The Incredible Nothingness Of Joe Biden
It's bad enough he sucks in the senate, does he really need to run the whole country?
By haystack Posted in Liberals — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It slipped quietly by when the Senate voted (shamefully) 75-23 to support this nutjob's plan to partition Iraq. No one even seemed to raise an eyebrow that Presidential candidate Brownback, and my own spineless Texas Senator Hutchison, co-sponsored it.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Biden the bloviator now DEFENDS his foolishness on the very same day as Iraq tells him to pound sand.
My biggest problem with this Biden story is NOT whether Iraq should be partitioned. It IS, however, a very big deal that this clown would suggest we have earned the right to tell them what to do while balancing this against his assertions that we need to leave them be to fend for themselves...by abandoning our military presence there so Iraq might be forced (by some weird miracle) to figure out for themselves how to pacify itself and unite toward the goal of security and sound governance:
Other Iraqi politicians have said we have no right to tell the Iraqis [what to do]," Biden told reporters. "Let me tell you, we have a right. Three thousand and eight hundred dead. Twenty seven thousand wounded. Billions of dollars. Let me tell you as President of the United States, they'd have to understand full well that if they don't keep their commitment to implement their constitution then they're on their own. And so, ladies and gentlemen, the idea that al Maliki questions whether or not we have a right to express our opinion, he'd better get it straight real quick.
What a ciuc [insert marcus traianus correction here].
Given Biden's OWN yardstick, we have earned the right to tell almost every country on the planet just exactly how they are going to govern and conduct themselves.
Maliki and company, on the other hand, have a bit of a different take on the situation.
More below the fold...
From where the Iraqis sit, such an idea of slicing the country up into (what would ultimately become) factions, this is not a particularly well-received suggestion:
The Congress adopted this proposal based on an incorrect reading and unrealistic estimations of the history, present and future of Iraq. It represents a dangerous precedent to establishing the nature of the relationship between Iraq and the USA, and shows the Congress as if it were planning for a long-term occupation by their country's troops
I doubt that's what this "crack" Senator-who-would-be-President had in mind when he fired up this stroke of genius in the first place.
This block of the article is worthy of duplication here:
But whatever the intended effect by the Senate lawmakers to wade into the debate, the effort has backfired in Baghdad, where the resolution has been interpreted in light of Iraq's history of foreign occupation from the Ottoman empire to Britain and America. Iraqi political parties that have been deadlocked for months have rallied to defend the country's sovereignty and to defeat any effort by another country to shape Iraq's fate.
"We refuse the resolutions which decide Iraq's destiny from outside Iraq. This is a dangerous partitioning based on sectarianism and ethnicity," said Hashim Taie, a member of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the parliament's main Sunni representation.
Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's political supporters joined their rivals in denouncing the U.S. Senate's measure. "This project is the strategic option for the American administration in its failure to igniting a sectarian war inside Iraq," Nasr Rubaie said. "They started to search for a replacement, which is to divide Iraqi."
Federalism has long proved a charged topic for Iraq. The Sadrists still are seeking a strong national government. The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, another large Shiite political faction, also has started to downplay the idea of further weakening an already frail national government.
Leery of American intervention, Rubaie said the powers of the provinces and regional blocs should be defined once the United States has pulled its troops out of Iraq.
Hey Joe (and your sidekicks Brownback, Boxer, Specter, Kerry, Smith[Gordon], Nelson, Hutchison, Schumer, Mikulski, Lincoln, Reid, Feinstein, Brown, Carper, and Salazar) listen up-they want you out, but they want you to leave behind what you promised them when you approved of the war in the first place.
They, like many of US, could give a flip about what that may mean for your Presidential (let alone re-election) aspirations.
« Do Nothing Dem Congress Slow-Bleeding US Auto Industry — Comments (46) | Liberals For Generations — Comments (13) »
The Incredible Nothingness Of Joe Biden 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
In reality, the only way to enforce an imposed system of governance on Iraqis would require the same long-term US Military presence as that which we "imposed" in your Japan example.
Even if I supported a partition...which I could be talked into fairly easily...the Iraqis thus far do not and have made this fairly clear.
Biden wants us out and sees us MAKING them into an image of his electable liking...we can not leave AND make them bend to our will, especially if our will runs counter to that of the ones preventing the country from being pacified in the first place.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
In the first place, I don't think the Japanese were thrilled about having their constitution written for them and thrust upon them - particularly the part about not being allowed to have a standing army, ever - but again, the message was, "We won, you lost, that's the way it goes. If you don't like it, we can go back on the battlefield again and you can try to stop us from doing it." To my mind, part of our failure in Iraq stems from an unwillingness to do or to say that. We've been entirely too accomodating of an enemy that we had supposedly militarily defeated.
As you know, I am eminently skeptical of the notion that democracy in Iraq is either workable or desirable, but if we grant that proposition, I see no real reason why we didn't take the same "We are not interesting in negotiating this point or hearing your side of the story" approach after Baghdad fell.
As has been pointed out numerous places - the problem is not with military presence in Iraq per se, but rather the continuing military presence against an enemy that continues to fight back. The post-war occupation of Japan and Germany involved a comparatively fewer number of casualties - and, more importantly, involved an enemy that had been thoroughly whipped and knew it. Of that, I don't think the American people would be nearly as tired by this point.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
I lamented for a year about all the hand-wringing and whining about museums and embedding CNN so they could see how we kill people with grace and fairness. Were we back 4 years ago, we would doubtless be having a different conversation.
I too question whether Democracy is a fit OR worth dying for there...the problem we face NOW is the tug of war of lies and misdirection from politicians more concerned with what "sounds" good to their potential electorate instead of what is in our best interests as a nation.
We are LONG past being able to inflict a governmental system on Iraq-the moveon and code pink hand-wringers will have none of that now...hence the conundrum. I don't have the "right answer", but I sure know the wrong one...and it's Biden's imho.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Don't try to blame the "liberation" rhetoric (and all the associated difficulties with "hearts and minds" and "rules of engagement") on Democrats.
Republicans painted themselves into this rhetorical corner 5 years ago. Maybe the country would have still supported the idea of going to war if we were "conquering Iraq" instead of "liberating Iraqis", but I doubt it.
I singled out Biden (coincidentally a Democrat) but I also listed the grand visionaries in the Senate who hold an "R" next to their name. Second, as soon as the stories broke about looting and vandalism of the Arts and Culture...and the museums...the media pressure (and the Democrats) went full-court press on making sure we focused on limited damage, limited casualties, and insisted we focus on Saddam...not on the country at-large. Do I need to go back and pull up all the bleeding hearts who were squealing about collateral damage?
Sorry-my memory is not failing me these many years later. The Politicians of both parties at the time were reacting to the hand-wringing press corps that was watching us do what we do when we go to war-we kill people and blow stuff up. They lost their stomachs for it, to our longer-term peril.
We are where we are now, in large part, because our ROE's and the bedwetters on the Hill wanted us to win without killing people and blowing stuff up.
This runs counter to what war is all about. We could have been home by now, with potentially HALF the US Military deaths, had we been allowed to win the war instead of playing nice with our enemies.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
The President decided that this was a "liberating" war and not a "conquering" war. The President decided that we were going to try and win "hearts and minds" instead of trying to take over and beat the populous into submission. This rhetorical distinction was in place before we even went into Iraq, so the post-invasion violence and looting is irrelevant.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
As Bush has said, he is "the decider". When you make crappy decisions, you bear the blame for them. Just like you get to take credit when you make good ones. If the war were going well right now, Republicans would darn sure be taking all the credit for it.
It was Bush that decided to go to war. It was Bush that decided to make this a "war of liberation". It was Bush that chose the civilian and military leaders to prosecute the war.
Seriously, you guys are trying to pass the buck off the Commander in Chief for a war. That's a little sad, really.
because you definitely don't think enough about the issues he raises
they are fundamental to the waging of any war
conceded that it was not Iraq iteself which we had beaten. This was a war of liberation, not of occupation.
We beat the Vichy government in France back in the second world war. Where did De Gaulle get the idea that he didn't have to toe our line?
If this had merely been an action to depose Saddam Hussein, we could have left, Panama-style, after Saddam was gone. We don't still have troops in Noriega-land. We're there, attempting to impose our will and system of government, after rooting out the old government. The basis for our action was that the *government* of Iraq was harboring terrorists and hiding WMDs. When you remove a people's government and impose your own, that may be "liberation" if the government is tyrannical, but conceptually, it's no different from conquest.
The De Gaulle analogy is also flawed. The Vichys were effectively imposed by a conquering power, and De Gaulle represented a faction that had a colorable claim to legitimate continuity of government - it wasn't as though we installed a brand new government and then left *them* alone.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
I think this goes right to the heart of Leon's comment. In WWII, we conquered Japan; the whole country, leaders and civilians alike. In Iraq, we defeated the military/leadership, but liberated the civilian population.
This rhetorical distinction was am important point back when Bush was making the case for war, and I don't think it is something that is going to change now.
To be precise, it sailed once we handed over sovereignty back to the Iraqis-- June 2004 I think it was?
As usual, Biden is giving the wrong answer to an obsolete problem.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Then they can stand on their own without our military there. As we are constantly reminded, this would result in disaster. As long as they are basically dependent upon our military for what stability they have, I don't have a significant objection to them receiving some unsolicited advice from our Senate on how to run their country.
Sorry, you may not agree with Biden's policy, but I don't really see much to object to w/r/t his point here.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
I do.
First, Japan and Iraq are fundamentally different because we went in as liberators and not conquerers. In Japan we conquered the civilian population, in Iraq we didn't. In Japan we killed 130,000 civilians in one attack on Hiroshima and even more at Nagasaki, and that was after we destroyed their air force and navy. In Iraq we beat what parts of their military stood and fought, not their people or the military that ran away. And this makes all the difference in how willing they are to accept terms we seek to dictate. As in, the Japanese knew they had lost at the end of WWII and they had to accept what we dictated. We did not do the same thing to the Iraquis and they do not know they need to accept what we dictate.
Second, if expect Iraq to govern itself by self-rule, we can suggest, but ultimately they must CHOOSE how to proceed. Tin-pot Biden should stuff a sock in it instead of playing Julius Cesear. If he is so good at persuasion, which is supposed to be the heart of the Senatorial art, then he ought to be able to go to Baghdad and work this out over a couple of meals with them. If he can't, maybe the problem really is more complex and maybe they need time to work it out.
Yes, I'd rather the Iraqi's had adopted an oil revenue sharing plan, that they had more and better trained police and military, and that we could go home. But if we are going to help establish a democracy there, we need to be patient and supportive while THEY work out how they want to live. And this is one of the few points on which I have always agreed with Bush: establishing a stable democracy in Iraq is worth the blood, the money, and the time. Because a stable democracy there will be a beacon to the rest of the Middle East. The Iranian mullahs know this too. That's why they are pumping in jihadists and arms. The Syrians also know this, and so do the same. I suspect even many in Saudi Arabia know this, and continue to try to play both ends against the middle even though that is a dangerous game most likely to result in disaster for all.
You can't teach self-confidence. You may model it, but even then self-confidence is something people learn for themselves by doing. Let the Iraqui's do, while we model our confidence that they are capable of democratically ruling themselves.
government is that the current situation is a "mess" or a "disaster." Bull
We have lost less than 4000 of our armed forces in 4 years and Iraq has an elected government.
We lost over 250,000 before we got to Tokyo. And we had to defeat a whole people.
In Iraq, we have not defeated a whole people. Didn't have to. And by staying, we are winning their trust.
What's the hurry? We need to be there. We are in a larger war.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
It would be "ciuc'", from the Italian ciucca- a drunk or foolish, incoherent person. Otherwise the usage is correct for Biden.
He should have studied more and cheated less. Then he wouls understand how historically stupid the partition idea is.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
there's a bar in western MA that I have allegedly frequented called "Chooch's" named after this colloquialism. I have edited the piece accordingly-I'm of German descent...what the heck do I know about Italian?
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
I hope you realize this was all in good fun paisan.
Besides, you should have just called him a Hosensch**sser (hehe, learned that in Baumholder..:-)
If Biden knew anything about history, he would probably criticize Hammurabi for uniting Mesopotamia.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
it will require that we have troops committed there for just as long, if not longer, than we would if we just tried to unify the country as one instead of partitioning. On top of that, if we don't partition it, the death toll will be shared between all 3 sects and the US troops there. If we partition it, then the US troops guarding the partition borders will be the sole target of each of the 3 partitions. So, if we want to protect our troops, we shouldn't partition it. It's also hypocritical because this legislation won't get our troops home any faster, if at all.
Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but also as a determination to live decently.
if I'm not mistaken, and all of the legal liabilities and responsibilities that accompany occupation, but then, IANAL.
Wouldn't a sovereign Iraq working in partnership with the US military to train Iraq's security forces and provide security for the Iraqi people, while simultaneously advancing our own national security interests in the region, be a much more defensible position and carry much less legal liability and responsibility than say, an occupation?
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
to do more than just take his marbles if they don't cooperate and go home, it might have some credibility. But since this is just a thinly veiled excuse to abandon Iraq and our friends over there by the millions, it is just more self-absorbed bloviating from a wannabe lifer in the Senate.
When you defeat a country militarily, you do unquestionably have a right to dictate to them pretty much anything you want - in fact, that's sort of how you determine whether you've won or not.
When we defeated the Japanese in WWII, we basically gave them *our* constitution and said, "If you don't like it, we can give you some more." They liked it.
I'm in favor of us having the authority to do anything up to and including that approach.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke