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:
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.
3 comments
It has been such a blurse not being up to date on the ins and outs for the last week or so.
Good for my blood pressure….bad for my finely honed instincts!
It will take me a while to jump back in.
But let me just ask this….is what he is doing worse than Hil and Obama?
He’s got a long history of obstructing or dragging his feet, but then jumping to the front of the line to claim credit whenever whatever-it-is becomes inevitable. Tiresome.
He’s silly as a Presidential candidate, and I’ve never thought anything but.
However: I would really like to see him run for the Senate. He’s the only guy (unless things change) who could reliably knock off Domenici. Then, let him get a Cabinet appointment. (I think he’s trying out for State, and it’s a pretty good match for his talents.)
Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, whom I respect way more than Richardson, appoints the replacement. Maybe Tom Udall, though I think he’s not exactly a dynamic leader who can get things done – just a reasonably reliable vote.
Maybe Hector Balderas, currently State Auditor, and not yet 40. I like the idea of more audit experience in the Senate – Claire McCaskill’s used hers to reasonably good effect.
Claude doesn’t like Balderas, he says because of poor constituent service in a previous office. But most folks I know think Udall hasn’t put together a very helpful staff either. The only other choice might be Attorney General Patricia Madrid, but she did such a piss-poor job running in NM-01 last year, she’s not likely to get much enthusiastic support.
As I see it, it’s the best scenario to flip the Senate seat in New Mexico. But Richardson may well think he’s “too big” for a mere Senate seat.
would be Clinton’s VP choice.