About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

Richardson's New Iraq Ad

As we reported yesterday, Bill Richardson is spending time and money this week to distinguish his Iraq strategy from Democratic frontrunners. Suggesting the media is dropping the ball on the differences between Democratic candidates, Richardson uses Democratic bloggers and activists to make his point in a new 30-second ad.

"Long Enough" starts airing in New Hampshire on Wednesday. It stars Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller of Openleft.com, and Christina Siun O'Connell of Firedoglake.com.

"Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all say they want to end the war in Iraq, but they support leaving thousands, even tens of thousands of troops behind. That doesn't make sense," Stoller says.

"If you leave troops behind, you're not ending the war," says O'Connell.

Chris Dodd reacted quickly Monday to the release of Richardson's video, saying Richardson does not want to withdraw "all" U.S. troops from Iraq, because he would keep Marines in Baghdad to protect the U.S. embassy.

The Dodd campaign cites a July interview with Salon.com during which Richardson said Marines should stay in Baghdad, "Because that's where our personnel is." The governor later stated during the interview "It's a Marine detachment. It's part of our diplomatic corps. I wouldn't even consider that a residual force. Of course I would permit that," suggesting that any force greater than a Marine detachment "means that the embassy is not safe. I would pull the embassy if it is not safe."

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  September 25, 2007; 1:36 PM ET Bill Richardson
Previous: Obama Match Game | Next: New McCain Ad: 'Live Free'


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Richardson/Dodd 2008.
Chris, please unite with him to win.

Posted by: JRChase | September 25, 2007 3:49 PM

People should take a longer look at Richardson. http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/about_bill?id=0007

Posted by: Ray | September 25, 2007 6:58 PM

So how many of you are even aware that the
Democrats Gov Bill Richardson wants to leave our borders wide open,grant all illegal aliens amnesty, and add even more
costly free benefits well beyond the present freebie Illegal Alien Healthcare,
Welfare and Food Stamps and Education and
that Half Mexican and Half Anerican Bill
Richardson plays the race card everywhere
he goes and panders endlessly to the Mexican and Hispanic voters, and would give
La Raz even more money then President Dry
Drunk George W Bush would as well? Or,that
phony Democrat Loser Bill Richardson has
never held a job in the private section in
his entire life? All Bill Richardson knows
how to do simply is brown-nose his way into
endless phony political hack patronage jobs. So please donot be dumb enough to buy
a word this two face snake in the grass
Bill Richardson says and never vote for him

Posted by: Carleen | September 25, 2007 8:15 PM

Only Richardson gets it on Iraq. He doesn't attempt as the other Dems are trying to have it both ways - bash Bush, call for an end to the war but then keep troops in Iraq for years to come, not actually bring the occupation to an end so as to appeal to the D.C. insiders that got us in the war to start with.

Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war. Our troops have become the targets in a civil war. The Iraqi government, in turn, is dependent on the U.S. for security that the Iraqis themselves should provide. Richardson notes: "The Iraqis won't take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good."

None of the other major Dem candidates have any foreign policy experience or the confidence in their own judgment to stand up to the military and political establishment and unambiguously call for a complete and prompt withdrawal from Iraq.

In the end if HRC is the nominee, what difference will there be between her and the Republican nominee on Iraq? Both will say we need to change course and bring the war to end - but "prudently and cautiously." The Democrats will lose the advantage they have on the most critical issue of the election. And America will lose because we will continue to be stuck in Iraq for years to come regardless of who wins.

Posted by: Stephen Cassidy | September 25, 2007 8:53 PM

Bill Richardson is right. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards support for keeping a large amount of troops in Iraq is not taking into account what the long term occupation of a Muslim country means. This is unbelievable after our experience in Iraq. When is this country going to learn that the middle east is too radical and violent for this country to rely on it for our energy needs. They don't believe in our form of democracy and don't have our values.

Posted by: steven G | September 25, 2007 10:51 PM

Losing candidate, Losing stratergy!! Anti-Americanism does not work. He should be striving to win.

Posted by: Juan, the Neo-Con | September 26, 2007 10:56 AM

Someone needs to do some research here. Chris Dodd is essentially America's number one ambassador to Latin America, having helped to end American support for the Contra's in Nicuragua, having helped to negotiate (binding and lasting) ends to the civil war in Nicuragua and Argentina, and as a leading voice in the Good Friday Peace Accords in Northern Ireland.

Bill Richardson is a joke. He knows nothing about foreign policy, having been ignorant of the fact that France has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, as our nations ambassador. As Secretary of Energy, he hired his girlfriend to a top secret job, and helped to leak SO MANY of our energy secrets to the Chinese. And not to mention his cease fires and treaties in Korea and Africa did not last a month, and were never binding.

Chris Dodd has served 27 years in the Senate, and 6 years in the House; he is the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; his father was a lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg tribunal for Nazi war criminals. So please don't say Richardson is the most experienced in foreign affairs!

Finally, let us not forget that Richardson's plans for "No Troop Left Behind" calls for leaving at least 5,000 marines in Baghdad indefinitely. This is a serious contradiction, and I'm glad our intelligent senior Senator from Connecticut is calling him out on this.

Posted by: Scam B | September 26, 2007 11:04 AM

Wow, to Carleen above, especially, who apparently has not read Richardson's immigration plan... He is awfully tough on immigration, and does NOT believe in amnesty. As a border governor he is the ONLY Democratic candidate who has had to deal with this issue in real life and was the first governor to call in the National Guard to cover the border with Mexico when Bush asked all of the border Governors to do so.

To other voters: Please be careful when reading "comments" from random citizens and take the time to check out the candidates' websites for their true stands on important issues such as immigration, as a lot of inaccurate info gets thrown about on this world wide web....

Posted by: DFinLA | September 29, 2007 1:42 AM

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! giwchdrlhgkn

Posted by: gtkoaxjcqx | November 23, 2007 5:53 AM

Another big drug maker, Pfizer, for example, was harshly criticized in 2001 for reporting that its painkiller Celebrex caused fewer ulcers than older drugs after six months of use. Pfizer’s study had originally been designed — but failed — to show that Celebrex caused fewer ulcers after a full year of use. Yesterday, Merck and Schering said they did not yet know the results of the trial. They said they were changing the endpoint only because they want to be able to analyze the data more quickly. A panel of outside scientists recommended the change last Friday, said Lee Davies, a spokesman for Schering. Mr. Davies declined to disclose the members of the panel. Dr. Howard Weintraub, the clinical director of the New York University center for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, said cardiologists were especially concerned about the trial’s results because Zetia works...

Posted by: gloycgcmmi | November 24, 2007 8:16 PM

Add UV radiation from the sun, and the magnitude of sorting out what is truly carcinogenic becomes evident. Aging is a major cause of cancer, associated not just with chemicals, but a normal process called telomere shortening. So, except for high exposure workers, it is completely unfounded to claim that there exists a chemically driven cancer epidemic. Accusing cancer researchers of choosing not to address prevention shows a lack of understanding of the biology of cancer. To infer that the interest in therapeutics derives from the fact that cancer treatment has somehow become an industry is to be misinformed. Despite ads suggesting that drug companies...

Posted by: suwmriargc | November 24, 2007 8:21 PM

For this is where candidates Wanda Adams and Lawrence Allen Jr. have their storefront campaign headquarters, 12 blocks apart. The area also is where both candidates have worked on some of Houston's grittier problems, earning their credentials as grass roots public servants. Cullen, its empty storefronts and busted sidewalks intertwined with signs of redevelopment and neighborhood pride, symbolizes a district full of need and promise. Adams, on leave as a coordinator of the city's Go Green Initiative for recycling and other environmental programs, has the support of the district's outgoing councilwoman, Ada Edwards. At least three other council members are in Adams' corner, along with former Mayor Lee...

Posted by: sgftfwqwaf | November 25, 2007 11:34 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company