Richardson Vs. St. McCain
Tweet
Gov. Bill Richardson takes on the media’s favorite candidate:
“The leading advocate for escalating the war is Senator John McCain. I have served with John in Congress and I respect him. But John McCain is wrong, dead wrong to think that we can solve Iraq’s political crisis through military escalation.”
“There are no quick or easy answers to the crisis in Iraq. Our choices are between bad options and worse ones. Some prefer military escalation. Some choose staying the course. These options are illusions. The only realistic choice we have is to stand down militarily and let the Iraqis stand up and face the political crisis which only they can resolve.”
The governor has the added advantage of being very, very right especially in light of the president’s apparent decision to send off more troops to die in Iraq for no reason.
37 Responses to “Richardson Vs. St. McCain”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Shorter Oliver: I agree with Richardson.
Slightly longer (but more accurate) Oliver:
I agree with Richardson, and McCain is a doofus.
Hi there, I contacted you once this past summer and I wanted to tell you again how much I enjoy your blog, esp today when I can’t get to my own (blocked at work). There is a lot going on with Richardson today, and with the others that are running or rumored to be or like Bayh out of the running. Thanks for keeping up with it! Have a great day!
Cara
Cara: Now I am curious. Why in the world did a North Korean delegation want to meet with the Governor of New Mexico? Are they thinking of opening a “Six Flags over Korea” Park? They could have rides like “Eat the Children”, and “Nukes for Peace!”
BTW, Wilbur, McCain is no doofus (why do liberals think thatthe worse thing you can say about a politician is that he / she is unintelligent?).
He is a political WHORE. He will say and do anything that puts him in the limelight.
You’ll get no argument from me on that one, fd.
But I will say that it’s not good for a political leader to be unintelligent. Republicans obviously feel otherwise.
I hate to be finicky, but what I said why is “unintelligent” the WORST thing you can say about a politician. Surely there are other qualities that are important in a politician — an innate sense of right and wrong (Clinton didn’t have it); an ability to feel the pulse of the people (Carter didn’t have that); an ability to lead, instead of promoting “bread and circuses” (Johnson didn’t have that)…
They could have used more of those qualities rather than intelligence, I think
Surely there are other qualities that are important in a politician
Absolutely, of course the current Republican president possesses NONE of these qualities.
I really don’t think “unintelligent” is the worst thing I or “we” can say about a politician. I myself have called Bush much worse, for instance.
But for the record I wasn’t primarily thinking “unintelligent” when I wrote “doofus”. Maybe I should have said “doody-pants”.
I think St. Mccain is loosing ground with the media. They are not fawning as much as they use to.
When he does a one on one they are still drolly but, they don’t cover him the same.
I think they are disappointed he is shaking off the maverick tag and going full force ultra right.
Mccain sold his soul after 2000, you could tell by the love he gives to gwb, who clearly hates him in return. He was told to ‘show our puppet some love and maybe we will think about giving you the nod next time.’
I wouldnt be surprised if bush is increasing troops just so mccain can’t say ‘see we lost iraq because we didnt increase troops like I said.’
Think your ideas are better? Think you can change Washington? Then prove it!
Join USGovSim and you can work your way from the House of Representatives to whatever you can achieve– maybe even President!
http://www.usgovsim.com
“There are no quick or easy answers to the crisis in Iraq. Our choices are between bad options and worse ones.’
…..which the mighty Dugger has been saying on this site for months while the nattering nabobs of nimcompoopuosity (TM Dugger) have been talking about easy answers: surrender in Iraq, invade Pakistan and go to Bin Laden’s addess (evidently they know exactly where he is) and ring the doorbell and kill him (after due process).
For a Dem, Richardson is surprisingly level headed. There are no easy answers.
You are senile. What dem has said we should invade pakistan? What dem said we should surrender in iraq? Who would we surrender to?
I thought the GOP talking point was that our strategy in Iraq was “to win.” “No easy answers” is the sort of thing that gets you thrown out of the White House. Guess Dugger’s jumping ship. Seriously, by this time next year, I bet we’ll have an antiwar/pullout GOP candidate. Would you vote for that candidate, Dugger?
Shorter FrankD;
Civil War? Where?
Shorter Dugger: Change slogans, but Stay the Course.
or
If the strategy isn’t working, change strategy’s name.
Dugger | Dec 18, 2006 8:20:28 AM
“…..which the mighty Dugger …”
Tonka’s new front end loader just in time for Christmas?
Is the slogan “stand there and bleed” or “postpone the inevitable”? I can’t remember.
Sematicleo: Isn’t this comment in the wrong place? I made one comment about McCain (twice) and said nothing about Iraq…
“I made one comment about McCain (twice) and said nothing about Iraq…”
Your disclaimer is duly noted.
Hey outer space,
You new here? Been reading this site long? Perhaps you missed the point where it was said (by OW among others)we should ‘go’ into Pakistan and kill OBL.
And surrender would be to the forces opposing us in Iraq: terrorists, Baathists, God knows who else. All would consider it a major victory over the evil, Israel-supporting US. Recruitment and ocontributions would pour in for all.
Dugger may not always remember, but he never forgets.
“and contributions would pour in for all.”
That’s already happening, in case you’re just tuning in. Because Bush already lost Iraq. Directing our troops to continute to “stand there and bleed” is not going to change a thing. You’re just delaying the inevitable, and masturbating over your own sense of fortitude. As usual.
Wilbur think Dugger head up ass.
Wilbur make Dugger shorter:
“Maybe my way has caused lots of problems, but your way won’t solve all of them immediately, so we should go on doing it my way.”
Wilbur
“my way’???
Nope. I don’t think I would have invaded Iraq to begin with: cost vs potential benefit. But we are there now and leaving the field to the enemy would and should be seen for what it is: surrender. Thats how I see it. How the troops will see it. How the enemy will see it.
Meanwhile, standing there and bleeding is seen by the entire world for what it is: stupid and pointless. But staying helps keep the neocon boners aloft, so for the time being, our troops will continue to die for Dugger’s and Bush’s hard-ons.
But we are there now and leaving the field to the enemy would and should be seen for what it is: surrender. Thats how I see it. How the troops will see it. How the enemy will see it.
Staying will not result in victory. The choices are leaving and losing, or staying and losing. Either way, losing is the end result. Because we have already lost.
Bush wants to stay because he hopes against hope that a miracle will happen. Alternatively, he just doesn’t want to be the one to order the withdrawal. Again, either way we are going to stay as long as he is President. The only question is how long that is going to be.
libralrob,
If we give up and leave, that is a sure thing. It is not a sure thing that we lose if we stay. Costly yes. In fact we could probably go on indefinitely as is. Casualties are slowly dropping. Before we went in, we had nothing vested in terms of regional prestige etc in Iraq. Now we are there. A defeat would be a tremendous symbolic blow and encourage terrrorism worldwide. That is reality. regardless of how we got there. At least Richardson is smart enough to say the truth: no option is pretty. not slow enough.
Very few Democrats (as Pres) will want to be saddled with the Iraq surrender. For that reason, I think this issue will engender tremendous bitterness within the left. 1968 deja view.
Dugger, as he has been for the past 5 years, is living in a fact-free fantasyland. The fact-based world recognizes that staying in Iraq threatens the GOP’s unity, not the Democrats’. Two thirds of the American people want us to leave, and soon, while only 12% are for an escalation troops over there. Republican Senators are already wondering aloud if the war is “criminal.” Mark my words, there will be an antiwar GOP presidential nominee if there aren’t troop reductions soon.
U.S. casualties:
2003 – 425
2004 – 648
2005 – 846
2006 – 769
Actually, the casualty rate in Iraq, save for the occasional spike, is remarkably consistent and predictable.
Loss of regional prestige? Is that a joke? The world hates us right now, and the invasion is THE prime factor.
If we leave Iraq, though, the terrorists will win and take over the world. I call it the “Domino Theory” (not nearly as popular at parties as my “Jenga” theory) and I’m sure history is with me on this one.
Somebody help me here. We supposedly easily won the war and are struggling with the occupation but if we leave we will lose the war we already won and will be surrendering to terrorists who didn’t fight us in the invasion and are barely a part of the insurgency now but who eagerly await our departure because a U.S. that isn’t hemorrhaging money or exhausting it’s military in an effort to secure “democracy” in Iraq (when we aren’t deciding who gets to be Prime Minister) is somehow good news for terrorists.
Whew.
I’m sure the Taliban would agree.
“We supposedly easily won the war and are struggling with the occupation”
Take out ‘supposedly’ and this much at least is right. And yes if we leave before stabilizing (if it can be stabilized) we will hand the terrorists, Baathists, authoritarians a clear victory and incentivize and energize terrorists worldwide.
Even many Democrats realize this. Thre is no easy answer. Only fools call the surrender option easy.
The hard core, smack-you-in- the-face reality is this isn’t 2002. We are there now. Engaged. Grow up and look at it with a clear head. There’s more to this than Bush hate.
“going in” pakistan to rendition osama would not be “invading pakistan.” We do it all the fricken time in other countries.
Casualties are slowly dropping.
Interesting
Attacks in Iraq at record high: Pentagon
Reuters
Monday, December 18, 2006; 7:37 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Attacks in Iraq on U.S.-led forces, local security personnel and civilians have surged 22 percent to record levels, the Pentagon said in its latest quarterly report on Iraq published on Monday.
[end quote]
So, what does that mean? If casualties are dropping, but attacks are at record levels, is it simply a case of the insurgents-I-mean-terrorists being lousy shots? They certainly seem to be stepping up their target practice; if we sit out there long enough, maybe they’ll improve their aim. Is that what was meant when we said we would train the Iraqi army?
Our occupation of Iraq serves no useful purpose. It’s not even an effective occupation; we’re simply scattered around here and there, standing around waiting to be killed. A true occupation would see a squad on every streetcorner of every city in Iraq. And we don’t have the army to do that anymore. We put half a million men in South Vietnam while maintaining a standing force in Germany that was a credible deterrent to the Soviet Union’s millions; now we can barely field 140,000 and it strains our army to its limit!
Our army is not magical. Invading Iraq is not like invading Grenada. We were not and are not prepared to hold the ground we conquer. And if the Iraqis want to squabble over their country, we really can’t stop them. We need to get our troops out of the crossfire.
outer_space
You’re saying US military forces violating Pakistani sovreignty would not be viewed as an invasion by that country? What if the Pakistani Army fought back?
Or do you have some comic book idea that we know exactly where OBL is and can just go in with a few men in civies and take him out and slip back out. You were better off pretending the left had never floated the idea in the first place. Unfortunately though – I remember.
My link to the Washington Post story got zapped. Sorry.
rob
Casualties 2005/projected 2006 are down. But I also don’t know if we can control Iraq. Its a very tough situation. I don’t deny its costly staying. I just think there is also a huge price to pay for leaving precipitously.
We’ve been there 3 and a half YEARS. How many years do we have to stay before leaving is no longer “precipitate”?
I’ll answer my own question for you. We can leave January 21, 2009, which is when George W. Bush is no longer President. Any day before that is “precipitate” and “cut and run”.
rob,
Precipitous is completely situational. Five years is too early or precipitous for good scotch, way too late for milk. There was a 100 years war and a six day war.