Richardson: Get specific on Iraq
Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson has issued a challenge to his fellow Democrats contenders:
In the most recent debate, [Richardson] asked the other major candidates a clear question: how many troops would you leave behind and for how long? We have yet to hear an answer.
All the major Democratic candidates say they are eager to end this war, and they all say they don't believe there is a military solution in Iraq. Why, then, do they maintain that we must leave an indefinite number of troops behind for an indeterminate amount of time to work hopelessly towards a military solution everyone says doesn't exist?
It is time to get a straight answer from all the other candidates: how many troops would you leave behind? For how long?
Campaign ploy? Sure. But it's an answer that we deserve to have nonetheless. Chris Bowers has more:
The more I think about this dodge from Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on how many troops they intend to leave in Iraq, the angrier I become. Why is an inquiry into how many troops they intend to leave in Iraq a hypothetical question not worthy of an answer, but inquiries into how much their health care plans will reduce the cost of insurance premiums a hypoethical question worthy of prominently displaying an answer to on your website? [..]
The refusal to provide an estimate for how many troops Clinton, Edwards and Obama has nothing to do with a refusal to engage in hypotheticals. Presidential campaigns are clearly willing to dish out hypothetical numbers all the time on issues like health care and energy costs, or issues like reducing poverty and pollution, as long as their internal hypothetical numbers make them look good. As such, the only conclusions I can draw from repeated unwillingness of these campaigns to estimate how many troops they would leave in Iraq is that they either have no idea how many troops they would leave in Iraq, or the actual estimated figure would make these campaigns look very, very bad to the base. Either conclusion is disturbing should serve as the operating assumptions for every Democratic voter until these leading campaigns provide an actual estimate.
Bill,
The U.S. Military shifted it's focus to Iran in 03. It continued this focus even though it had infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.
Certainly you realize this don't you?
If a (highly qualified, mind you) second-tier candidate whose campaign is barely drawing oxygen in the polls throws down a gauntlet, does it make a sound?
So Richardson... what is your answer? How many troops would you leave behind and for how long? Saying "I'm going to withdraw all troops", in no way answers the second half of the question.
I fucking hate candidates who throw out challenges like this without even having a clear answer themselves.
"I will get us out of Iraq ASAP."
That is what the person I vote for must say- and mean.
And, I don't want to hear any "secret plan" shit that Nixon sold in 1968. We didn't get out until well into his second term.
If people took the time to listen and read what Richardson has to say and what a REAL resume he has, I think that he would be an excellent alternative to the highly financed front runners. Just take the time to give him an honest look and maybe he'll catch on.
ALL troops out NOW!
vote me 2008!
and a question that the Republican Candidates need to answer as well... no more
"secret plans to get out of
VietnamIraq."QuakerDave @ 2:
PNAC and the NeoCons have spent to long a time preparing to dominate the Middle East militarily.
I suppose Bill saying something helps a bit. But it's a little to late IMO.
eLMel @ 5:
What I want is someone who has the will, ability, and talent to turn this country around in a positive way with the tools and resources we got.
I could care less if they are rich or poor.
the answer, if they ever answer, will show you if they are worth considering. Bill is the most qualified for the job, he has dealt with more than any of the others, and he actually appears willing to bring the troops home. amazing
oldtree @ 10:
We'll see how effective he is at getting what he wants on this I suppose won't we?
Capability Jones @ 4:
Ah, but the rub is the definition of "possible." I strongly suspect your definition of possible and Hillary's (as just one example) are very different.
oldtree @ 10:
Richardson has the most experience and the broadest experience. That does not mean he's the most qualified.
Dick Cheney had lots of experience prior to becoming VP, but given his terrible judgement and paranoia he's not qualified to be dog catcher.
until the leading Dem candidates (edwards, obama, hillary) come out and say without a doubt that they do NOT support our corporate-controlled, rome-inspired proconsul-esque stance across the world in the form of our military empire i don't trust them to deviate much from the current course.
a jumbled mouthful? yes. but the truth as well? that too.
Dem leadership: do you support our imperial military/corporate expansion, or not?
*sigh* i wish they had half the guts that Kucinich has...
L.A. Confidential @ 9:
Kudos to Richardson
It's kind of a lose-lose situation. No one wants to admit the possibility that we may have to leave troops in Iraq for a long time, even if it's not their desire but the only solution to the fuck-up Chimpy leaves them in. It's also just as bad for a candidate to say they'd pull em all out. We don't know what will happen between now and the elections. Any number of things could happen, beyond our control, that would making pulling all the troops out impossible or completely unacceptable, and now the guy we elected looks like a liar. The war in Iraq has too much up in the air, so it's not conducive to making definitive statements about the future.
But with health care systems, that's something the government has total control over, total access to all aspects of it and can regulate/legislate as necessary to make it happen. We don't have total control over what happens in Iraq. We can say whatever we want today, but tomorrow, so many unseen events could occur that can render that initially great sounding plan ineffective.
I got the slogan for the Democrats. When we went into Iraq, no matter what the real reason at this point, we gave the citizens a choice. We let them make their own government (with more than a little help) and have elections and vote for the people who they wanted to run their country. We helped them build what we tore down. We armed them. We fought for them. We spilled blood for them. We lost a lot of lives bringing a choice to their homeland. Here is the slogon (or something simaliar):
“We gave Iraq a choice and they chose civil war.”
It’s time to leave.
Both Richardson and Kucinich want the troops out now. They are my two top candidates at the moment and I am watching them closely.
He's trailing. He has nothing to lose. Good strategy. The fact that he's asking the right questions is irrelevant.
The Dems and the GOP don't want to hear the truth, nor do they want to tell it.
Captain Kangaroo at #18
How about this slogan: "The war was illegal when the United States invaded Iraq and it [the occupation] is still illegal" therefore making the raison d'etre for remaining in Iraq totally illegitimate and bogus. Get those troops out of that slaughterhouse-now.
Five years to move... snore, zzzzzzzzzzzzzz, snore....
Proud American Liberal @ 19:
Yes P A L-- Kucinich too. But will enough people listen to them? The Presidential campaign is way too long and the little guys without campaign money will have to take their good ideas etc. and just fade away. We'll be the worse for it probably, but when has it been any different?
There's a reason why nobody is talking about a TOTAL WITHDRAWAL of troops from Iraq, that goes for the phony politicians from BOTH sides, to the sycophantic media that likes to pretend that the U.S. is not an imperial nation, determine to continue this resource war.
They KNOW there will be a permanent occupation, Kucinich brings it up all the time, pointing out that the bush crime family needs to reverse it's course of dictating what the future of Iraq's oil, from designing their oil laws, banking laws etc. Until the cowardly jingoist from BOTH parties admit there is an occupation planned well before the invasion, until they point out the REAL problem, nothing will really change , and this phony argument about bringing home the troops, designed to placate people, and still leave over 50 thousands U.S. military and over 50-100 thousand mercenaries, conformed by obama's comments on 60 min. "we need to keep some troops in Iraq, to protect out interest" .
UNTIL, there are questions asked from the media, who exactly is OUR interest's average Americans(obviously not) or oil conglomerates , bankers or the Rockefeller's that PROFIT from an occupation , because " the PRICE OF WAR IS SOCIALIZED, AND THE PROFITS ARE PRIVATIZED. aLWAYS HAS BEEN always will .
The only real solution to the problems in Iraq and yes the Middle East is the (presently) unthinkable; a peace summit of all parties concerned: The Sunnis, the Shia, the Kurds, the Christians, the Jews, the Muslims, the Iranians, the Kuwaitis, the Syrians, the Lebonese, the Jordanians, the Israelies, the Palestinians, the Afghanis,the Pakastanis, the Indians, Saudi Arabia, the US, the Chinese, the Russians, the European Union, the Coalition of the Failing, the UN, Hamas and even the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Until we all sit down and hammer out an agreement the arms dealers and the mercinaries will be the only winners. If that means the US has to pull it's military out of the one hundred plus nations it currently has bases in, so be it. If we pervert democracy into totalitarianism in the name of furthering Democracy then we amputate the legs of the "moral" grounds we once stood on and the argument becomes mute.
The Good Ol' Dems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:First_amendment_zone2.jpg
If we get the heck out of Iraq, no American soldier should stay behind. If they go at each other's throat and wipe themselves out after wer are gone, I will be sorry to hear that. Now, maybe we could understand why Sadamm was the tyrant he was. We caused this mess. We should be able to recognize that fact. Therefore, let's pack and go home. A country with an asymmetric leverage kicked our asses. Same thing happened in Vietnam. We invade and attack defenless countries. They end up kicking our asses. There must a reason behind why we end up with such sordid results.
Captain Kangaroo @ 18:
eLMel @ 23:
No Americans won't listen to names they are not that familiar with. I have a hunch Hillary Clinton will become the First Female President of The United States.
Then we'll have 8 years of more bickering, ideological battles, and polarization between the Left and Right.
Captain Kangaroo @ 18:
The only problem with that "slogan" is that it has little or no basis in reality.
War Party Controls All.
L.A. Confidential @ 29:
Great going, Bill. It's a good way to bounce back from that ill-fated "It's a choice" blunder.
Another major plus to ending our illegal criminal occupation of Iraq: with the addition of the vast reserves of Iraqi oil pumped onto the world markets, the price of gasoline in the US will probably fall to below $2/gallon.
Of course, the American oil companies and the Bush crime family don’t want to see American drivers being able to buy gasoline at $1.98/gallon…
Whoever is going to have one hell of a mess to clean up thats for sure.
25 xoites defends Constitution@25
The only real solution to the problems in Iraq and yes the Middle East is the (presently) unthinkable; a peace summit of all parties concerned: The Sunnis, the Shia, the Kurds, the Christians, the Jews, the Muslims, the Iranians, the Kuwaitis, the Syrians, the Lebonese, the Jordanians, the Israelies, the Palestinians, the Afghanis,the Pakastanis, the Indians, Saudi Arabia, the US, the Chinese, the Russians, the European Union, the Coalition of the Failing, the UN, Hamas and even the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
_____________________________________________________
And that's precisely the kicker. If truly, there is a God, and I know there is something out there keeping tab on us. That is precisely what He or She wants. Just want you just mentioned above. We are trying hard. In the last 4000 years we came a long way. Today we have the UN. A feeble attemp for mankind to understand and get along with each other. Not easy. This the cleavage tha God put in our hands as a problem for us to solve. When one day the whole world is able to come together,
and leave together in peace, John Lennon would be writing another song in heaven, where people of good will can cohabitate,
then, that will Paradise on earth. It'll take a few thousand years. But in can happen.
james k. sayre @ 34:
I don't know. I think the Bush Cabal has totally destroyed whatever good will and trust for Americans and the West the Arab Islamic Cultures controlling that oil may have had. If they ever did. This is about money.
It's going to take one hell of a diplomat, genius to heal over these wounds and end the hostilities quickly.
xoites defends Constitution @ 25:
Oh xiotes, IF ONLY!! The current admin has no intention in doing so and we haven't heard this solution from the candidates either. Obviously there must be more we need to do than just pulling the troops out but the 14 PERMANENT bases that have been built while the chaos is going on suggests that there is a plan to be there for quite some time.
QuakerDave @ 2:
Ask Dennis Kucinich. I think he's thrown down both gauntlets, his gloves, his belt, his boots, his jacket... anything else he can find... Although, calling him a second-tier candidate might be a little generous ;)
I think Richardson is blowing smoke. Its possible to give timelines, but you'd be a fool to believe them.
L.A. Confidential @ 29:
Richardson already knows the answer. The corporatists are going to leave every soldier they can in IRaq for as many decades as possible. They want to ensure that their corporate masters continue their war on the US treasury.
grrr, i hate when i screw up the tags...
Political, ideological and resource wars are the only thing Republicans have ever excelled at.
james k. sayre @ 34:
i'm sure the oil conglomerates will find a way to ensure the continued increase in gas prices, or at least be able to keep them above 3/gallon.
considering that while the price of oil decreased earlier this summer, the price per gallon of gasoline increased. they'll trot out their media whores to talk about 'refinery capacity' and the such, all the while raking in b-b-billions of dollars.
we, the american sheeple, have become accustomed to just accepting, trusting that things will work out ok in the end. after all, they always have before... right? i think that $3+/gallon has become the new normal in a radically short period of time and the oil companies know this.
further, i think that no matter what the outcome is in iraq the exxons/shells/chevrons/bps will be able to come up with some reason why the price of oil retains its elevated price.
xoites defends Constitution @ 30:
Erroll @ 21:
I got the slogan for the Democrats. When we went into Iraq, no matter what the real reason at this point, we gave the citizens a choice. We let them make their own government (with more than a little help) and have elections and vote for the people who they wanted to run their country. We helped them build what we tore down. We armed them. We fought for them. We spilled blood for them. We lost a lot of lives bringing a choice to their homeland. Here is the slogon (or something simaliar):
“We gave Iraq a choice and they chose civil war.”
It’s time to leave.
Bottem line Bush wants MORE money, and wants 50 Billions and 149 Billion supplemental....that is roughly 3Billion a WEEK in Iraq, so If Bush wants THAT kind of money....then yes, Everyone should be asking right here right now WHAT is the plan...we don't even have that kind of money, resources....Over ONE Million dead Iraqis, 3700 Dead Americans, and more than 30,000 wounded, and 98,000 PTSD Disability claims right now.....Please Support Richardson's challenge.....
Well that didn't work well. I ment to have this at the bottom:
Both of you are correct but for the dumb fuck trailer trash that think that Bush is doing the right thing and for the others that don’t quite have a firm grasp of reality “We gave Iraq a choice and they chose civil war” might be good enough. Plus it almost fits on a bumper sticker. I’m going to repeat it and send out emails and see if it doesn’t catch on a little. I do agree with both of you though.
Samson- @ 42:
I feel your pain
dennis kucinich the only one with brains integrity and the right answers 08
Captain Kangaroo @ 48:
:-)
Captain Kangaroo @ 18:
Blame the victim much? Do you remember "shock and awe"? Do you remember their "elections"? Candidates were trying to run without exposing their identity (to prevent being killed)! Do you think that's the best we could have done?
We've done everything on the cheap, and our first priority was protecting the Ministry of Oil.
We've got two choices as Democrats: engage in an expensive, comprehensive, diplomatic and military effort to stabilize Iraq with the help of Iraq's neighbors, or get everyone the hell out and let the blood-bath commence.
The first way will have casualties too, and if its not done by someone who knows what they are doing, it will just delay the inevitable blood-bath. The only way we can do the first strategy is if we accept that we will not have permanent bases, the government won't look like how we might prefer it, we will not have platforms for exploitation by our favorite multinational corporations, in short - there won't be any monetary benefit to the US or friends of the administration (or any administration). I'm sure one could argue that its not at all in our national interest. On the other hand, a failed state (like Afghanistan) is not in our interest, nor is the reputation we are earning as an ineffective military empire that will invade other countries and condemn their citizens to anarchy.
I don't know if the first option is possible, especially considering the requirement of restraining the exploitative urges of the multinationals that have their tenticles deep in our political process. I think its the right thing to do, if it is possible - and I don't think that's just my western ethnocentrism talking. If anyone can do this, I think I'd call on Wesley Clark (not as President necessarily, but as an undersecretary of State with that specific agenda.)
My two cents for what its worth.
tyree @ 49:
you said it tyree, but don't forget guts, Kucinich has guts majorus...
it takes true courage, IMHO, to stand up and speak truth to power, as the majority of your peers scramble for their place to latch onto a teet on the corporate mammary line.
Samson- @ 52:
fyi- just so there is no confusion:
when i wrote "majority of your peers..." i was refering to the peers of Kucinich. not fellow C&L'ers.
Interesting issue. Too bad Bowers' writing is so choppy. It's hard to make sense of what he's trying to say at some points.
L.A. Confidential @ 9:
OBAMA!!!! I know I should apologize for being enthusiastic for something that's actually positive - it goes against the core of my cynical being too, but (to borrow from another failed campaign) "hey, why the hell not?"
I think he's charismatic and intelligent. He's demonstrated that he can say unpopular but accurate and truthful things. I haven't found any reason to believe he lacks integrity. (How often does one have a Kucinich-like moment to demonstrate his or her integrity - I mean the Cleveland municipal power thing. Most of the time, you can only find examples of people who show they have no integrity - and I haven't seen those in Obama.)
He's bringing a very positive message. He's talking about hope and pride, not bad, rich exploiters, and evil, gay abortionists. He can bring Americans together on the same side to address issues that we agree on like environmental protections, and fair trade, and healthcare.
Of course, I'm concerned that he's a corporatist. But until proven otherwise, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Oops, I meant "enthusiastic for something that’s actually possible..."
I would only leave a few politicians such as yourself there, Bill. You genocidal sack of shit.
Kucinich is way ahead of them all on all of the major issues.
While the 'top-tier' candidates are triangulating on what their opinion might be, maybe, depending on who is asking...Kucinich already has the bill written and on the floor ready to go.
The rest really do suck...I'm sorry to say that, but as politicians they suck, not as people...oh, alright they probably suck as people too, but dammit all, let's stand up to the corporations for once.
Vote Kucinich 2008.
Peace.
Kusunich is the only one who says it and means it.I've become very disinfranchised with all the other candidates.How would DK do it though?It's easy to say but actually doing it is a different thing altogether.I beleive DK means it...I seriously doubt if anyone can get them ALL out now.No folks we're stuck there ...like it or not.Boosh had no idea what he was doing and the rest of us have to live with the repercussions of his braindead policies..fubar.
I wish Bill Richardson would use his diplomatic skills and just grab hold of the Iraq situation by rounding up all the relevant parties and just sitting down to an amicable meeting in hope of finding an accepatable soloution to ending this war. Frankly, I've grown weary of the lack of progress on the matter. It just feels like the whole affair is now run by some giddy teenagers. I also find it very hard to accept that we have come to a place where rational thinking no longer exists. We go from day to day with this continous war and also with no clear and concise explanation from our elected officials as to why the destruction of Iraq must go on.
It is time to get a straight answer from all the other candidates: how many troops would you leave behind? For how long?
Does Richardson include Blackwater in his definition of "troops". There are 50,000 to 100,000 Blackwater Mercenaries in Iraq. Why do all the candidates pretend like they don't know this?
...I guess if they talked about the Blackwater Mercenaries they'd have an even more difficult question to answer, namely: Why does the President of the United States have his own Private Military. Where in the Constitution does it say the President can have a Private Militia? This is more than frightening!
I've seen things about Bill R. that I like, but this isn't one of them. It's a really, really cheap political strategy that smacks of a bidding war. "How long will you go?"
Watching Hillary on Letterman last night, I thought she had good points about problems immediate and complete withdrawal, such as the protection of Iraqis that have helped us. As much as I would like to see out ASAP, there are reasonable points for leaving some troops there, which Bill R. tacitly acknowledges.
But come on, this is silliness because we know that decisions like this are contingent on the current situation and none of them will be making this decision any time soon. The conditions that apply now might be be the same in 20 months. And thanks to the Bush administration's war mongering with Iran, we could be in a very different place at that time.
Bill R. has a lot to offer, and I've heard him say intelligent things about Iraq, but this isn't one of them. And to be honest, I don't think these Democratic candidates will fail to withdraw U.S. troops as soon as they can. I don't believe any one of them believes in continuing failed policies. When candidates are so similar, they sometimes try to distinguish themselves by exaggerating minute differences.
I think a reasonable expectation is to talk about the conditions that would affect withdrawal percentages, but to make this an argument over who bids the lowest of residual forces is cheap.
There are no plans for leaving Iraq ... because we never planned on leaving.
The truth about our foreign policy is that there is not much difference between the front running candidates. To make matters worse, there is very little difference between the GOP and Democratic parties in respect to this issue.
Militarism, imperialism and the American Empire rolls on ...
Comments are closed on this entry