You find nothing strange about Biden's comments? His A+ idea to split Iraq?
Here's what I love about Biden: he made like $300k last year, and gave less than a thousand to charity. Spreading the wealth is "patriotic"? Then do it voluntarily, Ace. But he gets a free pass on this and anything he says & does.
On the other hand, Palin gets savaged by the media and it's A-OK. Someone says "kill him" at a Palin rally, except it never happened, and people "say" they can't vote for McCain any more. Hang a Palin effigy? Yuk yuk yuk it's all in good fun pass the Hopenchange please.
Praise Öbama.
Who hung a Palin effigy?
Biden's proposal to split Iraq into three countries did not bother me that much. In 2006 it looked like the best solution.
Biden isn't perfect, but at least he doesn't mock community organizers.
Yeah, they mock small-town mayors and female governors instead, oh and a guy who can't write his own email because the VC worked him over for several years! Very classy indeed.
http://elections.foxnews.com/200...ose-hate-crime/
_
I shoulda said in 2007 it seemed like the best solution. I should have also said Biden's proposal was to split Iraq into three states, not countries. Biden's non-binding resolution had a lot of support in the Senate. Interesting that Obama and McCain did not vote on the resolution:
Posted: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:25 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Security
From NBC’s Ken Strickland
In a strong rebuff to the Bush Administration on Iraq, the Senate overwhelming approved a plan by Biden that essentially calls for breaking Iraq into three sections: Kurd, Sunni, and Shia. While the amendment is nonbinding, it's the first measure to pass, (vote was 75-23,) that goes against the administration's war strategy.
Biden's chief co-sponsor was Brownback. Fellow candidates Clinton and Dodd also supported the plan. Obama and McCain did not vote.
In a news conference after the vote, Biden said his plan is consistent with the Iraqi constitution which calls Iraq to be made up of "a decentralized capital, regions, and governorates, and local administrations." Biden says this plan illustrates how to "end this war in a way that we are able to ultimately to bring our troops home and leave a stable Iraq behind... [that] is consistent with the Iraqi constitution." He described it as "pushing on an open door."
The bipartisan measure also calls on the five permanent members of the United Nations and members of the international community to convene a conference to help the Iraqis set up the federal regions. "We all agree... it's time to make Iraq the world's problem, not just ours."
Republican Senator John Warner, instrumental and influential in almost all things related to Iraq, called the vote an "extraordinary moment because it marks the high-water mark of all the many debates and resolutions we've had in terms of bipartisanship."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/a.../26/
380756.aspx
What Biden proposed may actually happen in the next several years. I hope not since it would probably lead to the defacto partition of Iraq into Shia, Sunni & Kurdish areas that were separate countries in all by name.
From the Asian Times:
A strike against 'Iranophobia'
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Mid...t/
JK04Ak03.html
***
Two, three, many 'grand bargains'?
By Jim Lobe
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Mid...t/
JK04Ak01.html
Mojo, i don;t expect to be able to change your vote, but it makes me sad.
Just tell me: if McCain had picked a different VP, would you honestly have voted for him? Who, and why?
I think the partition plan would have been a disaster on the borders and in the mixed areas, even moreso than we saw. The surge worked better, but I fear an uninterested CiC could still allow Iraq to backslide.
Praise Öbama.
Rhus, If McCain had chosen Jindal I would have voted for him. If he chose Powell or Lieberman, I would have voted for him.
But the Sarah pick demonstrated poor judgment on a very important issue.
[Mojo]"Biden isn't perfect, but at least he doesn't mock community organizers."
Suddenly mocking community organizers is unacceptable? Who's next? Lawyers?
Governor Palin was the perfect pick. No one picked a VP for their skills until GWB. With McCain as President why would he need a PhD in foreign policy? Instead, he doubled-down on reform...and unified his base. Smart. Smart. Smart.
Meanwhile, isn't it better to elect McCain and hope that he'll live rather than elect Obama and wish he would die?
Sorry, Mojo, but I'll never understand Obamacons.
Christopher Hitchens has a fine article on McCain & Palin McCarthyite smear attack on Rashid Khalidi: See "McCain's Shamful Slur" at http://www.slate.com/id/2203619
"At long last Sir, do you have no decency, do you have no decency at all?"
John Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy, 1954.
CMAR II, do you see why the attack on Khalidi has helped cause so many of us to vote for Obama?
Read Hitchens.
The real reason Obama wins big tomorrow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=g...feature=related
Yes we can!
He is come. The "chosen one."
Sorry RhusLancia. Even if McCain had chosen a different running mate, I'd probably still vote for Obama.
McCain is a great guy. I wish he had run the war in Iraq. But this election is not about Iraq. It's about America. I've been worried that Obama will withdraw from Iraq too quickly, but after listening to his speeches and reading his web site, I am convinced that under Obama's leadership, the US will withdraw responsibly.
I think many readers of my blog have assumed that just because I hated Saddam and was happy to see him overthrown, I must be a Republican. This is not the case. I don't want to see Roe vs Wade overturned. I want to see the US help establish a Palestinian state that actually works and is fair to the Palestinian people. I guess I'm a rare breed - I'm a liberal who hates Saddamists and Islamic extremists.
Anand,
Hitchen's defense makes absoutely zero references to fact. It consists of essentially replying "We'll McCain is old and Palin is a bimbo." and "Khalidi has been known to me for some time."
Before you or Hitchens characterizes Khalidi's speech as merely a "tough criticism of Israel", perhaps we should take a look at the tape. Obama asserts that his opinions about Israel are sharply at varience to Khalidi's. So lets see what his response was to the speech.
As with Ayers, and Rezco, and Wright, the point is about Obama. Does he share the views of the founder of America's Al Qaeda? What did that house get Rezco out of Obama? How much does Obama share of the views of the man who inspired him to the Christian religion, who baptized his children, and whose words inspired the name of his book and the premier slogan of his campaign.
As for Hitchens, we all know why he is supporting a man for the POTUS who is opposed to every foreign policy initiative Hitch has advocated for 12 years: Hitchens has an epileptic seizure whenever he sees a cross.
Mojo: "Sorry RhusLancia. Even if McCain had chosen a different running mate, I'd probably still vote for Obama."
No need to apologize- I appreciate your honesty.
I agree 100% with CMAR's explanation for the Palin pick. The R's weren't fired up to have McCain as their guy, so Palin fired them up. The R's never had your vote, but they may have lost Anand's with the pick. Still, they picked up a lot too and if they have any chance tomorrow she helps more, on balance, than she hurts. I think she's OK, really the more people savage her the more I am endeared to her, like Nibras Kazimi actually.
If Iraq were completely removed from the equation, I'd still go with McCain hands down. He's the candidate towards the middle we all say we want, but he's going to lose to someone whose thin record and entire background point hard left. I can't even get into his nice speaches, because I know he's just blowing smoke up people's *sses and they just want more more more of it.
I would like to see that Khalidi tape.
I still like you guys, but man! I think the country's being suckered and I'm sad to see you aboard.
Praise Öbama.
"I still like you guys, but man! I think the country's being suckered and I'm sad to see you aboard."
You couldn't say it better, Rhus.
My prediction...Obama will probably win, but a small part of me still believes that a silent majority of American voters will rise up and let the air out of the arrogant blowbag the Obama campaign has become.
Every time I feel the election is "over" without a single vote being counted, I feel we are making a mockery of the democratic process.
Rhus,
What rank would you like to obtain in The Öbama's Civilian National Security Force?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T...h?
v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
@ anand | 11.03.08 - 9:22 pm
See, I think that's freaky. Personality cult anyone?
How about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z...h?v=zVXZ-
22KfLw
There was an English translation, but it's been removed. Hopefully you know the clip. It's another personality cult. What's "Yes We Can" in Italian?
_
I know- I'll ask An Italian!
oh, and...
Praise Öbama.
Mojo, McCain is a liberal republican. He might even be more liberal than Obama. You might actually like McCain minus Iraq when measured only by the issues (at least minus Roe vs. Wade.)
For one thing, McCain might be a bigger environmentalist, and more supportive of clean tech. McCain is also probably more likely to challenge America to sacrifice. McCain is more courageous (or reckless . . . however you look at it)
My issue with McCain is Sarah Palin and Khalidi . . . something about these two subjects strikes me as not the America that I know, love and admire so much.
Anand, every time you say that, somewhere, an angel gets strangled.
Praise Öbama.
There's not much difference between Obama and McCain. Obama is only slightly better IMHO. Biden's plan for Iraq was idiotic ... but notice how much of the Senate supported it. That sentiment won't change much whoever is voted in.
That's what I keep saying, Bruno. With that and the god thing and soon someone might start thinking we have all sorts of things in common.
Don't worry, K, I'm sure nobody would ever do that.
Mojo,
I respect everyone's right to choose who they will vote for. If you want to vote for Obama, or whoever, that is your choice. That is really what this country is all about.
I voted this morning. I chose McCain. In the end, my choice was based on record and past choices made by Obama and McCain. I can't say for sure what either would do in the future, but looking at the past my feeling was that McCain was the more moderate of the two. Like you, I do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, but it was not the only issue.
The toughest race for me was our Senatorial race between Coleman (Rep.), Franken (Dem.) and Barkley (Ind.). I don't like either Coleman or Franken and I vacilated between my real pick, Barkley, who doesn't have the votes to be elected, and Coleman, because I was concerned about a democratic sweep of the Senate. In the end I voted my heart and went with Barkley. That's all we really can do.
As I said elsewhere, I will hope that whoever wins will have the wisdom to do what is right for our country.
Lynnette, you did the right thing in voting for Barkley. It is important to vote for the candidate you support even if it is unlikely that they will win. I have always regretted that in 1980 I did not vote for the candidate I favored, John Anderson who was running as an Independent, but instead voted for Jimmy Carter, even though I thought Carter had been an unsucessfull President, because I did not want Reagan to be elected.
" There's not much difference between Obama and McCain. Obama is only slightly better IMHO. Biden's plan for Iraq was idiotic ... but notice how much of the Senate supported it. That sentiment won't change much whoever is voted in.
Bruno | Homepage | 11.04.08 - 2:32 am | # "
OMG. A reasonable comment from Bruno. Bruno do you now acknowledge that the Iraqi Army is a capable force? Will you acknowledge the legitimacy of provincial elections next January (run by the UN) and the national elections next December (run by the UN)? Maybe Bruno is redeemable.
It looks like Obama won big today. Senate and house remain unclear. I hope the dems don’t win big, but they might.
"...I hope the dems don’t win big, but they might."--anand
If they do, the Republicans only have themselves to blame for it....
Thanks David. Yes, even though Barkley didn't win I am still glad I voted for him.
Marion,
If they do, the Republicans only have themselves to blame for it....
Actually, I partly agree with you. Some of the negativity from the Republican side was very nasty and uncalled for. But I also think a big factor was the economy. When the economy is bad it's very difficult for the party in the White House to prevail.
Yes Lynnette, if McCain had picked someone as his VP who was qualified to become President and if the world economy had not taken such a tumble, McCain might have won.
David All, why was Palin NOT qualified to be VP, but Öbama WAS qualified to be President?
Praise Öbama.
"Rafiq believed that McCain and Palin would protect the country’s Shiites and Kurds, but he feared Obama would abandon them."
He is not alone in his assessment...
CH, ask how quickly the ISF can manage all internal security inside Iraq here:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/
ar...ty_force_21.php
You can start a discussion. I think the ISF are getting close to ready. What risk factors do you think will delay full IA independence?
Maybe discuss it there.
The Iraqi Shia and Kurds must learn quickly how to defend themselves and not rely on America so much.
Obama has tried to destroy Iraq since 2002. Now,he has the power to do exactly that. The wolves are at the door. And the biggest one is the President of the US. Obama won't directly state his desire to crush Iraq. He'll just take all the wrong steps as things spiral out of control. Surprisingly,Ayatollah Mogtada Al Sadr has yet to make his triumphal return. Guess he's waiting for the inauguration.
With a smile I saw the bigger picture. I realised that if Obama was 8 years older and had won the Presidential elections 8 years ago, Saddam would not only have still been in power, but Obama would probably have been in one of Saddam's Presidential Palaces drinking coffee with the butcher as part of his terrorist out-reach programe for the Middle East. George Bush won the 2000 elections for a reason. Similarly to how God sent Moses to deliver the Israelites from Egypt, God had guided Bush to deliver the Iraqi people from Saddam. Saddam planned, Obama is planning, but God is the best of planners. Bush won, Saddams dead and the rest is just details.
http://eyeraki.blogspot.com/
I wish I could share Eye Raki's optimism.
Maury how has Obama been trying to destroy Iraq since 2002? WTF?!
You and your ilk are the ones who have destroyed Iraq.
You and your ilk are the ones who have destroyed Iraq.
WTF !!
You and your ilk are the ones who have destroyed Iraq !
Abhoiya Gilgamesh, USSA is a well intentioned person who doesn't understand Iraq. I don't think USSA supported Saddam.
Discussing the past is worthless. More reasonable is to discuss how to withdraw from Iraq in a way that maximizes Iraq's probability of success.
A good place to discuss how quickly the ISF can assume all security responsibilities inside Iraq from the MNF-I is in the comment section of these articles:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/
ar...ty_force_21.php
http://www.longwarjournal.org/
ar...r_iraqi_air.php
Without discussing the development and capabilities of the ISF, all the other discussion regarding Iraq is moot.
"Maury how has Obama been trying to destroy Iraq since 2002? WTF?!"
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. -Barrack Obama 10/2002
http://usliberals.about.com/od/
e...bama2002War.htm
Granted,he didn't want to personally destroy Iraq. He wanted Saddam to keep that job.
"Without discussing the development and capabilities of the ISF, all the other discussion regarding Iraq is moot."
anand,we won't know what the ISF is capable of until Muqwaq calls off his ceasefire,and the Sons of Iraq return to their insurgent ways. We do know that violence has surged in Baghdad the last 4 days. 30 dead and 70 wounded from too many bombs to count. And Baghdad is locked down about as tight as possible.
"anand,we won't know what the ISF is capable of"
Maury, I disagree . . . as do a lot of people who work with the ISF. The best place to have this conversation is at LWJ under those articles.
You are wrong about Baghdad being locked down. Many of the walls, separators and checkpoints have been removed. Most of the remaining are scheduled to come down soon.
Maury
Go to youtube and look for the movie : The phantastic planet.
It's a bit Acidly.
And watch the starting scene with the hand grapping for the mother and the child. (And listen to the sound)
This was the feeling in Iraq I had as a lad.
And muchas gracias a Bush for getting read of this feeling.
Maury, have you ever got an injection of FEAR in your heart, like the one in Pulp fiction?
I got, every Iraq got it.
Iraq Reaffirms Demands, Deadline on US Troop Deal
The Iraqi government has given the US a deadline for the end of this month to reach an agreement that would keep US troops in Iraq. Talks have stalled after the Iraqi cabinet submitted a revised list of demands. Iraq is seeking a fixed timetable for the withdrawal of US troops instead of a flexible goal sought by the White House. Iraq wants to inspect incoming US military shipments and obtain a US pledge not to use Iraq as a staging ground for attacking other Middle East nations. The Iraqis are also insisting on greater legal authority over US troops accused of crimes inside Iraq. In an interview with the Washington Post, Iraqi government spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh said, “Iraqis would like to know and see a fixed date.” He went on to say Iraq wants to avoid a new UN mandate for US troops at all costs, because UN backing “gives them a free hand in everything.”
That film was pretty cool gilgamesh. I hate that people have to live under tyrants like Saddam. The world is a lot more connected than it was even 20 years ago. Watching a brute terrorize the people of Myanmar is a bit like watching the next door neighbor beat his wife and kids.....and doing nothing to help. I had hoped the Bush Doctrine would be expanded upon,and used against any number of tyrants. If the UN won't do anything,and the US refuses to help,millions upon millions of people will continue to live in fear of their own government. Unfortunately,that's where we stand today. The Bush Doctrine is dead,and the Obama Doctrine dooms those poor people to more of the same.....indefinitely.
USAA, my understanding of the SOFA negotiations is that Pres Bush has agreed to the following:
1) US troops are under the jurisdiction of the uniformed code of military justice as long as they are on base or on duty
2) US troops can be tried under Iraqi civil law if they are off base, off uniform, and off duty.
3) All non MNF-I contractors are subject to Iraqi civil law
4) Status of MNF-I contractors is unclear, although off duty and off base they are subject to Iraq civil law.
5) MNF-I cannot attack any foreign country without the permission of the GoI.
6) All MNF-I operations in PIC Iraqi provinces need to be approved by the PM
7) All US troops withdraw by the end of 2011 unless the GoI requests them to stay (although the GoI can also request MNF-I to leave earlier if they want)
The GoI can inspect MNF-I's incoming "mail" (why the GoI wants this is beyond me)
What I don't know is the Bush administration response to the following:
"Iraq wants to inspect incoming US military shipments" Perhaps Bush has offered:
1) The GoI would have the ability to restrict any military shipments except those required for military operations requested by the GoI. The GoI would be informed about all incoming military shipments related to US military missions the GoI has approved. This, at least, is what I think the Bush administration has offered.
2) The GoI would need to approve military shipments into Iraq (although not inspect them.) I don't know if Bush offered this.
I certainly hope that the US government does "NOT" agree to the GoI getting to approve "AND" inspect all military shipments inside Iraq. That is a step too far.
Does anyone here have any clarification on what the Bush administration has offered via SOFA so far?
The only reason Bush put up with all that shit is because we need to see there's a fair election next year,and a smooth transition of power. I think Maliki is trying to find any reason to get us out,because he wants to rig elections and stay in power. Notice how U.S. soldiers will be confined to bases by election time. Very convenient.
Maury, do you have any evidence that Maliki intends to cheat in the next Iraqi election (which will be run and monitored by the UN for crying out load)? Does anyone else agree with Maury, and if so why?
Maury, this sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Why else would we want to stay bad enough to put up with all that shiite anand? For the opportunity to blow a couple hundred more billion dollars? And why should Maliki care so much whether we leave now or after elections? And yeah,I think there will be shenanigans pulled in both elections.
Commenting by HaloScan
