Of all the Democratic candidates fror President, Bill Richardson seemed the most promising to me. And by promising, I mean he seemed the most realistic. But his "7 Point New Realism Plan for Iraq" is anything but realistic. It's sheer fantasy.

It not only calls for combat troops out of Iraq, but for all residual troops as well. Now, as much as I oppose Democratic plans to abandon Iraq to al Qaeda and Iranian puppets, at least most of those plans, as I understand them, have called for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq in a training capacity or to be "redeployed" to Kurdistan.

But Richardson is asking us to abandon our Iraqi allies altogether! It's the reverse Kennedy doctrine. You remember what Kennedy said, dont'cha Mr. Richardson?

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

The rest of Richardson's "plan" is also the worst type of fantasy. Convening conferences is how you solve Iraq's problems? Note to Mr. Richardson, one such conference has already been convened and one is immanent. Nary a problem solved.

Idiot.

Look, to say that there is no "military solution" to Iraq is to set up a straw man. No one has EVER suggested that Iraq could become reasonably stabilized through a "military solution". NO ONE. EVER.

But it is sheer fantasy--the antithises of 'realism'--to think that Iraq's problems can be solved without military involvement. Opening the door of diplomacy has never meant shutting the door on military action. These are not mutually exclusive choices.

What is maddening about Richardson's "new realism" is its utter hypocrisy. In point #7 Richardson calls for redeploying "some of our troops to stop the resurgence of the Taliban and to fight the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11", yet in point #3 says that having troops in Iraq provides al Qaeda with a propaganda tool.

So, he says we should fight the "Taliban" in Afghanistan--who he names as "the real terrorists who attacked [us] on 9-11", but not "al Qaeda" in Iraq?

Does that nitwit not understand that it was al Qaeda that attacked the U.S.? Does he not understand that our beef with the Taliban was that they were supporting al Qaeda, not that they actually attacked us?

Moreover, the saying that Iraq's problems can't be solved through military means but Afghanistan's can isn't just illogical, it is hypocritical.

And I must explain to my readers that, as a Christian, I consider calling somebody a hypocrite to be by far the worse thing you can call them.

Why is he not calling for a regional conference for Afghanistan? Why is he not calling for U.S. troops out of Afghanistan since the Taliban use our presence their for propaganda purposes? And, as someone who spends an awful lot of time watching Taliban and al Qaeda propaganda videos, I can assure you that our presence in Afghanistan is just as much an issue as our presence in Iraq.

The only people who really see a difference between the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Iraq are non-Muslims---namely, Europeans. The vast majority of Muslims see the U.S. "occupation" of Iraq about the same way they think of the "occupation" of Afghanistan. Just another brick in the Zionist-Crusader wall.

So, why support a "military solution" to Afghanistan but not one in Iraq? Seems to me the only difference is how popular the actions are. Iraq: not popular--"diplomatic solution". Afghanistan: popular--"military solution".

It's exactly as our founding fathers feared. Mobocracy in action.

Richardson, I used to admire you. Of all the former top officials in the Clinton Administration, you were the one I considered most likely to succeed. In fact, you were the only Democrat running for President that I thought worth the time to think about voting for. Not anymore.

Hat tip: Insty

Posted by: Rusty at 10:42 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 673 words, total size 4 kb.