Democrats need a plan to fight war on terror (Editorial)
“ In Manchester on Saturday, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson came closer than most of his Democratic rivals to offering what general election voters will need to hear: a detailed, sensible-sounding plan to defeat al-Qaida and reduce, if not eliminate, terrorist attacks.
Richardson would redirect military efforts away from Iraq and toward al-Qaida's presumed headquarters on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Among other measures, he called for improving the ability to detect nuclear and biological weapons, targeting homeland security efforts to the places most likely to be attacked and improving the government's diplomatic, intelligence-gathering and language capabilities. Richardson's promise to pull all U.S. ground forces out of Iraq in six months, however, is probably not the answer and certainly not the complete answer -- to the problems that war has caused.”
Richardson targets Al Qaeda: Let the debate begin (it has)
“…it’s worth noting that the former UN Ambassador is first Democrat (and really first serious candidate of either party) to offer a proposal to deal with the American split personality about the Iraq war and the conflict against the real long-term threat: the terrorists who have survived Bush’s war on something called terrorism and have regrouped and become potentially more dangerous. ‘Mr. Bush did not have a plan. But Al Qaeda did,’ Richardson said in reference to the President’s Iraq war of choice...”
“It will be interesting to see when this will ignite a debate that candidates of both parties need to have. It cheap rhetoric to say we need “to stay on the offensive” as some mindlessly say (especially if they believe that Bush has actually demonstrated overall success) but it’s quite another to deal with the sober reality of what we face…”
“To his credit, Richardson has launched the debate.”