Letters to the Editor
-
A New Mexico woman
Women can take care of themselves...we need someone who can help the US relate to the international community better, and I think Bill can.
I support Bill Richardson. He's been a wonderful governor for NM, and he'd make a great president.
-
Whose class warfare are we talking about here?
I'm surprised this class warfare stuff has stuck; Republicans accusing Democrats of declaring class warfare against the rich. It's another framing coup. Don't get me wrong - we are now even glandularly devoted to thorough-going rigorous though non-violent class warfare against the rich, in the name of Government of the People, et cetera. But it didn't start that way. It started with us noticing that, through the auspices of George W. Bush and the Young Republicans, the rich were surreptitiously doing very effective clean-sweep class warfare against all of us who were not rich. And when we said, "Hey, bitch, I see what you're doing!", WE get accused of class warfare.
As one who's mind periodically goes to mush, I can appreciate the honesty of any candidate willing to make that admission. But it is best to accurately see the slope of the playing field most of us are in or near the far end zone of, with old Voldmort behind the curtain (not the Wizard of Oz) rigging it.
Best -
(More, for free: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston")
-
Left/Right smear machines? How does that work?
ALL the viable candidates are Right Wing Authoritarian according to politicalcompass
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007
I can't figure out if we have a one party system with 2 right wings or a 2 party system with only one right wing. Either way, it's disgusting.
-
Great Candidate who Deserves the Attention
It's frustrating how much of the campaign coverage at this point is focused one "other shoe" issues. What if the other shoe drops? Does she/he have enough money? What will the Swift Boat Veterans say?
Even Shapiro's article was light on Richardson's substance and heavy on his "other shoe" electability--apparently Shapiro thinks Richardson could pull it off.
Richardson's candor is inconvenient, perhaps, but he comes from a Latino culture that values genuineness highly and tends to laugh off gaffs easily. But his accomplishments as a diplomat and administrator should reveal far more about his ability to lead than regretable ruminations on Alberto Gonzales or Salon writers. Don't they? I mean, don't they?
If we're going to talk about ADD in this forum, we need to talk about the Media. George W. Bush ate their lunch in two elections: he stayed on message (despite ample evidence to the contrary), refused to admit mistakes, and made the approbation of a cadre of extremists seem like a national mandate. In 1999 there were three months of questioning about his drug use (far from candor, he refused to answer the questions), then the media basically said, "he passed the test," and went to sleep. His drunk-driving citation wasn't even discovered until a week before the Election.
I think Richardson is a great candidate. He belongs in the Top Tier, other shoe or not.
-
On Iraq, Bill Richardson was wise, urging patience & diplomacy
In the introduction to the interview, Walter Shapiro says Richardson initially supported the Iraq War. This is inaccurate.
Once the war began Richardson, of course, wished the best for our troops. But prior to the invasion, Richardson criticized the Bush Administration's rush to war. Unlike Edwards and Clinton, Richardson advocated that the U.S. explore all diplomatic approaches including returning to the U.N. Security Council for approval of any invasion.
In an interview on CNN on March 11, 2003, eight days before the invasion, Richardson urged patience and diplomacy, and accurately predicted that a unilateral U.S. invasion would undermine the U.N. and hurt the prestige of the U.S:
CROWLEY: I want to ask you the question, first, if there is no Security Council resolution approving of a war on Iraq, and if the Bush administration should go ahead, who loses in that scenario?
RICHARDSON: Well, I think the United Nations loses because it shows a lack of relevance to this crisis.
And, secondly, I think, Candy, that the United States loses because we're going into a major conflict without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, without some of our major allies like France and Russia, and also those 10 other members of the Security Council, the 10 non-permanent members that have a voice right now.
So I think it would come at considerable cost especially if we're to win the war, which we would, issues relating to a post-Iraq configuration to the prestige of the United States worldwide to bring some kind of order to the Middle East and bring some kind of Persian Gulf-lessening attention. So, I think everybody would be a victim. The United Nations, the United States and, certainly, our NATO allies. I think would be hurt, too, because if they don't support us the breakdown of the NATO alliance might be next to go.
CROWLEY: Well, I want to cite a couple of figures for you. One of them just came from a CBS/New York Times poll, which showed that right now only about 34 percent of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a good job handling this situation.
Fifty eight percent think it's doing a poor job. On top of that, we also found that 55 percent would support an invasion, even if the Security Council says don't do it. What does that say about how Americans view the U.N., and has that changed since you were the ambassador?
RICHARDSON: Well, the United States as a populous, here in new Mexico, there's not much support for the United Nations. But at the same time, Candy, what everyone should understand is the United Nations does a lot of things that we, the U.S. as the only superpower, don't want to do.
They get involved in conflicts in Kosovo, in the Congo in Africa, in Guatemala and Latin America. Immigration issues, AIDS, refugees. We don't want to get directly involved in these, but we use the arm of international support, legitimacy of the United Nations to do it.
Now, in the Persian Gulf, conveniently, the U.N. supported our efforts in 1991 to get a broad coalition. And I think we've used the U.N. in the war on terrorism to get international support.
But clearly in this Iraq crisis, the U.N. has to step up and simply enforce its [1441] resolution. And it's not doing that. So, it's going to be a big loss for the U.N. in terms of its peacekeeping relevance, unless it really steps up and gets tough on Saddam Hussein. I think that's the issue.
CROWLEY: So, am I right, am I hearing you correctly that you believe that the U.N. Security Council should pass the resolution that Britain and the U.S. are proposing?
RICHARDSON: Well, I would go a little differently, Candy. I think the U.S. and Britain should compromise. That's the essence of diplomacy. To get nine votes, if it means postponing for 30 days, or 15 days or 10 days, a new resolution with benchmarks on Iraq's behavior, let's do it. I think that France and Russia are basically gone.
They are going to veto. But it would be a partial victory if we get nine votes for a victory of a majority in the Security Council. If we don't do that, I think it's going to be tremendous prestige loss overseas. I think, domestically, it's going to cause more problems for the administration. The Congress will be divided. This is a time when it's frustrating, but what's the rush, really. Iraq is not heading down Baghdad into the United States.
Again, it is a threat, but it's not an immediate threat. It's not something that is like the war on terrorism, where we're under alert from a potential terrorist attack in this country. So let's be judicious. Let's be calm. Let's be patient.