BIDEN Decries Republican Refusal to Vote on Iraq War on Senate Floor Today
July 18, 2007




BIDEN: "The time now is to stop digging a hole, redeploy our forces, save American lives and begin to push a political settlement.


BIDEN: "Al Qaeda in Iraq is a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. It did not exist in Iraq, prior to our invasion."


Washington, DC - Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) delivered the following remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate today:


Mr. Biden: Madam President, I share the frustration of my friend from Pennsylvania and I'm sure—I remember when my colleague, Senator Byrd—whom I still call the leader—was leader when I got here after Senator Mansfield, that, the way in which—how things have changed in many ways. One of the things that's changed, Madam President, is what we saw take place today. Here, the single most critical issue facing the United States of America today, the carnage that's taking place in Iraq, the fact that our blood and treasure is being spilled with no apparent end in sight, the notion that we would have to resort to a filibuster to stop a vote of a majority—clear majority—of United States senators who believe that there is an urgent need to change course in Iraq is not only dismaying, but the consequence of it, I believe, is to kick the can down the road another two to three months. In the meantime, many Americans are going to be injured and killed who I believe are not—that could be avoided.

You know, ever since the Democrats took back the congress, we've been working to build pressure on the administration and, quite frankly, on a number of our Republican colleagues to change course in Iraq. And because I don't believe there are a dozen Republican senators who agree with the president's present position. I don't believe there's a dozen Republican senators who believe that the results are going to be fundamentally different on September the 5th than they are today, although I respect the fact that they've concluded they want to wait to give the president every opportunity to demonstrate that his plan can work.


But here's the problem, Madam President, with all due respect. The problem is that we're faced with two false choices here in the Congress. One is, the one put forward by the administration and sustained by a minority of votes—overwhelmingly Republican—that says that we should continue to do what we're doing and essentially hand off the problem to the next president. I don't know anybody here who believes that through escalating this conflict, adding American forces, there's any reasonable prospect that that will bring about the only thing that will end this war in our interest, that is a political settlement among—among the Iraqis. And then there's a number of Democrats who have a view out of frustration that we must begin to get out of there—get out and hope for the best. And their premise, some of them, as well, that, look, there isn't any reasonable prospect of us being able to do this militarily—and they're right—and the hope is that somehow if we get out, the Iraqis, the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shias will have a bit of an epiphany, as we Catholics would say, that they'll get together and say, oh my goodness, America and leaving and we better get together and settle our differences here or things are going to completely implode. Well the fundamental strategic flaw in all of that thinking, Madam President, in my humble opinion and I know I'm like a broken record, I've been saying this for over three years and I've laid out a concrete plan over a year ago, the fundamental flaw in this is there's no possibility in the lifetime of any member of this Senate for there to be a coherent central government in Baghdad that has the ability to gain the faith and trust of the people of Iraq and the ability to govern that country. It will not happen. Mark my words. There is no possibility of that happening.


Never [in] my research have I found, ever, has there been a situation where there's been a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian violence, a self-sustaining civil war-exactly what we have now in Iraq—that it has ended in any other than one of four ways. A major power goes in and occupies the country for a generation or more. Not an option available to us, nor is it in our DNA to do that. We are not—we are not the British Empire, we are not the Ottoman Empire, we are not the Persian Empire. Nor do we want to be. The second option is, install a dictator. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony for the United States of America to install a dictator? Third option, pick a side. Wage in on one side of the sectarian violence, wipe out the other side. Not a good option. A, it would be immoral, B, it would take a couple of years and three, it would ignite a Sunni-Shia revolution from the Mediterranean to the Himalayas. And there has been a fourth way where it's ended. And that is by establishing a federal system within the country, separating the parties, giving them control over the fabric of their daily lives, their own security forces in their own neighborhoods, their own laws relating to religion, education, marriage, divorce, property, jobs—a federal system. And coincidentally, that's exactly what the Iraqi Constitution calls for in Article One. It says we are a decentralized federal system. So, absent a political settlement, there is no way out.



I'll make a prediction that I shouldn't make because I've been here, around here, long enough to know that everything you say on this floor you are reminded of if you turn out to be wrong. If you are right you're never reminded of it—if you turn out to be wrong, you are reminded whether it is six months, six years or 12 years later. I honestly believe, absent a radical change in course resulting in the federal system existing within Iraq, the only option the next president of the United States is going to have is going to be a reenactment of the scene of Saigon with helicopters lifting people off the roofs of the embassy in the green zone. That's how it's going to end—in disaster. I not only don't want my son who is a captain in the United States National Guard going to Iraq, I don't want my grandson going or my granddaughter. And how we leave Iraq, what shape we leave it in, what prospect for a political settlement exists will determine whether my grandson goes back 15 years from now.



So, Madam President, all we did today was take what was originally called the Biden-Hagel etcetera resolution that we introduced in January, then the Biden-Levin resolution, then the Reed, or Levin-Reed-Biden, et al, and now the Levin-Reed amendment—they all do the same thing. There is not a dime's worth of difference. And what they all said was this: Mr. President, the first thing you do when you are in a hole is stop digging. Stop digging us deeper into this disaster. Cease and desist from placing our troops in the midst of a civil war. We're in the midst of a civil war. The quote "success" we're having in Anbar province, what is it doing? It's making the Shia conclude that we are arming and engaging with the Sunnis and the former Ba'athists, making it harder for us to get the Shia to agree to action on the oil law which would be the thing to get the Sunnis to buy into a united Iraq. We're in the midst of a civil war. And the whole thesis of the idea we came forward with as early as January and we voted on again today is to say get out of that civil war. Use American forces for only three express purposes: One, one, train the Iraqi army; two, deny al Qaeda occupation of large swaths of territory, particularly in Anbar province; and three, protect our diplomats there.


Ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues in the Senate, last week we heard President Bush give a progress report on Iraq and it reminded me of a guy who jumps off 100-story building and he is passing the 50th floor, somebody yells out "how's it going," and he yells back "so far, so good." That's the summary of the president's report except that it's not even going well so far. And the outcome is absolutely certain—continued disaster. Also last week, Bob Woodward revealed that back if in November, the CIA Director Michael Hayden made the very point I've been making for two years in a private meeting with Iraqi Study Group. He said quote "the inability of the central government to govern is irreversible," end of quote. There is quote "no milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around," end of quote. Our director of the CIA and all of intelligence came along and—excuse me of the CIA then went on to say "we have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government that cannot function," end of quote. What more do we need? I ask my colleagues what more do you need? Our own intelligence community has been saying since last November that the inability of the central government to govern is irreversible. Irreversible!


Ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, nothing has happened since General Hayden made his remarks to change that assessment. The time now is to stop digging that hole, redeploy our forces, save American lives and begin to push a political settlement. I'll conclude by saying yesterday, Madam President, yesterday's release of the unclassified key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate, quote "in the terrorist threat to the United States homeland," end of quote, highlights the urgency of changing our course in Iraq. The so-called NIE is a devastating indictment of the administration's failure to accomplish its most important mission: destroying al Qaeda and the threat it poses. It confirms what was reported last week. The al Qaeda we failed to finish off in Afghanistan and Pakistan, because we went into Iraq, has quote "regenerated," and it remains intent on attacking us at home. That should put to rest once and for all this administration's false refrain that we're fighting over there so we don't have to fight them over here. That's rubbish. And our own intelligence—the N.I.E. is, all the intelligence agencies in the United States government coming to a consensus position. It spotlights the danger posed by al Qaeda in Iraq, a group independent but now affiliated with al Qaeda, of Bin Laden. Al Qaeda in Iraq, Madam President, is a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. Say it again: al Qaeda in Iraq is a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. It did not exist in Iraq, prior to our invasion. The failed policies, the failure to deal with an administrative policy, a political solution, what it does now is it helps al Qaeda energize extremists around the world, raise money for new recruits, and become stronger, all the more reason we must act now, Madam President, to refocus our energies and resources on al Qaeda and start to get our troops out of Iraq's civil war while limiting the mission of those that remaining to deny al Qaeda in Iraq a safe haven.



Finally, Madam President, I say to my colleagues that regardless of your views on the war and how to end it, there is one commitment each and every one of us should make. That commitment is so long as there is a single, a single American troop in Iraq, a single American troop in Iraq that we should do all that is needed to give them the best possible protection this country can provide. And the way to start with that is these mine-resistant vehicles, to replace the Humvees with these vehicles that in our last authorization—our, the supplemental, I was able to convince our colleagues to add $1.7 billion more to build them. These vehicles have a v-shaped hull and they can reduce causalities from roadside bombs by up to 80%, and right now 70% all casualties taking place in Iraq are because of roadside bombs.

Madam President, I'm going to, I will offer an amendment to the defense bill when we get to it to make clear, without absolutely no ambiguity, that Congress will provide every single dollar needed and every authority necessary to build these vehicles as quickly as possible because our kids are dying. Our kids are dying and it can be radically reduced, the number of casualties. So let me conclude. Mr. President, by saying, our Republican colleagues say, and even my colleagues all of whom I respect, but ones I particularly respect like Senator Lugar, that they expect the President to voluntarily change course. Mr. President, I have absolutely no faith, none whatsoever, in this President being able to voluntarily do what should be done. The only way it's going to happen is when my Republican friends stop voting for the President and start voting to end this war by supporting our troops. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

8 years ago, Congress was presented with an opportunity to keep Bush out of the White House, NO ONE did a damn thing about it..now they are crying foul?? The dems with their slim majority are still sitting on their butts when they should have started an impeachment process against Bush, but nothing....

It reeks of hipocrasy and political self interest....

Actually it was the U.S. Supreme Court that put him in office not Congress. They stopped the recount on the butterfly ballots. While Bush and his Campaign were banging on doors and windows of where the recounts were being done. Which is illegal. He got the U.S. Supreme Court to stop counting the votes. That is the truth of the matter in a nutshell. He would of not won if all the votes were recounted.
It is in the history books.

Correct, Then Al Gore got to oversea dozens of people trying to get a stop put on the Courts ruling, but they could not get one single Sen. to sign the bill.

IN one case one of the people presenting her paperwork was very angry and she said: "I have my complaints right here and I don't care that it's not signed by a Senator!"

TO which Al Gore responded, "The Chair notes and would like to add, The RULES care."

In the United States you still have the electoral college, remember that Gore won the popular vote, but did not win the electoral vote..THAT was the point of contention amd as warmachine pointed out, where congress failed the American people...you need to get rid of that electoral vote and do as the rest of the world does, one person, one vote, majority wins...

The public expresses more support for the Supreme Court than for the president or Congress. The public dislikes the disagreements and debates and the negotiations and compromises among governmental officials and it deplores the efforts of interest groups to influence governmental policies. These messy features of democratic government, which are visible in the executive and legislative branches, are not visible in the judicial branch. Many people conclude that they do not occur.
Indeed, many people assume that courts are nonpolitical and that judges are objective. People say we have 'a government of laws, not of men.' But this view is a myth. At any time in our history, 'it is individuals who make, enforce and interpret the law.' When judges interpret the law, they are political actors and the courts are political institutions.

Thus public support for the Supreme Court and the lower courts rests partly on false assumptions about the absence of politics in this branch.

The 2000 election will be remembered as the election won by the candidate, Bush, who got fewer votes than his rival, Gore, and the election decided by the United States Supreme Court. The division in the Electoral College WAS CLOSE, and the decision rested on the outcome in Florida where election mismanagement, partisan politics, and unavoidable human error came together to create chaos in a closely divided race.

Election Day exit polls of Florida voters showed Gore winning by a small margin. Then networks declared Bush the winner, then in early morning hours decided it was too close to call.
Confusion reigned in the days afterward.
Thousands of Gore votes were lost because of the strange 'butterfly' ballot configuration in Palm Beach County, a heavily Democratic Liberal county. The odd format, designed by the supervisor of elections in the county, made it difficult for some voters to determine which punch hole corresponded to which presidential candidate.
Even though it was recognized early on Election Day by some distraught voters leaving the polling places, there was no way that local election officials felt they could fix the problem then.

More than three thousand voters pushed the hole registering a vote for Patrick Buchanan, to the right of Gore's name on the ballot. This is particularly ironic because of the areas of Palm Beach County casting the most votes for Buchanan were those inhabited by mostly elderly Jewish voters, the least likely group to support Buchanan, who is thought to be anti-Semitic. As on elderly Jewish woman exclaimed after mistakenly voting for Buchanan, 'I would rather have had a colonoscopy than vote for that S O B Buchanan.
Nearly 3 thousand voted for Gore and the socialist candidate whose punch hole was underneath Gore, apparently thinking they voted for Lieberman, Gore's vice presidential running mate, whose name was under Gore's.

While some spoiled ballots are normal in every election, this erratic pattern in one county was a result of the badly designed ballot.

There was also a problem with the oversea ballots. Americans overseas have the right to vote. They must ask for a ballot before the election and mail it by the day of the election, but the ballot does not need to be received by local officials until ten days after the election. There are strict rules about how these ballots are to be certified to avoid vote fraud: for example, the ballots have to have legible overseas postmarks showing the ballot was cast on or before the election day and the voters had to have registered in advance. But hundreds of these ballots came in without postmarks or with U.S. postmarks, from voters who were not registered, or that lacked a witness.

After the election, Gore and the Democrats pursued a conservative strategy to deal with these problems that likely cost him the election. Nothing could be done about the butterfly ballot problem save a revote, and nothing in Florida law allowed that. To deal with tens of thousands of incompletely punched cards throughout the state, Gore asked only for a recount in four strongly Democratic counties. Later, after the Bush campaign sued to stop the recount, Gored did challenge Bush to have a recount in every county, but did not file suit to accomplish it. Finally, when the Florida Supreme Court mandated a recount in every county, so much time had elapsed that the U.S. Supreme Court threw up its hands and gave the election to Bush.

The biggest mistake of the Democrats was not to challenge the overseas votes, even the hundreds that were patently illegal under Florida laws. Indeed, 680 were flawed, including nearly 2 hundred with U.S. postmarks, indicating that they had been mailed from within the country rather than from overseas; 344 were late, illegible, or missing postmarks; and even 38 reflected double voting by 19 voters. Clearly the local election judges would have thrown these out had Democratic Party representatives challenged them. But they did not, out of a timid concern about not wanting to appear against voting rights of overseas armed forces personnel, even fraudulent ones.

As a consequence of the illegal military ballots alone, Gore lost Florida by 537 votes when his Election Day margin was 202 votes.

The Bush post election campaign was more skillful and more aggressive. At one point the Bush campaign even organized a demonstration to intimidate election officials in Miami-Dade County to stop conducting a recount they were in the middle of Demonstrators barged into the building, yelling and pounding on doors.

Photos from that event showed that many of the 'demonstrators' were staffers in conservative congressional Republican offices who had been sent to Florida to do this, though at the time the election officials recounting the ballot did not know that. The demonstration succeeded in getting the officials to halt the recount.

The Bush campaign was also more aggressive in persuading election officials how to treat overseas ballots. Repub. representatives urged election officials in Democratic-majority counties to follow the law in handling overseas ballots, so illegal ballots would not be counted;

In Repub. counties, they urged election officials to disregard the law, so illegal ballots would be counted.

In addition, the Bush campaign had strong political allies in Florida. Not only was Bush's brother the governor, but the secretary of state, who oversees the election system, was co-chair of Bush's Florida campaign. Making little effort to appear nonpartisan, every opportunity she ruled in favor of the Bush campaign and forced the Gore campaign to go to court to obtain recounts and redress.

Time also worked for the Bush campaign. The Bush campaign used delaying tactics to slow and stop recounts.

Two independent scholars argue that the probability is about 99 percent that Gore would have won if the invalid overseas ballots were handled properly and statewide recount was allowed under any reasonable standard for counting chads.

Quoted from; American Government-Political Science text.