Oregon for Richardson

Gov. Sebelius for veep !

Jeff97005 — Fri, 09 May 2008 07:04:50 MDT

Also listed in: Barack Obama 08' Portland Group | Oregonians for Obama | Washington County Oregon

I didn't notice in yesterday's Oregonians for Obama recap the following info regarding Kathleen Sebelius

( but it is a bit tough to track 70 emails in a daily thread )

these additional points towards what makes her my first and top suggestion as Obama's selection for veep:

+ Not only is Sebelius the re-elected dem gov of Kansas, a red state, she was re-elected with an almost 5% larger margin in 06 than her margin in 02. ( Not as good as the 69% total that Richardson gained in 06, but still impressive. I still remain a Richardson partisan at heart.)

+ She was a lauded insurance commissioner in Kansas before winning the gov's job. Someone who could, I surmise, work for the people against the excess greed of big insurance folks and yet also know the big insurance business enough to work effectively.

+ Did you know that her father was Ohio gov John Gilligan? thus she has a strong opportunity to help pull women & Kansas & Ohio into the Obama fold, neutralizing much of the pro-hillary reservations to support barack.

+ Further, did you know that she has also been a Michigan vacationer since childhood, with a vacation place near Traverse City. thus women, Kansas, Ohio and Michigan might all be more likely in play with Sebelius on the ticket.

+ Do you remember when Sebelius publicly and effectively took GWBush to task over the problems facing states because W. and Rumsfeld had stripped the national guard units of equipment and manpower in their Iraq mis-adventure? States were and still are hampered to respond to natural disasters (like tornado relief in Kansas, flood and fire relief in Oregon, etc) because of the ideas that McCain still wants to continue. Sebelius would be, I predict, equally strong and effective on the stump in the fall campaign.

+ In November 2005 Time named Sebelius as one of the five best governors in America, praising her for eliminating a $1.1 billion debt she inherited, ferreting out waste in state government, and strongly supporting public education — all without raising taxes. Also praised was her bipartisan approach to governing, a useful trait in a state where Republicans have usually controlled the Legislature.

+ Her husband is a federal judge, possibly indicating an appreciation for the judiciary that would serve progressives and moderates well in the light of the conservative court packing that has been going on.

+ Her father in law was a 6 term Kansas republican congressman, thus adding another level of support to those current GOPers who are disgusted with the direction of their party and looking for reasons to support Obama. A list that includes Eisenhower and Nixon family members, to name a few, already.

I'm thinking Gov. Sebelius would be an excellent choice for Obama's veep.

And Gov. Richardson as Secretary of State or -- maybe to please Barbara Richardson -- a return to the job he loved as US Ambassador to the United Nations and an additonal role as a most senior advisor to the White House. Though why they'd want to leave the statehouse and the horses in New Mexico is certainly a question I'd think about more than twice.

Jeff Barton

Beaverton, Oregon 97005

who can't seal the deal ?

Jeff97005 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:50:24 MDT

Also listed in: Barack Obama 08' Portland Group | Oregonians for Obama | Washington County Oregon

At Blue Oregon yesterday there was a post (from Josh Kardon who is the chair of the Oregon Steering Committee for Hillary Clinton for President and also Senator Ron Wyden's chief-of-staff) and comments concerning the Hillary question: How come Obama can't seal the deal for the nomination?

http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/04/the-post-pennsy.html

I read it today in the weekly digest from Blue Oregon and immediately thought that it is Hillary, not Obama, who couldn't seal the deal from the get go. And, to give due credit, in the comments posted in reply to Kardon, Joel Dan Walls (see the post script below) did get that basic point out.

So, quickly, think back to a year ago when eight Dems were all vying for the 2008 nomination, wasn't Hillary the one who had it all going? Name recognition, experienced staff, the most money (including some of Rupert Murdoch's) and the sense of her inevitability? Remember "Hillary Clinton and the seven dwarfs" comments and snickers?

So, who couldn't seal the deal? I'm impressed by Obama more and more. And I was (and still am) a Richardson partisan. Hillary couldn't seal the deal when many of us thought/feared she had the nomination "bought and paid for" as we resolved to support our candidate for 2008 at our New Years Eve celebrations on 12/31/2007. Anyone who could beat the GOP candidate and start to reclaim the USA as a country concerned with its constitution, with its place in the community of nations, and with a healthy return to issues of peace, justice, equity, and fairly shared responsibilities and opportunities.

Obama rolled forward through 2007 and across the primary and caucus contests with energy, basic fair play, a call to new participation, and a sense of leadership that might well help this nation reclaim a thoughtful - more inclusive - better issue oriented - less corporatist government. Give him credit. My guy, Bill Richardson, and Edwards, Dodd, Biden and the rest couldn't compete with Obama in the competition to vie with the Clinton campaign. In contrast the Hillary campaign has talked less and less about issues and has used both overt and covert appeals to the politics of fear concerning war, race, religion and the newer paradigm.

No wonder none of those " seven dwarfs" have endorsed Hillary. And some of the leading seven have spoken up to endorse Obama. Hillary can't seal the deal, ever, while Obama will have the lead at the end of the primary season in delegates, in the popular vote (even including Florida, if you wish), in state contests won, and in dignity remaining.

I'm even becoming happier by the day that our primary in Oregon will matter in this race.

So, again, don't fall for the Hillary spin. "Sealing the deal" can take a while when one begins as a "dwarf" instead of as a "princess." But what any reasonable observer now sees in the Democratic Party's exercise of the democratic process is that Barack Obama is now the "giant" in the quest for the White House.

Give thanks that the "ogre" of the Bush / Cheney legacy, and the "troll - like" policies of John McCain, will not prevail. Unless, of course, the "princess" spoils everything by and in a fit of selfishness beyond anything ever seen before.

PS: here's Joel Dan Walls comment posted in reply to Josh Kardon, as referenced earlier: Wow, some amazingly pathetic spinmeistering going on here, Mr Kardon. Have you ever heard of a candidate named Hillary Clinton who told us all last fall, and going into the early primaries, how she was going to wrap things up on February 5? Geez Louise, it would appear that Sen. Clinton failed to "seal the deal" when she said she would. Maybe you need to write some sort of smart-ass commentary about that.Are you suffering from selective amnesia, or simply cranking out the spin "talking points" that just showed up on your fax machine?

compared to Wright, Penn (and thus Clinton) is Wrong

Jeff97005 — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:31:40 MDT

compared to Wright, Penn (and thus Clinton) is Wrong

By jeff97005 - Apr 8th, 2008 at 2:23 pm EDT

Also listed in: Barack Obama 08' Portland Group | Oregonians for Obama | Washington County Oregon

I'm a believer that Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity UCC did not cross the bounds of decency and basic patriotism when he --

one) amidst a life time of other sermons and proclamations that were right on track with a caring, faithful ministry to his congregation and their neighbors, and

two) in the context of his congregation that knew and expected him to be forceful and challenging about the issues at the intersection of life and faith, and

three) in the tradition of the United Church of Christ which expects and celebrates conversation and critical as well as supportive response to what is shared from a free and prophetic pulpit

-- made the remarks that caused such an uproar. As many who have watched the fuller video accounts of the sermons from which a few short seconds of sound bite were excerpted, I think the proclamation of good news, hope in the face of challenge, courage in the face of the powerful and encouragement towards increased responsibility and faithful action by his own congregation is in the best tradition of the preaching art.

The key, I submit, is that Rev. Wright was preaching to a congregation that had the power and the responsibility to call him as their pastor, to continue his call, or - if needed - to curtail his call. Barack Obama is a member of that church, and with thousands of other members had a less than 0.05 % voice and vote in the continuation or curtailing of Rev. Wright's tenure at Trinity UCC.

HOWEVER: Mark Penn was serving solely at the determination of Hillary Clinton as the top and highest paid staff member of her campaign. Clinton had and has 100% voice and vote to continue or to curtail Mark Penn's call to his position in her campaign.

Now we know that Penn (and his consulting firm) was serving the cause of Blackwater amidst the outcry over mercenary contractors run amok in Iraq, serving the cause of Countrywide amidst the outcry over the predatory lending practices and mortgage crisis, and serving the cause of Columbia amidst the specific outrage voiced by Clinton over the trade agreement proposal concerning the USA and Columbia. Penn was being paid significant and generous dollars by Clinton as he was also being paid by his other clients to contradict and limit the policies supposedly supported by Clinton. So, Hillary Clinton announces over the weekend that Penn is out. Good, she has that 100% voice and vote.

And yet, now we learn that Penn is not really out, but will continue to do paid work for Clinton and was publicly present on the daily campaign leadership call to the news media covering the campaign.

I want to ask "what the hell?" Instead, I ask "how in heaven's name does Rev. Wright and Trinity UCC get to be a huge issue to the Obama campaign while Mark Penn may not become a concern at all for those supporting Hillary Clinton?"

Barack Obama is right to engage in higher and deeper issues, with better and more solid integrity, and with a wider variety of Americans of every experience, perspective, and vision. I commend Obama for continuing - carefully and thoughtfully - his connection to and conversation towards better engagement with his church and his pastors. Especially as he was not and is not the lone voice and vote that can or should make such a decision.

Clinton keeps claiming to be Ready on Day One She's ready already to do anything, to pay anyone, to break any commitment, to toss any kitchen sink, as she seeks to become the Democratic Nominee for the Presidential Election of 2008? Mark Penn and Hillary Clinton are 100% wrong. Yet Clinton would leave a church if the pastor was controversial even as she won't really fire an employee who is actively taking money to work against her announced interests.

I am one ready on this day to believe and announce that Obama is the only candidate remaining who is ready to engage, involve and offer leadership to the country I still hope and pray we might someday become.

I'm pleased that the Gov. endorsed Sen. Obama today.

Jeff97005 — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:42:47 MDT

Gov. Richardson's endorsement speech in Portland, Oregon today of Sen. Barack Obama can be watched via the following web-site :

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBFVm

I had come already to endorse Obama myself, not because he was the best candidate - for my allegiance is still with Bill Richardson - but because Obama's campaign was cleaner, more respectful, and more engaging than was the other remaining campaign for the Democratic Party nomination.

Further, Obama's positions on Iraq, on environment and energy, on foreign policy, and on a host of other concerns seemed to be closer to Richardson's than were those of H.R. Clinton.

So, if you are still looking for a reason to support Obama, I hope my endorsement, and now Gov. Richardson's, will help you decide.

Obama, finally, answers Richardson's challenge

Jeff97005 — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:55:14 MST

To the Obama for President campaign:

from Jeff Barton, Beaverton, Oregon

Re: Obama finally responds to Richardson's challenge

Hello friends:

Today I made two campaign contributions. Both were made for the same reason. I have been a Bill Richardson supporter for the nomination since 2006. I have been troubled by the failure (at first) and then the hesitancy of the three leading democratic candidates to respond positively to Gov. Richardson commitment and challenge to remove all (or almost all) US military personnel from Iraq within months of taking office.

When Richardson dropped out of the race, I decided to sit on my hands for a while. Then, as the Clinton campaign continued to be troubled and troubling, I began to explore the policy position of Sen. Obama. I have been pleased to see the roll that he is on across the nation during recent weeks. But not until his Tuesday (2/19) speech in Texas following the Wisconsin primary, did I hear Obama clearly and strongly say that he would have US troops out of Iraq within a year of moving into the Oval Office.

So, today, I sent another contribution to the Richardson campaign. It continues to work towards retiring debt, but his wisdom, perspective and leadership impact is finally being understood by those who, like Sen. Obama, can win the nomination.

And, I have sent a contribution to the Obama campaign. While Sen. Clinton is now playing the same "fear card" that has been part of the Rove / Cheney / Bush playbook, Obama has (if belatedly) come to accept and adopt the challenge Gov. Richardson put forth when he began his campaign more than a year ago.

I'd love to see the victorious Obama campaign enlist Richardson for a leadership position such as Ambassador to the UN, or Secretary of State. Even as Richardson seems to be holding his endorsement in support of whichever candidate prevails, it would be wise and helpful for the Obama campaign to let it be known that Gov. Richardson is a valued and important leader on policy positions such as Iraq, Pakistan, Foreign Relations, Energy, the Environment, Education, and Latino / Latina concerns. A bit of coverage about a meeting with Gov. Richardson ( sorta like with the Edwards visit ) could go a long way in helping assure the wider progressive movement that the change and hope of an Obama administration will be actively seeking the counsel of those public servants who have refused to go negative in the 2008 campaign and who have experience and counsel that does need to be represented in the campaign for the general election. An Obama campaign contribution to help assist the debt retirement efforts of the Richardson campaign would also be an important act.

Sen. Obama will have my vote in the Oregon primary on May 20th. I will be urging my fellow Richardson supporters to support Obama as well.

I hope the race is settled before the Oregon primary, but if it is not, I will be working locally for Sen. Obama in this region. I am glad there is a clear choice that reflects more rather than less of the campaign and policy wisdom that Bill Richardson was promoting during the summer and fall of 2007. I am grateful to be able to lend my efforts to help make Barack Obama our next president.

the end of the Oregon Trail for Richardson supporters.

Jeff97005 — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:32:58 MST

Hello, Thank You, and Adios, Amigos.

I appreciate and give thanks to all the Oregonians (and others in the various Oregon for Richardson groups) who have given encouragement, support, time, consideration and money to the Richardson campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination for the US Presidency. No doubt you've heard the news that Bill Richardson has ended his campaign. Almost certainly you've received his withdrawal and thank you letter. I've attached it below my thoughts, just in case you didn't see it before.

(BTW, doesn't the letter make you want to support Gov. Richardson even more? We don't get enough of the combination of comprehensive policy and inclusive politics from the others who are running, IMHO.)

I am disappointed that Bill Richardson's campaign didn't get more traction and attention. I doubt that any one who can win can govern with the ability, the experience, and the energy that Bill Richardson would have offered. Still, I am pleased that any of the three leading Democratic contenders is heads and shoulders a better choice for America and the world than all of the Republicans currently in or now seeking the Oval Office. And I'm even smiling that Kucinich is still in the mix to be a welcomed gadfly for real progressive and pro-working class issues.

I have pretty much decided that I'm going to sit on my hands though the February and March primary season. I'll be interested in learning who you are going to support for the presidency, but now I'm more interested in the Oregon race to defeat Sen. Gordon Smith. We have strong and interesting choices to make in our May primary in Oregon concerning that US Senate race. And I encourage you to pay attention and get involved in the local and state races as well. We need Democrats in Salem just as much as we need them on Capitol Hill or in the White House in D.C.

But for now, let me say thanks to you who have gotten involved in your various ways in the Oregon for Richardson groups. And extra thanks to any of you who have read my blog posts or my emails to you.I'm proud to have supported Gov. Richardson.

I'm honored to have met Bill Richardson when he was in Portland last May. I continue to appreciate that his ideas and perspective will be part of any winning Democratic campaign in the summer and fall leading to the November elections. I suggest that he might still be a viable VP choice if John Edwards gets the nomination. And, if I was him, I wouldn't leave New Mexico and the Governors office for anything in D.C., anyway. But I know Bill and Barbara loved their stint at the UN as the US Ambassador, and that or Secretary of State might be a call that they'd answer to leave Santa Fe to serve to help re-establish our national reputation in the world. So there's my wild and un-informed musings. And maybe, my prayers too.

As I say good bye, and as I have no idea how long the Richardson for President web-site will continue, let me end by saying thanks to you all and especially to the Governor for giving me more than a full year of hope, promise and possibility. It was a great treat to support an individual who ran for President without giving up the values and concerns that made him worthy of the job in the first place.

For I admire Bill Richardson - even if the Gov. had a hard time learning to say Ory-gun instead of Or-ee-gone - who showed that a candidate can and should -

- run on policy ideas that will help all Americans,

- hold steady about his perspectives and values in spite of the pressure of the race,

- avoid negativity as a campaign tactic,

- admit his mistakes and humanity gladly and often, and

- enlist support that sees the big picture of not only winning the election but also governing for the national and international good.

Faithfully,

Jeff Barton

It is with great pride, understanding and acceptance that I am ending my campaign for President of the United States. It was my hope that all of you would first hear this news from me and not a news organization. But unfortunately, as with too many things in our world today, it's the ending of something that garners the most intense interest and speculation.

I knew from the beginning that this would be an uphill climb. When I entered the campaign, it was clear that we, as Democrats, had the most talented field of candidates in my lifetime running to change the direction of our country. And in the end, one of them will.

Despite overwhelming financial and political odds, I am proud of the campaign we waged and the influence we had on the issues that matter most to the future of this country.

A year ago, we were the only major campaign calling for the removal of all of our troops within a year's time from Iraq. We were the only campaign calling for a complete reform of education in this country, including the scrapping of No Child Left Behind. And we were the campaign with the most aggressive clean energy plan and the most ambitious standards for reducing global warming.

Now, all of the remaining candidates are coming to our point of view. I am confident that the next President of the United States will implement much of what we've been urging for the last twelve months, and our nation and world will be the better for it.

There are so many of you who gave so much to this campaign. For that, I will be forever grateful. Running for president has been, at times, humbling and at other times, exhilarating. I have grown and learned a great deal from the experience, and I am a better person for it.

Also, because of your close friendship and support throughout the ups and downs of what is a very grueling and demanding process, I have never felt alone.

Running for president brings out the best in everyone who graces the stage, and I have learned much from the other candidates running. They have all brought great talents and abilities to the campaign.

Senator Biden's passion and intellect are remarkable.

Senator Dodd is the epitome of selfless dedication to public service and the Democratic Party.

Senator Edwards is a singular voice for the most downtrodden and forgotten among us.

Senator Obama is a bright light of hope and optimism at a time of great national unease, yet he is also grounded in thoughtful wisdom beyond his years.

Senator Clinton's poise in the face of adversity is matched only by her lifetime of achievement and deep understanding of the challenges we face.

Representative Kucinich is a man of great decency and dedication who will faithfully soldier on no matter how great the odds.

And all of us in the Democratic Party owe Senator Mike Gravel our appreciation for his leadership during the national turmoil of Vietnam.

I am honored to have shared the stage with each of these Democrats. And I am enormously grateful to all of my supporters who chose to stand with me despite so many other candidates of accomplishment and potential.

Now that my time in this national campaign has come to an end, I would urge those who supported my candidacy to take a long and thoughtful look at the remaining Democrats. They are all strong contenders who each, in their own way, would bring desperately needed change to our country. All I ask is that you make your own independent choice with the same care and dedication to this country that you honored me with during this campaign. At this time, I will not endorse any candidate.

Now I am returning to a job that I love, serving a state that I cherish and doing the work of the people I was elected to serve. As I have always said, I am the luckiest man I know. I am married to my high school sweetheart. I live in a place called the Land of Enchantment. I have the best job in the world. And I just got to run for president of the United States.

It doesn't get any better than that.

With my deepest appreciation for all that you have done,

Bill

Governor Bill Richardson
The Governor's Mansion
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Paid for by Richardson for President, Inc.

Richardson on Pakistan, comment to Amy Goodman

Jeff97005 — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:47:19 MST

Amy Goodman got an op-ed into the Portland Oregonian on January 2nd. It concerned Pakistan and concluded:

While the Bush administration pushes for quick elections in Pakistan, it is important to raise these issues in our elections here at home. The assassination of Bhutto put foreign policy back on the front burner in the U.S. presidential race—though you would think that 2007 being the deadliest year yet in Iraq for U.S. soldiers (at least 900 dead) would have accomplished that. The candidates could use this as a “teachable moment” to talk about the wrongheaded long-term U.S. support—Republican and Democrat—for Pakistan’s corrupt, human-rights-abusing nuclear regime. Did any of the leading Democratic contenders use the moment to demonstrate that they represent a true opposition party? While they each tout themselves as true “change” agents, they have yet to prove it. We are waiting.

Thus I sent the following comments to Ms. Goodman via her (I think) initial posting at Truthdig.com and sent off a letter to the op-ed editor at the Oregonian as well.

In regards to Amy Goodman's op-ed piece concerning Musharraf in the 1/02/2008 Oregonian:

Ms. Goodman's op-ed concluded with regret that none of the candidates have spoken up for change in US policy with Pakistan. While she is waiting, I note that Gov. Bill Richardson had already spoken up to demand an end to US support of Pakistan's military regime and called for Musharraf to step down. Richardson has been ignored by the media, including Ms. Goodman, and his position has been belittled by other presidential contenders. Still, Richardson is correct again concerning Bush's troubling support for Musharraf and the change needed in Pakistan. Just as Richardson was first to speak up for complete US withdrawal from Iraq.

Richardson deserves more consideration; from Goodman and from the Oregonian.

Jeff Barton
Beaverton.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080101_musharraf_still_stands/

By jeff97005, January 2 at 10:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Yes, I know that space is limited, leaders are leading, and odds are long.

Still, how could you not note that Bill Richardson is the exception among the candidates on maintaining anti - democratic support for Musharraf since Ms. Bhutto’s assassination?

And why not note it, especially this week prior to Iowa and New Hampshire?

I appreciate your perspective often. Thus I’m disappointed this time. Thanks.

see my comment

Jeff97005 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:13:50 MST

just got a comment added to Marty Kaplan at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/i-know-whos-going-to-win_b_78776.html

go there to read Kaplan's post, or just continue reading to find my comment.

Marty,

I've got the same list of issues , and a concern that my vote in november be for someone who can govern, (as demonstrated by changing the environmental, economic and education direction in a purple/red state and getting re-elected by 69%)

so my answer is Bill Richardson. And when (or, I admit if) he survives Iowa and New Hampshire, he'll look even more interesting and viable when the "out of Iraq group" reconfigures from Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, etc to Gov. Richardson.

Its a viable new years resolution for me.

Why not for you?

Jeff

happy new year from Oregon for Richardson

Jeff97005 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:10:13 MST

Send Richardson some (more) money today.

I did.

dollars today will matter in Iowa and New Hampshire. dollars after NH may not matter. It is up to us. every contribution matters.

And stay tuned - Oregon for Richardson may well have a role in the washington state caucus scheduled for early february across the columbia river.

Have a Happy New Year.

Jeff

>
> Bill Richardson is still the best candidate and the only one who has demonstrated an ability to govern
>
> (doesn't anyone else believe that getting a 69% re-election total -- including 40% of republicans -- in a red/purple state like New Mexico show lots more promise than hillary who has only run in blue NY, or edwards who couldn't carry a single southern state for kerry, or obama who only ran against keyes in a state wide race)
>
> while also being best and first about getting us out of Iraq,
>
> first and only about stopping our billions to prop up musharaff in pakistan,
>
> best about the environment / energy / climate issues,
>
> prepared in congress, the UN, the cabinet, and as a western gov,
>
> who has implemented economic and education advances that are good models for the nation,
>
> and is smart enough to use the best ideas of others in the areas of universal health insurance
>
>
>
>
> PS:
> you got to check out this long blog post about economics and politics in general and obama / krugman in particular.
>
>
> http://www.correntewire.com/obama_stump_speech_strategy_of_conciliation_considered_harmful
>
>
> which i found via http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/ dated 12/29/07

December post for Oregon for Richardson

Jeff97005 — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:25:47 MST

Hello Oregon for Richardson Friends -

I'll be brief:

Give money, now, please, to the 2008 Richardson for President campaign.

Read Gov. Richardson's perspective on Iraq in the Huffington Post.

Thanks.

Jeff Barton
Oregon for Richardson 990

Ok, if you are still reading, I'll elaborate some more. And then below my thoughts, I have also copied the Bill Richardson essay from today's Huffington Post for you to read.

Money raised now will be doubled by a match challenge for Richardson for President supporters. Go to richardsonforpresident.com and you can learn the details and you can give.

I'm giving my (young) adult children a contribution to Gov. Richardson's campaign as a part of my holiday sharing with them. Maybe you, too, have friends or family who would like the same sort of gift because you care about the sort of better USA that we can re-discover and/or implement -- and that they will experience -- after January of 2009?

So, contributions made before January of 2008 -- and the early January Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary -- matter greatly.

Let's face it, Kucinich or Biden aren't going to be elected. Hillary seems to have missed the boat completely on getting us out of Iraq or keeping us out of Iran. Edwards and Obama don't have the experience to govern the nation that we need. Bill Richardson -- a successful and effective member of Congress, a respected and knowledgeable US Ambassador to the UN, a member of the Cabinet with energy expertise, and a progressive and creative Governor who gained bi-partisan support in New Mexico on the way to a 69% tally in his 2006 re-election race -- is both electable and has the ability to govern. Your support for Richardson now will make an important difference to give him top two or three results in Iowa and New Hampshire. And when (not if) that happens, the real race for the nomination will begin.

For us in Oregon, the primary in May might well be too late to matter. So, please, join me in giving to the 2008 Richardson for President effort, and do it now. Thanks.

And, before I paste in Gov. Richardson's wonderful reminder of what is being too often ignored concerning our US military presence in Iraq, let me share one more note. I have a nephew in the US Army who has already served two long tours in Iraq since 2003. On this past Sunday, Colin was called to report ready to begin his third tour. He has been back at Fort Carson for less time then he was away on his second tour. And he has been told to expect this tour to be in Iraq for at least 15 months. That means that if they are lucky, his unit will return to their families only after a new president is in office.

Bush/Cheney have already made plans for our troops to be in Iraq - at 10 billion dollars a month of un-budgeted and un-funded monies - for decades. H. Clinton, B. Obama and (even) J. Edwards do not intend to get all the US troops out of Iraq quickly. There will be no possibility of implementing progressive and needed concerns --

such as health care for all,

higher funding for our educational priorities,

sustainable energy / environmental / climate change policies, and

rebuilding fences with the international community that have been so wantonly destroyed by the current occupant

-- unless we get out of Iraq as completely and as quickly as possible after January of 2009. I'm not nearly as concerned about any issue as I am about Iraq. It is ruining our economy, our military, our international standing, and our ability to accomplish anything worthwhile domestically. Of the top four Democratic candidates for the White House, only Richardson understood last winter that we need to vacate Iraq and then help implement a regional / Arab / Islamic / UN force to keep the Middle East from being the lasting powder keg that the Bush/Cheney policies have created.

And only Bill Richardson , of those four, is making it the center piece of his campaign even in these vitally important weeks before the real race begins. Read more of the Governors perspective below.

Again, thanks for your attention. And thanks for your contributions via

richardsonforpresident.com

because they will matter to the country and to my children and to yours.

Have a blessed Christmas or/and very happy Holidays. And may the new year be filled with opportunities for hope and peace unlike that we have been troubled with during these past seven years.

Jeff Barton

Gov. Bill Richardson in today's Huffington Post

Iraq: The Elephant in the Room

Posted December 7, 2007 | 05:57 PM (EST)

Earlier this week, I was unable to attend NPR's Democratic forum in Iowa because I was attending a funeral. When I read the transcript, however, I was shocked that there was almost no real discussion of the single most important issue facing our county: Iraq.

No other single problem is as crippling to this country right now as the war in Iraq. Our ongoing troop presence is preventing a real Iraqi reconciliation. Maintaining 170,000 troops in Iraq not only stretches our military to the breaking point, it keeps us from having the troops available to deal with other emerging crises -- whether it is peace keeping or disaster response.

We are spending upwards of $10 billion dollars a month in Iraq.

It is folly to believe we can continue on this path and conduct the necessary overhauls to children's insurance, health care, and our schools. It will be almost impossible to deal with global warming and lead the world in a new energy revolution while weighed down by the financial and diplomatic costs of the on-going war in Iraq.

We can't let ending the war become the "forgotten issue" in this campaign, and we can't let it continue. The costs are just too high.

Unfortunately, my fellow candidates seem content with leaving the issue behind. Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards still mention ending the war - but will not unequivocally commit to getting all troops out quickly (and lets be clear - all troops includes non-combat troops, combat strike teams, or any other spin-variation of "troops" falling under our military command in Iraq).

And they will not commit to getting all of the troops out by 2013. 2013 is six more years of war. Six more years of having our hands tied economically and our foreign policy crippled by a war that should have been ended THIS year.

Six more years is too long to wait. Our new website www.2013istoolate.com lays it out clearly: waiting for 2013 is unacceptable - the cost is just too high.

We cannot let cynicism get the best of us - even though the Congressional leadership have not done what we elected them to do and ended this war. We cannot give up. And we cannot give in to misleading media and White House spin that trumpets "the surge is working."

It isn't. The conventional wisdom, that after just a few months of declining casualty rates, victory is around the corner is rosy-eyed nonsense. If you listen to Washington insiders, we've turned that corner again and again - so many times we may just be walking in circles.

Casualties have fallen three months in a row on nine previous occasions during the 5 years we've been in Iraq - nine times. Each time we've been fed the same lines: "Mission Accomplished," "Dead Ender," "Last Throes." On each of those nine occasions, however, casualties have risen back to newer more tragic levels.

I'm not sure who decided what number of American troop deaths is an "acceptable" cost to buy a declaration of "victory," but last month 37 American troops died. After nearly five years of war, the only "acceptable" number of deaths is zero.

I hope Senators Clinton, Edwards, and Obama have not forgotten what we all know: there is no military solution in Iraq, and as long as our troops are there we will have no political solution either. If they remembered this, they could not in good conscience duck a commitment to get our troops out by 2013.

2013 is too long to wait to do the ONE thing that will work in Iraq: getting all of our troops out quickly, leaving no residual troops behind.

Only one thing will bring long-term stability in Iraq: political progress. The stated purpose of the surge was to give Iraqi politicians the breathing room to take the necessary steps towards real reconciliation. That has not happened - and those on the ground know it. Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, last month flatly declared "There will be no reconciliation . . .this is a struggle about power," and Iraq's Vice President (and most important Sunni politician) recently echoed that with "there has been no significant progress in months."

Political progress is impossible as long as our troops are on the ground, making the status-quo possible for Iraqi politicians and leading Iraqi citizens to doubt whether we'll ever leave. There is no military solution to this problem, so our military should not be there.

In fact, the only real progress we've seen in Iraq in the recent months happened in Basra, where the removal of the British garrison has brought about a 90% decrease in violence. No occupying forces equaled less violence, and zero coalition casualties. This is the kind of change we need to see across Iraq to create the landscape for real political progress.

There is a clear answer -- to truly reduce violence and to force Iraqis to find their own political solution, we must begin immediately to withdraw all of our forces - all of them, without any residual troops left behind. There is no military solution in Iraq, and there will be no political solution while our military remains there.

Leaving troops in Iraq until 2013 is not an option - not if we want to end this war, not if we want to move forward and begin addressing problems here at home.

Ignoring this issue won't change those facts.

4 mid November Updates for Oregon for Richardson

Jeff97005 — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:29:31 MST

Hello Oregon for Richardson Friends,

FIRST - Becky Dougan did a fine job yesterday representing Governor Richardson at the Voter Connections forum in Portland. She was one of five surrogates for Democratic Presidential aspirants, and did a thorough and convincing job in the "debate." Thanks Becky!

SECOND - Money matters. 4th quarter money needs to be raised to help the Richardson for President campaign make it to Iowa, New Hampshire and on to Nevada and beyond. What you can give is important. Maybe you, like me, can give holiday cards with a note that a $50 or $100 contribution to the Richardson for President effort is your gift for your family or friends. Big donations are welcome, too. Go to the http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/ website to make your donations.

THIRD - Thanks to those who voted for Richardson in the KPOJ straw poll. A couple of you noted it was a waste of time. Others of us had lots of fun with it. Maybe it was like catch-and-release fishing; not to much to show for it, but a worthwhile endeavor for many. You have to feel good that Richardson lasted beyond Gravel, Dodd, Clinton and Edwards. And almost as long as Obama. Kucinich continues to overwhelm the KPOJ straw poll totals, and I even see that as good news for Richardson; as Dennis and Bill have the clearest "get out of Iraq plans" of the bunch.

FOURTH - I surmise you are on the Richardson mailing and emailing lists and that you have seen a bunch of the videos posted on http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/ website. Be sure to catch the video posted of the Governor speaking in Iowa at the Jefferson/Jackson Days fund raiser. I submit you'll be re-impressed with Bill Richardson's issue knowledge, world experience, political savvy, and leadership potential.

We not only need to elect a Democrat as president in 2008, we need to elect someone who can govern and build consensus for a better America and a safer world in 2009 and beyond. Here is where Richardson's resume and personal relationships will matter most. We need someone who can be re-elected by 69% (including 40% of the GOP vote) in 2012. Those are the numbers that Governor Richardson won re-election with in New Mexico, a previously reddish/purple state, in 2006.

Stay in touch.

Jeff Barton

jeff97005

Oregon for Richardson 990 group.

voting for Bill, its been fun, and surprisingly effective

Jeff97005 — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:02:52 MDT

Hello Richardson for President friends --

Gov. Bill Richardson has survived and advanced through the first four weeks of the KPOJ straw poll, while Gravel, Dodd, Hillary and then Edwards did not.

This week the challenge seems to be whether we can move Richardson past Biden. It was close last week. It'll likely be close this week, too. So, please, go and vote for Gov. Richardson as much as you can at:

http://www.620kpoj.com/pages/pages/straw_poll_demo.php

The cut off for each week is at 8 AM Pacific Time on Monday mornings. So voting late on Sunday and early on Monday matters.

This is a project that our campus friends, and youth of every and any age can help with. It doesn't take more money. It takes your time, your attention and your activity. Jump in and vote now. And then again every day vote as often as you can. It will matter. Your effort is needed. Thanks in advance for helping Bill Richardson survive and prevail in the kpoj straw poll.

Jeff Barton
Beaverton, Oregon 97005

four questions for the Oregon for Richardson groups

Jeff97005 — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:07:43 MDT

ONE:     Did you catch the USA Today piece http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-09-19-richardson-iraq_N.htm   on Gov. Richardson ? It's the sort of piece that your friends and neighbors might look at and worth sharing with them. I've sent it off to the not-yet-on-board members of my family.

TWO:     Do you agree with Bill Richardson that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH when it comes to the presidential candidates on both parties excuses to keep American troops in Iraq in large numbers for too long ?

THREE:   Don't you wish the media would spend more time on the issues, on real experience and on proven ability to govern than on the cadidates horserace and the pundits buzz?

FOUR:    Listen, there's less than two weeks more to make a contribution to the Bill Richardson for President campaign to be included in the 3rd quarter accounting. I suspect that you've been asked for money directly from the campaign. I've given something in each of the quarters this year, and am giving in a pattern that will double my gift each quarter. Maybe you, too, can give more this time than last quarter, and pledge to give double that between October and December?  But let me, as an Oregon for Richardson group member since 2006, urge you to give something -- or something more -- in the next ten days.

     In Oregon, with a late primary scheduled, the excitment isn't about the Democratic race for the Presidential nomination, I know. Prop 49, Prop 50 and the 2008 Senate race to unseat Gordon Smith will take up the energy here this fall. Still, we can make a difference in the national process if you crack open your plastic and make a gift to Bill Richardson via his web site www.richardsonforpresident.com

     Please join me in giving to the Campaign. Bill Richardson is the best guy on Iraq, the best guy for the west, and the best candidate for 2008.

Thanks for your consideration.

Thanks for your 3rd quarter gift to Bill Richardson for President.

Jeff Barton

Beaverton, Oregon 97005

It's a real war with real guns...and real Americans are dying

Bill Cherry — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:23:08 MDT

Not very long ago I read in the Oregonian that General Petraeus was in
charge when tens of thousands of guns were given to Iraqi forces and he ordered that it was not necessary to keep detailed records, so of course no one is quite sure where the guns went.

In more recent days I read how forces under General Petraeus were giving guns to Iraqi forces who were left out in the original distribution, as if it was an oversight that any group in Iraq should not be armed to the teeth.

Then last week I read in the Oregonian the testimony of General Petraeus before the House, then the Senate, followed by reports of the assassination of one of the sheiks befriended by General Petraeus in the most recent distribution of guns.

All of this was accompanied by the drumbeat of propaganda asking more time to do whatever it is that President Bush wants to do in Iraq, an undefined goal at best.

This raises a question in my mind: Why should we trust the judgment of General Petraeus? Or of President Bush?

I much prefer the judgment of Gov. Bill Richardson who says:
"Iraq is not a media battle, and it can't be won by photographs, White House 'progress reports,' or false proclamations of success. It's a real war, with real guns and real tanks and real explosives. And real Americans are dying.

"We got into this war based on lies, make-believe, and well-orchestrated dog-and-pony shows. It is time for the truth: WE MUST END THIS WAR NOW. And we can't end it until we start bringing all of our troops home."

pottery barn corollary

Jeff97005 — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:41:16 MDT

Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:02 PM

To: letters@news.oregonian.com

Subject: Corollary to the Pottery Barn Rule

To the Oregonian Editoral Page Letters Editor:

General Petraeus proposes leaving residual troops in Iraq at the same 130,000 number that were there when he took command to begin the surge. And President Bush salutes in agreement.

I salute Gov. Bill Richardson, who has for months proposed a diplomatic offensive employing a regional, multi-national, Islamic peacekeeping force. This solution will require our complete exit from Iraq. No residual American troops are to be left in Iraq to be the targets of and excuse for sectarian militia and insurgent violence. Yet Clinton, Obama and Edwards all propose residual US troops to stay in large numbers for extended tours.

Many refer to the 'pottery barn rule.' Even though we broke the vase and bought it, we need not stay in the store until every teapot is broken, too. Nor do we need to bleed to death from the ceramic shards we have created as an occupying force.

Jeff Barton

Beaverton

Our perilous path to the future

Bill Cherry — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:32:18 MDT

Juan Cole is a professor of Middle East studies and often analyzes problems there in an way that even I can understand. This analysis from his website (www.juancole.com)provokes thoughts and shows me again that of the candidates for President only Bill Richardson might be able to guide our nation out of the wilderness.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Can Gen. Petraeus and Ryan Crocker Save the Next Democratic President?

Despite what the pundits will say, I fear the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on the Hill Monday and Tuesday is not a turning point, does not give Bush breathing room, and is largely irrelevant.

To any extent that what they do in Iraq ends up making a real positive difference, Petraeus and Crocker will likely be doing the Democrats a big favor, not Bush, who won't be in office much longer.

The central question is whether the Democrats can force a significant reduction of troops from Iraq on Bush's watch, so as to avoid Iraq becoming exclusively their headache when they (as is likely) take over the White House in January of 2009. If they could, this drawdown would be the best option. Certainly, that is what a majority of Iraqis thinks, according to the new BBC/ABC poll.

But the answer is: No. The Democrats cannot get the troops out of Iraq because they cannot overturn a Bush veto in the House of Representatives, and because they cannot overcome the need for a consensus of 60 senators in the Senate. Some Democrats, such as Joe Lieberman, oppose a rapid withdrawal. And the likelihood that 11 Republican senators will suddenly become withdrawalniks between now and November, 2008, is negligible.

The testimony of Petraeus and Crocker may marginally reinforce the will of the Republicans to stay the course, but I do not think it is decisive. In all likelihood, the Republican senators would have continued to block their Democratic colleagues from doing anything really dramatic, anyway.

If the Democrats cannot prevail in withdrawing before Bush goes out of office (and they cannot), and if they then rapidly draw down the troops on taking office in 2009, they face the real prospect of a "Gerald Ford meltdown" of the sort that occurred in 1975 when the North Vietnamese and their VC allies took over South Vietnam.

You will note that Ford only served a couple of years as president and lost his election bid to a relative unknown named Jimmy Carter. Although economic stagflation and the stain of Watergate contributed to his defeat, I think the spectacle of the debacle in Indochina harmed Ford a great deal. The United States lost a war, and lost out to its ideological rival in an entire subcontinent of Asia in the midst of the Cold War. That would cause at least some Republicans to stay home in 1976, a sure way for Democrats to win an election.

Could 2010 look for Iraq like 1975 looked in Vietnam? Yes. I just do not see evidence that either the new Iraqi political class or the Iraqi security forces are likely to have the maturity to avoid a conflagration when the US military withdraws.

There are three major wars going on in Iraq: 1) for control of oil-rich Basra, among Shiite militias and tribes; 2) for control of Baghdad and its hinterlands between Sunni Arabs and Shiites; and 3) for control of oil-rich Kirkuk in the north, between Kurds on the one side and Arabs and Turkmen on the other.

Gen. Petraeus believes that the Sunni-Shiite struggle for Baghdad is the central struggle, and that if it cannot be calmed down, nothing can be accomplished. His main energies have been put into reducing violence in Baghdad itself, in which he has succeeded to a limited extent (i.e. getting violence back down to summer, 2006, levels instead of astronomical January 2007 levels).

The successes in Baghdad are ambiguous, not clear-cut. The year 2006 was particularly bloody, so getting to that level is not satisfactory. The reduction in statistics on sectarian violence has not prevented hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs from being ethnically cleansed (mainly displaced) from Baghdad, turning it from a city that was 65 percent Shiite into one that is 75 percent Shiite and rising. The Sunni Arabs of al-Anbar, whether they hate "al-Qaeda" or not, say in interviews that they support the withdrawal of the Sunni Arab Iraqi Accord Front from the al-Maliki government, precisely on the grounds that al-Maliki is entangled with the Shiite militias that are displacing the Sunni Arabs from Baghdad.

Further, Gen. Petraeus has frankly admitted that whatever successes he has had in Baghdad militarily (and he has had some there) have not yet translated into solid political gains in Sunni-Shiite reconciliation. He continues to entertain hopes that they will be so translated, but all he can proffer us in this regard is exactly that, hopes.

Petraeus's perspective ignores the over-all rise in civilian deaths in 2007 compared to 2006, and pays no attention to Shiite-Shiite violence in Basra and Karbala. He also codes the Arab attack on Yazidi Kurds as an "al-Qaeda" act of violence. In fact, it was part of an ethnic struggle for control of land and oil in the Iraqi north that is just as destabilizing, potentially, as is the battle for Baghdad. He points to Iraqi security forces policing provinces such as Muthanna and Nasiriya in the Shiite south. It has to be acknowledged, however, that those provincial security forces are dominated by the Badr Corps militia of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, which was trained and may still be being partially funded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. And they are in an ongoing struggle with the Mahdi Army militia, also Shiite but more Iraqi nativist.

My own expectation is that unless Iraqi politicians become far more canny and powerful during the next two years, then when the American forces withdraw, the ethnic and sectarian militias will fight the three wars (Basra, Baghdad, Kirkuk) to a conclusion. It will likely be a bloody war similar to that in Afghanistan in the 1990s. With the Americans not around, it is possible that large militia forces will fight set piece battles.

There is also a danger of the neighbors being drawn into a big proxy fight in Iraq (including the Saudis, the Iranians, the Jordanians, the Syrians and the Turks).

Neither outcome is inevitable. If al-Maliki learns how to cultivate the Sunni Arabs as well as Petraeus has been (and if the Sunni Arabs will accept it from al-Maliki, which is not assured), then he might be able to draw them into his orbit just as King Feisal did in the 1920s. Al-Maliki's government is said to have $10 bn. in oil revenue that it refuses to spend; that could buy some loyalty.

Likewise, the US, the Europeans and the Arab League could work hard diplomatically to avoid a proxy war among the neighbors, and it might be avoided. I am heartened that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and President Mahmud Ahmadinejad of Iran seem intent on continuing to dialogue, and to avoid tensions reaching a fever picth between the two countries. If the US had any sense, it would be warmly encouraging this diplomacy, not trying to get the Arabs and Israelis to gang up on Iran.

But in all likelihood, when the Democratic president pulls US troops out in summer of 2009, all hell is going to break loose. The consequences may include even higher petroleum prices than we have seen recently, which at some point could bring back stagflation or very high rates of inflation.

In other words, the Democratic president risks being Fordized when s/he withdraws from Iraq, by the aftermath. A one-term president associated with humiliation abroad and high inflation at home? Maybe I should say, Carterized. The Republican Party could come back strong in 2012 and then dominate politics for decades, if that happened.

It is all so unfair, of course, since Bush started and prosecuted this disaster in Iraq, and Bush is refusing to accept responsibility for the failure, pushing it off onto his successor.

But life is unfair.

So what can the Dems do to avoid being made the fall guy this way?

They could try to legislate stronger US diplomacy aiming at ensuring peace between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran even if there is sectarian violence on a greater scale in Iraq. They could resist the temptation to demonize Iran or to push it onto a war footing with threats or even bombings.

As for Iraq itself, the best hope for the Dems may be that Gen. Petraeus actually succeeds, over the next year, in significantly reducing ethnic tensions. It is a slim reed to hold onto, as they recognize.

But from the moment Bush went into Iraq, Americans were screwed. And that includes the Democratic Party, which is being set up to take the fall.

I'm a severe skeptic on the likelihood of anything that looks like success in Iraq. But I don't think career public servants such as Ryan Crocker and David Petraeus are acting as partisan Republicans in their Iraq efforts. I think they both are sincere, experienced men attempting to retrieve what they can for America from Bush's catastrophe. They may as well try, since the Democrats can't over-rule Bush and get the troops out, anyway. If the troops are there, they may as well at least be deployed intelligently, which is what Gen. Petraeus is doing. I wish them well in their Herculean labors. Because if they fail, I have a sinking feeling that we are all going down with them, including the next Democratic president. And their success is a long shot.

Labels: Iraq

posted by Juan Cole @ 9/11/2007 06:31:00 AM 14 comments

Richardson lays it on the line

Bill Cherry — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:27:39 MDT

Saturday's Washington Post (9-8-07) carries an article by Gov. Bill Richardson in which he explains how the Iraq war can be solved. It will help us understand clearly his position so that we can explain it to our friends. Here it is:

Why We Should Exit Iraq Now

By Bill Richardson
Saturday, September 8, 2007; A15

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly.

In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years -- a tragic mistake.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be "irresponsible." On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal -- not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process -- would be the most responsible and effective course of action.

Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the Middle East. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders, including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.

Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage and professionalism, but they cannot win someone else's civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.

The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq.

Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route out through Turkey.

As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq's neighbors will face the reality that if they don't help with stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq's collapse -- including even greater refugee flows over their borders and possible war.

The United States can facilitate Iraqi reconciliation and regional cooperation by holding a conference similar to that which brought peace to Bosnia. We will need regional security negotiations among all of Iraq's neighbors and discussions of donations from wealthy nations -- including oil-rich Muslim countries -- to help rebuild Iraq. None of this can happen until we remove the biggest obstacle to diplomacy: the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.

My plan is realistic because:

? It is less risky. Leaving forces behind leaves them vulnerable. Would we need another surge to protect them?

? It gets our troops out of the quagmire and strengthens us for our real challenges. It is foolish to think that 20,000 to 75,000 troops could bring peace to Iraq when 160,000 have not. We need to get our troops out of the crossfire in Iraq so that we can defeat the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11.

? By hastening the peace process, the likelihood of prolonged bloodshed is reduced. President Richard Nixon withdrew U.S. forces slowly from Vietnam -- with disastrous consequences. Over the seven years it took to get our troops out, 21,000 more Americans and perhaps a million Vietnamese, most of them civilians, died. All this death and destruction accomplished nothing -- the communists took over as soon as we left.

My position has been clear since I entered this race: Remove all the troops and launch energetic diplomatic efforts in Iraq and internationally to bring stability. If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.

Let's stop pretending that all Democratic plans are similar. The American people deserve precise answers from anyone who would be commander in chief. How many troops would you leave in Iraq? For how long? To do what, exactly? And the media should be asking these questions of the candidates, rather than allowing them to continue saying, "We are against the war . . . but please don't read the small print."

Let Richardson Erase the Confusion of Numbers

Bill Cherry — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:25:24 MDT

An article in Thursday's Washington Post (9-6-07) laid out many variations in numbers indicating violence in Iraq and tried to show why that happens. The article quoted the Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker, as telling Congress on Tuesday, "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree."

The article said military sources in Baghdad say the report of the General Accountability Office is not accurate because the GAO report used the counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The pessimistic conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) reflected the same conclusions, the article said.

One intelligence official said the analysts preparing the NIE were puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian. If it went thought the front, it's criminal," he said.

The article said that the military has ceased counting Shiite on Shiite attacks in the Basra area in their tally of attacks. "Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances, we do not track this data to any significant degree," a military spokesman in Baghdad was quoted as saying.

Attacks by Sunni tribesmen who have been recruited to battle their fellow Iraqis who bear the al-Queda label are also excluded from the U.S. military's calculation of violence levels.

The Iraq Study Group in its December 2006 report said that there is "significant underreporting of violence" and noted that "a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack." The report indicated that if the source of a sectarian attack can't be determined, "the assault does not make it into the data base."

After reading the article three times, I'm glad I was able to remember the adage saying figures don't lie, but sometimes liars figure.

It seems to me that Bill Richardson has the right plan, pull out the troops and send in diplomacy as soon as possible.

(Read the article for yourself. It is entitled "Experts Doubt Drop In Violence in Iraq" at http://www.washingtonpost.com)

thoughts in reply to "shosido"

Jeff97005 — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:20:40 MDT

First, let me thank "shosido" for his opinion circulated to the Oregon for Richardson 990 group. I've kept it on this post, copied below. One of the very great things I love about our nation is that a wide variety of perspectives and philosophies are all welcome at the table under the big tent of democracy. Or at least they were until the last administration.

Second, I believe Gov. Bill Richardson's position on Iraq is much more nuanced and effective than "shosido" does. And I think Richardson's position is also the best and maybe the only way to acheive what shosido and I both desire: a citizenry in Iraq that is safe on its streets from jihadists and gangsters.

Of course you should check out from www.RichardsonforPresident.com the details of his Get Out of Iraq proposal. But let me remind everyone that the reason we need to get all the US troops out of Iraq is because of the untenable position that the cheney/bush/rumsfield/bremer policies have placed our troops in the midst of. Our troops need to be withdrawn to positions outside of the current Iraq boundaries so that they are not targets and excuses for the various combinations of combat militias and insurgencies to keep killing Iraqi citizens.

Richardson's diplomatic proposal insists on a multi national regional (and Islamic) peace-keeping force to patrol the Iraqi streets, and a clear commitment to help the regional forces work to rebuild the basic services in Iraq that the US invasion and occupation has destroyed and not repaired. Richardson want to keep US response troops over the horizon - able to come -- at the request of and to the aid of the regional Islamic peace-keepers, because we do have the obligation to help "clean up" the home of the peoples since we broke it. But keeping tens and tens and more thousands of US troops stationed in Iraq to protect -- not the Iraqi's but -- the corporations, mercenaries and military bases we have placed in Iraq makes no sense at all. A pottery barn corollary might well be that just because you broke and bought the vase, there's no need to stay in the store and keep breaking all the teapots, too.

And, if "shosido" is right about the jihadists being foreign -- non-Iraqi -- then why not free up some troops to return to Afghanistan and deal with the followers of Osama Bin Laden who fund, recruit, train and dispatch most of these jihadists. Iraq was a mis-guided mis-adventure from the get go. You don't have to believe me. Believe Pat Tillman. Believe Colin Powell, now that he is out of the cheney/bush state department. Believe Bill Richardson, who got to know and was respected by the middle east national leaders from his time as the UN Ambassador and as the US Energy Secretary.

Third, If you haven't already, sign the petition available at

http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/content/deauthorizenow/

and share it with others who will sign it as well. Brian Baird and "shosido" may well have the best of intents. But the road to hell is paved with good intents. And the road out of this Iraqi hell needs to be built with the combination of expertise and understanding that only Bill Richardson is able to offer as a candidate for president.

If you read this far, I thank you all for your courtesy and your committment to push for a sustainable peace for the Middle East against the half way and half baked ideas of Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. And against the no way and no idea baying of the GOP candidates.

Cheers, Jeff Barton

PS: Patraeus isn't a straight shooter, by the way. His reports and projections from his service in Iraq in 2004 have all been shown to be pretty bogus. He wrote a highly suspect op-ed piece in favor of Bush just before the 2004 election. And his policies during this so called surge contradict his own anti-insurgency plans published before he took the extra stars and the job that Bush gave him in 2006. And even if he does shoot straight with congress next week, the so called Patraeus Report is being written not by Gen. Patraeus, but by the White House.

From: shoshido Reply-To: OregonforRichardson990@groups.richardsonforpresident.com

To: Oregon for Richardson

Subject: [OregonforRichardson990] disappointed with "Get out, get out, get out!"

Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:33:40 -0400

I've contributed to the Richardson campaign since March, but I'm very disappointed with his "Get out, get out, get out!" statement on Iraq. I'm with Brian Baird on this one: I was against going into Iraq, but now that Rumsfeld is gone, Gen. Patraeus is finally having some success in helping Iraqis retake their streets from the foreign jihadis and local gangsters. Colin Powell was right: we broke it, we bought it. Now we owe it to the people of Iraq to clean up the mess we made, and we owe it to the government of Jordan to make things liveable enough that the Iraqi refugees they're hosting feel safe going home. "Get out, get out, get out!" might make the left wing of our party feel good, but it won't fly with the rest of the country in a general election. We made a mess, and when grown-ups make a mess, we understand it's our job to clean it up. Thank you for the opportunity to share my views. I understand some may not agree, but this is where I stand.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to 21 members of Oregon for Richardson This email was sent from shoshido shoshido@comcast.net

check out the article (and my post to) http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/58063/

Jeff97005 — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:15:33 MDT

Doublespeak from the Front Runners
Growing Interest in Richardson
Posted at http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/58063/
Posted by: jeff97005 on Jul 27, 2007 3:53 PM

Ira Chernus writes : "On Iraq, candidates Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson ... tell anyone and everyone that they want "all" U.S. troops out of Iraq, but they register only 1-4% in the polls and are generally ignored in the media.

I beg to differ loudly! There is growing and significant interest in Richardson

Go to www.richardsonforpresident.com and check out why Gov. Bill Richardson is into the double digits in the most recent polling in New Hampshire and Iowa.

There is a reason for the movement forward in IA and NH where the citizenry is getting face time and advertising exposure to Richardson. The more you spend time getting to know about Richardson's resume and accomplishments, the more the idea of this effective leader and genuine personality makes sense for 2008. There is reason for a grass roots campaign in every state that doesn't have to be against the front-runners to be for Gov. Richardson and the best plan for getting the Middle East a non-fighting chance without US troops trapped in Iraq.

Richardson understands the diplomatic realities more deeply than the front runners, and he has a vision for governing that builds from his experience in international relations, energy policy, and congressional realities. He knows the lies of the current administration (and the double speak of the frontrunners) on Iraq is dangerous for our troops, our nation and the world.

If the media isn't giving you a fair shot, remember the folks in NH and IA are. Richardson is raising enough money to stay the course. And with 6 months to go before the early Iowa and New Hampshire contests, even the media will find out more about his campaign as they listen and learn from the people who will decide instead of the reporters and pundits they already know.

And remember, after NH and IA, the next batch of contests include big states with significant anti-war and pro-hispanic voters. Don't discount the one candidate who can make an Iraq with no residual US forces actually happen.