A few hours before last night's Democratic Presidential Debate in New Hampshire, the Senate overwhelmingly passed Joe Biden's non-binding resolution declaring that Iraq should be divided into three separate regions. The Hill newspaper is calling it a major boost to Joe Biden's campaign for the Vice-Presidency (oops, Presidency), but it's only a boost to those who don't understand: 1) that being non-binding it's meaningless; 2) it can't be implemented, so it's meaningless; and 3) if it ever were to happen it would plunge the region into a more serious war, so it's dangerous in addition to being meaningless.

There is an argument to be made that not only Iraq, but the entire nation structure of the Middle East, was botched when it was originally set up by the Allies after World War I. (For an excellent accounting of how the modern Middle East was created, I encourage anyone who is interested to read David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace - it will astound you.) But we have to deal with the countries as they exist today, imperfect as they are. If we were to separate Iraq into more autonomous regions, the time to have done it would have been when we were occupiers. Now we're not - the Iraqi Government (another imperfect entity) is in control. So Biden's about four years too late for this suggestion to be meaningful.

But it raises a good point. Why didn't we do this in the first place, as people like Rich Lowry of National Review was suggesting at the time? I believe that it's because it would have created, almost immediately, a larger regional war. Turkey would have tried to claim the Kurdish north, at the same time the Turkish Kurds would attempt to secede from Turkey to create an independent Kurdistan. Iran would have moved to claim the Shiite south. And the Sunni middle would have been ripe pickings - they'd control Baghdad and Tikrit, but would have little natural resource wealth. Eventually, the Shia/Iran south would attack the Sunni middle to enact revenge for what the Sunnis did to the Shia during Saddam's reign. We'd be in the middle of all of it.

Thankfully, that is not going to happen. The article in The Hill does have a good quote from a Republican aide which shows just how empty Biden's victory was:

One GOP aide went further, saying that most Republicans decided against opposing Biden's plan after revisions made clear that it would not force any decisions on Baghdad. "What is the Iraqi government going to do [in response]? Say, 'thanks for the input, but we're fine'?" the aide said. The aide described Republicans' perspective as: "This doesn't really do anything, and why not let [Democrats] have it, for practical reasons."

Joe Biden, former plagiarist and Senator from the not-so-great, yet first state of Delaware has succeeded in accomplishing nothing and is elated about doing so:

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. (bolding in original)

Wow, I'll be beating a path to the Biden for President headquarters in the morning. I'm entirely sure that President Bush felt "rebuffed" by this huge victory that is er, nonbinding. It's good to know that fellow candidates Hillary, Chris Dodd and Sam Brownback aided in passing this momentous bill that actually means nothing. It's a microcosm of the new Democratic Senate, is it not? Ineffectual, meaningless and proud of it as is made entirely too evident by this statement:

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."

The high-water mark? Bipartisanship? Jeez, the "influential" Senator is crowing about a nonbinding resolution that will have no effect on anything.

I have less faith in both sides of the Senate than I did just five minutes ago. Please tell me this is satire on MSNBC. Please tell me that correspondent Domenico Montanaro is really John Stewart and this whole thing is make believe.

Sadly, I fear it's not and with the day MSNBC has been having, this is probably the highlight of Dan Abrams day.

That is what Sen. Joe Biden called it yesterday in CNN's "Situation Room" anchored by Wolf Blitzer. The Democratic presidential candidate said he thanked Sen. Richard Lugar in a phone call for his departure from the president's Iraq policy. He also told Lugar he would be part of an bipartisan effort to get the U.S. out of "this mess" (his words) if President Bush wanted to do that.

What I find most striking about Biden's interview was that he did not back away from his earlier statement that he would NOT cut off funding for our soldiers in favor of a timeline. I appreciate that Biden, even as a Democrat, wants to keep our soldiers safe and that awakened my interest in him a couple weeks ago.

The Biden-Gelb plan for Iraq sure sounds good. However upon further research of Biden's plan on Iraq on his Web site I have to say it would be very hard to follow through with this plan. After all Biden is not running for president of Iraq. (insert sarcasm) On the one hand, he calls for us to get out of the Iraqi civil war. On the other hand he presents his Iraq plan as if he would be in charge of Iraq if he were elected U.S. president. I think it ought to be up to the Iraqi government on how to establish a secure Iraq, not to our government.

I do want to wait for the results of the troop surge -- which will supposedly be announced in September. But I do have to say that l found it refreshing that Biden has the safety for our troops in mind even so he is calling for a withdraw of troops. It shows after all that you can be indeed for our troops even so you are against the war in Iraq.

Let's face it, congressional Dems don't have a particularly strong hand to play in this round of Iraq war poker. Especially those who are running for president in 2008.

Given that their majority is much too slim to override a presidential veto, they are forced into the unenviable position of considering whether to hand over the funds to enbale President Bush to continue his war, despite the fact that nearly every metric out there tells us that things continue to head in the wrong direction, or be seen as depriving our soldiers the tools to fight and protect themselves. More than just a bumper-sticker philosophy, "supporting the troops" is a sticky issue indeed. There are some 160,000 of our own men and women on the ground in Iraq. To date nearly 3,500 have died, and over 26,000 have been wounded in what was supposed to have been a low-casualty, pay-for-itself repeat of the first Persian Gulf War. Here's Joe Biden:

"I believe as long as we have troops in the front line, we're going to have to protect them. We're going to have to fund them."

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have not signaled how they will vote. Chris Dodd will go against the funding bill. John Edwards is shouting on the sidelines for everyone to stand firm and just say no. What makes this moment doubly difficult is the sense that President Bush is simply running out the clock.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden wants to deploy (ht to Instapundit) American troops in Darfur, the wasted land where Muslims have been killing Christians for a while now.

''I would use American force now,'' Biden said at a hearing before his committee. ''I think it's not only time not to take force off the table. I think it's time to put force on the table and use it.''

In advocating use of military force, Biden said senior U.S. military officials in Europe told him that 2,500 U.S. troops could ''radically change the situation on the ground now.''

''Let's stop the bleeding,'' Biden said. ''I think it's a moral imperative.''

Since Biden put himself out there, I think it's fair to ask him what he thinks will happen in Iraq if we leave?

See earlier posts by Pat and Scott, but here's Biden yesterday:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American, who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Wow, I still cringe a little inside every time I see that quote. Obviously everyone is all agog at Biden's gaffes and even the Kos kids are running away. And you bet everyone on the right is piling on. Including myself. It's an obvious question as to what Biden meant when he said that.

And now we have Obama responding:

I didn't take Senator Biden's comments personally, but obviously they were historically inaccurate. African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate.

As Frum pointed out, they might be unethical and dirty (in a political sense) but they were all quite articulate. More so than Biden, I would add. I disagree with Frum though -- Obama was right to respond. He was actually quite restrained. Presidential politics ain't beanbag and there's nothing wrong with Obama correcting the gaffe, and scoring a few points on the way.

Let me add to what my blogthren Patrick wrote earlier today about Joe Biden.

Joe Biden is gold if you are a Republican, as Patrick said. He is articulate, yet whenever he opens his mouth, you never know what will come out. He has no filter and I suspect that's because he's been in Washington for entirely too long and has no idea what's going on in the real world.

The thing that get's me about the quote is that Biden and the left are spinning it as if he said nothing wrong or that a comma was would change everything. What a sham, Biden has a long history of saying insensitive things, just last year he made the Dunkin' Donuts comment:

Yeah, he wasn't joking.

Joe Biden's a little like The Mouth That Roared -- he's very smart and articulate, yet you never know quite what's going to come out of his mouth next. He's among the second tier of Democrat presidential aspirants, and is probably really running for a vice-presidential slot on the ticket, along with Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson.

But he might not even be in the vice-presidential sweeps for long with statements like this, from an interview and article published today about Barack Obama in the New York Observer:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Is anyone else a little uncomfortable with how that sounds? One of the reasons I am intrigued by Obama is that he represents a move forward from the old-line civil rights black leadership (Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton), whose views, tactics, and style are way past the due date for a large segment of the black community.

Delaware Senator Joe Biden will run for president again:

"I am running for president," he told "Meet the Press" anchor Tim Russert. "I'm going to be Joe Biden, and I'm going to try to be the best Biden I can be. If I can, I got a shot. If I can't, I lose."

The senator from Delaware went on to say that he will be filing the necessary paperwork to create an exploratory committee by the end of the month.

Biden ran unsuccessfully in 1987 and was caught plagiarizing Neil Kinnock in a speech. That effectively ended any chance he had. One can see why when reading the words he said above.

Biden seems likable, but he hails from a small state and is too much of a centrist to win the primaries. With the media full-court press for Barack Obama, Biden doesn't stand a chance. I would put him in the second tier of candidates along with John Edwards and Al Gore, if Gore chooses to run.

You can read more about Biden's positions here.

Senator Joe Biden in today's Washington Post:

"I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost," Biden said. "They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy -- literally, not figuratively."

Biden gave the comments in an interview as he outlined an ambitious agenda for the committee, including holding four weeks of hearings focused on every aspect of U.S. policy in Iraq. The hearings will call top political, economic and intelligence experts; foreign diplomats; and former and current senior U.S. officials to examine the situation in Iraq and possible plans for dealing with it. ...

It's quite breathtaking how the a sitting senator is willing to assign the most sinister and evil motives to the administration. Not just incompetence, not just lack of wisdom and decision making, but actual evilness.

For that's what the implication is if you follow it through; that GWB is willing to sacrifice the lives of soldiers throughout the next two years, simply so that handling the collapse of Iraq will be someone else's problem.

Senator Joe Biden, now the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee weighs in on Iraq.

...said Tuesday he would oppose any effort by President Bush to increase U.S troops in Iraq as part of a new war strategy.

Biden also announced he has summoned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify before his committee next month to discuss the administration's new plan for Iraq as soon as it is made public.

The article points out that it seems to be part of a scramble to get a position in on Iraq. As Biden is a Democratic candidate, naturally, his preferred position seems to be against any troop increase.

As Biden is not the favorite for the nomination right now, his strategy probably revolves around the party deciding that Hillary's negatives are too high and Obama is untested. That just might leave Biden with enough room for a serious run. But just in case, he needs to juice his support with the base.

And what better way to do that than by laying heat on the Bush administration. Will it make any difference? Reid has already gone on record as supporting a brief troop surge. If Bush puts together a compelling plan, he also might sell it to incoming red state Democrat senators Tester and Webb. That puts Biden on the losing side of a troop surge, but that sure wouldn't hurt him with the Democrat base in most of the key states.

It can be seen as a shrewd move, but the biggest move yet to be played is Bush's and he is not saying what he's going to do yet. There is a lot of talk around troop level increases but no firm plan yet that I've seen.