White House Postponing Loss of Iraq, Biden Says

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Why am I not surprised that Bush would sacrifice lives to save face and his legacy? Politics is all that Bush knows and he's not very competent as a polititian. All he cares about is his political status. The only reason Bush survived to a second term is the failure of his Republican Congress to perform their constitutional oversight duties---and Americans died. ---BBB

White House Postponing Loss of Iraq, Biden Says
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 5, 2007; A06

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said yesterday that he believes top officials in the Bush administration have privately concluded they have lost Iraq and are simply trying to postpone disaster so the next president will "be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof," in a chaotic withdrawal reminiscent of Vietnam.

"I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost," Biden said. "They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy -- literally, not figuratively."

Biden gave the comments in an interview as he outlined an ambitious agenda for the committee, including holding four weeks of hearings focused on every aspect of U.S. policy in Iraq. The hearings will call top political, economic and intelligence experts; foreign diplomats; and former and current senior U.S. officials to examine the situation in Iraq and possible plans for dealing with it. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will probably testify next Thursday to defend the president's new plan, but at least eight other plans will be examined over several sessions of the committee.

Other witnesses invited for at least 10 days of hearings include former national security advisers and secretaries of state, including Brent Scowcroft, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry A. Kissinger, Madeleine K. Albright and George P. Shultz.

Biden expressed opposition to the president's plan for a "surge" of additional U.S. troops and said he has grave doubts about whether the Iraqi government has the will or the capacity to help implement a new approach. He said he hopes to use the hearings to "illuminate the alternatives available to this president" and to provide a platform for influencing Americans, especially Republican lawmakers.

"There is nothing a United States Senate can do to stop a president from conducting his war," Biden said. "The only thing that is going to change the president's mind, if he continues on a course that is counterproductive, is having his party walk away from his position."

Biden said that Vice President Cheney and former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld "are really smart guys who made a very, very, very, very bad bet, and it blew up in their faces. Now, what do they do with it? I think they have concluded they can't fix it, so how do you keep it stitched together without it completely unraveling?"

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 661 • Replies: 17

No top replies

"I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost," Biden said. "They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy -- literally, not figuratively."

What is it exactly that is LOST? What did we lose?

We achieved every objective from the intial objective:

o- Enforce all aspects of the terms of surrender Iraq signed after Gulf 1
o- Seek and remove any WMD
o- Replace the existing regime

I do not recall creating a democratic govt in Iraq as being part of the original plan.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

I do not recall creating a democratic govt in Iraq as being part of the original plan.

That's true. The original plan for Iraq involved freedom and a united, stable, and free country for the Iraqis.

Quote:

President Discusses Beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 22, 2003

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.

The future of peace and the hopes of the Iraqi people now depend on our fighting forces in the Middle East. They are conducting themselves in the highest traditions of the American military. They are doing their job with skill and bravery, and with the finest of allies beside them. At every stage of this conflict the world will see both the power of our military, and the honorable and decent spirit of the men and women who serve.

In this conflict, American and coalition forces face enemies who have no regard for the conventions of war or rules of morality. Iraqi officials have placed troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for the dictator's army. I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm.

A campaign on harsh terrain in a vast country could be longer and more difficult than some have predicted. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment. Yet, whatever is required of us, we will carry out all the duties we have accepted.

Across America this weekend, the families of our military are praying that our men and women will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with them for the safety of their loved ones and for the protection of all the innocent. Our entire nation appreciates the sacrifices made by military families, and many citizens who live near military families are showing their support in practical ways, such as by helping with child care, or home repairs. All families with loved ones serving in this war can know this: Our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

Our nation entered this conflict reluctantly, yet with a clear and firm purpose. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. This will not be a campaign of half-measures. It is a fight for the security of our nation and the peace of the world, and we will accept no outcome but victory.

Thank you for listening.

END

0 Replies

objective and only real objective...

Saddam dead.

Mission accomplished.

0 Replies

Bear

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

objective and only real objective...
Saddam dead.
Mission accomplished.

Undoubtly because Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy. Cost effective too in 3000+ American lives. Much less than the over 55,000 American lives during the Vietnam debacle.

Isn't it strange that the US never learns it's lesson not to get involved in post colonial era civil wars?

BBB

0 Replies

bpb wrote :
"objective and only real objective...

Saddam dead.

Mission accomplished.
------------------------------------------------------------------
unfortunately , now comes the difficult task , how to achieve peace and democracy .
isn't it somewhat like loading up the plate at the buffett table , eating the whole thing and later paying the consequences ?
perhaps the saying : 'the eyes were bigger than the stomach' applies .
and the suffering and deaths go on ...
hbg

0 Replies

Bush's plan was a Napoleanic dream of installing democracy in the Middle East, which would then spread in a "domino effect" throughout the region. It was to be an assertion of the power of the U.S. in the Middle East; instead it's demonstrated our weakness. Had we been truly successful in Iraq, there is a good chance that Bush would have invaded other countries in the region. An invasion of Iran would have meant even more serious consequences than Iraq.

That is not to say that an attack on Iran is off the board. Political pundits are divided on whether Bush will launch missile attacks on Iran or not. Some say it's out of the question, while others say it's quite possible. I suppose it depends on the sanity of the President and how much power he still has left.

0 Replies

At the risk of not making friends, may I repeat the words of the President of the United States at the beginning of the American invasion of Iraq:

Quote:

And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment. Yet, whatever is required of us, we will carry out all the duties we have accepted.

Personally, I hold the neo-cons and the current administration (well, Rummy and Colin are gone, but still...) responsible for the quagmire.

However, I see this promise as a promise America, as a nation, made to the people of Iraq. I was fiercely opposed to the invasion of Iraq - as were the majority of nations around the world. America decided to launch the war nevertheless.

There have been millions of people on the streets all around the world. The opposition and the people of America, in contrast, remained fairly mute and allowed for the preparations of a unilateral war.

I see it as the responsibility of America, as a nation, to stand in for the promise made to the Iraqi people.

I don't advocate more of the same. But the current situation Iraq is in, a civil war with more than 3,000 civilians dying every month, I would otherwise advocate a humanitarian intervention, maybe of NATO or UN troops.

I find it unacceptable to advocate a withdrawal from an - admittedly - disastrous situation, when part of the responsibility for exactly this situation is at the hands of that country that is now mourning the deaths of 3,000 of its soldiers. Iraq is suffering the equivalence of a 9/11 every month.

I've long been arguing in favour of sending more troops, but this should go hand in hand with a change of strategy. For example, talking to Iran (Ahmadinejad's party has suffered losses all across the country in the recent Iranian elections, btw) or Syria wouldn't be such a bad idea, even before sending more troops.

0 Replies

old europe :
Iraq commander Gen John Abizaid has recommended that a "diplomatic and regional" solution must be sought for the problems in iraq and the middle-east .
i noted with interest that the general is of lebanese background and also speaks arabic ; i would think that he has a better appreciation of middle-eastern sensibilities than many other politicians and military leaders .
since he is now now retiring it will be easy for the current u.s leadership to disregard his advice - just like that of many other (retired) u.s. political and military leaders .
one has to wonder where it will all end .
hbg

THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ;
General Opposes Adding to U.S. Forces in Iraq,
Emphasizing International Solutions for Region

December 20, 2006, Wednesday
By THOM SHANKER (NYT); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 12, Column 1, 1003 words
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Iraq commander Gen John Abizaid, completing final months of highly decorated career, acknowledges that additional US forces favored by some of Pres Bush's advisers might provide short-term boost in security but warns they are toxic to Iraqis and would merely postpone day when Iraqis are forced to take responsibility for themselves; says in interview while traveling around Iraq that Baghdad security requires more Iraqi troops and more American trainers embedded with Iraqi units; also says problem must be addressed diplomatically and regionally, that threat to American security ranges far beyond any one country, organized in virtual world in way that is very modern and very dangerous; explains that fighting Taliban in Afghanistan involves understanding tribal loyalties in Pakistan, that containing Mideast terrorists involves keeping them out of ungoverned corners of Africa

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

bpb wrote :
"objective and only real objective...

Saddam dead.

Mission accomplished.
------------------------------------------------------------------
unfortunately , now comes the difficult task , how to achieve peace and democracy .
isn't it somewhat like loading up the plate at the buffett table , eating the whole thing and later paying the consequences ?
perhaps the saying : 'the eyes were bigger than the stomach' applies .
and the suffering and deaths go on ...
hbg

and the smell is horrendous as well

0 Replies

hamburger, I completely agree that there's no easy solution to the situation we're seeing in Iraq. However, I don't see a "short-term boost in security" as a contradiction to a longterm "diplomatic and regional" solution. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but wouldn't a boost in security for Iraqis, right now, combined with a viable exit strategy of American troops and a cooperation with regional governments to stabilize Iraq be rather desirable?

0 Replies

the big problem is that bush and bushco are the only Americans that owe Iraq anything. Same with British citizens and blair.

Sending our leaders(and yours) and all those who support the war effort over there to do community service and if they're killed great..... thins the herd of ass holes is the best solution.

Unfortunately it will never happen.

0 Replies

old europe :
i really have no qualifications to comment on iraq and other military situations .

based upon my experience as a teenager in germany after WW II , it just seems to me that a short-term boost (of a limited number of military personnel) might not achieve much .
and i doubt that the u.s military has the manpower - with apologies to women soldiers - to place enough troops into iraq to make a difference .
there is also the question of the u.s. financing such a military operation ; listening to economists and others on CNBC (business network) , great additional outlays of money would be required to finance increased and continued involvement .

but as i said at the beginning :
i really have no qualifications to comment on iraq and other military situations .
but i still but my 2 cents worth in (canadian) .
hbg

0 Replies

Yes. I know.

<hangs head>

Of course you're both right. I would still advocate a humanitarian intervention, paired with a viable diplomatic approach.

Unfortunately, that's about the opposite of the "surge" Bush is talking about now...

0 Replies

old europe :
Yes. I know.

<hangs head>

Of course you're both right. I would still advocate a humanitarian intervention, paired with a viable diplomatic approach.

Unfortunately, that's about the opposite of the "surge" Bush is talking about now...

hbg
(i fully agree with you , sorry for stealing , but it saves me from re-keying what you said !)

0 Replies

A large part of any consideration of Iraq has to take into account the incredibly poor track record of the leadership before attempting to predict the outcome of any course corrections...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

the big problem is that bush and bushco are the only Americans that owe Iraq anything. Same with British citizens and blair.

This is utter nonsense. The majority of Americans were behind War and proved it again in 2004.

If a controlled burn gets out of control, that doesn't mean you should just walk away. OE is correct in asserting that the United States is responsible to finish what they started.

0 Replies

Quote:

If a controlled burn gets out of control, that doesn't mean you should just walk away.

Well, it seems that we've tried standing around watching the flames get bigger; that hasn't worked.

Now, we're going to try and douse the flames with gasoline. I don't have a high opinion of this plan either...

When you say 'gets out of control,' you under-emphasize the situation. When the burn is really out of control, running is the only option.

We aren't to that point, but we will be, because we are too stubborn to give in.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

White House Postponing Loss of Iraq, Biden Says

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know