I absolutely think this was an appropriate comment, this analogy and comparison drawn by Bill Richardson, to put things in a larger perspective. I hope your readers have read his op/ed piece from the Washington Post on How and why we must get out of Iraq. If not, here it is, in full, after a few introductory remarks by me:

There is a much larger scale confrontation with Bush from the
candidates regarding the Iraq War and the problems it is continuing to cause, after six years of Halliburton and Brown and Root and Blackwater corporate kleptocracy. Only one candidate, it is abundantly clear to me, is really slamming the truth and providing the logistics and rationale for ending this disastrous war: Bill Richardson. This article was printed in the Washington Post about 10 days ago, and please take the time to read it:

_______________________

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 MiddleEast. 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 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.”

The writer is governor of New Mexico and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Thank you Stephen Fox for pointing out that Bill Richardson is the only candidate calling for the only reasonable action in Iraq--Get out now--period!! This war was a horrible mistake and after five years of wasting our tax dollars--we need to stand up to the corporate interests that are the true leaders of this country--and just say NO More!!!!
I can not understand why rural America is supporting OUR Guard to be sent off to Iraq--and allowing this Administration to support the training of a mercenary army that includes recruits from all over the world---paying these soldiers of war--$350 dollars a day---while our guard gets minimum wage ---and the worst of this is the fact that we have more than 180,00 of these so called "Private Contractors" over in Iraq --which means we have a army of nearly 400,00 in the theater--At least send our Guard home to serve our country in the case of natural disasters--
I think that all the patriots in our country--should be very upset over this inequity in pay--as well as the fact that we are not being told what is really happening--we are being fed a diet of misleading and down right untruths by our Government and when will all of you wake up????
Perhaps when a tornado or hurricane or fire happens near your home and instead of our uniformed National Guard assisting--a bunch of Blackwater Soldiers of Fortune arrive in your town-- then maybe you will wake up---but then it just may be too late.

Agreed, Richardson is the best candidate by far. But until we Americans insist that our election campaigns be about something other than who can raise the most cash, money will continue to talk, and good men like Richardson will walk--to the back of the line. What on earth is wrong with the Dems???

Thanks first to New West for having such a great website: I very much would like to get in touch with both of the the persons who made these comments above, CINDY KESSLER and PRONGHORN: I can see a way that Richardson could make up for not having the big bucks like the "Rock Stars" and that is through editorial page letters throughout the region you live in, especially if your focus is on ending the Iraq War and its insane excessive costs depriving so many other social programs, education, research, etc., rather than strictly on the candidate and his merits, more "puff pieces," which most newspapers editors see through and quite rightly turn down, since they'd have to in turn print a plethora of similar "puff pieces" on each of the other candidates. I am not officially part of Richardson's campaign, nor certainly not a paid staff member, but I do get a lot of stuff published in small newspapers, wherein it gets read by more people sometimes than the big dailies in metropolitan areas.

Truly,

Stephen Fox
505 983-2002