Richardson Says Potential Senate Compromise on Iraq War Will "Allow the Bloodshed to Continue"

[bigtree]

September 6, 2007

LOS ANGELES, CA -- New Mexico Governor and Presidential candidate Bill Richardson today released the following statement on reports of a Senate compromise on Iraq:

"The time for deal-making is long past. We need real leadership in Washington to end this war and bring all of our troops home. The American people elected this Congress to create change and get us out of Iraq, and yet it still has not happened.

"Small concessions and Beltway brokered deals will only allow the bloodshed to continue. As Senators compromise, soldiers die.

"The longer our troops remain in Iraq, the longer we remain an excuse for the different groups in Iraq to avoid finding a political and diplomatic solution to the war.

"Our brave military has accomplished its mission. There is nothing more for them to do but to serve as targets for insurgents.

"I am the only major candidate who believes we should leave no residual forces in Iraq- zero. My opponents would leave behind an indeterminate number of residual forces.

"Only with a complete U.S. troop withdrawal -- supported by an all-Muslim U.N. peacekeeping force, aggressive regional diplomacy, and an Iraqi Reconciliation Conference to bring the different factions together -- can Iraq begin down the road toward security and stability."

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/home



I've been supporting Bill Richardson for President because of his uncompromising stance against the occupation. I do believe that there would be some benefit in a compromise agreement which would bring soldiers home. But, I don't see any value at all (outside of the understandable desire to see soldiers come out of Iraq) in any compromise which doesn't set an early end date for the occupation. Bill Richardson speaks for me on this, entirely. That's the position I intend to advocate.



Op-Ed: Why We Should Exit Iraq Now

09/08/2007
By Bill Richardson

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly.

In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years -- a tragic mistake.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be "irresponsible." On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal -- not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process -- would be the most responsible and effective course of action.

Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the Middle East. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders, including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.

Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage and professionalism, but they cannot win someone else's civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.

The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq.

Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a second route out through Turkey.

As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq's neighbors will face the reality that if they don't help with stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq's collapse -- including even greater refugee flows over their borders and possible war.

The United States can facilitate Iraqi reconciliation and regional cooperation by holding a conference similar to that which brought peace to Bosnia. We will need regional security negotiations among all of Iraq's neighbors and discussions of donations from wealthy nations -- including oil-rich Muslim countries -- to help rebuild Iraq. None of this can happen until we remove the biggest obstacle to diplomacy: the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.

My plan is realistic because:

* It is less risky. Leaving forces behind leaves them vulnerable. Would we need another surge to protect them?
* It gets our troops out of the quagmire and strengthens us for our real challenges. It is foolish to think that 20,000 to 75,000 troops could bring peace to Iraq when 160,000 have not. We need to get our troops out of the crossfire in Iraq so that we can defeat the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11.
* By hastening the peace process, the likelihood of prolonged bloodshed is reduced. President Richard Nixon withdrew U.S. forces slowly from Vietnam -- with disastrous consequences. Over the seven years it took to get our troops out, 21,000 more Americans and perhaps a million Vietnamese, mostly civilians, died. All this death and destruction accomplished nothing -- the communists took over as soon as we left.

My position has been clear since I entered this race: Remove all the troops and launch energetic diplomatic efforts in Iraq and internationally to bring stability. If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.

Let's stop pretending that all Democratic plans are similar. The American people deserve precise answers from anyone who would be commander in chief. How many troops would you leave in Iraq? For how long? To do what, exactly? And the media should be asking these questions of the candidates, rather than allowing them to continue saying, "We are against the war . . . but please don't read the small print."


http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/newsroom/articles?id=0186

[Olney Blue]

1. I read Richardson's op ed in Post this morning.

It made me cry- finally, a Dem candidate who articulates what I want regarding Iraq.

[spanone]

2. Repeat over & over: As Senators compromise, soldiers die.

[maximusveritas]

3. He talks tough now, but why did he support this war in the beginning?

Why is it that those who were the most wrong on this war at its inception (Edwards, Richardson) are now the ones most eager to criticize our current Senators for not doing enough to end the war?
Perhaps it was their thirst for power and willingness to go with the winds of public opinion that has led them on this path.

[bigtree]

4. Richardson was well outside of any decision-making process

But he clearly expressed support for the notion that the demand for inspections and for Saddam to reveal his hand which were part of the U.N. resolution needed to be backed up with some threat of force. What Richardson did, along with others, was assume that Bush was acting in good faith and would follow the diplomatic course the administration had promised the U.N. and everyone else.

At the point where Bush decided to pull the inspectors and invade, Richardson was still assuming Bush would at least follow the provision in the IWR which advocated force as a last resort ('after all peaceful means had been exhausted') and the provision which mandated a return to the U.N. security council. His opportunities for public comment were few and he used those to predict what the next course Bush would take rather than trying to confront the administration.

But I think it is fair to say that he was not prepared for the unilateral, preemptive manner in which Bush dropped the U.N. inspectors and invaded. In hindsight, he could have railed against the invasion more at the time, but the chances he took were more of a prognosticator and a diplomat, than an advocate for or against.

But, we know how he feels now about the occupation, and he's been extremely candid about his positions.

Here's his best answer to your question:


Q: You supported invading Iraq, can you talk a little bit about why and could that be a problem for you?

A: "After the invasion, I was governor of New Mexico, I was taking care of my state. The president decided to invade and I thought the best thing I could do was support the decision because I wanted to support the troops. But when the strategy started falling apart and when the American people were lied to that there were weapons of mass destruction and there was incompetence in the execution of taking over Iraq, I said, there is no strategy here."

Q: But aren't Democratic voters frustrated with that answer?

A: "Well no, I think facts change; your opinions change. I knew Saddam Hussein. I negotiated with him. I think he was worth removing."

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070712/NEWS10/707120359/0/news&theme=CAUCUS08

[maximusveritas]

5. Thanks for that

I wasn't aware of that interview. It seems to confirm quite a bit of what I was thinking. Richardson just goes along with the majority opinion, from supporting the war/troops at the beginning to opposing it "when the strategy started falling apart". At least he's honest about it. That's something you can always expect from Richardson.

[bigtree]

6. He acted like a diplomat (with direct experience confronting Saddam)

He was bound, to a large degree by the actions he took as an arm of the Clinton administration confronting Saddam when he actually had WMDs. It wasn't inconsistent for Richardson to take a position of confrontation with Saddam, especially in conjunction with the U.N. where he served as U.S. Ambassador.

That's more than just 'going along' in my view. He believed that Bush would operate in good faith and would be restrained in the use of force and he was wrong. He's honest about that.

[MethuenProgressive]

7. Great post, k&r!

:dem:

[bigtree]

8. .

:kick:

[bigtree]

9. Kick

:kick:

[bigtree]

10. kick

:kick: