Richardson blasts Edwards, Hillary and Obama

In a much anticipated foreign policy speech at Georgetown University, Bill Richardson helped himself by taking a position that most Democratic activists agree with, and could vault him up a notch in Iowa and New Hampshire.  More importantly, if he does become a top-tier candidate, his popular view on the war may force Obama, Hillary and Edwards to take a more dovish position.  Richardson is the only major candidate in either party with a clear plan to get all troops out of Iraq.

Here is what I think was the best part of his speech today.  He starts with the issue of military contractors:

   We must also remove the private mercenaries.  As  President, I will no longer privatize and outsource American security!By utilizing contractors who are not subject to the rules of war or theregulations of armed forces, George Bush has further underminedAmerica's reputation and global leadership.

And then he zeroed in on the other contenders:

After seven years of this Administration, we have come to expect thatGeorge Bush will make the wrong call on the important issues.

   However, I expected more -- much more -- from my fellow Democrats  in this race.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have said we have towait and see how things go before we can know how many troops to bringout and how quickly. I say there has been enough waiting and seeing. Ifyou haven't seen enough to know that we need to get all the troops outthen you aren't watching the same war that I and the rest of Americaare seeing. I don't think just changing the mission is enough -- weneed to end the war.

Lastly, he exposed the fact that Clinton's Iraq plan would leave troops in Iraq for up to nine years:

Senator Clinton has reportedly said thatshe might well have troops still in Iraq at the end of a second term --9 years from now. Senator Obama and John Edwards are unwilling tocommit to removing all of the troops by the end of their first term --that's 5 years from now. I am opposed to 5 years or 9 years or any moreyears of our troops dying. My colleagues are wrong.

   Military analysts have said that Senator Clinton's plan  could require leaving up to 75,000 troops in Iraq.

   That's changing  the mission, not ending the war.

Maybe a question for Edwards, Obama and Hillary in the next debate should be how would leaving ANY combat troops in Iraq help our overall situation AT ALL?  I want to listen to them try and defend that.

Obama is probably the closest to Richardson's position.  However, for Obama, it's not enough to say, "I was against the war before it started."  The past is history.  What do you want to do now?  How would keeping US combat troops in Iraq decrease terrorist recruitment throughout the world over the next generation?  Answer it, please.

In related news, Time Magazine's Karen Tumulty explains that with the retirement of Republican Pete Domenici in Mexico, Bill Richardson could possibly decide to withdraw from the presidential race and run for that Senate seat instead.

Comments

[Stephen Cassidy]

I am supporting Richardson because he possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President.

Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has the ability to quickly evaluate a situation but is not rigid in his thinking and will modify policy when necessary. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology.Richardson has been called a "force of nature." When he served in Congress, he was regarded as one of the hardest working members, respected for his intelligence and detailed knowledge of the issues. In a profile of Richardson earlier this year in the LA Times, New Mexico Democratic state Senator Mary Jane Garcia stated, "It just never stops; it's busy, busy, busy. He's got an agenda like you can't believe." New Mexico Republican Representative Dan Foley added, "People shouldn't count him out. You won't find a person who works harder." We need a person with Richardson's qualities and expertise in the White House.

[granny]

I agree. Nobody shines a candle to Richardson, in conduct of their candidacy, in courage and vision, integrity, moral compass and dignity unfettered by ego.

When you think about the way he has gone about his campaign, he has, in my opinion, essentially kept out of the mud wrestling, and gotten out a clear, eloquent and straightforward message, that has not been all that easy for the rest of the gang to tear apart in the feeding frenzy.

I feel a sadness these days at what is accepted as "statesman like conduct", considered laudable positions and courageous and worthy policies; and that we seem to have so much more to say about the mechanics of the campaigns than the content of the candidates. The money, the timing, the tactics, "the game of thrones".
-
If we talked less about process, and more about the people, what they really represent to our futures, in time perhaps they would not have to depend solely on the "cash flow" game.

We need less analysis and more "dreaming", more connection.

Some of us were here in the sixties and remember when the bar was a lot higher. Some of us heard and saw the men who said 'I am not afraid' - and meant it.

Richardson at least reminds us of moments like this - he has the words, and the guts, if not the tune:

"Together we can make ourselves a nation that spends more on books than on bombs, more on hospitals than the terrible tools of war, more on decent houses than miliatry aircraft" - RFK, 1968

[Jon]

Richardson is definitely well rounded, I really like his diplomatic resume. International diplomacy is a skill our leaders will need to be great at in order to undo the damage that has been done. Its going to be a tough job.