Richardson Criticizes Rivals Over Iraq

Presidential Hopeful Says He Expected "Much More" From Other Democrats

(CBS)  This story was written by CBS News' Joy Lin.

---

Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson took aim at a rival yesterday, uttering a name he rarely mentions on the campaign trail.

"John Edwards would change the mission," said Richardson in a press release. "I will end the war."

Today, Richardson took on more of his Democratic opponents in what his campaign called a major speech on Iraq and the military.

Richardson began the speech by citing the number Americans and Iraqis who have lost their lives. In an effort to distinguish himself from the pack, Richardson said he's tired of "waiting and seeing" if there will be political progress.

"Senator Clinton has reportedly said that she might well have troops still in Iraq at the end of a second term -- 9 years from now," said Richardson. "Senator Obama and John Edwards are unwilling to commit to removing all of the troops by the end of their first term -- that's 5 years from now. I am opposed to 5 years or 9 years or any more years of our troops dying. My colleagues are wrong."

"That's changing the mission, not ending the war," said Richardson.

Stating that he had expected "much more" from his Democratic opponents on the war, Richardson named Clinton five times and coupled Obama and Edwards' names three times in his speech.

During the question and answer session that followed, a student pointed out how harshly Richardson was criticizing his opponents and asked whether he would consider being vice president to any of them, which drew laughter from the crowd. Richardson responded by saying he was simply "pointing out policy differences" and that he would win the nomination.

In his speech, Richardson emphasized that both U.S. troops and private security forces would leave Iraq under his plan. "As president, I will no longer privatize and outsource American security," he said.

Richardson also offered a wider security outlook, advocating a "new realism" approach to diplomacy, energy independence, and the U.S. military.

He said the war in Iraq has heralded a new century in which conflict will be marked by "three-block war" in which the "lines between combat, stability, and humanitarian operations blur."

Richardson added that as president he would stop "wasting billions of dollars on Cold War weapons systems" and reorder budget priorities for defense, including $57 billion in specific cuts to "unnecessary Pentagon spending."

Richardson also said that military effectiveness will not require new nuclear weapons, but will require more troops in uniform. "We need to invest less in planes and more in people," he said.

Richardson also said Thursday that he would not abandon his presidential run to seek the Senate seat being vacated by Republican Sen. Pete Domenici in his home state of New Mexico. "I am not running for the Senate," he told the Associated Press. "I'm running for president."

[prinzowhales]

America has not done one solitary thing for Iraq. It has tried to destroy it and its people for decades since the Iraqis had the audacity to claim control over their own resources.

We supported Hussein''s ascent to power; we supported him in his war of aggression against Iran; we continued sanctions and air attacks on Iraq which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children; we then lied about our former friend, Saddam, and claimed that he had WMDs and al Qaeda connections and launched a new war against the Iraqi people that has led to the murder of 1,000,000-plus people and created 4,000,000 refugees--not to mention that it has destroyed the civilian infrastructure and fragmented Iraqi society.

We liberated no one. The War Pig trash who rule this nation are lucky in that there seems to be a bottomless pit of ignorance, self-righteousness arrogance and cupidity...isn''t that right, cfin5?

[prinzowhales]

softspoken99- No, he''s not the only one...he is however the one who has said it and it is most suspect at not meaning it. Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Ron Paul are all anti-war. Paul and Kucinich voted against it as members of the House.

Richardson is an Establishment shill. He will be their choice if the War Pig positions of the mainstream cannot be salvaged under a Hillary, Obama or Edwards. They will back their fellow CFR''er...He is the son of a Boston banker who married a Mexican lady and moved to New Mexico because he could depend on the Hispanic population''s support by playing the race card.

I think the banking establishment has done quite enough to destroy America through the Federal Reserve and their support of unfair trade treaties and Usury. The last thing we need to do, is follow a Republican banking family with a Democratic one.

If you oppose the war and are a Democrat, I''d look at Kucinich and Gravel. He supports, as his New World Order banker buddies do, NAFTA, GATT and the WTO-- the agreements that have helped de-industrialize America. If you don''t work for a living and don''t know anyone who does that you don''t despise, Richardson would be a good candidate to support.

[softspoken99]

He''s the only one that says he''ll pull the troops out. He''s got my vote.

[cfin5]

I''m not democrat, but he makes a whole lot more sense than the other dems. I give him credit where credit is due.......My view is we already won the war to liberate them, now it''s totally up to the Iraqis to retain that freedom and build their OWN country back up. If they don''t it''s their too bad. We should never engage in any nation building welfare programs again!