Richardson on Pakistan

Governor Richardson spoke at length with the Pakistani opposition leader today, after writing a piece for yesterday's Boston Globe calling for Pervez Musharraf's resignation.

The article is an excellent read, but it will certainly get him into trouble, as Musharraf is ostensibly an ally of the United States. But as both Governor Richardson and Barack Obama have repeated, we can no longer support dictators just because they act within our interests. We must dispose of them.

--Wyndam

The Man We Need Now

To Hillary Clinton, the recent tragedy in Pakistan should not be politicized. But only in crisis is leadership tested and proven.

I've never felt stronger in my support for Governor Richardson. While most of the other candidates hem and hew, while they bicker or make gimmicky phone calls to Musharraf, Richardson responds boldly and specifically.

Like President Bush, Richardson is steadfast under criticism. Unlike President Bush, Richardson is experienced, brave, and ready for change. He is the man we need now.

When choosing a president, all issues pale in comparison to foreign policy and national security. Of the democratic contenders, only Biden and Richardson have the experience necessary to lead there. And only Richardson has proven his effectiveness time and again in the positions that count.

We may not agree with Richardson on every issue, but America ignores him at its peril.

--Alex

Richardson is shafted by the media; America pays the price

In most of my discussions with Alex, Mike and other Richardson supporters, the media coverage of the governor's campaign is inevitably mentioned. We feel that it is paltry, and that the mainstream media has made a point of shining the spotlight solely on the front runners and practically never on the so-called second-tier candidates. And when they do shed the rare light on these candidates, they treat it as a novelty piece--look at me, I'm writing about an unknown politician! (Example: Mark Steyn of the National Review recently wrote a piece on Richardson's Pakistan plan. He introduces Richardson as: "Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is apparently running for the Democratic presidential nomination...").

In the debates, Richardson and others of his ilk (Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, etc.) are shunned, as the key policy questions are aimed at Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Funny, since Richardson, Biden and Dodd are seasoned political veterans who have more experience in most fields individually than the "Big 3" have combined.

The media plays such a major role in elections and candidate visibility that anything less than ostensibly balanced coverage does a massive disservice to the American people--they are kept in the dark as the most qualified candidates go uncovered. Without decent attention, the race is essentially narrowed down to three candidates before the primaries even begin, since in the court of public opinion, only the three front runners, and a few "other" candidates exist. Richardson who?

But don't take my word for it: read this article by Brent Budowsky for the Huffington Post. He explains our displeasure.

--Wyndam

On Gaffes...

The United States has made a number of what I consider foreign policy mistakes in the past, and many of them were based around acts of rashness. The Bay of Pigs and other misguided CIA-funded coup attempts; supporting Shah of Iran; Vietnam; Iraq; the Smoot-Hawley Tariff (it counts in my book).

But few if any of these mistakes were caused by a President standing up and saying something that went against the grain of the political establishment. The big ones occur when information doesn't flow and ideas are not challenged.

So when someone tells me that my candidate gaffed on foreign policy, I wince. Most recently, both Bill Richardson and Barack Obama have been accused of destabilizing Pakistan by openly discussing policy options there. But we need open, challenging thinking now more than ever before. Cowardice and ambiguity will only lead us towards the same mistakes we've made in the past.

Read the excellent speech on Pakistan Richardson gave on Friday. Look up what he's said about Bhutto in the past, in almost every single debate. If you disagree, write exactly what you disagree with, in policy terms. Send it to either Wyndam or me, and we'll post it.

But don't expect us to listen if you try to tell us that Richardson is naïve. I'm quite sure you are far more so.

--Alex

Criticism of Richardson's comments on Bhutto misguided

Michael Lipkin's thoughts on Bill Richardson's statements after the death of Benazir Bhutto, and the subsequent criticism that followed them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m sure most of you heard the terrible news this morning, but for those that haven’t, former Pakistani Prime Minister and Parliamentary candidate Benazir Bhutto was assassinated at a political rally. Bhutto was an active voice for more democracy and openness the Pakistani politics and someone who fought against the Taliban and valiantly stood in the face of repeated attempts on her life.

Since nothing happens in a vacuum, by the end of the day, all the major candidates for president released statements expressing their dismay at the attack and their sympathies for Bhutto’s plight. In addition, Governor Richardson made some statements that some right-wing bloggers have used to attack him. He said:

“The United States government cannot stand by and allow Pakistan's return to democracy to be derailed or delayed by violence. We must use our diplomatic leverage and force the enemies of democracy to yield: President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately. Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government. Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible.”

Parallels have been made between this quote and other “unsound” comments made by Barack Obama about how he would deal with Pakistan. Others have criticized Richardson for implying similar tactics to what has happened with Bush and Iraq (the overthrow of a dictator) or America’s involvement in the removal of the Shah of Iran.

Just to take a step back for a second. While these words seem harsh, a lot of people have been reading in to them and misconstruing their intention. Richardson at no point mentions military action. Yes, he says “force”, but precedes it with “diplomatic leverage”. What he is suggesting is what he has always suggesting: to use peaceful means to bring sides of the argument together and reach a diplomatic solution. He also mentions having international support, again consistent with his views, and what is viewed as one of the main flaws with the second invasion of Iraq. These were not slips or gaffes on Richardson’s part.

Let’s be serious here. This is not a fully fleshed out, specific plan for what to do with Pakistan once brought into office. This is a general idea of what direction Richardson would take. So it’s not fair to critique his comments as if they were in fact a detailed foreign policy. But the main idea here is a solid one. Supporting dictators just because they sometimes help us with the Taliban is not the right path, especially if there were politicians like Bhutto who was in support of America, against terrorism and a popular, freely-elected leader. A firm, but fair hand in these situations can become necessary. While we should avoid making the mistakes of the past, that does not mean we should shy away from any strategy that may evoke failed policies. Bill Richardson knows this and made a valid, if blunt, statement to that effect.