Richardson Would Exit Iraq By 2008

[bigtree]

Wednesday :: Apr 11, 2007

from Steve Soto at Left Coaster: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/010152.php

Chris Bowers at MyDD and Kos have noticed a game-changer amongst the Democratic candidates on Iraq. MoveOn.org hosted a candidate forum and in response to their questions on Iraq, most of the candidates gave expected answers. That is, until Bill Richardson gave his answer about what he would do:

If I were President today, I would withdraw American troops by the end of this calendar year. I would have no residual force whatsoever.

Game, set, match.

No trainers, no permanent bases, nada. And among all the presidential candidates on both sides, he is unquestionably the most seasoned when it comes to foreign policy.

You can watch the video of all the candidates here:

http://pol.moveon.org/townhall/iraq/report_back.html

[skipos]

1. oops. forget it. nt

[bigtree]

2. transcript of his remarks

Richardson:

It’s the constitutional right of Congress to start a war and to stop a war. We have a President that is not listening, that has threatened to veto very clear legislative language that basically says this war must end, and there should be benchmarks, and there should be withdrawal timetables.

I am for a time table of withdrawal. I would be for a cut-off of appropriations. What I would do, however, is one step further: this Congress several years ago, the Republican Congress, authorized this war. I would pass a Congressional resolution, de-authorizing the war based on the War Powers Act. I served in Congress for 15 years. I believe this is the cleanest and quickest way to deal with this issue, otherwise we’re gonna be in endless debates, vetoes. I believe it’s important we proceed with cutting off funds and ending this war, but de-authorizing this war based on the War Powers Act, I believe, is the most important step.

In resolution de-authorizing the war, you have a clear timetable, I would prefer it this calendar year, but if March 2008 is what Congressional Democrats have come up with to get the most votes, so be it. But there would be benchmarks, there would be very clear timetable for withdrawal. I would not support anything beyond 2008 of March… I believe that is too long. There would not be a residual force.

What would then happen is the Bush administration would probably say, “We do not observe the War Powers Act.” The next step would then be to take this case to the US Supreme Court. I believe that is a clear, cleaner course and the thrust of the American people would be clear. The position of the American people would be clear, the Congress would be clear, and I believe it would be a 50/50 chance in the US Supreme court. I admire what Congress is doing… I think they need to be stronger, at the same time we have to look at how we can end this war as quickly as possible.

more: http://pol.moveon.org/townhall/iraq/transcripts_p.html#richardson

[Rydz777]

3. Richardson

has it exactly right. His statement should be the standard against which other candidates are measured. Bring our troops home - alive and with their limbs - now.

[mmonk]

4. It may well end up that way once the debates start.

He will make it clearer on where people stand.

[UTUSN]

5. Uh, O.K. So what's wrong with 2007? n/t

[bigtree]

7. did you read the quote?

[Tejanocrat]

6. Richardson is one of the candidates I wish I knew more about. I haven't picked a candidate yet (and

likely won't until after some debates), but Richardson might be the guy if I was picking based just on foreign policy.

I don't know as much as I wish I did about Richardson's positions on domestic issues. Is he at the liberal end of the pack or the more moderate end of the pack on domestic issues?

[mmonk]

8. Moderate mostly.

He doesn't bother me (and I trend liberal), but I have some concern over the immigration issues (which is being abused at times in the current political climate and the anti-immigration push has led to families being broken up and held wrongly at times).

[Tejanocrat]

11. Thanks. I was sort of getting the impression that, aside from his pro-pot-decriminalization stand,

Richardson was mostly more moderate than me on domestic issues. I'm glad to see a trend with Richards that, when he goes maybe a bit too conservative, he seems to try to make up for it later (for example, supporting DOMA but then later in his career extending benefits to same-sex partners, shutting down the NM recount but then later standing up for paper ballots).

I still have a lot of homework to do concerning Richardson, but it may come down to whether my heart longs for a candidate who gets an A+ on foreign affairs from me but a lower grade on domestic issues on my own personal grading scale of which issues matter most to me.

I'd like to see Richardson, Dodd, and Kucinich break out of the "second tier."

[mmonk]

12. Me too.

[skipos]

9. Here are my thoughts

He truly loves diplomacy. As you see from his trip to Korea, he goes above and beyond what is required of him. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 4 times for his foreign negotiations. Not the end all be all or anything, but it definitely shows that the guy likes to solve problems peacefully, which is a 180 from the Bush barrel-of-a-gun method.

We wants out of Iraq. He doesn't want to leave residual troops.

He signed an executive order extending domestic partner benefits to state employees, got sexual orientation and transgender protections statewide, and a hate crimes bill the former governor refused to sign. When NM Repubs tried to push through a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, he said he would veto it and NM is one of only five states that does not have a constitutional amendment nor a 'defense of marriage act' prohibiting same-sex marriage. He said he would repeal "Don't Ask-Don't Tell."

He is a wildly popular governor. Re-elected by the biggest margin in NM history. He would easily win the swing state of NM. His appeal in other states with large hispanic communities (NV and FL, which aren't very red) is worth considering.

Some feel that he didn't do enough for the 2004 recount effort. But since then, he has done a lot more for secure voting than most governors...

Santa Fe, NM - Governor Bill Richardson yesterday signed a bill making New Mexico the fourteenth state to require voter-verified paper ballots (VVPBs) for its voting systems. As amended and passed, New Mexico Senate Bill 678 also requires audits to compare a portion of paper ballots with electronic vote tallies.

"New Mexico has swelled the ranks of states requiring voter-verified paper ballots across the country," said VerifiedVoting.org Executive Director Will Doherty. "Election administrators, policymakers, and the public recognize the need to prevent the malfunctions, errors, and failures of paperless e-voting machines that occurred repeatedly across the country during November 2004 and prior election cycles."

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5829

He is big on 2nd amendment rights. Some DUers might be turned off by it, but I support it. He was endorsed by the NRA.

He supported NAFTA in the past, which I definitely disagree with. I hope he has changed his mind about it in recent years. He is also pro-DP, which I disagree with, but would never effect my vote.

There are many other tidbits about him, I hear many mentions of how NM teacher salaries have gone up considerably because of him and other education related things. No time to look it up for ya though!

[Tejanocrat]

10. Thanks. The teacher pay issue is important to me (but the NRA endorsement is a bit of a black mark).

The NAFTA issue is also very important to me so I'll look into that further. Thanks again.