Richardson Criticizes Clinton as Flip Flopper On Iraq

In Foreign Affairs, Bill Richardson writes:

The next president needs to send a clear signal to the world that America has turned the corner and will once again be a leader rather than a unilateralist loner. To do this, the new president must first end the Iraq war. We need to withdraw all our troops and embrace a decisive new political strategy that engages all the nations of the region, as well as the international donor community. Only when we have done this can we begin the hard work of rebuilding our military and our alliances and restoring our tarnished reputation -- so that we can move forward and lead the world in addressing urgent global problems.

What has Richardson received for his repeated calls during the campaign to bring home all troops from Iraq?  

The media tries to marginalize Richardson, calling him a candidate for Vice President and his plan for Iraq irresponsible.  Candidates such as Hillary Clinton that decline to pledge to bring our troops home even by 2013 are praised and endorsed in editorials.  

Earlier this month, the Des Moines Register called on the Presidential candidates to set forth a realistic timeline for leaving Iraq. The editors noted:

Setting a general timetable for withdrawal and beginning the pullout would show the Iraqis they must figure out how to run their own government and provide their own security. The next president also should make clear that the United States will not establish permanent military bases in Iraq. Anger over U.S. military bases in the Middle East has been one of the greatest catalysts behind the rise of al-Qaida.

All these points can be found within Richardson's plan for leaving Iraq.  However, the Des Moines Register favors "a general timetable for withdrawal."  The editor's timetable for withdrawal evidently extends beyond one year, as Richardson advocates, since the editors sharply criticized Richardson's plan as "irresponsible" and Richardson as "pandering to voters seeking easy answers."

When did bucking the military and political establishment that got the U.S. into the war originally and refuses to admit our invasion was a grave error constitute pandering?  The U.S. has moved 240,000 troops and their equipment into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in three months during the height of troop movements in the current conflict.  We can withdraw the 160,000 troops in Iraq today within a year.  

It makes no sense, as the Des Moines Register apparently  believes, to remove combat troops from Iraq and leave non-combat forces.  As long as any of our forces are in Iraq, Richardson maintains they will remain targets, creating further violence.  

History offers us an important lesson.  The phased withdrawal from Vietnam over a period years resulted in far more destruction than if we had left earlier. There were 21,000 additional American casualties, millions of civilian deaths and a humanitarian catastrophe throughout the region.  See http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/...

Clinton has never offered a firm timeline on our withdrawal.  Insteadn Clinton plays "dodgeball" on Iraq.  Clinton has repeatedly advocated keeping U.S. troops in Iraq to undertake various missions, including counter terrorism operations (which sounds like a continuation of the current U.S. mission in Iraq.)  

All Clinton has committed to is calling a meeting to decide how to proceed on Iraq after she moves back into the White House.  For advice on Iraq, she relies on persons like retired Gen. Jack Keane, one of the architects of the surge.  Other advisers to Clinton see our troops occupying Iraq for another decade.  After the Presidential debate at Dartmouth College in which Clinton, Edwards and Obama all refused to commit to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq by 2013, Michael O'Hanlon, another supporter of President Bush's surge and adviser to Clinton, praised Clinton, Obama and Edwards for their "flexibility" on Iraq. For links to prove each of these points see http://www.dailykos.com/...

However, yesterday in Iowa, Clinton reversed course.  She asserted, as is the case, the U.S. could "bring nearly everybody home, you know, certainly within a year if we keep at it and do it very steadily."

Richardson rightly called Clinton on her flip flop:

Senator Clinton's statement that we could 'certainly get all the troops out within a year' is a stunning flip-flop from what she has been saying all along. She consistently has called for leaving troops in Iraq to fight al-Qaida, train Iraqis, and protect U.S. assets. Has that suddenly been abandoned? If so, why has she changed her mind?

In a September debate, she said that she could not commit to getting our troops out in five years, let alone in one year. Has anything changed about the logistics besides her position in the polls? It is clear that she is responding directly to my latest ad and my statements that she repeatedly has called for leaving thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely. Rather than defending her position, apparently she simply has changed it.

Why has Clinton flip flopped?  As Chris Bowers points out, the latest CNN poll on Iraq shows public support for total withdrawal sharply rising to 39%, and undoubtedly a total withdrawal is favored by an even higher percentage among Democratic voters.  Plus Richardson is now running a commercial in Iowa emphasizing the sharp difference among the top candidates on Iraq:

Clinton is seeking to blur the clear distinction Richardson has has created with her on Iraq throughout the campaign and weaken support for Richardson in Iowa by all of a sudden telling the anti-war voters want they want to hear.

Interested in learning more about Richardson?  Check out the profile of Richardson in today's New York Times or one earlier in the month in the Christian Science Monitor.

If you want a sense of what the war is all about and what will occur if we elect a President that refuses to make an ironclad promise to take all U.S. troops out of Iraq check out this link: http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archive

s/interviews/000710.php#more

•  Tips for a candidate that appreciates we need

  to leave Iraq promptly and take all U.S. forces out.

  Richardson continues to push this point.  Read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  by Stephen Cassidy on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:47:15 AM PDT

  •  Here's your tip...

    Read this.

    And this.  From the introduction to his DLC keynote speech in July 2003, they said "He backed a war to oust the Saddam regime".  For his own part, he didn't mention Iraq directly at all, just a bunch of tough talk about how Democrats have to be willing to bomb people in order to be taken seriously.

    Flip-flopping?  Um, yeah.

    by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:00:44 AM PDT

•  My Related diary:

  Hillary Does a 180 On Iraq Withdrawal, Joins Obama and Democrats--Or Does She?
  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  Well, it's a start: she's sending out conflicting signals from her quiet asides to democrats on one hand and what her recordable official spokesmen say on the other.  A straddle.

  Thank god for small things.  We can work with a sraddle while she's still in panic mode.

  Let's nail down HRC and all the democrats RIGHT NOW on their plans for Iraq while we can, before they are tempted to sidle up close to the moderate Republican ground occupied by John McCain.

  Let's get HRC committed to the flip before she flops to the "responsible" pro-war view in order to get pets from Krauthammer and Broder on her being the most hawkish of the democrats.  Let's get her to FINALLY take the Forever War off the table by 2013.

  by Inland on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:47:39 AM PDT

•  Great...a republican tactic

  "Flip Flopper" against one of our own candidates.

  Nice.

  Maybe you can find a way to "Swift Boat" her too.

  by Detroit Mark on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:48:38 AM PDT

  •  Oh yeah

    because the Clinton campaign is above such tactics.

    I guess Richardson is no longer interested in being Hillary's running mate.

    Good for him.

    by bam bam on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:53:16 AM PDT

    •  You don't like Clinton

      so it' ok to behave like a confederate?

      Ok.  Whatever.

      by Detroit Mark on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:11:02 AM PDT

      •  Hey your candidate's campaign

        is the one indulging with the race baiting of Barack "Hussein" Obama.

        Confederate? Can you be more full of shit?

        by bam bam on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:14:35 AM PDT

        •  Nice diversion

          I couldn't care less if Hillary Clinton threw a bucket of mud in his face.

          If you think that justifies progressive voters behaving like a bunch of christianist republicans who will sell their children for a vote ... then we have a problem.

          Everyone on DK agreed when they did this crap to Kerry, and even McCain it was beyond the pale.  Now, we seem to be "getting ok" with using the exact same tactics.

          This isn't about what Hillary did, or Obama did, or Mitt did.

          This is about how progressives act, and whether or not they cease to be "progressive."

          by Detroit Mark on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:26:20 AM PDT

          •  Actually

            when they accused Kerry of faking his injury for medals and killing kids in Vietnam while endangering POW's by protesting against the war, that was beyond the pale.

            That was swiftboating, a completely different sport from the old politics as usual shenanigans.

            Flip flopping accusation, is an old politics as usual schtick. McCain did not complain when they called Kerry a flip flopper, only when they smeared his war record.

            You muddying the facts just to make a cheap political point is certainly not the kind of behaviour real progressives engage in. You sure some of the comments you made couldn't apply to yourself.?

            by bam bam on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:43:56 AM PDT

            •  Yes. I'm sure.

              by Detroit Mark on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:07:35 AM PDT

              •  I think he's doing her a favor

                seriously - it may look like a criticism, but this helps her advance the narrative that her position on Iraq is more in sync with voters in Iowa & NH.
                
                
                It's a solstice gift from WBR III w/♥♥♥♥♥
                
                
                ````
                peace
                
                

                by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 05:01:16 PM PDT

•  and where was Richardson in 2002?

  When did HE speak up against this lunacy?  

  Strikes me that he didn't discover the Iraq war was bad until 2006...

  by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:50:14 AM PDT

  •  Richardson advocated patience and diplomacy

    I wish Richardson would have definitively opposed the war as Gore did.  But Richardson did express caution and accurately predicted a unilateral invasion of Iraq without UN support would undermine the UN and backfire on the US in terms of our standing in the world.

    Richardson's view, that the U.S. must place the matter of invading Iraq to a vote of the Security Council prior to commencing hostilities, was rejected by many in Congress, including John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, and of course by President Bush.

    On March 11, 2003, just eight days before President Bush announced the U.S. was at war with Iraq, Richardson criticized the Bush Administration's rush to war in an interview on CNN.  At the time, most Americans supported going to war and were critical of the U.N.
    Here is the exchange:

    CROWLEY: I want to ask you the question, first, if there is no Security Council resolution approving of a war on Iraq, and if the Bush administration should go ahead, who loses in that scenario?

    RICHARDSON: Well, I think the United Nations loses because it shows a lack of relevance to this crisis.

    And, secondly, I think, Candy, that the United States loses because we're going into a major conflict without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, without some of our major allies like France and Russia, and also those 10 other members of the Security Council, the 10 non-permanent members that have a voice right now.

    So I think it would come at considerable cost especially if we're to win the war, which we would, issues relating to a post-Iraq configuration to the prestige of the United States worldwide to bring some kind of order to the Middle East and bring some kind of Persian Gulf-lessening attention. So, I think everybody would be a victim. The United Nations, the United States and, certainly, our NATO allies. I think would be hurt, too, because if they don't support us the breakdown of the NATO alliance might be next to go.

    CROWLEY: Well, I want to cite a couple of figures for you. One of them just came from a CBS/New York Times poll, which showed that right now only about 34 percent of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a good job handling this situation.

    Fifty eight percent think it's doing a poor job. On top of that, we also found that 55 percent would support an invasion, even if the Security Council says don't do it. What does that say about how Americans view the U.N., and has that changed since you were the ambassador?

    RICHARDSON: Well, the United States as a populous, here in new Mexico, there's not much support for the United Nations. But at the same time, Candy, what everyone should understand is the United Nations does a lot of things that we, the U.S. as the only superpower, don't want to do.

    They get involved in conflicts in Kosovo, in the Congo in Africa, in Guatemala and Latin America. Immigration issues, AIDS, refugees. We don't want to get directly involved in these, but we use the arm of international support, legitimacy of the United Nations to do it.

    Now, in the Persian Gulf, conveniently, the U.N. supported our efforts in 1991 to get a broad coalition. And I think we've used the U.N. in the war on terrorism to get international support.

    But clearly in this Iraq crisis, the U.N. has to step up and simply enforce its [1441] resolution. And it's not doing that. So, it's going to be a big loss for the U.N. in terms of its peacekeeping relevance, unless it really steps up and gets tough on Saddam Hussein. I think that's the issue.

    CROWLEY: So, am I right, am I hearing you correctly that you believe that the U.N. Security Council should pass the resolution that Britain and the U.S. are proposing?

    RICHARDSON: Well, I would go a little differently, Candy. I think the U.S. and Britain should compromise. That's the essence of diplomacy. To get nine votes, if it means postponing for 30 days, or 15 days or 10 days, a new resolution with benchmarks on Iraq's behavior, let's do it. I think that France and Russia are basically gone.

    They are going to veto. But it would be a partial victory if we get nine votes for a victory of a majority in the Security Council. If we don't do that, I think it's going to be tremendous prestige loss overseas. I think, domestically, it's going to cause more problems for the administration. The Congress will be divided. This is a time when it's frustrating, but what's the rush, really. Iraq is not heading down Baghdad into the United States.

    Again, it is a threat, but it's not an immediate threat. It's not something that is like the war on terrorism, where we're under alert from a potential terrorist attack in this country. So let's be judicious. Let's be calm. Let's be patient.

    by Stephen Cassidy on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:58:12 AM PDT

    •  so the problem...

      Wasn't with forged evidence, or bombing the brown people, or whatever.  It was with the UN dragging its feet.  Gotcha.

      by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:02:28 AM PDT

      •  No, your mind is closed

        You aren't bothering to read what Richardson said.  His position at the time was similar to Howard Dean's - if the US could have gotten UN authorization for the invasion Dean would have supported it.

        by Stephen Cassidy on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:04:04 AM PDT

        •  no, it's not

          And THIS is my point... in general, when most of my friends are saying that what I want to do is a bad idea, I should trust THEIR judgement, not mine.  Same with the UN.  When there's a real problem (i.e. Afghanistan), the US CAN lead the UN to take action.  But if even trumped-up evidence leaves them cold, it's a sign that we're not doing the right thing.

          He certainly didn't correct his introducer at the 2003 DLC keynote when they said he helped oust Saddam.

          by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:09:18 AM PDT

          •  He supported Bush on Iraq

            "I supported President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, without a new resolution from the UN, because I was persuaded that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to the United States and our interests in the world...At this point...we must see this mission through."

            — Bill Richardson
            page 348
            Between Worlds | The Making of an American Life
            published November 2005

            ````
            peace

            by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:39:05 AM PDT

            •  thanks

              I just didn't dig hard enough for the money shot.

              by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:40:31 AM PDT

              •  you're very welcome

                I transcribed that bit from his autobiography.

                The introduction of Richardson by Will Marshall at the July 2003 DLC Natl Convention is important when looking at WBR III's evolving position on Iraq.

                That introduction is also important wrt Big Bill's baseball boast.  It was yet time over the course of close to four decades that the claim was mad that Richardson was "drafted in 1967 by the Kansas City Athletics".  
                
                

                ```
                peace
                
                

                by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:55:49 AM PDT

                •  yet another time...

                  I left out another.

                  It was yet another time over the course of close to four decades that the claim was mad that Richardson was "drafted in 1967 by the Kansas City Athletics".
                  
                  
                  ````
                  peace
                  
                  

                  by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:58:48 AM PDT

                  •  the claim was made...

                    not mad.

                    shees.
                    
                    
                    ````
                    peace
                    
                    

                    by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:00:29 AM PDT

  •  Reminds me of Clinton!

    She figured out Iraq was a mistake when public opinion reached 60%+ against.

    Typical.

    by Bob Johnson on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:37:20 AM PDT

•   I guess Richardson isn't playing for second seat

  on Senator Clinton's ticket. Of course, assuming she is the nominee. Ain't politics the original blood sport?

  by alasmoses on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:50:19 AM PDT

  •  He said he wasn't interested

    Governor Richardson was never playing for the "second seat". He's the best qualified Democrat in the field and the only one that fundamentally changes the electoral college map. He's running for POTUS because he is the best Democrat to do the job. VP would be good for Hillary so she can get some real executive experience.

    But back to the original critique, either Hillary is for moving ALL our troops out or she isn't. She can't have it both ways. Having it both ways is George W. Bush foreign policy.

    by Expat Teacher on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:03:22 AM PDT

    •  correct. that's what he said.

      but would we expect him to say anything else?

      no presidential candidate will admit that he's really hoping to be another candidate's veep.

      it's political kabuki
      
      
      ````
      peace
      
      

      by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:11:18 AM PDT

      •  pointless to argue with someone so convinced, but

        Peevee,

        So according to your logic, someone is ALWAYS interested in the VP slot?

        If I say I'm interested, I'm interested.

        But...

        If I deny I'm interested, I'm still interested.

        What does a candidate, who truly isn't interested, say to show they aren't interested?

        I'll say right now, that I'm not interested in being Hillary Clinton's vice-president. Therefore, I'm interested?!?!? What about you peevee? Are you "not" interested either?

        by Expat Teacher on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:17:25 AM PDT

        •  pointless to argue?

          That's an interesting assertion coming from a bona fide member of team Richardson.  A group of posters that relentlessly tries to draw me into arguments by setting up straw arguments, using taunts and insults and mangling my screen name.

          My logic does not lead to the assertion that all of the candidates are interested in the veep spot.  nice try.
          
          
          ````
          peace
          
          

          by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:32:00 AM PDT

          •  When would a no mean a no?

            Ok PeeVee, when would a no mean a no? As I read your previous replies, it certainly seemed that it was impossible for a candidate to say they weren't interested in the VP spot.

            Could Dennis Kucinich say it and it would mean no, but if Edwards said the same phrase, would it be kabuki? Or is this only about your axe to grind with BR?

            by Expat Teacher on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 08:01:42 PM PDT

  •  ...or is he?

    Call me a cynic.  I see it as political kabuki.

    We're told that Richardson makes a call to Patrick Healy "blasting"  Clinton for a "flip-flop" on Iraq.  

    Was the NM guv attacking the woman who he been defending so gallantly throughout the campaign - in what seems to many to be a not so transparent bid for a second place on a possible Clinton ticket?

    Or was he acting as her surrogate du jour?

    It seems to me that with that call, we're being treated to bit of political theater.  The call serves a number of purposes.  Richardson may well have made the call on HRC's behalf, in a ploy to focus attention on what she would like us to perceive as a "new" Iraq policy.  A policy which is far more palatable to Dems in Iowa and New Hampshire.

    It also helps Richardson who has been trying to dispel the belief that he's running as HRC's stalking horse.  And it draws attention away from an unflattering story published this past Wednesday on the front page of the Concord Register:

    A student at Pembroke Academy challenged Bill Richardson about his past dealings with oil and gas companies yesterday, and Richardson challenged her right back, calling the information she cited "not right" and suggesting she confused him with another candidate, perhaps a Republican.

    But the figures Maddisun Barrows quoted are correct, according to two nonpartisan organizations that collect and analyze campaign finance data. Barrows, a junior, was curious about how Richardson's talk of clean energy on the campaign trail meshes with the more than $500,000 in campaign contributions he's received from the oil and gas industry since 2005.

    "Can you explain why petroleum-based companies support a candidate who is supposedly trying to eradicate them?" she said.

    ...

    The exchange came during Richardson's afternoon appearance at the school. He gave a short speech focused mostly on his desire to withdraw American forces from Iraq, then took questions from a dozen or so students lined up at the microphone. Barrows was among them. She had known little about Richardson, but she researched him online when she learned he would visit the school. One article piqued her curiosity: a story in the December edition of The Progressive, titled "Is Bill Richardson Radioactive?"

    — Meg Heckman
    Student challenges Richardson over oil donations
    12.20.07

    WBR III wants voters to focus on his position on Iraq and to pay no attention to the oil men and the war profiteers behind the curtain.

    
    
    ````
    peace
    
    

    by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:08:49 AM PDT

•  say it ain't so, Bill

   not after your public and vocal stand to defend HRC from these kind of mudslinging personal attacks on policy grounds.  You were so strong and resolute that HRC was so lofty and exalted that even a whisper of policy difference was a savage smear.  

   What has happened Bill, are you worrieid that maybe your VP slot is turning into dust?

  by Boxer7 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:59:38 AM PDT

  •  he's not worried

    he's actually assisting her by helping to create the perception that she has a "new" position on Iraq - closer to his.

    It's really an assist masquerading as a smear.
    
    
    ````
    peace
    
    

    by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:20:17 AM PDT

•  For those talking about the VP slot, Chris Bowers

  this to say:

  There is another possibility that [those speaking about Richardson's VP angle] seem to consider: Bill Richardson is honestly and openly angry about Democratic plans to leave a residual American military presence in Iraq. While I know that everyone in American politics is supposed to have some ulterior motive behind everything they do in public, everything in my experience has indicated to me that Richardson's position on Iraq is genuine.

  I've talked with the Governor on several occasions and he is very geniune about getting all our troops out of Iraq and starting the healing process over there. He hasn't ever shown any interest in being the vice-president. In fact, he's denied it so many times, he has stopped taking that question. Richardson is the only major candidate that supports a complete and total withdrawal of all troops within one year. Isn't that the nominee we want to have?

  by Expat Teacher on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:12:55 AM PDT

•  Keeping our troops in Iraq would be a disaster

  Those of us who oppose the Iraq war do not believe that Bill Richardson's taking a clear position on Iraq is pandering. Indeed, to suggest in one sentence that candidates should lay out a timetable for withdrawal - and in the next suggest that no one has to take it seriously - is the kind of equivocation that has been all too common among those who want to have it both ways. There is no plausible scenario under which the continued presence of U.S. troops could be justified, and the Register does not even attempt to conjure one ("Outline a Realistic Withdrawal Plan," Dec. 11 editorial).

  There is universal agreement that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq, only a political one. Leaving forces behind only enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence.

  Additionally, the war, through multiple and extended tours of duty, is breaking our U.S. Army and Marine Corps, which took so long to recover from Vietnam. We are seeing the effects of this on our all-volunteer force in the form of increased moral waivers, which are causing severe problems with unit cohesion and discipline. Our military is exhausted and at the breaking point.

  Richardson recognizes that U.S. troops occupying Iraq indefinitely would be a disaster for those troops, for Iraq and for American security around the world. It would lead to thousands of additional dead American soldiers, prevent Iraq from reaching a peaceful settlement and continue to inflame Muslims throughout the world. It is a strategy born of the same naivete tat has consistently failed to make this country safer.

  Indeed, since the British withdrew from Basra, violence there has declined by 90 percent. We would be well-served to follow their example as quickly and as safely as possible. It seems that Richardson alone understands this.

  Ambassador Dennis Jett and Ambassador Leslie Alexander

  Source:  http://www.desmoinesregister.com/...

  by Stephen Cassidy on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:55:49 AM PDT

  •  No more blood for oil

    Richardson "alone understands this".?  heh

    
    
    
    `````
    peace
    
    

    by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:04:00 AM PDT

    •  Can't show support for Richardson in any way

      Juvenile is the word that comes to mind when I read your postings.

      by Stephen Cassidy on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:29:12 AM PDT

      •  You & the ambassadors continue the conceit

        Indeed, since the British withdrew from Basra, violence there has declined by 90 percent. We would be well-served to follow their example as quickly and as safely as possible. It seems that Richardson alone understands this.

        — Ambassador Dennis Jett and Ambassador Leslie Alexander

        Stephen,

        You & the ambassadors continue to advance the false conceit that Richardson is the only candidate who calls for the withdrawl of our troops from Iraq.  It's simply not true.  I believe that DLC Richardson staked out his relatively new found position to draw support away from the truly progressive Dennis Kucinich.  

        I do doubt Richardson's sincerity.  I know far too much about him to think otherwise.
        
        
        ````
        peace
        
        

        by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:00:07 PM PDT