My family and I enjoyed watching BOTH the Republican and Democratic TV debates Saturday night on ABC. Charlie Gibson was a fantastic moderator and was tough on both parties. He looked like and acted like an adult and conducted the debate in a professional and mature manner. (Yes, Anderson Cooper… he made you look like a fool.)
However, what keeps gnawing at me today is how terrible Bill Richardson is. According to the crazy world that is in his mind… here are the following facts (according to him) that he laid out in Saturday’s debate.
- There is still a Soviet Union… and he wants to work with them on nuclear proliferation. (yes, he said that)
- Terrorists ALREADY have nuclear weapons (yes, he said that)
- He repeatedly said how proud he was of himself in his negotiating with North Korea. (We all know how that turned out in our real world.)
- There has been no improvement in Iraq since the surge. None. Zip. Zero.
If Ron Paul is the Crazy Uncle at the Republican debates…. Bill Richardson is the Crazy Lunatic.
Too bad too, because I at one point thought he’d make a strong Democratic nominee.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UPDATE (from Dan): Sometimes, it’s uncanny how similar Bruce’s ideas are to my own. I’ve been considering a piece on how Richardson, had he campaigned on his record, may well have emerged as the sensible alternative to Ms. Hillary. With his experience and center-left positions, he could have portrayed himself as an electable alternative to the abrasive former First Lady. But, instead of trying to appeal to centrist Democrats, he has instead lurched to the left, reinventing himself as an apostle of Bush-hatred, competing for the same segment of the electorate as nearly all his Democratic rivals. No wonder he’s doing so poorly.
By my passing glances at Putin’s Russia, I wonder if Richardson isn’t too far off. I mean, he’s bumped off at least 15 reporters critical of him, he reinstated (with a new name) the KGB, he reinstated the Soviet National Anthem, taken state control of oil wells etc.
One would hope that a new Russia would cooperate in the Levitnenko case.
Gertrude Stein quipped:
Did she know Bill Richardson? The fact is that the top dog in every tent of the Bill Clinton sideshow was not ready for prime time. That is the always the case when the boss is a megalomanic: he does not want anyone around who casts a shadow. Bill Richardson is the quintessential government hack.
I must add that I thought John McCain looked like the old, pompous +++
that I have always thought he was.
At one point, Bruc e asked me if I hadn’t already voted absentee, would anything I heard change my vote. Absolutely not, RUDY
Ian was asked to leave?
WTF
Well. Its your site, you can do as you please.
I’ll be out too then. The hosts allows liars like NDT, slanders like TGC and the rest of the crew, yet bans liberals for nothing….
Why post on such a dissent stifling blog?
Proof yet again, conservatives can’t handle the heat!
Enjoy your lives!
Enjoy Huckabee!
Go Big O!
Sorry.
did not mean to post it here
Bye!
And there you have the intelligence of the typical Obama supporter…..they can’t read, they can’t even post to the correct comment thread, but they “know” how Obama is perfect and will solve all of our problems.
Uh huh.
slanders like TGC
Beg pardon? Talk about slander.
Here’s a golden opportunity to break the liberal douchebag mold and back up your claim.
I know a lot of readers here don’t like McCain, but I see him as most likely to win the Republican nomination at this point.
So, if it is McCain, will ya’ll just take an extended vacation?
#8
Based on what? The gang of 14? Opposition to tax cuts? His age? His Kerry-like constant reminders that he served in Vietnam back in 2000?
What makes you think McCain will get the nomination?
To respond to your points:
1) Richardson did not say that there was still a Soviet Union. He said Russia had nuclear weapons, which is true, and that we need to work with them on nuclear proliferation in countries such as Iran. As two of the world’s nuclear powers, we need to work together to make sure that it doesn’t fall into the hands of wrong people. This is nothing new, and has been stated by many.
2) What makes you think terrorists don’t have nukes? I’d trust the former U.N. Ambassador and legendary negotiator on this one.
3) Don’t be naive re: North Korea. The U.S. pays NK to NOT build nukes. It’s the responsibility that comes with being a world power. Has NK attacked anyone recently? Didn’t think so. And they won’t for the near future–Iran is much more of a threat, which brings us back to point 1. Richardson’s negotiations worked well.
4) This is your strongest point, but since 2007 was the deadliest year yet, and the rifts between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds is deepening every day, there is an argument to be made that the surge did not work.
He also agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I guess you have been quite vocal in defending Bush on that point.
NK ate Richardson’s lunch. They just kept churning away at the old nuke program without a care in the world.
Nope. They have only tried to see if their rockets can make it to Tokyo. Oh, yeah, they also have created the dirty bomb stuff that is so valuable in the terrorist world.
HEY!!!! that takes us back to your quote I started with:
So, why should we ever give the former U.N. Ambassador and legendary negotiator another chance to chat up a lunatic dictator?
I haven’t had as much time lately to stop by Gaypatriot as I would like, but when I saw this discussion about that buffoon Richardson (and JohnFrank’s defense of his statements in the debate), I just had to take the time to respond.
JohnFrank, please consider the following:
1. Richardson said that his approach is one of “diplomacy” and that we need to work with Russia because under Bush’s watch, there has been a “proliferation of loose nuclear weapons, mainly in the hands of terrorists.” He said he would seek “immediate negotiations with the Soviet Union” to reduce nuclear weapons and fissionable material to prevent nuclear material from “drifting into the international community.” He also finished his answer indicating that Bush has screwed it all up because he only “believes in unilateralism,” “military first,” etc.
Contrary to Richardson’s baseless whining about “unilateralism,” in 2002 Bush signed a treaty with Putin to reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arms to nearly two-thirds below then-current levels by 2012. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020524-10.html) The purpose of the treaty was not only to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia, but also to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. Putin himself said the treaty, “happened because of the strengthening of Russian-American relations, including in joint confrontation to international terrorists struggling with international terrorism.”
And what has happened since? Russia is now unapologetically shipping nuclear fuel to one of the most notorious state-sponsors of terrorism on the globe (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Dec19/0,4670,IranNuclear,00.html), and Putin has also unequivocally aligned his country with Iran by stating that a U.S. attack on Iran will be treated as an attack on Russia (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ26Ak06.html?=retrieve_rss).
So, Richardson’s comments about how he would handle relations with Russia (and his baseless claim that Bush has done nothing) demonstrate that he is naive, a liar and more likely, both.
2. What makes me think that terrorists don’t have nukes? Well, for starters, they haven’t managed to detonate one of them on U.S. soil yet. That’s the test that any sane Commander In Chief (or American) should obviously apply–if there isn’t a mushroom cloud over the U.S. or Israel, then terrorists don’t have nukes, period. Richardson’s cavalier statement that terrorists have nuclear weapons implicitly reveals an idiotic belief that he undoubtedly holds–that if terrorists have nukes and haven’t used them, it must be because they have some hesitation or reasonable judgment about whether to use them and that the West just hasn’t pissed them off enough yet (something he would undoubtedly say could be resolved with “diplomacy” if, e.g., we found out Al Qaeda had nukes).
So, this guy figures he will prevent terrorists from using the nuclear weapons THEY ALREADY HAVE by what? Negotiating with Russia? Al Qaeda? Bin Laden? Complete moron.
3. How is Bruce being naive by asserting that Richardson should NOT be proud of his “negotiations” with North Korea? Yes, we know that our policy under Clinton (and Richardson) regarding nuclear proliferation by NK was one of payoffs. NK agreed to freeze its nuclear program in 1994 in exchange for 500,000 tons of oil from the U.S.
The reason Richardson should be embarrassed about it is because they entered into this “diplomatic solution” even in light of NK’s flagrant violation of previous non-proliferation agreements. Big surprise! NK IGNORED the 1994 agreement too and continued developing nuclear weapons (while happily accepting the oil payoff, of course). (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aankorea.htm) Now NK has admitted that it never stopped its nuclear development and has tested nuclear missiles capable of hitting other countries. And what’s the current solution? MORE OIL IN EXCHANGE FOR MORE EMPTY PROMISES, OF COURSE! NK agreed in February 2007 to disable its nuclear facilities in exchange for 1 million tons of oil from the U.S., SK, China and Russia. And guess what? They’ve ignored a 12/31/07 deadline to comply with the agreement even though they have already received 150,000 tons of the oil! (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Dec31/0,4670,KoreasNuclear,00.html).
U.S. policy toward NK’s nuclear proliferation has been a JOKE under both Clinton/Richardson AND Bush/Rice. So, for Richardson to campaign on it is absurd. Only a Democrat could call a deal that the U.S. complied with and that a foreign nation COMPLETELY IGNORED a “success.” Richardson (and Bush!) need to be reminded of the definition of “insanity”–doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
And by the way, regarding your statement, “Has NK attacked anyone recently? Didn’t think so”–what exactly is that supposed to mean? Is that your idea of a yardstick of Richardson’s success with NK? So, as long as NK hasn’t fired a nuclear missile at the U.S. or one of our allies then Richardson can talk about how proud he is of his “negotiations” with NK? More importantly, are you retarded?
4. Of course there is “an argument to be made” that the surge did not work. With Democrats there is ALWAYS an argument to be made that whatever the Bush Administration did, it was an abysmal failure. That’s because Democrats are exempt from those pesky annoyances known as facts, rational thought and patriotism.
I know calling 2007 the “deadliest year” gives Democrats a lot of pleasure, but it ignores the overwhelming decrease in violent incidents after the surge that was so dramatic even the NYT had to admit it. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/world/middleeast/20surge.html?ex=1353214800&en=9ac9e8beee08bfe5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss).
It also conveniently ignores that the important contextual point that while every military death is a tragedy, Iraq has hardly been the unmitigated slaughter of American troops that liberals wish it was (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/crs-stats-show-troop-deaths-at-peacetime-rate). The chart shows that military deaths in the years since Iraq started are on par with the death rate of soldiers during peace time.
Finally, where exactly did you get the information that “the rifts between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds is deepening every day”? How exactly did you quantify the “deepening” rifts? If you arrived at that conclusion the same way all Democrats do—just saying it whether it’s true or not provided it helps them criticize the Bush Administration and/or legislate a U.S. defeat in Iraq—then there is not a lot that can be done to argue against it. However, I think the recent attendance of Shiite AND Sunni clerics at a CHRISTIAN mass (as a “sign of unity”) over the holidays would at least have some relevance toward proving that maybe…just maybe…Iraq, while it is a war zone, is not a horrible, bloody, hellish mess on the scale that Richardson would like it to be. (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/25/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Christmas.php)
Accordingly, Richardson needs to GO AWAY. I wouldn’t trust him to be in charge of setting up my DVD player.
OTBR (Off Topic But Related) to Bruce’s point 4:
Alec Rawls at Error Theory has put together an amazingly coherent, accurate description of the last 5 years’ strategy and politics on Iraq (except that it assigns a little too much prescience or credit to Donald Rumsfeld).
One minor tidbit – I’d forgotten that Chuckie Schumer said this:
In other words, that Schumer has used his position as U.S. Senator to actually plan for American defeat in Iraq.
A process of elimination.
Romney’s strategy was predicated on him winning the early contests to give him momentum in the later states where he doesn’t poll as well. That strategy has failed. He will lose New Hampshire and that’ll effectively end his candidacy.
Thompson has said he doesn’t much like running for President. Apparently, the voters don’t much like his running either. He is unwilling to do the work necessary to win the presidency.
Huckabee is a niche candidate that appeals only to a narrow, albeit influential, segment of the Republican base. He is a gaffe waiting to happen. If he avoids it during the primaries, he has a chance.
Giuliani has made a grave tactical error in not competing in any of the early states. Most Americans aren’t in tune with the fine points of a candidates political strategy and likely fail to realize that Giuliani is purposefully not competing in them. A recent Gallup poll confirmed this. 71% of Americans responded that a loss in both Iowa and New Hampshire would be a “a sign that his campaign is in serious trouble.” In today’s hyper-sensitive media environment, the presidential nominating contest has turned into the political equivalent of a college football schedule. A loss, any loss, seriously hurts your chances of the nomination. Giuliani’s best chance will be if the campagin devolves into a perceived two person race between McCain and Huckabee and enough people are unsatisfied that they search for an alternative, once again finding Giuliani. As the loss of the front runner label in the national polls has irreparably damaged Giuliani’s initial strategy.
McCain, at this point, simply has the easiest path to the nomination. Win New Hampshire, use that momentum to springboard to a victory in Michigan on January 15th, split the difference January 19th, mitigating the impact of a probable loss in South Carolina by winning Nevada, thus maintaining his momentum into Florida and other friendly territory on Super Tuesday.
Right now, that’s how I see it. Everyone still has a chance, but McCain’s path is clearest.
Oh, please. McCain is about to lose to Obama in New Hampshire.
Yes, you read that right. McCain and Obama are both counting on Independents to make them number one in New Hampshire for their respective parties, and Obama is about to eat them up, because he’s the more interesting story. Thus underscoring McCain’s lack of support from actual Republicans.
And by the way, Chase, didn’t Bruce ask you to move on? I believe he did.
JohnFrank (#10) – You must have watched a different Saturday night debate than I did. Bill Richardson MOST CERTAINLY did say the Soviet Union still existed. He said he would negotiate with the Soviet Union. Present tense.
Look at the transcript.
He is a joke.
Just jumped out at me. That is a truly insane statement. How about North Korea’s responsibility to NOT be evil? To NOT threaten the world? To NOT kill their own people and ruin their own country>?