How similar are these new Biden reccomendations in the WP to Kerry's"

[wisteria]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden, who will be the next
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, set down benchmarks
on Monday that he said should be addressed by an influential panel considering
the United States' alternatives in Iraq.

Biden of Delaware issued a statement as the Iraq Study Group, headed by former
Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, and former Rep. Lee Hamilton,
a Democrat, met to decide its recommendations.

Biden said the group must address three central points, including U.S. troop
deployments, a political roadmap for Iraq and the need to convene an international
conference and engage Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Syria.

"If the Baker-Hamilton commission addresses these three issues in detail, it can
meet Americans' growing expectations," Biden said. "If it doesn't, it risks forgoing
the bipartisan support we need for any plan to leave Iraq responsibly, without
trading a dictator for chaos."


Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...




It seems to me with a couple of word changes- deployment instead of beginning a partial withdraw and benchmarks instead of goals, that is is very, very much what Kerry and Feingold proposed in June. Am I wrong?

[Mass]

1. Biden has been proposing that for more than one year.

(in fact, Kerry and Biden have been proposing the international conference since the presidential campaign of 2004). This is basically what NEARLY every democrat is proposing, as well as some Republicans.

As long as you do not give FIRM dates, this is BS.

[karynnj]

2. Exactly, and I think these are intentionally vague

because he is saying that these are the 3 issues that every Democrat (I can think of anyway) has included in their plan.

One significant difference between this and Kerry's plan is that Kerry leaves the Iraq political roadmap to the Iraqis and the summit. Biden has a detailed plan of how to set up Iraq. From Biden's point of view, a plan like Kerry's might not be acceptable. From Kerry's point of view, it might be unacceptable for the US to define the Iraqi political map.

[sandnsea]

3. Benchmarks vs. Timeline

Wasn't Kerry supportive of benchmarks early in 2005, and then moved more to the date certain proposal last fall?? I think Kennedy was actually one of the first timeline advocates, right around the time of that early 2005 Iraq election. Isn't that right?

[beachmom]

4. Yes, you're right. Kerry called for benchmarks in 2005

But he changed to date certain after the Samarra shrine bombing of 2/22/06 and the civil war that ensued. That was April 2006. And, really, he HAS been consistent because in October 2005, he said the next 6 months are crucial. And then 6 months passed, so then he said -- okay, we need to get out.

In 2004, Biden was Kerry's foreign advisor, so at least some of their ideas coincide. However, I am opposed to Biden's partitioning plan not because it's not an idea to consider, but because it's an idea coming from AMERICA. No more Empires deciding the fate of Iraq -- that's what I think.

(I saw someone on TV say that if we partitioned Iraq, it would be like the partitioning of India and Pakistan. If you recall, there is STILL a war going on about it)

[sandnsea]

9. I agree on partitioning

I don't think it's a long term solution and hasn't proven to work anywhere else that I can think of. I think it ends up increasing the sense of tribalism, kind of like Iraq and Iran. There needs to be a Muslim religious solution before there can be any kind of real solution to terrorism.

[wisteria]

5. Thanks everyone. I appreciate the help in clarifying Kerry's positions. n/t

[TayTay]

6. Marines say Anbar province worse than thought

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2816220&mesg_id=2816220


This is just terrible. Terrible. Can you even imagine having a kid or spouse or relative over there?

[beachmom]

7. Somebody needs to inform the Weekly Standard --

They think we're "winning" in Ramadi.

http://www.fumento.com/military/ramadireturn.html

The thing is, I'm sure everything the guy is reporting in Ramadi is "true", but it's more important to figure out the big picture, which he clearly got wrong if a Marine Intelligence Report is completely contradicting his report.

This is how you keep people on board supporting a war. You report the "progress" made which includes preventing one suicide attack even while the entire area plummets in poverty and doesn't get paid salaries by the central government breeding hopelessness which breeds . . . more war. Hey, look, that's great that our Marines have been able to prevent some terrible things from happening, but where's the positive change? If the end result is more of the same, how is that "winning" or "progress".

Anyway, got the above link from Sully -- I just enjoyed myself sending him an e-mail with the WP report of a Marine Intelligence Report. I told him to look at both articles and tell me what he thinks is true. I frankly said that all "good news" articles need to be treated with skepticism because they always turn out to be wrong or too small in scope to make a difference.

[beachmom]

8. Just wanted to add, the article above is worth looking at

because it includes a lot of pictures of our troops and what they're doing in Ramadi. And, at the end, the reporter does show some skepticism about things getting better (Iraqis ALWAYS tell reporters what they want to hear, so you can't trust what they say, like a farmer who said the Americans have made things 100% better -- even the RW reporter thought that was BS). But at the VERY end, he says we're "winning". WTF? The guys risks his life to go to Ramadi so he can sell a hack article? What about the truth, what about the truth . . .

I'd put it in the category of reports of "U.S. troops won every battle in Vietnam". Well, that's true, yet somehow we still lost the war.

[TayTay]

10. The troops are doing good work

The fact that their commanders in Washington have the wrong plan (if plan it can be called) is not their fault. We know that a lot of American troops feel that they are making a difference in the lives of some of the Iraqi people. But the non-plan adopted by the US government dooms their efforts.

I feel so bad for these good people who are truly trying to help the Iraqi people. That is part of what makes this so tragic: there are a lot of Americans there who have good intentions.

Read this: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16110161.htm

[beachmom]

11. Ha!! Sully and TNR just figured out the glaring differences between

the reports:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=60429

Yours truly was at least 30 min. quicker!!