Explore Candidates and Issues
Bill Richardson on Iraq and Foreign Policy
This candidate has withdrawn from the election
"Many generals agree with me that we can complete this withdrawal within six to eight months. Let me give you an example. Today in the Iraq war, through Kuwait over a three-month period, we have moved 250,000 of our troops. We would move them through roads in Kuwait. We would move them in roads through Turkey."
2007 Democratic primary debate on "This Week" Aug 19, 2007
"I would have a resolution, under Article I, to de-authorize the war, to move forward with a timetable-the end of this calendar year-no residual forces."
2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007
"Let me just be clear again, those that say a six-month withdrawal can't happen, I believe it can. We have 240,000 of our troops moving in and out of Kuwait over a very very short term period. We've done that over a three-month period. In the first Iraq war we moved 500,000 troops in a four-month period."
Richardson opposed Bush's plan in January 2007 to temporarily increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq to combat sectarian violence and help Iraqis achieve independence. In September 2007, Richardson said Bush "lacks credibility" when the president proposed withdrawing those additional troops but leaving behind about 130,000 U.S. forces in Iraq. Such a move, Richardson said, "would serve as a roadblock to political progress" in Iraq.
On Wednesday, in a desperate attempt to shore up support for his failed "surge" strategy, President Bush compared a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq to America's withdrawal at the end of the Vietnam War. The president is wrong. We don't need anymore troop surges, we need a diplomatic surge.
This is what I stand for: I believe we should bring all the troops home by the end of this year, in six months, with no residual forces.
2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007
I have a different view. The fundamental difference [from other candidates' view] is how many troops each of us would leave behind. Other than the customary Marine contingent at the embassy, I would leave zero troops behind. Not a single one. And if the embassy isn't safe, then they're all coming home too. So here is Bill Richardson's position: no air bases, no troops in the green zone, no embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we all know what that means. It means that our troops would still be out on patrol with targets on their back.
Take Back America 2007 Conference Jun 19, 2007
Q: There is even talk now of having some sort of Korea-like presence in Iraq for decades to come. Is that unacceptable? RICHARDSON: It is totally unacceptable. I've been in Korea many, many times, in North Korea and South Korea. The South Koreans want us there. There is no outright shooting taking place. It's totally a different situation. And my concern is that the surge that we proposed, the policy of continuing this conflict with more troops, is going to leave us more vulnerable to Al Qaeda.
CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer (presidential series) Jun 10, 2007
The Governor has consistently called for a "New Realism" in American foreign policy and believes it can and should drive our efforts to prevent a "nuclear 9/11". The greatest threats we face today, from global warming to terrorism, do not face only us, and this means unilateral action usually will not work. "Building and leading strong international coalitions should be our first thought when we face common challenges -- not an afterthought when our unilateral course has failed," said Governor Richardson.
Q: What action do you commit to, for Darfur? Would you commit American troops? RICHARDSON: This is what I would do: It's diplomacy. It's getting UN peacekeeping troops and not African Union troops. It's getting China to pressure Sudan. It's getting the European Union to be part of economic sanctions in Sudan. It's called leadership. A no-fly zone, I believe, would be an option. But we have to be concerned about humanitarian workers being hurt by planes, being shot. Q: You say UN troops. Does that mean American troops? RICHARDSON: UN peacekeeping troops, and that would primarily be Muslim troops. We need a permanent UN peacekeeping force, stationed somewhere. Genocide is continuing there; 200,000 have died; close to 2 million refugees in that region. America needs to respond with diplomatic leadership.
2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007
Two months ago in North Korea, I was proud to help show how talking to your enemies can produce results. We need to bring back diplomacy in our foreign policy. We need to remember what the great Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said. He said, you don't make peace with your friends; you make peace with your enemies. In my career, I've been able to get results not with harsh words but hard work. You talk to your adversaries. You listen. And with clarity comes cooperation. It's how I have approached foreign policy.
Take Back America 2007 Conference Jun 19, 2007
Israel today is our strongest ally in the Middle East, but it is less safe with the policies of the president. I'd bring a Middle East peace envoy to try to bring the Israelis and Palestinians together.
CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer (presidential series) Jun 10, 2007
Richardson says that the United States must "re-engage" both parties in negotiations for peace and a two-state solution. “The suffering of the Palestinians is the most useful propaganda weapon the jihadists have," Richardson said in a May 2007 interview. Richardson says he would send former president Bill Clinton to the Middle East as a "peace envoy."
Richardson is not in favor of lifting the embargo on Cuba yet, although he has said the United States should be "reevaluating" it. Instead, he said, Cuba's democratic transition should be a negotiated process with input from other Latin American leaders "where you push for fair elections, where you push for long-term viability of that country and reintegrate it into the Americas."
Richardson advocates a "multilateral Marshall Plan" for Africa to "prevent societal collapse," he told Vanity Fair. Such a plan would focus on improved medical care, education, and economic development. "The plan must also anticipate and respond to the impact that global warming will have upon African food and water supplies," he says.
Question: Why is the United Nations of vital interest to the United States? RICHARDSON: The United Nations is a very important tool for advancing American foreign policy interests and building international support for U.S. foreign policy goals. Specifically, the United Nations is an arena for handling some of the major problems faced by the United States and the world -- problems such as nuclear proliferation, international terrorism, drugs, environmental degradation, regional conflicts based on tribal or ethnic differences, economic competition. We feel that the United States can best advance its interests, and save taxpayer money, by approaching these transnational problems in a multinational fashion, building support for American goals multilaterally. And the United Nations is the best vehicle to achieve these goals. In addition, the United Nations is the venue for advancing American interests in promoting human rights, supporting democracy, dealing with refugees, and furthering the causes of women. For these reasons the United Nations is a very important venue in which to deal with our problems.
Richardson has compiled a list of more than a dozen specific programs that can be cut, reduced, or delayed. These sensible spending adjustments will strengthen our national security by refocusing our resources and strategic capabilities on the real threats that America faces in the 21st century. These include: $5 billion from eliminating the unnecessary Reliable Replacement Warhead and Complex 2030 programs to develop new nuclear weapons and by negotiating further reductions in nuclear forces with the Russians to 1000 missiles or less. These reductions will enhance our credibility as we lead global negotiations to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and get all nations to improve the security of fissile materials. $8 billion from reducing our nuclear posture to 600 deployed warheads, with 400 in reserve. This eliminates all "tactical" nuclear weapons and still leaves us with an ample nuclear deterrent against any foreseeable threat.