hear from you — or does she?
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D/R California) wants to hear from her constituents. She has boldly stepped into the 20th century by including an “email contact” page on her ultra modern web site (see screenshots below). If you are surprised at how high tech it is, remember that she represents Silicon Valley. Her web site can be nothing less than hot.
She considerately adds modern internet “radio buttons” so the constituent communicator can easily select their area of concern. Brilliant if I say so Miss Dianne and brava!
The text at her site says
Every e-mail I receive is read, and your opinions are carefully considered.
but there is no “OTHER” radio button.
If you have an “OTHER” question not addressed by the site’s radio button selection, you will be forced to select an unrelated radio button topic. That selection will get you a warm fuzzy squirmy non-response. Ask about FISA and click the GAY ISSUES radio button and you will quickly receive an automatic GAY ISSUES vague non-response that has nothing to do with your FISA question.
Huh!? It’s as if she is not truly carefully considering the opinions of her constituents.
Senator Feinstein has made a few odd, almost Liebermanish moves in the past months.
She strangely supported an extension of the odious FISA Act and recently inexplicably supported the Bush Administration’s circle jerk about MoveOn.org’s NYT howl during the run up to Petreaus.
None of the “radio buttons” has anything to do with her anti MoveOn.org vote nor her support of FISA. She doesn’t offer any explanation nor even a mention of her two votes supporting the Bush administration on her modern web site.
Hmmm!
What’s a constituent to do?
Aha! Her site offers what is called “Dianne’s Journal”. Surely she would have journaled about those controversial votes but…
no, she hasn’t journaled for her constituents since April 2007. Wake up Dianne!
If you don’t make more of an effort to at least appear to be somewhat interested in carefully considering the opinions of your constituents, you may be doing K Street work for hubby’s interests after 2012.
But before that happens, Diane, please fix your web site. It is an embarrassment. It is shameful for the goyim to see such drek.
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.”
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.
As many of you may know, just over six years ago I cast the lone vote against giving George Bush an unchecked authority to wage an undefined war against an undefined enemy for an unspecified period of time, an authority his administration has invoked in going into Iraq, in the establishment of military tribunals, even in conducting warrantless surveillance of Americans.
Thankfully, today I am no longer a lone voice, as evidenced in no small part by vibrant communities like this one. The majority of Americans want to end the occupation of Iraq and bring our troops home, but despite the fact that George Bush refuses to change course in Iraq, Congress has not taken the necessary steps to end his administration’s failed policy.
So how do we change this?
With the emergency supplemental debate looming (the precise date is still unclear), it is critical that we lay the groundwork beforehand to ensure our momentum heading into the debate.
To that end, I have joined with my fellow co-chairs of the Out-of-Iraq caucus, Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters, in writing to President Bush to tell him that when Congress takes up the next emergency supplemental for Iraq, we will not provide another dime for his failed policy. Our letter makes it clear that the only funding that we would vote for is funding to protect our troops and contractors and bring them home, and 77 other Representatives have already joined us in signing this letter.
This is what we call “Fully Funding Redeployment,” and while we’re off to a strong start with 80 signers, we are trying to reach 100 by the end of the month to put us on strong footing for the coming debate.
The coming debate on the emergency supplemental promises to be among the most important we’ve seen in Congress in decades, and I can’t thank you enough for the amazing effort you are putting in towards ending President Bush’s failed policy in Iraq — both here, on your own blogs, and in your own communities.
