Biden calls Edwards' Iraq withdrawal plan "against American interests," proposes ethnic transfer (!)

Biden Unbound: Lays Into Clinton, Obama, Edwards
Loquacious Senator, Democratic Candidate on Hillary: 'Four of 10 Is the Max You Can Get?' Edwards 'Doesn't Know What He's Talking About'
By Jason Horowitz--New York Observer
Wednesday, January 31, 2006
----
Senator Joseph Biden doesn’t think highly of the Iraq policies of some of the other Democrats who are running for President.
To hear him tell it, Hillary Clinton’s position is calibrated, confusing and “a very bad idea.” John Edwards doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is pushing a recipe for Armageddon in the Middle East. Barack Obama is offering charming but insubstantial fluff. And all of them are playing politics.
“Let me put it this way,” Mr. Biden said. “You didn’t hear any one of them get in this debate at all until they announced for President.”
Mr. Biden, who ran an ill-fated campaign for President in 1988, is a man who believes his time has finally come, announcing this week that he was filing papers to make his 2008 Presidential bid official. Although he admits to a tendency to “bloviate,” he thinks that an aggressive advocate with rough edges might be just what the party needs right now. “Democrats nominated the perfect blow-dried candidates in 2000 and 2004,” he said, “and they couldn’t connect.”
(...)
Mr. Biden seemed to reserve a special scorn for Mr. Edwards, who suffered from a perceived lack of depth in foreign policy in the Presidential election of 2004.
“I don’t think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about,” Mr. Biden said, when asked about Mr. Edwards’ advocacy of the immediate withdrawal of about 40,000 American troops from Iraq.
“John Edwards wants you and all the Democrats to think, ‘I want us out of there,’ but when you come back and you say, ‘O.K., John’”—here, the word “John” became an accusatory, mocking refrain—“‘what about the chaos that will ensue? Do we have any interest, John, left in the region?’ Well, John will have to answer yes or no. If he says yes, what are they? What are those interests, John? How do you protect those interests, John, if you are completely withdrawn? Are you withdrawn from the region, John? Are you withdrawn from Iraq, John? In what period? So all this stuff is 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.”
The targets of Mr. Biden’s criticism, whether out of shock, indifference or a calculation that it would be unwise in this case to meet fire with fire, declined to respond in kind.
(...)
The Iraq he envisions has three ethnically homogenous enclaves, with a central government responsible for securing the country’s international borders and distributing oil revenues.
He’d put the Shiite majority in the south, limiting their geographic control but keeping them from being drawn into a wider Sunni-Shiite conflict.
He’d move the Sunni majority into the oil-poor Anbar province in the West, but they would be guaranteed a cut of oil revenues worth billions of dollars. Mr. Biden’s hope is that the oil money and relative calm would drain the loyal Baathist insurgency of support while simultaneously making the province less amenable to Al Qaeda provocateurs.
(...)
----
Read the rest here.
----
Screw you, Joe. Washed-up plagiarizing jerk. Ethnic transfer is the sensible option?

We don't need an angry, accusatory voice in this campaign -- we're going to get enough of that from the Rethugs. Biden sounds like he's going to be providing fodder for the eventual RNC ads against our nominee. Bad, bad form. Just not very presidential.

Glad Al Gore isn't into it ... yet. He needs to stay above the fray and let Biden be the attack dog, so then Al can swoop in as the gracious, mature, statesmanlike candidate and kick bully Biden to the curb.

But this is ridiculous, and it's no time for the Democratic hopefuls to splinter the party ideals just to get a percentage point at this absurdly early point in the race. It's insane that this many people have declared this early, and this is doing nothing to help the Dems fight off the Bush Decision maker squad...

Biden, you're acting like a tool.

This is how primaries go. Edwards acted like a tool about Obama the other day. Biden acts like a tool about Edwards today. The show has begun.

But I certainly agree that this early start is absurd. I hate it.

virtually all of the candidates are lacking substance on this issue.

I also studied political science and especially ethnic conflict. I spoke in recent years with my professors (now former professors) about separating Iraq into ethnic areas with autonomy under a central government with very limited authority, having authority primarily in national defense issues. This has been tried elsewhere and is also very difficult to enact, but is usually the only feasible option in ethnic conflict. So, as much as it pains me to admit it, Biden is completely correct.

want to move, what then? Are they forced to relocate? If so, who will do the forcing? Will it be a "Trail of Tears" kind of thing? How will land owners be compensated? How will a Sunni who owns land in an oil development area ever be convinced to give that up? What about a Shiite whose family has owned a farm near Kirkuk for generations? How will he be compensated for that - after he and his children are forced off of the land at gunpoint? I just don't see how ethnic population relocations will work, except through brutal force. And, again, who will do the brutal forcing?

...populations. They did a forced migration after separating into 2 nations in Gandhi's days. It's not easy, but it can be done. It's not fool-proof, but it's often the least of the evils.

The partition of India left both India and Pakistan devastated. The process of partition had claimed many lives in the riots. Many others were raped and looted. Women, especially, were used as instruments of power by the Hindus and the Muslims; "ghost trains" full of severed breasts of women would arrive in each of the newly-born countries from across the borders.

15 million refugees poured across the borders to regions completely foreign to them, for though they were Hindu or Muslim, their identity had been embedded in the regions where there ancestors were from. Not only was the country divided, but so were the provinces of Punjab and Bengal, divisions which caused catastrophic riots and claimed the lives of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs alike.

Many years after the partition, the two nations are still trying to heal the wounds left behind by this incision to once-whole body of India. Many are still in search of an identity and a history left behind beyond an impenetrable boundary. The two countries started of with ruined economies and lands and without an established, experienced system of government. They lost many of their most dynamic leaders, such as Gandhi, Jinnah and Allama Iqbal, soon after the partition. Pakistan had to face the separation of Bangladesh in 1971. India and Pakistan have been to war twice since the partition and they are still deadlocked over the issue of possession of Kashmir. The same issues of boundaries and divisions, Hindu and Muslim majorities and differences, still persist in Kashmir.

www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Part.html

Let the Iraqis split up their country if that's what they want. Old white men caused drawing lines on maps caused quite a bit of damage in the last century. To Hell with neo-Colonialism.

But having such groups living in the presence of each other will result in a permanent war.

That being said, Biden in the past proposed creating regions without relocating people. Relovation would be voluntary and regions would be created based on the majorities. Unlike the India case, all would remain within the same national boundaries under the same central government. They would be given autonomy though. Autonomy is usually the only possible solution to keep a nation with feuding ethnic identities in tact. Though, in the end, it often ends up being a way of prolonging the inevitable - complete separation or complete war.

How nice of Biden to propose that people be "given" autonomy.

Research longer into autonomy and past cases. I just gave one example off the top of my head to show it can be done. There have been more peaceful examples.

Include the Powers From On High who condescended to bestow Autonomy upon the ungrateful (former) colonials.

in case you didn't know that.

I find it typical of "Christians" such as yourself to want to draw borders of countries around the world.

Invade a country, play one side off the other, exploit their resources, and then decide who lives where.

Typical imperialist arrogance.

nobody can know. I don't dismiss it out of hand.

I do dismiss his bellicosity though. He needs to get a grip. He's talking like the slightly angry drunk.

Seems he wants to redeploy those American troops out of Iraq and into Iran.

He also praised Ariel Sharon as a peacemaker. Gawd, talk about naivite.

Edwards lost my support with that one.

He also praised Ariel Sharon as a peacemaker. Gawd, talk about naivite.

He really didn't say anything like that. Here's what he said:

I am aware that it was at this conference that PM Ariel Sharon gave his courageous speech outlining his disengagement. He helped Israel face some of its major challenges.
Throughout his career and public service Sharon has shown courage, including his historic decision to evacuate Gaza. More than anyone else, Sharon has, in my judgment, believed that a strong Israel is a safe Israel and that Israel needs to defend itself against security threats. (transcript)

Sure, some people think that his comments were too kind to Sharon. But they were framed more as an acknowledgment that the Gaza disengagement was a step towards peace--which it was. Sharon may not be a "peacemaker," but Edwards was absolutely correct in saying that what Sharon did in Gaza was a positive step. Sharon resisted well-financed and determined opposition, broke from his own party, and eventually finished the type of thing--basically, Israeli concessions--that moves the situation along. I didn’t like Sharon, and his actions at Sabra and Shatila are disturbing. But I think he was much better for peace than other Likud politicians (say, Netanyahu) would be. I think that had Sharon not become incapacitated the war in Lebanon would have never happened.

Edwards is correct.

Come on. Edwards badly stumbled there. His mutterings about military action against Iran are ill-timed, and ill-considered. I'm not impressed. Good luck trying to sell Edwards (and Sharon) as a peacemaker to others, but I don't think you'll have many takers around here.

because that's what we're talking about. that's what Edwards was talking about.

he never said peacemaker, and you know that. so why persist.

can you admit that Sharon - the only Israeli leader with the tough-guy cred to do it - was helpful in ordering the Israeli evacuation of Gaza?

Please answer.

Maybe Biden is speaking some truth. That's a disappointment to me and shows Edwards has a LOT to learn about the Middle East...

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html
and others


When John Edwards, who poses as a peace candidate, declares that we
will go to war with Iran before we'll let them break Israel's nuclear
monopoly in the Middle East, that should tell us something about how
the power of the Lobby has distorted our foreign policy and deformed
the American political process. In paying homage to Herzliya, Edwards
and his fellow candidates are betraying and subverting American
interests.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10399

he said that the military option must not be taken off the table. fact is, he needn't have said it, because no president has to put it on, or take it off the table. we have a military. that's a fact. I wish he hadn't said it because there is no need to. But he did not threaten Iran. Period.

Now, what I would do, for those many concerned about the Verzliya speech, is watch him on Meet The Press this Sunday - I suspect this speech will be discussed. I also suspect he will be much clearer in his desire to avoid conflict with Iran, and that the many reasons that can be done will be elucidated.

YOu always talk about what Edwards will say in the future, as though you are certain. Hell, I don't even know what my spouse will say three days ahead of time.

Curious.

So he will modulate his tone, hey? He Will sit his ass back on the fence, I presume?

but I follow him closely, and it's clear from the totality of what he says that he has no interest in attacking Iran, in fact is adamantly against it.

So, i expect that he will clarify the statements to Verzliya, which admittely lacked clarity. He probably is doing so somewhere right now, wherever he is, because it's probably being brought up. I know that he is on Russert on Sunday, so I am anticipating Russert will hand the Verzliya quotes to him to explain. Just a guess, but a safe one, I think.

He is not on the fence. If you listen to what he says, you would recognize that. for instance, Obama's call for withdrawal by Mar 2008...well for about a year Edwards has been saying this very clearly and forcefully - we must show the Iraqis we are leaving, and the best way to do that is to start leaving. Immediately. 40K troops out now. and continue from there, in an exit designed by those on the ground.

that, FrenchieCat, you will recognize as not on the fence. And you know he has been calling for that, so why do you say he is on the fence?

#2-Saying 50,000 out now is not a plan, it is a slogan...a pandering one at that, considering the lack of details attached to this campaign pronouncement and considering that he can't order for that....he can only recommend it to congress, those same people he called 8 year olds about a week ago.

I'm watching the 2002 Iraq War debate on C-Span3. Edwards will be on there shortly. That will be interesting.

Barbara Boxer finished her statement just a few minutes ago. She quoted Wes Clark as she was explaining the Levin amendment and why that is the only resolution she would support. She talked also about Kosovo as the example of a Just war.

Bayh and Lieberman have already been on. Both looked like cheerleaders for Bush; all the needed was a letter sweater!

You are correct, it was a major blunder to put military action front and center on the table. But that was for that group of hardliners. Now he seeks to be the peace candidate for domestic consumption? He sure make Biden's assessment appear accurate.

He did not put attacking Iran front and center...what he did was state that the military option was not to be taken off the table...he neglected to add much of what he believes, and that is what he's clarifying.

Biden's statement about HRC, BO, and JE were absurd. I think it just reminds us that he is a blowhard, even if he often has great ideas. he is his own worst enemy.

Edwards said it twice in succession to make sure that the right emphasis was noted by those he was talking to. I read his speech in its entirity, and it ain't a peacemaker's speech. The problem was where he placed the emphasis....because military option on the table is already a known.

Does John Edwards ever tells us something that we don't know when it comes to Foreign policy? :shrug:

because I ask you who does tell us something we don't know.

we simply look for those who we trust will move in the right direction as opposed to the wrong direction, according to our views.

For me, that is Edwards. I've said it before, I will again: His Verzliya speech was not something I cared for, but I also think it was a failure of expression (rare for Edwards), and I hope that my larger view of him is what holds, and what the coming days and months and years will prove to be exactly who he is...in my mind, a smart, peace loving, man.

Well, here's Wes Clark talking back in September 2002. He obviously was telling something that John Edwards didn't have a clue about:

I'll have more of these. Let me know when you want to read them.




Boy, Edwards should have been listening to the debate in the senate in 2002....as I am watching it on C-Span3 right now. Then he wouldn't have been so "misled". Here, you can watch it on your computer.
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan3_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3

When it comes to foreign policy he seems to have a failure to understand war is a last resort and to keep it there , you leave it unspoken unless diplomacy is failing. It seems those who are weak in that area find it necessary to flex their muscles. He is so arrogant, cosponsoring the IWR and going out of his way in the '04 South Carolina debate to call out Kerry for saying that connecting the war on terrorism to Iraq was an exaggeration. Now he demands the Democratic Senators clean up the mess he went out of his way to create. He is not a leader that I would care to follow. I know which way the wind is blowing without a weather vane.

I disagree with him on the value of partitioning Iraq, but he's generally got more foreign policy cred than almost all of the other candidates, including the three mentioned.

I also think that it is the only one that will work in the long run. There is no way that you are going to get the three groups to live together unless you have another Tito or Saddam. Biden's solution is also a political solution which is the only solution that will work. When your kids get into a fight you have to separate them. The same goes for adults.

they solve. If the US is the one doing the forcing, it will blow up in our faces worse than Bush's debacle has...

How successful has any wholesale relocation of large populations ever been? It seems that history shows only more and more blood. In the past, actually, Sunnis and Shia and other cultural groups have lived well together as neighbors, so I don't think it's impossible over time, if somewhat normal conditions for life can return. None of it's easy, unfortunately.

designing that - that should be something to come out of their meetings.

divide it. How terrible would that be?

In terms of Biden on Edwards, I have to agree that Edwards doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to foreign policy...didn't on Iraq, doesn't on Iran...and advocating that Israel should join NATO is pretty scary....NATO pledges to defend any of its members if attacked. Can you imagine what NATO would be busy doing if Israel was a member? Plus so many other reasons that this is such a bad idea especially coming out of American mouths! :eyes:

Sharom a peacemaker......

don't get me started!

His Iran remarks were sort of open to interpretation, obviously, since they're being interpreted in all different ways, but support for the NATO idea was truly ignorant.

"At a time when most Democrats in the United States are calling for
less military involvement abroad," notes the Jersusalem Post, "Edwards,
of South Carolina, told the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference on
Monday that his country must do everything that it can to stop Iran
from possessing nuclear weapons."

When John Edwards, who poses as a peace candidate, declares that we
will go to war with Iran before we'll let them break Israel's nuclear
monopoly in the Middle East, that should tell us something about how
the power of the Lobby has distorted our foreign policy and deformed
the American political process. In paying homage to Herzliya, Edwards
and his fellow candidates are betraying and subverting American
interests.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10399

Edwards has never said he desires war. He has said we should stop Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. I agree with him.

Can't you ever make a point without distorting Edwards' words?

Or are you admitting outright that Edwards owns wars?

and if you look at Edwards statements and his whole candidacy you will recognize that the Verzliya conference remarks were not a call to attack.

they were, admittedly, not as extensive and lucid as we want, but it was not a call for war, except for those who WANT to think of him as a warmonger.

Those more honest observers look at it differently, and see his comments as inadequate, but not warmongering.

Dogman - you clearly would like for Edwards to be a warmonger, as it fits something you already think. But, sadly for you, happily for the world, he is not.

I see he has corrected his sentence, but my observation was humorous , not childish. His comments were not a call to attack, but certainly expressed a willingness to attack. As a Vietnam veteran, I have little use for chickenhawks. Put this in context, please. This man cosponsored the IRW, that was not "smart". Given the possibility that he could be elected, I hope the Senate remembers his admonition and keep him under control. You may be correct, his remarks at the conference may have been pandering to the crowd he was addressing. I find that out of line too, however.

I understand his IWR vote is part of the overall context. I'm thinking, though, that it is this very vote, and his profound regret about it, that makes him cautious on Iran, even if his Verzliya speech was not. I don't think he was pandering, but it certainly seems like his language was not as clear as it could have been. This language is something he has to be responsible for, I agree.

cred for not just Edwards, but Obama and possibly Hillary as well.

I don't know if Biden's plan is the right one, but

"Screw you, Joe. Washed-up plagiarizing jerk. Ethnic transfer is the sensible option?"

isn't much of a comeback.

position on even tricky foreign policy matters will not be a problem for him when they are all under fire during the debates.

why would bringing our troops home make John Edwards completely withdrawn from the region?

sorry but bringing home our troops would convince me that Edwards understands the region, and Biden can't admit when he is wrong!

Biden needs to get his name out and he's going to go after Edwards. Edwards better come up with a response at some point, although that would draw attention to Biden, whose poll numbers right now are molecular.

Since Biden is also ready to be on any talk show that will have him, he's bound to go off on Edwards more than Obama or Hillary. Is Edwards ready for the Russert House of Gotcha Scrutiny?

This little show Biden put on is practice for later attacks...count on it.

Wesley Clark, the retired general who is also mulling a presidential bid also told me that while partitioning may eventually occur, or already be happening, in Iraq, it could never be official United States policy.

The problem, he said, is that Iraqis forced to move out from their homes or from the more mixed urban areas like Baghdad or Kirkuk to the strongholds of their respective ethnic or religious group will associate their displacement with the United States. Clark said that feeling will breed even more resentment towards America.

"'Bush did this to me,' That's what they'll say," said Mr. Clark. "Bush drove me out of my home. Or they will name some Democratic Senator. It could come to that but it can't be what we want."

http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2006/12/the-life-and-death-of-an-iraq-plan.html

Next move in Iraq?
By Wesley Clark

What about a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals? Today, setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

What about imposing a tripartite division of Iraq? That would merely feed ethnic cleansing and likely lead to a wider, more intense conflict.

The right approach is a coordinated diplomatic, legal, economic and security campaign drawing upon broader dialogue in the region and intensified political work inside Iraq.

Here is how to do this:

Establish an effective, sustained shuttle diplomacy within the region.

Form a high-level interagency diplomatic team, representing the White House and secretaries of State and Defense and led by an experienced, respected diplomat.

Begin talks within Iraq, and with all its neighbors, based on a clear set of principles outlined by the team. The goal would be to seek the commitments necessary to achieve our aims inside Iraq and also advance U.S. interests in the region.

These principles could include: Iraq would remain whole; oil revenue would go to the Iraqi people based on a formula they determine; the rights and security of individuals must be protected; the United States would have no permanent bases in Iraq; the covert flow of military arms and equipment into Iraq would be halted; and the security needs of all states would be respected.

more....
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/illustration_by_2.html

The Smart Surge: Diplomacy
By Wesley K. Clark
Monday, January 8, 2007; A15

The odds are that this week President Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq. Will this deliver a "win"? Probably not. But it will distract us from facing the deep-seated regional issues that must be resolved.

<snip>
The truth is that the underlying problems are political, not military.

Vicious ethnic cleansing is underway, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment, security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces -- and increasing U.S. efforts is likely to generate additional resistance, especially from Iraq's neighbors. More effective action is needed to resolve the struggle at the political level. A new U.S. ambassador might help, but the administration needs to recognize that the neoconservative vision has failed.

Dealing with meddling neighbors is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts and threatening statements. The administration needs a new strategy for the region, before Iran gains nuclear capabilities. While the military option must remain on the table, America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony and nuclear power, the struggle for control of Lebanon, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating our adversaries hasn't worked.

Absent such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that a troop surge and accompanying rhetoric will be anything other than "staying the course" more. That wastes lives and time, bolsters the terrorists and avoids facing up to the interrelated challenges posed by a region in crisis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/07/AR2007010700980_pf.html

wanting to redraw borders and "transfer" populations as he sees fit.

Oh and he believes Obama is "articulate" and "clean", and that 7/11s and Dunkin Donuts shops are overrun with Indians.

Oh don't forget his whoring for MBNA.

Biden officially wins - worst candidate running for the Democratic Primaries in '08 award. In '04 this obviously went to Lieberman.

I've been reading Postwar, A History of Europe Since 1945 and the author made the point that the various population transfers that occurred during and immediately after WW2 virtually eliminated the majority of sources of ethnic conflict in Eastern Europe (excluding Yugoslavia). Just a thought.

I would like to think more about this. Thanks.

Definitely eliminated ethnic conflict. Because they eliminated the people.

Load up the boxcars now!

and the "good" folks ruling in Rwanda (among others) got rightly slamed for it...

it sounds like pseudo-apartheid only a withdraw will work.

segregation forevah!!!!!!!!!!!

Plagarising ol' Strom? :shrug: