President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 08, 2007 08:13 AM UTC

continuing the debate on Iraq

  • by: colorado_dude

So I just had a question I thought I’d pose to the fine, intelligent people here on CoPols, in light of the “September Focus” or whatever DailyKos is calling this month in reference to the Iraq War, and considering all the attention that the Salazar/Alexander bill has been garnering (warranted or not is beside the point right now), and the continued/growing cries of immediate withdrawal, my question is, why hasn’t Sen. Joe Biden’s plan gathered any attention? I mean, aside from the fact that people may be tired of hearing from Biden, it seems to be certainly an interesting solution, of dividing and federalizing the country (seeing as Iraq was created upon mainly random lines anyways after the British left, why not divide up in a fashion that makes a bit more sense?). It seems that this plan would allow for a more concrete, attainable goal for those still looking to unfurl another “Mission Accomplished” banner, and it would also allow for the withdrawal of nearly all combat troops by the summer of ’08. Seems like a reasonable compromise, no? Both sides get part of what they want and something gets done, yet I have still heard no serious mention of this from any source reporting on planned Congressional action or from anyone at all really, so I’m wondering what I’m missing. If anyone could enlighten me, I would be most appreciative.

Here’s the link to this plan:


3 thoughts on “continuing the debate on Iraq

  1. It’s just not sensible. 

    Telling Iran to stay out of Lebanon hasn’t helped – why do you think it would happen in Iraq?  Hizb’allah is there and will be there, and it will get ugly, non-aggression pact or not. 

    Saying mixed cities won’t be fault lines just because they won’t be, well, you’ve got to admit that’s a little bit much, even for the Senator. 

    Though the other large mixed city – Mosul, half-Sunni and half-Kurd – has been mostly peaceful, it hasn’t been because of the Senator’s plan, but rather because Mosul used to be in the AO of a General, one who’s now in charge of the whole country, and it’s his plan that works.  And it’s working elsewhere now, too.  Though the key to proving as much won’t be Baghdad – it’ll be Baqubah.  Also mixed, though organically so, and mixed 3 ways, with Kurdistan to the northeast, the Iranian border to the southeast, and Sunni areas to the west.  Baghdad, on the other hand, was built by Saddam specifically *for* sectarian violence, and will take a completely different solution than will work in the rest of the country.

    1. then you must believe Bush has a plan. 

      I’d like to hear it. 

      I go to his website ( and I see the 10 January “new way forward.”

      But if I compare it to the Petraeus briefing, the Bush plan is irrelevant.

      With the surge, violence subsides in a particular neighborhood while we have troops massed in that neighborhood.  When they move on, violence returns.  And we don’t have the troops to stay in each neighborhood indefinitely. 
      In short, the “Surge” has accomplished almost nothing. 
      Obviously it has not accomplished any political aim contributing to reconciliation.
      But it hasn’t accomplished anything militarily, other than a temporary zone of stability that comes when our troops come and leaves when they leave. 

      And before you go bragging about the Anbar Model, consider that George Casey negotiated the same deal in November 2005 with tribal leaders in Anbar, and Bush vetoed it because it gave amnesty to the fighters who had killed our troops. 

      But Bush is OK with amnesty now. 
      In fact, the Anbar Plan is simply paying the bullies to stop beating us up. 
      It is not about cooperation to wipe out al-Qaeda. 
      It is about paying protection money.

      Here’s something you may not know about the Anbar Model:
      The shaykh that is heading up the cooperation with American forces,
      he is not the kind of legitimate leader we should be cooperating with. 
      He is the leader of a criminal enterprise.  See
      He is not respected by other Anbar shaykhs.

      But I guess we are so desperate at this point for anything that looks like success, that the strongest military force in the world is willing to be cowed by an Arab mafia.

      1. And it’s not just one sheikh.  It’s multiple sheikhs, multiple tribes, in Anbar and Diyala.  Indeed, it was about cooperation to wipe out al Qaeda.  In fact, al Qaeda’s pretty well wiped out. 

        Now phase 2 – dealing with the Shia half of things, and the Iranian influence.  That’s where the political action will come – when the Shia-types in parliament aren’t so comfortable.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

37 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!