Joe Biden has officially withdrawn from the Democratic race for President.
For future updates on the Democratic Race for the Nomination, please visit:
Barack Obama 2008 http://2008obama.blogspot.com
or
Hillary Clinton 2008 http://2008clinton.blogspot.com
Friday, January 4, 2008
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Joe Biden Article on Iraq
Joe Biden has written the following article, published this week. He is calling for Congress to repeal the authorization for force to be used in Iraq.
"Two weeks ago, Congress made clear its opposition to President Bush's plan to send more US troops to Iraq.
Opposing the surge is only a first step. There needs to be a radical change in course in Iraq. The pressure is building on Congress -- especially Republicans -- to act if the president will not.
The best next step is to revisit the authorization Congress granted Bush in 2002 to use force in Iraq.
We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein. The weapons of mass destruction were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.
Together with Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will offer legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq.
Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to deny terrorists a safe haven, train Iraqis, and help Iraq defend its borders. We should set as a goal removing from Iraq all US combat forces not necessary for this limited mission by early 2008, as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommends.
Congress also should make clear that the troops should not stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a civil war.
Repealing and replacing the 2002 authorization is not micromanagement from Washington, it is matching our soldiers' mission to the changing realities in Iraq.
Revisiting the 2002 authorization is the right next step but it cannot be the last step. The United States must also answer a two-word test: "What next?"
Everyone wants to get the troops out of Iraq as soon and as safely as possible. There is great political reward in saying, "I can get us out the fastest."
But while leaving Iraq is necessary, it is not a plan. There needs to be a plan for what we leave behind so that we do not trade a dictator for chaos that engulfs Iraq and spreads throughout the Middle East.
Nine months ago, Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations and I proposed a plan, which offers a roadmap to a political settlement in Iraq that gives its warring factions a way to share power peacefully and us a chance to leave with our interests intact.
The plan would decentralize Iraq and give Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis control over their daily lives; bring the Sunnis in by guaranteeing them a fair share of the oil; enlist the support of Iraq's neighbors and the world's major powers to promote the plan with the Iraqis; and withdraw US combat forces by 2008. You can read the details at PlanForIraq.com.
The Bush administration has bet everything on a future that will not happen: Iraqis rallying behind a strong central government that protects the rights of all citizens equally.
Since the onset of sectarian war, there is no trust within the central government, no trust of the government by the people and no capacity by the government to deliver services and security. There is no evidence that we can build that trust and capacity any time soon.
There are two other ways to govern Iraq from the center: A foreign occupation that the United States cannot sustain or the return of a strongman, who is not on the horizon.
That leaves federalism -- an idea a majority of Iraqis have already endorsed in their constitution.
Our plan offers a way to make federalism work for all Iraqis. And it offers the possibility -- not the guarantee -- of producing a soft landing in Iraq. That would be the best possible outcome for Iraq and for America."
"Two weeks ago, Congress made clear its opposition to President Bush's plan to send more US troops to Iraq.
Opposing the surge is only a first step. There needs to be a radical change in course in Iraq. The pressure is building on Congress -- especially Republicans -- to act if the president will not.
The best next step is to revisit the authorization Congress granted Bush in 2002 to use force in Iraq.
We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein. The weapons of mass destruction were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.
Together with Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will offer legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq.
Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to deny terrorists a safe haven, train Iraqis, and help Iraq defend its borders. We should set as a goal removing from Iraq all US combat forces not necessary for this limited mission by early 2008, as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommends.
Congress also should make clear that the troops should not stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a civil war.
Repealing and replacing the 2002 authorization is not micromanagement from Washington, it is matching our soldiers' mission to the changing realities in Iraq.
Revisiting the 2002 authorization is the right next step but it cannot be the last step. The United States must also answer a two-word test: "What next?"
Everyone wants to get the troops out of Iraq as soon and as safely as possible. There is great political reward in saying, "I can get us out the fastest."
But while leaving Iraq is necessary, it is not a plan. There needs to be a plan for what we leave behind so that we do not trade a dictator for chaos that engulfs Iraq and spreads throughout the Middle East.
Nine months ago, Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations and I proposed a plan, which offers a roadmap to a political settlement in Iraq that gives its warring factions a way to share power peacefully and us a chance to leave with our interests intact.
The plan would decentralize Iraq and give Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis control over their daily lives; bring the Sunnis in by guaranteeing them a fair share of the oil; enlist the support of Iraq's neighbors and the world's major powers to promote the plan with the Iraqis; and withdraw US combat forces by 2008. You can read the details at PlanForIraq.com.
The Bush administration has bet everything on a future that will not happen: Iraqis rallying behind a strong central government that protects the rights of all citizens equally.
Since the onset of sectarian war, there is no trust within the central government, no trust of the government by the people and no capacity by the government to deliver services and security. There is no evidence that we can build that trust and capacity any time soon.
There are two other ways to govern Iraq from the center: A foreign occupation that the United States cannot sustain or the return of a strongman, who is not on the horizon.
That leaves federalism -- an idea a majority of Iraqis have already endorsed in their constitution.
Our plan offers a way to make federalism work for all Iraqis. And it offers the possibility -- not the guarantee -- of producing a soft landing in Iraq. That would be the best possible outcome for Iraq and for America."
Monday, February 26, 2007
Biden's New Hampshire Schedule
This is Joe Biden's New Hampshire Schedule. He will be there Tuesday and Wednesday this week.
"Senator Joe Biden will campaign across the Granite State this Tuesday, February 27th and Wednesday, February 28th making stops in Hanover, Concord, Henniker and Bedford. In Hanover and Henniker, Sen. Biden will hold town hall meetings to discuss the current situation in Iraq and his plan to introduce legislation to revisit the original 2002 Iraq War resolution and replace it with a much narrower mission statement for the troops. Nine months ago, Biden, along with Council on Foreign Relations President Emeritus Leslie H. Gelb, unveiled their plan for a political solution in Iraq. For more information on the plan, visit: www.PlanForIraq.com."
Tuesday, February 27th
6:30 PM
Senator Biden will hold a Town Hall Meeting on Iraq Alumni Hall, Dartmouth College
Wednesday, February 28th
10:30 AM
Senator Biden will speak at Granite State Independent Living Center
3:30 PM
Senator Biden will hold a Town Hall Meeting on Iraq,New England College Simon Center
5:30 PM
Senator Biden will attend a reception with Bedford Town Democrats, Bedford Public Library
"Senator Joe Biden will campaign across the Granite State this Tuesday, February 27th and Wednesday, February 28th making stops in Hanover, Concord, Henniker and Bedford. In Hanover and Henniker, Sen. Biden will hold town hall meetings to discuss the current situation in Iraq and his plan to introduce legislation to revisit the original 2002 Iraq War resolution and replace it with a much narrower mission statement for the troops. Nine months ago, Biden, along with Council on Foreign Relations President Emeritus Leslie H. Gelb, unveiled their plan for a political solution in Iraq. For more information on the plan, visit: www.PlanForIraq.com."
Tuesday, February 27th
6:30 PM
Senator Biden will hold a Town Hall Meeting on Iraq Alumni Hall, Dartmouth College
Wednesday, February 28th
10:30 AM
Senator Biden will speak at Granite State Independent Living Center
3:30 PM
Senator Biden will hold a Town Hall Meeting on Iraq,New England College Simon Center
5:30 PM
Senator Biden will attend a reception with Bedford Town Democrats, Bedford Public Library
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Joe Biden at Nevada Forum
Joe Biden's press statement following his appearance at the Democrat candidates forum in Carson City, Nevada.
Sen. Joe Biden today addressed more than 500 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employee (AFSCME) members and retirees at the first 2008 Democratic Presidential Forum in Carson City, Nevada.
In his remarks, Biden addressed the need for a new direction in American foreign policy and a new focus on middle class concerns saying, “We are under tremendous pressure – there’s a lot of challenges in the United States of America right now. We have a war in Afghanistan, genocide in Darfur, there are two nations out there developing nuclear weapons - and at home we need a healthcare policy, access to college education, and beyond that, an energy plan.”
“We cannot fix these other problems unless we deal with Iraq. It affects every other aspect of our policies.” Biden said. “If we do it right – we’ll regain the flexibility, the credibility and our ability to deal with all the problems you’ve heard talked about today. But if we don't get it right, we are going to be shackled financially and in every other way for a long time to come.”
In his closing, Biden stressed that President Bush has left the next president of the United States with no for margin for error, telling the audience that in the next election, “The American people, we have an incredible opportunity to change the world.”
Sen. Joe Biden today addressed more than 500 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employee (AFSCME) members and retirees at the first 2008 Democratic Presidential Forum in Carson City, Nevada.
In his remarks, Biden addressed the need for a new direction in American foreign policy and a new focus on middle class concerns saying, “We are under tremendous pressure – there’s a lot of challenges in the United States of America right now. We have a war in Afghanistan, genocide in Darfur, there are two nations out there developing nuclear weapons - and at home we need a healthcare policy, access to college education, and beyond that, an energy plan.”
“We cannot fix these other problems unless we deal with Iraq. It affects every other aspect of our policies.” Biden said. “If we do it right – we’ll regain the flexibility, the credibility and our ability to deal with all the problems you’ve heard talked about today. But if we don't get it right, we are going to be shackled financially and in every other way for a long time to come.”
In his closing, Biden stressed that President Bush has left the next president of the United States with no for margin for error, telling the audience that in the next election, “The American people, we have an incredible opportunity to change the world.”
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Joe Biden's Plan for Iraq
Joe Biden visited the Brookings Institute on Thursday, and delivered a speech that outlines his plan for Iraq.
The speech was entitled Iraq's Future and America's Interests and Biden outlined the following five points in his plan.
First, maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in regions – as the Iraqi constitution provides. The central government would be responsible for common concerns, like guarding Iraq’s borders and distributing its oil revenues.
Second, secure support from the Sunnis – who have no oil – by guaranteeing them a fair share of oil revenues. Allow former Baath party members to go back to work and reintegrate Sunnis with no blood on their hands.
Third, increase economic assistance to Iraq and its regions. Insist that the oil-rich Gulf states put up most of the money, tie it to the protection of minority rights, and create a major jobs program to deny the militia new recruits.
Fourth, initiate a major diplomatic offensive to enlist the support of Iraq’s neighbors. Create an oversight group of the U.N. and the major powers to enforce their commitments. These countries have a profound stake in preventing chaos in Iraq and the credibility we lack to press for compromise by all Iraqis. If a political settlement fails to take hold, these same countries are vital to any strategy to contain the fall out within Iraq.
Fifth, instruct the military to draw up plans for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq by 2008. Leave behind a small force to take on terrorists and train Iraqis. The best way to focus Iraq’s leaders on the political compromises they must make is to make it clear to them that we are leaving.
The speech was entitled Iraq's Future and America's Interests and Biden outlined the following five points in his plan.
First, maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in regions – as the Iraqi constitution provides. The central government would be responsible for common concerns, like guarding Iraq’s borders and distributing its oil revenues.
Second, secure support from the Sunnis – who have no oil – by guaranteeing them a fair share of oil revenues. Allow former Baath party members to go back to work and reintegrate Sunnis with no blood on their hands.
Third, increase economic assistance to Iraq and its regions. Insist that the oil-rich Gulf states put up most of the money, tie it to the protection of minority rights, and create a major jobs program to deny the militia new recruits.
Fourth, initiate a major diplomatic offensive to enlist the support of Iraq’s neighbors. Create an oversight group of the U.N. and the major powers to enforce their commitments. These countries have a profound stake in preventing chaos in Iraq and the credibility we lack to press for compromise by all Iraqis. If a political settlement fails to take hold, these same countries are vital to any strategy to contain the fall out within Iraq.
Fifth, instruct the military to draw up plans for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq by 2008. Leave behind a small force to take on terrorists and train Iraqis. The best way to focus Iraq’s leaders on the political compromises they must make is to make it clear to them that we are leaving.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Joe Biden's Nevada Schedule
This is Joe Biden's schedule for his tour of Nevada next week. Starting this Friday and continuing through the weekend, Biden will be campaigning in Iowa.
Monday February 19th, 2007
600 PM Biden will keynote a Washoe County Democrats Dinner
Tuesday February 20th, 2007
945AM Biden will speak to the Carson City Democratic Party
700PM Biden will speak to the Nevada Committee on Foreign Relations
Topic: Iraq’s Future and America’s Interest
Wednesday February 21st, 2007
1200 PM Biden will participate in the AFSCME Candidates Forum
Full Details here.
Monday February 19th, 2007
600 PM Biden will keynote a Washoe County Democrats Dinner
Tuesday February 20th, 2007
945AM Biden will speak to the Carson City Democratic Party
700PM Biden will speak to the Nevada Committee on Foreign Relations
Topic: Iraq’s Future and America’s Interest
Wednesday February 21st, 2007
1200 PM Biden will participate in the AFSCME Candidates Forum
Full Details here.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Biden's foresight on Iraq
Good piece by Gannett News Service columnist Chuck Raasch last week, that speaks of Joe Biden's foresight on the war in Iraq.
"Among Democrats, Biden's crystal ball clearest on Iraq"
WASHINGTON — Nearly four years ago, just days before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, then-presidential candidate Howard Dean asked: "What I want to know is what in the world some of these Democrats are doing supporting the president's unilateral intervention in Iraq?"
He was cheered by California Democrats at their convention. At the same gathering, both John Kerry, the party's eventual 2004 nominee, and John Edwards, Kerry's eventual running mate, were booed for supporting the invasion.
Today, Dean presides over a party that is steadily steering toward an anti-war base, while four Democratic presidential candidates who voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq, are trying to explain their votes in the context of a war that has turned increasingly bloody and murky.
The four are Edwards, who left the Senate, and Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Joe Biden, D-Del.
Before joining 73 other senators in favor of the resolution in October of 2002, all four had warned of the consequences of not building enough international support for the war and of inadequate post-war planning.
But of the four, Biden was the most prescient and specific in warning about the sectarian violence that has since wracked Iraq, leading to increasing pressure to withdraw American troops. Given the record, Biden's plan to extricate the United States from Iraq could be his biggest selling point in a long-shot battle for the '08 nomination.
"There is a danger that Saddam's downfall could lead to widespread civil unrest and reprisals," Biden said on the Senate floor on Oct. 10, 2002.
Biden warned in that speech that "one-third of that population (in Iraq) hates the other two-thirds of the population. They say Iraq will quickly be able to organize itself politically, economically, and militarily, into a peaceful, unified nation, free of weapons of mass destruction.
The American people need to know that most experts believe Iraq will require considerable assistance politically, militarily, and economically. Indeed, they say we should speak not of 'the day after,' but of 'the decade after.' "
On one point, the four Democrats were in accord with the Bush administration leading up to the war. They all publicly proclaimed that Iraq had an active weapons-of-mass-destruction program and desired more, including nuclear weapons. No WMD were discovered after the invasion.
In a pre-vote speech that October, Clinton went one step further, asserting that while there was no connection between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam, she believed Saddam had given "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaida members." War critics dispute that claim, saying Saddam saw the terrorist group as a threat to his regime.
Dodd agreed that Saddam posed a threat but couched his vote as a diplomatic tool to force Saddam to allow weapons inspectors, banned for four years, back into Iraq. "My main reason for supporting the resolution is that I believe the chances of avoiding war with Iraq are enhanced substantially if this country is united as a nation," Dodd said on Oct. 9, 2002.
A day later, Edwards called Saddam "a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel." But, he complained, "We have not heard nearly enough from the administration about its plans for assisting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives and create a new, democratic government. The president has said the U.S. will help, but he hasn't offered any details about how."
But five months later, just four days before the invasion commenced, Edwards — by then a prospective presidential candidate — defended the decision to go to war at that stormy meeting of California Democrats.
"I believe that Saddam Hussein is a serious threat and I believe he must be disarmed, including the use of military force if necessary," Edwards said, as assembled Democrats booed.
In the days before the invasion, Biden and Clinton expressed concern that all diplomatic avenues had not been explored but said they were full-scale behind the troops about to go into battle.
Today, Biden, Dodd, Clinton and Edwards are all varying critics of the way President Bush led up to and conducted the war.
Edwards has apologized for his vote and calls it a test of "political courage" to oppose Bush's plan to send an additional 21,000 troops to help quell violence, especially in Baghdad. "We have to stand up against George Bush's escalation of this war," Edwards told the Democratic National Committee earlier this month.
Clinton has been less apologetic, claiming senators get no "do-overs," but said recently that if she had been president in 2002 she would not have launched the invasion. In October 2002, the most explicit caveat she put on an invasion was that "international support and legitimacy are crucial" to any U.S. action in Iraq. But in the same statement, she also warned of the threats of "Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons."
Dodd told the DNC this month that he was disappointed that the Senate was tied up over a non-binding resolution expressing disapproval of Bush's "surge" and that it was "time to send a bill to the president with real teeth in it." He supports a resolution requiring Bush to get congressional approval for any buildup.
Biden's plan may be the boldest. It would partition Iraq into three territories under a national government in an attempt to cool warring Sunni and Shiite factions. He told the DNC that Bush "took us to war unnecessarily ... without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work, without enough troops" and "most of all, without a plan — any plan" for reconstruction.
"Among Democrats, Biden's crystal ball clearest on Iraq"
WASHINGTON — Nearly four years ago, just days before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, then-presidential candidate Howard Dean asked: "What I want to know is what in the world some of these Democrats are doing supporting the president's unilateral intervention in Iraq?"
He was cheered by California Democrats at their convention. At the same gathering, both John Kerry, the party's eventual 2004 nominee, and John Edwards, Kerry's eventual running mate, were booed for supporting the invasion.
Today, Dean presides over a party that is steadily steering toward an anti-war base, while four Democratic presidential candidates who voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq, are trying to explain their votes in the context of a war that has turned increasingly bloody and murky.
The four are Edwards, who left the Senate, and Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Joe Biden, D-Del.
Before joining 73 other senators in favor of the resolution in October of 2002, all four had warned of the consequences of not building enough international support for the war and of inadequate post-war planning.
But of the four, Biden was the most prescient and specific in warning about the sectarian violence that has since wracked Iraq, leading to increasing pressure to withdraw American troops. Given the record, Biden's plan to extricate the United States from Iraq could be his biggest selling point in a long-shot battle for the '08 nomination.
"There is a danger that Saddam's downfall could lead to widespread civil unrest and reprisals," Biden said on the Senate floor on Oct. 10, 2002.
Biden warned in that speech that "one-third of that population (in Iraq) hates the other two-thirds of the population. They say Iraq will quickly be able to organize itself politically, economically, and militarily, into a peaceful, unified nation, free of weapons of mass destruction.
The American people need to know that most experts believe Iraq will require considerable assistance politically, militarily, and economically. Indeed, they say we should speak not of 'the day after,' but of 'the decade after.' "
On one point, the four Democrats were in accord with the Bush administration leading up to the war. They all publicly proclaimed that Iraq had an active weapons-of-mass-destruction program and desired more, including nuclear weapons. No WMD were discovered after the invasion.
In a pre-vote speech that October, Clinton went one step further, asserting that while there was no connection between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam, she believed Saddam had given "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaida members." War critics dispute that claim, saying Saddam saw the terrorist group as a threat to his regime.
Dodd agreed that Saddam posed a threat but couched his vote as a diplomatic tool to force Saddam to allow weapons inspectors, banned for four years, back into Iraq. "My main reason for supporting the resolution is that I believe the chances of avoiding war with Iraq are enhanced substantially if this country is united as a nation," Dodd said on Oct. 9, 2002.
A day later, Edwards called Saddam "a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel." But, he complained, "We have not heard nearly enough from the administration about its plans for assisting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives and create a new, democratic government. The president has said the U.S. will help, but he hasn't offered any details about how."
But five months later, just four days before the invasion commenced, Edwards — by then a prospective presidential candidate — defended the decision to go to war at that stormy meeting of California Democrats.
"I believe that Saddam Hussein is a serious threat and I believe he must be disarmed, including the use of military force if necessary," Edwards said, as assembled Democrats booed.
In the days before the invasion, Biden and Clinton expressed concern that all diplomatic avenues had not been explored but said they were full-scale behind the troops about to go into battle.
Today, Biden, Dodd, Clinton and Edwards are all varying critics of the way President Bush led up to and conducted the war.
Edwards has apologized for his vote and calls it a test of "political courage" to oppose Bush's plan to send an additional 21,000 troops to help quell violence, especially in Baghdad. "We have to stand up against George Bush's escalation of this war," Edwards told the Democratic National Committee earlier this month.
Clinton has been less apologetic, claiming senators get no "do-overs," but said recently that if she had been president in 2002 she would not have launched the invasion. In October 2002, the most explicit caveat she put on an invasion was that "international support and legitimacy are crucial" to any U.S. action in Iraq. But in the same statement, she also warned of the threats of "Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons."
Dodd told the DNC this month that he was disappointed that the Senate was tied up over a non-binding resolution expressing disapproval of Bush's "surge" and that it was "time to send a bill to the president with real teeth in it." He supports a resolution requiring Bush to get congressional approval for any buildup.
Biden's plan may be the boldest. It would partition Iraq into three territories under a national government in an attempt to cool warring Sunni and Shiite factions. He told the DNC that Bush "took us to war unnecessarily ... without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work, without enough troops" and "most of all, without a plan — any plan" for reconstruction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
