Steve Corbin is emeritus professor of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa and a freelance writer who receives no remuneration, funding, or endorsement from any for-profit business, nonprofit organization, political action committee, or political party. 

Psychological scientists who study human behavior concur that past actions are the best predictor of future behavior. If past actions caused no problem, then all is well. If, however, a person demonstrated poor behavior in the past, well, buckle up. The odds are very great the person will continue to perform poorly if given the chance.

Donald Trump’s past behavior on national defense indicates that if the 45th president becomes the 47th president, we’re in a heap of trouble. Americans must seriously examine Trump’s past national security endeavors before voting on November 5.

U.S. Senator Joni Ernst has voted against seven of President Joe Biden’s nominees so far: Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, United Nations Representative Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona.

This week the junior Iowa senator announced her opposition to another Biden pick: Colin Kahl for undersecretary of defense for policy. Kahl’s more than qualified for the position. The sticking point for Ernst and many of her Republican colleagues was a surprising one for anyone familiar with former President Donald Trump’s social media presence.

During their six years serving together in the U.S. Senate, Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst have rarely landed on opposite sides of a roll call vote.

It’s already happened twice during the first week of Joe Biden’s presidency.

Two hours after President Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst said in a written statement, “As an eternal optimist, I am hopeful we can work together with President Joe Biden, and the first female Vice President, Kamala Harris, in a bipartisan way to deliver for the American people.”

Later the same day, Ernst was among just ten Republicans to oppose the first Biden cabinet nomination considered on the Senate floor.

Bruce Lear questions whether President Donald Trump has thought through his approach to Iran. -promoted by Laura Belin

It was an Iowa night thick with humidity and lightning bugs.  We’d gathered in a vacant lot to test our virgin manhood.  I was 13 years old, and I was standing in a circle of friends watching as each skinny armed boy tied on overweight boxing gloves and met his opponent in the center of the circle.

No referee.  No adult.  Just a whole lot of testosterone mingling with nervous adolescent sweat.

Greg Thielmann grew up in Newton and worked for more than 30 years on nuclear weapons issues in the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Foreign Service, and the Senate Intelligence Committee. He currently serves as a board member of the Arms Control Association. -promoted by Laura Belin

When I was growing up in central Iowa during the Cold War, I sometimes found myself headed west on Interstate 80, imagining the way nuclear war would be likely to arrive in Iowa – a series of Soviet nuclear ground bursts in Omaha to destroy Strategic Air Command Headquarters, bathing Iowa in a heavy dose of radioactive fallout.

Now the Cold War is over, but not the nuclear threat. The Trump administration has abandoned the anti-nuclear deal with Iran and six other states. President Trump’s efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament on the Korean peninsula have fizzled. The U.S. has pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia and is dithering over Moscow’s offer to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the only remaining limit on the world’s largest nuclear arsenals. 

Meanwhile, the Trump administration proposes spending trillions of dollars to build new strategic weapons.

The U.S. House voted on January 9 to block further military action against Iran without express authorization from Congress.

In a written statement, Representative Steve King (IA-04) thundered against what he called “bad legislation that seeks to tie the President’s hands,” adding,

I stand with letting President Trump, our Commander-in-Chief, make the tough calls and take the swift and certain actions that he determines are necessary to protect our nation, our citizens, and our interests from Iranian acts of hostility.

King was singing a different tune when House members of both parties passed a similar resolution in 2011 to limit President Barack Obama’s military engagement in Libya.

The Bleeding Heartland community lost a valued voice this year when Johnson County Supervisor Kurt Friese passed away in October. As Mike Carberry noted in his obituary for his good friend, Kurt had a tremendous amount on his plate, and I was grateful whenever he found time to share his commentaries in this space. His final post here was a thought-provoking look at his own upbringing and past intimate relationships in light of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Friese was among more than 100 guest authors who produced 202 Bleeding Heartland posts during 2018, shattering the previous record of 164 posts by 83 writers in 2017. I’m thankful for every piece and have linked to them all below.

You will find scoops grounded in original research, commentary about major news events, personal reflections on events from many years ago, and stories in photographs or cartoons. Some posts were short, while others developed an argument over thousands of words. Pieces by Allison Engel, Randy Richardson, Tyler Higgs, and Matt Chapman were among the most-viewed at the site this year. In the full list, I’ve noted other posts that were especially popular.

Please get in touch if you would like to write about any political topic of local, statewide, or national importance during 2019. If you do not already have a Bleeding Heartland account, I can set one up for you and explain the process. There is no standard format or word limit. I copy-edit for clarity but don’t micromanage how authors express themselves. Although most authors write under their real names, pseudonyms are allowed here and may be advisable for those writing about sensitive topics or whose day job does not permit expressing political views. I ask authors to disclose potential conflicts of interest, such as being are a paid staffer, consultant, or lobbyist promoting any candidate or policy they discuss here.

Ben Cobley: If Senator Joni Ernst is “excited about the opportunity” of a denuclearized North Korea, why does she not feel the same way about a denuclearized Iran? -promoted by desmoinesdem

“If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.” – Nelson Mandela

In my previous writing about the Iran Deal, I called out Senator Joni Ernst on her hypocrisy regarding President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the deal. I also called into question her understanding of diplomatic affairs and the consequences they have on the people of Iowa, the safety of our troops around the world and the future of a G-Zero world under President Trump.

Whether or not Ernst read my piece is unclear, but she seems to have doubled down on her ignorance with her comments on the Singapore Summit.

Ben Cobley is a Senior Digital Strategist at GPS Impact in Des Moines. He studied international relations at the University of Iowa and served as part of the First Infantry Division of the U.S. Army. -promoted by desmoinesdem

Before I go too far down the rabbit hole that is Middle Eastern foreign policy, let me explain how this post started.

A recent interaction on Twitter reminded me that when it comes to the public’s understanding of foreign policy decisions, simplicity isn’t always best. Such is the case with many of our media’s attempts at discussing the intricacies of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly referred to as “The Iran Deal.”

I don’t blame the media for this oversimplification. Their job isn’t to teach – it’s to inform. And while many outlets try to toe that line to give an unbiased report on political findings, they also have to deal with countless variables that push them towards oversimplifying topics to keep a reader engaged.

I don’t have to face quite as many variables, and thus this post will be longer and more detail oriented. I’ll do my best to limit myself when needed.

Still with me? Okay – let’s talk about Iran and President Trump.

The good news is, the federal government won’t shut down before the end of the current fiscal year on September 30, 2016. The bad news is, members of Congress snuck some awful provisions in the “omnibus” budget bill and package of tax cut or tax credit extensions that just cleared the U.S. House and Senate. You know leaders aren’t proud when they bury news about a deal during another event occupying the political world’s attention, in this case Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate. I enclose below background on key provisions in the bills, as well as statements from the Iowans in Congress. I will update this post as needed.

The House held separate votes on the “tax extenders” and the omnibus. Republicans were nearly united in support of the tax bill (confusingly named “On Concurring in Senate Amdt with Amdt Specified in Section 3(b) of H.Res. 566”), which passed yesterday by 318 votes to 109 (roll call). The Democratic caucus was split; Naomi Jagoda and Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill that House Democratic leaders “opposed the tax package” but “did not whip their members against it.” Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04) all voted for the tax extenders; so did Democratic Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02), one of 77 House Democrats to do so.

Loebsack was the only Iowan to vote for the omnibus bill, which easily passed this morning by 316 votes to 113 (roll call). Most of the Democratic caucus supported the bill that keeps the federal government open for at least nine more months; just 18 Democrats voted against it.

Although House Speaker Paul Ryan and his team persuaded 150 Republicans to vote for the budget measure, 95 Republicans opposed it, including all three Iowans. Blum and Young appear to have concluded that the bill was simply too expensive. King’s main objection was that none of his nine amendments were included in the final deal. Click through to read the texts of those amendments, which would have barred the use of appropriated funds for: enforcing the 2010 Affordable Care Act (health care reform law); implementing President Barack Obama’s executive orders to provide temporary protection against deportation for some immigrants who entered the country without permission; enforcing the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide; supporting any activities of Planned Parenthood Federation of America or any of its clinics, affiliates, or successors; implementing or enforcing any change to the U.S. EPA’s Waters of the United States rule; resettling refugees; implementing the multilateral deal struck earlier this year to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; implementing any regulation that stemmed from the recent international agreement to combat climate change; or expanding the use of H-2B visas.

The Senate combined the tax extenders and budget bills into one package, which passed this morning by 65 votes to 33 (roll call). Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst both voted no; in the statements I’ve enclosed below, Grassley went into greater detail about his reasons for opposing the package. However, earlier this week he released a separate statement bragging about some of the provisions he helped to insert in the tax legislation. Members of Congress from both parties use that sleight of hand.

Among the presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul voted against the omnibus, Lindsey Graham voted for it, and unbelievably, Marco Rubio missed the vote. What is wrong with this guy? He “has missed more than half of the Senate’s votes since October,” Jordain Carney reported for The Hill. I think not showing up for Senate work will hurt Rubio in Iowa, though not having a strong field operation will hurt him more.

The Senate is now adjourned until January 11 and the House until January 5. During the winter recess, Bleeding Heartland will catch up on some of the Iowa Congressional voting not covered here during the late summer and fall.

Today the four Iowans in the U.S. House split along party lines on several measures related to the multi-lateral agreement negotiated this summer to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

A resolution to approve the deal failed by 162 votes to 269 (roll call). Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) was among the 162 members (all Democrats) supporting the Iran agreement. Representatives Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04) voted no, as did all but one House Republican and 25 Democrats. Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill that “despite the defections, enough Democrats voted to support the deal to deprive the GOP of a veto-proof majority.” Keeping the no votes below a two-thirds majority was mostly a symbolic victory; President Barack Obama appears unlikely to need to exercise his veto power, now that Democrats have blocked a disapproval resolution in the U.S. Senate.

A few minutes after the first Iran-related vote today, House members approved by 247 votes to 186 a resolution “To suspend until January 21, 2017, the authority of the President to waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions pursuant to an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran.” Only two House Democrats joined Republicans to support that measure. Again, the Iowans split along party lines.

Yesterday, on a straight party-line vote of 245 to 186, House members approved a resolution “Finding that the President has not complied with section 2 of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.” Marcos explained that the measure asserts “Obama didn’t provide Congress with all documents pertaining to the Iran deal in violation of the congressional review law passed earlier this year.” In May, Blum, Loebsack, Young, and King all supported the bill that cleared the way for this week’s Congressional votes on Iran. Bleeding Heartland compiled Iowa political reaction to the deal’s announcement in July here.

UPDATE: Added comments on the Iran deal from the Iowa Congressional delegation and the Republican Party of Iowa, which promised to make this vote a campaign issue against Loebsack in IA-02 next year.

This afternoon Democrats in the U.S. Senate blocked a motion to disapprove the deal the U.S. and five other countries reached with Iran in July. All 54 Republicans and four Democrats voted for the disapproval measure, which needed 60 votes to proceed under Senate rules. GOP leaders plan to return to the issue next week, but they are unlikely to change the minds of the 42 Democrats who upheld today’s filibuster. The U.S. House is expected to pass a disapproval motion, but without Senate action, President Barack Obama will not be forced to veto the measure.

Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst both voted for the bill that allowed Congress to weigh in on the Iran deal. Both were skeptical when the Obama administration announced the agreement. Yesterday and today, both delivered Senate floor speeches explaining why they oppose the deal. You can watch Grassley’s speech here and Ernst’s here. I enclose below full transcripts released by each senator’s office.

Incidentally, Ernst’s campaign committee is list-building off the issue. At the end of this post, I enclose an e-mail blast that went out minutes before the Senate voted.

UPDATE: Added below a statement Ernst’s office released after the vote.

President Barack Obama announced this morning a deal aimed at preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Negotiators representing the U.S., Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, China and Germany were involved in the talks. You can read the full text of the deal on the Washington Post’s website. The United Nations will drop its sanctions on Iran, provided that country complies with the agreement, including granting international inspectors access to all nuclear sites.

Most of Iowa’s Congressional delegation has already reacted to the news. I’ve enclosed their comments below and will update this post as needed. This spring, all four Iowans in the U.S. House and both of our U.S. senators voted for a bill Obama signed into law, which allows Congress to vote to approve or disapprove any deal with Iran. Speaking to reporters today, the president said, “I welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement,” adding “that he would veto any legislation that tried to prevent its implementation.” Opponents of the deal would need to override that veto with a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress; so far, just under half the U.S. senate appears inclined to block the deal.  

All four Iowans voted for a bill that overwhelmingly passed the U.S. House on May 14, which would allow Congress to weigh in on any deal the Obama administration may strike with Iran. Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill,

The carefully negotiated bill, which President Obama is expected to sign, gives Congress the power to approve or disapprove of a nuclear agreement with Iran during a 30-day period when economic sanctions could not be lifted.

Should the House and Senate vote to disapprove of the deal, and then override a likely Obama veto, the administration would be barred from waiving some economic sanctions on Iran as part of international accord.

I haven’t seen any comments on this bill from Iowa Democrat Dave Loebsack (IA-02) or from Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03, or Steve King (IA-03). Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst both voted for the bill on the Senate floor earlier this month. Critics including Senator Ted Cruz have said the compromise would allow an Iran deal to go forward even if only a minority in Congress agree.

U.S. Senator Joni Ernst plans to retire as a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard “within the next year,” she announced on Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” program. Click here to watch the whole video or read the full transcript from the May 8 edition; I’ve enclosed the relevant portion after the jump. Ernst explained that it is “very hard” to balance her obligations as a senator with her National Guard and desire to spend time with her family. She said she would probably retire in about a year, to give plenty of time to train her replacement.

Stepping back from military service to focus more fully on the U.S. Senate is the right decision for lots of reasons. I didn’t expect Ernst to make that choice, given how central her identity as a soldier has been to her political image, from the beginning to the end of her Senate campaign.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

P.S.- In what struck me as the most interesting part of Ernst’s “Iowa Press” appearance, Iowa’s junior senator sounded like a veteran pol as she thwarted three experienced panelists’ best efforts to get her to commit to specific federal spending cuts. The portion comes just before the discussion of Ernst’s National Guard work. Referring to recent budget votes in the Senate, Radio Iowa’s O. Kay Henderson asked Ernst, “as you funnel more money to the Pentagon, what are you going to cut elsewhere to make up for that?” After Ernst gave a meandering non-response, Iowa Public Television’s Dean Borg tried to follow up with another question about what domestic programs might need to be cut, but no dice. The Des Moines Register’s Kathie Obradovich then asked, “You campaigned on cutting pork […]. Who are you going to be making squeal?” Ernst responded with more vague talk (“we really do have to look at government and what we’re doing”), plus a few examples of cuts that wouldn’t add up to any meaningful amount in the context of the whole federal budget.  

Yesterday the U.S. Senate approved by 98 votes to 1 a bill that would let Congress vote to disapprove any agreement the U.S. may reach with Iran regarding that country’s nuclear program. Iowa’s The lone vote against the bill came from Senator Tom Cotton, who spearheaded a letter 47 GOP senators sent to Iranian leaders earlier this year. He argued that any deal with Iran should be a formal treaty subject to Senate ratification.

Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst both voted for the bill, although Grassley was one of only six senators (all Republicans) to vote against ending debate before the vote on final passage. I have not seen any statement from Grassley explaining why he voted against cloture but for the final bill anyway. I’ll update this post as needed.

After the jump I’ve enclosed a statement from Ernst as well as more details on the bill’s provisions and on failed attempts by presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to offer amendments on the Senate floor.  

You wouldn’t know it from reading their press releases, but Iowa’s U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst did something unprecedented this week. Along with 45 Republican colleagues, they signed an “Open Letter to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” warning that any negotiated agreement with President Barack Obama’s administration will not be binding unless “approved by Congress,” and therefore could be revoked by the next president.

I have been trying to imagine the uproar if Congressional Democrats had sent a letter like that to Soviet leaders when President Ronald Reagan was negotiating the START arms control treaties. The Iranian foreign minister wasn’t the only one to express “astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration.” Vice President Joe Biden’s response was scathing.

Grassley and Ernst have sent out several official comments on policy issues since Monday, none of them alluding to their extraordinary step to undermine the president’s negotiations with a foreign power. When asked about the letter during their weekly press calls, they feigned surprise that the matter has spawned so much controversy.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to members of Congress this morning, covering the expected ground about U.S.-Israeli relations and the danger posed by negotiating with Iran. Yesterday President Barack Obama defended his administration’s policies and suggested that events had disproved Netanyahu’s warnings about the 2013 agreement designed to halt Iran’s nuclear program. Obama isn’t planning to meet with Netanyahu during this Washington trip because of the Israeli election happening later this month.

At least 50 Congressional Democrats skipped today’s speech, mainly because Republicans had invited Netanyahu to speak without working through White House channels. Furthermore, many people feel it’s inappropriate for the U.S. Congress to appear to support one political party leader two weeks before an Israeli election. Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference yesterday, Netanyahu disingenuously said, “The last thing anyone who cares about Israel, the last thing that I would want, is for Israel to become a partisan issue.” Which of course has been the entirely predictable outcome of this episode. For that reason, this Jewish blogger is among the roughly half of Americans who disapprove of Republican leaders inviting Netanyahu to speak to Congress.

All of the Iowa Republicans in Congress attended today’s speech. I’ve enclosed some of their comments below and will update this post as needed. UPDATE: Representative Steve King (IA-04) put his reaction on YouTube.

Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) watched the speech from his office. I enclose below his statement, explaining his views on U.S.-Israeli relations and his reasons for staying away from the “spectacle.” I support his position 100 percent. The Republican Party of Iowa accused Loebsack of insulting “America’s ally” by not hearing the prime minister’s thoughts. But Loebsack did listen to what Netanyahu had to say–from an appropriate distance. Incidentally, House Minority Nancy Pelosi commented that while listening to Netanyahu this morning, she was “saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States.”

Seven Republican candidates take the stage tonight as Fox News and the Iowa GOP co-host a presidential debate in Sioux City. I’ll be live-blogging after the jump, where I’ve also posted some recent news about the race in Iowa.

UPDATE: Scroll down for the live-blog.

Take a minute and a half out of your life to watch this video:

The Obama supporters on the blogs are way too complacent about how tough it will be to beat McCain, by the way. This is one of the lines we will need to push to get the job done.

Listen folks, we all know that this election is one of the most consequential moments in our nations' history.  We are faced with countless threats, both foreign and domestic, and it is about time that we the American people stand up and act.  We need to choose the right person for the right time. It seems clear that this time calls for Sen. Joe Biden.

Long before it was “popular”, John Edwards was calling for a New Strategy for Iran (and the War on Terror in general)

Long before the NIE Report, threw water on the GOP's fiery rhetoric about the looming dangers of Iran, Edwards was saying we must learn the lessons of the Iraq War — NOT Repeat them in Iran!

Long before the cynical Rumsfeld Memos were leaked (proving Edwards right), John Edwards was busy “reframing” the Global War on Terror, calling it “a 'bumper sticker' slogan Bush had used to justify everything …”

Did Edwards get Media Attention and fanfare for his insightful and stateman-like leadership — NO, but he DID help to change the national conversation!

So Much so, that insiders in NIE (National Intelligence Estimate), seem to have taken his advice that: “We've got to stand up to Bush and Cheney and the Neocons …”

I love how the Edwards campaign is getting so bold and so…well…I guess it could be described as snarky. As others have said before me, the truth can never be an attack, but the truth can sure hurt. Here’s another example.

Now John Edwards has asked Senator Clinton to answer 5 simple yes or no questions on Iraq. Should be easy, right? It also should be something a presidential candidate should be ready to do. Will she do it?

Welcome to the Edwards Evening News RoundUp!   Tonight's features are:  

I.  Iraq, Iran & Pakistan: Diplomatic Politcal Solutions

 II. American Heroes Week III. Edwards' Statement on the WGA Strike

III. Edwards' Statement of Support of the WGA Strike

There's been quite a bit of press this week about attacking other candidates and negative campaigning, including a number of comments on my statements at the debate calling on the other candidates to lay off the personal attacks on Senator Clinton.

But I was surprised that what many people “took away” from my statements was that I must support Senator Clinton's positions because I thought some of the attacks were out of line.

So, let me set the record straight.

I deeply disagree with Senator Clinton on many issues, just as I do with the other candidates.  For starters, Senator Clinton thinks we can fix No Child Left Behind; I believe we need to scrap it.  I believe we must create a New Energy Revolution whereas Senator Clinton's positions are simply not bold enough on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and moving to alternative energy sources.

Senator Clinton seems to believe there are nations out there too “bad” for us to talk to — I disagree and believe we should talk to both our enemies and our friends.

Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that authorized aggressive action against factions in Iran.  I think that is a huge mistake and find it shocking that she hasn't yet learned the most important lesson any American could learn about George Bush: he can't be trusted.  This vote may end up being a vote for a war in Iran. 

Most importantly, I disagree with Senator Clinton's belief that we cannot end the war now and get our troops out.  I do not understand why she, and others who claim to be against the war, continue to vote for additional funding so the war can continue and still don't stand up to Bush on getting our troops out so we can begin reconciliation.  I don't believe we are helpless against Bush and the Republicans.  I believe Congress was elected to end this war, that they have the power to act, and yet don't.

I profoundly disagree with Senator Clinton that it is unreasonable to commit to getting troops out of Iraq by 2013.

But these are disagreements on policy – not on personality.  Personal attacks are an easy way out when candidates aren't able to make real contrasts with opponents on real policy positions.

Frankly, I don't need to resort to personal attacks because I have so many disagreements with the other candidates – including Hillary Clinton — on the issues.

Don't get me wrong – I believe in highlighting differences when I see them, and exposing misinformation when I hear it, and I've never been one to shy away from a fight.  But I also believe to my core that we need to bring this country together, not split ourselves even further apart.  And before we all start to accept ubiquitous personal attacks, even against fellow Democrats, as simply the state of modern politics, we should strongly consider where attacks like these are coming from.

None of the attacks I've heard lately deal with the issue at the heart of this campaign, and the issue that will win or lose us the White House: ending the war in Iraq.  When closely examined, Senator Obama's position is not much different from Senator Clinton's on key points.  They may disagree on exactly how many troops to leave behind, and the mission, but they both would leave troops in Iraq for years after taking office.  And Senator Edwards talks about removing combat troops but what about the tens of thousands non-combat troops?

And who can forget that at the MSNBC Dartmouth Debate each and every one of them refused to commit to getting the troops out of Iraq by 2013 – SIX YEARS FROM NOW.

That position is just unacceptable.

We need to get our troops out now.  We need to stop the war with Iran before it starts.  And we need to have a debate where we focus on the real issues, and the real differences between candidates on important policy positions — not just on who is attacking whom for what.

If we as a party don't focus on the issues that really matter, and instead waste our time calling each other names, we are opening ourselves up to real Republican attacks next fall.  We should keep talking contrasts on issues and differences on world view, but let's save labels like “dishonest” for those who really deserve them.

You can find out more about where I stand on Iraq at www.GetOurTroopsOut.com and at www.richardsonforpresident.com.

John Edwards was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night, and he called for an end to the outsourcing of military work to contractors like Blackwater.

The answer to this is to get American troops out of Iraq, which is why I'm committed to getting our combat troops out of Iraq, stopping combat missions, doing it the right way. But these things that are going on with Blackwater, they worry all Americans. I hear it everywhere I go. You know, people wonder, first of all, why a company whose executives gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bush and to Republicans are getting these no bid contracts with hundreds of millions of dollars. There's something wrong with this picture.