And some people actually like this bastard..........Telling AL GORE not to run. :bad: :angry: :bad: :angry:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070328/ap_on_...on_nuclear911_2

Richardson: 'Nuclear 9-11' is possible

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
Wed Mar 28, 1:40 PM ET

Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson said the United States needs to do more to prevent a "nuclear 9-11," a threat that he argues has been neglected because the Bush administration has been consumed with Iraq.

The New Mexico governor said the United States must lead an effort to secure nuclear materials in Russia and dangerous areas of the world so they can't get into terrorists' hands. "If al-Qaida obtained nuclear weapons, they would not hesitate to use them with the same ruthlessness that allowed them to fly airplanes filled with people into buildings," he said in a speech to the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

"It took a Manhattan project to create the bomb," Richardson said. "We need a new Manhattan project to stop the bomb — a comprehensive program to secure all nuclear weapons and all weapons-usable material, worldwide."

Asked why he doesn't support a nuclear-free world like former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and other Cold War leaders have promoted, Richardson replied, "I'm a pragmatist."

"I believe what the world needs to do is nuclear arms reductions," Richardson said. He recalled that it didn't work when President Reagan and Soviet Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev agreed in 1986 to renounce all nuclear weapons "for about 10 minutes."

Richardson worked on securing Russian nuclear weapons when he was energy secretary in the Clinton administration. But he accused the Bush administration of underfunding their programs.

"Meanwhile, we are spending $10 billion a month on Iraq," he said. "Of the many ways in which the Iraq war has distracted us from our real national security needs, this is the most dangerous."

In the question-and-answer period after his speech, Richardson laid out the plans for his first days in the White House. The first day, he would get out of Iraq. The second, he would announce a plan to drastically cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

On the third day, the issue would be global warming. Richardson gave former Vice President Al Gore credit for spreading knowledge about the issue through his Oscar-winning film. But he wasn't encouraging Gore to enter the 2008 race.

"I like Al Gore, he looks very healthy and prosperous," Richardson said with a laugh. "He should stay where he is."

I would never vote for Bill Richardson, I never did like him since he sided with Bush and now he has the nerve to open his big arrogant mouth and tell AL GORE not to run for president in 2008.

And what the hell does he mean by this???? "He should stay where he is."

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archiv...dson-dark-side/

1/22/2007

The Dark Side of Bill Richardson

Much of the talk about Bill Richardson since he announced his candidacy has focused on his experience and competence. The positioning is meant to demonstrate how Bill Richardson has what Barack Obama lacks. Bill Richardson is a veteran political insider who has effectively held many posts, that cannot be questioned

I’m left wanting to know more. Capability is all well and good, but there are many people in American government with a lot of experience and successful records of service. Most of them will not ever be considered as candidates for President. I want to know what sets Bill Richardson apart. I want to know what Bill Richardson stands for. For what agenda does Bill Richardson want to apply his competence?

Back in 2003, Bill Richardson’s agenda seems to have been to help George W. Bush start a war in Iraq. In the weeks before the war, Richardson gave Democratic cover to President Bush’s belligerent push for war. In February 2003, being interviewed on CNN by Paula Zahn, Bill Richardson declared, “I think there is such intensive pressure on both sides that only one more deadline, only one more chance for Saddam Hussein is going to be allowable. So I think the administration is wise in pursuing this course that says OK, total disarmament in two weeks and that’s it.”

Bill Richardson would not entertain the doubts expressed by the millions of anti-war protesters in the street who were begging the government not to start a war. Bill Richardson didn’t mind the lack of evidence that Saddam Hussein actually had any weapons of mass destruction, much less the kind of arsenals that would threaten the security of the world, as the pro-war crowd was claiming. Bill Richardson didn’t lift a finger to try to stop the war from taking place. On the contrary, he added his voice to the voice of those cheering the prospect of war.

It’s not a surprise, really, considering Bill Richardson’s political allegiances. Bill Richardson is affiliated with the right wing Democratic Leadership Council. Just a few months after helping George W. Bush to start the Iraq War, Bill Richardson gave the keynote address at the Democratic Leadership Council. In his introduction of Richardson, right wing Democrat Will Marshall declared, “Bill Richardson is a long-time friend of the Democratic Leadership Council.” Marshall went on to praise Bill Richardson in that uniquely short-sighted manner of the DLC, citing as evidence of Richardson’s wisdom that “He backed a war to oust the Saddam regime.”

Bill Richardson went on to proudly say in his address that day that he was the “first DLC governor”. Is that the platform that Bill Richardson plans to use for his campaign for President? If so, Richardson will be fairly open to the criticism that he is from the Joseph Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party, that he’s the kind of Democrat who did not have the wisdom and the moral strength necessary to stand up to George W. Bush when it was most necessary. When America needed him to do the difficult thing, Bill Richardson took the easy way out, and joined the pro-war bandwagon.

Before I can even think about supporting Bill Richardson for President, I need to hear a full and honest explanation from Bill Richardson of why he helped George W. Bush start the war in Iraq, and why he thinks that we can trust his moral judgment in spite of that terrible betrayal. An apology isn’t enough. Bill Richardson needs to prove that he gets it, that he understands how serious a mistake he made.

Unfortunately, there isn’t even a hint that Bill Richardson is ready to have that difficult conversation with Democrats. On his campaign web site, there’s not a single sentence in which Bill Richardson admits that he was wrong.

Some say that we ought to leave Bill Richardson’s support for starting this unnecessary war in the past. I say that Bill Richardson’s decision to side with Bush and the pro-war camp in 2003 tells us a great deal about what kind of decisions he would make as President. Bill Richardson’s decision in 2003 tells me that he would make the wrong decision, that he would lead the country into a war similar to Iraq, if given the chance.

I don’t speak for everybody at Irregular Times. As for myself, though, I have to say that I’m not at all impressed with Bill Richardson.

Sorry, Mr. Richardson, but until you can explain to me why I should trust you not to screw up again, I’m not at all inclined to support your effort to gain the power of the Oval Office. Competence in the wrong direction is deadly.

"I like Al Gore, he looks very healthy and prosperous," Richardson said with a laugh. "He should stay where he is."

maybe this was his way of saying he hopes gore doesn't enter the race because then richardson would surely lose. at least he knows that much.

Reading way too much into the tone of a quote I didn't hear or see???

It sounds like a lament that he knows he is toast against Al Gore and hopes his new found wealth and stature is enough to keep him off of the idea of the presidency.

I lament of late that the fact that Gore does ondeed have NEW Found wealth is getting lost instead and coming off like he was always a silver spoon child of wealth.

His father didn't suffer, but they frugally paid a price to live in DC and to get Al Gore through those great private shools. It was a calculated move for his future and not a given easy silver spoon task without their committment to dos so for him.

They invested in their son above their own lifestyle ease!

The surest way to make a nuclear 9-11 not happen is to cleanse the world of all things Bush and his entire family and octopus arms

Once they are purged, the world will again be safe for all human beings to come out and live in love again

Take away the Bush family and none of the bad events of the last 50 years would have happened. They manipulated things so for their own devilish gain
and the government must be purged of them

Did you hear Mitt actually put Jeb on his 3 person short list for VP? Thank God Mitt is below 10 percent and falling rapidly.

I have felt for many years the Bush crime family has been the cause of many disasters even before the stolen election of 2000. There is definitely something evil about this arrogant and self-serving family.

The country and the world would be better off if they would just go away and never be heard from again. I'm sick of hearing the name, Bush. :bad:

I think it's pretty obvious that Richardson was joking around. He knows that having another "Rock star" in the race would only hurt his chances... especially the "Rock star" which was screwed over in 2000. Plus, he worked for Clinton-Gore during their administration.

I also don't think we should rule out voting for him, since he has one of the best, if not THE best records, out of those presently running. 15 years in the Legislative branch, U.N. Ambassador, Secretary of Energy, and now Governor in his second term, which he just entered after winning 69% of the vote, which includes 30% of the Republican vote, in last years election.

Seriously, Richardson was joking (sorta) about recommending Gore not run. This is why he was "laughing".

When I say joking, I mean he no doubt mentioned it in a good-natured way. Of course he doesn't really want Al Gore to run. What candidate would want to face Gore as an opponent?

Al Gore seems to have his head on straight enough, and seems to have demonstrated that he actually can think for himself......not just parrot the "party line", which is why, I, a Republican, would campaign actively, and vote for him. Here are some facts:
1-Al Gore knows the benefit of using nuclear power for power generation.
2-Al Gore knows the status of the decaying reactor complexes in the inferior designs of various power reactors around the world, and can eliminate the use of poor designs.
3-Al Gore knows which rogue states would use nuclear material of any type to a non-amenable end.
4- Al Gore has enough engineering support staff/experts to understand the need for a USEABLE power source that has been demonstrated to meet the line KVAR requirements for industrial power.
5- Al Gore is able to pick up and understand complex technical subject matter and correlate it into a communicable concept, relating it to non-technical constituents.
6- Al Gore does not seem to attack opponents for being stupid, but, seems to be able to teach complex concepts that provide immediacy and understanding.
7- Al Gore seems to have a true concern over the immediate global priorities and yet have a demonstrated intelligence and dedication to attend, yet still, to the lower national priorities.... and it seems he can staff up for them.
8- Al Gore seems to have a firm grasp on media infrastructure to communicate in a believable and forthright manner.
9- Al Gore is loyal.
10- Al Gore has not stood on any tired soapboxes, but instead, seems to have remained above the "mudslinging".
11- Al Gore has not indicated a plan for compensatory measures in the Middle East that will bide the US time to fully develop energy sources other than fossil.

Al...Dude! On Pargo, you were much thinner! :good: