Biden's Iraq stance and others like his blur the opposition and give cover

[bigtree]

to those in the Bush administration who want to continue the occupation indefinitely.


Here's the set up from the weasel Scotty on the WH page:

November 26, 2005

Setting the Record Straight: Sen. Biden Adopts Key Portions of Administration's Plan for Victory in Iraq

"There is a strong consensus building in Washington in favor of President Bush's strategy for victory in Iraq. As the Iraqi security forces gain strength and experience, we can lessen our troop presence in the country without losing our capability to effectively defeat the terrorists. Today, Sen. Biden described a plan remarkably similar to the Administration's plan to fight and win the war on terror. We welcome Sen. Biden's voice in the debate. We are pleased he shares our view that the way to a democratic and peaceful Iraq is through aggressively training Iraqi police and soldiers, rebuilding the country's infrastructure and forging political compromises between Iraqi factions."

-- Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary

Did Biden respond? I don't know if he wanted Scotty likening his plan to Bush's but that's what he's got. Weasely stuff from McClellan, but that's what Biden should have expected as he tries to straddle the fence. It may move the debate by giving cover to the administration on key points of their strategy, but this cabal will only take whatever crumbs of support they have in Congress to cling to their failed Iraq policy. They need an entirely new approach to Iraq that sheds the old justifications and expectations for a 'democratic' government there, but they will be more than satisfied to have wobbly Democrats here at home, who still cling to the old rhetoric to justify their own pre-war stands, basically still agreeing with the original blather that put us in this quagmire.

Is Biden sucking up to Bush? Smoking him out? Or, as I believe, is he blustering his way into the WH scheme to blur the differences between their objectives, the opposition's plans and objections, and the reality on the ground. I think these middle of the road approaches like Biden's only serve to help the administration avoid admitting their blunders that led to the war and keep us on this fantastical quest for a 'stable democratic government' in Iraq.

There will not be anything at all resembling a democracy after the next 'election' there or beyond in the power-sharing constructs of the constitution they have drafted. Further, there will almost certainly be a Shiite-dominated authority holding most of the power, with the Kurds holding on to some measure of autonomy in the north, and the Sunnis struggling to regain some sort of control over their own destiny in the face of their utter defeat and removal from decades of power under Saddam. And there is the prospect that the U.S. will have to engineer some sort of propping up of the Sunnis to prevent the emergence of a theocratic rule that will almost certainly come from within the newly formed Shiite-influenced government.

That may be the next hinge that keeps us latched to the miserable failure in Iraq: Stay so we can rescue Iraq from the bunch we helped put in power. Our military can prop up on faction or the other in Iraq, but it can not create the political stability that Bush and Biden seek. The heavy hand of our occupation can only serve to further destabilize the situation on the ground and undermine any true reconciliation between parties that may or may not materialize from the recent power sharing agreements. Any U.S. plan that relies on the military to achieve any of these political goals at this point is an invitation for a widening war as we saw in Cambodia at the end of the Vietnam war. One more shifting of a political line on the map, at the expense of more of our soldier's lives, before they claim whatever victory they imagine there.

We will leave Iraq one day. We will pack up whatever is left of our hapless military machine and leave the Iraqis to their scuffling for power. We'll use our planes to help one side or the other bomb some enemy of someone or the other. But, we will leave Iraq. I think sooner than the White House admits now. All along the way, they should be exposed for the duplicitous liars they are, and we shouldn't allow them to skirt accountability for their sly justifications for their attacks on our civil liberties; demagogic appeals to patriotism and to our nationalism; the deliberate inflaming, and careful stoking of the sparks of fear that flashed from the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center; and the mortgaging of ours and our children's future toil and tribute to the subsidizing of both of the Bush president's bloody and costly wars of opportunity.

Unless we want to keep this up indefinitely . . .

[depakid]

1. The Dems really need to do something about this guy

He shows up every Sunday and invariably hurts the Democratic party. How long will the "leadership" keep allowing him to damage their hopes of becoming relevant again in 2006?

[MADem]

2. Biden admitted on MTP today that his vote was a mistake

Biden wants to run for President, he already has an exploratory committee up and running. He can fuggedaboutit. He got bagged lying about his education AND stealing a speech from Neil Kinnock when he ran the first time. Then, there's those bad hair plugs--he was one of the first to get them, and he does not have enough hair to do it right (massive rear combover, with bare patches galore), plus, they look a little creepy/freaky up close.

DWI's, coke use, going AWOL from the service, all those sins can be forgiven with a hurt expression, a strong denial, and some serious bullshitting and good PR...but the GOP would never let those Biden opportunities, which were caught on tape, pass.

And Biden is just NOT presidential timber. Cabinet, maybe, but the big show, no way.

[LittleClarkie]

3. Personally, I think it's the other way around. Bush bogarted

a Biden-like plan.

Think about when a withdrawl plan SUDDENLY came out of the Bush administration. Now look and see when Biden came out with his plan.

Was the Bush Admin talking about withdrawl at all before that? What ever happened to sending the wrong message and such. How is talking withdrawl not a conflict with their rhetoric about not cutting and running. It looks like another Bush flip flop to me.

And I think Bush is doing EXACTLY what he used to do to Kerry during the campaign. It was like Kerry was a Bush advisor. They'd wait til he came out with something, count on folks ignoring it in the media, and then announce the same or similar plan as if were their own. Then, of course, they proceed not to do anything. But now they can say "But we're already doing what the Dems are saying we should do. What a bunch of loser Democrats, stating the obvious."

Kind of see what I mean?

The Bush people are the ones doing the bluring.

[bigtree]

5. There's no doubt they're getting nudged, both from Dems and repubs alike

But I wouldn't trust them to do a thing they promised. Weren't we already supposed to be out of there, by the admin's own projections? And there is the prospect that they will drag this thing out longer than it has to be, even in whatever 'withdrawal' approach they may ultimately embrace. So far, from Bush, there has been nothing but 'stay the course'. These hints at exit strategies have only come from surrogates of the administration. I can see them taking whatever cover Congress will give them up to and only before the 2006 midterm elections. After that, whatever ground we have given them will shift back in the administration's favor, or at least freeze the debate in favor of the status quo. Half-assed, split the difference approaches like Biden's increase the opportunities for Bush to fudge and backslide. It's not statesmen-like to compromise with soldier's lives, it's criminal. Soldiers should not be used to solve Iraq's political future. They've done their misguided job. They need to be brought home.

[creeksneakers2]

4. Excellent analysis n/t