The Leibham campaign has just wrapped up their week-long series of events honoring Memorial Day, which they called "Bring Our Troops Home Week." A summary of all the events is below the fold. It was my pleasure to join them for the highlight of the week, visiting patients at the VA hospital in La Jolla and delivering gift baskets.

The group was assigned to the spinal cord injury unit. Most of the patients were from the first Gulf War or Vietnam; La Jolla VA is a center of excellence for spinal cord injuries, so they were from all across the western states–Nevada, Colorado, Arizona to name a few. They travel to the La Jolla VA annually for 3-4 days filled with tests and evaluations. The medical care was universally praised. The food, not so much. 🙂 One woman said she ordered her meals delivered from a variety of local restaurants! And many were especially grateful for the fudge included in Nick’s gift baskets.

Visitors are prohibited from campaigning, and the group was meticulous about observing these rules. But many patients eagerly broached the topic of politics on their own, sharing their anti-Bush sentiments. Of those who said anything, anti-Bush feelings were unanimous. Most of the time it came up in off-hand jokes/mocking/derision. The most heart-breaking was a veteran of the first Gulf War, a mother whose son is now in the military. She said she didn’t mind being deployed since it was her duty, but watching her son was too much for her. She choked up while expressing her hope for a new president with a new direction. Nick’s volunteer’s response was simply, “A lot of people are working really hard to make that happen.” Amen.

Although seeing paralyzed young guys back from Iraq was as every bit as harrowing as you would imagine it to be, it was–unexpectedly–seeing the aging veterans that hardened my resolve more than ever to get us out of Iraq. Seeing so many who weren’t really that old, but whose bodies were deteriorating in a thousand ways, well beyond their age, I began to realize how the subtler, more invisible damage of war can accumulate. A Vietnam veteran who escorted the group said that service[wo]men who have seen and survived combat still have 10-20 years shorter life expectancy than their civilian contemporaries. We have all heard how damaging stress is for the body–but seeing the evidence a few years down the road, and seeing it so starkly and visually…I have no words.

Nick spent a full hour and a half at the hospital. It was touching to see an emotion that maybe can best be described as resolve on his face during the visit. Now let me say that having spent several years as a twice-weekly volunteer at an emergency family housing shelter, we regulars developed a (admittedly somewhat elitist) contempt for the one-time feel-good volunteers. What bugged wasn’t that it was one-time–we all have different priorities–but the uncomfortable this is ickier than what I expected expression on the faces of so many. So bravo to Nick and co., who walked right in with confidence, real warmth and a sense of humor (and no icky expressions). Even for those with unusual abundance of tact and warm hearts, carrying on a normal chat with someone laying down and hooked up to various hospital machines is not easy. Double the difficulty when the war is so emotionally-charged. And–speaking just for myself here–triple the difficulty when there’s a whole foreign language going on between the veterans, having to do with their division, rank, assignments, specialties, friendly rivalries, and so on, that I’m largely clueless about. Nick has evidently spent enough time on military issues to be more fluent in this culture than I am.

Leibham’s Memorial Day/Bring Our Troops Home Week events:

• Monday: Nick will attend the Allied Veterans Council Annual Memorial Day ceremony in Escondido and the City of Solana Beach and VFW ceremony at the Veterans Memorial at La Colonia Community Park.
• Tuesday: Nick will release a statement condemning Bilbray’s recent vote against the G.I. Bill and our Veterans.
• Wednesday:  Nick and volunteers assemble care baskets for Iraq veterans at the VA Hospital.
• Thursday: Accompanied by members of Veterans for Peace and American Combat Veterans, Nick will personally deliver the care baskets to Veterans of the War in Iraq at the V.A. Medical Center in La Jolla.
• Friday: Nick will release a two-page statement on the War in Iraq emphasizing his commitment to a timetable to bring our troops home by 2009.

One thing I’d like to highlight is Leibham’s statement on Bilbray’s vote against the 2008 G.I. Bill. It is shameful that Bilbray and other Republicans would still walk lock-step with Bush on this war. But if they insist on doing so, the least they can do is also take the best possible care of our veterans. Bilbray voted against the 2008 G.I. Bill, which would allow our troops to attend college. He had the nerve to do this just a couple weeks before Memorial Day. I really can’t explain it–I don’t think Republicans realize how much trouble they will be in this Fall.

UPDATE: Now available in orange, please give it a rec.

(Full disclosure: I am connected with the Leibham campaign in that I signed up to be on their volunteer list. As it turns out, I've been too busy and/or lazy to actually ever do any volunteering. I support vigorous primary seasons. If you must know, on June 3rd, I'll be voting for Leibham.)

Rep. Jackie Speier’s congressional career began with some real fireworks.  Her first speech on the war made the Republicans throw a hissy fit and several of them walked off the floor.  Just a fantastic start.  When we talk about electing more and better Democrats, this is what it looks like.  Chron:

Newly elected Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier of Hillsborough was sworn into Congress this morning and delivered a fiery speech criticizing President Bush’s Iraq policy that led some Republicans to boo and walk out of the House chamber.

Speier, who won a special election Tuesday to fill the seat of the late Rep. Tom Lantos, was always an outspoken lawmaker in her years as a San Mateo County supervisor, state Assemblywoman and state Senator. She served notice Thursday that she plans be just as aggressive as a member of the House.

“The process to bring the troops home must begin immediately,” Speier told fellow lawmakers including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco. “The president wants to stay the course and a man who wants to replace him suggests we could be in Iraq for 100 years. But Madam Speaker, history will not judge us kindly if we sacrifice four generations of Americans because of the folly of one.”

While Democrats applauded, Republicans began a chorus of low boos. Some Republicans who had congratulated her just moments before, including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), walked out of the hall in protest.

Of course Issa was one of the ones to throw a fit and walk off when she started saying something he didn’t agree with.  That is the congressional equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and sticking out his tongue.

Thank you Rep. Speier.  Just phenomenal work.  Keep it up.

We want more of this!  Maybe you can light a fire under the asses of a few of your new colleagues.

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

Remember when Democrats were pushing George Bush on the War in Iraq?  Remember when presidential candidates were getting heat for having supported the War – or their being wishy-washy about getting us out?  With California’s presidential primary in just two weeks, we were supposed to have a Proposition on the February ballot – making it official policy that the people of California support withdrawal.  State Senate President Don Perata championed the issue and the legislature voted to put it on the ballot, but then Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it.  If Democrats were serious, however, they could have gathered signatures to put it on the ballot – regardless of what Arnold did.  Doing so would have boosted Democratic turnout, kept the issue alive and held all presidential candidates accountable.  Instead, we have allowed Iraq to slip from the consciousness of politicians – eluding a golden opportunity to help end this quagmire.

It’s no secret why Senate President Don Perata wanted to put this measure on the ballot – the same reason why he and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez championed moving up California’s presidential primary to February.  They want to extend term limits to keep their jobs longer – and Proposition 93 has been their priority all year long.  If a high-profile issue like the Iraq War were on the state ballot, it would boost Democratic turnout.  Most of these voters were inclined to support Prop 93.

Four months ago, the two Democratic houses of the state legislature passed SB 924 – which calls upon the people to vote on whether the President should get our troops out of Iraq.  It was technically an “advisory measure”- but putting it on the same ballot as the presidential primary would have had a political impact.  California voters strongly oppose the War, forcing the issue on the mind of candidates.  San Francisco voters passed a similar measure in 2004.

In September, Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it – so it failed to get on the ballot.  Not that his veto was much of a surprise.  The Republican Governor has always supported the War, and SB 924 passed the legislature on a party-line basis.  The California Constitution says that state propositions can either be placed on the ballot: (a) by the state legislature and the Governor, or (b) by collecting signatures from a certain percentage of voters.  If the Governor’s veto was predictable, why wasn’t the latter option pursued?

Of course, Arnold’s veto gave Democrats a chance to do some political grandstanding.  “The self-proclaimed ‘People’s Governor’ owed nothing less to the people of California and our troops overseas,” said State Party Chairman Art Torres, “than to let the voice of the voters be heard on this disastrous war in Iraq.”  But besides that, they just let the issue die.  Now we continue to hemorrhage American lives, American dollars and America’s standing in the world every day – when California had the opportunity to speak loudly.

Granted, it costs a lot of money to gather the necessary signatures to put a proposition on the ballot.  But it can be done.  Community college advocates put Prop 92 on the ballot by petition signatures.  Unions put Props 94-97 on the ballot by petition signatures, in order to repeal the anti-labor gaming compacts.  And the Democratic leadership – yes, the same people who said they want us out of Iraq – put Prop 93 on the ballot by petition signatures.

Nunez and Perata were willing to put in the money to collect signatures for a proposition that will extend their terms in office – but would not do the same for an albeit symbolic measure that would keep the most important issue facing America today in the minds of politicians who want California’s support.  Polling for the measure was sky-high: Californians supported it by a 2-1 margin, and among Democrats it was 10-1.

In April, when Perata and Nunez were still trumpeting the idea of putting this on the ballot, all the Democratic presidential candidates came to the state party convention.  Iraq was on everyone’s mind, and we had the time to hear from candidates about how they will get us out.  But now that they’re coming back to ask for our vote, it is less of an issue.  Beltway pundits are now proclaiming that the presidential race is less about Iraq, and more about the economy.

Why was this not a priority?  Could it be that Nunez and Perata, along with U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and the bulk of California’s Democratic establishment, have endorsed Hillary Clinton?  Senator Clinton voted for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002 while Barack Obama opposed it – and if Iraq becomes the central issue for California Democrats when they pick a candidate, she could be in trouble.  Maybe they just didn’t want to embarrass Clinton, and lose patronage in the next Democratic Administration.

Our leaders in Sacramento told us that an early California primary meant that we would have more “clout” in picking the next President.  In the minds of most voters, that would mean holding candidates accountable on issues – like the War in Iraq – where Californians are more progressive than the rest of the nation.  But it seems like their true motivation was Prop 93 – so that if it passes in February, some of them can run for re-election in June.

The Democratic leadership put their money where their mouth is – by paying to gather signatures for Prop 93, but not for a “Get Out of Iraq” referendum.

Hillary Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise.  She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war. Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.  Yet, it is her own equivocation on critical issues that, more than anything else, may stop her from securing the nomination.  As noted by Dick Morris, the former pollster for Bill Clinton:

With linguistic obfuscation reminiscent of Bill's more famous remarks — “I didn't inhale” and “It depends on what the definition of is, is” — Senator Clinton is determined not to tell us where she stands on anything. Instead, she has come to believe, probably correctly, that if we knew what she really wants to do as president, we would never vote for her. So on Social Security (where she plans to raise taxes), Iran (where she will take military action if need be), Iraq (where she will keep the troops), the Alternative Minimum Tax (which she will only repeal if it can be used to hide massive tax increases) and drivers licenses (which she will give to illegals as soon as she can), Hillary resists telling the truth.

I would like to focus on Morris' claim that Clinton will keep our troops stationed in Iraq.  On the surface, Clinton has from the beginning of the campaign offered an entirely different message.  At the February 2007 meeting of the Democratic National Convention, Clinton claimed:

I want to be very clear about this. If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war. I would not and if in Congress, if we in Congress, working as hard as we can to get the 60 votes you need to do anything in the Senate — believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage, you have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding, to do anything.  If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will!

It's become obvious that Congress will not end the war by January 2009.  It's also become obvious that Clinton's pledge to end the war in Iraq rests on a foundation of quicksand.  Clinton has never called for a prompt and complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq.  When questioned on whether she will commit to specific date for the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, as noted by Helen Thomas, Clinton reverts to “her usual cautious equivocation.”  She she leaves open the possibility our troops will remain until 2013.  David Broder commented that Clinton plays “dodgeball” on the question of leaving Iraq:

During the debate, she rarely came out of a defensive crouch, as if determined to protect her favored position. Answering the first question, she said her goal would be to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by 2013, but “it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting” from the Bush administration, so she cannot make any pledge — as Richardson and others feel free to do. Troops might be needed for counterterrorism work for many years.

What circumstances must exist in Iraq in 2009 to permit a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq?  Clinton is silent on this critical point.  What is Clinton's actual plan for leaving Iraq?  In the time honored tradition of politicians that recognize an issue must be addressed but lack any understanding to how to do so, Clinton calls for a study.  As explained on her campaign website:

As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.

Clinton doesn't say the U.S. will begin withdrawing from Iraq in 60 days.  She simply asks the military and other advisers to give her a plan within two months. 

This begs the question:  what if Clinton's advisers repeat the mantra of the D.C. political and military establishment that Iraq is too unstable and a withdrawal of our forces will threaten U.S. interests in the region? 

What is clear is that Clinton lacks confidence in her own judgment.  Instead, Clinton relies upon the architects of the Iraq morass and those that have deemed the surge successful to advise her of the course of action to take in Iraq. We can expect her advisers plan for Iraq will be a hawkish plan.

How can I make this charge?  Look at whom is advising Clinton today on Iraq and military affairs.  Among her military advisers, as reported in the Washington Post, are Gen. John (“Jack”) Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff; Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, former deputy chief of staff for intelligence; retired Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, who served as President Clinton's deputy national security adviser; retired Col. Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; and Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings senior fellow.  These are the persons that will form her inner circle of advisers should she become President. 

Let's examine each of these persons. 

Jack Keane was “vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army during Iraq war planning” and at one time an outspoken in supporter of Rumsfeld.  In July 2003, Keane praised Tommy Franks' war plan for the Iraq campaign was “bold and brilliant.”  There never was a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country.  Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded our forces in Iraq, recently stated that our war plan was “catastrophically flawed [and] unrealistically optimistic.”  In July 2004, Keane admitted in testimony that: 

We did not see it (the insurgency) coming. And we were not properly prepared and organized to deal with it . . . . Many of us got seduced by the Iraqi exiles in terms of what the outcome would be.

Two years later, Keane stated: 

If we had planned for an insurgency, we probably would have deployed the First Cavalry Division and it would have assisted greatly with the initial occupation. This was not just an intelligence community failure, but also our failure as senior military leaders.

Fast forward to December 2006, whom is meeting with President Bush and advocating an escalation of the war in what became known as the “surge”?  Yes, the answer is Keane.  He along with Frederick Kagan developed the strategy of the surge.  I encourage everyone to read the interview of Keane by Frontline earlier this year.  Recently Bill Sammon, a Washington Examiner correspondent and author of a new book titled “The Evangelical President,” reported that President Bush has been sending messages to Clinton to urge her to “maintain some political wiggle room in your campaign rhetoric about Iraq.”  One wonders if Keane is the person serving as Bush's liaison to Clinton on Iraq. 

Claudia Kennedy, another supporter of the war, was “absolutely” certain Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.  In April 2003, when asked why no WMD had been discovered, she responded: 

If absolutely nothing was found after months of thorough searching, my question would be — where was it shipped? If such weapons are not in the country, they must have been shipped out because we absolutely know they were there.

Kennedy believes that it is not our invasion of Iraq that has caused so much difficulty for the U.S.  Rather, the war has been botched by President Bush.  Kennedy recently made national headlines when she stated:

I don't oppose the war. I think it's being very badly led by the civilian leadership. I have not ever heard (Clinton) say, 'I oppose the war.'”

Donald Kerrick wrote an essay last year entitled “Iraq Not Lost Yet“.  While calling for a review of our strategy in Iraq, Kerrick opposed those he labeled as advocating the U.S. cut and run.  Such a course would lose Iraq to the extremists. 

Andrew Krepinevich believes a sustained U.S. presence is crucial to the future of Iraq.  The U.S. has no choice in Iraq because if we leave Iraq will descend into civil war.  In October 2005, Krepinevich published an essay criticizing the U.S. intervention in Iraq as lacking a coherent strategy which resulted in the failure of U.S. forces to defeat the insurgency or improve security. 

Krepinevich believed a winning strategy for Iraq could still be developed, one that focused on providing security to Iraqis rather than hunting down insurgents.  However, “victory” in Iraq will come at a steep price according to Krepinevich: 

Even if successful, this strategy will require at least a decade of commitment and hundreds of billions of dollars and will result in longer U.S. casualty rolls. But this is the price that the United States must pay if it is to achieve its worthy goals in Iraq.

This year, Krepinevich sees the surge, if successful, resulting in American forces staying “in Iraq for decades — much as we have in Korea, for example, to ensure the security of that part of the world, we will have to have 30,000, 40,000 soldiers in Iraq, I think indefinitely.” 

Michael O'Hanlon is another supporter of President Bush's surge.  In an Op Ed entitled “A War We Just Might Win” published in the New York Times in July 2007, O'Hanlon argued, “We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.” 

After the latest Presidential debate in which Clinton, Edwards and Obama all refused to commit to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq by 2013, O'Hanlon praised them for their “flexibility” on Iraq. “I think the Democratic position allows all three of the top people to move in the Republican direction if things move around in the next twelve months,” O'Hanlon stated. 

Finally, Mark Penn, Clinton's top political strategist, may play a role in shaping Clinton's policy on Iraq should she become President.  As noted by Bill Boyarsky: 

Penn, is worldwide president and CEO of Burson-Marsteller, which helped prepare the chief of Blackwater USA for his congressional testimony defending the way that the company employees killed 17 and wounded 24 while fulfilling its contract to provide security for the State Department.  It's all very clubby.

In conclusion, Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise.  She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office.  Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war. 

Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq.  If Clinton becomes President, the opportunity to end our open-ended military intervention in Iraq may very well be lost.

What is the alternative?  There is a Democratic candidate for President that says as long as U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq the hard work of reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed.  He has called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq now, pledges to bring all U.S. troops (both combat and non-combat) home promptly upon taking office and has offered a plan to achieve this. 

This candidate is being advised by military and diplomatic experts that have been highly critical of the U.S. intervention in the Iraq and strongly advocate an immediate exit from Iraq. 

Whom is this candidate?  His name is Bill Richardson.

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.

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.