Richardson: 'I would leave zero troops' in Iraq

I think Bill Richardson 2007 should debate... Bill Richardson, who when UN Ambassador in 1998 laid out quite eloquently the case for the use of force against Iraq and Iraq's WMD development.

Richardson's 2-13-98 talk is at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/931958/posts

Money quote (one of many) on Iraq's possession of WMDs; "The Iraqi regime remains intransigent and its weapons of mass destruction capabilities in the hands of a ruthless, reckless, and unpredictable leader are a constant threat to the peace and security of Iraq's neighbors, the region and the world...."

Obama:
"I am proud that I stood up in 2002 and urged our leaders not to take us down this dangerous path," his prepared remarks say. "I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – this is a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged."

Obama Sept 25, 2004:
U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

I am curious if Obama still holds that position. At what point does he think we should do that?

Bruce, what does Richardson's support for a limited bombing campaign against Iraq in 1998, 5 years before the current war started, have to do with his refusal to support the unending US participation in an Iraqi civil war?

Tony, practically the entire Dumbocrap party in 1998 wanted regime change in Iraq, from Tom Daschle and Ted "Manslaughter" Kennedy to Bill Richardson. They all encouraged Clintoon to do something then, not 5 years later.

Johnny D-

Not one of them wanted the GWB version of "regime change", consisting of invading Iraq., removing Saddam, and then having no plan for what comes next, eventually setting up a weak sectarian government.

The preferrred method of "regime change" was creating the conditions for the Iraqi's to remove and replace the Hussein Regime themselves, as happened in Serbia.

As the comments from the lockstep Republicans above prove:

The Dems are smart enough to see when something is wrong OR BASED ON BAD INTELLIGENCE they know better than to continue to "Stay the Course" on a plan that's leading to continued beating of your head against the wall like the Wingnuts do.

So when is the incompetent, corrupt, and dysfunctional Iraqi government and security forces going to be capable of dealing with their own issues?? Can anyone in the illegitimate Bush administration answer that question?? What more do they want from the U.S.?? Smarmy Cheney told us all democracy is well established in Iraq. Saddam's former buddy, Donald Rummy Rumsfeld, told us that Iraqi security forces will be more than able to handle any problems that arise.
It's their country, let them solve their own problems. I wouldn't give imbecile Bush another nickel for Iraq.

I call them the "Amnesia Democrats"--the candidates who hope that voters (and reporters) won't remember what they said about Iraq in the past.

A sample of what they said about Saddam, Iraq and WMD's and the need to remove Saddam, in the not-so-distant past:

Joe Biden, August 4, 2002:
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry, January 23, 2003:
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Johnny Edwards, February 6, 2003:
"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, as reported by the Washington Post 11-4-2005: "Richardson told George Stephanopoulos in August that he opposed setting a timetable "because then that allows the terrorists to know when you're leaving.""

I can find similar quotes by the dozens.

Will the left-wing robo-posters denounce these statements?

We all need to be reminded that many of the quotes attributed to the candidates that come from the past are stances that they took due to false and plain incorrect information provided to the Congress and the American people to force us to support Bush's war, a war that was in fact ill advised. Actually of the whole lot, if you look at his background Richardson is probably the candidate with the best skills to get us out of this mess.

Laura, did Bush and Cheney also supply the false information to the Dumbocraps in 2000? In 1999? In 1998? In 1997? In 1996? Did they supply the false info every time Clintoon decided to bomb Iraq for a few days, a week at a time?

Bruce -

Of course this country is led by the "Amnesia Republican".

"I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place."

George W Bush, October 3, 2000

"It started off as a humanitarian mission then changed
into a nation-building mission and that's where the mission went
wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a
price, and so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's
called nation building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight
and win war."

George W. Bush October 11, 2000

Brucebot,

I call it changing course when you see that the Republican ship you are riding in is sinking.

If this stupid civil war in Iraq was Bill Clinton's war you'd be singing a different tune, aye Brucie?

MAYDAY, MAYDAY!

We all need to be reminded that many of the quotes attributed to the candidates that come from the past are stances that they took due to false and plain incorrect information provided to the Congress and the American people to force us to support Bush's war, a war that was in fact ill advised. Actually of the whole lot, if you look at his background Richardson is probably the candidate with the best skills to get us out of this mess.

Posted by: Laura M | June 19, 2007 2:10 PM

In other words Laura, are you saying that Democrats like Biden, H. Clinton, Kerry, Richardson are so stupid they couldn't see through "the lies" of a handful of people (the evil Bush team). Or that these Democrats didn't even try to confirm said information before sending us to war, again, believing on face value the comments of a few men? Or lastly, that these few stupid Nazis (Bush & Co) were able to lead a democracy like the US into a war they wanted? Which then debunks every "stupid" comment thrown by the left.

So, which is is?

I'd also like to know, how a country that is a "constant threat to the peace and security of Iraq's neighbors, the region and the world" (Bill Richardson) because of its WMD program, is only 4 years later not a threat, when there were no weapons inspectors in that country for those 4 years!!!!

For the record, even back in 2002, I believed having a known "Saddam in Iraq" was better than any unknown of using force to remove him.

Gotta go, late for my Goose-stepping lessons.

bruce - one of the best comments I have ever read. you used facts and history to clearly state your case. great work.

Bonehead (Bruce),

Not ONE Democrat advocated invading and occupying Iraq, you moron.

Go ahead and keep on troting out this stupid line of bull right up until the day the Wingnuts lose the 08 Prez election because I'm loving it.

"I'd also like to know, how a country that is a "constant threat to the peace and security of Iraq's neighbors, the region and the world" (Bill Richardson) because of its WMD program, is only 4 years later not a threat, when there were no weapons inspectors in that country for those 4 years!!!!"

Not so. There were inspectors in Iraq from November 2002 until March 2003. They only left because of the start of the war. They had been finding no evidence of active Iraqi WMD programs during that time, and begged for more time to complete their work. Bush refused. Not the Democrats, George W. Bush made that decision completely on his own.

They don't call this THE SWAMP for nothing. John D and Bruce your consistently insulting comments bring the level of discourse down to preschool level. There's never a real discussion, just a bunch of intransigent mudslinging. The story is Richardson: 'I would leave zero troops' in Iraq. Either you agree with that or you don't. None of you will change your minds so why rail away with mindless insults as if anyones viewpoint will be swayed. Face it Bush screwed up Major!!! We all have to live with it. Bring the troops home.

Logic Prisoner, and you do have no logic, me and Bruce mudslinging and bringing the discourse of the Swamp down to low levels?

Here are some posts for you to consider, Illogic Man:

Bonehead (Bruce),

Not ONE Democrat advocated invading and occupying Iraq, you moron.

Go ahead and keep on troting out this stupid line of bull right up until the day the Wingnuts lose the 08 Prez election because I'm loving it.

Posted by: John E | June 19, 2007 4:17 PM

Brucebot,

I call it changing course when you see that the Republican ship you are riding in is sinking.

If this stupid civil war in Iraq was Bill Clinton's war you'd be singing a different tune, aye Brucie?

MAYDAY, MAYDAY!

Posted by: John E | June 19, 2007 3:36 PM

And I could post plenty of items from seth gordon, doug r., and many others.

Anyway, not that Bruce needs defending, but I don't really remember him slinging mud. I'll fully admit I do, but that is because I believe that your sick ilk deserves nothing else. I've been nice, only to get it thrown back. So, with the Loons on the Left, nice is not an option. Bruce does a great job of providing facts time and time again and just gets attacked, attacked and attacked.

The debate now should be "what is the best course now?" Whether you agree that this war was a stupid mistake, and poorly executed, or not, we still need to decide what to do next. If we don't pull all of the troops now, how many should we leave, for how long, and why? I do remember that we were to be seen as liberators, and that the war would practically pay for itself, and that the insurgency was in its last throes. Oh, and don't forget "Mission Accomplished". During the election, I hope people remember who said those things. But now that everything has gone badly, what is the best course for the future?

Another Bruce -

Well put questioning, even though we are probably on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Frankly, my two choices (not being an expert, yet having a good background in military history) is doing whatever it takes to "pacify" the country (which will mean lots more deaths on both sides) or pulling out and letting the place implode and the Iraqis deal with their own country.

But yes, it is a mess and a lot of things were done wrong. That said, Thomas Friedman (he of the left wing New York Times) had an increadible piece back around the start of the war in 2003. He stated their were basically 4 reasons we went into Iraq (and I only remember 3). They being...

The stated reason (WMD)

The right reason (to liberate the Iraqis from a brutal dictator)

The real reason (the common US citizen wanted to "hit" a muslim country after 9/11, and Afhganistan (sp) didn't quench that thirst).

Why do I mention this? Because, to get any solution to this problem, we have to examin the reasons we are there in the first place (without the Bush lied crutch as the centerpiece of the argument).

So Richardson changed his mind in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to his original position. I believe that is called well adjusted, adult behavior. That is why it is unacceptable to the RNC extremists as they are neither.

More "inconvenient truths" the Amnesia Democrats want the public to forget: in October 2002 the US Senate voted 77-23 for the war authorization. Democrats voted 29-21 in favor. Included among the 29 Democrats were Dem leader Daschle, Clinton, Kerry and Edwards. In the House Dem minority leader Dick Gephardt (Doug Zook's old boss) voted in favor.

If Bush is a "dummy", what does that make these Democrats who (according to the tin foil leftist fantasy world) were duped by Bush into voting for the war? And who was "duping" these same Democrats in 1998, 1999 and 2000?

As to Richardson's exact comment, it's not to be taken seriously: merely the posturing of a candidate who's running 5th in the Dem polls and is trying to revive his candidacy by pandering to the party's surrenderist base.

Logic Prisoner, and you do have no logic, me and Bruce mudslinging and bringing the discourse of the Swamp down to low levels?

Here are some posts for you to consider, Illogic Man:
Posted by: John D | June 19, 2007 4:53 PM

I rest my case.

Yep Bruce, the Democrats sure screwed up voting for the war authorization. How could they have possibly come to the conclusion that Bush would use that authority responsibly? They should have known he'd screw it all up.

Funny how the Amnesia Republicans like you always forget that 5 months passed between the passage of the AUMF and the start of the war. During those 5 months the UN inspectors got back into Iraq and were finding NOTHING, and the Iraqi's were even cooperating better than they ever had before. Bush chose to start the war anyway. That was his choice, and his choice alone. Did you forget that?

"practically the entire Dumbocrap party in 1998 wanted regime change in Iraq"

It was also the policy of the Clinton Administration for "regime change" in Cuba, but we didn't invade them, did we? Wanting regime change is not even close to the same thing as risking the blood and treasure of this nation to do so if the unintended consequences may outweigh the benefits. Furthermore, what Mr. Clinton said in his 1998 speech before bombing Iraq (which Amnesia Republicans used to accuse Mr. Clinton of "wagging the dog." So, was he wagging the dog back then? Or did Republicans hate America because they questioned his motives?) was that what was necessary were full and verifiable inspections. Mr. Bush actually accomplished this with his saber-rattling but refused to take "yes" for an answer and started the war anyway.

In CHOOSING war, the Bush Administration was shockingly, gapingly blind to any unintended consequences, and broke their camapaign commitment to eschew nation-building in favor of a grand, neo-Wilsonian crackpot scheme to rework the Middle East at the barrel of a gun.

And the rest, as they say, is history. Heckuva job.

I am sorry,there are not two sides to this argument. We quickly won this mini war with Iraq and almost all polititions and all of the media including th NY Times and Wash,Globe and almost all Americans supported this foolish effort. We are all to blame. We are not to be blamed for not knowing what to do next. Bush has that blame to carry and he has carried it badly.