If anyone's curious how Richardson would have voted on the Iraq War Resolution, here's an indication

[Czolgosz]

From CNN on February 18, 2003:

ZAHN: According to the "Washington Post" this morning, President Bush may support a deadline for Saddam Hussein to visibly destroy his chemical and biological weapons within a specified number of days, leading to what one of his senior administration officials called actual disarmament.

What are the chances of that working?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think the chances of that working are good because France and Russia and many others in the Security Council and the secretary general want inspections to keep going. Now, I think there is such intensive pressure on both sides that only one more deadline, only one more chance for Saddam Hussein is going to be allowable. So I think the administration is wise in pursuing this course that says OK, total disarmament in two weeks and that's it.

Now, the United Nations is going to be in a very tough position, the Security Council. Here the United States has gone twice for a U.N. Security Council resolution. It's willing to put out another deadline. International pressure is such where the European countries are starting very slowly to move our way. And so the U.N. credibility is at stake.

So this boxes the U.N. and the Security Council in. So I think it's a wise move. I, that makes sense. Give him one more chance to disarm. I think the odds are not very strong that he will. And after that period, you take action and you've got Security Council approval for what you're going to do next.

So I would suggest that course of action that you mentioned. I haven't seen that report. It makes sense.

Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/18/ltm.09.html

Months later on July 28, 2003, after the war was underway, Richardson gave the Keynote Address to the 2003 DLC National Conversation. Richardson's keynote DLC speech was introduction by Will Marshall with these words which Richardson never objected to or corrected:

And I should say that Governor Richardson embodies a Democratic tradition of muscular internationalism. He actually has a diplomatic education and training. But he believes in the energetic use of American power to lead the world toward peace and prosperity and democracy. He backed NAFTA, not always a popular position for Democrats to take. He backed a war to oust the Saddam regime. He's a tireless advocate of human rights and democracy, once headed up Freedom House. Nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Source: http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=251978


If you are a one-issue voter, it is hard to separate Richardson from all of the Senators who are now running and who back in 2003 all regrettably voted with the mistaken majority of our party on this tragic issue.

The moral high-ground on the Iraq War Resolution belongs to Kucinich first (for fighting like hell against the war) and Obama second (for consistently opposing the wrongful war).

[babylonsister]

1. That's over 4 years old; I'm chewing gum and I can think. nt

[Czolgosz]

2. Of course it's over 4 year old; the Iraq War Resolution was voted on over 4 years ago. nt

[babylonsister]

5. I am not ready to diss any candidate as I haven't made up my mind,

but there are many who, given what they knew prior to the truth coming out, made the wrong decision. I'm watching what they're doing now considering time and facts have prevailed.

And why isn't that sonofabitchofaprez being thrown out on his ass again? We were ALL lied to.

[JeffR]

3. Your final points are valid

but I tend to think the Richardson statements were little more than political posturing at a time when it seemed expedient to do so. Please don't construe this as an apologia for Richardson, but there was a poisoned political climate in this country between September 11, '01 and the invasion of Iraq. Tough talk was what all the focus groups told politicians the people wanted, even needed, to hear.

Would he really have voted for the IWR? Somehow I don't think so. I think he's too smart. And yet, maybe you're onto something. In any case, he's not my candidate, though I think there's a lot to respect and admire about him. And some things that give me great pause...

[karynnj]

20. This was February 2003

This was after the inspectors were reporting having found nothing yet.
This was after Hussein agreed to destroy missiles and did so
This is after John Kerry spoke against rushing to war on January 23, 2003
This was close to when Bush choose to go to war and he is NOT saying invade, he is agreeing with Bush's time frame at that time.

As to how he would have voted, you can't tell from this. He clearly was not speaking against war at this point when it would have taken guts to do so. It also seems he didn't speak against the war in the beginning - when no WMD were found or earlier to say more diplomacy should have been done.

[JeffR]

31. Very good points

thank you.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. Richardson has been my #2 or 3 choice but, I must reassess this.

[KittyWampus]

7. Why? The opening poster is full of cr*p. Richardson CLEARLY talks about the UN Security Council

and then the opening poster becomes even more dishonest by going on to post an introduction from Will Marsh saying crap about Richardson and then blaming Richardson for it.

[WCGreen]

6. Gore is the only one to oppose the Iraq war all the way....

Well DK, but he has just a slightly better chance of taking of residence at 1600 PA ave than I do...

[Tejanocrat]

8. Well at least Dennis Kucinich is actually running. I wish Gore was running, but he isn't. Maybe he

jump into the race late, but I'm no longer holding my breath.

[KittyWampus]

9. If the opening poster gave a shit about honesty... maybe they'd have emphasised Richardson's 1st

sentence where he says "Well, I think the chances of that working are good because France and Russia and many others in the Security Council and the secretary general want inspections to keep going"

And his comments were given from the perspective of someone who has worked diplomacy.

Find us a comment where Richardson actually says he supported attacking Iraq then you might have a point.

And it was a nice bit of deceit posting Marsh's comments and then blaming Richardson for it.

[babylonsister]

11. Thanks for pointing that out. nt

[Tejanocrat]

14. I read that sentence as suggesting that the chances of getting France and Russia to join in the UN

resolution were good, but when Gov. Richardson was discussing the chances of that resolution working, I thought he said "Give him one more chance to disarm. I think the odds are not very strong that he will. And after that period, you take action."

Do you read it differently?

Plus, I think this is a non-issue. I thought Gov. Richardson was upfront about the fact that he supported the war back at the beginning when many others did.

What matters is what the candidates say now, not what they said in 2003:

Richardson:

WITHDRAWAL BY END OF 2007
The best thing we can do - for them as well as for ourselves - is to leave. Carefully and strategically. But we must leave. And soon. Because our military has done all it can do there... We should harbor no illusions. This withdrawal will not be pretty. People will die. But fewer will die than if we stay. There are no guarantees that our departure will end the civil war. But it is sure to continue so long as we stay.
-- December 16, 2006

Kucinich:

DE-FUND AND WITHDRAW NOW
It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war and yet continues to fund it. This contradiction runs as a deep fault line through our politics, undermining public trust in the political process and in those elected to represent the people. If you oppose the war, then do not vote to fund it.
-- January 8, 2007

Obama:

PHASED REDEPLOYMENT
I'm introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, more importantly, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 - consistent with the expectations of the bipartisan Iraq study group that the President has so assiduously ignored.
-- On the Senate Floor,
January 30, 2007

Edwards:

WITHDRAWAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS
We have to take the next step and cap funding to mandate a withdrawal. We don't need debate; we don't need non-binding resolutions; we need to end this war, and Congress has the power to do it.
-- February 14, 2007

HRC:

PHASED REDEPLOYMENT
I've been in favor of phased redeployment of our troops, bringing them home as quickly as possible, but based on a comprehensive strategy that looked at the diplomatic, political, and economic challenges and, frankly, exerted some leverage on the Iraqis who have to take these actions if any possible salvage can be made of this situation.
-- January 18, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/IRAQPOSITIONS.html

[KittyWampus]

17. Thanks, here's what Richardson said BEFORE the given quote- calls for 2nd Resolution +other steps

Before attacking Saddam's Iraq. It also sounds to me more like Richardson's saying what he THINKS is going to happen regarding Bush and Iraq and less what he personally believes SHOULD happen.

ZAHN: So, Governor Richardson, based on what you know has happened to the European Union, based on the debate that continues at the U.N., what are the chances that the U.S. will go to war against Iraq?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think the chances are very good. Now, the next step has to be, I believe, continuing our efforts at the United Nations to get a resolution, a second resolution that says that Iraq is in material breach, and secondly, that there will be serious consequences.

Now, I read again a French statement today that did not mention the word veto, which gives me some hope. But at the same time, I think it's very important that the United States probably agree to some kind of a deadline, maybe two weeks, where we concentrate on seeing if Saddam is going to disarm. I think the odds are that he won't, but that we move ahead and see if we can get additional reconnaissance flights, if some of those missiles with excessive range can be destroyed. And, third, if we can interview some of the Iraqi scientists outside of Iraq with the presence of administration officials.

I think for that, all of that to happen, Paula, I think it's probably not going to happen. So I think the odds are pretty strong that we will go to war, but it won't be probably for the next three weeks.

snip

[Tejanocrat]

19. Thanks. It seems that Richardson's personal views are "I think it's very important that the United

States probably agree to some kind of a deadline, maybe two weeks, where we concentrate on seeing if Saddam is going to disarm. I think the odds are that he won't, but that we move ahead and see if we can get additional reconnaissance flights, if some of those missiles with excessive range can be destroyed."

To me, this doesn't sound as if he's opposed to the war, but that's not the big issue for me anyway. I had thought that Richardson has publicly said he originally opposed the war in Kosovo and later regretted that and originally supported the war in Iraq but later regretted that, too. In any case, I don't think anyone disputes that Richardson favors a muscular national defense, right:

"We can also win by sending another strong message, and that is that we are, as Democrats, capable in maintaining and defending our country. We have to be able to use force when diplomacy fails and when our national security is threatened."

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=251978

I think that many voters like this approach even if it is a bit more aggressive than my own views and the views of other peace activists. Even when pro-peace activists criticize Richardson, I think those "criticisms" probably sound like praise to huge segments of moderate American voters:

In early 1998, at another moment when the United States was gearing up for war against Iraq, Secretary General Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a last-minute agreement with Saddam Hussein. The agreement was designed to resolve problems with the arms inspections and to stave off the threat of a U.S. war. When Annan came back to New York, the Security Council crafted a new resolution endorsing his agreement. Then-US ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson demanded that the resolution call for "severest consequences" if Iraq should violate the agreement in the future; under pressure, the Council agreed.

(snip)

So on March 2, 1998, after the resolution passed, a parade of ambassadors emerged from the Security Council chamber, one by one, to insist that their resolution did not include "automaticity." It did not, they said, authorize any country—including the United States—to launch a unilateral military strike against Iraq. Ambassador Richardson came last. Dismissing his predecessors' insistence that the resolution did not authorize a military strike, he shrugged and told the press, "We think it does." Months later, without UN authorization, the United States and Britain devastated Iraq in the four-day mini-war of bombs and cruise missiles known as Desert Fox.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resources/publications/2003_01_iraq-reader.pdf

I think we underestimate how very popular this attitude would be in the general election.

Even as a pro-peace voter, I - for one - appreciated Richardson's remarks about muscular diplomacy when Bush was trying to blame 9/11 on Bill Clinton:

As a former senior member of the Clinton Administration, I know first hand of the efforts that were made to capture and eliminate Osama bin Laden. This includes the trip I made as United Nations Ambassador in April 1998 to Kabul, Afghanistan. During this trip – the first by a U.S. cabinet official to Afghanistan since 1974 – I met with high ranking officials of the ruling Taliban regime and directly requested that bin Laden be expelled or extradited. The Taliban refused, but I know this sort of muscular diplomacy got bin Laden’s attention since he threatened to kill me.

http://www.gov.state.nm.us/press.php?id=280

Finally, we need to remember that the candidates' past positions do not matter as much as what they'd do now that we're in. I like Kucinich's plan to get out now, I like Richardson's plan to get out by January 2008, and I like Edwards's plan to get out by August 2008.

[Blue_In_AK]

10. What's important to me at this point

is that Richardson says get out of Iraq now and LEAVE NO TROOPS there, unlike what some other candidates have said.

[seasat]

12. Richardson didn't have access to the intelligence like Edwards

Wow, another attack thread by you on Richardson to promote Edwards. Why am I not surprised?

You conveniently clipped the part where he was calling for a second UN resolution before proceeding. Now, he could be say that he didn't have access to the same intelligence as Senator Edwards and that he had an excuse but he hasn't said that. He's apparently more honest. I'd like to believe that Richardson would have been like my favorite candidate in 2004,Florida Senator Bob Graham, and actually read the full intelligence report instead of the misleading summary. Unlike Edwards who cosponsored the Iraq War Resolution, reading the full intelligence report lead Graham to vote against it.

[Cameron27]

13. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[Tejanocrat]

15. How does this support Edwards? "The moral high-ground on the Iraq War Resolution belongs to Kucinich

first (for fighting like hell against the war) and Obama second (for consistently opposing the wrongful war)."

Where does this even mention Edwards?

What am I missing?

[bklyncowgirl]

16. Has Richardson ever said specifically that he would have voted for the IWR?

He certainly supported threatening Saddam Hussein. He also seemed to want France and Germany on board before taking action.

It seems to me that Richardson can easily say that he did not have access to the undoctored intelligence that members of Congress had access to and sadly in most cases did not bother to look at. That puts him in a somewhat better position than Edwards, who was a strong supporter of the war to begin with and Clinton who did not change her stance on the war until it became politically necessary.

The only candidates here who can say "I was against it from the beginning" are Obama and Kucinich. Then of course there's Al Gore who was as so often right when others were wrong.

[qwlauren35]

18. Three things stick out in my mind.

1.) Try every diplomatic means possible,
2.) have at a minimum, UN Security Council support before taking any military action,
3.) let the first action be to disable their military air power.

I don't see anything that says "hunt down Saddam Hussein like a rabid dog."

[bigtree]

21. It's not a remarkable stance against Bush's advance that Richardson took

If you really go through the few interviews and opportunities Richardson had to comment on Bush's push to war, it's clear that Richardson was focused on the general consensus in Congress at the time to use the threat of military force to get Saddam to move faster on satisfying the inspectors. He's clearly focused on using the U.N. as the go-between. He does say at one point, when it was clear to everyone that Bush was going to invade, that he thought that would be the next move if the inspections collapsed.

We used to be able to use the threat of our forces, in conjunction with the U.N. in a staged, incremental way that I don't believe would have led a President Richardson, for example, to preemptively and unilaterally invade and occupy Iraq as Bush did. And I don't think his attitude about diplomacy, sometimes backed by military force, is out of the mainstream attitudes which restrained presidents like Carter and Clinton, who also believed in 'muscular' diplomacy. It should be obvious to everyone, however, that Bill Richardson leans way over to the diplomacy side of that equation.

Also, this is a piecemeal attempt to make it look like Richardson was in the middle of some deliberative process where he could have influenced the debate and influenced Bush's push to war. He had absolutely NO access to intelligence and was as influenced by Bush's lies as many were. And despite that, he still took time to answer questions put to him in a way which emphasized the U.N. and the continuation of the diplomatic efforts which Bush had pledged to follow through on. He took a position which was designed to support those diplomatic efforts. If Bush had returned to the Security Council as he was directed in the IWR and 'exhausted all peaceful means' as the resolution directed, there would have been no invasion and occupation. Bush pushed past Richardson's advice (and others) and preemptively and unilaterally invaded and occupied Iraq.

There's a ream of comments from Richardson criticizing Bush AFTER he bucked the Congress, the American people, and the international community and preemptively invaded and occupied Iraq. Those are also relevant to this debate. Here's a few statements from Richardson:


"If I were President today, I would withdraw American troops by the end of this calendar year. I would have no residual force whatsoever.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/010152.php

"The Congress authorized this war several years ago," Richardson said at a campaign stop in Manchester yesterday. "The Congress should now de-authorize the war under the War Powers Act."

"I'm a diplomat," Richardson said in a brief interview. "If I'm president, I would personally handle this."
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/REPOSITORY/704050332

"We should get out lock, stock and barrel."
http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/20307


I agree that Dennis Kucinich was right on target throughout the Iraq debate, but he was a sitting Congressman, not someone outside of national government like Richardson who was responding to questions put to him in three minute TV interviews. I notice that you only included Will Marshall's words introducing Richardson. Slippery stuff.


here's Richardson from the DLC speech (rather mainstream, imo):


"We need to show Americans that we care and understand national defense. We need to propose a more effective approach to the terrorist threat that will secure the peace and protect America's children. We need to explain the importance of stronger diplomacy and strengthening our global position so we can build and rebuild the international alliances that we seem to have lost. We have to find ways to dismantle the terrorists and their secret networks around the world. And we have to remember that two Democratic presidents, Woodrow Wilson and FDR, led this country to victory in both the First and the Second World War. They did so because they were tough and strong, because they understood the importance of building strong alliances, finding common cause with our friends. They understood the importance of a strong military, and they understood the importance of even stronger diplomacy. They planned not just for war, but also for the peace and found common ground with our allies to win both.

We need to show the American people that there is a tough and multilateral possibility built on the solid foundation of NATO, of the United Nations, the alliances that have kept the peace for a generation. It's not just our function as Democrats to present such possibilities, it's our patriotic duty to do so, but also we say the United Nations needs to be revitalized. That it needs to have a stronger role in dealing with international terrorism, with AIDS, with tribal and ethnic conflicts like in Yugoslavia, like an environmental degradation. And we need to challenge it to be better, but not to ignore it. And NATO, the most successful alliance America has ever had; today in Iraq, absent. We should be proposing viable, multilateral policies to deal with the reconstruction of Iraq, but not just America -- that the burden should be shared.

We're a party of shared, progressive values and shared responsibilities, but also clear, sensible principles. We need to show the world that we have a party of sound principles and sound values.


Good stuff. None of which, if followed, I think, would have led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq to overthrow Saddam.

[wyldwolf]

22. well, as someone who was on the Richardson bandwagon early

His pre-invasion interview does leave one with the impression he was for the invasion if certain conditions were not met. But at the same time, that was the stance of the bulk of the Dems in the Senate who voted for the resolution.

To be fair, your quotes have been VERY recent - easy to state those things when the handwriting is on the wall in regards to this war.

I couldn't disagree more with your characterization of Will Marshall. After all, Richardson is a member of his organization. He did not deny anything Marshall said in that introduction, and even joked that Marshall read the introduction "just like I wrote it."

Not aimed specifically at you, but this tendency to rationalize away proven associations and positions once the left takes a shine to someone is getting silly. No member of the Senate made gung-ho statements about invading Iraq. Their words are just as nuanced on the topic as Richardson's.

[bigtree]

24. well, if you read my post, I said it's slippery to use Marshall's words

Richardson never said those. He's entitled to his own version which he clearly expressed in his speech which followed which put greater emphasis on diplomacy in the equation of using the threat of force in these type of deliberations.

Besides, all that we have are these interviews where he's asked one or two questions about a policy that he's completely removed from. I think the DLC speech is the only comprehensive record we have on his view and I think it's clear, concise, and reasonable. Nothing in that address would lead me to believe that he would have preemptively, unilaterally invaded and occupied Iraq as Bush did. That's the OP's point. I reject that notion based on Richardson's clear advocacy of diplomacy, both in his statements before Bush invaded, and in the actions he undertook during his public tenure.

[wyldwolf]

26. I can settle this question once and for all.

There's no question that Saddam Hussein has ties with many terrorist organizations. What is not, in my judgment, totally convincing, and I read Secretary Powell's statement very carefully, and I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, was the link with al Qaeda. Yes, there's -- they probably share joint wishes and joint relationships in the sense of being against the United States, but intelligence operational links that are serious, I'm just not yet convinced.

Now, that doesn't mean that that might not happen and that should not be a consideration.

My view is that it is critically important that the United States not let Saddam Hussein get away with this. Had I have been in the Congress I would have voted for the military resolution authorizing war. The question is, how do you do it, the question is when do you do it and with whom?

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/14/lkl.00.html

[bigtree]

28. nothing in that contradicts my points

unless you equate the intention of the IWR with what Bush ultimately did.

The question isn't the lazy rhetoric of asking who supported the IWR, the question is what Richardson expected Bush to do with the resolution. Nothing in his posture or statements indicates he supported ANYTHING Bush did before or after the resolution was passed. I believe that, if Bush had followed the provisions in the resolution mandating restraint he wouldn't have invaded.

Bush pushed past the resolution so, I don't think it's accurate to say that some of these folks who say they would have supported the IWR, by virtue of that support, would agree with what Bush ultimately did in unilaterally and preemptively invading before the restraining provisions were adhered to. Bush pushed past the resolution to go to 'war.' That, I think, Richardson has clearly said he opposed. That's more than relevant, after the fact, because Bush did NOT live up to the limiting provisions in the resolution which would have let the inspectors continue and would have resolved the question of WMDs which Bush used as his main justification to invade.

A VOTE FOR THE IWR WASN'T NECESSARILY A VOTE FOR 'WAR'

[wyldwolf]

30. Ok, so Clinton, Biden, Bayh, Edwards, Kerry, and the rest did not support the Iraq war.

[SOS]

32. There were no restraining provisions.

The IWR was a blank check for Bush to invade Iraq at his discretion.
---------------

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary

------------

Congress "supported" and "encouraged" Bush's non-existent "efforts" to enforce UNSC resolutions.
Not legally binding, therefore utterly meaningless.

Then in Section 3 they give Bush the power to use the US military "as he determines to be necessary".

Senator Byrd was right. It was a blank check.

[Czolgosz]

29. Where did I ever say Richardson "would have preemptively, unilaterally invaded and occupied Iraq"?

I don't believe that for one second.

On many occasions, I have said that I think Bill Richardson would make an excellent Secretary of State. I have also said that Richardson might bring a beneficial balance to the ticket as VP depending on who gets the nomination. Moreover, I have said that I will work for and support Richardson if he gets the nomination. If I believed for one second that Richardson "would have preemptively, unilaterally invaded and occupied Iraq" I could never support him for Secretary of State or VP and I might even have a hard time supporting the ticket if it was headed by someone who would have preemptively, unilaterally invaded and occupied Iraq.

My OP offers some indication of how Richardson might have voted on the Iraq War Resolution. Based on what I was reading, it seemed that he likely would have voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Moreover, it appears that those indications were an accurate predictor based on the fact that Richardson said "Had I have been in the Congress I would have voted for the military resolution authorizing war" on February 14, 2003. Source: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/14/lkl.00.html

The reason I offered some indication on how Richardson would have voted on the Iraq War Resolution is because some people apparently view that vote as a litmus test (I don't consider it a litmus test, but I like that Obama and Kucinich never supported the resolution).

[Norquist Nemesis]

23. At the time he made the first statement

Bush was still saying he'd go back to the UN. He didn't. He went ahead unilaterally.

At the time the second quotation, we were three months into the 'war'. It would be another five months before Hussein was captured.

These two things in the OP don't sway me one way or the other, and certainly not against Richardson even if I were a one issue voter.

[w4rma]

25. Richardson would have voted for it with gusto. Many Democrats thought that the IWR was the best way

to *stop* Bush from invading. Including Kerry who is about as anti-war (while still being realistic) as they come.

Go back and read Kerry's explanation of why he voted for the IWR for more details.

Btw, has Richardson finally denounced Gonzo yet? Before Gonzo appeared at the committee, Richardson was coming up with everything to try to keep Gonzo in power.

[Blue_In_AK]

27. Yes, he did. n/t