Richardson's Op-Ed in WaPo

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 09:59:48 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

WaPo has a deceptive title on Bill Richardson's Op Ed piece. They call it "Why We Should Leave Iraq Now." It should be called "Watch Richardson Try To Exploit 'Differences' on 2009 Iraq Policy and NOT Talk About Leaving Iraq Now." Read the first three grafs of the piece:

More...

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.

The fact that there is a Congressional debate in Congress NOW on Iraq does not enter Richardson's thinking in the least. I do not know about you, but I truly detest what Richardson is doing here, selfishly trying to make political hay for himself at the expense of the real issue NOW - the Congressional debate on Iraq. Richardson is my least favorite candidate right now.

< Leading On Iraq Now | Weekend Open Thread and Diary Rescue >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Richardson's Op-Ed in WaPo | 44 comments (44 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Let's be fair ... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 10:34:14 AM EST

"The fact that there is a Congressional debate in Congress NOW on Iraq does not enter Richardson's thinking in the least."

I agree with your primary premise but you do exaggerate a little. Keep in mind that Richardson is not a member of Congress and his presentation of his future presidential policy is predicated not only on the development of regional initiatives (which take time) but also on the likely assumption that the current invertebrate congress will do nothing (from the same editorial):

"If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office."

Look also at his statement from Thursday:

"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. ..."

Let's be fair ... or do you just think Richardson is lying like most politicians?

Let's be fair to me (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 10:41:59 AM EST

I am referencing the WaPo Op Ed.

You discuss some press release that went uncovered.

You can NOT think them comparable.


How was I unfair to you? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 10:50:45 AM EST

How was I unfair to you? By the way, I quoted from the press release AND from the same editorial that you quoted.

I found the press release on Richardson's website in about 10 seconds just because I was interested in finding out more about what Richardson might say on the topic. Is that being unfair to you?


I think so (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 11:09:25 AM EST

You critique me for NOT talking about a press release on a web site and talking about a WAPO op-ed.

I think you were quite unfair.


Let's be real (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 11:15:11 AM EST

I merely said one of your statements about Richardson's thinking was a little exaggerated.

To clarify Richardson's thinking on the subject, I first quoted from the same editorial that you quoted.

To further clarify Richardson's thinking on the subject, I also quoted from a very recent press release quoted on the first page of Richardson's website.

I don't think trying to be fair to Richardson's thinking on this issue is being unfair to you.


I discussed the WaPo Op Ed (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 11:18:12 AM EST

I am not sure what you are referring to.


Gosh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 11:22:05 AM EST

Maybe it would help if you read the editorial again or at least the sentence from it that I quoted.


I read it (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 11:46:02 AM EST

And?


And ... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:21:14 PM EST

And you still do not feel that this statement of yours is not even a little exaggerated?

Because I think that the congressional debate does indeed enter into Richardson's thinking at least insofar as he assumes that this invertebrate congress will likely not do anything of consequence. See, for example, this statement in the same WaPo editorial that you quote:

If you're interested in further understanding Richardson's thinking on this debate, you could also check out his website, where you'll quickly find a press release this week opposing congressional compromise on Iraq.

Nonetheless, I agree with you that candidate Richardson certainly could and should take a stronger stand in trying to influence the current debate in Congress, even though he is not a member. I would also expect Hillary and Barak do even more to influence current debate in the Senate, and would certainly like to see them challenged more directly by your guy (Dodd) on this very point.

As Senators, don't you think Hillary and Barak are perhaps more vulnerable on this point than Governor Richardson? I don't support Richardson specifically, but nor is he my least favorite candidate.

Richardson is surely trading on his status as a Washington outsider, but I am also inclined to agree with his outsider critique. Is he insincerely and selfishly doing so? Well, he is a politician after all.


No I do not (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:30:03 PM EST

Do you think that sentence changes what Richardson did in this piece?

I do not.

I think you are clearly wrong in what you are saying and being very unfair to me. Your resort to a press release off of Richardson's website is the evidence thsat even YOU know that Richardson did nothing you are claiming he did.


What did I falsely claim Richardson did? (none / 0) (#16)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:35:35 PM EST

That he focused on the Iraq debate (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:54:22 PM EST

in Congress. You acted as if the sentence you cite qualifed as such.


No ... (none / 0) (#21)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:01:51 PM EST

I did not claim that he focused on the Iraq debate in Congress. I just disagree with your assertion that it hasn't even entered into his thinking in the least. I think that's a bit of an exaggeration on your part.


We are back where we started (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:18:21 PM EST

I was referencing THIS Op Ed.

You excused him from my charge by pointing to one sentence. I said that is a very inconvincing argument.

Indeed, you are exaggerating aLOT in my view.


I was just trying to be fair to Richardson ... (none / 0) (#31)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:30:51 PM EST

... if I exaggerated or misrepresented or misinterpreted his position, I apologize.

I also apologize if you feel harmed in any way by any unintended unfairness to you.

I'm sorry you didn't find my brief interpretation of his views convincing.

On this small point, I also don't find your assertion convincing, but that's OK, I do not require any apology.


Defend him all you like (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:43:11 PM EST

I was defending myself against your unfair charges against me.


: Once again, I apologize: (none / 0) (#37)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:56:13 PM EST

We both have differing interpretations of one aspect of Richardson's thinking, about which we both think the other's interpretation succumbs to an exaggeration. I don't think that's an unfair charge against you, just a difference of interpretation of someone else's thinking.
On the other hand, it seemed you might have come close to accusing me of lying:
"evidence thsat even YOU know that Richardson did nothing you are claiming he did."
But, again, I require no apology, certainly not because I was in any way intending to deceive, but because I desire not to get entangled in pointless Internet arguments.

No More Free Ride for Clinton, Obama and Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Plac Ebo on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 11:22:31 AM EST

Clinton, Obama and Edwards have had years to show leadership on the Iraq dilemma. In kindest terms they have been evasive. They are not trying to come up with a solution but trying to antagonize the fewest people. Their goal is to avoid losing any votes by not taking a stand. More than ever we need leaders to step forward on behalf of the country. Not politicians that are looking out for their own interests.

Ummm (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 11:45:19 AM EST

Are you saying that Richardson is calling them to account?


I was going to ask the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:45:42 PM EST

Not directly enough with reference to the current congressional debate, but he does seem to be doing this generally in the very first sentence of today's op ed:

"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."

Of course he also fails to mention Dodd who is not a front runner.


Riuchardson is no frontrunner either (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:17:05 PM EST

Thanks, but no need to point out the obvious (none / 0) (#27)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:18:52 PM EST

: Heh (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:28:14 PM EST

Yes ... (none / 0) (#17)
by Plac Ebo on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:51:19 PM EST

Iraq is the number one issue today. It is what gave the floundering Democrats life in the last election. The country does not want more of the same. The majority of Americans want that debacle to end. It's already difficult to tell the difference between a Dem and a Republican. On most issues once you trim away all the rhetoric you have to split hairs to discern any distinction. Iraq is the one issue that does stand out and Clinton, Obama and Edwards are too afraid to take a stand.


Nonsequitor (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:53:18 PM EST

I asked if Richardson is calling them to account.


I'll Spell Slower .... Y..E..S.. (none / 0) (#22)
by Plac Ebo on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:06:27 PM EST

LOOK AT SUBJECT LINE! Does that help?


The subject line was the answer (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:16:21 PM EST

The comment was hardly support for the answer.

I will spell slower also, WHY do you think so?


Anything Concrete? (none / 0) (#28)
by Plac Ebo on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:23:26 PM EST

Have you got a horse in this race?

Just what is your angle?

Why were Richardson's comments unfair?

Please enlighten me with Clinton's, Obama's and Edwards' position on Iraq.


Nonsequitor (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:27:44 PM EST

I guess we have taken this as far as it will go. Of course I could start asking you irreleavant questions and what not but frankly, I lost interest.

Have a nice day.


: Typical (none / 0) (#32)
by Plac Ebo on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:34:24 PM EST

Took the words out of my mouth

Plac Ebo: (none / 0) (#34)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:37:45 PM EST

Without implying or applying an overly deductive hermeneutic, I clearly understood how elements of your comment supported your answer: "The country does not want more of the same... Clinton, Obama and Edwards are too afraid to take a stand."


More at mydd: (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:18:37 PM EST

BTD on Richardson's op ed

How about including that "cross-posted" language?

Richardson's 7 Point Plan for Iraq (none / 0) (#40)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 08:31:40 PM EST

Thanks, oculus. More and much better evidence that Richardson has indeed thought about the current role of congress prior to 2009 in deauthorizing, setting a date certain, and appropriating funds accordingly for withdrawal of troops from Iraq:

"The 7 Point Plan for Iraq

De-Authorize the War Now

President Bush has demonstrated neither competence nor honesty nor a sense of reality in his conduct of this war. Congress should immediately assert its constitutional authority and pass a resolution de-authorizing the war under Article I of the US Constitution and the War Powers Act.

Troops Out in Six Months

Once it has de-authorized this war, Congress should set a military pull-out date and appropriate funds accordingly for the re-deployment of troops. I believe we can withdraw all the troops within six months of de-authorization, but if it takes a few months longer the key is to get them all out as soon as humanly possible. My military advisors and I believe our continued presence in Iraq only fuels the insurgency, strengthens Al Qaeda, and enables the Iraqi factions to delay making the hard political choices they need to make to end the civil war.

No Residual Forces Left Behind
We must remove ALL of our troops...


None presented in the WaPo piece (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 08:40:35 PM EST

QED


Of course not (none / 0) (#42)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 09:22:47 PM EST

Of course not, there he barely alludes to his belief that Congress should have a role but fails to define what that role should be since he seems to assume (correctly, I fear) that Congress will in fact do nothing.


hmmm (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 09:54:12 PM EST

Leadership NOW? Um no.


: NOW ... (none / 0) (#44)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 10:03:02 PM EST

... we truly are back at the beginning since I clearly agreed with your primary premise, just not with one part of your characterization of Richardson's thinking.

RTFA (none / 0) (#13)
by Fr33d0m on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:06:47 PM EST

I am not a Richardson supporter and I don't agree with everything he said here but BTD is being a very disingenuous here IMHO. Below are quotes from the linked article where Richardson is certainly talking about leaving Iraq NOW.

That said I think BTD may well want Richardson to be more forceful in twisting Congress' arm, but writing an op-ed that argues as Richardson has here is not at all detestable. Ineffective? Yes, but not detestable.

Here are those quotes:

"I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly."

"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."

"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."

"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."

Excuse me (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:28:06 PM EST

IF you do not see the difference between 2007, NOW, and 2009, twop years from now, then I can not help you.

You are being disingenuous in your comment.


You're Excused. (none / 0) (#20)
by Fr33d0m on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:58:20 PM EST

To you his lack of the word NOW means he is detestable. To me he is saying they should go completely, and if congress will not do it now, then he will on his "first day in office."

I am willing to read very little between the lines these days but I think drawing the inference that he is saying NOW is reasonable. He is not saying that we should do it later after all. He isn't saying we should wait.

Sure we would all prefer they all would say "get them out now" but I don't think beating-up Richardson for this op-ed is at all useful. His op-ed is a somewhat weak attempt to advance the cause of completely withdrawing. Is that not a desirable topic for our candidates to opine on?


No (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:15:12 PM EST

Do not put words in my mouth.

My post is clear. Address it and do not create straw men.


It is clear (none / 0) (#33)
by Fr33d0m on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:37:43 PM EST

It is clear that you think he should have said "NOW." Your first paragraph is where you attempt to eviscerate him and the editors for the op-ed title because he presumably didn't talk about getting them out "NOW."

If you are really saying that he didn't talk about cutting off funding, you'd be right, but you didn't say that. And that is a bit off topic for his op-ed isn't it?

: I refer you to my post (none / 0) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:41:58 PM EST

Good day

Politics ain't BEAN BAG as they say (none / 0) (#39)
by downtownted on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 06:05:28 PM EST

The only thing that counts is whether you win or lose! Are your candidates willing to pay the price? Take a hard look at 1992 when the Clinton campaign put a fast reaction team into play. They NEVER got Willy Hortonized. They played hard-ball every day.

You better decide what you want. To WIN or to look pretty. If you choose to win, are you really PERSON enough? (in the old days we would have used "man enough," but there are women out there who will chew up and spit out any wimp, male or female).

Well are you REALLY. GWB is. Kerry wasn't ready nor was McCain. They let GWB walk all over them. Gore didn't want it enough to fight, really fight even though he had WON. What about you and your candidates. If you aren't, don't you think you should just get out of the race?