March 29, 2007
Hotline After Dark: Battle Plans
Several '08ers were on TV last night to talk about Iraq.
Joe Biden: "What people don't read about the Senate resolution, the Senate bill we passed, it sets a goal just as the same goal set out by the Baker-Hamilton commission, the Iraq Study Group, to have combat troops out by March of '08, except for those left behind to protect the borders, to protect our troops, train Iraqis and go after al Qaeda. It is not as the president portrays it" ("Hardball," MSNBC, 3/28).
Bill Richardson: "I would not leave any troops in Iraq. ... If I were president today, I would withdraw by the end of this calendar year, depending on what our military says. But I would also have a reconciliation conference of the three religious groups, forge a coalition government, divide the country into three entities. ... I don't believe you need a residual force in Iraq. I believe you need any troops that you can deploy from Iraq. I would put them in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda and the Taliban are serious threats" ("Hardball," MSNBC, 3/28).
Barack Obama: "I'm very proud of the fact that I was against this war from the start."
More: "Now, there is a ratcheting-up of pressure on the president. And I am very pleased about the vote that took place yesterday, where a majority of the Senate for the first time said we need to have a timetable."
Obama: "John McCain may believe that it's an option for us to maintain an indefinite occupation of Iraq, regardless what happens in terms of the politics within Iraq, so that we're, every year, sending $100 billion over to Iraq, so that, every year, we're seeing hundreds or thousands of young Americans dying, so that we continue to see a deterioration of America's standing in the world. I don't think that serves the best interests of the United States. ... I don't question John McCain's sincerity in believing that the approach that he wants to take, which is essentially a continuation of Bush policies over the last six years, are the right ones to take."
On the fired U.S. attys scandal: "I think that the issue of executive power and executive privilege is one that is subject to abuse and in an Obama presidency what you will see will be a sufficient respect for law and coequal branches of government that I hope we don't find ourselves in a situation in which we would be having aides being subpoenaed for what I think everybody acknowledges is some troublesome information."
Asked about gay groups being upset he didn't respond to Gen. Pace's comments: "I'm not sure that the story got out there properly. I mean, what happened was I was leaving a firefighters' union meeting and trying to get in my car and did not respond to a reporter's query at that point. I wasn't responding to reporters period because I was trying to make a vote. Subsequently I made it very clear. I don't think that gays and lesbians are any more moral or immoral than heterosexuals and that I think it is very important for us to reexamine the don't ask, don't tell policy because it's costing us millions of dollars in replacing troops that by all accounts are actually doing a good job but are simply being kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation."
On Al Sharpton: "I don't think there was much going on there. The Reverend Sharpton has been a terrific advocate on behalf of the dispossessed. I've always expressed my respect for him. I think this was a misunderstanding as a consequence of his reading of a report in New York, and I called him and said we had nothing to with the article" ("Situation Room," CNN, 3/28). [EMILY GOODIN]
Posted at 07:20 AM
Comments
"respect for law and coequal branches of government "
how about more powerful legislative branch, then the executive, then the judicial branch...like the constitution intends.
Jeremy | 03.29.07 11:34 AM
 |
“One thing the Bush administration has never understood is that diplomacy and military power are not alternatives to one another, but rather are complementary sources of strength. Because diplomacy without power is weak, and power without diplomacy is blind.” This is the very core of New Mexico
Governor Bill Richardson’s international platform, taken from a speech he gave in New Hampshire in late 2006.
This is the kind of insight he gained as a UN Ambassador and Energy Secretary during Clinton. His resume is a breath of fresh air, and since the USA needs urgently to rebuild and to entirely rethink its international policies, after 6 years of corporate Halliburton-driven plutocracy of the very worst kind, I believe Richardson really must become President.
Our domestic economy is in the pits because of hundreds of billions of dollars going to Iraq and to Afghanistan, mostly military expenditures, all to advance the Bush Administration’s corporate agenda. Other nations are capitalizing on our errors and our distractions, like China with its trillion dollar balance of payments, as well as Russia, which funded many of the developing nations in their colonial struggles, both pointing to our oppressive presence in Iraq, telling African, South Asian, and South American nations that they are perfectly willing to BUY their natural resources, instead of plundering them.
The international backlash of a totally failed USA foreign policy has profound implications for a worsening USA domestic economy, and the situation is getting seriously worse by the day. This is why I support Bill Richardson’s presidential campaign.
Here is another quote from 3/28: "I would not leave any troops in Iraq. ... If I were president today, I would withdraw by the end of this calendar year…. But I would also have a reconciliation conference of the three religious groups, forge a coalition government, and divide the country into three entities. ... I don't believe you need a residual force in Iraq. I believe you need any troops that you can deploy from Iraq. I would put them in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda and the Taliban are serious threats" ("Hardball," MSNBC, 3/28).
How about putting USA’s troops nowhere, for a change?
(P.S. I am in no way connected with the Richardson campaign; these are my own views entirely)
Stephen Fox | 03.29.07 09:46 PM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
