WASHINGTON (CNN) - After Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, unveiled his comprehensive plan to end the war in Iraq Wednesday, his rival for the Democratic nomination Gov. Bill Richardson, D-New Mexico, attacked the senator’s plan and called his ideas "more of the same."
"Senator Obama has offered to turn the page in Iraq, but I think we need a new book," Richardson said in a statement. "Leaving behind tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time is nothing new. This plan is inadequate and does not end the war."
In his speech, Obama said the United States needs to immediately start bringing combat troops home from Iraq, but that some troops should be left to fight al Qaeda in Iraq and in the rest of the region. Richardson called that plan "dangerous" and said that leaving some troops there won't end the war.
"There is only one responsible course of action left for us in this war," Richardson said. "We need to get all of our troops out of Iraq with no residual forces left behind. We need to withdraw both the combat troops and the tens of thousands of other troops who are there. We need to do it now."
–CNN Associate Producer Lauren Kornreich
Ok... I want to make sure I have this all correct:
Hillary say Obama is wrong. Edwards says Hillary is wrong. Obama isn't sure who is right. Richards is sure Obama is wrong. Bill thinks his wife is right, but not right wing.
When the democrats can actually MAKE a decision – get back to us.
To Henry Tucker, Good effort on the broadside against the Democrats, but you left out a few. Also, I don't get why you think Barack isn't sure who is right. You may choose to disagree with him, but Barack Obama knows he is right. One should be able to surmise this by the fact he has outlined a "comprehensive plan." Typically, people who outline comprehensive plans are pretty sure they are right.
As for Bill Richardson, his pandering to the cut and run crowd is just as bad as Hillary Clinton's misplaced venom against General Petraeus.
I find Richardson's critique unconvincing. Why does he think that running away as fast as possible is a better option than the sensible plan outlined by Obama?
Barack was right about this whole thing from the beginning and he's still right now.
Maybe it's just me, but Bill's numbers don't support his argument that Obama's plan is no faster than the president's. But you can see that for yourself. We are in mid-September right now, which gives us 9 1/2 months before July 1st 2008. General Petraeus' recommendation is one Marine Expeditionary Unit and four Army Brigade Combat Teams between now and July '08, or roughly 30,000 troops. Obama's plan on the conservative side would be at least nine BCTs, or roughly 60,000 troops over that same time period. Or as many as 18 BCTs redeployed from Iraq where we only have 21 currently. Like I said, maybe it's me, but Bill's math doesn't support his argument.
I'm really amazed and slightly amused at the criticism stating that the lack of unity among democratic candidates is grounds for discrediting the party and their efficacy. Isn't it obvious that any candidate hoping to win his/her party's nomination for the presidency would attempt to promote a unique, well-informed strategy to address and hopefully solve the ever-increasing difficulties the U.S. faces in Iraq? This isn't any dishonorable form of campaign bickering, it's the epitome of American politics-dissent and choice. Rather than post cynical comments attacking those who voice alternate, dissenting opinions, American voter's would do well to research feasible options for change in Iraq and vote according to their own conscience and for the candidate who best reflects their personal political views.