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

: <