I'm a little tired of the reflexive Biden-bashing around here, and I think it's symptomatic of bigger problems with arguments people are making in general against Democrats about this vote. There's an assumption around here that the only reason Democrats voted for this supplemental is because they were afraid of the bad publicity, afraid of what the public would think, afraid of the bad things that Bush would say about them (ever wonder if the "officials" that leaked that tidbit might have their own agenda and might not be entirely credible?) UPDATE:There is also the assumption that this vote was the end of the fight. It most certainly is not. People aren't dealing with the full story, the full arguments that Democrats like Biden have been making about these votes, and instead they are cherry-picking the most heinous quotes and presenting them out of context. There were several diaries yesterday and there's another this morning.
Look, if you're going to argue against these Democrats (yeah, they're Democrats) at least do them the honor of presenting their full perspective to the best of your ability and then critiquing it if you still disagree with it. That would be the responsible, reality-based thing to do, after all.
Here's Biden's perspective:
First of all, his goal is to persuade, pressure, cajole 17 Senators (plus Lieberman), not the unpersuadable George Bush, to vote for some legislation with an actual plan that will actually get passed and will actually, physically, literally start bringing troops home and not leave a genocide behind. This is his stated goal, and this is what he is undeniably presenting.
From CNN yesterday: (go read the whole transcript, Biden is at the end)
BIDEN: This gets down to how do you change this war, Wolf.
Do you think the president of the United States, over the next four months -- this is only a four-month funding bill, for four months -- do you think, by us cutting off funding, he's going to withdraw troops?
And what do you think is going to happen to those troops in the field, as they run out of money?
Do you think this guy's going to pull them out? I'm not about to do that.
And the second point I'd make is, the president's not likely to change his mind. I've never made that argument. From the very beginning, since I offered the nonbinding resolution to the binding resolution, the president vetoed.
The only point about all of this is you've got to change the minds of 17 Republican votes, 17. And look what's happening, Wolf. Twenty-some Republican House members get in an automobile and drive down to see the president a couple weeks ago -- you reported on it -- telling him, Mr. President, your time is running out. You had Trent Lott, the number two leader, from Mississippi, in the Republican Party, saying, it's going to be over by September. You had the present minority leader of the United States Senate, the senator from Kentucky, talking about benchmarks.
There's not 12 Republican senators who think what this president is doing makes any sense. And my job as the leader of the Democrats on foreign policy, is to continue to push and push and push and push -- not that I'm going to change the president's mind. We're going to change the mind of 17 senators.
BIDEN: And look what's happening...
BLITZER: I was going to say -- let me interrupt for a second, though, Senator Biden.
In addition to being the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, you also want to get the Democratic presidential nomination.
How worried are you that, politically, this vote is going to cost you with Democrats who oppose the war?
BIDEN: Look, I know -- I know what the right political vote was. But some things just aren't worth it, Wolf. I'm not running for president to get the nomination by any cost.
I think it would have been wrong to cut the funding off, number one. Number two, the Democrats are a lot smarter than everybody thinks they are. They're not -- everybody is not moveon.org. And I respect them. I respect their frustration.
But the vast majority of people out here in Iowa -- I did five town meetings yesterday on Iraq. No one criticized my vote. They're a lot more sophisticated, Wolf. They understand that it's about who can end this war.
Does anybody -- do you think any Democrat thinks that, if we cut off the funding, this war would have ended tomorrow?
Do you think that was going to happen, and you think the president then vetoes it, and we need 67 votes?
I mean, it's about time we tell -- you know, that old phrase everybody loves to use, "speak truth to power" -- we have not been telling the American people the truth about this war from day one.
We're not telling the truth now about how to end the war. It requires a specific proposal, a plan whereby you are going to find a political solution, while beginning, immediately, to draw down American forces. We need 67 votes to get that done.
As far as being politically expedient, Biden knew that this vote would not help him with the Democratic base, but he didn't pander, he wouldn't go against his principles just to get votes, unlike Hillary Clinton who voted against funding for things that directly affected her constituency
"While I am deeply disappointed that the supplemental does not provide for a new course in Iraq, I want to recognize the many worthy parts of this bilfunding to help those sickened in the aftermath of 9/11, additional relief for Katrina and Rita victims, homeland security funds for high-threat cities like New York City, resources to protect parts of New York affected by recent flooding, $650 million for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the first federal minimum wage increase in ten years
or did she make a deal to have it both ways, knowing the legislation would pass even with her no vote?? Is that really the more principled stand?
Now, you may have disagreements as to whether his plan will actually be the most effective way to do that, but you can't argue that he's not working towards saving soldiers' lives. Biden is pushing for actual life-saving specifics that should and could be passed NOW in the current reality.
"Road-side bombs are responsible for 70 percent of casualties in Iraq and these new Mine Resistant Vehicles can reduce those casualties by two-thirds. I've been a big proponent of getting more Mine Resistant vehicles into the field as soon as possible, authoring an amendment to the Iraq Supplemental which accelerated funding for them. I'll continue to fight to do what's necessary to keep our soldiers safe - but why haven't we heard from the Administration about this? Where is its leadership when we need it?" asked Senator Biden.
The Marine Corps ordered their first MRAPs on May 21, 2006 - 185 vehicles. But according to a Marine Corps document leaked yesterday, commanders in the field in Iraq first asked for MRAPs in February, 2005 -- more than a year earlier. That request - for 1,169 vehicles - was labeled "priority 1 urgent." According to today's news reports, the military failed to act on that 2005 request, delaying by more than a year getting these lifesaving vehicles into the field.
The urgent request for MRAPS, dated February 17, 2005 said: "There is an immediate need for an MRAP vehicle capability to increase survivability and mobility of Marines operating in a hazardous fire area against known threats... The expanded use of improvised explosive devices requires a more robust family of vehicles capable of surviving... MRAP-designed vehicles represent a significant increase in their survivability baseline over existing motor vehicle equipment and will mitigate casualties... Without MRAPs, perso nnel loss rates are likely to continue at their current rates. MRAP vehicles will protect Marines, reduce casualties, increase mobility and enhance mission success."
"It's easy to throw around words like outrageous and shocking - but this is both," said Sen. Biden. "We were told that Marine Corps commanders in Iraq made the first request for Mine Resistant Vehicles on May 21, 2006, for 185 vehicles. Now we learn that Marines on the ground in Iraq made an urgent request to their commanders for 1169 Mine Resistant Vehicles as early as February 2005 - but nothing happened. How is it possible that a request that is literally life or death got lost? How is it possible that with the nation at war, with more than 130,000 Americans in danger, with roadside bombs taking more and more lives and limbs, this administration did not make these Mine Resistant Vehicles a national priority?"
He's dealing straight with the following realities that are in the way of actually causing the result of bringing soldiers home and ending the war and saving lives:
- Public opinion does not want defunding, although they do want timelines, and they want the troops home.
- Bush, and most Republicans (you won't find
17 18) will never vote for defunding. Never. So it's not just that Democrats are concerned about public opinion. It's the 17 18 Republicans, too.
- Bush alone will never change his mind about any of this and therefore will veto anything over and over and over again. He doesn't care, and he's got nothing to lose as far as he's concerned. And why would any President ever vote in favor of de-fuinding their own foreign policy? That's completely unrealistic.
- The Congress is almost as unpopular as Bush, so his 28% to 35% approval rating is irrelevant, because a continuing dual over vetoed legislation won't do anybody any PR favors, and will not save one single life in the next 4 months.
A recent CNN poll, for instance, found that 83% of Americans think Bush supports the troops, 57% strongly. And while 73% saw the Dem Congress as supportive of the troops, only 31% saw them as strongly supp
- A vetoed but principled piece of legislation, or no legislation, will not save one single life in the next 4 months.
So, what to do?
This 4 month supplemental will:
- Get troops much needed anti-mine vehicles asap, which could prevent up to 60% of fatalaties due to anti-vehicle mines. That's real lives saved. NOW.
- Allow time to develop legislation with a plan that will actually get the
17 18 votes needed to bypass Bush entirely, and will actually start bringing troops home.
- As a bonus, it will actually get some additional difficult legislation signed, like minimum wage and Katrina relief. How is that not better than some righteous unproductive PR stand off?
Biden took this action the very next day:
SEN. BIDEN Introduces Legislation to Repeal 2002 War Authorization
Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) introduced
legislation (S.J. Res 15) today to repeal the original 2002 Iraq war
authorization, replacing it with a much narrower mission statement for
our troops in Iraq. The new mission - to start immediately - would be
limited to: combating terrorists, training Iraqis and force protection
for our troops. Sen. Biden's legislation requires that the President
start withdrawing troops in 4 months and sets a goal of getting all
troops that are unnecessary for the new mission out by March 2008. The
legislation also specifically states that nothing in the new, limited
authority allows the President to attack Iran or Syria.
"Yesterday, I cast my vote to protect our soldiers from the tragic
effects of President Bush's misguided strategy and his incompetent
mismanagement of the Iraq war," said Sen. Biden. "Today, I am
introducing legislation which could truly end this war and get our
troops home. I voted for the emergency spending bill because as long
as a single soldier is in Iraq, I will do everything I can to make
sure he or she has the best protection we can provide. For example, if
we did not get this emergency money into the pipeline, we would leave
our soldiers and Marines without the Mine Resistant Vehicles I have
been fighting for and that this Administration has denied them. But
now we must ratchet up the pressure on our Republican colleagues and
force them to vote on whether they want to continue this war with no
end in sight, or bring our troops home from Iraq without leaving chaos
behind. The bill I am introducing today will force them to confront
that choice and keep the pressure on Republicans in the Senate to stop
supporting the President and start backing a path out of Iraq."
"We have to keep relentless pressure on Republicans in Congress - and
that's why I'm introducing this bill today," said Sen. Biden. "If the
President won't change course, we need their votes to overcome his
resistance. So day after day, vote after vote, we will keep pressure
on him and our Republican colleagues who support his disastrous
policies in Iraq. We will make them vote against the will of the
people again and again and sooner or later they will come around and
we'll get the votes we need to stop this President. That's how this
war will end and I will work every day to make that day come as soon
as possible."
And here is Biden's plan for Iraq:. Does anybody have an equivalent better idea??
A Five Point Plan for Iraq
- Keep Iraq Together Through Federalism and Local Control
Federalize Iraq in accordance with its constitution by establishing three or more regions - Shiite, Sunni and Kurd -- with a strong but limited central government in Baghdad
Put the central government in charge of truly common interests: border defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues
Form regional and local governments that give Kurds, Sunni and Shiites control over the fabric of their daily lives: security, education, marriage, social services.
- Secure Support from the Sunnis
Gain agreement for the federal solution from the Sunni Arabs by guaranteeing them 20 percent of all present and future oil revenues -- an amount roughly proportional to their size -- which would make their region economically viable
Empower the central government to set national oil policy and distribute the revenues, to attract needed foreign investment and reinforce each community's interest in keeping Iraq intact and protecting the oil infrastructure. Provide for an international oversight group to guarantee a fair distribution of oil revenues.
Allow former Baath Party members to go back to work and reintegrate Sunnis with no blood on their hands.
- Enlist Help from the Major Powers and Iraq’s Neighbors
Initiate a major diplomatic offensive to secure the support of the major powers and Iraq’s neighbors for federalism in Iraq.
Convene with the U.N. a regional security conference where Iraq's neighbors, including Iran, pledge to support Iraq's power sharing agreement and respect Iraq's borders
Engage Iraq's neighbors directly to overcome their suspicions and focus their efforts on stabilizing Iraq, not undermining it
Create a standing Oversight Group, to include the major powers, that would engage Iraq's neighbors and enforce their commitments
- Responsibly Drawdown US Troops
Direct U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by 2008
Maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force -- perhaps 20,000 troops -- to strike any concentration of terrorists, help keep Iraq's neighbors honest and train its security forces
- Increase Reconstruction Assistance and Create a Jobs Program
Provide more reconstruction assistance, conditioned on the protection of minority and women's rights and the establishment of a jobs program to give Iraqi youth an alternative to the militia and criminal gangs
Insist that other countries take the lead in funding reconstruction by making good on old commitments and providing new ones -- especially the oil-rich Arab Gulf countries
Plan for Iraq: What It Is - and What It Is Not
Some commentators have either misunderstood the Plan, or mischaracterized it. Here is what the plan is - and what it is not:
- The Plan is not partition.
In fact, it may be the only way to prevent a violent partition - which has already started -- and preserve a unified Iraq. We call for a strong central government, with clearly defined responsibilities for truly common interests like foreign policy and the distribution of oil revenues. Indeed, the Plan provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence.
- The Plan is not a foreign imposition.
To the contrary, it is consistent with Iraq's constitution, which already provides for Iraq's 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces, and control over most day-to-day issues. On October 11, Iraq's parliament approved legislation to implement the constitution's articles on federalism. Prior to the British colonial period and Saddam's military dictatorship, what is now Iraq functioned as three largely autonomous regions.
But federalism alone is not enough. To ensure Sunni support, it is imperative that Iraqis also agree to an oil revenue sharing formula that guarantees the Sunni region economic viability. The United States should strongly promote such an agreement. The final decisions will be up to Iraqis, but if we do not help them arrange the necessary compromises, nothing will get done. At key junctures in the past, we have used our influence to shape political outcomes in Iraq, notably by convincing the Shiites and Kurds to accept a provision allowing for the constitution to be amended following its adoption, which was necessary to secure Sunni participation in the referendum. Using our influence is not the same as imposing our will. With 140,000 Americans at risk, we have a right and an obligation to make known our views.
- The Plan is not an invitation to sectarian cleansing.
Tragically, that invitation has been sent, received and acted upon. Since the Samarra mosque bombing in February, one quarter of a million Iraqis have fled their homes for fear of sectarian violence, at a rate now approaching 10,000 people a week. That does not include hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - many from the professional class - who have left Iraq since the war. Only a political settlement, as proposed in the Plan, has a chance to stop this downward spiral.
- The Plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the sectarian militia.
It offers a realistic albeit interim solution. Realistic, because none of the major groups will give up their militia voluntarily in the absence of trust and confidence and neither we or the Iraqi government has the means to force them to do so. Once federalism is implemented, the militias are likely to retreat to their respective regions to protect their own and vie for power, instead of killing the members of other groups. But it is only an interim solution, because no nation can sustain itself peacefully with private armies. Over time, if a political settlement endures, the militia would be incorporated into regional and national forces, as is happening in Bosnia.
- The Plan is an answer to the problem of mixed cities.
Large cities with mixed populations present a challenge under any plan now being considered. The essence of the Plan is that mixed populations can only live together peacefully if their leadership is truly satisfied with the overall arrangement. If so, that leadership will help keep the peace in the cities. At the same time, we would make Baghdad a federal city, and buttress the protection of minorities there and in the other mixed cities with an international peacekeeping force. Right now, the prospect for raising such a force is small. But following a political settlement, an international conference and the establishment of a Contact Group, others are more likely to participate, including countries like Saudi Arabia which have offered peacekeepers in the past.
- The Plan is in the self-interest of Iran.
Iran likes it exactly as it is in Iraq - with the United States bogged down and bleeding. But the prospect of a civil war in Iraq is not in Tehran's interest: it could easily spill over Iraq's borders and turn into a regional war with neighbors intervening on opposing sides and exacerbating the Sunni-Shiite divide at a time Shiite Iran is trying to exert leadership in the Islamic world. Iran also would receive large refugee flows as Iraqis flee the fighting. Iran, like all of Iraq's neighbors, has an interest in Iraq remaining unified and not splitting into independent states. Iran does not want to see an independent Kurdistan emerge and serve as an example for its own restive 5 million Kurds. That's why Iran - and all of Iraq's neighbors -- can and should be engaged to support a political settlement in Iraq.
- The Plan is in the self-interest of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
The Sunnis increasingly understand they will not regain power in Iraq. Faced with the choice of being a permanent minority player in a central government dominated by Shiites or having the freedom to control their day-to-day lives in a Sunni region, they are likely to choose the latter provided they are guaranteed a fair share of oil revenues to make their region viable. The Shiites know they can dominate Iraq politically, but not defeat a Sunni insurgency, which can bleed Iraq for years. The Kurds may dream of independence, but fear the reaction of Turkey and Iran - their interest is to achieve as much autonomy as possible while keeping Iraq together. Why would Shiites and Kurds give up some oil revenues to the Sunnis? Because that is the price of peace and the only way to attract the massive foreign investment needed to maximize Iraqi oil production. The result will be to give Shiites and Kurds a smaller piece of a much larger oil pie and give all three groups an incentive to protect the oil infrastructure.