Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Why is Joe Biden not taken seriously again?

  1. #1

    Why is Joe Biden not taken seriously again?

    Listening to the man now on Hardball, talking about Bhutto, and his grasp of the entire issue and its potential ramifications are impressive.

    I know he's long-winded and puts his foot in his mouth from time to time, and I know he goofed back in '88, but he is by far the most impressive candidate in either party on foreign affairs.

    Hopefully he's either the veep or the secretary of state in an Obama, Edwards or, gulp, Clinton administration.

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    you're kidding right????

    plagiarist joe biden- the man who never gets out of the third primary every year yet tells others they are not qualified to run for president....

    the dope who throws around racial joke after racial joke yet never gets called out on it...

    he'll be VP- of the local Lions Club....
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 12-27-2007 at 10:29 PM.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2285935]you're kidding right????

    plagiarist joe biden- the man who never gets out of the third primary every year yet tells others they are not qualified to run for president....

    the dope who throws around racial joke after racial joke yet never gets called out on it...

    he'll be VP- of the local Lions Club....[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The guy who was the first to acknowledge Iraq would have to be split in three. That guy.

    He says some stupid stuff, to be sure, but he knows his sh!t on foreign policy. They are all novices compared to him. All of them. And that's basically undisputed.

    He's not my first choice. I just find it weird he's not considered a serious candidate. I hope he's in somebody's cabinet in 2008.

  4. #4
    Having met him personally several times as part of my college dems club (LOL gotta love young unabashed liberalism - hey i didn't know any better)... I can certifiably say he's a mimbo

  5. #5
    His son is the AG of Delaware now and the Bidens are royalty in Delaware. He has been around a long time and has said some stupid things in the past. Although it seems Romney's people must be using old Biden tapes to prepare Mitt.

    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2285957]Having met him personally several times as part of my college dems club (LOL gotta love young unabashed liberalism - hey i didn't know any better)... I can certifiably say he's a mimbo[/QUOTE]

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=cr726;2285964]His son is the AG of Delaware now and the Bidens are royalty in Delaware. He has been around a long time and has said some stupid things in the past. Although it seems Romney's people must be using old Biden tapes to prepare Mitt.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, Beau. What a guy. Every time he spoke at one of our meetings he came across as a complete ditz.

    Only Joe would name his kid to rhyme with his name. He's definitely a demagogue in Delaware though.

  7. #7
    Beau, has a short stint as an Asst. U.S. Attorney in Philly and then he disappeared. He volunteered to got to Kosovo (I think it was) and went AWOL. Next thing you know he is running for AG and wins and the guy he beat was a good guy and great Prosecutor Ferris Wharton. He won by being a Biden.


    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2285968]Yeah, Beau. What a guy. Every time he spoke at one of our meetings he came across as a complete ditz.

    Only Joe would name his kid to rhyme with his name. He's definitely a demagogue in Delaware though.[/QUOTE]

  8. #8
    From Michelle Malkin's column today:

    [I]When the Senate Foreign Relation Committee's resolution opposing the surge passed 12-9 on Jan. 24, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), the panel's chairman, disingenuously claimed it was "not an attempt to embarrass the president." Bull. That's what the Democrats have been trying to do all year.

    Biden argued: The measure "is designed to let the president know that there are many in both parties, Democrats and Republicans, that believe a change in our mission to go into Baghdad - in the midst of a civil war - as well as a surge in ground troops . . . is the wrong way to go, and I believe it will have the opposite - I repeat - opposite effect the president intends." [/I]

    For starters the guy was [B]100% wrong [/B]on the surge.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2285998]From Michelle Malkin's column today:

    [I]When the Senate Foreign Relation Committee's resolution opposing the surge passed 12-9 on Jan. 24, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), the panel's chairman, disingenuously claimed it was "not an attempt to embarrass the president." Bull. That's what the Democrats have been trying to do all year.

    Biden argued: The measure "is designed to let the president know that there are many in both parties, Democrats and Republicans, that believe a change in our mission to go into Baghdad - in the midst of a civil war - as well as a surge in ground troops . . . is the wrong way to go, and I believe it will have the opposite - I repeat - opposite effect the president intends." [/I]

    For starters the guy was [B]100% wrong [/B]on the surge.[/QUOTE]


    I don't think you can say with any certainty that opposing the surge was wrong just yet. Yes, it has brought temporary stability, but if the stability vanishes when we start withdrawing troops next year it will have been a complete waste of time and resources, except in the sense that we will have given the Iraqis a chance that they didn't capitalize on.

    If they reach some sort of political accomodation where our troops are no longer necessary to keep the peace, then the surge will have worked.

    The only certainty in analyzing the Iraq War at this date is that no one would have supported it knowing how it has turned out thus far. It was a mistake to go in, that much is certain.

    How long we end up paying for that mistake, and whether anything good can be salvaged from it, remains to be seen.

  10. #10
    100%? The surge is still ongoing and what will happen when it is over? The surge is designed for a thrust of manpower that our military can not keep up.

    Malkin? Come on now.

    [QUOTE=sackdance;2285998]From Michelle Malkin's column today:

    [I]When the Senate Foreign Relation Committee's resolution opposing the surge passed 12-9 on Jan. 24, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), the panel's chairman, disingenuously claimed it was "not an attempt to embarrass the president." Bull. That's what the Democrats have been trying to do all year.

    Biden argued: The measure "is designed to let the president know that there are many in both parties, Democrats and Republicans, that believe a change in our mission to go into Baghdad - in the midst of a civil war - as well as a surge in ground troops . . . is the wrong way to go, and I believe it will have the opposite - I repeat - opposite effect the president intends." [/I]

    For starters the guy was [B]100% wrong [/B]on the surge.[/QUOTE]

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,710
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2285968]Yeah, Beau. What a guy. Every time he spoke at one of our meetings he came across as a complete ditz.

    Only Joe would name his kid to rhyme with his name. He's definitely a demagogue in Delaware though.[/QUOTE]

    [img]http://www.musicremedy.com/webfiles/artists/BoBice/BoBice-01-big.jpg[/img]

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=cr726;2286023]100%? The surge is still ongoing and what will happen when it is over? The surge is designed for a thrust of manpower that our military can not keep up.

    Malkin? Come on now.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, Malkin. You think Biden didn't say these things or better yet, if we still don't know if the surge will work - is he still saying these things?

  13. #13
    What will happen after the surge, that is the big question. The surge is worthless if Iraq does not step up.

    Not sure if he is saying the same or not.


    [QUOTE=sackdance;2286060]Yeah, Malkin. You think Biden didn't say these things or better yet, if we still don't know if the surge will work - is he still saying these things?[/QUOTE]

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2286060]Yeah, Malkin. You think Biden didn't say these things or better yet, if we still don't know if the surge will work - is he still saying these things?[/QUOTE]

    Not sure.

    I suppose what we really need is someone who was smart enough to have opposed the war from the start, who also called for the surge when it was not going well.

    The problem is there are many of the former and latter, but nobody running I'm aware of who did both.

    Nobody's perfect on this subject. Biden seems to have a better grasp than most.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,194
    The surge is dumb.

    Wait. Put thousands more of the best armed forces in the world into a battle torn city and the violence went down?

    WOW! Mutherfuqing Einsteins came up with that plan.

    So when the fuq are the lazy Iraqis gonna step up and start taking care of their own sad excuse for a bombed out moonscape of a country?

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2286020]I don't think you can say with any certainty that opposing the surge was wrong just yet. [B]Yes, it has brought temporary stability[/B], but if the stability vanishes when we start withdrawing troops next year it will have been a complete waste of time and resources, [B]except in the sense that we will have given the Iraqis a chance that they didn't capitalize on.[/B]

    If they reach some sort of political accomodation where our troops are no longer necessary to keep the peace, then the surge will have worked.

    The only certainty in analyzing the Iraq War at this date is that no one would have supported it knowing how it has turned out thus far. It was a mistake to go in, that much is certain.

    How long we end up paying for that mistake, and whether anything good can be salvaged from it, remains to be seen.[/QUOTE]

    The goal of the surge was to provide increased stability to allow the Iraqi Government a chance to get on its feet and begin to become self sufficient.

    When we pull troops and the surge is over violence will increase. The question is will the Iraqi's be prepared to handle it. If they are not , then that is a failure on their part not necessarily a failure of the surge. The surge has done exactly what it was supposed to do!

  17. #17
    It is easier to focus on the a successful surge because that will make us forget when this war actually started.

    [QUOTE=Jetfan_Johnny;2286169]The goal of the surge was to provide increased stability to allow the Iraqi Government a chance to get on its feet and begin to become self sufficient.

    When we pull troops and the surge is over violence will increase. The question is will the Iraqi's be prepared to handle it. If they are not , then that is a failure on their part not necessarily a failure of the surge. The surge has done exactly what it was supposed to do![/QUOTE]

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,194
    [QUOTE=Jetfan_Johnny;2286169]...the Iraqi Government a chance to get on its feet and begin to become self sufficient.[/QUOTE]

    [IMG]http://blog.dreamhost.com/images/pipe_dream.png[/IMG]

    [IMG]http://www.oddsquad.com/media/resampled_26__EVID_resize.JPG[/IMG]

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2286146]The surge is dumb.

    Wait. Put thousands more of the best armed forces in the world into a battle torn city and the violence went down?

    [B]WOW! Mutherfuqing Einsteins came up with that plan.[/B]
    [/QUOTE]
    PK - Dem leadership opposed the plan - and 'all we do is add troops and violence goes down' was not part of theirs or your equation. 20/20 hindsight vision you have there.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Jetfan_Johnny;2286169]The goal of the surge was to provide increased stability to allow the Iraqi Government a chance to get on its feet and begin to become self sufficient.

    When we pull troops and the surge is over violence will increase. The question is will the Iraqi's be prepared to handle it. If they are not , then that is a failure on their part not necessarily a failure of the surge. The surge has done exactly what it was supposed to do![/QUOTE]


    Yes, it has. But you need to ask yourself, is something that leaves a place exactly as it was beforehand worth doing?

    Of course not.

    If the surge leads to a reasonably peaceful outcome after our troops depart, it will prove a masterstroke. If, when our troops leave, Iraq regresses to exactly the same state it was before, it will have clearly been a waste of lives and money because in the final summary, it will not have achieved anything permanent.

    It will prove to be one of those, and it won't be at all clear until our troops begin to leave.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us