2013? Get Our Troops Out Now

Come January, Americans are going to have to start making a very important choice: do we want to end this war or keep it going? Do we want a President who will end this war or not?

At the DNC Dartmouth debate on Wednesday night, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all refused to commit to getting our all of our troops out of Iraq by 2013.

John Edwards pointed out that there are major differences between the candidates on Iraq. He was absolutely right. But the major difference is not between him and Senator Clinton. It's between the other candidates and me.

They all change the mission and leave troops in Iraq. I end the war and get all the troops out.

Edwards and Obama have said that they will get the combat troops out of Iraq. But they would leave behind tens of thousands of other troops unprotected, in the middle of a civil war, indefinitely. It doesn't make any sense.

Clinton told her own military advisors that she expects to have troops in Iraq at the end of her second term in office, in 2017.

Congress can end this war, they have the power to end this war, but so far they aren't getting it done. If they won't do it, our next President has to -- not in 2017, or 2013, but in 2009.

I know the region -- I met with Saddam Hussein himself and negotiated the release of American hostages. I know that we cannot begin the hard work of diplomacy until all our troops are out. I know that there will not be a political reconciliation until all the troops are out.

And we all know that the war will not end until all the troops are out.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards would leave tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq. I would leave zero.

It's a very simple difference -- so simple it seems to have eluded the mainstream media -- but it a fatally important difference. American lives hang in the balance.

So let's not confuse their rhetoric with resolve.

Edwards, Obama, and Clinton say they want to end the war, but they won't commit to getting our troops out in even five years from now. Are they serious? Five more years is longer than we've already been there under George Bush.

It really isn't complicated: we need to end this war. For the stability of the region, the safety of our troops, and the security of our nation, we need to end this war. I am the only major candidate who will get all of our troops out of Iraq, with no troops left behind.

I am the only candidate who will actually end the war.

You can read more about the differences between the candidates, read my plan, and see our video and ad on the issue of no residual troops at www.getourtroopsout.com

Comments

[Kakie]

Governor Richardson,

Sorry, but I'm not buying it...I know you have experience on your side, but you have been riding on John Edwards' coat tails all along.

You entered the race long after he had. John Edwards had laid out all of his progressive, detailed plans--the best in the party--and then you simply used them in a game of "one-upsma­nship--tak­ing Edwards' plans and saying "I'll do this more or I'll do this even better, etc." This shows little integrity or character. Also, after Edwards was honest enough to say he would increase taxes on the rich to pay for universal health care and the other programs that working families so desperately need, you criticized your own party saying something to the effect of "I'm not a tax raiser, I'm a tax cutter." It's easy to say that, but you're not being honest with the American people...

Now you're not being honest with the American people on Iraq. As Senator Biden once pointed out, even if we were to begin a complete and immediate withdrawal now, it would take at least a year to get all our troops and equipment out.

John Edwards IS being honest with the American people--he is the only one who has consistently called on Congress to use their funding authority to stop the war, and he bought air time to rebut Bush's recent speech on Iraq. As Edwards clearly explained, he wants an immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops, and then a complete withdrawal in about a year. He wants to be careful as we withdraw to prevent a genocide...

Governor Richardson, I thank you for your service to our country, but you remind me of the kid running for student body president who promises everyone a "soda machine in every classroom." You're not being honest with us, just trolling for votes.

My vote goes with John Edwards, a man who says the same thing no matter what group he talks to--he speaks the truth.

[KevinHayden]

Just as our current leaders rely on a constant bogeyman approach to get the public to grant them the autonomous use of military forces, so do the corrupt regimes across the Middle East use us as the bogeyman to maintain their repressive powers. Yet they simultaneously must negotiate with us - a principal buyer of their economic foundation.

That game must end, before any real and lasting peace takes hold throughout the Middle East. And only a convincing effort to pursue energy alternatives can provide the leverage to compel them to change that modus operandi. Military impositions have not succeeded in stabilizing oil supplies. They've only driven market speculators to jack up oil profits to all oil producers, including our own, while causing economic pain for oil consuming citizens everywhere.

That's not to suggest that the military never be used in emergency situations, but diplomacy - the art of negotiating so the interests of each party are granted full consideration - can almost always produce better results with the least human casualties.

Given that, there's no doubt that Richardson's foreign policy credentials are the best in the field. But if his campaign strategy is to point to that past and add a withdrawal promise, he'll never overtake the front runners. Instead of treating us in a condescending way, he needs to level with us about the oil game better than anyone's currently doing.

Honesty and transparency would be a bold departure from the current campaign strategies. He doesn't need to define how he'll leverage key negotiating points but he's got to demonstrate he has a clear grasp on what the interests of each nation in the mix are, to demonstrate his capacity for leadership. Not leadership that occurred yesterday, but leadership that's evident today.

Saying "I'll do an immediate withdrawal" only sounds like he's heard what the majority wants. Hearing us is a nice change from the present administration, but defining our national interests and what post-withdrawal possibilities might be employed to pursue a fair balance of competing interests would demonstrate a command of the multi-tiered issues at work.

[DrenchedOtter]

Thanks for the thoughtful post. Wouldn't it be great if Richardson and others would share with us what they really think is going to happen in Iraq and how best to handle the future global demand for oil? I'm willing to believe that it's not condescension as much as the inability to get more than a couple of sentences through the mainstream media filter. That doesn't apply to the Internet, though. I think the candidates would find an eager audience here on Huffington Post if they really wanted to lay out the details, they might even get some helpful comments.

[KevinHayden]

Moral legitimacy requires withdrawal. Maintaining the strategic strength and vigilance capabilities of our armed forces for defense against actual enemies requires withdrawal. Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel understand this.

The others propose variations and methodologies to avoid the potential trap of making a commitment that anti-US forces might exploit. In reality, such a trap is impossible to set as the public would permit any president to respond to protect the troops and this country if either was newly endangered during the withdrawal process.

Even the candidates for swift withdrawal should be engaging the public in a serious discussion of the economics and geopolitical interests at play here.

Under the regionalization of federalism approaches, Sunnis are effectively dealt no economic base. Vengeful Shias are content with that after the subjugation they endured at the hands of certain Sunni branches under Saddam. Independent jihadists and foreign fighters seek to exploit this division and occasionally succeed at that.

China, especially, is most dependent on the oil and natural gas flow from Iraq and Iran. Most Arab states, being Sunni, will resist any 'solution' that abandons Iraq's Sunnis. And the governments of Iran and Syria have ideological reasons to seek Shia dominance, while also recognizing the economic advantages available in the control of the oil. Russia, India and Japan have clear economic stakes in the outcome, too.

And that's what's missing from the candidate statements: an open discussion about the oil competition. The underlying rationale for both Gulf Wars and the threats against Iran is rarely exposed to light at all, even though most informed analysts and observers understand the outlines of those geopolitical economic stakes, the candidates shy from laying it out publicly, which smacks of evasion, distrust of the public's capacity to grasp the complicated realities, and plain old dishonesty.

It's also true that Iraq and Iran and the Saudis and Kuwait are wholly dependent on global oil demand to make their economies go, so no matter who's in power, each must negotiate with the US. Were we to find alternate energy sources, they'd be in economic squalor.

(more to follow)

[LizM]

Senator Biden is the only candidate who is speaking truth to power, as they say, on what will be required to end the war in Iraq responsibly, without leaving a failed state behind, or the need for US forces to return at a later date.

Unfortunately, it seems that the famous movie line is on point...

...most Americans CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[DrenchedOtter]

Would you care to comment on the story this morning that the Iraqis themselves are opposed to Biden's plan?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070930/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

[LizM]

Yes, I would - thanks for asking.

But I already did comment on this in another thread - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/where-did-richardson-get-_b_66441.html - I hope you don't mind going there to read my two-part response...in the interests of time and this site not taking kindly to double posts.

It does look like we Biden supporters have our work cut out for us for the next long while, trying to set the record straight on what Senator Biden's Iraq strategy is and, most importantly, what it is NOT! You'll probably wish you never asked us to comment!

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Grand Theft Treasury continues...

Most Democrats want this war to continue because they are connected to someone who is profiting mightily.

Feinstein and Pelosi in particular.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Both Feinstein and Pelosi have financial interests in not stopping the Iraq war.

Republicans are depraved kleptomaniacs and Democrats are just plain corrupt and greedy.

[paige]

They are all corrupt and greedy. That's a fact.

I like what Richardson is saying but it's easy to say that right now. Why can't he say get them out in 2008? Why wait till almost Oct. to say next year? Does anyone really believe a Dem. or Rep. will take the troops out of Iraq until all the oil is taken and whatever else they want? I don't.

[JoAnnCr]

You like what Richardson is saying except Richardson should review the tapes on what John Edwards said. If he is so smart he knows what non-combat troops are and their role in all countries that have U.S. Embassies. John Edwards said clearly that all combat troops would be out within 9 months.

Also paige, you haven't gotten to know John Edwards if you don't believe a Democrat would take the troops out. Don't confuse him with the other candidates.

Meanwhile, Richardson used to be my second favorite to John Edwards. He's moved way down the ladder now.

[larry278]

South Viet Nam was supposed to fall without Uncle Sugar's money & it did. Occupied Iraq already has a de facto civil war that has lasted for a few years, genocide, ethnic cleansing, corruption, & is divided among 3 factions & led by an ineffective, worthless, self-seeking louts. What will change when the USA leaves? Nothing. Iraq will go the way of the former USSR with or without US forces & money. Iraq is a lost cause. Bring the troops home NOW. Don't throw good money into a lost cause.

[Mariel]

Richardson, Dodd, and perhaps Biden would be better than the front runners. They have experience in foreign affairs, in negotiation. Kucinich too, although he possibly is too socialist for me....like Paul is too libertarian to take hold of the country we already have right now. We need a president to go in their ready to roll.

I'm praying for the media to see that lot of us want somethinig different. Is it possible they care?

[patreillys]

I have been keeping my sanity by telling myself that I will vote for the Democratic candidate figuring any Democrat is better than any Republican at this time.
I cannot believe that Obmana, Clinton and Edwards are not promising immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Thank you, Governor Richardson, for speaking out. The others are reverting to pre attack on Iraq lockstep. Shame on them

[Kakie]

Edwards has consistently called on Congress to stop funding the war and stand up to Bush--He says if Bush refuses to accept these terms, keep sending the bill to Bush over and over--he says Bush will not negotiate so we have to stand up to him.

Edwards has also called for an immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops--and a complete withdrawal in about a year. He says it will take about a year to do it responsibly and prevent genocide.

Edwards speaks the truth, no matter who his audience is, and does not pander to get votes, as Gov. Richardson is doing here. In fact, the reason I was drawn to John Edwards is he was the first Democrat to speak out against Bush and the Iraq War a year and a half ago--long before it was popular to do so. He spoke of his own vote for the war and how wrong it was--he took responsibility for that--what character! He talked about how the war was creating terrorism and how we were shutting the Iraqis out of reconstruction of their own country...he talked about the moral thing to do by empowering the Iraqis and taking care of issues like worldwide poverty and education in order to prevent terrorism.

Edwards has led on these issues, but the M$M is trying to diminish his campaign because he is a populist who says we need to raise taxes on the rich and give more advantages to working families.

Unlike Gov. Richardson, Edwards has not taken a dime from Washington lobbyists, which may put him at a disadvantage in fund raising and media coverage, but makes Edwards a true man of the people.

Thnk about it--who are the Republicans and M$M most afraid of? Edwards is a former trial attorney who successfully prosecuted corporate abuse and who is now calling for "One America," where everyone can have the chances he did. He is the true outsider here and will knock Washington on its heels.

Sorry, Gov. Richardson, you are just another Washington insider. Go, Edwards!

[leftLibertarian]

Your party, because it lacked the BALLS to impeach Bush and Cheney and end the Iraq war has lost my vote.

[wayoutleft]

one thing both dennis and bill r could do is to pledge to totally freeze all war supporters and passive acceptors of the imperialist occupation out of his administration and the party, possibly denying any party support to anyone who has defended or supported the war. because the democratic party is now on the same side as the republicans and christian fascists in glorifying the death of iraq. there is no longer any reason to vote democrat out of fear of a republican victory. at least with the republicans, you won't have to buy health coverage from a corporation- or even put up with a government national compulsory slave labor program such as rangel's.

[Mariel]

My last post was a reply to Outnow, but I want to post again that I think Richardson has some good ideas and needs more consideration by the bought-and-paid-for press. Biden may have some good ideas too.
He was my former front runner, but as of now hoping Richardson has a breakthrough. Go, Governor.

[toomuchalready]

No way are we getting our of Iraq EVER. Iraq is on line to become the 51st state. As long as there is a drop of oil in their ground, the US will be there to drain it.

[mcostello]

You know what we could do is tell the Europeans, who depend on Iraqi oil, that we are pulling out, and if they want their oil supply secured, they would need to step up.

[Misanthrope2]

They had already. They had contracts with Iraq to go into effect when the sanctions were lifted. We attacked Iraq, and them, to keep the price of oil high.

[OldManOnFire]

Only a reckless mind will recommend to immediately remove all US troops from Iraq.

Insane-Bush preemptively attacked a sovereign nation based on lies and deceit--there is nothing that can be done about this now!

Like it or not, the US destroyed or broke Iraq, and now the US owns Iraq!

Yes it is true that the Iraqi government has failed to do their best performance...but so has the US miserably failed to do their best!

The US must cease all offensive military action! The US must pull all troops except a minimum force to 'support' Iraqis in security.

I believe in a designated time-line for the ending of the occupation. Assuming there are approximately 160,000 US troops, I'd like to see 10,000 US troops removed per month until we reach whatever level is needed for basic security of the US Embassy.

In parallel with the removal of 10,000 US troops per month, I'd also like to see the addition of 5,000 or whatever number of UN troops or 'coalition' troops per month moved into Iraq to take over the security and training work.

It is also imperative to remove all US private business from Iraq, then open all necessary rebuilding work to open bidding from all nations--this provides economic incentives for Iraqis and participating nations.

This plan will take 1-1/2 to 2 years to implement...

[mcostello]

Your plan has not taken in to consideration the 200thousand contractors.
This is the real problem because they are getting rich and don't want to come home.

[OldManOnFire]

One paragraph in the post above clearly says remove all US private business from Iraq and start over with open bidding from all nations. All purchasing decisions to be made by the Iraqi government­...period!

[transendentilist]

Our military presence in the region provides a common enemy for the three warring religious sects. We are part of the problem.
When is our debt to the Iraqis paid in full? How many more Americans have to die for a failed policy? Our troops are just IED fodder, and have achieved their military goals.
The Iraqis have had nearly 5 years to get it together, and still they have not. It's ultimately their struggle, not ours. We should give them financial suport to rebuild their country, using Iraqi contractors. Beyond that, they need to settle their own problems.
All U.S. troops out ASAP!

[OldManOnFire]

I agree with your sentiment, however, we must also face reality.

US dept to Iraq will never be repaid! Money can eventually build streets and buildings and homes, but will never repair the psychological and emotional damage as well as the hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries!

Yes the Iraqis have done a poor job at re-developing their country--but it's also an impossible job to rush! At the same time, the US has failed in their endeavors! All parties are guilty!!! Stop blaming Iraqis!

Logistically US troops cannot be removed overnight! They can be pulled back from an offensive position and mostly out of harms way. And then it will take time to deal with the deployment­--probably a year or more.

[research]

We should not leave any troops from this illegal invasion in Iraq. We must leave asap, doing everything we can on the fastest way out to avoid getting any of our soldier or any of the Iraqis killed.

OUR PRESENCE AND CONTINUED MEDDLING JUST MAKE THINGS WORSE!

politicians lie and debate, people live and die in miserable violence because of our unjustified invasion. The Iraqi people are not things! Just because we broke it, we don't own the Iraqis. 70% of the Iraqi's want us to leave! 70% of Americans want us to leave! 70% of the world want us to leave. Democracy? No Repugs.

[OldManOnFire]

I will debate you all day about the fact that insane-Bush did a preemptive and unprovoked attack against Iraq, and in doing so, the US owns all the problems that go with it!

And through our ignorance or arrogance or whatever the US has mismanaged in this occupation, we must set things right!!!

[leftLibertarian]

Ah, no, the US did not break Iraq since many in the US did not approve of the invasion.

Bush and Cheney broke Iraq and if the Democrats have the BALLS, these thugs would be behind bars.

[OldManOnFire]

Well...if you are a US citizen, then insane-Bush is YOUR president, and anything this country does whether it is positive or negative, we all have ownership. Some of us may not like this situation, but it is a fact Jack!

I'll bet 90% of the world's population believes that US citizens mostly support insane-Bush and any president for that matter.

Why US citizens allow insane-Bush and Cheney to continue...I will never understand??!!

[Nonamnesiac]

I didn't start out considering Richardson. I thought he was running for Vice President with Hillary at the top of the ticket. That might be true.

But lately I've found myself contributing to his campaign (along with regular contributions to Kucinich). And the more I see him, the more I like him. I've found that I believe he WOULD end the war and pull out all of the troops and I KNOW Edwards, Obama, Hillary wouldn't. Edwards and Hillary voted for Iraq, and that in itself is enough to disqualify him from consideration. The overwhelming intelligence AT THE TIME was that Saddam had no WMDs and was an enemy of bin Laden and any Congressman who couldn't see that doesn't deserve to be dog catcher, let alone President. And I honestly believe if Obama was in the Senate at the time he would have abstained, despite his excellent statement at the time, when he wasn't actually in the Senate. I see now how he deals with controversial issues -- the Condemn MoveOn resolution and the "Invade Iraq" resolution -- he abstains.

Richardson is somewhat conservative for me, but he's good on the war and just as good on the rest of the issues as Hillary, Edwards and Obama, all of whom won't promise to get the troops out by 2013.

I'm wathcing this closely.