home

Biden: US Ok With Israel Bomb, Bombing Iran

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:34:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I thought this post from Digby might be of interest:

Is it just me or were Joe Biden's comments on Stephanpoulos this morning somewhat ... uhm ... startling?

Plunging squarely into one of the most sensitive issues in the Middle East, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. suggested on Sunday that the United States would not stand in the way of Israeli military action aimed at the Iranian nuclear program. . . .

What was funny to me was Biden's explanation - "Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else . . ." While Digby rightly wonders if Biden's, um timing, given what' going on Iran, is um, helpful, my thought is about Obama's supposed line in the sand on Israeli settlements on the West Bank. I'm not one to rush into the I/P controversy, and it is not my intention to do so here. But here's a question - is Joe Biden really up to the job? He is a mistake machine.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Open Thread | Palin's Hypocrisy >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Biden: US Ok With Israel Bomb, Bombing Iran | 68 comments (68 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama needs to worry about his VP's (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:51:31 PM EST
    comments not being helpful rather than those advocating for real healthCARE reform. One of the remarks in Digby's post asks what to me is one of the most important questions.

    Does this seem like a good idea to anyone at this particular moment? The biggest headline on the front page of the NY Times today was "Leading Clerics Defy Ayatollah on Disputed Iran Election" Does this strike you as a good moment for the US to be talking about Israel bombing the place?

    Biden just supplied the Ayatollah with a whole lot of ammunition to use against the opposition and to move the discussion from internal problems to one of national survival. The Ayatollah must be ecstatic with this performance by Biden.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:52:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I read your comment the other way around... (none / 0) (#68)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:23:56 AM EST
    You said Biden had served to:
    move the discussion from internal problems to one of national survival.

    You were talking about Iran. But that is also true for the US. The way I see it, Biden has shifted the debate from our own domestic agenda and now the press is fanning the flames in the Middle East and fore-grounding our 'national secuity' - again.


    [ Parent ]

    He Is A Moron, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:03:25 PM EST
    Although, clumsy and oafish as he is, the statement reflects the  long standing US policy toward Israel. Contrary to what he said, It is no coincidence that the national interests of Israel are ours, though.

    He sort of reminds me of Quale.

    Is Joe Biden really up to the job? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:15:41 PM EST
    No.

    (This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Easy Questions™.)

    But seriously folks...Biden? If something were to happen to Obama, would you really feel comfortable knowing that Joe Biden would become president? I was astonished when Biden was the VP pick. I was also astonished by the 180 done by Obama fans, legions of which spent the primaries telling us what a moron Biden was (which is one of the few things I agreed with them on), who were suddenly fans of Biden and his exemplary political skills* and reputation as a statesman.*

    I have no idea why Biden was the VP pick. I get a vibe when I see Obama and Biden together that Obama doesn't really care much for Joe, and vice versa. Me? I'm not a big fan of either and these days often find myself wondering what sort of broken/corrupted political system winds up giving us a choice between sets of candidates like Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin.

    *Yes, sarcasm.

    It is what it is. (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:50:53 PM EST
    Romberry: "If something were to happen to Obama, would you really feel comfortable knowing that Joe Biden would become president?"

    If it's any comfort to you, I think you'd be very suprised at the large percentage of Americans who once voiced remarkably similar concerns about President Franklin Roosevelt's surprising choice to be his 1944 running mate, an obscure Missouri senator and veteran Kansas City machine pol.

    Harry Truman would replace liberal Vice President Henry Wallace, who had by then alienated most of FDR's New Deal coalition. Wallace accepted the demotion, and became FDR's new Secretary of Commerce.

    History is repleat with similar examples of such inexplicable yet fortuitous twists of fate. We shall hopefully never have to experience the sudden succession of Joe Biden to the Oval Office, but if he's ever called upon to do so, I've little doubt in his ability to rise to the occasion the times would demand.

    Aloha.

    [ Parent ]

    I was not surprised. (2.00 / 0) (#34)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:23:26 PM EST
    Biden was part of a group of Dem leaders who knew just as much about Bush/Cheney war crimes as Nancy Pelosi. They had to shut him up... or at least try. They had to buy him off. The guy was just reeking with guilt over his complicity. Nancy feels no guilt. She feels fear of getting caught, but I do not believe she feels any guilt at all over her complicity.

    I still believe that Obama was handed the nomination in Michigan on a platter because he agreed not to allow any prosecution of Bush/Cheney war crimes. The Dem leadership were afraid for their own skins and Omama and his supporters were afraid that the truth of Dem complicity might just make the Dem Party just as unpopular as the Repug Party.

    [ Parent ]

    No I would not be comfortable (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:19:41 PM EST
    with Biden as President.

    But I was not comfortable with Cheney as President either.

    [ Parent ]

    The choice was Biden or Palin (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:30:55 AM EST
    still hard for me to believe we were seriouslty presented with that possibility.

    [ Parent ]
    Touche' (none / 0) (#26)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:37:50 PM EST
    Hard to argue with your point, but I will say that your point extends my argument concerning our broken/corrupted political system. In 2000, we had a choice between Gore/Milquetoast and Dim Son/Vader and Dim Son/Vader, thanks to the press and our magnificently informed electorate, actually came close enough to steal it, 5-4.

    It's not productive to wonder how things might have been different had that election gone 5-4 the other way, but every now and then I do think about it.

    [ Parent ]

    the broken/corrupt politcal system (none / 0) (#59)
    by Howard Zinn on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:02:57 PM EST
    is a product of the political realities of a party primary and a general election, coupled with an ignorant and highly suggestible electorate.

    it's the same feeling i had when we reelected W -- how could these people in this country that i had identified my self with -- how could they possible choose this person.

    the sad reality is that the average american is a dolt.  hopefully the internet will help assuage some of the ignorance problem, but maybe the opposite will happen.

    pure and simple -- biden was chosen as the normal guy to obama's elitism.  i think he's fine, it's just that he shoots his mouth off and doesn't think of the implications all the time.  it's not like he's actively evil like dick.

    [ Parent ]

    He's a silly Dick? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:29:06 PM EST
    He is a common senseless Dick?  But not an evil Dick?  :0)

    [ Parent ]
    haha, evil Dick (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Howard Zinn on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:34:14 PM EST
    that's the title of a Body Count song (the band of "Cop Killer" fame).  google it -- funny stuff.

    [ Parent ]
    We knew what we were getting ... (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:23:09 PM EST
    ... in Joe Biden, which was a bipedal gaffe machine. Was Biden's statement a gaffe? I'll have to reserve judgment until we see how far Mrs. Clinton and her State Department walk it back.

    To be perfectly honest, after watching Iran's ruling military theocrats bludgeon their own people in order to clumsily steal an election their designated sock-puppet was probably due to win anyway, I'm certainly under no delusions about the inherent nature of the so-called Islamic Republic.

    There are, of course, obvious limits to the Obama administration's ability to influence internal affairs in Iran. But since looks like the Ayatollah Khamanei has once again secured for himself the exalted position of "Grand Poobah with the Big Sombrero" or whatever he's calling himself these days, I really don't have a lot of problems with the vice president making the mullah class squirm under the burdens of their own choosing.

    As the president has offered and reiterated time and again, the door is open should the mullahs wish to talk this out. But the Ayatollah should be under no illusions, and thus mistake this administration for the doormat.

    Aloha.

    If you have ever read me on Iran (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:26:10 PM EST
    you would know I have no illusions about Iran. I always viewed Iran as the threat to American interests, not Iraq.

    But there is no getting around the stupidity of Biden's statement.

    If they do not walk it back, then you have to question the competence of the Obama Administration.

    [ Parent ]

    Expand on the threat to American interests (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:26:49 AM EST
    I am an Amercian who has a hard time getting excited over Iran.

    I tend to be concerned about threats to our sovereignty or our Constitutional form of government.  I don't see Iran posing such a threat.  In fact, I don't see any such threat out there.  I see plenty within our borders that threatens our Republic.

    I think these "threats to Amercian interets,"  are simply manufactured to justify obscene "defense" expenditures.  As a taxpayer footing the bill for this while being told reforming health insurance industry is too costly, I am pissed.

    [ Parent ]

    You said that, not I. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:15:47 PM EST
    But then, where in my post did I ever question your views about Iran? I merely offered my own observations concerning the vice president's statement, which reflect my own continuing evolution of thought on the subject. For some reason, you took that up as a personal challenge.

    Regardless, you and I aren't really privy to everything the administration sees and hears, are we? Nor, I believe you'd agree, should we be.

    As I said, I'll reserve judgment for the time being regarding the general competence of the Obama State Department, particularly if it's to be based -- as you would apparently have it -- upon one passing remark, which may or may not have been a misstatement.

    That said, in the realm of international diplomacy, I would think some things to be best left deliberately ambiguous. So, let's just say that I can think whatever I want, but it doesn't necessarily follow that I should say such things aloud in public.

    Aloha.

    [ Parent ]

    Let's play multiple choice (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:27:58 PM EST
    Which scenario is more likely:

    a) Israel attacks Iran largely because of these comments; or

    b) the Iranian government further represses reformers and dissidents using these comments as an excuse.

    [ Parent ]

    b is possible (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:30:01 PM EST
    a is probably not. Israel is well acquainted with Biden and is more likely to dismiss it as more Biden-speak.

    [ Parent ]
    What (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:17:43 AM EST
    does this say about Obama's judgement in picking him?

    According to Bill Clinton and Hillary (none / 0) (#54)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:33:59 AM EST
    it makes Oabama the "home run" champion.

    That said, Biden was a disappointing choice and his gaffes are not a surpsie to anyone who has been paying attention to Democratic politics.

    I do think he has a chance to be of value in creating a stable Iraqi federation, an idea he has championed and which makes sense.

    [ Parent ]

    Did (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 09:07:06 AM EST
    you expect Bill or Hillary to say anything different? I'm one that's more actions speak louder than words and it's a poor choice by Obama among a number of poor choices he's made over his political career.

    [ Parent ]
    Seems not (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:41:49 PM EST


    Digby asks (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:43:21 PM EST
    "It would be interesting to know if Biden is on message or if he did his usual free association."

    You can not have your VP engaging in "free association" all the time.

    BTW, Biden is no rocket scientist generally.

    [ Parent ]

    What are the chances he is on message (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:01:01 PM EST
    even though it may be quickly denied?

    [ Parent ]
    imo (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:02:35 PM EST
    zero.

    [ Parent ]
    If you don't want your VP... (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by sj on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 10:11:02 AM EST
    ... in "free association" mode all the time, then don't pick Joe Biden. It's a feature, not a bug.

    How can this be a surprise to anybody?  I'm thinking that's why support for his presidential campaign was in the single digits from the beginning.

    [ Parent ]

    Between this and what he said about (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:49:52 PM EST
    the economy, you have to wonder if he's jet lagged or something. In any case, he's clearly not performing up to the minimal standards of his job. (And let's face it, he has no responsibilities).

    [ Parent ]
    They should tell him (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:51:49 PM EST
    to use Cheney as his nodel and never speak publically.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, use Cheney (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Zorba on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:36:58 PM EST
    the vice-president as his model- we rarely if ever saw him.  Cheney the former v.p. never shuts up.  I keep wishing he'd go back to his "undisclosed location."

    [ Parent ]
    Lord, (none / 0) (#36)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:35:22 PM EST
    Do not tell him that. The last thing we need is him believing he can play puppetmaster.

    Can't they just give him a job on ESPN? The guy loves his sport analogies and no one gets hurt if he flubs things.

    [ Parent ]

    Even ESPN... (none / 0) (#37)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:48:12 PM EST
    I don't want him anywhere near a microphone. Seriously, the Dem leadership need to talk to Joe and remind him of the only reason he is there.

    [ Parent ]
    What is "the only reason he is there"? (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:36:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The only reason he's there... (2.00 / 0) (#44)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:26:22 PM EST
    Biden was part of a group of Dem leaders who knew just as much about Bush/Cheney war crimes as Nancy Pelosi. They had to shut him up... or at least try. They had to buy him off. The guy was just reeking with guilt over his complicity. Nancy feels no guilt. She feels fear of getting caught, but I do not believe she feels any guilt at all over her complicity.

    I still believe that Obama was handed the nomination in Michigan on a platter because he agreed not to allow any prosecution of Bush/Cheney war crimes. The Dem leadership were afraid for their own skins and Omama and his supporters were afraid that the truth of Dem complicity might just make the Dem Party just as unpopular as the Repug Party.

    Speaking for myself only.

    [ Parent ]

    Why the 180 (none / 0) (#4)
    by Saul on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:49:54 PM EST
    Biden in April said Israel  would be ill advised to attacks on Iranian nuclear sites.

    Biden is an embarrassment (none / 0) (#8)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:58:57 PM EST
    to the administration.  He's off free-lancing and stepping in piles of deep doo-doo.  I wish Obama would put him on a very short leash and keep him off the Sunday shows altogether.

    You'd think that by now the man would have better sense.

    Which man? (none / 0) (#11)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:02:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Now that you mention it, (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:57:51 PM EST
    both of them.

    [ Parent ]
    If anyone is completely competent (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:16:00 PM EST
    on The Hill right now it had better be the Secret Service who is 1000% on mission protecting our current President.  That's all I have to say about Biden's leadership!

    Odds on whether Biden (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:22:38 PM EST
    stays on the ticket in '12?

    100% (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:27:05 PM EST
    You do not change running mates anymore. That era is over.

    Odds on Biden having a chance to be President by getting elected President? 0% imo.

    [ Parent ]

    Probably. . . (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:30:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Biden has foot-in-mouth ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:34:26 PM EST
    disease.  But I don't think that's what happened here.

    I think this was a classic political two-step.  Make a statement, then deny it.  Both statements go out there.  And the intended audiences for each get the message they wanted to hear.

    Classic BS you mean (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:36:59 PM EST
    Both the statement and the denial will hurt the US.

    It was clearly a piece of Biden idiocy.

    [ Parent ]

    Seems like a classic ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:47:35 PM EST
    US foreign policy play to me.

    Have a White House "loose cannon" make a statement.  Then the White House denies the statement.

    [ Parent ]

    the problem with your theory (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:54:43 PM EST
    Both the statement and the walkback are negative.

    better to have said nothing at all.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:11:35 PM EST
    but both seem policy oriented to me.  And taken together I think they encompass US policy.  There's always been a lot of nudges and winks on this issue.  And this, to me, is just another example of that.

    Unlike Biden's statement on the White House's view of the economy.  This seemed like dumb politics that serves no purpose.

    Perhaps my cynicism just cuts a broader swath than yours.  Or perhaps I just know more people who need to hear statements like Biden's even if those statements are subsequently walked back.

    [ Parent ]

    Biden's a one-termer, (none / 0) (#23)
    by Lacy on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:35:09 PM EST
    and maybe not even a full one-term.

    Hillary Clinton will be the VP candidate with Obama in 2012.

    Kinda my thinking as well. (none / 0) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:50:48 PM EST
    Obama will really need her to help with the base he is eroding, and, after serving with distinction as Secretary of State, maybe his ego, and original cheerleaders, will permit it.

    [ Parent ]
    I think this is likely ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:15:40 PM EST
    the party will want someone who can run in 2016 as VP.


    [ Parent ]
    Doubt it. 'The party' (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by oldpro on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 08:47:01 PM EST
    does not want Hillary Clinton.  Am I the only one who got that message loud and clear via the last convention?  They are only tolerating her because Obama picked her and no one could say no to him.

    [ Parent ]
    doubt it (none / 0) (#52)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:29:10 AM EST
    Obama is losing the most left leaning portion of his coalition, the portion that vaulted him over HRC in the primaries.   HRC does not recover that.

    [ Parent ]
    No news. of course, but VP Biden (none / 0) (#40)
    by oldpro on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 08:50:34 PM EST
    is not as articulate as the president.

    He does, however, fancy himself 'the' expert on foreign policy in the administration, above and beyond Hillary and the President...in experience and in judgment.  I doubt Joe would check with anybody before he spoke up on foreign policy.  And that's the problem.

    Crazy just like Reagan (none / 0) (#41)
    by diogenes on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 09:37:06 PM EST
    Reagan's "gaffe" about bombing Russia, made when the mike was supposedly "off", is the same thing.  Just making clear that Israel has an absolute right to exist/self-defense, and that the US would not stop Israeli action.  Obama can't say it so he lets the "gaffe-prone" Biden say it--but don't think that they don't get the point in Tehran.

    You really think (none / 0) (#42)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:31:58 PM EST
    this is the same? You think Obama and Joe put their heads together and planned this? I seriously doubt it. Joe is just... being his usual clumsy self.

    [ Parent ]
    VP Biden also recently opined there (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:02:11 AM EST
    will be no more deaths of U.S. military in Iraq.  

    mordant laugh (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:49:52 AM EST
    teeth grinding to the gums.

    [ Parent ]
    Good, now he can go visit (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:04:26 AM EST
    Cheer all the troops up with his congenial yet hard talking self, and he won't need all that expensive exhaustive security.  What a schtoopid thing to say fer crying out loud.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 07:43:05 AM EST
    Joe Biden is actually the most honest person in the administration (as honest as a politician can be).  I think that's why he makes so many gaffes - he doesn't have a filter and he just says what he thinks, instead of trying to paint pretty pictures of hope and change.

    I think the admin DIDN'T know how bad the economy was because they chose not to listen and were too focused on planning the inauguration.  My guess is his comment about Israel and Iran is actually the thinking that is really going on in the west wing - even though it isn't the "politically correct" answer.

    I have to characterize him (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:06:44 AM EST
    as perhaps more sincere than honest, because he has severe selective memory....I can't say he's honest with himself.  I think he means what he says though and he has no filter.

    [ Parent ]
    lol (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 12:19:35 PM EST
    And a sucker is born every minute. I will concede that he does have the sort baby face that makes people think he is not a pol but an honest broker speaking from his heart.

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't say (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:18:17 PM EST
    he was an honest person - just that he was the most honest in this administration.  Joe speaks without trying to parse his words as much as others, and that's what leads to so-called "gaffes" (whihc many times aren't gaffes, but Joe not towing the company line).

    [ Parent ]
    More Honest Than Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:20:18 PM EST
    lol... do you have them all listed from most honest to least honest?

    [ Parent ]
    Wow - you haven't changed (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    When you have nothing to contribute, you go to the old fall back - Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:56:36 PM EST
    You made a definitive statement, and I know you are quite fond of Hillary, so it was an honest question meant to turn your assertion on its head.

    IOW, I assume that you believe that Hillary is more honest than BIden, no?

    Anyway I do believe that you are falling for his baby face, joe normal, facade. He is as dishonest as any of them. How can a politician be any other way? They have to seem as if they are representing many divergent views, which change like the tides.

    [ Parent ]

    Unlike some (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 05:58:42 PM EST
    I don't "fall" for politicians.  They are all lying scum - I just try to go with the ones who seem to lie to me the least and have the best and most thorough plans that I agree with.  

    Many people "fell for" a politician this year and made him president.  Biden, while someone who should not be president, seems to speak his mind, as opposed to speaking in double-speak about "hope" and "change" and feeding us BS.

    [ Parent ]

    lol (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 06:11:09 PM EST
    How evasive, not surprised.

    [ Parent ]
    Does nobody else watch Shalom TV??? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Samuel on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 10:01:46 AM EST
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUxjI8-DUHg

    What else would you expect from Joe Biden - the spilled blood of non-Israeli Semites doesn't seem to perturb him.  

    I wasn't too hot for Manifest Destiny and the State of Israel (as claimed by violent means) doesn't strike me as, you know, ethically justifiable.  

    "I'm not one to rush into the I/P controversy, and it is not my intention to do so here. But here's a question - is Joe Biden really up to the job? He is a mistake machine"  

    Sorry but ignoring an actual issue to supply a celebrity gossip analysis of politics ("up to the job" has no meaning) isn't ethical in itself.  I imagine you're referring to "the job" of news channel theater - and not his supposed duty to uphold the Constitution (I'm no Constitutionalist) which would seem to demand immediate reduction in our participation or complicity in the murder of thousands and thousands of people a year falsely premised as "defense".  

    If you were referring to fulfilling his sworn duties then the answer is clearly "no".  

    Biden: US Ok With Israel Bomb, Bombing Iran | 68 comments (68 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment