Biden letter reminds the NYT that his Iraq strategy was a NYT op-ed

[ProSense]

Strange Times: Key GOP Senator Backs Iraq Pullout -- 'NYT' Opposes

By E&P Staff

Published: August 05, 2006

NEW YORK Two days after Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) called for a phasedwithdrawal from Iraq beginning within six months, a New York Times editorial came out against any such plan, calling Democratic moves in this direction "realithy avoidance....It involves pretending that the nightmare can be ended by adopting a timetable for a phased withdrawal of American troops."

President Bush's policies encourage "the illusion that it is just a matter of time and American support before Iraq evolves into a stable democracy," the Times editorial on Sunday declares. "The Democratic timetable spins a different fantasy: that if the Iraqis are told that American troops will be leaving in stages, at specific dates, their government will rise to the occasion and create its own security forces to maintain order.

more...

http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002950978&imw=Y

Senator Biden's rebuttal:

August 8, 2006

To the Editor:

”A Timetable Isn’t an Exit Strategy” (editorial, Aug. 6) characterizes the Democratic position on Iraq as being nothing more than a call for a phased withdrawal of our troops.

In fact, in a recent letter sent to President Bush, I joined 11 Democratic Congressional leaders in laying out a comprehensive strategy in Iraq that goes well beyond a phased redeployment of American troops.

We urge the president to push Iraqis to reach a sustainable political settlement, including amending the Iraqi Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources.

We underscore the need to disarm the militias. We also call for an international conference to involve key countries and secure resources to finance Iraq’s reconstruction.

The same three-pronged strategy was presented in a Democratic amendment that was defeated by the Republican majority in the Senate.

Further, you allege that Democrats avoid a more far-reaching discussion and are doing nothing to help the public understand the grim options we face.

You published on your May 1 Op-Ed page an article I co-wrote with Leslie H. Gelb that discussed the difficult choices we face and offered a detailed policy prescription for preventing civil war.

Your editorial’s sole policy recommendation is to enlist the help of Iraq’s neighbors and our European allies, something I, along with other Democrats, have long proposed.

Unless the president changes course and urgently adopts the Democratic recommendations, we risk trading a dictator for chaos in Iraq.

Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Washington, Aug. 6, 2006

The writer is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/08/opinion/l08iraq.html

[wisteria]

1. I am glad a Democrat rebutted this NYT editorial. We need

to keep on calling the media out when they bullsh*t like they do.

[greenman3610]

2. biden's plan is here

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=254935

it helps to read something that at least arguably points
a way out, beyond just "pulling out now"....
--------

Ten years ago, Bosnia was drowning in ethnic cleansing and facing its demise as a unified state. After much hesitation, the United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords to keep the country whole by dividing it into ethnic federations. We even allowed Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of U.S. troops and others, Bosnians have lived a decade in peace. Now, they are strengthening their common central government, and disbanding their separate armies.

The Bush Administration, despite its profound strategic misjudgments, has a similar opportunity in Iraq
-----
1. One Iraq With Three Regions

The first element is to establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable but limited central government in Baghdad.

The central government would be responsible for border defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues. The regional governments -- Kurd, Sunni and Shiite -- would be responsible for administering their own regions.
-------

2. A Viable Sunni Region With Shared Oil Revenues

The second element of the plan is to gain agreement for the federal solution from the Sunni Arabs by giving them an offer they can't reasonably refuse.

Basically, they get to run their own region. That’s a far better deal than the present alternatives: either being a permanent minority in a centrally run government or being the principal victims of a civil war.

As a major sweetener, we should press the Iraqis to write into the constitution that the Sunnis would receive about 20 percent of all present and future oil revenues. That’s roughly proportional to their size. And it’s far more than they'd get otherwise, since the oil is in the north and south, not the Sunni center. These revenues represent the only way to make the Sunni region viable economically. If Sunnis reject the deal, there is no guarantee they will get any oil revenues.