Biden Iraq plan passes

Posted: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:25 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Security

From NBC’s Ken Strickland
In a strong rebuff to the Bush Administration on Iraq, the Senate overwhelming approved a plan by Biden that essentially calls for breaking Iraq into three sections: Kurd, Sunni, and Shia. While the amendment is nonbinding, it's the first measure to pass, (vote was 75-23,) that goes against the administration's war strategy.

Biden's chief co-sponsor was Brownback. Fellow candidates Clinton and Dodd also supported the plan. Obama and McCain did not vote.

In a news conference after the vote, Biden said his plan is consistent with the Iraqi constitution which calls Iraq to be made up of "a decentralized capital, regions, and governorates, and local administrations." Biden says this plan illustrates how to "end this war in a way that we are able to ultimately to bring our troops home and leave a stable Iraq behind... [that] is consistent with the Iraqi constitution." He described it as "pushing on an open door."

The bipartisan measure also calls on the five permanent members of the United Nations and members of the international community to convene a conference to help the Iraqis set up the federal regions. "We all agree... it's time to make Iraq the world's problem, not just ours."

Republican Senator John Warner, instrumental and influential in almost all things related to Iraq, called the vote an "extraordinary moment because it marks the high-water mark of all the many debates and resolutions we've had in terms of bipartisanship."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

The real question is what affect will this non-binding resolution do make into law some political solution in Iraq? A non-binding resolution cannot be made into law,its just a statement made by the Senate on what they or they do not disagree with. There maybe a reason why OB did not show up for the last two bills. Do you think its because they cannot be make into law in the first place?

James (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:59 PM)

Gary:Why? You people forget that this Partition of the Unwilling is going to have exactly the same effect as the partition now being effected between the Palestinians and the Jews. And this time,Biden will deal with several differant players all angling for Iraqi supremacy with no ''honest brokers''[forget the UN.They can't even keep the Bekka Valley in Lebanon safe], to keep the warring factions from tearing at each other. And as with Korea,there remains a very real danger that the factions will draw in outside players to act for the Sunnis and the Shias,widening the conflict,with the Kurds left isolated,trapped between competing Turk and Iranian ambitions. How Biden deals with all of these issues is anyones guess.

Lee Holmes (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:02 PM)

Non-binding, what the hell is that! What is the purpose of saying anything if you don't mean it. Besides, we have no legal power to partition someone elses soveriegn country. We better be careful as all we have is a small defeated army and the history of shooting our self in the foot.

Pacheck, Huntington Beach, Ca. (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:05 PM)

75 to 23, that's pretty lopsided. That means that half of the Republican Senators voted with Biden. Very impressive. The tide may be turning.

Like It Is (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:16 PM)

Hillary Hawk bow$ to Repubs and war profiteer$ - funding her campaign!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/26/133755/160

She refuses to apologize for her last war vote - and now IraN?? Yikes!

Margaret, NYC (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:17 PM)

Pacheck - Again, Iraq is not a sovereign country. If it was, we could hightail it the hell out of there and leave them to clean up their own damn mess. It is an occupied nation - occupied by the U.S. and the coalition of the willing. It's just too bad the coalition of the willing doesn't include Iraqis.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:17 PM)

Partitioning is a cumbersome solution that only continues our amoral nation-building exercise. Partitioning invariably results in perverse difficulties and given our past and current mismanagement of Iraq, one can only assume a partitioning would be equally mismanaged in the future.

Further, a partitioning will not improve stability, even remotely. It places existing oil fields directly in Iran's sphere of influence (which is bound to be demonized by the west), undeveloped Sunni oil territory at the disposal of foreign development (which is bound to be demonized by the middle-east), and Kurdish Iraq at the mercy of Turkey/Iran.

1i, Atlanta GA (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:18 PM)

"The problems in Iraq are bigger than one man. Iraq needs a new Constitutional convention that would include representatives from all levels of Iraqi society - in and out of government. The United Nations should play a central role in convening and participating in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached. To reconcile, the Iraqis must also meet key political benchmarks outside of the Constitutional process, including new local elections and revising debaathification.

Now the Iraqis may come out of this process choosing some kind of soft partition into three regions - one Sunni, one Shia, one Kurd. But it must be their choice. America should not impose the division of Iraq.

While we change the dynamic within Iraq, we must surge our diplomacy in the region."
This is a quote from senator Obama speech in Iowa september 12, 2007
Full speech here:
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/12/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_23.php

I'm leaning toward him but I'm still shopping around. However on this point i'm ashamed of what this country has become. This country was born on a fight against colonialism. Today we are not better than the European colonial empires of the 19th century who ended up failing. Why not a vote on a referendum where the Iraqis will have to decide on the future of their country. Why representatives of US citizens from the states of Delaware or New York will have to decide for Iraqi in Basra, Kirkuk or Mosul. Sure our taxes are spent there but we were never invited there.
I'm a moderate ex-republican who has given up on the GOP. But I'm not sure that that i'll vote for the democratic party on the next election. It seems like there is no voice of reason left in Washington.
Anyone who is interested in History, particularly the middle east history knows that all colonial empires have failed to impose their will in this area for centuries.
Neo-conservatism is to conservatism what radicalism is to moderation.

john, Lancaster, Ca (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:21 PM)

You can certainly tell who are Clinton, Obama, and Edwards supporters. They are the ones dismissing this vote.

At least Biden has the balls to put his name on something, put it to a vote and live with the consequences.

Non-binding means that Biden is offering what he believes to be the best solution to the situation in Iraq. What is significant is that 75% of the Senate agrees with his plan.

If the vote had gone the other way supporters of Clinton, et al, would not be downplaying the vote. They would be throwing it in Biden's face.

Where is your candidates plan?

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:23 PM)

this is what girlie-men do. ( A non binding resolution)

Dondi Reyes (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:25 PM)

I am a die-hard Republican, but Biden has shown his strenghth here by passing something that is bipartisan and a stark alternaive to the Bush plan. Good for Joe!

Richmond, VA (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:26 PM)

this is what girlie-men do. ( A non binding resolution)

Dondi Reyes (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:28 PM)

Such courage from the left...yack yack yack...a non binding resolution that means squat diddly...when are these clowns going to do something meaningful like cut off bush's war funding?

Rick, WS, NC (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:29 PM)

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:30 PM)

Would all of you idiots talking about the "non-binding" issue stop and think for a moment? If it had been binding does that mean the US congress would go over to Iraq and force them to start splitting up into seperate states? We can't "bind" another nation to divide their country. That's why Mr. Biden also brings up the point that this solution is a viable option per THEIR constitution. This is a solution, that if they choose to do it, is constitutional under their law. We cannot pass a law in America that "binds" the Iraqi government to do anything. We can vote to bring troops home, fund them, defund them, but we can't make them divide their country up anymore than we can make homosexuality legal in Iran.

Sprout, Portland, Oregon (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:34 PM)

Sen, Joe Biden is one of the few who understands the history of Iraq, its people and the consequent reality that exists today. Thank you to Joe Biden and Sen. Brownback for having the common sense, intelligence, historical perspective and courage to sponsor this legislation. Kato in Des Moines (above) is right. Iraq has been and remains a fictitious state. President Bush does not seem to have understood this or he has mistakenly chosen to devalue its significance.

John Paone, Mashpee, MA (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:34 PM)

If this plan goes through expect to see increase violence as each group trys to grab as much area as the can for themselves. I am suprised more of you do not see that.

Glenn Woodruff, Castroville, Texas (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:35 PM)

Even if it was binding, and passed with veto proof majorities, it would be ruled unconstitutional. Separation of powers and all that stuff.

How much are we paying these people to do this?

Mo Williams (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:37 PM)

When Saddam was in power, ethnic rivalries and conflicts that went back centuries were subdued by force. Not a nice guy, admittedly, but he did contain the problem. Then the "coalition" comes along, tosses Saddam out of power and has the temerity andarrogance to think they can impose a western style democracy onto a fundamentalist Islamic state that has just
had the lid lifted off a boiling cauldron of ethnic distrust and hate. What did they think was going to happen? Well, they didn't think. Too many people have died in this war; too many potentially productive lives have been lost on both sides. If we were to stay there five more years, we would only see more dead bodies. We would not see Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds working together for a free Iraq. It hasn't happened for centuries; it won't happen now.

Kevin, Olympia, WA (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:37 PM)

Lee Holmes--I was being sarcastic Lee. Damn keyboard is missing it's Semi Sarcastic Colon.
I am very dubious of western powers drawing maps. I have had my fill of so called leaders who disregard history. That is why we are in this forum today.
I am dubious but at this point I only care about reducing the amount of blood shed in this idiot waste of blood and money. Any progress out of the swamp is good progress and may God Damn and take the next President, who leads so poorly, to his reward.

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:39 PM)

Elizabeth - You shouldn't rush to judgment about people based on their favored candidate. I am more a Clinton supporter than any other candidate at this point, although I have not fully made up my mind. I applaud Biden for putting forward a plan, and I think the vote was an important step, nonbinding though it may have been.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:41 PM)

ummm...Sprout..we forced Korea to split into two separate nations..didn't we?? Why not Iraq? Carrie's right they are not a sovereign nation they are an occupied nation. I like Biden's plan--I really do, but it seems to me that the US Senate has more pressing things to do than vote on non-binding resolutions. PERIOD.

Lewis, cincinnati, ohio (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:42 PM)

Joe Biden has had this solution all along. This is why many more people should be looking at him as the clear choice for president. He has a clear and coherent direction for america.
Now lets split the U.S.!!!!!!! Let the republicans destroy humanity as they wish, and they alone shall suffer the inevitable consequences. Let them fear gays, let them go on with out stem cell research, let them self destuct....I want no part of a self serving government again. This BUSH/CHENEY/PELOSI/REID/RUMSFELD/BOLTON/SCHWARTZ/RICE/
GONZALES world is sick. HARVARD should be closed if only for GIVING most of these people degrees. The SYSTEM is clearly broken.
My fix is a FLAT 25% tax on all people and businesses headquartered in the us. Any business existing outside of the US should be taxed at 40%. No hiding funds like in the hedgefunds, if they do this they should be taxed at an even higher rate. Oh and to stop the ceo's from their compensation game, it simply would be that they have a salary only and anything beyond that is still taxable. Stop the B.S...

mr philly pa (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:45 PM)

Hillary Clinton supported Joe Biden and his measure today. Good for her. Obama on the other hand must have been out playing basketball.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:45 PM)

"While the amendment is nonbinding"

worthless resolution.

nothing more to say.

t. hill, carrollton, tx (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:48 PM)

I do not dismiss the vote and I am an Obama supporter. Obama was out of town. He was told by Reid that there would be no votes today and that particular vote was tabled indefinitely. They changed and brought it to a voice vote within minutes. He could not get back in time.

He also missed another vote too unfortunately that they didn't tell you about, per the blog sites :

HomeDiariesBreaking BlueE-Wire 2008BREAKING: HILLARY CLINTON VOTES YES FOR WAR WITH IRAN!!!!
by DerekLarsson, Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 03:25:05 PM EST

She's done it again, folks!
She has shown her true colors and true loyalties once again.

By a vote 76-22, the Senate passed the Joe Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to "combat, contain and [stop]" Iran via "MILITARY INSTRUMENTS." Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment "Cheney's fondest pipe dream" and said it will be "read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action."

Hillary Rodham Clinton voted "YES" to pass this admendment

Everyone else Biden, Dodd, Kerry voted No.

Gray, DC (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:49 PM)

The plan sound good ,but where are you going to draw the imaginary lines ,and whos going to do it. Then who's going to abide by it.I've said from the start this engagement is like having a foriegn country come into America and tell us we can no longer have Baptist ,church of Christ , mormons , Catholics , etc etc. as we are all Christians. We can have one church only .Now all the ministers etc. get together and decide where it is going to be headquarterd ,whos going to be the big cheese .I'll bet you would see a WAR!

Jeffersonian (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:50 PM)

Carrie, Eastern Iowa ----well said! I agree!

Dot, Illinois (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:51 PM)

"We the people..." are being heard. Those that represent us are moving in many possitive directions. Forward momentum in discussions, problem solving, learning, caring and actions (small and large) all culminating at once. Steps to show we too care and support "The people of Iraq" and in Iraq.
Isn't this a good message to the world?
Does the USA, only have the right answers for Iraq (and the World)?
We don't have the right to be the only people to question our actions as a nation.
A Bipartisan resolution that is a good step forward.

Hans J, San Diego, California (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:53 PM)

By the way .I keep hearing the words "non binding " and "we have no right imposing our will on foriegn soil". Well we already have by invading a country without provocation!

Jeffersonian (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:53 PM)

This is not going to work. I think this will add further instability in the Gulf region.
Its like dividing India and Pakistan based on religion. The two countries still have lots of difference even after 60 days.
The option should have been explored before the conflict involving the Iraqi leaders (all groups) who were opposed to the Dictatorship.
First mistake was going to War and this will be the second mistake.

Venki, TwinCities, MN (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:53 PM)

Republican Senator John Warner, instrumental and influential in almost all things related to Iraq, called the vote an "extraordinary moment because it marks the high-water mark of all the many debates and resolutions we've had in terms of bipartisanship."

That is high praise. Sen. Biden proved, once again, that he has the ability to build consensus in DC, not an easy feat, and not something many accomplish.

With respect to the claims that this is meaningless due to it being "non-binding" how many non-binding Iraq related measures have there been? This is not a resolution to re-name a post office, this is a resolution regarding the Senate's belief that their should be a federal system for Iraq. Referring to it as a partition of Iraq is actually wrong, a soft partition with in a federal system, or decentralized federal government would be the accurate characterization.

In any event, Biden has a plan, it may not be perfect, but he's had the guts to not merely claim he knows what to do, and provide no details of how he accomplishes it. Go Joe!

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:54 PM)

Dear Amazed in Atlanta, I am amazed you passed Civics. A non-binding resolution is not anything let alone something President Bush could veto. It is even more useless than a UN resolution. The arrogance of Biden and the other Senators. Let's partition Iraq. Do they want to use our troops to force that?? They do not want to use troops to hunt down militants in Iraq. Do they think the Iraqis will say "Oh thank you for splitting up our country. We will carry out your wishes immediately."

Jim Mansfield, OH (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:56 PM)

Thank You Joe.....

Something that makes sense coming out of the Senate with more than 55 votes, Maybe all is not lost.

Phil, Memphis, TN (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:56 PM)

The stage is now set for the Iraq people to wage war on themselves. A country divided can never stand together without bloodshed.

The sons will pay the price of our foolish and selfish fathers/leaders.

Aiden (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:57 PM)

Amazed you're not! Do you need a definition of nonbinding? Even if it was binding, is it the US authority to spit an independent nation? This is no more than Republicans throwing the Democrats a bone.

t. hill, carrollton, tx (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:57 PM)

This looks better than I first thought. The rednecks on this thread don't like it, so it must be good. What does Jerry of Jesusville think? Come on, please, lets have a few more idiots weighing in.

JIrby, Colorado (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:58 PM)

With Bush acquiescing to "reduce troops" and with the effort to get Blackwater out of Iraq it is becoming clear that any and all efforts to get us further out of Iraq have finally gotten majority support -- except for Dubya.

It isn't entirely clear that enforcing a 3-province division upon Iraq is best. So far our efforts to enforce things on them haven't all proven wonderful and beneficial.

There are regions which are primarily of one ethnicity or sect. We've seen reports about the "Kurdish" north and the Sunni Anbar Province. Maybe the whole country will divide naturally on these lines without our involvement. Maybe Biden's plan is simply to say we're doing the dividing up rather than allowing that it's naturally occurring.

What about the mixed areas? What does the Biden plan do about that?

At some time (soon) we will need to accept that there is a limit to what good we might be able to do on our way out -- and at that time we simply need to recede into the deserts and eventually out of the country altogether.

The only thing that could keep us there is to protect people rather than to kill them or if al Quaeda types follow our troops and we need to fight them. What else could we do that wouldn't continue the disaster?

Does Biden call for withdrawing troops from dangerous areas? Does it call for ONLY fighting al Qaeda types?

There is more work to do to get this done right and we don't yet know whether Republicans will join in those steps.

MarkH, Huntington, WV, USA (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:59 PM)

Lewis, India made the Korean proposal and the United Nations accepted. I'm not aware of any senate resolution, binding or otherwise, that directly impacted Korea the way this bill suggests doing in Iraq. I support this solution but the Iraqi's have to jump on board with it too.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement

Sprout, Portland, Oregon (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:59 PM)

excuse me it should read ... SHULTZ/ROHATYN...these names are synonomous with stealing from the US treasury...please look them up and see what the press says about them, then look further and filter the bs and see what they really are

mr philly pa (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:59 PM)

It is unclear whether or not Biden's plan would promote a situation that ultimately reduces or increases the probability of terrorist "safe zone" formation within Iraq.

What is clear is that we cannot IMPOSE this plan upon an unwilling sovereign Iraqi government. I have seen no indication of any support for this plan by anyone in Iraq - except the Kurds and Muqtada El_Sadr.

Dan Nixon (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:00 PM)

OLD W. will use a SOLID GOLD Pen given to him by the Saudi's to VETO this one BOYS!!!!!!!!!!

Fernando, Miami , FL (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:01 PM)

OLD W. will use a SOLID GOLD Pen given to him by the Saudi's to VETO this one BOYS!!!!!!!!!!

Fernando, Miami , FL (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:01 PM)

Another symbolic vote that is meaningless. What they heck is a vote that is non biding? This vote is all about politics as usual.

In fact, i am happy Obama skip the vote. I think it demonstrate his fraustration with the system.

Why would U.S want to divide a country that is one into three, without getting a buy in from the iraq people? If the country is going to be divided, let it come from the people of Iraq and the international community.

Enough of imposing our will on a soverign nation. Lets put our self in their shoe for a minute; say we are invaded by a country, how would we feal if pertition is imposed on us as a country? Since we don't agree on all issues, would we prefer the invader to divide us into Red and Blue states.

If you answer yes to my questions then imposing pertition on the iraq will definetely work. If your answer is NO, then it is not right to impose our will on them. Let them decide what kind of country they want.

Bee (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:01 PM)

OLD W. will use a SOLID GOLD Pen given to him by the Saudi's to VETO this one BOYS!!!!!!!!!!

Fernando, Miami , FL (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:03 PM)

Sad that the Demo's don't get it. Demo power play, tto bad they can't see the future with their moves to chicken us out.another nail in the coffin of the U.S.........

paul Seattle (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:03 PM)

Lewis, Carrie

Why not a vote on a referendum where the Iraqis will have the possibility to say what they want for their country or how they want it to be? Sure Iraq has never been a national entity but who gave to the American legislators a mandate to decide for millions of Iraqis?
Iraq may not be a nation but during the Iran-Iraq war which last more than eight years, Iraqis Shias fought along with Sunni and Kurds against Iranian Shias.
History is much more complex than many in our congress would like us to believe.
Does anyone in our lawmakers ever heard about Arab nationalism? Again I'm asking is there any voice of reason left in Washington?

john, Lancaster, Ca (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:04 PM)

Does the U.S. government have the right to determine
the form and substance of Iraq? Does the U.S. Senate
intend to help Iraq or is the partition of the country for our own convenience?

J.W. nichols, Jamesburg, NJ (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:15 PM)

Lee Holmes you are either receptive to Biden's plan or you fully accept Bush's weak centralized gov model(ripe for being overtaken by Al-Sadr). While I agree this isn't the golden egg...it's not like there are a host of options to consider in this ill planned occupation. And Dave you seem to care more about liberals looking bad than congress making some progress on finding some semblance of a solution. Just pretend it's Brownback's idea.

CJ (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:19 PM)

It's going to be several years before our troops leave Iraq...what can be done is reducing our footprint and our heavy role in security.

CJ (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:20 PM)

<< Previous

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=380756