No More Incumbents Presidential Race

Presidential Race Perspective and Reviews

April 24th, 2007

Thomas Friedman: I Think Biden has been “on top of Iraq” from the very start

Thomas Friedman, author of “The World is Flat” and Eminent Foreign Affairs Columnist for the New Yoirk Times, told Wold Blitzer that he feels Biden, as of now, appears to be the only candidate with a real vision for Iraq. While not officially endorsing Joe Biden, as it’s not allowed, Thomas Friedman clearly thinks highly of Senator Biden.  

Read excerpts below:

WOLF: Which candidate, Democrat or Republican, do you think has the most credibility when it comes about talking about what to do in Iraq?

FRIEDMAN: You know, I really would have a hard time rating any of them frankly, not up or down. We’re not allowed to endorse candidates as columnists.

WOLF: Don’t endorse any. But does Hillary Clinton, a Joe Biden, a John McCain…who really understands the issues there and comes to the table with a lot of knowledge?

FRIEDMAN: If you’re asking like right today, Wolf, the person I think who has been where I’ve been from the very beginning, seeing the potential, you know, that this could have for a positive outcome but really, really cautious and worried all the time, that if we weren’t doing it right is, Joe Biden.

I think Joe Biden has been on top of this from the very beginning. He was on top of the opportunity. He was on top of what stakes we needed or what we needed to do to get some chance of realizing that opportunity and he’s been on top of saying this isn’t working. So, if there’s anybody I felt in sync with since the very beginning I would say it’s Joe Biden.

Don't Take Our Word For it, For More Information Google Search is Available

Google
 
April 24th, 2007

Joe Biden: President Bush’s “New Heights of Hypocrisy”

Today, Senator Biden gave a passionate speech on Iraq on the floor of the U.S. Senate. He implored the President to change course in Iraq, change his failed policy and end this war responsibly.

The full text of Senator Biden’s speech on the Senate Floor is included below:

President Bush has spent the last two weeks talking up the “progress” we’re making in Iraq and talking down the Democrats and some of our Republican colleagues for trying to bring this war to a responsible end.

But sometimes, you have to deal with the facts as they are — not as the President wants them to be but as they exist on the ground. And the fact is that the President is totally out of touch with reality, he’s out of touch with the American people and he’s out of touch with America’s interests in the region.

I have been here a while Mr. President and I can say I have never seen a president so isolated since Richard Nixon. The president appears to be totally removed from reality. He tells us Attorney General Gonzales has done a great job when anyone who watched it views it as one of the least impressive appearances of an AG. He tells us that the president of the World Bank, is doing a great job, oblivious to the damage being done to America’s reputation around the world. And against the advice of some of the most gifted military men and women in a generation, he’s adopted a policy in Iraq is a disaster.

The president argues that the surge is succeeding. But for every welcome development he cites, there is an equally or even more “unwelcome development” that gives lie to the claim we are truly making progress. For example: While death squad violence against Iraqis is down in some Baghdad neighborhoods where we have surged, suicide bombings have increased by 30 percent over the past six weeks. And violence is up dramatically in the belt ringing Baghdad. The civilian death toll increased 15 percent from February to March. When we squeeze the water balloon in one place, Mr. President, it bulges somewhere else.

It is true that Moqtada al-Sadr has not been seen, but he has been heard, rallying his followers with anti-American messages and his thugs to take on American troops in the south. Last week, he pulled his ministers from the coalition government. Intelligence experts believe his militia is simply waiting out the surge.

Closing markets to vehicles has precluded some car bombs, but it also has prompted terrorists to change tactics and walk in with suicide vests. The road from the airport to Baghdad may be safer, but the skies above it are more lethal, witness the ironic imposition of “No Fly Zones” for our own helicopters.

Tal Affar is the most damning evidence of the absolute absurdity of this policy. The President cites it as progress. Architects of the President’s plan called that city a model because in 2005, a surge of about 10,000 Americans and Iraqis pacified the city.

Then we left, just as our troops will have to leave the Baghdad neighborhoods that they have calmed. Last month, Tal Affar was the scene of some of the most horrific sectarian violence to date: a massive truck bomb aimed at the Shiite community led to a retaliatory rampage by Shiite death squads, aided by the Iraqi police. Hundreds were killed. The population of Tal Affar, which was 200,000 just a few years ago, is down to 80,000.

There is an even more basic problem with the President’s progress report, and it goes to the heart of the choice we now face in Iraq. Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success.

The administration’s strategy has virtually no prospects for success. The administration hopes that the surge will buy time for Prime Minister Maliki’s government to broker the sustainable political settlement our own military views as essential to success. But there is no trust within the government, no trust of the government by the people it purports to serve, and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver security or services.

And there is little prospect that the government will build that trust and capacity any time soon. How many times have my colleagues heard that beginning in January how there is an oil agreement? Has anybody seen that deal?

In short, the most basic premise of the President’s approach — that the Iraqi people will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equitably — is fundamentally and fatally flawed.

If the President’s plan won’t work, what will?

History suggests only four other ways to keep together a country driven by sectarian strife. And it’s not to put American troops into a city of 6.2 million people to try to quell a civil war. Throughout history four things have worked. You occupy the country for a generation or more. That’s not in our DNA — we’re not the Persian Empire or the British Empire. You install a dictator. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate irony for the United States — to go back after taking one down and install another one? You let them fight it out until one side massacres the other — that’s not an option in that tinderbox part of the world.

Or lastly, you make federalism work for the Iraqis. You give them control over the fabric of their daily lives. You separate the parties. You give them breathing room. Let them control their local police, their education, their religion and marriage. That’s the only possibility: change the focus to a limited central government and the federal system that their constitution calls for.

I can’t guarantee that my strategy will work. But I can guarantee that the road the President has us on leads nowhere, with no end in sight. We have to change course, Mr. President, to end this war responsibly.

That is what Congress wants to do. Later this week, we will send the President the emergency supplemental spending bill for Iraq. It provides every dollar our troops need and the President requested.

It also provides what the majority of Americans expect: a plan to start to bring our troops home and bring this war to a responsible end, not escalate it indefinitely.

If the President vetoes the emergency spending bill, he’s the one who will be denying our troops funding and he’s the one who will be denying the American people a path out of Iraq.

The President’s double talk on Iraq is reaching new heights of hypocrisy.

On April 16, the President claimed that setting a timetable to start bringing home our troops would be to “legislate defeat.”

Just two days later — two days later — his own Secretary of Defense had this to say: “The push by Democrats to set a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq has been helpful in showing Iraqis that American patience is limited — that this is not an open ended commitment.”

Then, in arguing against the Supplemental, the President claimed that by sending him a bill he would somehow be forced to veto, the military would run out of money for Iraq in April — which is not true — and as a result, he would have to extend the tours of troops already in Iraq.

Extending those tours, the President said, “is unacceptable. It’s unacceptable to me, it’s unacceptable to our veterans, it’s unacceptable to our military families, and it’s unacceptable to many in this country.”

Unacceptable?

The very next day — the very next day — the administration announced it was extending the tours of every U.S. ground troop in Iraq by three months. Once you get over the hypocrisy, that announcement is an urgent warning that the administration’s Iraq policy cannot be sustained without doing terrible long-term damage to our military.

If the administration insists on keeping this many troops in Iraq into next year, it will have to send soldiers back on third, fourth and fifth tours and extend deployment times from six months to a year for Marines and from 12 months to 16 or 18 months for the Army.

The military will also be forced to end the practice of keeping troops at home for at least a year between deployments; to fully mobilize the National Guard and Reserve; and to perpetuate a backdoor draft.

This President is breaking the military. We don’t have to guess at the impact on readiness, recruitment and retention.

This month, we learned that recent graduates of West Point are choosing to leave active duty service at the highest rate in more than three decades. This administration’s policies are literally driving out some of our best young officers.

Instead of working with Democrats and Congress on a way forward, the President, divorced from reality, is accusing us of emboldening the enemy and undermining the troops.

Mr. President I have a message for you: the only thing that is emboldening the enemy is your failed policy. Instead of escalating the war with no end in sight, we have to start bringing it to a responsible conclusion.

This war must end. The hour is late. Much damage has been done. But the time is now. My responsibility as a Senator is to keep relentless pressure on the President to come to grips with reality. To continually push every single day. To say Mr. President, stop, stop this policy of yours.

It is my hope, even though he [The President] is likely to veto this bill, that we will keep the pressure on and ultimately convince at least a dozen of our Republican colleagues that it’s time to stop backing the President and start backing the troops.

It’s time, Mr. President, it’s time to bring this war to a responsible end.

Don't Take Our Word For it, For More Information Google Search is Available

Google
 
April 15th, 2007

A Powerful Iran and Muqtada al-Sadr’s Iraq

Four years after the United States invaded Iraq, Iran is ascendant– partially due to high gas prices and regional hegemony, many in the region view the Americans in retreat, and Arab countries, their own feelings of impotence punctuated, are awash in sharpening sectarian currents that many blame the United States for exacerbating.

Iran has deepened its relationship with Palestinian Islamic groups, assuming a financial role once filled by Iraq, in moves it sees as defensive and the United States views as aggressive. In  Lebanon and Iraq, Iran is fighting proxy battles against the United States with funds, arms and ideology. And in the vacuum created by the U.S. overthrow of Iranian foes in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is powerfully exerting a prestige reminiscent of the heady days of the 1979 Islamic revolution, when Iranian clerics led the toppling of a U.S.-backed government. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s messianic and fiery leader, isn’t all that favorable at home however. Many Iranians, particularly its well-educated members, are increasingly troubled by his braggadocio and foreign extravagances.

It’s painstakingly obvious that the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq has given rise to Shiite supremacy. At the core of the Shia resurgence lies a fiesty firebrand in Muquta Al Sadr, viewed by many as the legitimate ruler of Iraq. Prior to the invasion Mr. Muqtada’s Mahdi army was a but a small nuisance–with Sunni power well in tact. Now, the capricious cleric is perhaps the most influential person, with a large supply of adorning followers that routinely practice his militant anti-American message. Muquata is doing to Iraq what Hassan Nasrallah did to Lebanon more than twenty years ago when he formed Hezbollah following the Israeli invasion–a militant group that employs terrorism to resist Israel, which, not surprisingly, is on the State Department’s list of groups that sponsor and/or engage in terrorism. Like his predecessor in Iraq his fiery sermons drew the admiration of the uneducated and dispossessed. The only difference between the two is Mr. Nasrallah carved out a reputation on his own while Mr. Al Sadr came to prominence by riding the coattails of his father Mohammed Al Sadr.

After going into hiding in neighboring Iran so as to avoid being targeted in the Baghdad security drive–President George Bush’s vaunted “surge– that was just starting, he appears to have returned to vamp up his anti-American message. Many argue that the fervent leader is exploiting the cult-like dedication he inspires among his legion of mainly poor and uneducated Shia believers to evoke the image of the Shias’ “hidden imam” whose reappearance on earth is assumed to foretell an era of peace and justice, which is analogous in respects to premillenialism–in Christian eschatology is the belief that Christ will literally reign on the earth for 1,000 years after his second coming. Not surprisingly, in order for this occur conditions in the temporal must worsen; hence, politics is futile. This radical ideology is supported and entertained in America by such irrational madmen as Jerry Fallwell. This very radical and unthinking belief is the cornerstone of the ruling mullahs in Iran, so the very notion of appearing in Iraq is worrisome but inevitable.

So the question is will his return to Iraq sabotage American objectives and instigate a full-blown theocracy, or will it be quashed by American and Iraqi security forces. I’m afraid with Iraqi forces so helplessly inadequate and American forces overstretched and enervated, the former seems more likely.

 

Don't Take Our Word For it, For More Information Google Search is Available

Google
 
|