Richardson attacks Edwards for leaving only non-combat troops at the Iraq embassy... funny thing is

[jsamuel]

Richardson would do the same thing.

Richardson would leave a small Marine contingent behind in Iraq to protect the U.S. Embassy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19307110

Richarson's joke of a criticism shows that he is more interested in attacking Edwards than he is in defending his own position. This leads me to believe that he is more interested in being Clinton's VP than he is in winning the election himself.

Richardson's attack:

Edwards says that he would get all of the combat troops out of Iraq, but he would leave behind thousands of non-combat troops in the middle of a civil war. That is not ending the war...

Leaving behind thousands of non-combat troops contradicts Army doctrince and common sense. It is simply irresponsible...

History teaches us that putting undermanned forces in the middle of sectarian conflict, whether in Somalia, Lebanon, or anywhere else, is a recipe for disaster...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x60427

Richardson effectively calls his own plan "a recipe for disaster."

[MH1]

1. Did Edwards not say what Richardson claimed he said?

"With all due respect to my Democratic colleagues, Senators Clinton, Obama, Dodd and Biden all voted for timeline legislation that had deliberate loopholes," Richardson said in prepared remarks. "Those loopholes allow this president, or any president, to leave an undetermined number of troops in Iraq indefinitely. And this is the same legislation that former Senator Edwards says we should send back to President Bush over and over again until he signs it."

He wasn't attacking Edwards, he was attacking all of them...for wanting to leave troops in Iraq above and beyond a contingent to guard the embassy.

[jsamuel]

5. that isn't the attack I am talking about

I updated the op with the attack.

[Cameron27]

7. But you left off part of that quote:

Richardson would leave a small Marine contingent behind in Iraq to protect the U.S. Embassy. But, he said, "if the embassy isn't safe, they're coming home too, along with embassy personnel."

[jsamuel]

8. that doesn't change anything

[Cameron27]

9. How so?

If it's not safe to leave non-combat troops guarding the embassy, he won't leave them there. And he'll pull out the embassy staff so they're not in danger either.

[jsamuel]

10. that doesn't change anything

he is attacking Edwards for the same thing he plans to do

he says the embassy shouldn't be guarded by only non-combat troops

[Cameron27]

12. Ok, you've lost me.

Has Edwards said that the troops guarding the embassy would have combat support or be pulled out?

[Cameron27]

30. Sorry, I was reminded that it's marines who guard

our embassies, so you've made a good point.

[Carrieyazel]

2. No, Richardson wouldn't do the same thing.

Edwards would leave much more than a small Marine contingent behind in Iraq.

[jsamuel]

6. Read Richardson's attack, he calls leaving only non-combat troops behind "a recipe for disaster"

That is what he plans to do too.

[Kagemusha]

3. I hope he's not suggesting the Marines would be there unarmed.

I don't want to think such a respected diplomat would be proposing such a thing. And he probably isn't. I'm just saying.

[Cameron27]

4. I said the same thing in another thread.

[mmonk]

11. Wrong again but keep trying.

Richardson would leave an embassy detail while Edwards would leave more troops for a changing mission.

[zalinda]

13. No, Edwards would leave guards for the embassy

and a small special strike force in probably Kuwait, in case they are needed.

zalinda

[mmonk]

14. Small special strike force is what I'm talking about.

Richardson would redeploy to Kuwait and surrounding bases. Marine details for embassies are standard fare. People need to quit saying Richardson is lying about this or saying they propose the same thing.

[jsamuel]

15. the special strike force will be in Kuwait JUST LIKE RICHARDSON

Clinton on the other hand will keep combat troops in Iraq. You don't hear Richardson attacking Clinton about that though.

[mmonk]

16. The choice on Iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hM-e1ywxJs&mode=related&search=bill%20richardson%20Iraq%20War%20troops

[jsamuel]

17. I am tired of the distortions Richardson is putting out on Edwards and Iraq.

He isn't a serious candidate and is just running interference for Clinton.

[mmonk]

18. Interference for Clinton.

You Edwards people come up with something new everyday.

[jsamuel]

19. I would have no problem with him if he just told the truth.

But he has repeatedly lied when it comes to Iraq, especially about Edwards.

[mmonk]

22. What are these troops Edwards has said that he will keep

in Iraq? What is their mission? You can't withdraw American forces and keep them there at the same time. All non combat troops under US withdrawal plans leave first under force protection. Are they military trainers? Are they a strike unit? Are they military advisors? How many of them?

[goodgd_yall]

23. Right---I don't get why Richardson is targeting Edwards

His difference is with Clinton, not Edwards.

[mmonk]

26. He's targeting all three of the frontrunners

since they wouldn't commit to having all troops out of Iraq by end of their first term.

[mmonk]

29. That base already has that capability.

Edwards needs to define the magnitude of this troop mission and why it is to remain past 2013 before anyone calls Richardson a liar.

[Stardust]

20. Every US embassy and Interest Section has Marine guards. And they

are well armed. What's the big deal?

[mmonk]

21. People keep trying to twist this with no residual forces

with which Richardson has as his plan and thus trying to project Richardson as being dishonest.

[2rth2pwr]

24. Richardson can't keep any of his positions straight from one day to the

next. He would be lucky now to land a cabinet slot.

[mmonk]

25. Which position is it that he can't keep straight?

Time to call people out here.

[2rth2pwr]

28. Which position can he keep straight?

He tried to explain away his state's low rankings on high-school dropout rates, poverty, and crime during his tenure, his bold statements as energy secretary that turned out not to be true, his 72-hour change of mind on the immigration bill, his stance on guns, the stock he once owned in an oil company, his brief support of Alberto Gonzales, his résumé padding on his baseball career, and the story he tells on the stump about a dead soldier whose mother has asked him to stop telling it. Richardson is a world-famous hostage negotiator, so it was poignant to watch him fail to rescue himself from his own hostage crisis. By the end of the hour, he wasn't answering questions so much as swatting at them. "I'm not perfect," he said. http://slate.com/id/2167195/

Asked whether he thought homosexuality was a "choice" or "biological," New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson flatly said, "It's a choice."

Seemingly taken aback by the presidential hopeful's answer, panelist Melissa Etheridge responded, "I don't know if you understand the question."

But Richardson did not exactly repudiate his answer, saying, "I'm not a scientist. I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people, as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to answer definitions like that that perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand."

Shortly after the forum ended, Richardson's campaign released a statement from the governor "clarifying" his remarks: "Let me be clear — I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/10/richardson-flubs-answer-at-gay-forum/

Richardson’s Changing Position On Residual Troops

NOW: Richardson Commercial Touts Plan to Pull “Every Single Soldier” Out of Iraq. In his most recent television commercial, Gov. Richardson says he has “the only plan that pulls every single soldier out of Iraq.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smOo1r2XPVY>

FIVE MONTHS AGO: April 2007: Leave Troops to “Protect American Institutions.” Discussing his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq, Richardson said, “I would not put them in Iraq, I believe I would leave Marine forces to protect our embassy and other vital American installations.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDBBM2Smyjo>

DECEMBER 2006: Richardson Said Withdrawal Includes A Residual Force. Gov. Richardson said, “No, I’m talking about a fixed withdrawal date. I’m talking about a sizable withdrawal with perhaps a residual force—a very small residual force. But I think you have to fix the date, and you do it consulting with our military commanders, with the Iraqi government—and this is not ‘cut and run’—what I’m proposing is something that I believe will work, a fixed withdrawal date.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWIXP55HEDk>

OCTOBER 2006: Richardson: Must Leave A Residual Force. Richardson said, “You negotiate this timetable that is also, I think, responsibly supporting and representing our security interests in the region and not just leaving without some kind of residual force or some transition force.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTTJqeAIZi0>

[Pachamama]

27. OOPS! There goes Richardson's VP or Sec. of State nomination!!!

Or does Richardson feel so confident that it won't be Pres. Edwards, but rather Pres. Clinton who will be giving him a role in the next administration? :eyes:

[Adelante]

31. He's criticizing both of them nt