Richardson Accuses Clinton Of Troop Withdrawal Flip-Flop

New York Times:

I just got a phone call -- unprompted -- from Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democratic candidate for president, blasting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for saying she would withdraw nearly all American troops from Iraq within a year of beginning redeployment.

"Senator Clinton's comments are a stunning flip-flop -- she's been saying she would keep troops in Iraq for five years, until 2013, and now she comes up with an inconsistent, incredible turnaround," Mr. Richardson said.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[duboisist]

I prefer Gov. Richardson's position on troop withdrawal to Sen. Clinton's position, but the claim that Sen. Clinton has “flip-flopped” is a little unfair.
Sen. Clinton has said all along that she would remove nearly all the troops as soon as can be done safely. She makes two exceptions:

1. she would leave troops our embassies, etc. for an indefinite period of time and
2. a small group to fight terrorists that she won’t promise to remove during her first term in office.

So, saying she would withdraw almost all the troops in one year is consistent with what she has been saying all along.

Their plans are is nearly identical but Gov. Richardson makes an extremely good argument that no combat troops should be left behind.
It is a better position. Gov. Richardson deserves credit for taking it first, but he doesn’t own exclusive rights to it. I hope Sen. Clinton listens to Gov. Richardson and adopts his plan because it would be better for the country.
Changing her mind when she receives more information or a better argument is a good quality for Sen. Clinton to have. It’s a good quality for anyone, not just someone running for President.
It’s a shame that Gov. Richardson had to work so hard to get his plan the attention it deserves.

[poopdeck]

All congressional Democratic wannabes except Kucinich have been less than consistent (= have flip flopped) about troop withdrawals from Iraq. All of them, except Kucinich have been abject weather vanes whose positions depended only on public opinion. It was not until more than 60% of the American people wanted the war to end that both Clinton and Obama voted no on a funding bill. Until then they had given the Bush administration everything it had asked for and then some more. With regards to Iraq there is absolutely no fundamental difference between Clinton and Obama when they were both senators. Even today you might not find a difference even with an electron microscope.
And why did they not vote at all on the most recent Iraq handout to the Administration?
Richardson is a slimy sideline quarterback who never had to vote on Iraq appropriations. How would I have voted? The trouble is that I have a knack to present myself much more nobly than I am. Ergo, I really do not know how I would have voted.

[Dap]

Seems Saint-a-tor Clinton has caught the Pinocchio virus, AGAIN!

The Hawk... in doves clothing. Imagine that.

[speakingtruth2power]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm a life long Democrat and side with Kucinich on most issues. The candidate that usually comes in a close second is Bill Richardson but sometimes it's Edwards depending on the quiz.

The reason that Congress did not fight BushCo harder on the war, spying and K Street corruption is the Clinton lead DLC did not want to and many of the 'questionable votes' came from them.

Hillary and her crowd of MIC friendly, security minded, and corporate devoted beltway bottom feeders, are fine with things as they are as long as the next administration is run by them.

I don't say this because I want to bash the competition but because many loyal Democrats have felt betrayed by the centrist and establishment votes that come from those who should be our allies.

DiFi and Schummer's votes for Mukasey are a good example of this betrayal of our sentiments and values, although the 'defector' role is passed around.

The world needs better from the Democratic Party and we need to work harder to free our party from the grip of these establishment whores.

The DLC shills will say we must not offer another Dukakis or McGovern but the polls say that an Edwards/Richardson (or Webb, Dodd, Obama, or???) would beat any GOP ticket.

[Kane]

This is an interesting turn of events. In the last few days there have been media reports suggesting that Richardson was interested in a VP position, and that his caucus voters in Iowa might move to support Hillary. All speculation of course, but now with this latest bit of news, it doesn't sound likely.

[booker52]

Hillary is like Mitt, say anything to get elected. Just check which way the wind is blowing first!!!

[Lemeritus]

Out of Iraq - Good

Stay in Iraq - Bad

On its face, it would seem to be a good change of mind (or flip-flop, if you will). But is it really a change of heart? And how realistic is any of the war talk we get from any of the candidates -- there are realities on the ground, both in war and politics; sometimes they aren't the same. Witness the promises of the Democrats coming to Congress in '06 -- but, then, I forgot: it wasn't about the war (according to Rahm Emanuel), it was about Bush Corruption (well, they didn't do a whole hell of a lot about that either, did they?)

I will tell you this -- I don't believe any of the mumbles coming from the front-running Democratic presidential candidates. They can't even be bothered to show up to vote on the issues that should be shaping their campaigns lest they tip their policy hand.

Clinton disappoints me most of all -- dove-hawk-dove-hawk-dove-hawk. It may not be possible to withdraw the troops on January 21, 2009, but where are the plans for redeployment or redefining the mission; where are the plans to involve peacekeepers from elsewhere; where are the plans for anything at all? What's more, when asked if she would reduce the executive powers Bush has drawn to himself, the best she could promise was that she would look into it. Sounds suspiciously like same-old-same-old to me. Then there's the matter of all those missed votes.

(I don't mean to pick on Hillary to the exclusion of all the deserving other candidates; I think with great hope comes great disappointment.)

[itsnotmyfault]

Must we constantly borrow from the republican phrase book for our critiques or for our headlines. Flip Flop...a phrase made famous by George W during the 2004 election to redefine Kerry. So like idiots we turn to that phrase to attack our own, giving even more credibility to these insipid republican framing phrases.
Smarten up . How about Hillary changed her mind. It sounds less lethal that way doesn't it. But the fact is that people do change their minds and we want them to. Otherwise you get Presidents like the mental defective occupying the oval office right now. He holds firm and steady as we go headlong into the abyss.

[3fingerbrown]

I'm not defending or attacking Clinton here. This is more a general comment.
The recent coinage of the hideous phrase "flip-flop" is doing further damage to our already debased electoral process.
It's gotten to the point where a candidate is politically safer to be consistently wrong on an issue than to change his mind along the way and wind up on the right side.
We're in big trouble if we no longer grant politicians the option of reversing their thinking to reflect new information, shifting political landscapes, or the changing wishes of their constituents. But that's just where we're heading ("My fellow Americans, I may be dead wrong, but I'm proud to say that, unlike my opponent, I've always been dead wrong!") Only fools never change their opinions.
It sickens me to think that at such a pivotal moment in history, the campaign staffs of our candidates are scrutinizing the records of their rivals, hoping to find "flip-flops" to use in their childish game of gotcha.
Further proof of the infantilization of America, coming at the time when we can least afford it.

[union79]

Hillary must think the nation has collective Alzheimer's ~ to do a 180 on such an important issue and think we won't notice!

Bravo for the candidates that took a position on withdrawal early and stuck with it ~ Biden, Richardson and Dodd ~ regardless of how the winds were blowing.

At least now Richardson, like a large percentage of the voters is enlightened about the Clinton disease!!

[ljsfolly]

Bill R, Hillary has been a flip flopper for a while but I agree this one tops them. As she reads the wind or whoever has that job does, she waits and then she decides she will go this or that way. She never comes out and says "after some thought I have changed how I see this..." If she did maybe the flips would have some viable cred. I don't like that she wears dem but is a obvious republican. Not so different as lieberman just less obvious. I would wish that this came to the forefront before the nomination so that we don't have another four years of scary thinking in the white house. I don't think her husband has that much control over her to have her be more moderate.

[mamacat]

I wish Gov. Richardson all the luck in the world. He has been brave enough to take a stand for principle, one that I happen to agree with. (And I am in love with the State and the people of New Mexico.)
Having said that, it may be that his (but not his alone) greatest contribution in this campaign will have been to show to the "frontrunners" that the American people are indeed comfortable with the idea of getting out of Iraq sooner rather than later.
I have always felt that it was Sen. McCarthy who showed Bobby Kennedy that, besides being the right thing to do, going against the war fever during Vietnam was a reasonable idea politically. Sen. McCarthy demonstrated more courage than Bobby did, but Bobby was the frontrunner.
I am not disappointed that Sen. Clinton has come out against Bush's war, I am disappointed that it took her so long, and I hope that in the future she can show more courage.

[MRb1000]

Richardson head is so far up the Clinton behind you can't see the bottom of his shoes. He nose is so brown. In all the debates all he did was please leave HIlary alone. He became very annoying. Some of us want to hear the differences in the candidates he up there running for Vice President. He would have a chance if he grew a spine and call people out when they lie to the American people. We are in search of the truth. If the candidate dose not want to tell the truth, we should show them the door. We do not want hell raiser. We want some one that can bring peace out of confusion. Hillary Clinton want to settle difference like fools by using nasty and dirty trick. NO this will not work America. We went down this road to many years. Where have it gotten us. NO where. If we elected Hillary Clinton we are going no wear fast.

[indimuse]

Lobbyists on Obama’s ’08 payroll
By Alexander Bolton and Brittney Moraski
December 20, 2007
Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.


The presence of political operatives with long client lists on Obama’s campaign contrasts with his long-held stand of campaigning against the influence of special interests. Obama has even refused to accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees (PACs).

[indimuse]

Lobbyists on Obama’s ’08 payroll
By Alexander Bolton and Brittney Moraski
December 20, 2007
Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.


The presence of political operatives with long client lists on Obama’s campaign contrasts with his long-held stand of campaigning against the influence of special interests. Obama has even refused to accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees (PACs).