Talking Iraq With Bill Richardson

[babylonsister]

http://mydd.com/story/2007/4/13/145545/540

Talking Iraq With Bill Richardson

by Chris Bowers, Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:55:45 PM EST

Today, I had a chance to talk for about ten minutes with Governor Bill Richardson. The entire conversation focused on Iraq. Here is what I learned:

* Apart from a contingent of marines to protect the American embassy, he does indeed mean "no residual force whatsoever." No American troops in Iraqi to serve as trainers, no American counter-terrorism units in Iraq, no American troops to protect humanitarian workers--no any of that. Also, since marines are part of every American embassy contingent, he did not consider that a residual force. He would keep American troops in the region, but not in Iraq itself.

* His rationale behind this plan is that no matter what residual American forces are doing in Iraq, they will both be targets and serve as one of the main justifications for continuing violence in the country. His solution is to convene a regional diplomatic conference, in which American withdrawal can be used as leverage, to bring in security forces from neighboring countries such as Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

* Governor Richardson agreed when I asked him if he felt other candidates were being disingenuous when they claimed they were in favor of total withdrawal, but still wanted residual American military forces in Iraq to accomplish x, y, and z. He promised that is a distinction he would draw, and an issue he would repeatedly raise in public during the campaign. I told him that would probably help him quite a bit, looked forward to that issue being discussed, and thanked him for his time.

First, let me say that I completely agree with Bill Richardson on Iraq. This is the best plan I have seen for Iraq from any Democratic candidate, bar none. Further, given Richardson's long list of diplomatic accomplishments, I also have confidence that he would be able to successfully carry out this plan. At a minimum, this man needs to be the Secretary of State in the next administration. I am not ready to endorse him for President based simply on this plan, but it does mean he is one of a very small number of candidates on my radar for the primaries. Judging by the numbers from the MoveOn.org house party poll on Iraq, where he finished a strong second, I think he accomplished that for a large number of other, dedicated netroots activists as well.

Now, you have every right to disagree with Richardson's plan. Also, even if you agree with Richardson's plan, you also have every right to argue that other candidates come "close enough" to your view on Iraq, and that other issues are in play when determining which candidate to support. What I hope this accomplishes is that we end the charade where some candidates claim they are for total withdrawal, and then list the various tasks a residual American military force will carry out in the country if he or she becomes President. How many troops we keep in Iraq--a lot, some, a few, or none--is an issue that needs to be discussed in the campaign, and I am thrilled that someone with the foreign policy accomplishments of Bill Richardson is leading the charge for "none." Determining the varying levels of American military presence in Iraq proposed by different candidates is a far, far more fruitful way for Iraq to become an issue in the Democratic primary than arguments over who voted for what back in 2002, and how they feel about those votes five years later. As progressive activists, this is absolutely a discussion we need to have, and I look forward to taking part in it.

[MH1]

1. Richardson has serious foreign policy chops, and I like his Iraq position A LOT.

Not so sure about all his other positions yet (heh, still researching)...and there's at least one negative that I know of...but this one is really big and may tip the scale in his favor, for me.

[w4rma]

4. March 21, 2007, On Gonzales: "I'm rooting for him, I like the guy, I know him. I hope he survives"

Gov. Bill Richardson on Tavis Smiley March 21, 2007

Tavis: Alberto Gonzalez happens to be a member of your community. Is this guy gonna survive? He's the first Hispanic to have that job.

Richardson: Yeah, I know. I'm rooting for him, I like the guy, I know him. I hope he survives, but he's got to clean up his act and at least know what's happening in his department. He, at that press conference, said "Well, I didn't know anything about this." When you're heading a Cabinet agency—I did at the Department of Energy—and it's very hard to do that, 'cause you got thousands of people working for you.

But you gotta know what is happening with U.S. attorneys, because these are the top Justice Department attorneys in every state. So, he's gotta get more engaged, he's gotta clean up his act, he's gotta be forthcoming. I think the Congress needs to really investigate, but if I were the White House, I'd say "I'm gonna let Karl Rove testify, I'm gonna put everything on the table, I'm gonna let Harriet Miers, the former legal counsel.

I'm gonna have Alberto Gonzalez. They shouldn't be testifying in private. They should do it openly before the American people. That's a separation of powers. We should do that.

Tavis: It occurs to me now, listening to you talk about your friend who you know, Mr. Gonzalez, it draws a stark contrast between—I haven't checked where all the other candidates are, but I know Obama is on record very clearly saying Gonzalez should step down. I suspect other Democrats running for president are maybe saying the same thing. That's a contrast between you and others on whether or not this guy should step down.

Richardson: That's right. I do believe that it's up to a president to make those decisions about Cabinet members. Obviously, Alberto's very damaged, and he's gotta be frank and testify and do what has to happen. But I think that's up to the president.

Tavis: So you would not call for his stepping down right now.

Richardson: No, no. And you know what? Part of it maybe is because he's the highest-ranking Hispanic ever.

Tavis: But wrongdoing is wrongdoing, though. If he did wrong.

Richardson: Well, I think it's more a lack of attention, lack of a plan, lack of being thorough. He's too much the president's lawyer. He's too much of a political person. And I recognize that.
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200703/20070321_richardson.html

[mmonk]

5. That's off the subject.

But I know you're in full campaign mode right now.

[w4rma]

6. "Not so sure about all his other positions yet (heh, still researching)" (nt)

[mmonk]

7. That's your right of course.

http://www.billrichardsonforpresident.com/

[MH1]

8. It's fair, but not a huge issue to me, considering the context.

It's fair - If he said it, he said it.

Why I think it's not huge - because he's expressing support for a homeboy, but he does say Gonzales should be investigated. He seems to think Gonzales is weak in the position, not inherently bad. It didn't seem to me like Richardson was making a strong statement that Gonzo shouldn't be canned eventually, just that he kind of hoped he would survive this, because he's a Hispanic in a high position. Of course Richardson doesn't want the highest ranking Hispanic to be disgraced. But it didn't sound to me like he thought the law shouldn't be followed.

If there's a lot like that, it might add up to trouble for Richardson. But I can easily pick and choose statements I don't like from all the other candidates.

When it comes down to it, Iraq is probably the most important position. I'll weigh Richardson's other positions against the other candidates. All of them have negatives - when I rank them according to what I think is most important, who will come out on top? We'll just have to see.

[mmonk]

2. Richardson and Kucinich

have the best plans by far. I think Richardson can disengage from the empire project in the most safe and effective manner.

[eridani]

3. No candidate has yet called imperialism imperialism--

--not even Kucinich. Such a declaration would probably instantly transform him or her into a permanent MSM target. Yet there is nothing more important we can do than to give up trying to conquer a diminishing resource and put all that effort into inventing the next energy economy.