Richardson Seeks Total Iraq Withdrawal

[bigtree]

Democratic Presidential Hopeful Bill Richardson Calls for Total Force Withdrawal in Iraq

Associated Press
WASHINGTON Jun 10, 2007 (AP)


"I would leave no troops in Iraq whatsoever," Richardson said. "The difference between me and the other candidates is, they would leave troops there indefinitely, and I would not."

Richardson says U.S. troops should be redeployed by the end of the year to Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. Other Democratic presidential candidates also advocate troop withdrawals but leave room for residual forces.

Richardson spoke on CNN's "Late Edition."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3263641

[babylonsister]

1. I saw the interview, and liked what he had to say about Iraq. nt

[bigtree]

2. I missed it, unfortunately

I'm sure I'll hear about his performance . . . hopefully he can elevate the important position of withdrawal from Iraq by this year.

[Raven]

3. Right! No "force protection", no "training Iraqi security forces"

no "chasing international terrorists"....no protecting our precious oil interests. We need to get out, apologize to the world for the mess we've made, provide funds for reconstruction and let some entities/countries with more credibility that we have try to win the peace.

The other candidates need to get with the program here!

Oh, and we need to turn that obscenity of an embassy into housing and dismantle our military bases.

I think that's clear enough, don't you?

[rubus]

4. Raven makes a good point

Dear Raven,

Your comments explain the complicated situation we face. Any candidate who advocates an immediate and unconditional withdrawal will be perceived as weak and willing to surrender America's vital interest in protecting our energy supplies.

If our enemies succeed in using oil as a weapon against America then we could be forced into a larger and more vicious war regardless of which party controls the White House.

Hillary seems to understand this because she supports a more agressive foreign policy than the other candidates.

Immediate and unconditional withdrawal is not a good strategy.

[dogday]

5. I no longer think anyone will totally ever pull

us completely out of Iraq until every last resource is gone... NPR reports Pentagon Studies show we will be in Iraq for the next 2 decades maintaining troop levels of about 50,000...

Since we are building an embassy the size of the Vatican, and already have establish 14 camps, I tend to believe what NPR is saying...

I just don't see anyone bringing all of us home anytime soon...

I wished to hell I did see it, looks like my Son will be heading back to Iraq at this rate....

[Raven]

6. I think you misread my post. I am advocating a full, unconditional

withdrawal. This is not weakness, it is wisdom. Since when did we have "oil interests" in Iraq which are ours to "surrender"? By your logic, we would own Saudi oil also. Our dependence on foreign oil is a problem that we can solve without the deaths of thousands of our children and of innocent civilians. We could also think about bringing diplomacy back from the Bush administration trash bin.

The fact that Hillary advocates nukes for Iran is one of the many reasons I won't vote for her in the primaries. I suspect the neocons would love to see her nominated.

[bigtree]

8. I think it's the U.S., along with their Saudi allies, who have used 'oil as a weapon'

The invasion of Iraq wasn't so much about obtaining oil, it was about suppressing Iraq's influence on the market. (although the oil industry will certainly benefit from whatever control they can obtain; BP, etc.) The first 'war' was a move to deny Iraq the seaport. This move was about outright suppression.

The same with Iran. Cheney is working with the Saudis to smear Iran and find some pretext for keeping Iran isolated economically (and otherwise) through the trumped-up sanctions and nonsense about a missile threat to Europe. Russia and China both have extensive oil deals *with Iran which the U.S. and Saudi Arabia want to disrupt. They'd like to dissuade other nations in Europe and elsewhere from taking advantage of Iran's emerging capacity.

We should do whatever we can to strip Bush of his ability to continue to commit the U.S. to his brand of reckless, military-corporatist expansionism. We don't have the means or capacity to maintain his storybook vision of American dominance and exceptionalism; nor do we have the moral standing to impose our own country's standards and ambitions on every other country in the world. Perhaps, if our government recognized that, we could begin to rebuild the cooperative relationships which empower nations to reject those negative influences, instead of trying to coerce behavior through the imposition of our military forces.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi rubus!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[AntiFascist]

7. Bravo, he just gained my support n/t

[Flabbergasted]

11. But I still wonder if he's credible in saying that?

[TahitiNut]

10. I don't believe he's correct. I believe Kucinich calls for complete withdrawal, too.

That's the only position I regard as acceptable.

[bigtree]

12. that he does

but, with all due respect to the Kucinich plan, I don't think Richardson feels he's actually running against the congressman. He's obviously focused on the 'anointed' top three in the polls.