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.
Edwards is wrong on Iraq today. Edwards leaves open the door to the U.S. intervention in Iraq for years to come. Edwards refuses to make any absolute pledge to leave Iraq. He first has to take office and any withdrawal will depend upon the circumstances.
When asked at the AARP debate in September in Iowa if he would bring home our troops by 2010, Edwards answer is "it's impossible to say." At the debate in New Hampshire a week later, Edwards response was he couldn't make a commitment in answer to the question of whether our troops would be out of Iraq by 2013.
With Edwards, his promise to bring our troops home is conditional. In contrast, with Richardson, it is absolute.
Edwards also puts forth another justification for the continued U.S. military intervention in Iraq: the "embassy argument." It is a red herring designed to create confusion and doubt in the minds of anti-war voters that want all of our troops out of Iraq and may be considering supporting Richardson.
Under Edwards' reasoning, the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. Richardson would withdraw in less than a year 159,000 of our 160,000 troops but somehow his plan is flawed. We can't support Richardson's because we have to have an embassy and with an embassy we have to continue our military intervention in Iraq.
What absurdity. Edwards wants it both ways - bash Bush for the war but keep sizeable forces in Iraq and not offer any guarantee of a withdrawal. That way Edwards doesn't offend the Washington D.C. political and military establishment by purportedly abandoning Iraq.
Richardson's view view on the embassy is that if we need thousands of troops to defend the embassy then our personnel are not safe and they are coming home and embassy will be closed: "residual forces -- 5,000 to guard an embassy -- that means that the embassy is not safe. I would pull the embassy if it is not safe."
Richardson understands the essential truth about the U.S. intervention in Iraq today: "Our troops in Iraq are now the biggest obstacle to political change."
This is where Clinton, Obama and Edwards fall gravely short on Iraq. They lack this fundamental insight. While they call for an end to the war in their stump speeches, when directly questioned each refuses to commit to bringing our troops home when they become President. They say our withdrawal depends upon the situation in Iraq when they become President. Moreover, they leave open the possibility our troops will remain in Iraq until 2013.
If Clinton, Obama and Edwards understood that our troops are unwittingly perpetuating the conflict, they would not keep our troops in Iraq one day longer than necessary for their safe withdrawal. Instead as noted by Helen Thomas they are not providing leadership on the most critical issue of this election, the path out of Iraq:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
