Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by KenH, Nov 22, 2005.
LINK to Remarks by Senator Biden
I watched the speech on C-SPAN and thought it was spot on.
I would not go so far as to say that his speech was “spot on.” According to Senator Biden:
Here he is toeing the Democratic Party line (or at least the line of the more liberal and vocal few in leadership positions). They, the members of Congress, saw the same data as the White House. They agreed that Iraq was a treat to U.S. national security. They voted to give the President authority to deploy our troops and to go to war in Iraq. There has not been a single shred of evidence provided by anyone making such claims which supports the idea that the White House “cooked the books,” lied, or somehow twisted the data in order to mislead the American people into going to war in Iraq. There have only been repeated political accusations thrown out by a handful of Democratic Senators (all of whom are hoping to make political hay for the Democratic Party in the upcoming 2008 Presidential election). Please note that Senator Biden provides no evidence to back up this claim either. He only inserted a politically charged statement into his speech in an attempt to make the White House look bad.
Next Biden asserts:
So the fact that Saddam offered a $25,000.00 reward for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel does not point to Iraq being a haven (read that as a source of) terrorism? Likewise, let’s ask the surviving family members of Kurdish Iraqis if they feel it was terrorism when Saddam killed thousands of them with mustard gas attacks. Oh yeah… and let’s ignore the mass graves of Saddam’s Shi’a and other political enemies (that’s not terrorism). Oh and never mind the fact that Saddam used his military forces to invade, rape, pillage and take over his neighbors in Kuwait (that’s not terrorism).
Then Biden says:
Why would he use the term AWOL in a speech about Iraq? Was this little jab strategically placed here in reference to another unproven political charge against President Bush’s military service record (can you say Dan Rather)?
These are just a few of the political side-track problems I saw in his speech. However, I do agree that Biden does make some good points about the need to help Iraq stand on its own two feet and be responsible for treating all it citizens on equal terms. However, his speech is littered with political rhetoric designed to push his party’s agenda with an eye toward the 2008 Presidential election.
This is the truth!
This is the truth! </font>[/QUOTE]Where is the evidence to back up that claim?
Most of what I read in the quotes from BB's post of Biden is just more revisionist history and DEM lies. Biden is a nutjob who lost all credibility a long time ago with me. There were terrorists found in Iraq. There were terrorists training camps. Saddam was a terrorist himself against his own people. Bush did not lie and the DEMS have no proof of that. It is all simply political hogwash. All they are doing is trying to demoralize the troops and turn this into another defeat like Vietnam was. And they are starting to suceed according to Oliver North who constantly visits the troops at home and abroad. The troops are starting to wonder if all this rhetoric means we are going to cut and run like cowards. The the cowards in the Democrat Party have their way, we will cut and run, and then they will spend the next three years covering the ensuing slaughter that would occur and condemning us for abandoning the Iraqis who stood up and fought for freedom before the job was done, and because we will have emboldened the terrorists to become more violent. The DEMS are stupid idiots when it comes to foreign policy, which is why I never want one in office during war time.
Biden is a stuffed shirt looking for face time. Even in the realm of politics it is rare to see someone with so little knowledge and thought speak so much.
"On" in spots might be a better description and very few spots at that.
Like I said, Senator Biden was on target with his assessment of the war.
First, we need to build a political consensus, starting with the Constitution, that gives the Kurds, Shi’a, and Sunnis a stake in keeping Iraq together. Iraq cannot be salvaged by military might alone.
Last month, the Constitution passed overwhelmingly. But the vast majority of Sunni Arabs voted “no.” Unless changes are made by next spring, it will become a document that divides rather than unites Iraq."
Biden seems to be of the opinion that "we" should effect those changes. He seems to be forgetting that the Sunnis chose not to participate in the constitutional process and that process belongs to the Iraqis, not us.
Armchair quarterbacks are all pretty much alike. Biden just has more practice than most.
Rare? I see it every time the president of the secretary of defense speaks.
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events".
Sir Winston Churchill
Like I said, Senator Biden was on target with his assessment of the war. </font>[/QUOTE]I know you said that. But people can say anything. Biden was partially right, but he is mostly wrong in his handling of it. One doesn't need to be a genius to figure that out.
This is pretty cut and dried. We have been here before 30 years ago when America didn't have the will to win and decided to run. Vietnam and SE Asia has suffered for 30 years because of it. We should be smart enough to learn from history.
Biden is the one who said before the war that he thought Bush could make a good case for war, but he hadn't done it. Biden is a prime example of an opportunist who will say whatever he thinks will make people happy. He is always lookign for approval from others. He is arrogant and unthinking about too many things.
Rare? I see it every time the president of the secretary of defense speaks. </font>[/QUOTE]Nice one ... ... But you know that isn't true. They simply disagree with your thoughts apparenlty, and therefore you accuse them of not thinking. I can assure you that they have put plenty of time and effort into researching and thinking about this issue ... way more than you have.
Pastor Larry, I am convinced you are wrong concerning Senator Biden, but I know that there is nothing I can say that will convince you of your error.
I am also convinced that not only is Biden a great Senator, but he would also make a great Vice-President running with Hillary Clinton in 2008!
You are certainly welcome to be convinced of whatever you like. This isn't the first time we have had a difference of opinion, and I am sure it won't be the last.
But remember, Biden tried running once already and failed miserably. As I recall, he plagiarized his dissertation and got caught. He is a New Englander and if Clinton got the nomination (something unlikely, IMO), she would not pick another New Englander, a rank liberal such as Biden. She would need to pick a moderate candidate to appeal to the swing voters, but that's a few years off. Let's let it ride for a while and see what happens.
Have a great day Terry.
The 'cry babies' who think 2,000 men and women lost in this war are too many need to think more. 6,000 men were killed on the beaches of France in W.W. II. on the first day of the invasion. They were Americans, Canadians, and British forces, etc.
The problem is the Biden types want to keep us safe for democracy and attacks like the Twin Towers without defending us from terrorists.
The terrorists have been busy well before the turn of this century. Remember the 300 or 600 Marines that were sleeping when they drove a car into the gates and blew up our soldiers.
Let's not forget the past.
Biden, Shummer, and Clinton are like 'paper cut outs' they are all socialist __________.
Young Americans have not been taught world history with all of the stark facts.
Peace with no war; it does not work like this.
Incorrect. You can judge by comparing what comes out of their mouths by the actual state of reality. When you do that, you will find that they have put much thinking into it. You simply bought the other side of the issue. The fact that people disagree with you doesn't mean that they aren't thinking. It means they are thinking differently. So you made a false charge based on your political biases.
Yes indeed, and you have aptly described the problems with your position. You started with a false premise -- that Bush isn't a thinker. Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed by you automatically, thus shielding yourself from contrary information. It is an easy way for you to be dogmatic, but much harder for you to be right.
When you look at history of the past 10 years, every single political leader in this country agreed with Bush. Now, would you really have us believe that none of them thought? Today, those guys including Biden are running from past comments as fast as they can for political reasons.
But in the end, you are correct in your assertions about erroneous premises and conclusions, and that assertion truly describes your position.