4
   

Why Joe Biden is a huge ass.

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:30 pm
@LionTamerX,
LionTamerX wrote:

McCain lost most of his cred in 2000 after the pantsing he took from the Rove/Bush machine in SC and elsewhere. Since then, he's been treated by his own party as the crazy uncle in the attic.
Ms. Palin was the mayor of the crystal meth capital of Alaska, and has now served 20 months as gov (of Alaska.) I'll admit she has a nice coat of paint.

This is the best that the Republicans are currently capable of.



Hehe... weren't you the one talking about desperation? The Dems are running a guy with less then 4 years as a senator... and you are talking about the experience of the Republican VP? Har! What a farce.
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:31 pm
@Mame,
Mame wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
Joe Biden: The Democratic Dick Cheney
By Doug Mataconis | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Biden, Cheney

Here me out.



HERE me out?? Who the hell is this guy?


I dunno, some blogger that said **** about Biden. Does it really matter?
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:34 pm
@McGentrix,
McG, my friend...

you respond to everyone but me.

Are you not overconfident of your pairing?

Kurious in Kansas
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:35 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

McG, my friend...

you respond to everyone but me.

Are you not overconfident of your pairing?

Kurious in Kansas


Gambling and politics don't mix.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:38 pm
@McGentrix,
You REALLY make me laugh now.

How do you figure that based on the path so far?

McCain is gambling, or Stupid.

(you pick...)

Cool
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:39 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

McCain is gambling, or Stupid.


How so?
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:41 pm
@McGentrix,
He knew all of her back story and chose her above all others???

Really...
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:42 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

He knew all of her back story and chose her above all others???

Really...


I'd like to carry on with this, but I'd rather discuss Biden.

What are your thoughts on him?
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:43 pm
@McGentrix,
It's yer thread, Jack.

I'm just refuting yer crap...
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:49 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

It's yer thread, Jack.

I'm just refuting yer crap...


Really?! I must have missed that. When did you attempt that? The only thing I have seen you do is deride Palin and try to make bets.

I guess I can understand your inability to discuss Biden though. I'd hate to try to defend that creep too.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:52 pm
@McGentrix,
I already stated that he only makes a good second, you were the one promoting the "pit bill"...

Don't lets turn this to a shitfest, I still respect you for now.

(nor have I "tagged" this one yet, but there is an open hole...)

Wink
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:57 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

I already stated that he only makes a good second, you were the one promoting the "pit bill"...

Don't lets turn this to a shitfest, I still respect you for now.

(nor have I "tagged" this one yet, but there is an open hole...)

Wink


No, I was discussing Biden when the crowd came in and proved themselves unable to discuss Biden and instead brought up Palin. Others inability to stick to a topic does not make my defending her "promoting" her.

Were I to do that, I would start a different discussion.
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:01 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:

Hehe... weren't you the one talking about desperation? The Dems are running a guy with less then 4 years as a senator... and you are talking about the experience of the Republican VP? Har! What a farce.


I agree it's a farce.

Actually I'm talking about both tickets. Prez and VP . McCain, who's already been roughed up so many times, and had his lunch money stolen on the republican playground, so that no one can take him seriously. (Comes across as remarkably out of touch with reality.)

Palin. Who is Governor of a giant, frozen wasteland. (With zero relevant experience.)(Other than being mayor of a little meth addicted oasis in the giant, frozen wasteland.)(Nice coat of paint tho.)

Versus Obama, who is clearly a rising star, and an incredibly inspirational leader. (And likable, I might add.)

And Biden who is one of the most respected men in Washington. (Also, very likable.)
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:01 pm
@McGentrix,
I stick to my post, Biden makes a good #2.

(I will still love ya in the morning, sweetie...)

Rock
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:10 pm
@littlek,
Do you grade papers just for fun?
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:12 pm
Quote:
Obama's Betrayal... Joe Biden and Iraq
Submitted by SadInAmerica on 2008, August 24 - 5:04pm.

Barack Obama’s selection of Joseph Biden as his running mate constitutes a stunning betrayal of the anti-war constituency who made possible his hard-fought victory in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. The veteran Delaware senator has been one the leading congressional supporters of U.S. militarization of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, of strict economic sanctions against Cuba, and of Israeli occupation policies.

Most significantly, however, Biden, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the lead-up to the Iraq War during the latter half of 2002, was perhaps the single most important congressional backer of the Bush administration’s decision to invade that oil-rich country.
Shrinking Gap Between Candidates

One of the most important differences between Obama and the soon-to-be Republican presidential nominee John McCain is that Obama had the wisdom and courage to oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Obama and his supporters had been arguing correctly that judgment in foreign policy is far more important than experience; this was a key and likely decisive argument in the Illinois senator’s campaign against Senator Hillary Clinton, who had joined McCain in backing the Iraq war resolution.

However, in choosing Biden who, like the forthcoming Republican nominee, has more experience in international affairs but notoriously poor judgment, Obama is essentially saying that this critical difference between the two prospective presidential candidates doesn’t really matter. This decision thereby negates one of his biggest advantages in the general election. Of particular concern is the possibility that the pick of an establishment figure from the hawkish wing of the party indicates the kind of foreign policy appointments Obama will make as president.

Obama’s choice of Biden as his running mate will likely have a hugely negative impact on his once-enthusiastic base of supporters. Obama’s supporters had greatly appreciated the fact that he did not blindly accept the Bush administration’s transparently false claims about Iraq being an imminent danger to U.S. national security interests that required an invasion and occupation of that country. At the same time Biden was joining his Republican colleagues in pushing through a Senate resolution authorizing the invasion, Obama was speaking at a major anti-war rally in Chicago correctly noting that Iraq’s war-making ability had been substantially weakened and that the international community could successfully contain Saddam Hussein from any future acts of aggression.

In Washington, by contrast, Biden was insisting that Bush was right and Obama was wrong, falsely claiming that Iraq under Saddam Hussein " severely weakened by UN disarmament efforts and comprehensive international sanctions " somehow constituted both “a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security” and was an “extreme danger to the world.” Despite the absence of any “weapons of mass destruction” or offensive military capabilities, Biden when reminded of those remarks during an interview last year, replied, “That’s right, and I was correct about that.”
Biden Shepherds the War Authorization

It is difficult to over-estimate the critical role Biden played in making the tragedy of the Iraq war possible. More than two months prior to the 2002 war resolution even being introduced, in what was widely interpreted as the first sign that Congress would endorse a U.S. invasion of Iraq, Biden declared on August 4 that the United States was probably going to war. In his powerful position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he orchestrated a propaganda show designed to sell the war to skeptical colleagues and the America public by ensuring that dissenting voices would not get a fair hearing.

As Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector, noted at the time, “For Sen. Biden's Iraq hearings to be anything more than a political sham used to invoke a modern-day Gulf of Tonkin resolution-equivalent for Iraq, his committee will need to ask hard questions " and demand hard facts " concerning the real nature of the weapons threat posed by Iraq.”

It soon became apparent that Biden had no intention of doing so. Biden refused to even allow Ritter himself " who knew more about Iraq’s WMD capabilities than anyone and would have testified that Iraq had achieved at least qualitative disarmament " to testify. Ironically, on Meet the Press last year, Biden defended his false claims about Iraqi WMDs by insisting that “everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them.”

Biden also refused to honor requests by some of his Democratic colleagues to include in the hearings some of the leading anti-war scholars familiar with Iraq and Middle East. These included both those who would have reiterated Ritter’s conclusions about non-existent Iraqi WMD capabilities as well as those prepared to testify that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would likely set back the struggle against al-Qaeda, alienate the United States from much of the world, and precipitate bloody urban counter-insurgency warfare amid rising terrorism, Islamist extremism, and sectarian violence. All of these predictions ended up being exactly what transpired.

Nor did Biden even call some of the dissenting officials in the Pentagon or State Department who were willing to challenge the alarmist claims of their ideologically-driven superiors. He was willing, however, to allow Iraqi defectors of highly dubious credentials to make false testimony about the vast quantities of WMD materiel supposedly in Saddam Hussein’s possession. Ritter has correctly accused Biden of having “preordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts and . . . using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq.”
Supported an Invasion Before Bush

Rather than being a hapless victim of the Bush administration’s lies and manipulation, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of Iraq and making false statements regarding Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of “weapons of mass destruction” years before President George W. Bush even came to office.

As far back as 1998, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of that oil rich country. Even though UN inspectors and the UN-led disarmament process led to the elimination of Iraq’s WMD threat, Biden " in an effort to discredit the world body and make an excuse for war " insisted that UN inspectors could never be trusted to do the job. During Senate hearings on Iraq in September of that year, Biden told Ritter, “As long as Saddam’s at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction.”

Calling for military action on the scale of the Gulf War seven years earlier, he continued, “The only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone,” telling the Marine veteran “it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking Saddam down.”

When Ritter tried to make the case that President Bill Clinton’s proposed large-scale bombing of Iraq could jeopardize the UN inspections process, Biden condescendingly replied that decisions on the use of military force were “beyond your pay grade.” As Ritter predicted, when Clinton ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq in December of that year and followed up with a four-day bombing campaign known as Operation Desert Fox, Saddam was provided with an excuse to refuse to allow the inspectors to return. Biden then conveniently used Saddam’s failure to allow them to return as an excuse for going to war four years later.
Biden’s False Claims to Bolster War

In the face of widespread skepticism over administration claims regarding Iraq’s military capabilities, Biden declared that President Bush was justified in being concerned about Iraq’s alleged pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Even though Iraq had eliminated its chemical weapons arsenal by the mid-1990s, Biden insisted categorically in the weeks leading up to the Iraq war resolution that Saddam Hussein still had chemical weapons. Even though there is no evidence that Iraq had ever developed deployable biological weapons and its biological weapons program had been eliminated some years earlier, Biden insisted that Saddam had biological weapons, including anthrax and that “he may have a strain” of small pox. And, even though the International Atomic Energy Agency had reported as far back as 1998 that there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had any ongoing nuclear program, Biden insisted Saddam was “seeking nuclear weapons.”

Said Biden, “One thing is clear: These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from power.” He did not believe proof of the existence of any actual weapons to dislodge was necessary, however, insisting that “If we wait for the danger from Saddam to become clear, it could be too late.” He further defended President Bush by falsely claiming that “He did not snub the U.N. or our allies. He did not dismiss a new inspection regime. He did not ignore the Congress. At each pivotal moment, he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation.”

In an Orwellian twist of language designed to justify the war resolution, which gave President Bush the unprecedented authority to invade a country on the far side of the world at the time and circumstances of his own choosing, Biden claimed that “I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur.”

It is also important to note that Biden supported an invasion in the full knowledge that it would not be quick and easy and that the United States would have to occupy Iraq for an extended period, declaring, “We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”
Biden’s Current Position

In response to the tragic consequences of the U.S. invasion and the resulting weakening of popular support for the war, Biden has more recently joined the chorus of Democratic members of Congress criticizing the administration’s handling of the conflict and calling for the withdrawal of most combat forces. He opposed President Bush’s escalation (“surge”) of troop strength early last year and has called for greater involvement by the United Nations and other countries in resolving the ongoing conflicts within Iraq.

However, Biden has been the principal congressional backer of a de facto partition of the country between Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shia Arab segments, a proposal opposed by a solid majority of Iraqis and strongly denounced by the leading Sunni, Shia, and secular blocs in the Iraqi parliament. Even the U.S. State Department has criticized Biden’s plan as too extreme. A cynical and dangerous attempt at divide-and-rule, Biden’s ambitious effort to redraw the borders of the Middle East would likely make a violent and tragic situation all the worse.

Yet it is Biden’s key role in making possible the congressional authorization of the 2003 U.S. invasion that elicits the greatest concern among Obama’s supporters. While more recently expressing regrets over his vote, he has not formally apologized and has stressed the Bush administration’s mishandling of the post-invasion occupation rather than the illegitimacy of the invasion itself.

Biden’s support for the resolution was not simply poor judgment, but a calculated rejection of principles codified in the UN Charter and other international legal documents prohibiting aggressive wars. According to Article VI of the Constitution, such a rejection also constitutes a violation of U.S. law as well. Biden even voted against an amendment sponsored by fellow Democratic senator Carl Levin that would have authorized U.S. military action against Iraq if the UN Security Council approved the use of force and instead voted for the Republican-backed resolution authorizing the United States to go to war unilaterally. In effect, Biden has embraced the neo-conservative view that the United States, as the world’s sole remaining superpower, somehow has the right to invade other countries at will, even if they currently pose no strategic threat.

Given the dangerous precedent set by the Iraq war resolution, naming one of its principal supporters as potentially the next vice president of the United States has raised serious questions regarding Senator Obama’s commitment to international law. This comes at a time when the global community is so desperately hoping for a more responsible U.S. foreign policy following eight years of Bush.

Early in his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to not only end the war in Iraq, but to challenge the mindset that got the United States into Iraq in the first place. Choosing Biden as his running mate, however, raises doubts regarding Obama’s actual commitment to “change we can believe in.”
LionTamerX
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:24 pm
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
Do you grade papers just for fun?


What are you doing up so late ?
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:27 pm
@LionTamerX,
He lives in a dessert...

Re McG.

Biden is not gonna explode...
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:58 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
He lives in a dessert...

Key Lime Pie?
0 Replies
 
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:59 pm
@Rockhead,
A dessert ?

Like the big rock candy mountain ?

Nah, I just think he's sleeping off the pinot, and getting in shape for football Sunday.

BTW... Go Giants !
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 02:11:50