Richardson, Dodd Slam Obama's Iraq Speech

Comments (15)

EricD wrote on September 12, 2007 7:01 PM:

Richardson may be correct regarding Obama and a residual force in Iraq, but he misrepresents Edwards, who said on September 7th:

As president, I will redeploy troops into Quick Reaction Forces outside of Iraq, to perform targeted missions against Al Qaeda cells and to prevent a genocide or regional spillover of a civil war.

Also see TPM's interview last Friday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rwa1PxBpzs

john mccutchen wrote on September 12, 2007 7:39 PM:

Obama gave a helluva speech and you don't even have to read it to see why.

oleeb wrote on September 12, 2007 7:47 PM:

Good stuff! Both Obama and Hillary need to feel pressure from every quarter to do the right thing and really oppose the war with specific actions that will make a difference instead of simply stating their opposition to it. Dodd's comments in particular are right on the mark.

pacc wrote on September 12, 2007 8:06 PM:

The answer is simple: O-Bomb-A glosses over the obvious, because he is only showboating for his presidential campaign.

CalD wrote on September 12, 2007 8:16 PM:

Anyone know the origin of the expression, "date certain?"

DonnaG wrote on September 12, 2007 9:30 PM:

Maybe we need to be refreshed as to the specific 'how to' details of everyone's plan, including those of Richardson and Dodd. I must have missed the 'how to' steps to [whatever is meant by 'date certain'] achievement of goals as stated by Dodd.

At this point, I would dearly love to see these candidates hash this all out in a real public debate for a couple of hours, a timely debate limited to this one topic. That would bypass all these pot shot kinds of criticisms which are more confusing than clarifying.

pacc wrote on September 12, 2007 9:46 PM:

DonnaG,
I agree!

mopper wrote on September 12, 2007 9:57 PM:

I'm puzzled by Richardson's simple-minded complaints. Is he suggesting that we are at war with all ~135 counties within in which we currently have active duty troops stationed?

We've reportedly used troops to help track PPK insurgents along the Turkish border, in cooperation with the Turkish government. Does that mean we're waging a war in Turkey? No you say? So...how would tracking down Salafist or AQI groups in Iraq with the cooperation of the Iraqi gov't be different?

Is Richardson suggesting we abandon the embassy? No? Then how does he plan to secure it?

Is Richardson telling the ~2 million Iraqi refugees that currently have not found a home outside Iraq's borders to go fuck themselves? No? With what personel does Richardson suggest we use for logistics in moving them out of Iraq and keeping them safe in the process?

And on and on and on.

Richardson's "attack" is based on an incredible over-simplification of the issues. There are myriad conflicts in Iraq, and even more missions (combat and non-combat related). Someone who's so quick to point out his foreign policy experience must be disingenuous indeed to level the attacks he did.

I also don't understand what Dodd's problem was re: "date certain". Obama's already introduced "date certain" legislation in the past (last January, with a date certain of March 31, 2008) and said in the speech "by the end of next year", which does not seem materially different to me from "Dec 31, 2008".

Perhaps the reason these two are struggling so mightily nationally is because their attempts at differentiating themselves are so transparently shallow and disingenuous and, on the whole, ineffectual.

phil james wrote on September 12, 2007 10:30 PM:

mopper you are absolutely right. This is a very complex situation with many factions and no way to plan anything really. Certainly we Democrats shouldn't even think about trying to extricate our country from what one might call a disastrous mistake. How can we say we are truly supporting the troops if we don't keep sending them back after short stays at home to get their asses blown off by the very next IED? Better to just kind of plug along hoping I guess for whatever the best might be and having really no mission at all or what one might call a shape-shifting mission du jour depending on where the loyalties of the various factions appear to lie on any particular day and of course the weather at the time, which latter determines in large part whether any of those factions is in town to at least look like they give a rat's if we Americans are their dying for their insane religiously-based thousand years of hatred and revenge-seeking. If anyone asks we'll simply say that whatever is happening is sure to be a success and not to worry because we are assured of victory at some point because we are Christians. No need for any clear goal and certainly no need to get out while things are in such flux. I assume that's why the Bush mission and plan for victory is really rather simple. Strut, stall, and dump the mess in the next President's lap.

Coonsey wrote on September 12, 2007 10:40 PM:

Governor Richardson ask the question how leaving troops in Iraq ends the war. Oh my. I thought WWII ended YEARS ago? Apparently not since we still have thousands of troops over there. Same goes for South Korea and North Korea's war.

Give me a break. He knows that we will always be at least near by.

As for Senator Dodds telling Obama to stop funding the war. While the idea sounds great and very easy, it's actually capable of causing even more problems down the road for our soldiers.

If we don't pass Obama's plan, then Democrats and any Republican willing to get their backbone back from the Bush Team, should immediately pass a bill with a diffinite time line to withdraw and soon. Even if they must put up with a filibuster from the GOP, do it. Get them on record as refusing to save American lives sooner.

Karen wrote on September 12, 2007 11:31 PM:

These two old men need to stop critizing Obama. What plans do they have? They don't have one. Obama gave a great speech, America, we need to wake up and smell the coffe. These two old men are nothing more than empty wagons making a whole lot of noise. They don't have a plan;If they don't have a solution for the war so they are part of the problem. Don't criticize unless you have a plan.
Obama 2008!

mopper wrote on September 13, 2007 9:24 AM:

This is a very complex situation with many factions and no way to plan anything really. Certainly we Democrats shouldn't even think about trying to extricate our country from what one might call a disastrous mistake.

Oh please Phil James...that's not what I said at all. Way to completely distort what I'm saying. What's the matter? Can't engage any of my actual points, so you have to pretend like I'm making some other (stupid) points and then try to tear those down? I'm all for troop draw-down, but, again, we have active duty troops in 135 countries around the world, including, as others have pointed out, in Germany and throughout Europe, South Korea, Vietnam, etc etc. Nobody would so stupid as to suggest that we're still fighting WWII, the Korean War, or the Vietnamese War, now would they? Nobody would be so dishonest as to suggest that our troops are getting killed every day in Finland, would they?

There is internecine Kurdish conflict.
Turkey and Kurdistan are clashing.
There is internecine Sunni conflict.
There is Sunnia-AQI conflict.
There is internecine Shi'a conflict (Dawa/SIIC vs Mahdi Army is the big one)
There is Shi'a-Sunni conflict.
There is Shi'a-AQI conflict.

The "war" to stabilize Iraq is a war that's involved mostly in the internecine Shi'a conflict, and the Shi'a-Sunni conflict. That's it. We're trying to referee, basically, all these little political wars, helping Dawa and SIIC retain power while trying to subdue the Mahdi Army and the Sunni insurgency, or at least coax them into the government. The vast majority of our troops are dedicated to those missions, or to police work, etc.

We can extricate ourselves from those missions and from the vast majority of day-to-day dangers without abandoning other missions, such as working on stabilization between the Kurdish region and Turkey, or working with both the Sunnis and Shi'a to take out AQI, working with the Iraqi government and the UN to deal with the 2 million refugees that too many are just happy to pretend don't exist, or protecting the embassy,.

So, again, those who claim that you can't end the war until every last troop is out of Iraq sound like knee-jerk reactionaries who know little about war, history, or the world today. Because our troops are everywhere, carrying out all sorts of missions, that are not related to war or do not constitute war. And there will be a need for them in Iraq even if we disengage from the nascent civil war(s) going on right now, for a variety of missions.

Richardson is just pandering to your ignorance. Instead of rewarding him for it, why not educated yourself on the matter? Indeed, according to this site, pre-9/11, we had active-duty combat brigades in South Korea, Bosnia, and Kosovo. We still have one in South Korea. Somebody end the Korea War!

Please. Get serious. I want as few troops in Iraq as is possible, but the suggestion that we have no troops there is silly. We have troops everywhere, doing a lot of missions that are far less important just in general than, say, taking care of the 2 million Iraqi refugees still stuck in the country. And aside from being less dire, those situations (unlike Iraq) are not the direct result of U.S. action.

Ending the war doesn't mean abdicating all responsibility for what we've done.

zk0sm0 wrote on September 13, 2007 10:43 AM:

so... a couple questions for all of you coming to the defense of obama (out of genuine curiosity because i don't know the answers to these questions):

1) has obama given any specifics on the size and purpose of the 'residual forces' he would leave behind? edwards has said that he would leave behind troops to defend the american embassy and maybe some troops to help guarantee the safety of humanitarian aid workers. how does obama's position compare? or has he left his position more open-ended and ambiguous?

2) do you fully support congress in passing bush's iraq war funding bills without any timelines for withdrawal? if so, is that support based on principle or political calculation?

NCSteve wrote on September 13, 2007 11:50 AM:

I used to respect Dodd and kinda still do. If Obama got the nomination, he'd be a great pick for VP. Don't see that he'd add much to a ticket headed by Hillary or Edwards.

I also used to respect Richardson for his resume, but the more he talks, the more I wonder "who is this dumbass and what did he do with the guy who had the resume?"

Richardson's demand that the other candidates provide their detailed plans for magically transporting every last troop out of Iraq before January 20, 2009 is just cynical point-scoring pandering bulls**t. It's all well and good for the candidates to say "here's what I'd do if I were president right now," because it gives us some insight into how they'll deal with situations once they win, But, um, hello? They're NOT president right now, are they?. Criticizing them for not having enough detail in their imaginary plans reeks of a desparate, and borderline pathetic, attempt to try to get some traction among some piece of the base.

Dodd's critique at least has some grounding in reality, in that he and Hillary and Obama are all in the Senate. But know what? Next time a war appropriation bill is up for a vote, the leadership will an amendment conditioning the appropriation on withdrawal for a date certain (a legal term of art, btw, one that mostly comes up in contract negotiations or arguments on a motion for an injunction), Obama and Hillary will vote for it, Lieberman will join the Republicans in voting against cloture, and then what? What, exactly, is it that Dodd says should happen? What's his brilliant plan at that point? Pass no bill at all? That'll go over well with the American people, won't it?

NCSteve wrote on September 13, 2007 12:12 PM:

And actually, my last post raises a question I've got for all the people demanding that a "date certain" for withdrawal must be attached to the next war appropriations bill.

I'd totally be for that if we could do it, but we can't do it without 60 votes in the Senate. So now what? Change the rules in the Senate? Can't do it and shouldn't if we could.

Last Congress, we fought tooth and nail to preserve the rules governing filibuster and cloture from Cheney and Frist's threat to nullify it. Our people gave a lot of of high sounding speeches about "tyranny of the majority," and, in the end, were willing to semi-cave and let some somewhat obnoxious judicial nominees to the floor in return for keeping the worst ones out and not blowing the Senate rules to hell.

Those rules have been used for some very foul purposes and they will be so used again. But they also served the Democrats, and the country, well at a very dangerous time when the Democrats appeared to be on the mat and out for the count. The day will come when we need them again.

So, my question is this, what exactly is it that the "no timeline no bill" people propose the Senate Democrats, including Obama, Clinton, Dodd and Biden, do to when this demand smacks up against the 60 vote reality? Pass no bill and let the troops try to ration out their remaining food, ammo and gas until they're slaughtered? Or, worse yet, finally give Bush the political cover he needs to complete the ongoing authoritarian coup de tat that's his only successful political project?

Really, tell me what they should do. And if your answer consists solely of grafting some testicles onto Bill and Ben Nelson and then pursuading eleven uncloseted Republicans to join us, all I can say is tell me where I can buy some of that stuff you;re smokin, 'cause it must be some good s**t.

Chris Dodd needs to be first in line with that explanation.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)