Bill Richardson keeps on pointing out the insanity of the Bush-Cheney-Neocon animus toward Iran. But his repeated and near-voice-in-the-wilderness common-sense pronouncements among the Democratic candidates don't seem to get commented on.
His latest was his Nov. 1 post on The Huffington Post. He wrote --
IT IS A tragedy that in the midst of one failed war in Iraq, George Bush and Dick Cheney are pushing a second front of failure and gearing up to attack Iran. The "unilateral sanctions" recently imposed will hurt diplomatic progress in the region, and I find it disconcerting that so many Democrats supported President Bush in his saber-rattling.
Senator Clinton voted to enable George Bush when she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Senator Obama, skipped the Iran vote entirely.
Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate and work with us for peace. But it is a tried and true method of laying the groundwork for another war -- a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world. Saying that we're on a "path to diplomacy" while imposing these sanctions and increasing the war rhetoric only strengthens hard-line elements in the Iranian leadership and increases the risk of violence breaking out.
Richardson's Huffington Post piece continues at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-bill-richardson/stop-... What Richardson posits on the Huffington Post is not Johnny-come-lately. On February 24 his Washington Post op-ed piece began with this --
THE RECENT tentative agreement with North Korea over its nuclear program illustrates how diplomacy can work even with the most unsavory of regimes. Unfortunately, it took the Bush administration more than six years to commit to diplomacy. During that needless delay North Korea developed and tested nuclear weapons -- weapons its leaders still have not agreed to dismantle. Had we engaged the North Koreans earlier, instead of calling them "evil" and talking about "regime change," we might have prevented them from going nuclear. We could have, and should have, negotiated a better agreement, and sooner.
As the International Atomic Energy Agency just confirmed, Iran has once again defied the international community and is moving forward with its nuclear program, yet the Bush administration seems committed to repeating the mistakes it made with North Korea. Rather than directly engaging the Iranians about their nuclear program, George W. Bush refuses to talk, except to make threats. He has moved ships to the Persian Gulf region and claims, with scant evidence, that Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. This is not a strategy for peace. It is a strategy for war -- a war that Congress has not authorized. Most of our allies, and most Americans, don't believe this president, who has repeatedly cried wolf.
Richardson's Washington Post commentary continues at
http://tinyurl.com/2wzyyz Then on June 27 he made a speech on Iran that, considering the depth and wonkishness of its policy implications, could have been coming from the mouth of Bill Clinton. This speech was to the Center for a New American Security. It wasn't sexy, but it left no doubt about his expertise on Iran and Iraq and his critical view of how the Bush/Cheney/Neocon tribe has been approaching each country -- and how he could and would do a better job. The speech is posted at
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/newsroom/speeches?id=0013And for many months Richardson has offered people who want to get interactive on the Iran issue a chance to do so at
http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/s/Iran Richardson talks more foreign-relations common sense from the standpoint of past experience than the other Democratic candidates combined. Are many Democrats ignoring him because Tim Russert does? That's as insane as the Bush/Cheney/Neocon saber-rattling at Iran. Maybe worse -- since Democrats ought to be operating on a higher mental plane.