Senator Joe Biden for president---in the primaries

woiyo


Clinton has a lot but not as much and as broad as Biden.

BBB

She has a lot?

Really?

I can't seem to recall, specifically, what any of that experience actually is. Other then having had Bill run things while she was around.

Cycloptichorn

I really like Biden and have for quite some time. If I thought he had a chance of getting the nomination I would support him. I still think Hill is the one to beat though, and therefore have to support her against the weakest choice of republicans Ive seen in my lifetime.

BBB
I've waited all of my adult life to have the opportunity to vote for a woman, an African-American, a hispanic. It's hard to not choose one of them but I have to put what's best for the country ahead of my personal wishes. I believe that Joe Biden has the depth of experience and knowledge in foreign policy, economic and domestic policies that is lacking in the other candidates at a very dangerous time in our history.

BBB

Cyc


Why do you constantly forget Senator Clinton's years of service in the Senate?

Re: Cyc


What leadership did she display during those years, that Obama or Richardson or Dodd or others in the race did not? Specifically, please.

Cycloptichorn

Re: Cyc


Come on now, I'm not going to do your search for you. Your responses really show your lack of information.

My topic is about Senator Joe Biden being a better candidate for the country, not Senator Clinton. Since I assume you wouldn't vote for Clinton, why are you trying to divert my topic?

BBB

Re: Cyc


I will vote for whichever dem candidate wins the nod.

I think this 'experience' question really cuts to the heart of the Dem candidacy race. While people often quote 'experience' for Biden or Clinton, they cannot actually name what that experience actually is much of the time. I know that Biden has sat on Foreign Relations for a long time; I think that this gives him some claim to an understanding of the foreign policy game.

I cannot find any significant instances of Clinton providing leadership on anything during her time in congress. Please don't retreat to the 'I won't do your research for you' dodge. I have done research and was unsatisfied with what I found. It doesn't match up with the pronunciations of 'experience' that many have given to Clinton.

I don't have a problem with Biden - other then the fact he's a corporate whore and not a Democrat - but he won't get the nomination, not in a million years, so I don't bother restricting my talk to him.

Cycloptichorn

Biden passes Richardson in Iowa poll
Breaking news! A new ARG poll, released this morning, shows our campaign surging past Bill Richardson in Iowa and closing in on the front-runners (Biden 8% - Richardson 4%).

This confirms everything we hear when we talk to voters around the state: as the the other candidates bicker with each other, Iowans are turning to us because we're running a positive campaign focused on the issues that confront the nation.

Joe Biden

Joe Biden can't wait to debate Rudy Giuliani.
I can't wait to debate Rudy Giuliani.

Over the weekend, Rudy Giuliani attacked the Biden plan for a political solution in Iraq, "They're saying, 'We will divide the country.' (The Iraqi government) has to decide to divide the country. We're trying to create stability over there."

I will eat Rudy Giuliani alive at a debate.

The former mayor never misses an opportunity to display how little he knows about foreign policy. My plan is to give regions in Iraq more control over their daily lives. It's a way for states to share power with a central government and achieve a political solution to the chaos there and it was endorsed by a bipartisan majority of 75 Senators, both Republican and Democrat. We've already seen it play out -- where local authorities have been given more control over their affairs, violence has gone down. Meanwhile, the Bush administration's attempt to create a strong central government is still not working -- for all the headlines the surge has created, we're no closer to a political solution in Baghdad than we were when the surge began months ago.

Folks, we've seen how dangerous it is to elect a president who doesn't understand how the world works. The last thing we need in the White House is four years of George W. Giuliani, or George W. Romney. Notice we haven't heard a word about their plans to reach a political solution in Iraq.

I promise you, when I am the Democratic nominee next year, I will eat them alive at the debates.

We are converting supporters here in Iowa at a rate that has us all very excited, but we cannot take anything for granted.

Joe Biden

e-mail from Joe Biden
e-mail from Joe Biden 12/4/07

In October, when President Bush raised the specter of World War III with Iran because of its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, he knew that our own intelligence community had concluded months earlier that Iran had halted its weapons program in 2003.

This is as outrageous as it is irresponsible. It's exactly what he did in the run up to the war in Iraq in consistently exaggerating intelligence suggesting that Iraq had WMD while failing to tell the American people about intelligence concluding that it did not.

For many reasons, war with Iran is not just a bad option, it would be a disaster. So I want to be crystal clear on this: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

The President's actions further undermine America's credibility around the world -- and the government's credibility here at home -- at a time when that credibility is at an all time low. And it injects more tension and instability into the Middle East at a time when we should be doing everything in our power to prevent that region from spiraling out of control.

Yesterday I gave a major address in Iowa outlining a plan to keep Iran from producing the material that could one day be used for a bomb -- without using force. I encourage you to take a few minutes to read that plan on my website:

Click here to read my plan to prevent Iran from producing the material that could one day be used for a bomb -- without using force.
http://www.joebiden.com/getinformed/speeches?id=0091

We need a president who will end the war in Iraq responsibly instead of taking us to war with Iran irresponsibly. My entire campaign is circulating my Iran speech today to everyone who wants to stop this President from taking us to war on cherry-picked intelligence.

The American people deserve a President who levels with them, especially when it comes to issues of war and peace. Our partners around the world expect it. Forfeiting that trust is this President's most terrible legacy. The next President's number one priority must be to rebuild it.

Thank you,
Joe Biden

Meeting the Iranian Challenge
Meeting the Iranian Challenge
by Joe Biden
Published: 12/03/2007

Senator Joe Biden
Iowa City Public Library
December 3, 2007

Today, I'd like to speak to you about Iran. I want to address two questions many of you are asking.

Is war with Iran inevitable?

And can we avoid the other stark alternative - an Iran armed with nuclear weapons?

The NIE

Earlier today, the intelligence community released what's called a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear intentions and capabilities.

The conclusions are, figuratively speaking, explosive.

The Estimate found that Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and, as of the middle of this year, had not restarted it.

Iran did resume work on uranium enrichment, which is the most likely method it would use to produce the fissile material for a bomb.

But at its current pace, the NIE concluded that Iran could produce that material no earlier than the end of 2009 - but that this is very unlikely. More likely is that Iran will be capable of making enough material for a bomb sometime between 2010 and 2015.

This means that the answers to the questions I posed are no, war is not inevitable and yes, we can prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. There is still time for diplomatic engagement and economic pressure to work. There is still time to protect our interests without using force.

The Folly of War

War with Iran is not just a bad option. It would be a disaster.

We're talking about a country with nearly three times the population of Iraq - 70 million people - and infinitely more problems waiting for us if we attack.

The regime is unpopular, but it has millions of fervent supporters it will mobilize for war.

If you thought going to war with Iraq would be a "cakewalk" maybe that wouldn't deter you. But if you are a part of the reality-based community, it should -- and so should a few other facts.

First, with our armed forces over-stretched in Iraq and fighting in Afghanistan, we can't take on another major conflict.

And let's not kid ourselves: any military conflict with Iran is likely to become major.

Don't be fooled by talk of a "surgical" strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

It would probably require thousands of sorties by our air force, over two to three weeks. It would mean bombing Iran's radar sites and air force, repeatedly striking multiple targets across the country, securing the Straits of Hormuz and oil facilities throughout the Persian Gulf, and preparing for attacks against our troops, citizens, allies, and interests across the region and beyond.

What looks "limited" to us almost certainly would be seen as something much bigger by the Iranians and could spark an all-out war.

There's only one thing worse than a poorly planned, intentional war: an unplanned, unintentional war.

Second, military power can't provide a lasting solution. Air strikes can set back Iran's nuclear program, but they can't stop Tehran from restarting it.

Third, imagine the consequences beyond Iran.

In Iraq, our troops would be targets for retaliation. In Israel and Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah would be unleashed. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, enraged Muslim populations would make it much harder for moderate leaders to cooperate with us, if they didn't force them from office.

War Powers

It is precisely because the consequences of war - intended or otherwise - can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens.

They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down… allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die… and ensure broader public support.

The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right.

That's why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I've consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.

I'm saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration.

If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.

Talk Isn't Cheap

Even talk of war is counter-productive to our interests - it is literally a gift to President Ahmadinejad and the extremists.

When President Bush puts the words "Iran" and "World War III" in the same sentence… or when the Senate votes to designate a large part of Iran's military a "terrorist" organization… the main result is to increase tensions with Iran.

That, in turn, does two things.

First, it distracts the Iranian people from the incredible failures of Ahmadinejad's leadership, while silencing his critics and forcing them to rally around the flag.

Second, tension adds directly to the security premium we pay for oil -- an extra cost directly tied to the risk of conflict in the Middle East. The more tensions rise, the higher the security premium goes, because people betting on the long term price of oil anticipate supply disruptions.

Right now, a barrel of oil costs almost 100 dollars. But a full 30 dollars of that is the security premium.

That security premium comes out of your pockets at the pump or when you pay your home heating bills. It goes into Iran's coffers… tens of billions of dollars propping up the extremists.

It's hard to think of a more self-defeating policy.

Policy Paralysis and Strategic Incoherence

If war with Iran is a terrible option, so is the possibility of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons.

My concern is not that a nuclear Iran some day would be moved by messianic fervor to use a nuclear weapon as an Armageddon device and commit national suicide in order to hasten the return of the hidden Imam.

My worry is that the fear of a nuclear Iran could spark an arms race in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and others joining in.

Fortunately, as the National Intelligence Estimate makes clear, there is a significant window of opportunity in which to act to avoid the stark choice of war or a nuclear Iran.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has long lacked a diplomatic strategy to take advantage of this window.

Instead, it has vacillated between policy paralysis and strategic incoherence.

And just when it seems to have adopted a more effective strategy, as it did with North Korea, the President or Vice President undermines it by raising the specter of war.

The administration wants to roll back Iranian influence throughout the Middle East. But that influence has accelerated as a result of this administration's policies -- literally a Bush-fulfilling prophecy.

Our failure to secure the peace in Iraq left a vacuum filled largely by militia and political parties aligned with Iran.

We're backing a government in Baghdad that Iran sees as a strong ally, while simultaneously trying to weaken Iran's influence in Iraq. The administration is in a tug-of-war with itself.

The Administration's failure to fully support President Abbas when he was first elected gave Hamas -- a close ally of Iran -- a political opening in the Palestinian territories.

Dick Lugar and I pleaded with the administration to provide Abbas direct assistance so he could demonstrate real progress to his people - and we warned that Abbas' failure would be Hamas's gain. I wish we had been wrong.

In Lebanon, when Syria withdrew, the administration failed to decisively support the government and army.

Iran's other favorite proxy, Hezbollah, became the strongest force in the country. Last summer, it provoked a war with Israel. Now it is intimidating the pro-Western government into capitulating over the choice of a new president.

Worst of all, instead of keeping its eye on the prize of preventing Iran from getting the bomb, this administration has been obsessed with the idea of getting rid of the Iranian regime.

None of us like the regime, but think about the logic: we want you to renounce your uranium enrichment and plutonium production programs - and by the way, when you do, we're still going to try to take you down.

The result is predictable: Iran has accelerated its efforts to enrich uranium and produce plutonium.

The administration's fixation with regime change also distances us from our allies and undermines a unified international approach.

It left us so isolated that in December 2004, one high-ranking American official admitted: "We're relying upon others, because we've sanctioned ourselves out of influence with Iran." That official was President Bush.

From Regime Change to Conduct Change

Instead of regime change, we need to focus on conduct change.

First, working with allies and partners, not acting alone, we must make it very clear to Iran what it risks in terms of isolation if it continues to defy the international community's demand that it stop enriching uranium.

But we also have to be just as clear about what it stands to gain -- in terms of economic benefits, security guarantees, integration into the region and diplomatic relations - if it does the right thing.

The National Intelligence Estimate makes clear that the right combination of pressure and positive incentives could "prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program."

And we have to be open to, not dismissive of, international inspections, which, done the right way, can shine an invaluable light on Iran's nuclear activities.

Second, we need to do a far better job managing great power relations with China, Russia, and our allies in Europe. We need a common understanding with them because they have more leverage than we do.

Even as Europe is reducing trade with Iran, China is picking up the slack. China can have a huge impact on Iran's calculus.

But getting China or Russia on the same page will not happen by delegating the matter to the State Department. It will require sustained, presidential-level engagement - something this Administration has shown little interest in or aptitude for.

Third, we must exploit growing cracks within the ruling elite and between Iran's rulers and its people.

Iran is not a monolith. President Ahmadinejad does not have the final word. And he is facing unprecedented opposition from a new alliance of pragmatic conservatives and reformers. They hope to defeat many Ahmedinejad supporters in elections for the Iranian parliament - the Majlis - next March.

Our biggest allies are the Iranian people. They are open to America. They don't like a regime that denies them basic political and social rights and that can't deal with corruption, high unemployment and inflation.

We should bring together renowned economists and the talented pool of Iranian-American business leaders.

I'd ask them to lay out a positive vision for what the Iranian economy could look like in five years if Iran's leaders make the right decisions, sanctions end, and Iran becomes integrated with the world economy. I'd ask them to detail the benefits that would flow to ordinary Iranians and I would make their findings widely known in Iran.

We should promote people-to-people interaction by changing our self-defeating sanctions laws that hinder American NGOs from spending their money to support Iranian NGOs.

When I tried to do this last year, the Bush Administration blocked me. Instead, it has pursued the disastrous policy of secretly funnelling US government money to Iranians, providing an excuse for the regime to crack down on scores of innocent Iranian activists.

And we should do everything in our power to engage the Iranian people.

They need to know it is their government, not the U.S. that is choosing confrontation over cooperation. So we should tone down the rhetoric and talk.

It's amazing how little faith this administration has in the power of America's ideas and ideals.

This is not armchair quarterbacking. In 2005, while the Bush Administration was shunning Iran's reformist President, I held the highest-level meeting in 25 years between any U.S. and Iranian official when I met with Iran's foreign minister.

And, just six weeks after President Bush's "axis of evil" speech, I proposed a direct dialogue between Congress and Iran's Majlis, which was then dominated by reformers. That single act sparked a two-week debate in Iran between reformers and hard-liners.

Imagine what would happen if the President of the United States offered to open talks today.

As President Kennedy said: "we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate." The hard-liners thrive on confrontation. It gives them the excuse they need to stifle dissent. They fear engagement.

Fourth, Iran can't be dealt with in isolation. We have to connect the dots.

To weaken the hard-liners in Iran, we should actively encourage Israeli-Syrian talks. If we can weaken the Iranian-Syrian marriage of convenience, we can eliminate the main hub for Iran's projection of influence into the heart of the Middle East, through Hamas and Hezbollah.

I wouldn't trust the Syrians, but I would test them. Incredibly, the Bush Administration has actively discouraged Israel from talking to Damascus. Trying to isolate Syria has not improved its behavior. It has only driven Damascus closer to Tehran.

We also need determined diplomacy to drive a political settlement in Iraq. I've laid out a specific plan on how to do that. 75 US Senators - Democrats and Republicans - voted for it.

The plan calls for convening a UN conference with the major world powers, Iraq and its neighbors to build a political settlement based on the federalism provisions of Iraq's Constitution.

If we don't make Iran part of the solution, it will remain part of the problem. Yes, Iran likes the status quo, with us tied down, bleeding and unable to use Iraq as a launching pad into Iran.

But like all of Iraq's neighbors, Iran has no interest in Iraq's civil war turning into a regional war. If we leave without leaving behind a political settlement, Iran has as much to lose from the resulting chaos as we do.

We should be smart enough to play on that interest… just as we should recognize our shared interests on Iran's Eastern border. In 2001, Iran cooperated closely with us in driving out the Taliban and establishing the Karzai government. We must re-defeat the Taliban and bring stability to Afghanistan.

And we need a Pakistan policy, not a Musharraf policy. I've laid one out in detail. For many in Iran, Pakistan is the emerging security threat. A nuclear-armed Pakistan aligned with or controlled by radicals who see the majority Shi'a of Iran as apostates is Iran's worst nightmare.

Fifth, we must end our dependence on the "Axis of Oil."

The lack of an energy policy goes to the heart of our problem with Iran. Dependence on high priced oil makes it easier for Iran to stand up to pressure… and it makes it harder to get partners to stand with us.

The Bush administration has been AWOL. Thankfully, the Democratic Congress is making a start, with a push for much higher mileage standards over the next decade.

But we also need to make alternative fuels much more widely available. And we need to see energy saving technology as a huge opportunity for America, the most innovative nation on earth. We can invent it, build it and sell it. And we can reshape the world in the process.

Conclusion

So, to end where I began: We can avoid war with Iran. We can prevent a nuclear Iran.

We have time, but we don't have a comprehensive strategy.

As the next president, I will have to flip this administration's policy on its head. I will end the war in Iraq instead of starting war with Iran. I know what to do on both fronts.

Thank you for listening.
Joe Biden

A New Approach to Pakistan
A New Approach to Pakistan
Published: 11/08/2007

"A New Approach to Pakistan"
Center for U.S. Global Engagement
New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm's College,
Manchester, New Hampshire

I've been saying for some time that Pakistan is the most complex country we deal with - and that a crisis was just waiting to happen. On Saturday night, it did.

President Musharraf staged a coup against his own government. He suspended the constitution, imposed de-facto martial law, postponed elections indefinitely, and arrested hundreds of lawyers, journalists, and human rights activists. He took these steps the day after Secretary Rice and the commander of all American forces in the region appealed to Musharraf not to take them.

America has a huge stake in the outcome of this crisis - and in the path Pakistan follows in the months and years to come. Pakistan has strong democratic traditions and a large, moderate majority. But that moderate majority must have a voice in the system and an outlet with elections. If not, moderates may find that they have no choice but to make common cause with extremists, just as the Shah's opponents did in Iran three decades ago.

But unlike Iran, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.

It is hard to imagine a greater nightmare for America than the world's second-largest Muslim nation becoming a failed state in fundamentalist hands, with an arsenal of nuclear weapons and a population larger than those of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea combined.

To prevent that nightmare from becoming a reality, I believe we need to do three things:

First, deal pro-actively with the current crisis.

Second, and for the longer term, move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy that gives the moderate majority a chance to succeed.

And third, help create conditions in the region that maximize the chances of success, and minimize the prospects for failure.

Resolving the Crisis

To help defuse the current political crisis, we must be far more pro-active, not reactive and make it clear to Pakistan that actions have consequences. President Bush's first reaction was to call on President Musharraf to reverse course. Given the stakes, I thought it was important to actually call him - which is exactly what I did. I also spoke to opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. President Musharraf and I had a very direct and detailed discussion. I told him how critical it is that elections go forward as planned in January, that he follow through on his commitment to take off his uniform, and that he restore the rule of law to Pakistan.

It was clear to me that President Musharraf understands the consequences for his country and for relations with the United States if he does not return Pakistan to the path of democracy. Now, President Bush finally got around to calling Musharraf yesterday. As a few of you may know, I'm running for President and I can tell you this: if I'm elected, I won't wait five days to pick up the phone or delegate matters of this magnitude to my secretary of state or to my ambassador. There is too much at stake to leave this kind of conversation to others.

If President Musharraf does not restore his nation to the democratic path, U.S. military aid will be in great jeopardy. I would look hard at big-ticket weapons systems intended primarily to maintain the balance of power with India, not to combat the Taliban or Al Qaeda: hardware like F-16 jets and P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft. President Musharraf doesn't want this aid suspension - and neither does the military establishment whose support he needs. Nor can they afford for this crisis to undermine confidence in Pakistan's economy, which has already taken a hard hit. So I believe there is incentive for cooler heads in Pakistan to prevail. But if they don't and if President Bush does not act, Congress almost certainly will.

Building a New Relationship

Beyond the current crisis lurks a far deeper problem. The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan is largely transactional ?- and this transaction isn't working for either party. From America's perspective, we've spent billions of dollars on a bet that Pakistan's government would take the fight to the Taliban and Al Qaeda while putting the country back on the path to democracy. It has done neither.

From Pakistan's perspective, America is an unreliable ally that will abandon Pakistan the moment it's convenient to do so, and whose support has done little more than bolster unrepresentative rulers.

It is time for a new approach.

We've got to move from a transactional relationship -- the exchange of aid for services -- to the normal, functional relationship we enjoy with all of our other military allies and friendly nations. We've got to move from a policy concentrated on one man - President Musharraf - to a policy centered on an entire people… the people of Pakistan. Like any major policy shift, to gain long-term benefits we'll have to shoulder short term costs. But given the stakes, those costs are worth it.

Here are the four elements of this new strategy.

First, triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually. For at least a decade. This aid would be unconditioned: it's our pledge to the Pakistani people. Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads.

Second, condition security aid on performance. We should base our security aid on clear results. We're now spending well over $1 billion annually, and it's not clear we're getting our money's worth. I'd spend more if we get better returns?-and less if we don't.

Third, help Pakistan enjoy a "democracy dividend." The first year of democratic rule should bring an additional $1 billion -- above the $1.5 billion non-security aid baseline. And I would tie future non-security aid -- again, above the guaranteed baseline -- to Pakistan's progress in developing democratic institutions and meeting good-governance norms.

Fourth, engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers. This will involve everything from improved public diplomacy and educational exchanges to high impact projects that actually change people's lives.

This plan would fundamentally and positively shift the dynamic between the U.S. and Pakistan. Here's how:

A drastic increase in non-security aid, guaranteed for a long period, would help persuade Pakistan's people that America is an all-weather friend… and Pakistan's leaders that America is a reliable ally. Pakistanis suspect our support is purely tactical. They point to the aid cut-off that followed the fall of the Soviet Union… to our refusal to deliver or refund purchased jets in the 1990s… and to our blossoming relationship with rival India. Many Pakistanis believe that the moment Osama bin Laden is gone, U.S. interest will go with him.

When U.S. aid makes a real difference in people's lives, the results are powerful. In October 2005, after a devastating earthquake, American military helicopters delivering relief did far more to improve relations than any amount of arms sales or debt rescheduling. And the Mobile Army Surgery Hospital we left behind is a daily reminder that America cares.

To have a real impact on a nation of 165 million, we'll have to raise our spending dramatically. A baseline of $1.5 billion annually, for a decade, is a reasonable place to start. That might sound like a lot - but it's about what we spend every week in Iraq. Conditioning security aid?- now about three-quarters of our package?- would help push the Pakistani military to finally crush Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Aid to the Pakistani people should be unconditioned ?- that is, not subject to the ups and downs of a particular government in Islamabad or Washington. But aid to the Pakistani military and intelligence service should be closely conditioned ?- that is, carefully calibrated to results. Like it or not, the Pakistani security services will remain vital players - and our best shot at finding Bin Laden and shutting down the Taliban. Their performance has been decidedly mixed: we've caught more terrorists in Pakistan than in any other country?- but $10 billion later, Pakistan remains the central base of Al Qaeda operations. We must strike a much better bargain.

A "democracy dividend" - additional assistance in the first year after democratic rule is restored -- would empower Pakistan's moderate mainstream. The Bush Administration's Musharraf First policy was understandable -- at first. Musharraf had broad support, and in the wake of 9/11 he seemed committed to the fight against Al Qaeda. Six years later, the General is diverting his military, his police, and his intelligence assets from the fight against the terrorists to a crackdown on his political opponents.

The Pakistani people have moved on. Hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets to protest Musharraf's unconstitutional rule?- and hundreds have been killed or gravely injured in the process. The Democracy Dividend would help restore the moral currency this administration has squandered with empty rhetoric about democracy. And it would enable the secular, democratic, civilian political leaders to prove that they?-more than the generals or the radical Islamists?-can bring real improvement to the lives of their constituents.

Last, we've got to engage the Pakistani people directly, and address issues important to them, not just to us. On Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinians, Kashmir, Pakistanis want a respectful hearing. We owe them that at least that much.

Ask an ordinary Pakistani to list his top concerns about America and you may get answers unrelated to international grand strategy: our visa policy and textile quotas.

Or she might raise Abu Ghraib and Gitmo or water-boarding and other forms of torture the Bush Administration still refuses to renounce. Pakistanis don't see these as mere "issues." They see these things as a moral stain on the soul of our nation. In my judgment, so should we.

Creating the Conditions for Success

This new Pakistan policy cannot succeed in isolation. Conditions in the region and in the broader Muslim world - conditions that the United States can affect - will make a huge difference, for good or for bad. We've got to connect the dots - to be, as I suggested at the outset, smart as well as strong. First, there's what we should do.

To increase the prospects that Pakistan will take the lead in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, we should rededicate ourselves to a forgotten war: Afghanistan. When we shifted resources away from Afghanistan to Iraq, Musharraf concluded the Taliban would rebound, so he cut a deal with them.

Redoubling our efforts in Afghanistan - not just with more troops but with the right kind… and with a reconstruction effort that matches President Bush's Marshall Plan rhetoric… would embolden Pakistan's government to take a harder line on the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Second, there's what we should not do. Consider all this talk of war with Iran. It is totally counter-productive to achieving our ends in Iran… but also in Pakistan. In Iran, it allows President Ahmadinejad to distract the Iranian people from the failures of his leadership… and adds a huge security premium to the price of oil, with the proceeds going from our consumers to Iran's government. And in Pakistan and also Afghanistan, anything the fuels the sense of an American crusade against Islam puts moderates on the defensive and empowers extremists. It is hard to think of a more self-defeating policy.

History's Verdict

History may describe today's Pakistan as a repeat of 1979 Iran or 2001 Afghanistan. Or history may write a very different story: that of Pakistan as a stable, democratic, secular Muslim state. Which future unfolds will be strongly influenced?-if not determined?- by the actions of the United States.

I believe that Pakistan can be a bridge between the West and the global Islamic community. Most Pakistanis want a lasting friendship with America. They respect and admire our society. But they are mystified over what they see as our failure to live up to our ideals.

The current crisis in Pakistan is also an opportunity to start anew… to build a relationship between Pakistan and the United States upon which both our peoples can depend - and be proud.

Joe Biden's Remarks to AFL-CIO/Teamsters Rally
Joe Biden's Remarks to AFL-CIO/Teamsters Rally
Published: 06/19/2007

Washington, DC
June 19, 2007

Hey, folks.

The president said we have a voice. We have no choice. Let's get something straight: These guys have declared war not only in Iraq, they declared war on labor's house, they declared war the day they came in. It's about time we just said enough is enough.

Ladies and gentlemen, they're standing 10 deep in this administration. They never take their eye off the ball. They know the only thing between the middle class and them is you. There is -- would be no middle class without you. Middle class rises or falls based upon the union movement.

And, ladies and gentlemen, this is a time where we not only can stop the slide, but by making sure that all you got to do is no more than what you do to register to vote, we can change the tide in this country so American union movement can grow.

White collar workers are sick as well now. They finally figured out that those corporations they counted on ain't taking care of them. They finally figured out the only reason they have any benefits is because of unions. And they're ready to join if we give them a chance.

Ladies and gentlemen, let's declare war back. We've had enough. Let's pass this and move on for the second renaissance of building the union movement in the United States of America. Because the public is ready, they're on your side, and you're crazy sitting out in this sun.

Thank you very, very much.
Joe Biden

Who's telling the truth
From our many conversations with voters in Iowa, it's clear they're looking for a candidate who's willing to look them in the eye and tell them the truth. To see why Joe's events are creating so much excitement across Iowa, you just need to see his appearance on last night's Hardball, where he reiterated his call for George Bush to be impeached if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval.

Watch Joe Biden talking on Hardline:
http://www.joebiden.com/contribution/2?id=0024

Meeting the Iranian Challenge
Meeting the Iranian Challenge
Joe Bidenby
Posted December 6, 2007

I want to address two questions many are asking. Is war with Iran inevitable? And can we avoid the other stark alternative - an Iran armed with nuclear weapons? Earlier this week, the intelligence community released what's called a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear intentions and capabilities. The conclusions are, figuratively speaking, explosive.

The Estimate found that Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and, as of the middle of this year, had not restarted it. Iran did resume work on uranium enrichment, which is the most likely method it would use to produce the fissile material for a bomb. But at its current pace, the NIE concluded that Iran could produce that material no earlier than the end of 2009 - but that this is very unlikely. More likely is that Iran will be capable of making enough material for a bomb sometime between 2010 and 2015.

This means that the answers to the questions I posed are no, war is not inevitable and yes, we can prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. There is still time for diplomatic engagement and economic pressure to work. There is still time to protect our interests without using force.

The Folly of War

War with Iran is not just a bad option. It would be a disaster. We're talking about a country with nearly three times the population of Iraq - 70 million people - and infinitely more problems waiting for us if we attack. The regime is unpopular, but it has millions of fervent supporters it will mobilize for war. If you thought going to war with Iraq would be a "cakewalk" maybe that wouldn't deter you. But if you are a part of the reality-based community, it should -- and so should a few other facts.

First, with our armed forces over-stretched in Iraq and fighting in Afghanistan, we can't take on another major conflict. And let's not kid ourselves: any military conflict with Iran is likely to become major. Don't be fooled by talk of a "surgical" strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

It would probably require thousands of sorties by our air force, over two to three weeks. It would mean bombing Iran's radar sites and air force, repeatedly striking multiple targets across the country, securing the Straits of Hormuz and oil facilities throughout the Persian Gulf, and preparing for attacks against our troops, citizens, allies, and interests across the region and beyond. What looks "limited" to us almost certainly would be seen as something much bigger by the Iranians and could spark an all-out war. There's only one thing worse than a poorly planned, intentional war: an unplanned, unintentional war.

Second, military power can't provide a lasting solution. Air strikes can set back Iran's nuclear program, but they can't stop Tehran from restarting it.

Third, imagine the consequences beyond Iran. In Iraq, our troops would be targets for retaliation. In Israel and Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah would be unleashed. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, enraged Muslim populations would make it much harder for moderate leaders to cooperate with us, if they didn't force them from office.

War Powers

It is precisely because the consequences of war - intended or otherwise - can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens. They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down... allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die... and ensure broader public support.

The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. That's why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I've consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.

I'm saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration. If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.

Talk Isn't Cheap

Even talk of war is counter-productive to our interests - it is literally a gift to President Ahmadinejad and the extremists.

When President Bush puts the words "Iran" and "World War III" in the same sentence... or when the Senate votes to designate a large part of Iran's military a "terrorist" organization... the main result is to increase tensions with Iran. That, in turn, does two things.

First, it distracts the Iranian people from the incredible failures of Ahmadinejad's leadership, while silencing his critics and forcing them to rally around the flag.

Second, tension adds directly to the security premium we pay for oil -- an extra cost directly tied to the risk of conflict in the Middle East. The more tensions rise, the higher the security premium goes, because people betting on the long term price of oil anticipate supply disruptions.

Right now, a barrel of oil costs almost 100 dollars. But a full 30 dollars of that is the security premium. That security premium comes out of your pockets at the pump or when you pay your home heating bills. It goes into Iran's coffers... tens of billions of dollars propping up the extremists. It's hard to think of a more self-defeating policy.

Policy Paralysis and Strategic Incoherence

If war with Iran is a terrible option, so is the possibility of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. My concern is not that a nuclear Iran some day would be moved by messianic fervor to use a nuclear weapon as an Armageddon device and commit national suicide in order to hasten the return of the hidden Imam. My worry is that the fear of a nuclear Iran could spark an arms race in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and others joining in.

Fortunately, as the National Intelligence Estimate makes clear, there is a significant window of opportunity in which to act to avoid the stark choice of war or a nuclear Iran. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has long lacked a diplomatic strategy to take advantage of this window. Instead, it has vacillated between policy paralysis and strategic incoherence.

And just when it seems to have adopted a more effective strategy, as it did with North Korea, the President or Vice President undermines it by raising the specter of war. The administration wants to roll back Iranian influence throughout the Middle East. But that influence has accelerated as a result of this administration's policies -- literally a Bush-fulfilling prophecy.

Our failure to secure the peace in Iraq left a vacuum filled largely by militia and political parties aligned with Iran. We're backing a government in Baghdad that Iran sees as a strong ally, while simultaneously trying to weaken Iran's influence in Iraq. The administration is in a tug-of-war with itself.

The Administration's failure to fully support President Abbas when he was first elected gave Hamas -- a close ally of Iran -- a political opening in the Palestinian territories. Dick Lugar and I pleaded with the administration to provide Abbas direct assistance so he could demonstrate real progress to his people - and we warned that Abbas' failure would be Hamas's gain. I wish we had been wrong.

In Lebanon, when Syria withdrew, the administration failed to decisively support the government and army. Iran's other favorite proxy, Hezbollah, became the strongest force in the country. Last summer, it provoked a war with Israel. Now it is intimidating the pro-Western government into capitulating over the choice of a new president.

Worst of all, instead of keeping its eye on the prize of preventing Iran from getting the bomb, this administration has been obsessed with the idea of getting rid of the Iranian regime. None of us like the regime, but think about the logic: we want you to renounce your uranium enrichment and plutonium production programs - and by the way, when you do, we're still going to try to take you down.

The result is predictable: Iran has accelerated its efforts to enrich uranium and produce plutonium. The administration's fixation with regime change also distances us from our allies and undermines a unified international approach. It left us so isolated that in December 2004, one high-ranking American official admitted: "We're relying upon others, because we've sanctioned ourselves out of influence with Iran." That official was President Bush.

From Regime Change to Conduct Change

Instead of regime change, we need to focus on conduct change.

First, working with allies and partners, not acting alone, we must make it very clear to Iran what it risks in terms of isolation if it continues to defy the international community's demand that it stop enriching uranium.

But we also have to be just as clear about what it stands to gain -- in terms of economic benefits, security guarantees, integration into the region and diplomatic relations - if it does the right thing.

The National Intelligence Estimate makes clear that the right combination of pressure and positive incentives could "prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program." And we have to be open to, not dismissive of, international inspections, which, done the right way, can shine an invaluable light on Iran's nuclear activities.

Second, we need to do a far better job managing great power relations with China, Russia, and our allies in Europe.

We need a common understanding with them because they have more leverage than we do. Even as Europe is reducing trade with Iran, China is picking up the slack. China can have a huge impact on Iran's calculus.

But getting China or Russia on the same page will not happen by delegating the matter to the State Department. It will require sustained, presidential-level engagement - something this Administration has shown little interest in or aptitude for.

Third, we must exploit growing cracks within the ruling elite and between Iran's rulers and its people.

Iran is not a monolith. President Ahmadinejad does not have the final word. And he is facing unprecedented opposition from a new alliance of pragmatic conservatives and reformers. They hope to defeat many Ahmedinejad supporters in elections for the Iranian parliament - the Majlis - next March.

Our biggest allies are the Iranian people. They are open to America. They don't like a regime that denies them basic political and social rights and that can't deal with corruption, high unemployment and inflation. We should bring together renowned economists and the talented pool of Iranian-American business leaders.

I'd ask them to lay out a positive vision for what the Iranian economy could look like in five years if Iran's leaders make the right decisions, sanctions end, and Iran becomes integrated with the world economy. I'd ask them to detail the benefits that would flow to ordinary Iranians and I would make their findings widely known in Iran. We should promote people-to-people interaction by changing our self-defeating sanctions laws that hinder American NGOs from spending their money to support Iranian NGOs. When I tried to do this last year, the Bush Administration blocked me. Instead, it has pursued the disastrous policy of secretly funnelling US government money to Iranians, providing an excuse for the regime to crack down on scores of innocent Iranian activists.

And we should do everything in our power to engage the Iranian people. They need to know it is their government, not the U.S. that is choosing confrontation over cooperation. So we should tone down the rhetoric and talk. It's amazing how little faith this administration has in the power of America's ideas and ideals.

This is not armchair quarterbacking. In 2005, while the Bush Administration was shunning Iran's reformist President, I held the highest-level meeting in 25 years between any U.S. and Iranian official when I met with Iran's foreign minister. And, just six weeks after President Bush's "axis of evil" speech, I proposed a direct dialogue between Congress and Iran's Majlis, which was then dominated by reformers. That single act sparked a two-week debate in Iran between reformers and hard-liners.

Imagine what would happen if the President of the United States offered to open talks today. As President Kennedy said: "we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate." The hard-liners thrive on confrontation. It gives them the excuse they need to stifle dissent. They fear engagement.

Fourth, Iran can't be dealt with in isolation. We have to connect the dots.

To weaken the hard-liners in Iran, we should actively encourage Israeli-Syrian talks. If we can weaken the Iranian-Syrian marriage of convenience, we can eliminate the main hub for Iran's projection of influence into the heart of the Middle East, through Hamas and Hezbollah. I wouldn't trust the Syrians, but I would test them. Incredibly, the Bush Administration has actively discouraged Israel from talking to Damascus. Trying to isolate Syria has not improved its behavior. It has only driven Damascus closer to Tehran.

We also need determined diplomacy to drive a political settlement in Iraq. I've laid out a specific plan on how to do that. 75 US Senators - Democrats and Republicans - voted for it. The plan calls for convening a UN conference with the major world powers, Iraq and its neighbors to build a political settlement based on the federalism provisions of Iraq's Constitution. If we don't make Iran part of the solution, it will remain part of the problem.

Yes, Iran likes the status quo, with us tied down, bleeding and unable to use Iraq as a launching pad into Iran. But like all of Iraq's neighbors, Iran has no interest in Iraq's civil war turning into a regional war. If we leave without leaving behind a political settlement, Iran has as much to lose from the resulting chaos as we do.

We should be smart enough to play on that interest... just as we should recognize our shared interests on Iran's Eastern border. In 2001, Iran cooperated closely with us in driving out the Taliban and establishing the Karzai government. We must re-defeat the Taliban and bring stability to Afghanistan.

And we need a Pakistan policy, not a Musharraf policy. I've laid one out in detail. For many in Iran, Pakistan is the emerging security threat. A nuclear-armed Pakistan aligned with or controlled by radicals who see the majority Shi'a of Iran as apostates is Iran's worst nightmare.

Fifth, we must end our dependence on the "Axis of Oil."

The lack of an energy policy goes to the heart of our problem with Iran. Dependence on high priced oil makes it easier for Iran to stand up to pressure... and it makes it harder to get partners to stand with us. The Bush administration has been AWOL. Thankfully, the Democratic Congress is making a start, with a push for much higher mileage standards over the next decade.

But we also need to make alternative fuels much more widely available. And we need to see energy saving technology as a huge opportunity for America, the most innovative nation on earth. We can invent it, build it and sell it. And we can reshape the world in the process.

Conclusion

So, to end where I began: We can avoid war with Iran. We can prevent a nuclear Iran. We have time, but we don't have a comprehensive strategy. As the next president, I will have to flip this administration's policy on its head. I will end the war in Iraq instead of starting war with Iran. I know what to do on both fronts.

C-SPAN Joe Biden video interview
Watch this August 3, 2006 interview of Joe Biden by C-SPAN. Learn Biden's life experiences that made the man he is and prepared him to be a great president. Learn how his family and senate colleagues, both democrats and republicans, helped him survive the death of his wife and small daughter in an auto accident in which his two seriously injured small sons survived. Biden's amazing story will make you cheer for his attempt to heal this nation. I admire this man. ---BBB

http://www.joebiden.com/welcome?id=0001

I like Joe Biden too. He's the most focused, forthright, and articulate speaker of the candidates. Unfortunately, his campaign just doesn't seem to have taken off. Why is that?

probably because he appears to be just another wonk.

Wow! How articulate. Maybe you should be on the circuit, terse and to the point. Right out of GWB's book.