gurufrisbee must be in favor of the Iraq war
As anyone who has been following the infighting between gurufrisbee and myself about the Democratic Presidential nominee, you'll know that I support Bill Richardson and gurufrisbee supports "the front-runner" of the Democratic party. He hasn't yet declared, but he has told me on several occasions that it is pointless to support anyone but the "top tier" candidates because it will just pull the party apart and put a Republican in the White House.
Well, after hearing Bill Richardson speak at the Take Back America conference yesterday, I can only assume that gurufrisbee must be in favor of continuing the Iraq War because all of the "top tier" candidates are in favor staying in Iraq for years to come. Governor Richardson, alone, has pledged to get American troops out of Iraq, every single one, by the end of this year (or the first year of his presidency).
John Edwards wants the troops out of Iraq in 12 to 18 months and he says that Congress should send the supplemental Iraq spending bill up to the White House over and over again. The language in that bill says "leave troops in Iraq to train the Iraqi military and to leave troops to protect those troops." How exactly is that going to get us out of Iraq?
Barack Obama wants a phased re-deployment to have combat troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, but would leave residual troops to engage in counterterrorism and to train Iraqi forces (again, making them a target for sectarian violence).
Hillary Clinton wants to wait until October to end the war and leave residual troops. She has also told her military advisor that she sees American troops in Iraq for another decade.
All three of the top candidates support American troops staying longer. If 165,000 troops can't keep the peace or stay safe, how can 60,000, 30,000 or 20,000? This is just a stupid idea.
Richardson is no fool, he knows that when America pulls out something must be done. He is the only candidate talking about Day +1, when American troops are all out and Iraq is left to Iraqis. Governor Richardson is advocating a "new realism" in foreign policy. The key thing to do with a withdrawal of troops to Kuwait and Qatar, where they are welcomed and are close enough to engage in anti-terrorism activities, is to use that to pressure the al-Maliki government to figure out a diplomatic solution. Richardson would also convene a meeting of neighboring nations to figure out how to stop the violence and flow of foreigners into Iraq, as well as talk about rebuilding. He'd press for an all Muslim peacekeeping force to help establish peace to remove the Crusader propaganda that Al-Qaeda has used so effectively.
You know, as well as I know, that the military's mission in Iraq is over. Please sign the petition calling on Congress to end the war NOW and bring ALL the troops home.








Comments
Please do not
This just makes Richardson the most irresponsible—and that in a tough field. (He is going to convene a meeting on surrender day+1! Hurray!)
The conference happens during the redeployment not after...
He isn't irresponsible. He's the one with the most foreign policy experience, has met the leaders of the region, and understands that refereeing a civil war is a no-win situation.
The conference would be held as the redeployment happens, not after the complete withdrawal.
Let's be real. We need to a have a Day+1 discussion. Iraq is not getting any better. We are on pace to lose 1000 men and women in Iraq this year, more than any other year. Iraq is lost politically. We will have to draw down troops or increase troop levels by 3 or 4 times and stay there for decades. That isn't really an option.
We may not like that President Bush rushed headlong into a war without thinking about the peace, but that is the bed we've made and now we get to lie in it.
So many flaws in this, so little time
It's my birthday today, so I don't probably have enough time to sit down and really rip this apart like it deserves, but we'll see what I can get done.
1) I'm not in favor of the war in Iraq, I have never been in favor of the war in Iraq, and I have been on record consistently and many times since well before we ever went in there with that position. And obviously you know that or you wouldn't use it to try to pull me into this with such a ridiculous and frankly offensive suggestion.
2) I never said supporting a candidate like Richardson who has no actual chance of winning the nomination WILL put a Republican in the White House -but it certainly won't help the Democrats get in there.
3) I've never advocated voting for a person or a party based on one single issue and I actually find that kind of thinking short sighted and irresponsible, so I would never support Richardson simply because he has a better position on Iraq than Clinton, Obama, or Edwards (which he does).
4) I'm so opposed to what has happened and is currently happening in Iraq that I would love to sign a petition to end it and get our troops home, but I'm not going to sign a petition that is more about being a plug for a presidential candidate than an actual petition like the link you've provided there is.
I've always liked Richardson and said I wished he was actually significant enough to be a legitimate candidate for the White House because he has some great ideas, like this one. But getting all excited about Richardson saying he'll bring the troops home when he is president is like getting all excited about how famous I'll be when I win the NBA slam dunk contest. It would be terrific, but there is no chance of it actually happening, so why waste your time on it? If you really want to do some good, convince your boy Bill there to spend his time and energy trying to convince Clinton, Obama, and Edwards to adopt his plan for Iraq instead of fighting to finish in 4th place in the primaries.
A reply to gurufrisbee
1) If you are against the war, why publicly support any of the top 3 candidates who will keep troops in Iraq for years to come? Either the war is morally repugnant and we should get out or we should stay and "win" it. However, a half-force for decades to come seems like the worst option. Can you explain how someone can be against the War in Iraq and still vote for any candidate that advocates keeping soldiers there?
2) Ok...nuance noted.
3) Ok...where do you disagree with Governor Richardson? Which other issues don't you line up on? What happens if he has the best position on the war AND you agree with him on his other positions?
4) The petition has had some effect. Hillary sponsored a bill with binding deadlines after Gov. Richardson's first push for folks to sign his petition.
Extra - Governor Richardson has "some great ideas" but you discount him a legitimate contender. Why? Because he isn't a legitimate contender. He went from 3% in Iowa and New Hampshire to 10% in the space of 8 weeks. Meanwhile, Edwards and Obama have flat-lined. 7 months from the first vote cast, it is too early to say who has won. The Governor can only get more well known and raise more money. The other candidates cannot gain more foreign policy and executive experience.
no time - cake is already lit
1) Again, it's never a single issue affair.
3) It wouldn't matter if I agreed with him straight down the line on everything - he has no chance of winning. Period.
4) The petition is stop the war and bring home all the troops. When those are accomplished, then I will sing the praises of the petition all day long. Until then, it really hasn't had any effect.
Extra - NO. The governor can not only get more well known and raise more money - that's totally false. He can get even more overshadowed by the top three and get even less financial support - and that's precisely what will happen as it gets closer and closer to actual voting season and it's time to get really serious about the candidates who actually could take the White House in 08. The other candidates don't need more foriegn policy and executive experience - it hasn't done anything but make Richardson a 4th place candidate.
Bringing all the troops home except ONE
I occasionally I agree with Expat Teacher, usually with a frequency associated with blue moons, cows coming home,and the sun rising in the west.
So watch out-- weird phenomena are likely to happen-- I actually agree with Expat on this one.
I think we should remove all troops from Iraq and in their place send a one-man "surge": Expat Teacher.
Think of the multiple "goods" that would ensue from such a course of action....
;) Okay, play time over...the serious folks can return to their substantive discussion.
Ok, but as long as you support a front-runner, you are pro-war
It might not be a single issue election, but I can't see how you supporting Clinton or Obama can be anything other than a pro-war stance. These candidates both say they will keep troops in Iraq for years to come.
The other option is that maybe the war isn't a big issue for you.
Neither really seem like your previous position, so I just don't understand where you are on this.
You're being pretty close minded on this one
If you only allow for the two options to be "pro-war" or "pro-Richardson" then you've set up the choice very narrowly and frankly, very unrealistically. Richardson's entire campaign is not simply about the situation in Iraq. Electing a president is not simply about the situation in Iraq. Perhaps Richardson does exactly match up on every issue with your own beliefs perfectly. For most of the rest of the world, it doesn't usually work that way. And in those cases, you take the good with the bad and weigh it all out and choose the best option given all the details. Supporting a candidate with good ideas and no chance of winning doesn't compute to a good choice in my opinion.
Of course you have done a fabulous job of proving that people on the left here on GWH can be offensive and rude, too. Please keep up the insulting and offensive comments about my position on this.
Post new comment