Not Richardson. That man is too trusting and is poor at reading minds and intent. He talks good talk, negotiates, sits back and thinks everything goes swell. It's no wonder so many negotiated agrrements, he has been involved, back-fired. He's far from being competent at seeing, analyzing, or have the hind-sight or far-vision of things that might go sour to prepare America and its People for the unexpected. Take his interview with Paula Zahn on Dec. 18, 2002, for instance, on the subject of Iraq... goes to show he's all talk and nothing he said became a reality! He didn't have the eyes and ears to get the hint that Bush would overide Hans Blix or the UN!
Qoutes from his interview:
RICHARDSON: It does make sense, because what I think the administration is doing building a case. It's not ready to go to war, but it's building a case to get other members -- the recalcitrant members of the UN Security Council -- Russia, China, Britain, France -- well, Britain is still with us, but not entirely.
And what is happening now, I believe, is an effort to put pressure on the inspectors who are continuing their inspections, find out what happened to the mustard gas before 1998, and other chemical and biological weapons, and basically declare in breach Iraq for saying that it has not been starting its nuclear program in the last 10 years.
So, it's a diplomatic effort, coupled with also, I believe, public pressure, mainly aimed at countries like Russia. And what is interesting here, Paula, is Russia is very mad at Iraq right now for having broken an oil deal in the last two days. So, I would watch Russia very closely. Traditionally, it's been a serious opponent of ours that all of a sudden might be, behind the scenes, helpful to us.
RICHARDSON: Well, it's going to take more time, obviously. I don't think an incessantly more time, but it is clear that Iraq has not disclosed what happened to its weapons before 1998. The inspectors are going to see that. I think you will see the head of the inspection team at the Security Council meeting say that tomorrow, Thursday. I think it is clear that since 1998, Iraq has not specifically declared what it's been doing with its entire weapons program.
So, the inspectors are going to, I think, come to almost the same conclusion, obviously not with the same vehemence as we do, that there are problems. The question is: How long do you let the inspectors do their serious inspection? My view is that I think the administration has decided, let's stay the course, let the inspectors do their job, build a case for a second United Nations Security Council resolution that basically solidifies its preliminary view that it's a serious material breach. I think that's a tactic, and I must say I think it makes sense.
RICHARDSON: No, this basically means that you want to also protect the inspectors. This means that there is probably intelligence out there that we have that Mr. Blix may have been passed on that information that might jeopardize some of the inspectors. Remember, some of the inspectors are Americans, they're British, and a common tactic of the Iraqis has been, we've got spies on the team, because there are Americans and British and others.
So, I think it's a double-edged sword. My view would be to see what Hans Blix and the inspectors do on Thursday before providing any kind of intelligence that we have out there, and then slowly start building the case that this is a serious material breach. I think that's what that report means.
2007-01-23 14:08:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by United_Peace 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
he is very good person. he has done it all and there is no contender that has the experience that he has internationally. he gave rebate checks to people in NM. he was a neighbour of mine in Santa Fe at one time and he loves good pizza.....general all around great guy. stacking up everything all others have done, NOone can compare to his accomplishments. he does talk about it he just does it. he has freed hostages, gone to Darfur and entertained the north koreans in santa fe when politicians in washington would not.
Cons: he is a little wimpy. he was not able to get medical marijuana enacted though the Santa Fe legislature ok, but 7 other people with the water resources board were allowed to overturn the will of the people. many legislators in the "rounds" house have family members that make money selling pot so that was a no brainer to the water resources. he does not stand up strong to opposition and needs backbone training, (aka backbone trainer).
2007-01-23 12:00:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Kreep 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Seems like a decent, solid person who will never be President unless he gets to be V-P (a possibility) and someone dies.
Comes from an unpopulated Western state, so he has little base to draw from, and although he is Hispanic, with a name like Richardson that fact is not obvious.
2007-01-23 11:49:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by kingstubborn 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
Billy-boy Richardson is the Democrat who was a tool for North Korea, much as Carter was.
He let himself be used by North Korea to suit their propaganda needs.
He's a tool, and a dangerous one at that.
2007-01-23 11:59:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋