No subject

"The Richardson Plan for Ending the War

"I have a one-point plan on the Iraq War -- END IT.=20

"We must get all of our troops out quickly and safely so that a new
political process can begin.=20

"Our military presence in Iraq is prolonging the violence, costing us =
more
than $10 billion a month, and distracting us from the war against Al =
Qaeda.
George Bush's "surge" has suppressed some of the violence, at least
temporarily, but it has failed to bring about political reconciliation. =
Our
troops have done everything we've asked them to do -- but they cannot =
win
someone else's civil war. Now it is up to the Iraqis. We need to get our
troops out so that a new political process can begin.

"My plan will end the war and stabilize Iraq, and the most important =
step,
upon which all others depend, is to remove ALL of our troops quickly."

Further on in the page we have:=20

"De-authorize the War and Fund Redeployment: Last November, the American
people voted for the Democrats because they expected them to end the =
war.
Congress should do what it was elected to do, by passing a resolution =
that
de-authorizes the war under Article 1 of the Constitution and the War =
Powers
Act. And they should pass funding only to safely redeploy our troops, =
not to
leave them endlessly in the middle of a civil war. Congress can and =
should
act now to end this war."

Now you may think Kucinich's position is more "radical" because =
sometimes he
says he is for withdrawing right away, whereas Richardson has in mind a
period of six months to a year. But that's not quite right. Kucinich is =
for
*replacing* the U.S. occupation with United Nations "peacekeepers," =
using
the UN once again as a Yankee Ministry of Colonies, as someone once =
called
another one of these august international bodies.

But that's really besides the point I'm making, since these are both
candidates of a bourgeois-imperialist party, and Edwards has certainly =
been
vaguer than Richardson on his scenario for ending the war by =
withdrawing.
Both white guys get discussed, but not the spic.

By bourgeois-imperialist standards, which ARE the ones that APPLY,
Richardson is by some distance the most qualified candidate. A Member of
Congress for eight terms, he went on to head the Department of Energy =
and
later serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He handled some of =
the
most difficult diplomatic negotiations for the Clinton Administration, =
and
currently is governor of New Mexico, a border state.=20

So why doesn't even Eli mention him? Because he forgot. Because none of =
the
bourgeois press mentions him. Richardson may have five or ten times as =
much
support as Kucinich, but he gets little mention and less attention =
because,
frankly, he's a spic, despite the Anglo name.=20

And when CNN's Lou Dobbs, Fox News, and the entire Republican candidate
field have organized themselves into anti-Latino lynch mobs, a Latino =
guy
running for President is beyond the pale. A woman, yes, even a Black =
will
get taken seriously. But a Latino, even an outstanding ruling-class =
cadre
like Richardson? No way, Jos=E9.

Joaquin