BIDEN COMES OUT SWINGING
Do you think this interview helps or hurts Biden with Democrats in his 08 run for the White House? I have to give Biden credit for shooting straight about the issue in Iraq and the lack of well thought out position or solution from Clinton, Edwards and Obama.
FOXNEWS-Delaware Sen. Joe Biden has officially launched his campaign, and he’s come out of the gate swinging — not at President Bush and the Republicans, but at his fellow Democrats who are seeking their party’s nomination.
In a story published in The New York Observer, Biden says New York Sen. Hillary Clinton’s position on Iraq “baffles” him.
“From the part of Hillary’s proposal, the part that really baffles me is, ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’” Biden tells the Observer. “We’re not going to equip them? OK. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That’s a real good idea.”
Biden says Clinton’s policy on Iraq would result in “nothing but disaster,” and he goes on to question the former first lady’s electability.
“Everyone in the world knows her,” Biden tells the Observer. “Her husband has used every single legitimate tool in his behalf to lock people in, shut people down. Legitimate. And she can’t break out of 30 percent for a choice for Democrats?”
He also calls former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards — along with 2004 running mate Sen. John Kerry — a “blow-dried candidate,” saying that on Iraq, “I don’t think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about.”
Biden describes Edwards’ position on Iraq as “like so much Fluffernutter out there.
“So for me, what I think you have to do is have a strategic notion. And they may have it — they are just smart enough not to enunciate it.”
January 31st, 2007 at 11:47 am
Biden also said about Obama: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
It sounds horribly condescending and could hurt him among Democrats. Badly. (On the other hand it could help him win Republican votes.)
January 31st, 2007 at 11:51 am
Lefthook
If that hurts with Democrats they have a real problem.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:59 am
BTW LEFTHOOK what is Clinton, Edwards and Obama position or solution in Iraq?
January 31st, 2007 at 12:30 pm
JohnKonop: I don’t know the subtleties of the Clinton/Edwards/Obama position on Iraq, but I’ll speculate.
In general they (1) believe the war is lost, meaning there is no chance of establishing a peaceful, pro-American democracy.
(2) Therefore, there is no need to continue to sacrifice American lives for an outcome that will not happen.
(3) They also believe that only the Iraqis can end the bloodshed in Iraq; our military can not. Not “should not”, but “can not”.
(4) They further believe that our military presence is agitating, not calming, the situation.
Therefore, they propose we begin withdrawing, rather than increasing troops, in a effort to reduce the violence. None is proposing we pull everybody tomorrow.
I have not heard them speak directly to how they would respond if our withdrawal opened the door to a more regional conflict.
My guess is, stemming that wider conflict would be seen as a very different “goal” than Bush’s goal of “winning”, and would be met with different tactics.
Politically, they very much want whatever is going to happen (i.e. a wider regional conflict) to happen on Bush’s watch, so if they must increase troops later, it will be perceived as being in direct response to Bush’s failure.
Which part of their analysis do you disagree with? Are you pro-surge?
January 31st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Left hook:The problem I see in withdrawal is that it will leave the Kurds open for extermination. The Sunni/Shiite split will be put aside to see that happen and after the last Kurd has been eliminated they will again turn on each other.I wonder if any of the people who want withdrawal have taken this into consideration. Bush screwed us when he dismantled the Ba`ath regime. Much of what has happened since then could have been avoided if he would have allowed part of that government in place before going into elections.
I realize you cant speak for the presidential hopefuls but I sure would like to hear that question asked of them!!
January 31st, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Good questions. I can’t answer them.
However, why do you think exterminating the Kurds is a higher priority for the Sunni/Shiites? If it is, why haven’t they started doing it? I haven’t heard many (any?) stories about the American military preventing attacks on the Kurds.
Of the three groups, don’t the Kurds have the strongest military apparatus? Aren’t they best able to defend themselves?
Have you seen any estimates about the troop levels that would be needed for the US military to disrupt such attacks? Could we do it by air?
I can’t believe we would sit on our hands while Kurds were slaughtered. But, of course, we’ve done it before.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I believe part of why they have been left out is they are mainly in the Northern part of Iraq away from the heaviest fighting. Saddam pushed them out of Baghdad and they werent allowed to mix with the Sunni/Shiites.They would become targets because for no other reason then they exist and are infidels in the eyes of the Sunni/Shiites.As long as the Sunnis/Shiites are killing each other the Kurds are safe as far as protecting them I have no idea how many troops it would take or if they could be protected through air cover alone. Much as I do not like the idea of partition in their case its almost a must if and a big IF we want to try and save them.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Lefthook
Clinton, Edwards and Obama sound like they are playing checkers in the Middle East. The point Biden was making is we need ti think strategic to get out of this mess.
I have made it clear I do not support the surge. But I do think Biden has demonstrated an understanding of the Middle East issue. And his correct that Clinton, Edwards and Obama only give sound bites with no policy.
We need leadership now that understands the issue. Agree or disagree with Biden’s plan no one can argue that he is way more qualified than any other candidate on the Democrat side other than Wesley Clark.
As far the GOP I do not agree with McCain yet at least he is intelligent enough on the topic to discus the problem. I would say the same about Duncan Hunter.
As far as Brownback he agress with Biden on the solution and talks very intelligently about the issues in Iraq.
Romney is the opposite of Clinton, Edwards and Obama and only talks in sound bites with no real solutions.
Can we afford to have the next President not to be able to intelligently debate their position and understand the moving parts? As much as I disagree with McCain he was right about troop levels from the beginning.
I think we need a dialogue between Biden, Clark, McCain and Bush on the war.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Learner
Great points!!!
The Kurds made it clear they want no part of the Sunni/Shiites conflict.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
John one other point and thats the Kurds living in Turkey. They are being treated like 2nd class citizens, denied voting rights,political jobs,etc. A Kurd homeland would open the door for them to migrate into Iraq. Now if we partition Iraq this would give them the green light and I am sure the Turks would be happy to see them go. Therein lies the problem because the Sunnis/Shiites would see this as a threat.That whole area must and without a dictator be taught how to coexist without conflict. This may take hundreds of years if we cannot make them see that education and intellect are their salvation.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
John,
You and Biden talk about a subject you both know absolutely nothing about. Quit trying to justify CUT AND RUN!!!
January 31st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Learner
Good point!!
January 31st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Words from Those Who Know
A friend of mine, in Iraq, works as an english translator. He is very well educated and would be a compliment to any working democracy. Recently, played a role in helping to track down a group of terrorists. These terrorists had kidnapped a certain number of Americans. Their hope was to trade for these American hostages for Iranian prisoners. The Iraq army handled the situation with speed but could not save these American lives. When the terrorists were captured, they were found to be Iranian.
As a matter of discussion, Iranians in Iraq often act the part of Suni and Shiite when performing acts of violence on the opposing sect.
My friend explains, “It is Iran who is doing all that troubles in the Middle East. Look at Lebanon, Palastine and Iraq. Najadi thinks that one day after he has the nuclear weapon; he will ask to be the head of the world.”
He also said, “Sadir people are going to Iran because of the new security plan and the Maliki who did that to save his people.”
Very few including my friend have much confidence or trust in Maliki. I might note that Nancy Pelosi is scheduled to visit with Maliki for talks.
Here is the irony, my friend is Shiite by religion. Funny, most or all of his associates feel the same way. Maliki was a big mistake and Iran is the culprit. Much of the same sentiment felt here in the States.
Ultimately, they want Iran out and a new, more represenative, government in.
My friend goes on to say, “we need to change the Government, to one temporary, for 2 years or less little and bring one man to decide all the government like Allawi Or Al-Aloosi as Sonnie. They are not Radicals and not following Iran and in the same time the US have to support them, to make the people accepting them, by seeing the changes and there will be changes.
Believe in me, people here starting to feel that they got decieved by giving votes for the Radicals Shea’a.
It is Tough for the President to do that because it is against his goal, which is Democratic Iraq, but it is a step on the way up. Im sure because I see the life here”
This brave Iraqi man holds out hope that America can help to resolve the problems in Iraq without having to attack Iran. He believes this can be accomplished.
The only problem is that America is in a fight for credibility. Mitt Romney, in speaking to the Herzliya audience, warned against the temptation to, “not lift a finger,” in our own defense. This would only happen if managed by the weakest of all American liberals.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Weakest of all American Liberals ie: Biden. CUT AND RUN.
Hunker down behind our secure borders and the vast oceans. Let em’ all kill each other.
That desert sand doesn’t wash well from the clothing of elitists.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:56 pm
What is Romney’s plan for Iraq?
January 31st, 2007 at 1:58 pm
“First, we must continue tighten economic sanctions. Our model should be at least as severe to the sanctions imposed on Apartheid South Africa. We should demand no less from the international community today….
“We must also be imaginative in the way we pressure Iran economically – an issue I have been looking into. In my meetings this week in Israel, I have become aware of the potential of U.S. pension funds to further isolate the Iranian economy. We should explore a selective disinvestment policy. After a series of briefings here, I have contacted the Treasurer of my own state of Massachusetts and Governors of other states to begin this process by meeting today with senior Israeli leaders in Boston.”
“Second, we must impose diplomatic isolation of Iran’s Government. Ahmadinejad should not be provided the trappings, respect, and recognition of a responsible head of state as he travels. In fact, when former Iranian President Khatami traveled to Boston last year to lecture at Harvard University, I denied him state police security for his visit. The real question is: why was he invited in the first place? Ahmadinejad is even more strident than Khatami. He should neither be invited to foreign capitals nor feted by foreign leaders. This would have important symbolic significance, not just to Ahmadinejad, but to the people of Iran.
“Diplomatic isolation should also include an indictment of Ahmadinejad for incitement to genocide under the Genocide Convention. The United States should lead this effort.
“The full title of the Genocide Convention is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Remember that word: Prevention.
“Article III of that treaty establishes that ‘public incitement to commit genocide’ is a punishable crime. Every signatory to this treaty, including the U.S. and most European countries, shares an obligation to enforce it. So do human rights groups that care about international humanitarian law.
“Nobel Prize Winner Elie Wiesel, and human rights advocate and former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler have spoken out on this issue.
“In addition, former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton has been a forceful advocate for this effort, and is joined by Alan Dershowitz. If these two can agree, they must be on to something.
“Third, Arab states must join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran. These states can do much more than wring their hands and urge America to act. They should support Iraq’s nascent government, They can help America focus on Iran by quickly turning down the temperature of the Arab-Israeli conflict — stopping the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hizbullah…thawing relations with Israel…and telling the Palestinians they must drop terrorism and recognize Israel’s right to exist.
“Fourth, we must make it clear that while nuclearization may be a source of pride, it can also be a sourcee of peril. The military option remains on the table. And further, nuclear material that falls into the hands of terrorists would surely provoke a devastating response from the civilized world.
“Fifth, our strategy should be integrated into a broader approach to the broader Muslim world. I agree with our friend, former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain, that a central purpose of NATO should be to defeat radical Islam. I believe this has two critical dimensions. The first is an unquestionably capable military. This will mean a greater investment by the United States as well as other nations. The second is a global partnership which includes NATO and other allies. Its mission would be to support progressive Muslim communities and leaders in every nation where radical Islam is battling modernity and moderation. This Partnership for Prosperity should help provide the tools and funding necessary for moderates to win the debate in their own societies. They need secular public schools, micro credit and banking, the rule of law, adequate healthcare, human rights, and competitive economic policies. In the final analysis, only Muslims will be able to permanently defeat radical Islam. And we can help.”
January 31st, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Above:
Mitt Romney
January 31st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Wesrook: You almost hit the nail on the head. Our biggest problem is that focusing on the Middle East we focus on just the Nations Iraq/Iran. The whole of the Middle East are players and are supporting their interests in the conflicts happening in Palestine,Iraq and Lebanon. The US takes the heat for meddling but few people realize that every nation in the Middle East are doing more meddling then us!!
January 31st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
West
You are the only one calling the Biden plan cut and run. Did you read the plan?
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/fact-sheet-biden-gelb-plan-for-iraq
January 31st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
John,
I have read that stupid plan from front to back. Any fool can see CUT AND RUN written all over it. Just like I said above:
Hunker down behind our secure borders and the vast oceans. Let em’ all kill each other.
That desert sand doesn’t wash well from the clothing of elitists.
January 31st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
John,
Every time you open your whimpy mouth out comes CUT AND RUN. Perhaps you and Biden should find a cozy, elite, germ free, away from the dirty people, suite to share while you both suck your fingers and fight over the heat controls.
January 31st, 2007 at 2:17 pm
JohnKonop: Let’s see if I understand you. All the Democrats are literally “ignorant” about Iraq, except for Biden, because he agrees with you about partition.
McCain, who you strongly disagree with, is a Republican, so even though he’s profoundly wrong, he is at least intelligent. The Democrats don’t get that courtesy. Brownback is, of course, a genius, because he agrees with you and Biden.
The Clinton/Obama/Edwards strategy for peace in Iraq is to reduce (not eliminate) American troop levels, thereby (1) giving the Iraqi’s an incentive to solve what Clinton/Obama/Edwards believe is a political problem (that our military can not solve) and (2) removing a cause of violence. For these beliefs you judge them ignorant.
You further put words in their mouths by presuming that if their troop reduction strategy resulted in a wider conflict, they would robotically continue to remove American troops, even as our national interest goes down the drain and the global economy goes up in flames. Why do you presume they would not change tactics? Not everyone behaves like your president.
January 31st, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Lefthook
I did mention Clark who is a Democrat and do not even know his view. But as A Former general he has my respect.
You once again cannot take an objective view. All you see is blue.
You are like WEST you put party in front of logic and your Country.
January 31st, 2007 at 2:27 pm
West
Try reading the plan and saying something above a sound bite.
January 31st, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Nice try. What’s your problem with the Clinton/Obama/Edwards strategy for peace in Iraq?
January 31st, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Lefthook
They have no strategy!
January 31st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
The Clinton/Obama/Edwards strategy for peace in Iraq is to reduce (not eliminate) American troop levels, thereby (1) giving the Iraqi’s an incentive to solve what Clinton/Obama/Edwards believe is a political problem (that our military can not solve) and (2) removing a cause of violence. For these beliefs you judge them ignorant.
You further put words in their mouths by presuming that if their troop reduction strategy resulted in a wider conflict, they would robotically continue to remove American troops, even as our national interest goes down the drain and the global economy goes up in flames. Why do you presume they would not change tactics?
January 31st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Lefthook
This shows your lack at looking at all the moving parts in the Middle East. The reason we go into the problem was lack of a real startegy. And now you want to get out the same way.
January 31st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
That wasn’t a very sophisticated response.
Is that your way of saying that you can’t explain yourself? That it’s “more complicated” than that?
January 31st, 2007 at 3:02 pm
CUT AND RUN in any form or fashion will prove to be self mutilating, self defeating, and self degrading.
We are there for a very distict reason. Jihad dealt a staggering blow to our midsection. We have never really recovered. This blow somehow went to our head.
Now in answer to the SCISSOR PEOPLE ie: CUT AND RUN, do you have anything you’d like to say to my friend in Iraq?
Perhaps you can convince him that he’s not clean or sophisticated enough to exist next to his brother.
Perhaps you can tell him that there are no outside terrorists forces trying to push the appearance of civil war.
Biden can push the idea that 9/11 never happened, that there is no real enemy in the war on Terror, that we’d be better off with Saddam, that to freeze up is the best policy but I say one of our best lines of defense is that friend of mine in Iraq fighting our battle. He alongside our brave soldiers.
None of you will really understand the war until, Bush finally gives in to you all and lays down. Very soon the war will find it’s way here.
Take a look at the plot to kidnap and behead soldiers IN LONDON. There will many failed attempts until they figure out the weak points.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
John, heres a good story on the ongoing MSM debate and what is fair coverage of the war:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4513193.html
January 31st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Learner
Bad link.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Lefthook
If you read the Biden plan you would realize all the other issues Obama, Clinton and Edwards are not dealing with.
As I said even if you disagree with Biden or McCain they are both dealing with all the issues.
Bush, Clinton , Edwards, Obama, Romney are all playing checkers in iraq.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
WEST
Bush’s plan has created more terrorist by any objective person looking at the issue.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
WEST
BTW if we do get attacked you can thank Bush’s border security and illegal immigration plan.
You know look the other way so campaign donars can get cheap labor.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
The fact that I wish to print what I actually feel for the NY Times right now also keeps me from saying that I wish they meet Allah as many have been introduced to his mercy!!!Thankfully they pulled the video but the fact they posted it w/o permission or contacting the family what a bunch of heartless bast**ds.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
John (Mr. Objective),
Why is it so hard for you to accept the fact that 9/11 took place for the second time (1993)?
January 31st, 2007 at 3:33 pm
John,
Checkers is playing with the lives the our boy by emboldening the terrorist states. Checkers is looking upon the Iraqi as subhuman and not fit for democracy. Answer that you elitist.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Its from the Houston Chronicle you may get ad first just skip it the story is:”Images of dying soldier renew war coverage debate”WASHINGTON — A photograph and videotape of a Texas soldier dying in Iraq published by the New York Times have triggered anger from his relatives and Army colleagues and revived a long-standing debate about which images of war are proper to show.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Learner,
NY Times is in the spirit of John Konop. They love to see our boys hurting, adds to their anti-war movement. What is bad is that so manny politicians are part of the congregation of self defeatism.
Anti american embedded journalists work for and in behalf of John Konop types.
They seek out stories showing our poor soldiers as losing.
When, in fact, our boys have yet to lose any engagement. The only time they struggle is when someone has a camera on them.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Wesrook can you link to this story. I am pis*ed that these S.O.B. are doing this and will get away with it.
January 31st, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Yes indeed,
While our boys fight for our security, we back home debate about how we will take pictures of them as they die. That is sickening.
What’s worse is we spit in the faces of those who go to work for our safety and security, saying they are a dummy, currupt, and useless entity.
January 31st, 2007 at 4:13 pm
WEST
I do not think my liberal friends on the blog would put me in that category. But I will say that you calling Americans from the right or the left who disagree with the President as disloyal to our Country is just wrong. You might feel more comfortable in a one party system in China.
January 31st, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Lefty,
Clinton/Obama/Edwards want to pull out some of our troops so that we will not be able to lock down Baghdad. If we are not able to lock down the city, then the violence will continue and Bush loses. There will come a time when a reduction of soldiers is appropriate and that time will come when the Iraqi troops are fully capable of providing the security and the fighting has stopped (or nearly stopped). The only explanation for Clinton/Obama/Edwards plan is to have failure on Bush’s watch.
January 31st, 2007 at 4:39 pm
John,
I am very taken aback at your vehement argument against the surge. If your Biden-Gelb plan had been chosen as the strategy by Bush, don’t you think that an increase in troops would be required to implement it? Who is to say that a violence free Iraqi government won’t elect that option anyway? Either way, locking down the city and ceasing the fighting would neccessarily precede the Biden-Gelb plan.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I’ve got all these plans confused now, but since when have the politicians stuck to their plans anyway lately? But Biden is starting to become my favorite Democrat, simply because he’s not playing nicey nice. As for Republicans, I’ve abandoned the 11th commandment a while back. The neocons started it by calling everyone except them a liberal.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Aubrey
Most military experts are against the surge bottom line.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:59 pm
And your response to my post and question? re: #45.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:57 pm
John,
First, we must continue tighten economic sanctions. Our model should be at least as severe to the sanctions imposed on Apartheid South Africa. We should demand no less from the international community today….
“We must also be imaginative in the way we pressure Iran economically – an issue I have been looking into. In my meetings this week in Israel, I have become aware of the potential of U.S. pension funds to further isolate the Iranian economy. We should explore a selective disinvestment policy. After a series of briefings here, I have contacted the Treasurer of my own state of Massachusetts and Governors of other states to begin this process by meeting today with senior Israeli leaders in Boston.”
“Second, we must impose diplomatic isolation of Iran’s Government. Ahmadinejad should not be provided the trappings, respect, and recognition of a responsible head of state as he travels. In fact, when former Iranian President Khatami traveled to Boston last year to lecture at Harvard University, I denied him state police security for his visit. The real question is: why was he invited in the first place? Ahmadinejad is even more strident than Khatami. He should neither be invited to foreign capitals nor feted by foreign leaders. This would have important symbolic significance, not just to Ahmadinejad, but to the people of Iran.
“Diplomatic isolation should also include an indictment of Ahmadinejad for incitement to genocide under the Genocide Convention. The United States should lead this effort.
“The full title of the Genocide Convention is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Remember that word: Prevention.
“Article III of that treaty establishes that ‘public incitement to commit genocide’ is a punishable crime. Every signatory to this treaty, including the U.S. and most European countries, shares an obligation to enforce it. So do human rights groups that care about international humanitarian law.
“Nobel Prize Winner Elie Wiesel, and human rights advocate and former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler have spoken out on this issue.
“In addition, former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton has been a forceful advocate for this effort, and is joined by Alan Dershowitz. If these two can agree, they must be on to something.
“Third, Arab states must join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran. These states can do much more than wring their hands and urge America to act. They should support Iraq’s nascent government, They can help America focus on Iran by quickly turning down the temperature of the Arab-Israeli conflict — stopping the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hizbullah…thawing relations with Israel…and telling the Palestinians they must drop terrorism and recognize Israel’s right to exist.
“Fourth, we must make it clear that while nuclearization may be a source of pride, it can also be a sourcee of peril. The military option remains on the table. And further, nuclear material that falls into the hands of terrorists would surely provoke a devastating response from the civilized world.
“Fifth, our strategy should be integrated into a broader approach to the broader Muslim world. I agree with our friend, former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain, that a central purpose of NATO should be to defeat radical Islam. I believe this has two critical dimensions. The first is an unquestionably capable military. This will mean a greater investment by the United States as well as other nations. The second is a global partnership which includes NATO and other allies. Its mission would be to support progressive Muslim communities and leaders in every nation where radical Islam is battling modernity and moderation. This Partnership for Prosperity should help provide the tools and funding necessary for moderates to win the debate in their own societies. They need secular public schools, micro credit and banking, the rule of law, adequate healthcare, human rights, and competitive economic policies. In the final analysis, only Muslims will be able to permanently defeat radical Islam. And we can help.”
January 31st, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Billard Bloat Gruff,
CUT AND RUN about as nicey nice as it gets.
January 31st, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Willie
You take the senior Israeli officials and I’ll take the junior ones. Looks like you’re part of the jet set. I had no idea. Pressure from without unites people under their dictators. But how else to empower elitists like yourself?
January 31st, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Aubrey
The problem is the troop surge could have the opposite effect.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:58 pm
John,
The problem with the Biden plan is that is really just a feel good plan. It would have worked 1 1/2 to 2 years ago but now it is essentially the same thing that Hillary Obama etc are offering. The partitions would no more hold than anything. The violence and sectarian fighting is too deeply rooted into their society at this point.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
caroline
Experts say it has a better chance now. Due to the fighting the groups are seperated. They think the police and military in Iraq is being used to attack the other side.
Do you think Shiites and Sunnes can police each other?
January 31st, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Aubrey: “The only explanation for Clinton/Obama/Edwards plan is to have failure on Bush’s watch.”
That’s what you surgers don’t understand: we have already failed in Iraq. The surge is like deciding to increase airport security on 9/12 to prevent the twin towers from falling. It’s too late. They’re already down.
The goal now is to minimize a bad situation; to minimize American casualties.
What if the government proposed a surge every year for the next 5 years, and the situation was still unchanged? Would you support a 6th surge, or would you decide that it wasn’t working?
Anti-surgers are today where you will be 5 years from now.
February 1st, 2007 at 7:17 am
John,
They are going to have to get tired of killing each other and the other muslim countries are going to have to solve this problem. Anything we propose will be rejected simply because it is coming from us.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:21 am
caroline
The problem is the leaders of the Middle East know if we pull without a plan it will become an all out regional civil war. Our best negotiating chip to bring all the regional partners together is to threaten a full pull out. If we propose a phased pull-out based on corporation in the region I do think it will calm down the violence.
We cannot pull this off without corporation of all the players in the region. The key is we most understand that containment with limited violence is a victory. The concept of defining victory as a western type democracy is unrealistic goal in the near future.
Also if we get off the need of Middle East oil we could use the purchases as leverage to help promote reform.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:36 am
John,
Problem is we already are having an all out regional war. It has devolved that far when the Sauds and the Iranians are getting involved.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:30 am
John,
Post #54.
What experts?????
You can’t just say “experts” and expect everyone to fall in step with your CUT AND RUN plan.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:47 am
West
WP-Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.
Bush’s decision appears to mark the first major disagreement between the White House and key elements of the Pentagon over the Iraq war since Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, split with the administration in the spring of 2003 over the planned size of the occupation force, which he regarded as too small.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901872_pf.html
Retired Generals Slam Bush’s Iraq Plan
“The proposed solution is to send more troops and it won’t work. The addition of 21,000 troops is too little and too late,” former Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar said.
Hoar once commanded all American forces in the Middle East and has nothing good to say about the war.
http://cbs5.com/national/topstories_story_018175215.html
Even U.S. generals oppose an Iraq surge
Count the Joint Chiefs of Staff among those resisting an infusion of U.S. soldiers and Marines in Iraq. They raise the same question citizens on the home front are asking: More troops in harm’s way to accomplish what?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003487662_iraqed21.html
February 1st, 2007 at 11:53 am
Even Oliver North is against Iraq ’surge’
DP-Virginia is home to three gallant, patriotic men with much in common. They are all three ex-Marines. They are all three highly decorated Vietnam veterans. They all sought at one time or another to be our junior senator. One lost his bid, another won his, and the third both won and lost. Our state can be proud of all three, and grateful for their service to our country.
I refer, of course, to Chuck Robb, Jim Webb and Oliver North. Strange bedfellows, nicht wahr? One may challenge any suggestion that the similarities I cited can withstand the drastically divergent political paths they have trodden since Vietnam. Before Wednesday night, I would agree, they had nothing in common. Now, it appears, George Bush has given them common cause.
North writes, “Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen or Marines I interviewed told me that they wanted more U.S. boots on the ground. In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite: ‘We don’t need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops,’ was a common refrain. They are right.”
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/even-oliver-north-is-against-iraq-surge
February 1st, 2007 at 1:27 pm
John,
All your “experts” say nothing about CUT AND RUN, Biden’s plan.
In fact two of them are disappointed they didn’t get more troops to begin with.
Oliver North never supports Biden’s plan and he never would.
Don’t spin. Your disgusting when you spin.
1. Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, split with the administration in the spring of 2003 over the planned size of the occupation force, which he regarded as too small.
2. The addition of 21,000 troops is too little and too late,” former Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar said.
3. “We need more Iraqi troops.”
Who’ll train?????????????
4. Chuck Robb, Jim Webb are bedfellows. Leave Oliver out.
I wonder what he’d have to say about that statement??????
February 1st, 2007 at 1:31 pm
West
They all do not support the surge. Are you calling all of the above unpatriotic Americans for disagreeing with the President’s plan?
February 1st, 2007 at 4:24 pm
WOW Johnnnnnnnnnnnnny,
You are dennnnnnnnnnnnnse.
1. Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, split with the administration in the spring of 2003 over the planned size of the occupation force, which he regarded as too small.
2. The addition of 21,000 troops is too little and too late,” former Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar said.
3. “We need more Iraqi troops.”
Who’ll train?????????????
4. Chuck Robb, Jim Webb are bedfellows. Leave Oliver out.
I wonder what he’d have to say about that statement??????
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:38 am
Caroline,
I now see where you are coming from. If the facts as you see them were truly accurate, I would say that you are spot on. The problem is that you are wrong. The war in Iraq has not already failed. What evidence do you cite to support your claim of failure? Because soldiers have died and are dying still? I’ve said it before, A BODYCOUNT IS NOT A MEASUREMENT FOR SUCCESS! Caroline, you are a huge NPR fan, aren’t you. Have a photo of Wolf Blitzer on the fridge? Come on!
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:41 am
John,
Show me any 15 officers that totally agree on a plan. Maybe if they could all come up with the plan at the exact same time, so they could all take credit for devising the plan…