OK, now that I’ve riled you all up

12/21/2007

OK, now that I've riled you all up by expressing (limited) support for
(Gasp!) a Republican, let me explain myself a bit.

In Bill Richardson's Dec 19th post on HuffPost,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-bill-richardson/iraq-the-real-cost-of-wa_b_77556.html,
he explains the position I've held for the last two years,
"The fact is, we cannot move forward on any of the issues that matter
until we extract ourselves from this black hole that is robbing us of
precious lives, money and time.

"And we simply can't wait until 2013 http://2013istoolate.com/ to get
this done.

"Some of my fellow Democrats are willing to leave troops in Iraq for 5
years or longer -- the Republicans are talking decades -- yet still
think we can make the dramatic changes here at home we need. But
spending $10 billion a month on a war and working towards universal
health care, building a new energy economy, and ending our dependence on
foreign oil is an equation that doesn't add up.

"It doesn't add up financially.

"It doesn't add up morally.

"It doesn't add up for America.

"A few weeks ago, my campaign launched a very strong website
http://2013istoolate.com/ which details the core
problem I have with the Iraq plans of Senator Edwards, Clinton and Obama
-- they won't even commit to getting all of our troops out of Iraq by
2013 -- almost five years from now."

Now, I'm not endorsing Gov. Richardson. I supported Kucinich in '04 and
continue to support him today. My biggest problem with Richardson is
that he came fairly late to this position, and I don't think he goes far
enough. I think he views Iraq as an aberration. In fact, it is merely
the latest manifestation of a systemic problem. Most of us who opposed
the Vietnam War know this to be the case. As long as we have offensive
military forces scattered all over the world and believe we have the
right to intervene anywhere and everywhere from Kosovo to Georgia to
Venezuela and Haiti, we will continue to repeat this same mistake over
and over. It's a bipartisan foreign policy that has justified
intervention and "regime change" all over the world for the last 60
years, and it has to stop.

But what Richardson does have right is the relationship between wasting
our resources on such adventures and being able to address the real
needs of the American people. Recognizing and dealing with militarism
and imperialism is the essential first step in putting our society on
the right track for the future. Until that first step is taken, the
rest of the progressive agenda is impossible. I will support any
candidate, of any party, who I believe will bring our troops home not
only from Iraq, but from all over the world, who will institute a
non-interventionist foreign policy and drastically reduce our military
expenditures. I would prefer that candidate also be for universal
single-payer healthcare, adequate regulation of financial markets and
corporate governance, recognition of environmental problems and peak
oil, preservation of Social Security, recognition that racism is still a
problem etc, but the fundamental requirement is to rein in the
military-industrial complex. I will neither support nor vote for any
candidate who does not express some understanding of the fundamental
problem. Ms. Clinton has demonstrated over and over again that she
either does not understand the fundamental problem, or is more
interested in power as its own reward. She's running to the right of
Mike Huckabee. After her vote for Kyl-Lieberman, her criticism of Obama
for saying he would talk with people and for saying there are
circumstances where use of nuclear weapons is inappropriate, there is
nothing she could say or do that will convince me otherwise.

Bill Rood