@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
He proposed a 3-state solution to Iraq while the hyper-partisans on both sides of the aisle just bickered about should or shouldn't have.
I like Biden, I think - dont know all that much about him even after seeing a bunch of the debates, but he seems OK. He seems to be a real mensch, judging on various stories and anecdotes I've seen. He seems well respected across much of the Senate as a hard-working, thorough, nose-to-the-grindstone kind of Senator. And he appears to be good at the "attack dog" role traditionally reserved for the Veep candidate, and Lord knows Obama needs one.
His voting record appears to be a mixed bag (he voted for that godawful bankruptcy bill, but he's from Delaware, the banking center of the country, so that may be an extenuating circumstance), but in any case, it wont be him setting the policy.
He voted for the same Congressional authorisation for the Iraq war that Hillary was pilloried for, which is bad; but on the other hand I do kind of like it that he remains a strong voice for robust internationalism in spite of the Iraq fiasco, strongly arguing intervention in Darfur for example. That's reassuring now that many Dems seem to have come to associate any American intervention with Bush's follies and in response default to isolationism (see Georgia).
But this thing you're pointing out here is exactly the one thing that I'm most frowning about. Biden's plan to just cut Iraq in three parts, and accord the Sunnis and Shiites each their own state, was madness, absolute and utter madness. Outside the Sunni Triangle and the SHi'ite south they live right through one another across the country, and that includes Bagdad, split into Sunni, Shi 'ite and a few remaining mixed neighbourhoods. What in heavens name would splitting the country up have involved? Absolute recklessness. And he stubbornly kept pushing the idea too.