That's where Biden screwed up. He was thinking about the results of his vote, and not what it would mean to him politically. They'll probably throw him out of the party for that.

Can't believe it! One liberal senator with the guts and the brains to vote for our fighting men and women. You may not win Joe, but at least you are one liberal who knows right from wrong!

Who's Joe biden?

Why are liberals always put in the position of cleaning up after conservatives? They damage America and we have to fix it. Now we're trying to make sure troops are equipped, vets aren't housed in moldy buildings, and we have to come up with a plan to save Iraq and our sorry selves. All the while dodging helpful barbs from consevatives suggesting Liberals don't know right from wrong. Geesh!

Fund the vehicles...not the war. Just asking for a little creative thinking here. Guess that's asking to much from a senator.

Smart enough to know what will win in the general election.

You know, I really liked Biden the last time he ran for the nomination but now.....??? I just can't figure him out. This funding for the vehicles justification seems, I don't know. Lame? If anyone can explain this to me, I'd really like to understand this position.

These aren't your daddy's Democrats.

Ummmm... that provision was in the original bill that President Bush vetoed thereby delaying the construction of these vehicles by several months. I wonder what our kool aide drinking friends have to say regarding that.

That is why he would make a very good president. Lord knows, we need a President who knows right from wrong.

Biden's point about the armored vehicles is political pandering. Voting for this bill did not speed up deployment of armored vehicles, because the military is able to fund itself while it waits for the commonly-delayed funding bills to pass. Also, is anyone suggesting that senators have a better idea what equipment soldiers currently need than the actual military does? There is rarely a need for any bill to direct military money to specific contracts or firms. It amounts to attaching strings to how the money is spent. The "new" armored vehicles are in the bill either to give senators like Biden cover for their vote, or as a pork-barrel earmark for a particular state or company, or both. I don't really blame Biden for explaining his vote in such a way because that's what politicians do. They present their votes as morally black-and-white, while behind the scenes there is a great deal of horse trading and political calculation going on. Biden's vote against the majority in his own party may very well be deemed courageous but don't think for a moment that this bill was the difference between armor and no armor. Biden himself knows better.

Thank you, Senator, for following your conscience, not defending your position in the party, and voting for the new technology that will protect our military from IED's. Once it is realized that roadside bombs don't have the kill rate desired, fewer deaths,INCLUDING THOSE OF CIVILIANS,will occur. It is appreciated when ANY politician choose to do the right thing. Can we just keep it to that, a Senator doing the right thing?

bidens irrelevant

Matt, PA - That is what I think. I used to work for a beltway bandit. Funding for such contracts was NEVER dependent on a specific bill in the immediate term. I don't know if that has changed but I doubt it. Either Biden doesn't know whereof he speaks or this is shear pandering. Since it is inaccurate and it certainly doesn't help with the majority who want us out of Iraq, I guess I'll have to go with "doesn't know where of he speaks." Absolutely ruined his chance of getting my support.

Maybe Biden noticed that CBS/NYT poll last week that said "Thirteen percent want Congress to block all money for the war." & thought DAMN it's not really 76% of people agree with democrats like our propagandist are reporting.

Yepsen is also irrelevant. The "dean of Iowa political journalists" has been just as wrong just as often as David Broder "dean of Washington political journalists" and the other Beltway talking heads.

Dave Tn: I never have believed that 76% of the country want out of Iraq. That is a poll that was made up and the rest of the media (like they always do) go along with anything the New York Times say. I have never been polled. 76% of the country might say the war is not going the way they would like, it doesnt say say that probably 50% of that 76% would like for the U.S. to hit harder and more forceful. Thats what the polls really say.

Isn't it amazing when the rabid leftists who have never-upon-ever given of themselves in any capacity in service to our Nation turn upon a fellow Democrat who has this one time placed ethics above politics? These are the yellow-bellied local Al-Quida scum who infest our Nation.

"Profile in Courage"? The guy was getting crowded out of the field, identified a market segment to stop the slide and simultaneously smear his competition, and pandered to it. It's OK, tho' -- pretty soon another bill will come along that will allow him to double-back ... if anybody still cares about him by that time.

For Amy B., the Portland, ME liberal who has to fix everything: Just an historical reminder that our involvement in World War I and World War II was initiated by Democrat presidents. In both cases there was strong internal opposition to getting involved. Whether you agree with getting involved or not, our forefathers, including a lot of Republicans, had to clean up those messes. In Korea, initiated by a Democrat president, it was a Republican administration that had to "clean up". In Vietnam, an unpopular war initiated by Democrats had to be "cleaned up" by a Republican administration. To this day liberals act as if that Republican president was responsible for getting into Vietnam. A Republican congress had to "clean up" the mess caused by the welfare system and Ronald Reagan had to clean up the economic mess that Jimmy Carter was responsible for. The first Gulf War was initiated by a Republican administration and "cleaned up" by the same adminstration. I challenge you to examine the initiation of involvement in war and the resulting body counts over the past 100 years on a Democrat vs. Republican basis. Republicans look like amateurs. Hell, Harry Truman himself was responsible for more death and destruction with two bombs and you have to go back to Abraham Lincoln to find a Republican presiding over death and carnage on a scale comparable to Korea or Vietnam. Iraq doesn't even come close. You're entitled to your disagreement with any aspect of this, just thought you could use some perspective when making your generalizations. For Amy of PA: My sentiments exactly. The only effect on anything Joe Biden has is to increase greenhouse gases disproportionately to other humans.

inthemiddle texas, I don't believe the 76% poll number is correct either, probably more like 86%, after the obviously concocked numbers I seen on the immigration bill I don't even bother looking at them unless I am looking for a good laugh

Senator Biden was on the floor of the Senate immediately before the vote was taken on the Supplemental explaining why he was going to vote for the bill. At that time he offered several reasons why he was going to vote for the Supplemental. First and foremost was the obvious. The votes were not there to override a presidential veto. At some point you have to be a realist about what can be accomplished and what can't be accomplished. You can't say you support the troops and leave them in the middle of two wars without adequate funding. This business about funding the new class of V-shaped armored vehicles was a legitimate yet tertiary argument raised by Biden. His foremost reason for supporting the supplemental was tied to the political reality of not having enough votes in Congress to demand benchmarks and timelines. The problem with the democratic party and most of the liberal posters on this blog is that they are incapable of dealing with political reality. Contrary to what most of you post, the election of 2006 didn't give the democrats a mandate to do anything. Sure they grabbed a majority in both houses of Congress (barely in the Senate). The reality, however, is that they still can't override a presidential veto. So the benchmarks and timelines attached to the original supplemental bill were meaningless. If you want the troops home, fine. Come up with a plan that takes into account the realities on the ground in Iraq as well as the political realities here at home. And demanding immediate withdrawal of all our troops is not a plan, people. It's political pandering. Biden is the only presidential candidate -- democrat or republican -- who has advanced a legitimate plan for stablizing Iraq and bringing our troops home. He's called for a political solution to end the sectarian violence in Iraq. He has proposed the creation of federalist system in Iraq that allows for the creation of semi-autonomous states in the country -- a Kurdish north, a Sunni middle and a Shite south. Each state would be responsible for the adminstration of their regions with minimal interference from the central government. The federal government would maintain the army, the borders, and disperse oil revenues to the states. Hopefully by giving the various sects in Iraq some degree of autonomy, the sectarian violence can be reduced, the country can be stabilized, and we can bring our servicemen home. Personally I have more respect for Biden than the candidates who simply say what you want to hear. He's trying to do what's right for the country in the context of dealing with the realities in Iraq as well as at home. He's not looking at polls or pandering to the left wing of the party. It's unfortunate that we don't have more politicians willing to do the same. His ultimate goal is to stablize Iraq, bring our troops home and restore America's standing in the international community. You can't accomplish these goals, however, if you refuse to deal with reality.

What is the range on those IEDs? I doubt they will harm vehicles or soldiers on US soil when they explode in Iraq. Seems like Biden didn't think very deeply when he did the lives lost equation or was that just a cover for the real reason for his vote. We may never know the real reason for his vote just as we may never know the real reason for invading Iraq.

Richard, while I will not argue with your chronological correlations, are you seriously suggesting that Richard Nixon "cleaned up" the Vietnam War? Have your forgotten that it was Eisenhower that first initiated US military involvement in Vietnam? How do you figure the first Gulf War was not "cleaned up" by Bush 41? Saddam remained in power, the Republican Guard was not destroyed, and tens of thousands of Kurds and Shia were slaughtered after Bush 41 encouraged them to revolt and then left them hanging. bush 43's current Iraq was is merely a continuation of the first one, although he has definitely managed to get a lot more of our people maimed and killed than his Daddy.

The last thing the Republicans want is to face Joe Biden in a general election. He is no "weak Democrat." If the Democrats want to lose (again) go ahead and nominate one of the anti-war panderers!

Kato - your are correct in all your factual statements. I disagree with your opinion statements. I think it may have been really good politics and legislation to keep sending the same bill to Mr. Bush over and over and over and letting me veto the damn thing over and over and over. If I were a member of Congress, I wouldn't have been looking for veto management, I would have been looking to do the job that the voters said they wanted done. Agreed that the democrats don't have the numerical muscle but the "mandate" in the last election sent a message to those who weren't up for relection at that time as well as to those who were. Thanks for a well-reasoned post even if I disagree with some of it.

Read what Kato in Des Moines said. It is reality, folks. Unless the republicans in both houses join the democrats, there will be no overrides of presidential vetoes. And the president will veto. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. What have we become? A fairy tale nation? Look at the facts.

Mistake in my last post. Should be "how do you figure the first Gulf War was "cleaned up" by Bush 41?"

Richard, your view of history is interesting to say the least. True, we entered WWI by Woodrow Wilson, but only after the German U-Boats repeatly sunk our merchant ships bringing supplies to the Allies in Europe. After 3+ years, Europe was war weary and the Germans were starting to advance beyound the lines that had been set for the previous 3 years. The Allies credited the Americans for ending the war because of the amount of troops we sent overwhelmed the Germans and eventually brought the Armistice. As for WWII, FDR saw the growing threats of both Germany and Japan during the 1930's and tried in the face of an isolantionist Congress to build up an inadequate and poorly equiped military. Our entry into WWII was via Pearl Harbor and the Germans declaring war on us. Truman's motivation for the use of the bomb has been debated by historians for years. It did save American lives. True the destruction was horrible, but the firebombing of Tokyo produced more casualties (panned by Curtis LeMay and Robert McNamara). The Korean Conflict was a test of the Ameican policy of containment of Communism because of the previous gains Communism in Europe and the Far East and also the vaiablity of the recently formed UN. When Eisenhower entered the White House, the Conflict was at a stalemate and the truce would have been negotiated no matter who occupied the White House. Viet Nam has enough culpability to spread around like mayonnaise. Esinehower began sending advisors dsshortly after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu and they were slowly increased over the years. Although, Johnson did in fact escalate the war, Nixon ended our participation and it was because Congress (Democratic) cut off funds. I would further point out that the terms that Nixon agreed to with the North Vietnamese were the same terms offered in 1968, thereby causing an additional 25,000 combat deaths. Not much of a clean up. The Republicans can claim cleaning up the welfare mess of the poor, but have done nothing to clean up the welfare for Halliburton, KBR, etc. If you were even slightly versed in economics, the economy Carter had to contend with with was a result of the deficit financing of the Viet Nam War and the rise of OPEC and oil prices which began during the Nixn and Ford administrations. Reagan is hardly an economic hero as the Smiling Bonzo, by deregulating the S&Ls and the subsequent failures caused a loss to the taxpayers of about $1 trillion (where is Neil Bush anyway). Not much to be proud of. Couple that with Iran Contra where the President said we would never negotiate with terrorists ended up selling the missles and other armaments to Iran that were use on our troops (Can you say treason Ollie North?) The first Gulf War was in response to a viable threat, where the first President Bush utilized diplomacy to assemble a true coalition and did not go to Baghdad because of the potential ramifications we are experieincing now. He listened to the generals and advisors on this point. He did incite the Shia to riase up against Sadaam when he was weak, but failed to provide the promised support, thereby causing a slaughter which the Shia still hold against us. Since you mentioned Abraham Lincoln, I believe that you should heed his qoute "It is better to be a fool and remain silent than to speak and erase all doubt."

Richard 3:04 pm post - I take that challenge. As usual, the right tries to re-write history by blaming the left. WWI: Somewhat correct; Wilson took office before WWI started (elected 1912; took office 1913). If he wanted entry into the war, why wait until 1917? Entry due to Germany sinking neuwtral US ships + pressure due to Russia dropping out during the Bolshevic Revolution. After Wilson, Harding & Hoover (Repubs) kept the US out of the League of Nations and oversaw the beginning of the Great Depression. Not joining the League at the time is viewed as a major reason WWII was fought; perhaps Hitler could have been stopped early. USA was viewed as the great hope for world peace. We'll never know, but it certainly does not support your "Repugs always clean up after the Dems" theory. WWII: Roosevelt saw us through the Depression and our involvement in WWII began with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Don't see how being attacked supports the "Dems start all wars" theory of yours. US once again looked at in a favorable light, post-war. Korea: This one supports your argument, somewhat; one for three so far. However, peace talks had stopped & started before the 1952 election. US involvement was based on UN resolutions. Vietnam: Eishenhower first sent "advisors" in 1957 (?), before he left office. Kennedy was calling the troops back when he was assassinated; first troops returned on the day of his funeral. Johnson re-escalted afterwards; however, Eisenhower sent the first troops. US standing takes a hit. Post-Carter Economy: US economy was not fully recovered from the early '70s "stagflation" under Nixon, who I thought got us through fairly well (remember the wage-price freeze?). However, remember Reagan abandoned his "supply side" "voodoo" economics in his second term due to a faltering economy. Recovery occurred during Clinton's admin and continued on until 9/11. Your revisionist history is more a rant against the left than supported by facts...gee, what a surprise! Don't you think it was the Germans, Japanese, N Koreans/Red Chinese or N Vietnameses fault we got involved in these wars, not the Dems? Ultimatley, we will need to work together, party affiliations not withstanding. But Richard, your view of history is more fantasy than fact.

Kato -- The reality "on the ground" in Iraq is that three years into this little adventure we cannot even provide electrical power and drinking water, let alone even begin to administer the complex restructuring of Iraqi society that sounds so intellectually satisfying. And make no mistake: If you can't provide power and water you cannot get anyone affected by those crucial things to listen to you for two seconds. That is military as well as political reality. Biden's "plan" is, at best, simply more pie-in-the-sky talk about "democratizing" a world to which the entire concept is anathema -- if not before our invasion, than certainly now. That is also political and military reality. At worst, this "plan" is just another attempt to justify under high-flown phrases our continued investment in Halliburton, et al's enormous stake in Mesopotamia. The time-line for creation of even half the ambitious schemes (assuming the civil war there doesn't prevent any of them from getting two feet off the ground) you speak of will have to be measured in decades (with our fighting men and women paying in blood throughout), while we are being told, one year at a time, to just wait until the next step is accomplished before bringing our guys home. The military and political reality is actually this: Sooner or later we will need to stage a fighting withdrawal from a self-created hell-hole that does not want us or our concepts -- has, in fact, been growing progressively sick and tired of western interference in its affairs since Iraq was artificially carved into existence after WWI. And the sooner we start asking those of our generals who were right all along about Iraq how best to stage that fighting withdrawal, the sooner we start to bring our world-wide defensive posture into something like a realistic alignment with the total sum of military and political challenges we face across the globe. Stop fixating on how to make Iraq come out "right" -- it will never justify anyone's decision to go there in the first place, our anyone's vote to let that decision take place. Only the same hubris that led us into the quicksand would lead one to conclude that, as we sink deeper into it, we can talk it into reformnmg itself in our own federalist image.

Acid Boy -- Good overview. Interestingly enough, many Germans at the time would have said it was the Russians who truly broke the Reich and exposed it to Allied invasion at Normandy; and Stalin(!) gave credit for the Russian victory to ... GMC for sending enormous quantities of really good, dependable trucks, without which Soviet counter-offensives could never have gotten off the ground. Just a footnote, AB ...

Hey guys -- what happened to my Kato Critique?

clikdawg, Revisionist history has taken note of your argument. Stalin was always suspicious of the numerous meetings and the friendship between Churchill and FDR. Stalin actually believed that the Allies were stalling on the European invasion thereby not providing the two front war and relief that he wanted. Stalin used this thinking to extract the concessions where the Allies would halt their advance in Europe at Yalta and the "democratic elections" for Eastern Europe and divisdion of Berlin and Germany atPotsdam from the US and England thereby setting the stage for the Cold War.

Revisionist History ... interesting term, since only some sixty years have passed since WWII, and the first wave of "histories" concerning any war at all are always self-serving manifestos written by the winner. After fifty years I think you start getting a view which (given the publish-or-perish nature of the historical fraternity) consists of attacks on that first wave of "histories" -- with an emphasis on book-selling sensationalism and contrarianism, but which never-the-less allows folks to start thinking a little more clearly about what may or may not have happened. After 75 years or so, we at last reach the point where (to use an example) neither the British NOR the Germans prior to and during WWI look particularly appetizing, idealistic, or "right"; and after 100 years (except in cases of civil war) everybody pretty much just agrees that businessmen and self-deluded politicos were behind the whole thing all along, and that Everybody was a fool to go along with such murderously meaningless carnage -- even while neglecting to apply that knowledge to whatever murderously meaningless carnage Everybody is currently engaged in. The more things change ...

Acid Boy: If you re-read my post, there was a point being made to Amy B from Portland, ME. Basically, it was "don't fight generalizations with generalizations." I think it's equally silly to be saying that liberals have to clean up all the conservatives' messes as it is to associate body counts with Democrat administrations. I usually don't do it unless some liberal blames conservatives for everything. For the record, I agree with virtually everything you said about World War I and II. Anyway, I never said I was opposed to our involvement in those conflicts, even though history shows that many people were. I will always defend Harry Truman's decision to drop the bombs and I can't find anywhere in my post where I said otherwise. I believe our involvement in Korea was overwhelmingly the right thing to do, especially comparing modern South Korea with the communist northern dictatorship. I never said one time that Republicans haven't had their share of screw-ups although we could go on forever regarding our interpretation of certain events. I realize this is probably a really deficient economic question, but if we assume the conditions for the poor Carter economy existed when he took office, how is that in four years it got worse? The only president who took longer to turn around an economy was FDR, and he needed a war to do it. Alert: That last sentence was a gratuitous cheap shot strictly for partisan political discussion purposes. Also, if we agree the characteristics of a deteriorating economy are developing months, if not years before they manifest themselves, can we also agree that George Bush is not responsible for the recession early in his term (or Reagan for that matter)or that Bill Clinton didn't personally construct the strong economy of the 90's? You see, in the current political climate, Democrats, who will likely win the presidency are in the position of blaming Bush for a bad economy if it turns by then, or claiming credit for a good economy if it continues. That's just political BS, not economics. I know enough about the economy and economics to understand that economies don't obey the whims of politicians. Politicians bow and scrape to the whims of the economy. They take credit for it and they are blamed for it, but that's about it. Every single one of them. But thanks for the condescension anyway. Just one other thing to clear up. Since we have never been at war with Iran, how is it that they used our weapons on our troops? Maybe you meant Iraq, who used three percent of their weapons on us, the other 97 % being Russian, French and Chinese? Anyway, I don't think there is much disagreement from me on most of your basic facts. Of course, as is the way with people, we would probably find significant disagreement on the application of most of them. Didn't all this start with Joe Biden? On that note, Amy from PA is still the best post here and I think we've proved it.

clikdawg, I would agree in part and and disagree in part. After 75 years, new documents are released and other primary source documents that would give a new perspective on a historical event (war or non war). While you may attribute this to the publish or perish mentality of academia, some historians truly are fascinated by a period, event or person to write about it. Do we learn from our (mankind)mistakes, generally no. A case in point would be the Iraq situation. Not to sound like a survey of Western Civilization prof, but compare the overall generalities of insurgency of the American Revolution, Viet Nam, Afghan Resistance to the Soviets and Iraq war. The first three were successful and the jury is out on the last one. revisionist can be applied to a host of genres, the movies come to mind with revisionist Westerns, i.e., McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Dances with Wolves, Unforgiven.

Clikdawg: Yeah, it sure would have been nice if Bush never got us into this quagmire in Iraq in the first place. But now we have to deal with reality pal. And an immediate withdrawal is not the answer. A policy of immediate withdrawal is nothing but shortsighted. Iraq is a mess and we created it. We shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place - containment of Saddam via the UN was the best policy. Now that we removed him and caused all this chaos, we have a responsibility to try and remedy the situation. Historically there have been four options for dealing with long term sectarian conflicts of this nature. The first option is to do nothing. I suppose that's what you advocate by insisting on an immediate withdrawal. That is sure folly. It means you let the civil war escalate until one sect obliterates and destroys the other. It means mass genocide and a possible haven for extremists such as al-queda. It could lead to an escalation of the strife between the sects drawing in Iran, Saudi Arabia, perhaps even Turkey. The second option is to replace one dictator (Saddam) with another dictator. The time for that option has long since past. No one sect will now relinquish its new-found freedom to be ruled by a dictator from an opposing sect. The third option is to occupy the country. I think we all agree that we do not want to be a long-term occupier of the country. They don't want us there, and we don't want to be there. Occupation was a disaster for the British after WWI. The fourth option is to find a political solution like we did in Bosnia. Biden's plan isn't trying to create am Iraqi state in our image. It's trying to craft a political solution that gives all sects a vested interest in their own affairs by granting them a degree of autonomy within a weak federal state. Once you give the Sunnis a viable state within a state, the hope is they will stop sabotaging the infrastructure and reconstruction projects. I suppose an alternative plan would be to divide Iraq into three separate countries, but that really is a nonstarter because the Sunnis would have no oil fields. That is why you have to maintain a weak federal system in order to ensure all three sects get oil money to remain viable. Make no mistake, I want our troops home. It's very naive to think you can unilaterally withdraw without serious global consequences to the Iraqi people, the Arabian pennisula, Iran, Afghanistan, America and the West in general.

Richard, I won't address everything you stated because I agree with some and disagree with some. I also didn't know this was a competition with Amy being the winner. I will elabotate on my Iran and weapons statements. Reagan sold weapons to Iran in return for hostage in Lebanon. That is known. Iran founded and supplies Hezbollah in Lebanon (at the time). Hezbollah used the weapons to take pot shots at the Marines stationed at the end of an airstrip (talk about an indefensible position)in Beruit. The explosives in the suicide truck bomb had U.S. origin (C-4).

Richard, I won't address everything you stated because I agree with some and disagree with some. I also didn't know this was a competition with Amy being the winner. I will elabotate on my Iran and weapons statements. Reagan sold weapons to Iran in return for hostage in Lebanon. That is known. Iran founded and supplies Hezbollah in Lebanon (at the time). Hezbollah used the weapons to take pot shots at the Marines stationed at the end of an airstrip (talk about an indefensible position)in Beruit. The explosives in the suicide truck bomb had U.S. origin (C-4).

Fa'r 'nuff, AB -- you awright, Cowpoke ...

Richard, I keep breaking my pledge to myself not react to the right wing posters here. My "why do liberals always have to clean up after conservatives" line was a reaction to the post above mine "one liberal senator with guts to vote for our troops." When my chain is jerked, I say dumb things.

Wow: a liberal with a backbone. Well done, Joe.

Eh, no one notices what Biden does anyway. For years he's been touting a far more specific plan for getting us out of this Iraq mess than any other politician I heard... and for years the administration and its supporters kept saying no one had an alternative plan. Biden is like the invisible guy. I like him and wish he had more backing, so he'd be a bigger player in this larger debate... but in the end he's just another senator who has taken on the personna of a little kid with ADHD - talks so much that no one listens.

clikdawg, acidboy, kato,et al. - very well stated. For the record, all these discussions have been beautifully handled. I certainly don't mind and, in fact, love to hear opinions different from mine when expressed with reason as well as passion. Back to the topic: IMHO - Biden was wrong in the vehicle justification. If he supported the bill for other reasons, fine. However, as stated previously, such large project funding is never an "emergency" as Biden seemed to imply. Delaying passage of the bill by days, weeks, or even months would not have affected that one small portion. We would either have approved that equipment or not sooner or later. In any event, the time it takes to produce that stuff wouldn't have gotten it to Iraq in the time frame of passing this bill.

Do you see he word "immediate" anywhere in my essay? That's because it isn't there. Ditto "unilaterally". I see the words "sooner or later"; and I see the words "the sooner we start asking those of our generals who were right about Iraq all along about Iraq how best we can stage that fighting withdrawal ... etc." -- and I'll stand behind them. Pal. Because the things you want are based on the same groundless "hopes" the original mistake was based on, and when the dust settles there will be no viable "weak federal system" that lasts three weeks without American troops , and someone's going to have to be ready to fight our way out. Yap at me all you want -- Pal -- the fact remains that no one over there trusts us to broker the deal honestly or competently, and we don't trust them either; and that doesn't spell "political solution" in any way, shape or form. If the Sunnis can use sabotage to successfully achieve "a degree of autonomy", why will they not use it to achieve a further "degree" -- and a further? And the longer we're there, the more civilians we kill, and the more the rank-and-file organism as a whole will seek instinctively to eject the foreign material -- regardless of any deals being brokered by its supposed leadership. At some point, the American public will have had enough as well; and that's where my generals come in. Your arguments are more properly directed at the Fates and the Furies than at me: None of what I've pointed out is false; was brought into being or wished for by me; or can be dissolved by either me or you by telling fairy tales about how these ancient enemies will somehow be brought together through the Power of Positive Thinking and a really good American-style constitution. Oh, yeah -- you have utterly neglected the part about how we cope with other military and political threats while our primary resources are tied up in Iraq and our political and military pull is daily diminished by that fact. Tunnel vision'll get you what tunnel vision always does -- Pal -- a poke in the eye with a sharp stick where and when you least expect it or are able to successfully respond. But then guys like you have apparently learned this much at least from George Bush: How to accuse your opponent of your own short-comings. Best o' luck with that pyramid scheme, Kato -- but it's dollars to donuts you'll need those generals and that withdrawal plan before the place goes up in flames and the dire results you fear from a planned exit will be visited on you by a forced one. And figuring odds is what military success is all about; following up our initial failure to do so by continuing to not do so is, well ... how shall I put this most gently? Insane.

Oh Kato, you made too much sense, brother.

Acidboy posted: Reagan sold weapons to Iran in return for hostage in Lebanon. That is known. Iran founded and supplies Hezbollah in Lebanon (at the time). Hezbollah used the weapons to take pot shots at the Marines stationed at the end of an airstrip (talk about an indefensible position)in Beruit. The explosives in the suicide truck bomb had U.S. origin (C-4). Incorrect. From Danny A. Defenbaugh, the on-scene FBI forensic explosive investigator in the official report on the bombing. "[W]e were able to, through the forensic residue analysis, identify the explosive material, and it was unconsumed particles of PETN . . . . PETN is a primary explosive that is manufactured commercially and primarily for U.S. military purposes. It is a primary explosive that is used in detonating cord. Detonating cord is nothing more than a plastic and fiber-wrapped cord that has the PETN, which looks like a white powder . . . that is then extruded inside of that cord . . . . In this case, it was not [consumed]; we found unconsumed particles of PETN. That was just like we had found also in the American Embassy bombing. What that means is that it had to have been from a bulk explosive, it had to have been from a manufacturer."
Defenbaugh explained that when the commercially-manufactured form of PETN is detonated, it is completely consumed in the ensuing explosion. The presence of unconsumed particles of PETN at the Marine barracks blast site, therefore, indicated that the PETN used in the bomb had not been the standard commercially-available form of the explosive. Instead, it had been the raw “bulk form” of PETN, which is not generally sold commercially. In the Middle East, the bulk form of PETN is produced by state-sponsored manufacturers for military purposes. In 1983, bulk form PETN was not manufactured in the nation of Lebanon. However, at that time, bulk form PETN was manufactured within the borders of Iran. So there it is Acid. Might want to get your facts in line before putting on the tinfoil hat. :) http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/iran/ptrsniran53003opn.pdf

Anyone who is in public life, particularly those in the rarified levels of the three branches of the Federal Government, shows enormous courage just by being there. Every breath, every statement, every action is monitored and scrutinized by the world at large; their mistakes are magnified, their successes fleeting. They are never forgiven for past mistakes or youthful indiscretions, most of which are dredged up and examined throughout their careers. Senator Biden has done a creditable job for the State of Delaware and for the country, albeit not one free of some bad judgements, unfortunate statements, and misguided thinking at times. Unlike the rest of us, who get to mature in relative privacy, he has chosen to grow up in the public eye in the service of his constituents and country. He has paid in many ways for his errors, and his human losses have been horrific. Interestingly, I was in Senator Biden's undergraduate class at the University of Delaware, and I remember him as one of the good guys - he had a good heart and was very idealistic. We were the generation inspired by JFK, RFK, MLK, and the Civil Rights movement at large. We were also the generation disillusioned by asassinations, the KKK, and a war we did not understand. So, maybe, just maybe, Senator Biden means what he says and believes in doing the right thing. Disagree with him, descry his politics, campaign against him, but let's not deliberately misread his motives. I think he believed the essence of his vote was directed toward helping our fighting men and women, not necessariy a politically motivated action. Beyond that, many of the forgoing commentators are far more knowledgeable and well-versed in the processes and origin of bombs and materiels than I and I can't debate them effectively. Guess I think we need to expect a lot from and applaud the best parts of our public officials in order for them to want to do the right thing more often. Who is Joe Biden? Pretending not to know Biden or ignoring his influence is lame. In reality, the blog is about Biden's decision to vote the way he did on a particular issue, and many of you used the situation to digress and expound your positions and knowledge about other stuff (which was, in fact, fascinating and illuminating). That you did so, however, does not validate Amy's rhetorical question.

a sell out vote. expected more from Biden. An explanation of what Bush is doing might have helped. Too late to looking strong when it is weak.real weak.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):