Barack responds to Bush on lending
August 31, 2007
President Bush delivered a speech on the subprime mortgage crisis this afternoon.
Here's how Barack responded:
For six years, the President and Congress have allowed lending industry lobbyists to block sensible regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place. Now, after many Americans have seen their homes, their credit histories, and their financial well-being jeopardized the President is finally offering a proposal that helps a small fraction of homeowners. These are welcome steps, but the President’s proposal does not go far enough. I have called for a plan that will help far more struggling borrowers avoid foreclosure, crack down on unscrupulous lenders with new penalties and disclosure requirements, and reduce the influence of lobbyists so that we will not face a crisis like this ever again.
In case you missed it, make sure you read Barack's op-ed on predatory lending in the Financial Times.
Blog Round Up for Friday, August 31, 2007
August 31, 2007
Governor Richardson issued a demand for real answers from all candidates on how many troops they will leave behind, and for how long. The governor’s position on ending the war is clear. He has been calling for complete and immediate withdrawal of all our troops from Iraq since the beginning of the campaign. In the most recent debate, he asked the other major candidates a simple question: how many troops would you leave behind and for how long? Neither at the debate nor since then have we heard an answer.
It’s time for straignt answers. Sign the petition now and demand clear answers from all candidates on how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for how long.
Discussion sparked by Governor Richardson over his fellow candidates’ straightforwardness on Iraq has been going on in earnest. Blogger Matthew Yglesias joined in last night:
I think Bill Richardson is asking good questions:
In the most recent debate, he asked the other major candidates a clear question: how many troops would you leave behind and for how long? We have yet to hear an answer.All the major Democratic candidates say they are eager to end this war, and they all say they don’t believe there is a military solution in Iraq. Why, then, do they maintain that we must leave an indefinite number of troops behind for an indeterminate amount of time to work hopelessly towards a military solution everyone says doesn’t exist?
Richardson, as he points out, stands for a complete withdrawal from Iraq — the only policy that can reasonably follow from the premises that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all joined him in endorsing and the only one that lives up to the promises all three have made to end the war. I’m not sure many liberals have really grasped how absurd it is that we seem destined to witness a 2008 campaign in which both major party nominees support continuing the war. Nor do the Clinton/Obama/Edwards camps seem to have given serious consideration to the fact that their general election adversary will probably find it relatively easy to ridicule this “end the war, but keep fighting it” stance the Democrats have all adopted.
Kos (of Daily Kos) expressed frustration over the issue as well:
Richardson asks the question that none of the front-runner candidates want to answer:
…It is time to get a straight answer from all the other candidates: how many troops would you leave behind? For how long?… Why would they dodge? It’s not from fear of alienating the Democratic primary electorate. The clearer the stance on getting the hell out of Iraq, the more applause they’ll get. It can’t be from fear of alienating the general electorate. Independents want out of Iraq just as badly as Democrats. And it can’t be from fear of alienating the war mongers. Those 25% dead-enders aren’t abandoning their GOP heroes.
So what can it be?
The only thing that makes sense is fear of alienating David Broder, Joe Klein, and Tim Russert. You know, the Very Serious People…
“How many troops will you leave behind in Iraq.”
Anything above the security detail for the US embassy in Baghdad (all U.S. embassies in the world have Marine guards) is one troop too many…
But if nothing else, can we please just get a clear answer to that damn question?
Sign the petition now and demand straight answers from all candidates on how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for how long. To read Governor Richardson’s most recent statement calling on Congress to de-authorize the war immediately and bring our troops home, click here. And for more complete information on Governor Richardson’s plan to end the war in Iraq, click here.
Richardson Blog Round Up for Thursday, August 30, 2007
August 31, 2007
President Bush's request for an additional $50 billion to keep our troops in harms way has brought a renewed sense of urgency about ending our ongoing, tragically mismanaged military involvement in Iraq. Governor Richardson released the following statement in response to the President's request:
The only appropriation Congress should pass for this war is funding for a safe and quick withdrawal. This Congress was elected to end the war in Iraq. They need to stand up to President Bush and do the job. This is an issue where leadership means no compromises. It took us too many years and far too many lives to end the war in Vietnam, and we cannot repeat that mistake.Congress should use every power at its disposal to end this war, including de-authorization and refusing to fund the war beyond what is necessary for the safe redeployment of our troops.
George Bush should show less concern about his legacy and pay more attention to the lives of our men and women in harm's way. The best way to support our troops is to get them all out of Iraq as soon as it can safely be accomplished.
This administration miscalculated the intelligence before the war, mismanaged the war itself, bungled the surge, and now has the audacity to ask Congress for more funding to continue this tragic misadventure. The answer should be a resounding no.
Governor Richardson's position on ending the war has been clear throughout his entire campaign. Way back in December of 2006, he was insisting that we must redeploy our troops out of Iraq and begin the necessary diplomatic work. Again, at the DNC Winter Meeting back in February, Governor Richardson emphasized the need for an immediate end to our military involvement in Iraq:
The Congress passed a resolution authorizing war. They need to pass another one that overturns that authorization and brings our troops home by the end of this calendar year.
That was February 3, 2007. In March, on the fourth anniversary of our military involvement in Iraq, he reiterated his call:
Whatever you may think of the way we went to war in Iraq, the fact is we've done all we can there militarily and it's time to bring our troops home with honor. I believe we can do it within a year, and we should start immediately…In the face of the President's refusal to withdraw our troops, I call on the Congress-Democrats and Republicans – to stand for what is right, overturn the authorization for the war, and bring our troops home as soon as possible.
Just over a month later, at the first Democratic Presidential Debate in April, Governor Richardson articulated once again his support for immediate and complete troop redeployment out of Iraq:
This is what I would do if I were President today. I would withdraw all of our troops, including residual troops, by the end of this calendar year.
On May 1, 2007, in response to the President's veto of democrat sponsored legislation that would have set a timeline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Governor Richardson repeated his call for Congress to de-authorize the war immediately and bring our troops home:
The President is defying the will of the American people so it is time for Congress to take action that cannot be vetoed…To continue with more of the same is not a strategy, it is a tragedy. The only solution is strong diplomacy and real political progress led by the Iraqis. Our troops have performed bravely, with honor and sacrifice, but it is time to get them out of the crossfire of a civil war.
We need to redeploy all of our forces out of Iraq leaving no residual forces.
In the official release accompanying this statement was Governor Richardson's 7 Point New Realism Plan for Iraq. One week later, Governor Richardson began reaching out to Americans, explaining the de-authorization option, restating his call for complete withdrawal by the end of 2007, and urging them to sign a petition calling on Congress to de-authorize the war and bring our troops home by the end of the year. Just two weeks later, Governor Richardson issued another statement reiterating the urgency of de-authorizing the war in Iraq and immediately beginning the withdrawal of all our troops from Iraq:
President Bush has abused the 2002 war authorization by turning a war to remove WMD into an open-ended occupation. Congress should pass a resolution that explicitly de-authorizes the war in which we are now engaged, establishes a six-month deadline for the removal of ALL our troops, and instructs the President to remove them.
Later in May, (can you guess what's coming??) the governor released another statement calling on Congress to de-authorize the war and require the President to redeploy all our troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007. At the Take Back America Conference, Governor Richardson detailed his position on ending the Iraq War with depth and clarity – again. In his speech, he introduced NoTroopsLeftBehind.com.
And between all those speeches and statements, and all summer long, he has repeated his position in living rooms, back yards, town halls, auditoriums, and everywhere else the campaign trail has taken him all across the country.
Today, Chris Bowers discussed at Open Left the demand Governor Richardson made today for clarity from the other Democratic candidates on ending the Iraq War:
Bill Richardson just put out an interesting action alert:
All the major Democratic candidates say they are eager to end this war, and they all say they don't believe there is a military solution in Iraq. Why, then, do they maintain that we must leave an indefinite number of troops behind for an indeterminate amount of time to work hopelessly towards a military solution everyone says doesn't exist?It is time to get a straight answer from all the other candidates: how many troops would you leave behind? For how long?
We can help make sure we get the clear answers we deserve. Sign our petition asking Univision, the sponsors of the next Democratic candidates' debate on September 9th, to get an answer from each candidate: how many troops would you leave behind? For how long?
I applaud Richardson's efforts on this front… However, if my experience on this front is any indication, even if this question is asked at the Univision debate, in all likelihood no one except Richardson and Biden will answer the question (Kucinich and Gravel might, since it is hard to predict what they do). The question will be labeled hypothetical, and the response will be that they will listen to the commanders on the ground. And then, the debate will move on to the next question.
The more I think about this dodge from Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on how many troops they intend to leave in Iraq, the angrier I become… The refusal to provide an estimate for how many troops Clinton, Edwards and Obama has nothing to do with a refusal to engage in hypotheticals. Presidential campaigns are clearly willing to dish out hypothetical numbers all the time on issues like health care and energy costs, or issues like reducing poverty and pollution, as long as their internal hypothetical numbers make them look good. As such, the only conclusions I can draw from repeated unwillingness of these campaigns to estimate how many troops they would leave in Iraq is that they either have no idea how many troops they would leave in Iraq, or the actual estimated figure would make these campaigns look very, very bad to the base. Either conclusion is disturbing should serve as the operating assumptions for every Democratic voter until these leading campaigns provide an actual estimate.
Right now, Bill Richardson is the only Democrat providing clarity on Iraq. I am not endorsing him, but I certainly hope he keeps rising in Iowa and New Hampshire using he transparent, progressive, "no residual force" position on Iraq.
Demand straight answers from every candidate by signing the petition now. And for more on Governor Richardson's policy platform on Iraq, click here.
Congress Must Stand Up to President Bush
August 31, 2007
The Governor released the following statement today regarding reports that George Bush will request an additional $50 billion in Iraq war funding.
"The only appropriation Congress should pass for this war is funding
for a safe and quick withdrawal. This Congress was elected to end the war
in Iraq. They need to stand up to President Bush and do the job. This is an
issue where leadership means no compromises. It took us too many years and
far too many lives to end the war in Vietnam, and we cannot repeat that mistake.Congress should use every power at its disposal to end this war, including
de-authorization and refusing to fund the war beyond what is necessary for
the safe redeployment of our troops.George Bush should show less concern about his legacy and pay more attention
to the lives of our men and women in harm’s way. The best way to support our
troops is to get them all out of Iraq as soon as it can safely be accomplished.This administration miscalculated the intelligence before the war, mismanaged
the war itself, bungled the surge, and now has the audacity to ask Congress
for more funding to continue this tragic misadventure. The answer should be
a resounding no."
You know where I stand on Iraq. How about the rest of them?
August 31, 2007
This morning the Governor sent the following email out
Dear Friend,
I’ve been completely open about what I believe we need to do to end the war in Iraq.
I’ve repeatedly called for a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq. There’s no confusion or ambiguity or waffling in my position: just bring ALL of the troops home. No excuses. No delays. No troops left behind.
At last week’s debate in Iowa I asked the other Democrats on that stage, several of whom return to Congress next week hopefully to begin debating the war again, how many troops would you leave behind?
How have the other major candidates responded to this simple question? Silence. We know they’re all on record as being against the war. But we still don’t know for sure how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for how long.
The inside-the-beltway conventional thinking says a complete withdrawal is “irresponsible.” Of course, this is the same thinking that concluded it was responsible to invade Iraq to hunt WMDs in the fist place, that continuing to fund the war is the way to end it, and that the so-called “surge” is a success.
I think it is irresponsible to continue with half-measures and incremental steps when what we need is a clean break. No drawn-out, Vietnam-style withdrawal. No stalling. The responsible path now is to get all of our troops out as quickly as possible. After the damage Bush has wrought, we can’t be afraid of big changes based on solid logic and grounded experience.
I’ve met and successfully negotiated with leaders from the region (including Saddam Hussein himself) — and my concrete experience tells me only a complete withdrawal will break the deadlock and allow us to move forward, toward real change. As long as our troops are there, the Iraqis will delay reconciliation. It is time to get our troops out of harm’s way in a civil war, and it is time to get our lingering presence in Iraq out of the way of the diplomatic process.
And I believe we must withdraw our troops as quickly as possible. After the first Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half a million troops in a few months. In this war, our military leaders have successfully rotated as many as 240,000 troops in and out of Iraq in as few as three months. I believe we can remove approximately 162,000 troops now quickly and safely. Now, it is just a matter of having a real debate, and then having the political will to call for real solutions.
If we elect a President who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay there for years. Now is the time to get the answers we need. It is time to demand more than sound bites, uncertainty, and non-answers to important questions. It is time to demand real answers based on real experience and a commitment to real, and realistic, change.
You know where I stand — and what I would do as President.
Senator Clinton? Senator Obama? Senator Edwards? How about you?
Will you bring all the troops home? If not, how many would you leave behind? For how long?
Let’s get the question of residual troops on the table at the Democratic candidates’ debate next Sunday, September 9th at the University of Miami. Let’s get the answers the voters and the public deserve.
This is not a theoretical question — it’s a concrete one, and it deserves a concrete answer. Our men and women in uniform are not an abstraction. They are our family, our friends, our neighbors. It is time for answers we can count on.
Sincerely,
Governor Bill Richardson
Congress Must Stand Up to President Bush
August 31, 2007
The Governor released the following statement today regarding reports that George Bush will request an additional $50 billion in Iraq war funding.
"The only appropriation Congress should pass for this war is funding
for a safe and quick withdrawal. This Congress was elected to end the war
in Iraq. They need to stand up to President Bush and do the job. This is an
issue where leadership means no compromises. It took us too many years and
far too many lives to end the war in Vietnam, and we cannot repeat that mistake.Congress should use every power at its disposal to end this war, including
de-authorization and refusing to fund the war beyond what is necessary for
the safe redeployment of our troops.George Bush should show less concern about his legacy and pay more attention
to the lives of our men and women in harm’s way. The best way to support our
troops is to get them all out of Iraq as soon as it can safely be accomplished.This administration miscalculated the intelligence before the war, mismanaged
the war itself, bungled the surge, and now has the audacity to ask Congress
for more funding to continue this tragic misadventure. The answer should be
a resounding no."
On the Second Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina
August 31, 2007
The Governor released the following statement today regarding the second anniversary of the Hurricane Katrina tragedy:
"The administration has failed to keep its promise to the residents of New Orleans and the American people. Katrina now stands as a monument to incompetence and arrogance. The citizens of this great country expect and deserve more from their President and their government. We need bold, dramatic change to ensure this never happens again.
"I have proposed a comprehensive plan to create an emergency response structure, able to respond immediately and effectively, that will restore the nation's confidence and peace of mind:
- We must pull FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security and place it directly under the office of the President,
- Unlike the current administration, we must put competence ahead of cronyism. We must appoint the best qualified people to lead our important national agencies,
- We must eliminate bureaucracy and make sure assistance immediately gets to the people who need it most,
- We have to end predatory practices in lending, insurance, and rental housing which are outrageous, un-American, and intolerable,
- We must also guarantee a right of return fr those who want to go home to New Orleans. We should allocate funding and create programs to facilitate the quick return of the thousands who want nothing more than to go back home,
- Furthermore, we have to guarantee residents and returning citizens first priority for jobs, job training, and contracting opportunities, and,
- We have to fully rebuild the great city of New Orleans and cities and towns all along the Gulf Coast.
- As President, Bill Richardson will make this a top priority.
"Two years ago, the President vowed to rebuild the city better than it was before and promised to restore our broken faith in his leadership. Like so many other promises he has made, this too was just empty words.
"New Orleans is still suffering and is far from being rebuilt. Many residents have not returned. The resilient people of New Orleans have put life back in the city, but they have done it mostly on their own.
"As a nation, we are no better prepared now to handle a disaster like Katrina than we were then. Presidential leadership is nowhere to be found.
"We need to change course.
"Today, let us take a moment to remember and pray for the victims of this tragedy. In their name, let us renew our promise to rebuild New Orleans, and together, rebuild the promise of America."
Translator
Subscribe To Our Feeds
