Biden Defends Senate Vote on Partitioning Iraq

[babylonsister]

Biden Defends Senate Vote on Partitioning Iraq
By CQ Staff | 2:59 PM; Oct. 01, 2007


Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Monday defended his proposal for a three-way division of Iraq against criticism by Iraqi politicians and a rare rebuke from the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

“It is not partition, it is not foreign imposition,” the Delaware Democrat, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, told reporters in a conference call. “A federal Iraq is a united Iraq.”

The Senate last week adopted Biden’s non-binding proposal by a 75-23 vote. The “sense of the Senate” amendment to the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill (HR 1585) calls for Iraq to be divided into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish “federal regions,” with a weak national government to facilitate sharing of oil revenue.

The proposal drew criticism from Iraqi politicians, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and from the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, which posted an unsigned statement on its Web site Sunday.

“The embassy wishes to make clear that it remains the firm policy of the American administration to support a stable, secure, and unified Iraq,” the statement said.

more...

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/10/biden_defends_senate_vote_on_p.html#more

[jillan]

1. you left out the best part :)

The embassy wishes to make clear that it remains the firm policy of the American administration to support a stable, secure, and unified Iraq,” the statement said.

“As we have said in the past, attempts to partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force or other means into three separate states would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed. The United States has made clear our strong opposition to such attempts.”

Biden, who has long advocated a division of Iraq along ethnic and sectarian lines, rejected the contention that the Senate had no right to weigh in on the matter.

“For Maliki and the others to say, we don’t have the right to express our opinion, I don’t know who the hell they think they are,” he said.

“Who the hell do they think we are?”

He called his resolution “a gigantic statement.”

-----------------------------

Thank you babylonsister for posting this. Bidenites were waiting for a statement from him.

On edit -PS - it's not a 'partition' - a unified federation of Iraq is the correct term.

[babylonsister]

2. I'm not allowed to post everything, so I'm glad you provided the 'best part'.

And I beg to differ on the terminology. It sure sounds like partitioning to me, and the Iraqis.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1951062

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x311090

[jillan]

5. That's part of the problem - it keeps getting called a partition

even C-span was calling it that during the vote.

1. The Plan is not partition.

In fact, it may be the only way to prevent a violent partition - which has already started -- and preserve a unified Iraq. We call for a strong central government, with clearly defined responsibilities for truly common interests like foreign policy and the distribution of oil revenues. Indeed, the Plan provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence.

http://planforiraq.com/download

[babylonsister]

10. Sorry, piranha, but it's a partition to just about everyone but Biden:

http://public.cq.com/docs/cqm/cqmidday110-000002593692.html

http://thegate.nationaljournal.com/2007/09/senate_approves_bidens_plan_to.php

[Steve_in_California]

39. Have you even bothered to read the BBB amendment?

It's quite obvious that you have not, since you don't know the difference between partition and, as the Biden-Boxer-Amendment calls for, the federal system that the Iraqi people voted for in adopting their Constitution.

[robinlynne]

33. not the iraquis, just maliki who will become irrelevant and lose his US payouts, and one sunni

leader, because the sunnis have no oil in their region. That is hardly the iraquis!

[karynnj]

17. The confusion may be because the earlier version did have us

more involved in defining the partitions.

Maliki has a vested interest in this. Under the current strong federal government - with him as the leader, he is enormously powerful. In addition, because the Sunnis stayed out of the last election - Maliki's Shiites have almost all the power.

Here is a link to a video of John Kerry speaking on the amendment. He has for over a year rejected Biden's plan specifically as he disagreed with us drawing the lines - for all the obvious reasons. He addressed here that this plan does not do that - the Iraqis are the ones that define the states and the relative roles of the states and fderal government.

Kerry also argues the deadline is needed in conjunction to this to force them to make changes.

http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/09/biden_gives_props_to_senator_k.html

(The second video - the first are some Biden comments to Kerry after he spoke.

[karynnj]

20. Great photo Pirhana

Here's a link to Kerry's explanation of the new Biden amendment. He had the same objection against us drawing lines that people here did - we don't draw them.

http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/09/biden_gives_props_to_senator_k.html

[ChenZhen]

3. How pissed would we be if Canada passed a resolution demanding we partition the USA?

Being in the pacific NW, id actually be elated. Regardless, I find this stupid, but find the fact we are still there stupid-er.

[jillan]

4. FYI - Biden's amendment doesn't demand anything

All it says is that we believe this is the way to go since the current strategy is not working.

It is up to the Iraqi's to decided.
And dammit - with all the blood and treasure we have given and continue to give to Iraq - we should let our feelings known.

[ChenZhen]

12. Demand or recommend...what does an armed robber do?

Oh yes, they should respect us after all the blood and treasure we have given to them....


ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!


The mass majority of blood is from the Iraqis. The "treasure" isn't going to them! Its going to defense contractors and other no-bid recipients (KRB, Halliburton, etc). The death of US troops is a side effect of redistributing the wealth of our nation from the middle/lower classes to well-connected corporations and war profiteers. As long as soldiers are there (and subsequently dying), war remains big-business, and there is nothing in this business that involves giving any gifts.

Iraq is not altruism in action. It never was. Im saddened to see the suggestion.

[jillan]

14. You're right - let's just stay the course then. Let's keep telling Bush that we agree with

letting our sons and daughters die for his failed policy.

Let's just sit back and shut up until Jan 20, 2009.

Great idea!

[ChenZhen]

18. Or we can adopt another bad policy...

Of dictating to them what we want them to do, while continuing the war.

Now I think we can both claim to have fully misrepresented each other's opinion.

[jillan]

21. I think you misunderstand what the Senate voted for

It was the sense of the Senate that we no longer support Bush's policy in Iraq.

And the BBB amendment specifically said that the final decision is to be made by the Iraq's.

Basically - the amendment was a smackdown to the bush administration by reminding them what is in the Iraqi constitution.

Here -Biden says it better:

The amendment that passed does not call for partition of Iraq; it merely -- you might even say modestly -- calls on Iraq to abide by the federalist provisions in its own post-liberation constitution.


I guess the bottom line here is that as long as this a-hole is our president we are going to be in Iraq.
Biden offered an alternative to this administration's policy of trying to make Iraq a unified state.

[ChenZhen]

22. Ah, a virtual smackdown...

That works by exercising an omniscient, omnipotent American-centrist viewpoint about how we should have some say in how another country runs their affairs.

Looks, its clear that Bush policy is wrong and failed, but anything that challenges it is not right by default. The bill accomplishes nothing besides interjecting another opinion into how a suppossedly sovereign nation should be handling its affairs. No dice for me.

[jillan]

23. And Biden is the first to admit that

But while we can debate endlessly about whether or not the plan for a loose federation in Iraq with a central government with limited powers is the right plan for the country going forward, Biden certainly makes a valid point when he complains that no one else -- certainly not the Bush administration or the Iraqi government -- has come up with a plan for Iraq's future that is more viable.

"My plan has difficulties -- it does," Biden said. "What is overwhelmingly clear is that nobody else has a plan."

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/10/biden_quit_lying_about_my_part.html

[ChenZhen]

25. I really have no fundemental problem with the contents of this plan...

If it wasn't the US Senate voting on it (or voting on however you perception interprets this).

The Iraqis can not come up with a plan for a hundred damn years for all I care. Its their country, and they can plan or not plan to their hearts delight as far as I care. I hope they use this plan to wipe their butts with or stop the bleeding in the wounds of their babies.

[gateley]

6. Ha! I'm with you on the NW thing! Thanks! nw

[robinlynne]

34. I'd rather they partition than invade and kill us all.

[Bucky]

7. Shame on the Senate for this!

Why are they trying to turn the tolerant, peaceful realm of Iraq into a land
torn apart by civil war, ethnic cleansing, and needless civilian bloodshed?

[Jillian]

8. Great point! Leave that peaceful country alone.

[Think82]

13. haha awesome

[Adelante]

24. You nut

:D

[jillan]

9. Biden has had enough of it being called a partition -

Still, Biden's anger is understandable. The amendment that passed does not call for partition of Iraq; it merely -- you might even say modestly -- calls on Iraq to abide by the federalist provisions in its own post-liberation constitution. A large part of Biden's problem is that his proposal for Iraq, which originally appeared as an op-ed with Leslie Gelb in the spring of 2006, was long ago short-handed as a "partition" or "soft partition" plan, and its critics tend to react to that description rather than to the specifics of the plan itself.

But while we can debate endlessly about whether or not the plan for a loose federation in Iraq with a central government with limited powers is the right plan for the country going forward, Biden certainly makes a valid point when he complains that no one else -- certainly not the Bush administration or the Iraqi government -- has come up with a plan for Iraq's future that is more viable.

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/10/biden_quit_lying_about_my_part.html

[Steve_in_California]

40. Americans love straight talk and they want a President who isn't afraid to express what is the

sentiment of the American people when things get spun beyond all recognition. "Who they hell do they think they are!"

You tell 'em, Joe!

[malta blue]

11. Good for Biden.

Iraq was "partitioned" by England in the first place....we should put it right.

[ChenZhen]

15. Putting it right would involve us getting uninvolved fast.

[jillan]

16. And as long as bush is in office - you know damn well that ain't happening.

[ChenZhen]

19. Unless the democrats vote to defund the war.

But ouch...lets just ignore that little technicality.



on edit: I don't mean "vote to", but rather vote against the defense spending bills and his supplemental requests that come every now and then for an extra billion or two.

[robinlynne]

35. Exactly. They have to HATE Biden's plan. It might work and end the war!

[demommom]

26. K&R

[IndianaGreen]

27. This war is about OIL, and splitting Iraq will make it easier for us to take their OIL

That may have not been Biden's intentions, but that is what will happen.

I am glad that the Iraqi people have rejected the oil grab law that our Congress passed under the pretext of oil revenue sharing (what a lie!). I am also glad that the Iraqi people have rejected American attempts to carve out their country.

Have we no shame? How much more harm can we do to Iraq? Our bad karma will come back to bite us in the ass!

[Froward69]

28. Kudos for Biden

The Iraqis have been at each others throat for hundreds of years even a thousand. this is what they would have achieved one way or another.

[Jillian]

29. Here:

http://iraqoilreport.com/2007/10/01/top-story-biden-defends-iraq-federalism-plan-explains-the-oil-factor/

[gateley]

31. Thank you for this. I need all the explanations and education I can get. nt

[gateley]

30. Hi -- regarding your last statement:

We are in agreement that we have totally destroyed that country. We've caused unimaginable harm, pain, suffering and death. I am ashamed of what my country has done and how they have done it.

So I feel it is our responsibility to attempt to make amends, to try to help them to heal, it is the right thing to do. If we just pulled up stakes and split, muttering apologies and mea culpas, I would be even more ashamed. You don't kick someone in the head and when you realize you shouldn't have, ask for forgiveness then leave the person to get up and make it to a hospital on his own. The least you could do is offer to drive him there in your car. You SHOULD pay the doctor's bills and care for him as he heals.

At this point the only three options I'm aware of are

1) Keep on keepin' on (this includes the same endless discussions and arguments that have been occurring since the war began)
2) Admit our mistakes, apologize, withdraw our troops and wish them luck with their future
3) Make an attempt to assist in their recovery.

Nobody else has offered an option number 4 -- viable or not -- we only have the three from which to choose.

There are probably as many Iraqis for the plan as there are against it (as I'm sure there are for any of the options), but we have to TRY.

Tempus Fugit -- we gotta do something NOW.

And Biden gave a time frame -- if it's not working by the time he becomes President, he'll pull the residual troops out. He's not promoting that we stay until it DOES work (like Bush) but he's willing to admit it may not, and if not, we'll go. The goal is to get our troops out and lend a hand in repairing their country.

JANUARY 2009. By then we'll know if proponents of the plan were on the right path, or whether it was not the optimal course of action to pursue. We don't know until we TRY.

If you have a better plan I'm sincerely open to hear it, but it needs to be with a time frame (like Biden's) and what you would hope the results would be. It's just a waste of everybody's time to merely keep stating that we're the bad guys, we need to get out, without ever moving forward from that dead-end song.

[jillan]

32. what she said

you go girl!

[robinlynne]

37. Many more Iraquis are FOR the plan. Only 2 people spoke against it.

But those are the only 2 the media is going to play for you to hear!

[robinlynne]

36. I doubt that. maintaining what there is now makes it easier to take their oil.

With independence, the groups could restructure, and get rid of the US soldiers, and the USimposed laws. It really could work. The kUrds already have wanted their independence for years. The Shia definitley approve. Only the sunnis, and if they were given an oil well, that might change.

[BrightKnight]

38. It's probably the quickest route to political stability.

In the end it might save a lot of lives. It wouldn't be my fist choice but I don't see a lot of other options. I am sure that others have more informed opinions.

[murbley40]

41. kick