Richardson calls for sanity toward Iran again -- again -- again

[Green-Dog Democrat]

Bill Richardson keeps on pointing out the insanity of the Bush-Cheney-Neocon animus toward Iran. But his repeated and near-voice-in-the-wilderness common-sense pronouncements among the Democratic candidates don't seem to get commented on.

His latest was his Nov. 1 post on The Huffington Post. He wrote --

IT IS A tragedy that in the midst of one failed war in Iraq, George Bush and Dick Cheney are pushing a second front of failure and gearing up to attack Iran. The "unilateral sanctions" recently imposed will hurt diplomatic progress in the region, and I find it disconcerting that so many Democrats supported President Bush in his saber-rattling.

Senator Clinton voted to enable George Bush when she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Senator Obama, skipped the Iran vote entirely.

Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate and work with us for peace. But it is a tried and true method of laying the groundwork for another war -- a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world. Saying that we're on a "path to diplomacy" while imposing these sanctions and increasing the war rhetoric only strengthens hard-line elements in the Iranian leadership and increases the risk of violence breaking out.

Richardson's Huffington Post piece continues at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-bill-richardson/stop-...

What Richardson posits on the Huffington Post is not Johnny-come-lately. On February 24 his Washington Post op-ed piece began with this --

THE RECENT tentative agreement with North Korea over its nuclear program illustrates how diplomacy can work even with the most unsavory of regimes. Unfortunately, it took the Bush administration more than six years to commit to diplomacy. During that needless delay North Korea developed and tested nuclear weapons -- weapons its leaders still have not agreed to dismantle. Had we engaged the North Koreans earlier, instead of calling them "evil" and talking about "regime change," we might have prevented them from going nuclear. We could have, and should have, negotiated a better agreement, and sooner.

As the International Atomic Energy Agency just confirmed, Iran has once again defied the international community and is moving forward with its nuclear program, yet the Bush administration seems committed to repeating the mistakes it made with North Korea. Rather than directly engaging the Iranians about their nuclear program, George W. Bush refuses to talk, except to make threats. He has moved ships to the Persian Gulf region and claims, with scant evidence, that Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. This is not a strategy for peace. It is a strategy for war -- a war that Congress has not authorized. Most of our allies, and most Americans, don't believe this president, who has repeatedly cried wolf.

Richardson's Washington Post commentary continues at http://tinyurl.com/2wzyyz

Then on June 27 he made a speech on Iran that, considering the depth and wonkishness of its policy implications, could have been coming from the mouth of Bill Clinton. This speech was to the Center for a New American Security. It wasn't sexy, but it left no doubt about his expertise on Iran and Iraq and his critical view of how the Bush/Cheney/Neocon tribe has been approaching each country -- and how he could and would do a better job. The speech is posted at http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/newsroom/speeches?id=0013

And for many months Richardson has offered people who want to get interactive on the Iran issue a chance to do so at http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/s/Iran

Richardson talks more foreign-relations common sense from the standpoint of past experience than the other Democratic candidates combined. Are many Democrats ignoring him because Tim Russert does? That's as insane as the Bush/Cheney/Neocon saber-rattling at Iran. Maybe worse -- since Democrats ought to be operating on a higher mental plane.

[0007]

1. Two fucking half cracked nuts

Bomb, nuke, shell, and more bombs and bigger nukes.


More sanity please, we must talk to Iran. My buddy and I will negotiate Peace in the MD.

[seasat]

2. He acknowledged our previious stupid policies with Iran in his speech.

That impressed me. Few politicians are willing to admit publicly that we bear some responsibility for the problems in and with Iran. He acknowledged that we overthrew their government, supported the Shah, and supported Iraq in the war against them. Just mentioning our screw ups will make it much easier to deal with Iran honestly and garner support from the more moderate factions.

I found it interesting that Ahmadinejad may be trying to pull power away from the clerics. They'll smack him down if he tries to pull too much power to himself and give us a diplomatic opening.

[Green-Dog Democrat]

4. Less rhetoric and more substance in Richardson's speeches

Aside from his talking a little too much about his resume -- which actually is really worth talking about -- a lot back in the spring and summer, Richardson's speeches have largely been long on substance and short on rhetoric. Maybe it's because of his resume, which has included administration and management in government as well as legislating -- unlike the other candidates. He's run things instead of merely running off his mouth about things.

Seems like he was willing and able to talk frankly about Iran in the speech because he's well informed about Iran and understands related problems, issues, and history. Would be interesting to see a debate in which the questions were limited to foreign relations and policy and they (the questions) and time were spread equally among the candidates. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts on Richardson coming in first, Biden second, and the so-called top three candidates being also-rans.

What and who Richardson is shows up in the interviews in the issue of my e-zine that's posted at http://tinyurl.com/yotmo5. He's candid and direct in them, as he was in his speech linked above.

There's an American Prospect article about Richardson by Matthew Yglesias, an editor of The Atlantic, that's mentioned in the e-zine's introduction and linked at the bottom that is worth reading. It summarized the guy awfully well -- way back in February.

[seasat]

5. He won praise for his substance on his global sustainabiliy speech

The Praise was from the Washington blog. His speech was very detailed and addressed international poverty, climate change, and environmental concerns. I just posted his policy speech about caring for veterans to the General Discussion: Politics Forums.

BTW, welcome to DU. :hi:

There is a Bill Richardson Group if you are interested in joining. Though, I think you have to give a small donation to the DU to post in the small groups. You can still read them.

[Green-Dog Democrat]

3. FIXED LINK TO HUFFINGTON POST IN "RICHARDSON CALLS . . . "

It was probably a Republican conspiracy that chopped off the end of the link to the Huffington Post piece by Richardson -- that or Gremlins from the Kremlin. Or maybe Cheney shot it off.

Richardson's Huffington Post piece continues at this fixed link -- http://tinyurl.com/38drly

And boy, did it get bushels of comments there.