'I will get every soldier out,' one Democrat promises

I wish the media would stop assuming that Senator Clinton has already won the nomination. Maybe then, we could have some serious debates on the actual positions of candidates like Governor Richardson.
I certainly agree with him on both the occupation of Iraq and NCLB.

Here's a man who knows what diplomacy really is. He's proven himself to be a diplomat in the past.

Richardson is probably too smart to actually take seriously his own pander-to-the-nutroots rhetoric. His comments above are predicated on the odd notion that this war against the terrorists is a war America started, and that America can somehow unilaterally end that war.

Both notions are untrue. The terrorists, in their attack on the U.S., started the war, and the war will end only when the terrorists give up their attacks or are otherwise beaten into quiescence. It takes two (or more) to make, and unmake, a war, and when Richardson ignores the terrorist's part in the war he betrays his own willingness to pander to the unthinking.

I'm sure Richardson would be an excellent president, but will he be able to fight back against the Republican hate attacks? And the media that echos the Republican hate attacks? It's a shame it's come to this, but we've got to have a nominee who can get his/her message out without relying on the mainstream media, which as 2000 and 2004 showed, will echo every Republican lie with no regard for the truth.

Bruce;
The war in Iraq was not started by terrorists. When will you get that? The terrorist attack on the U.S. came out of Afghanistan.
Listen up: NO TERRORIST ATTACK CAME OUT OF IRAQ. THAT IS A FACT!

" His comments above are predicated on the odd notion that this war against the terrorists is a war America started, and that America can somehow unilaterally end that war."

Bruce your comment is predicated on the odd notion that in invading Iraq that we attacked terrorists.

That notion is untrue. Our war in Iraq had nothing to do with those who attacked the US.

Bruce - I am confident that Richardson knows full well that we were attacked by terrorists (from Saudi Arabia)on 9/11. He also knows full well (as you apparently do not) that they had nothing to do with Iraq. Ending the occupation of Iraq would free up American forces to go after actual terrorists like Osama Bin Laden -remember him?

Does Richardson (and his thinking-challenged acolytes such as desert jim) actually believe that 9/11 was the only terrorist attack on the U.S.? Does Richardson and buddies actually believe that Muslim terrorist attacks against the U.S. and the west will cease the day our troops withdraw from Iraq?

Ever hear of the USS Cole, guys? It's in today's news, if you are capable of reading. Ever hear about the first World Trade Center bombing, back during the Clinton administration, when the bombers fled to Iraq? Ever read the 9/11 Commission report, detailing some of Al Queda's ties to Iraq?

The case these people make against the war is one lie after another, a laughable denial of reality.

The terrorists were attacking the U.S. prior to our going into Iraq, and will continue to try and attack the U.S. even if we "withdraw every soldier" from Iraq. That's the reality, fellas.

"we've got to have a nominee who can get his/her message out without relying on the mainstream media, which as 2000 and 2004 showed, will echo every Republican lie with no regard for the truth."
Paul, what 2000 and 2004 showed was that the Democratic party can not expect a Senator from a Northeast state to win in the red south and west. What does that mean? It means a Northeast Senator may win a poll of popular votes, but won't win the electoral votes to win the White House. Trust me, states that could swing Democrat in the South – such as Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, and states in the west - Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico will not go for Senator Clinton. Also Americans don't like voting for Washington insiders. Four out of the last five Presidents were Governors. A Senator has not won the White House in 47 years. If you want someone who can stand up to the Republican attack machine don't pick a candidate who has a long voting record in the Senate to pick apart. If Democrats don't want to spend another 8 years outside the White House they better start looking at history and how the White House has been won in the past. I need to take what some of these Democrats are smoking – it must be good!

Full withdrawal of troops from Iraq is a pipe dream, and no candidate with a prayer of a chance of being president will even commit to no troops by 2013. Only desperate candidates who know they will never be accountable for their rhetoric make such claims, and the only one's who believe them are the hopelessly naive. But for those of you who love Richardson, by all means, keep up your support. Maybe a last minute push can move him past Stephen Colbert in time for the early primaries.

Bruce;
You are right, we were under attack prior to 9/11.

In Context
In May 1994, four men - Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj - were sentenced to life for bombing the World Trade Center, which killed six people and injured 100.

In October 1995 Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind cleric who preached at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, was sentenced to life for masterminding the bombing,.

He was also found guilty of the murder of extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane and a scheme to assassinate Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak during a trip to New York in 1993.

The bombing of the World Trade Center has been totally eclipsed by the events of 11 September 2001 which saw thousands killed, the collapse of both Twin Towers and an all-out "war on terror" declared by the Western world.

Rahman's organisation, the Islamic Group, is believed to have links to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, accused of carrying out the 11 September attacks.

Only thing is, Iraq was not the source.

al-Qaeda was not welcome in Iraq, until after we invaded there.

"Ever hear of the USS Cole, guys? It's in today's news, if you are capable of reading."

Yes Bruce it is in today's news, and it had nothing to do with Iraq.

"Ever hear about the first World Trade Center bombing, back during the Clinton administration, when the bombers fled to Iraq?"

Well first off Bruce, the allegation is that one person linked to the attack (who is incidentally a US citizen), fled to Iraq, not multiple "bombers". Two, even President Bush admits that there is NO evidence that Husssein's government had anything to do with the first WTC bombing.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm

" Ever read the 9/11 Commission report, detailing some of Al Queda's ties to Iraq?"

Yes, Bruce I have. I also read the parts where it says the Pakistanis and Saudis weren't very helpful in taking on Bin Ladin prior to 9/11. I noticed that the 9/11 commission felt that felt that Iraq was so unimportant to their work that their Executive Summary of their report has the names "Iraq" and "Hussein" appear zero times.

From page 66 of the full report:

"There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s
efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle
Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.
In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States,
two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence.
In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian
deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan
remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of
the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier
contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor
have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing
or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

"The terrorists were attacking the U.S. prior to our going into Iraq, and will continue to try and attack the U.S. even if we "withdraw every soldier" from Iraq."

Yes that's may be true Bruce, precisely because the War in Iraq is only tangetially related to the War on Terror. We can keep troops in Iraq forever, and it will not do anything to substantially improve our position against the terrorists. We need to get our troops out of Iraq so that they are available to fight the War on Terror.

A post by Bruce is about as believable as a FEMA press conference.

Hey Bruce - What AJF said! As " a thinking-challenged acolyte" I figure I'd better not write my own response for fear of being put down so fiercely once again by your truly amazing logic and in depth grasp of the "truthiness" of your position

The basic mistakes Miguel and AJF make is that they refuse to see the reality that terrorism is more than just Al Qaeda; that the 9/11 attacks were only one of a long series of Musilm terrorist attacks on the U.S.; and that the war on the terrorists is more than just Iraq.

As to the specifics, as USA Today reported 4 years ago, Saddam Hussein's Iraq gave shelter, money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm
For further Iraqi involvement in that bombing, see http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm
For more on Saddam and his links to terrorists, see the New Yorker article at
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/18/74151.shtml

Even the 9/11 commission report AJF quotes make clear the Clinton-era connection between Iraq and terrorists:

"In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States,
two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence.
In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian
deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq."

There's plenty more proof of the terrorist connection, plus many other reasons for taking Saddam out, as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, and every leading Democrat acknowledged during the Bill Clinton era.

And as Iraq Prime Minister Allawi pointed out, terrorists have been flocking to Iraq in recent years to do battle with the "great Satan"--which is exactly what a sane US would desire, since it makes it much easier to kill them. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/20/britain.allawi/index.html

In short, the Iraqi regime gave aid and comfort to terrorists, including terrorists that attacked the U.S.; and the US presence there is luring the terrorists out of their holes and sanctuaries and into the open, where our soldiers can do the rest.

Bruce-

Funny that you left out the two sentences that follow your quote from the 9/11 Report. You know the ones I quoted about the fact that there was NO EVIDENCE of ANY actual cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were far more complicit in attacks on the US than Iraq ever was Bruce. Should we attack them to "lure the terrorists out"?

As for former Interim Prime Minister Allawi, I don't put alot of faith in the statements of a man who was one of the key pre-war purveyors of the WMD myth, and who has since fled Iraq to live in Jordan. But since you seem to trust him so much Bruce, I'm sure you'll concur with his more recent staement that Iraq is in a "Civil War".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/19/world/main1419408.shtml

I'm sure you'll also agree with him then that the US should withdraw from Iraq within the next two years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR2007081701579.html

In short Bruce, there were, and are, a great many countries that had far closer ties to terrorism, including some of our dear "allies" than Iraq ever had. A few tentative conversations do not constitute a threat to the United States.

Iraq is a diversion from the true "War on Terror".

Bruce,
I think your argument was thoroughly dismissed by AJF and others. I'm proud of you for sticking around to put up a fight, though, unlike your usual hit and run terrorist tactics.