Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditBarack Obama may be doing the one thing that might have seemed impossible: he's picking a running mate whose ideas about Iraq are even worse than, and stupider than, John McCain's.
Obama, whose mushy Iraq plan excites no one, is marrying his own's flawed ideas -- which mostly revolve around beefing up US forces in Afghanistan and unilaterally attacking Pakistan -- with Biden's discredited notion of partitioning Iraq into three squabbling mini-states.
Indeed, last year it was the passage by the US Senate of a resolution in favor of Biden's dangerously misguided ideas that sparked an outburst of Iraqi nationalism. More than the Blackwater killings, more than US efforts to forcibly privatize Iraq's oil, it was the Biden idea of splitting Iraq into three pieces that galvanized Iraqi Arab nationalists. (It does, of course, excite the Kurds no end.)
Perversely, by selecting Biden, Obama might in fact hasten the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, if only because Iraqis won't be able to stomach Vice President Biden pompously lecturing them on why Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds can't live together.
As the always astute Reidar Visser points out, Biden has quietly suppressed talk of his partition plan even on his own web site, in cleaning up his act in preparation for being named Obama's running mate. Noting that Obama himself seems unable to think of Iraq in other than the Sunni-vs.-Shiite paradigm, Visser points out:
Arguably, the addition of Joe Biden to the Obama ticket might aggravate these tendencies, because in the past Biden has been a leading American voice in promoting an interpretation of Iraq as a country of three mutually hostile and internally stable population blocks. His various "plans for Iraq", while frequently misunderstood, in different ways reinforce the view that the main problem in Iraq has to do with a centralised state structure and coexistence issues. Like many others in American politics, Biden has failed to acknowledge the emerging non-sectarian trends in Iraq, seeking instead to push ideas about "Sunni federalism" during his visit to the Anbar governorate.
Need we point out that, in addition, Biden joined McCain in voting for the war resolution in 2002 that propelled the United States into Iraq? How, exactly, does Obama enhance his anti-war stand by selecting a pro-war hawk as his running mate? Among other things, Obama makes it impossible for himself to criticize McCain's pre-2003 Iraq bloodlust by selecting a bloodthirsty Democrat as his running mate.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
The disappointment of the "pure progressives"...
is the best endorsement for the Biden Vice-Presidency.
Though I thought he'd pick somebody more "excting", if it had been somebody whole-heartedly endorsed by "The Nation" (or worse ZERO!)...
I'd be worried.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/23/2008 @ 12:04pm
Obama would be hard-pressed to find a VP that DIDN'T vote for the 2002 war resolution. Describing Biden as a "pro-war hawk" is a stretch.
Partitioning, which will eventually happen anyway after we pull out (if nothing else, Turkey and Iran will "partition" Iraq after we leave), is the best solution offered.
Posted by Balrog at 08/23/2008 @ 12:07pm
His biggest mistake was to pair up with a Senator.....another one of those `judgment' things, IMO!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/23/2008 @ 12:16pm
His biggest mistake was going with an "old guard" Dem. This is not a particularly inspiring choice for "change". I must admit that, while I disagree with most of Dreyfuss' points, I am disappointed in Obama's selection of running mates.
Posted by Balrog at 08/23/2008 @ 12:18pm
Happy-I'm just trying to help you dittoheads learn to have original ideas.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/23/2008 @ 12:44pm
This is exactly the reason I am withdrawing from the DEM party. Obama is no more a "change" candidate than Bush is a "compassionate conservative".
Obama has solidly now proven to me that this party is a hopeless parody of its once strong and pointed self.
This is indeed Obama's largest leap to the center, and it seals my vote for the only candidate who has truly EVER helped the American people..... Mr. Nader.
Posted by DJGoody at 08/23/2008 @ 1:18pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/23/2008 @ 12:07pm
You need to make up your mind, LL.
"Peacenik appeaser" or "steadily moving towards the center"
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/23/2008 @ 1:19pm
and it seals my vote for the only candidate who has truly EVER helped the American people..... Mr. Nader.----Posted by DJGoody at 08/23/2008 @ 1:18pm
Giving us Dubya in 2000 was "help"?!?!??
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/23/2008 @ 1:34pm
Firstly, Al Gore gave us Bush by running as a moderate, and not talking about the environment.
He also gave us Bush, by NOT fighting for an election that HE WON!!!! Did we really want Al Gore??? Seriously???? WTF???? He rolled over like a dog during the post election railing. Some candidate he was.
Not to mention, Florida would have been no less a fiasco without Nader. Nader is a scapegoat for a bad candidate, with a poorly run campaign.
But, if you prefer to not see reality, and look at it like Nader spoiled it, then there's an easy response - which is YES it helped. It has woken up a populous that was lulled into a deep sleep by the "sheepish" Clinton/Gore years. Bush/Cheney has made a lot of people care, that otherwise would simply roll over.
Face it, Clinton did as much to destroy this country as Bush has. Just different ways. They're cut from the same cloth.
Posted by DJGoody at 08/23/2008 @ 1:40pm
Giving us Dubya in 2000 was "help"?!?!??
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/23/2008 @ 1:34pm
wait a second.
YOU gave us the king of crawford, not nader.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 2:08pm
Clinton was a terrible choice. I know why he didn't pick her and he was smart to. Clinton may bring a few advantages but she comes with too much baggage.
Biden is not pro-war, Biden is pro finding a solution that works.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/23/2008 @ 2:10pm
it doesn't matter what mr. biden thinks.
what matters is that people THINK he's
BUILTFORDTOUGH!
most people have no idea what each candidate proposes.
no idea.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 2:10pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/23/2008 @ 12:11pm
Why because he HAS to choose a woman or a black person? Jesus Happy. Come on. You sound like Hillary during the primaries. What is he not allowed to choose the most viable person he HAS to choose based on race and/or sex?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/23/2008 @ 2:12pm
wow,
i can get a hannah montana zwinky.
thanks, nation.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 2:13pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 2:08pm
I gave him ONE vote...Ralph gave him the 600 he needed in Florida.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/23/2008 @ 2:15pm
Since the Conservative movement has moved the goalposts the "center" is located somewhere in the middle right of the spectrum. What stands for "moderate" in the USA is considered conservative in much of the world.
By moving to the "center" to court the famous "swing voters" Obama is making the money and the professional politicos happy but closing the door to millions of potential voters--not just anti-war voters, but economic and environmental voters--who see his campaign as moving away from the change that is so sorely needed to bizness as usual.
The integration of business and government in the USA moves us continually closer to the conditions that led to the definition of Fascism in Italy.
Before America can claim to be bringing democracy to the world it needs to create it at home.
Posted by ohsotired at 08/23/2008 @ 2:23pm
Ralph gave him the 600 he needed in Florida.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/23/2008 @ 2:15pm
what about mr. other?
he got 3,028 votes.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 2:26pm
Dumb, dumb, dumb move!
Talk about taking the bait?
You can't run a "change we can believe in" campaign with the status quo on the ticket.
Obama fell for the mainstream press narrative that "Obama needs a VP with foreign policy muscle" to shore up his "weakness" in this area, when upon closer examination, this was all orchestrated by the Georgia invasion of South Ossetia by a Georgia president who is controlled by right-wing Israeli Jews. Israel, like American and British oil companies, have a financial interest in having the oil pipeline that runs through Georgia protected by NATO forces.
Big oil and the Israeli lobby essentially forced Obama to pick Biden through the timing of the Georgia invasion.
The problem is despite Biden's foreign policy "experience", he doesn't seem to have a clue as to how to avoid a new Cold War and bring Russia into our sphere as a partner as opposed to a re-constituted foe.
If Obama needed an experienced LBJ-type in the White House, he should have tapped such a person as his Chief of Staff, like Clinton did with Leon Panetta or Reagan with Howard Baker.
Now Obama runs the risk of having to change his "change we can believe in" message, jeopardizing the youth vote and new voters that thought they were voting for change from Washington politics as usual. And with a close race, he can NOT afford to lose these voters.
And women voters are left with nothing with the Biden choice, and they are also critical to Obama's success in November.
Obama simply got faked out of his first choice (Kathleen Sebelius) by political forces that oppose his rise to the presidency. He should have been smart enough to see who was behind the Georgia invasion and whether those interests coincide with his own.
This may be the end for an Obama presidency.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/23/2008 @ 2:36pm
"Barack Obama may be doing the one thing that might have seemed impossible: he's picking a running mate whose ideas about Iraq are even worse than, and stupider than, John McCain's."
NICE! don't you (repugnants) love the way the left ralliesw around its choice and comes together to defeat you?
"Obama, whose mushy Iraq plan excites no one, is marrying his own's flawed ideas -- which mostly revolve around beefing up US forces in Afghanistan and unilaterally attacking Pakistan -- with Biden's discredited notion of partitioning Iraq into three squabbling mini-states."
indeed. whats your suggestion, mr positive? biden's ideas of a partitioned iraq are discreditted? really? more on that shortly...obama wants to unilaterally attack pakistan? really? afghanistan is pacified? the future is murky - obama is smart and prudent.
"Indeed, last year it was the passage by the US Senate of a resolution in favor of Biden's dangerously misguided ideas that sparked an outburst of Iraqi nationalism. More than the Blackwater killings, more than US efforts to forcibly privatize Iraq's oil, it was the Biden idea of splitting Iraq into three pieces that galvanized Iraqi Arab nationalists. (It does, of course, excite the Kurds no end.)"
lets see...in order to responsibly leave iraq...we need to ensure as secure iraq, whether it be one or three countries...so all because of biden's resolution iraqi nationalism has become galvanised and they have redoubled their efforts to get their shit together? WELL GOOD WORK JOE BIDEN! SOUNDS LIKE A GENIUS TO ME!!!! and if the kurds are refusing to be integrated back into a unified iraq (and i don't bloame them) maybe biden has some good points.
to be continued until finished or banned...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/23/2008 @ 2:36pm
Mr Dreyfuss would do well to read the 1951 book written by reporter John Roy Carlson, Cairo To Damascus. In this true account written in 1948-9, Carlson goes undercover with warring elements, the Israelis, the Egytians, Saudis..basically experiencing from the inside and all viewpoints how the oil interests created the conflicts in this region and how the Nazis created liasons to literally fuel their war machine during WW2. If Dreyfuss does not think that these liasons existed or that the worldwide goals of fascism were abated forever at Yalta, he will be inhabiting a fanstasy planet. One where the manipulation of oil profits and the marriage of the corporate and state have not occurred. One where the son and grandson of the earliest Nazi funders and profiteers did not gain control of the American presidency. Back in the real world, Dreyfuss should be kissing the ground Barck walks on for making his very noble attempt to end this and stop America's spiralling descent. Obama will save Dreyfuss's ability to speak freely on a forum available to the public.
Posted by hrayovac at 08/23/2008 @ 2:38pm
As a progressive, I am baffled by the comments that the Dems weere once "solid and pointed"--do you mean FDR or what? JFK was a CONSERVATIVE and Obama is as conservative as they come--except for McCain. So, here we go again--Tweedledumb amd Tweedledumbass. I'm not going to do it this time--I have for 30 yrs. If we dont get decent health care (Obama care is no care), I'm not going to be around long enought o vote in the next election. So, why make my vote a sell-out.You dont care if people die? OK--then, I should care if you win, why???
Posted by kdelphi95 at 08/23/2008 @ 2:41pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/23/2008 @ 2:41pm
Shattered?
You mean, you'll just "roll with the punches" if OBAMA wins?
BTW, the fun part (only part that's good) of McCain winning?...will be watching you and Rush go ape-sh** when he starts going "maverick" and signing off on Dem legislation...
and when "newer, younger Repubs" start turning from "Dubya'ism" to "Maverick'ism" and as Rush said "destroying the Republican Party"!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/23/2008 @ 2:47pm
"Perversely, by selecting Biden, Obama might in fact hasten the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, if only because Iraqis won't be able to stomach Vice President Biden pompously lecturing them on why Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds can't live together."
WOOHOO!
"As the always astute Reidar Visser points out, Biden has quietly suppressed talk of his partition plan even on his own web site, in cleaning up his act in preparation for being named Obama's running mate. Noting that Obama himself seems unable to think of Iraq in other than the Sunni-vs.-Shiite paradigm, Visser points out:"
i'll not quote the quote, but first of all i don't see how what mr visser said necesarily supports your position, nor do i see him as a non-sequiter reference anyway.
"Need we point out that, in addition, Biden joined McCain in voting for the war resolution in 2002 that propelled the United States into Iraq? How, exactly, does Obama enhance his anti-war stand by selecting a pro-war hawk as his running mate? Among other things, Obama makes it impossible for himself to criticize McCain's pre-2003 Iraq bloodlust by selecting a bloodthirsty Democrat as his running mate."
i've not seen such non-sequiter, histrionic, claptrap, hyperbolic rubbish in quite some time from someone supposedly on the progressive side of the fence until i wrtote this very sentence...or sonce frankgrits' last post.
mr. dreyfuss...i have enjoyed your blog and often agreed with you wholeheartedly and i'm sure you are a nice, intelligent, well educated expert sort of guy in general, but this has got to be the worst, most misguided, poorly thought out blog entry i have ever read in my five plus years of lurking around this website and i urge you to take a second look at the situation and rethink your position...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/23/2008 @ 2:50pm
on the one hand i see the fact that this horribly wrong post was allowed to be published as a credit to the magazine and its true commitment to open discussion and varied opinion...
on the other i am sickened at the poorly thought out self destructive nature of the post. mr. dreyfuss showed not only irresponsibility for a dedicated progressive but also a distinct lack of insight and in-the-box style thinking. seriously it almost sounds like some kind of highbrow dittospeak.
wow...i'm beginning to think that the greatest enemy of progressivism is not the enemy at all, but the irresponsible speech and notions of certain progressives themselves.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/23/2008 @ 3:01pm
well its too nice a day to waste pissed of at this horrible blog entry. the sun is shining, the house needs a paintin' and barack obama is speaking on msnbc in his introduction of mr. biden as his vice presidential running mate.
the msnbc guys like mr. obama's choice, i like mr. obama's choice, and let the pundits blabbulate semicoherently until their semifunctional and not really needed heads explode. i'm going to enjoy the moment and plan to donate some money and time to the campaign and get behind the effort one hundred percent.
lead, follow, or get out of the way!!!
lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/23/2008 @ 3:10pm
...dammit!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/23/2008 @ 3:17pm
you see...this is an advantage the repugnants will always have over progressives - the stupidity inherent in the ability to mindlessly parrot simplistic talking points in blankfaced unanimity is, like the story behind the evolution of the modern domesticated dog...
apparantly man's best friend has proven so evolutionarily successful predicesly as a result of his sloth, stupidity, and subservience in comparison to his smarter, leaner, more energetic cousin, the wild wolf. the modern dog is the descendant of those likeable dimwit bum wolves who glommed off of us shaved apes and knuckeled under to us completely and enthusiastically escewing freedom and dignity.
in like manner do middle and working class repugnants seem to facilely band together in happy talking point carolling. they don't have to nor care to even necarily nderstand the chorus they drone out - they just like the sound and do it rather than take the time and effort to really think.
i don't for a second wish progressives to emulate this stupidity - it may win elections but destroys civilizations...
strident disagreement with others on one's own side is fine up to a point, but i am a tad disgusted at lack of big picture understanding on the part of those who generally have the big picture right.
if we progresives cannot learn how to win elections - we are just as culpable in the degradation of our civilization as are the semi-mindless legions of concrete objective marching morons of the dimly concious right.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/23/2008 @ 3:31pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/23/2008 @ 3:34pm
You mean you think Obama might impose taxes on Social Security or raise the payroll rate on higher incomes????
like Reagan did? Good thing McCain would NEVER do that, huh?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/23/2008 @ 3:45pm
ok
Posted by Charles Bittner at 08/23/2008 @ 4:04pm
2happy wrote:
The country is center right and Obama's moving to that "center", is somehow, UNdemocratic? So far, the only thing UNdemocratic is your caucus system and it sure seems to me, Magic & his advisors are doing their very BEST, to compensate for that!!
You will disagree, I'm sure, but in my travels in 16 states in the last year, meeting all kinds of people it is clear to me that the idea that the country is center right in orientation is false. I think it is true that the so far participating electorate may be center-right, but the lack of democracy I was talking about centers on the millions who don't vote. And the caucus system may have it's flaws but it is a gnat compared to the albatross of vote-suppression, gerrymandering and outright fraud (Ohio's electronic voting machines in 2004) gifted us my the right who work hard to prevent poor folks and minorities from getting their votes heard. That's undemocratic!
Posted by ohsotired at 08/23/2008 @ 4:56pm
After reading the article I realize Biden's idea of three separate states has hastened whatever poitical progress has occured in Iraq more than anything else has. It seems Biden might just be the perfect choice for VP.
Posted by kevin49 at 08/23/2008 @ 6:14pm
Posted by kevin49 at 08/23/2008 @ 6:14pm
you are supposed to read tea leaves,
not smoke them.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 6:33pm
you are supposed to read tea leaves,
not smoke them.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 6:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person
oh really?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/23/2008 @ 6:36pm
SS was in trouble and Reagan "rolled" with the hands he was dealt....Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/23/2008 @ 4:06pm
Good thing McCain doesn't have a reputation for "rolling" on issues, huh?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/23/2008 @ 6:46pm
I would hardly call Biden a "pro-war" hawk . He's not near as bad as bad as Hillary is, or Obama for that matter.
McCain wants to kill. And Hillary wanted others to kill.
Biden gets more points in my book - because he admits to making a mistake with that vote and believes in the Rule of Law AND, has his own son involved in the conflict.
Obama and Biden, were willing to do what it takes to push diplomacy - and partitioning was just one of many ideas to that end.
Ideas of which NONE -from anyone including yourself - have worked.
Oh by the way - contrary to your assertions of sameness on Iraq - Hillary and McCain have a taste for cluster bombs and DPD tipped missiles.
Obama and Biden voted against them.
Posted by hazmaq at 08/23/2008 @ 7:37pm
I would hardly call Biden a "pro-war" hawk . He's not near as bad as bad as Hillary is, or Obama for that matter.
McCain wants to kill. And Hillary wanted others to kill.
Biden gets more points in my book - because he admits to making a mistake with that vote and believes in the Rule of Law AND, has his own son involved in the conflict.
Obama and Biden, were willing to do what it takes to push diplomacy - and partitioning was just one of many ideas to that end.
Ideas of which NONE -from anyone including yourself - have worked.
Oh by the way - contrary to your assertions of sameness on Iraq - Hillary and McCain have a taste for cluster bombs and DPD tipped missiles.
Obama and Biden voted against them.
Posted by hazmaq at 08/23/2008 @ 7:38pm
The Kurds will never surrender their autonomy unless they are forced to.
Posted by Pogge at 08/23/2008 @ 7:59pm
One more. How the hell does Barack Obama,(well actually Caroline Kennedy), pick someone who voted to go into Iraq after all the blustering that B.O. did in the primaries about how he had such great wisdom, even though he never had to vote on a damn thing? Does anyone besides me see the hutzpah of such a selection. That was the biggest objection to Hillary getting the nomination. Sexism rears it's ugly head again. I hope that women come out in droves for john Mccain and send Obama back to Illinois. Posted by frankgrits at 08/23/2008 @ 7:58pm
Yeah. John McCain the candidate who represents nothing that women want. Franks just as deluded and ignorant of facts as forever.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/23/2008 @ 8:12pm
Historians out there, please tell us when was the last time two Senators on a POTUS ticket won? Not in my adult life....that I know! Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/23/2008 @ 12:16pm |
I'm hardly a historian, but I do remember large portions of my adult life. And though I was just a lad, I also remember JKF/LBJ in 1960.
We've predominantly had State Governors in the White House for a while now: 28 of the last 32 years (every President since Nixon except Bush I, who had been a Congressperson and whose V.P. was a Senator, as well as a joke).
But that's just trivia.
I'm not bowled over by Obama's choice for V.P., but I'm sure glad I don't have to even consider voting for a Clinton again.
Posted by Radscal at 08/23/2008 @ 8:33pm
The three "states" solution? Well Biden like me is a Celt by origin (only I'm not Irish) so what else would you expect?
I think Liberty is on the right track on this "change we can believe in" aka no change at all. ( Or better still an Obama/Biden, Bush moment).
Now we conservatives really like you Lefties or we wouldn't roll up here so regularly and I want you to believe I'm really trying not to snigger.
All I can say is sorry lads but it looks like the big O ain't gunna create a progressive's heaven on earth for you (or us).
By the way any progressives (what about it Crabs?) like to do a (long) tour of duty in Pakistan. You'll be needed there by big O (or perhaps in Georgia for young B's adventurism) ie. after the new surge troops are sent to Iraq to quell the sectarian violence caused by the Irishman's 3SS .
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/23/2008 @ 8:38pm
Pointless scare-mongering article, Mr. Dreyfuss...
Biden adds grit and 'experience' to Obama's package... and can counter McCain tit for tat right down the litany list. Don't doubt that he will.
Especially in Iraq.
'Progressives' need an administration that can speak their language before they can be heard... so... first things first...
No sense in hurrying a process that seemed totally impossible only two short years ago... and these sorts of inflammatory articles are merely grist for the mills of Limbaughian lugubriousity.
Posted by ttr at 08/23/2008 @ 8:41pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/23/2008 @ 7:58pm
Watch FRANK COMPLETELY contradict this post...
when it's McCain announcing his Veep!
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/23/2008 @ 8:42pm
"progressives" is such a super lame name.
how about "conservative" instead?
after all, it seems "progressives" are the only people interested in "conserving" what's left of this earth.
and it seems that "progressives" are the only people demonstrating any kind of fiscal responsibility.
I AM A PROUD CONSERVATIVE!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 10:20pm
"progressives" is such a super lame name.
how about "conservative" instead? "
Yeah see your point FZ but we conservatives work on the principle that if it isn't broken don't fix it.
My wife for example is a progressive who believes in preventative maintenance, but I'm a staunch conservative as I've often told her in other words. Mainly because I'm the maintenance man.
Bit like the GW thing? But if you're hyperactive, by nature, I suppose you can't help being a progressive.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/23/2008 @ 11:23pm
HAPPY, ZERO,
WHAT WAS OBAMA THINKING????????
Obama/Biden, huh? Nice ring to it but it's still a loser of a ticket. The Clintons are laughing all the way to the bank. Why? In November, Obama loses, McCain takes Bush/Cheneyism to new and illustrious(LOL) heights, and Hillary can come back in 2012 and say, I told you so and cruise to victory and to the White House.
Obama really only had two choices: Hillary Clinton or Chuck Hagel. Anyone one else was a solid loser............
Posted by POSEIDON at 08/23/2008 @ 11:25pm
If McCain picks either Hutchison or Lieberman he'll win. Those would be bold choices that will make Obama's seem timid and could win over swing democrats.
Posted by manderso at 08/24/2008 @ 01:50am
Break Iraq into 3 pieces? Sounds good to me. In fact, I'm with Gore Vidal who suggested many years ago that we divide up the US along ideological lines, let the folks in fly-over country stew in their own ignorance
Posted by hamblinbone at 08/24/2008 @ 03:32am
As for the VP choice, if you think it matters who's on the ticket as VP than you are sadly ignorant about American history. Remember Quayle? Mondale? Agnew for hikessake...
Posted by hamblinbone at 08/24/2008 @ 03:35am
2happy wrote": You better come less tired and more coherent! Or find another blog with similarly "tired" folks like yourself!
You clearly enjoy engaging in the ad hominem/straw man style--learned no doubt from Rush et al. By ignoring punctuation ("center" has a different meaning in English than center) you invent "contradictions". Glad it makes you happy.
You write: "You get more poorly-educated and generally disengaged voters who are `takers' ...
I note you don't take issue with the facts on Republican vote suppression--in fact you rationalize it. Sorry, Democracy is "one person; one vote" not "one well educated net producer; one vote" much as that may disturb your elitist undemocratic sensibilities.
Rather than taking more of your money (hiking your income tax), reforms should include halting the transfer of vast sums of money from the public purse to the private sector using wars based on lies. And halting subsidies for multinational oil and agriculture companies and for ethanol from food crops (yeah I know Obama is from Illinois and supports corn grown for ethanol, it's still a dumb idea). Then let's see if we need reform beyond the repeal of the Bush cuts and a middle-class tax cut.
There's plenty of tax money collected, it (and 100s of billions more in borrowed funds) just gets funneled into private companies--many of which are not required to pay tax on their profits. Shareholders get fat and the Federal government is hamstrung by debt and can't function in the People's interest (remember "by the People, for the People"?). Given that you and your mob are happy to see non-functioning government because you don't believe in it in the first place, I'd say 'Mission Accomplished', but GWB already used that one.
Biden will be fine; he kayoed Rudy.
Posted by ohsotired at 08/24/2008 @ 03:38am
"That was the biggest objection to Hillary getting the nomination. Sexism rears it's ugly head again. I hope that women come out in droves for john Mccain and send Obama back to Illinois.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/23/2008 @ 7:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person "
Two difference that you've overlooked. First, Biden, unlike Clinton, has actually stated that he considers the vote a mistake. Second, Biden has considerably more foreign policy experience than Clinton does.
Posted by brunowe at 08/24/2008 @ 05:18am
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/23/2008 @ 1:19pm
""Peacenik appeaser" or "steadily moving towards the center"?
I think that depends on who he's talking to.
Posted by pontificus at 08/24/2008 @ 05:26am
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/23/2008 @ 1:19pm
""Peacenik appeaser" or "steadily moving towards the center"?
Actually, I think I'd refer to him as the country's first Affirmative Action candidate. How else to explain his lack of qualifications?
Posted by pontificus at 08/24/2008 @ 05:27am
Posted by brunowe at 08/24/2008 @ 05:18am
"Two difference that you've overlooked. First, Biden, unlike Clinton, has actually stated that he considers the vote a mistake. Second, Biden has considerably more foreign policy experience than Clinton does."
Brunowe, was Biden referring to his vote for the war, or for the Surge as being a mistake?
I mean, in light of the fact that the Surge has unquestionably been a great success, indeed that the Surge actually closed out the Iraq War as a victory, one would wonder if Biden called it a mistake to vote for it.
Also, do you think that Obama has changed his mind about his vote against the Surge, now that the Surge has succeeded? Also, how does this square with Obama's contention that a candidate's voting record is an important reflection of a candidate's judgement, and that Obama's judgement has thus been proved very wrong on one of the most important policy questions of the last several years?
Posted by pontificus at 08/24/2008 @ 05:33am
Posted by frankgrits at 08/23/2008 @ 7:58pm
"How the hell does Barack Obama,(well actually Caroline Kennedy), pick someone who voted to go into Iraq after all the blustering that B.O. did in the primaries about how he had such great wisdom, even though he never had to vote on a damn thing?"
If I may, FRANK, offer some speculation. Obama, recognizing the pickle he is in, now that the Iraq War has been won through the Surge (two things Obama voted against) now has on board a guy who voted the opposite way in both cases. This way, his ticket is balanced and attractive to both sides, because he's got the issue bracketed! Brilliant! Change we can believe in!
Posted by pontificus at 08/24/2008 @ 05:42am
Posted by pontificus at 08/24/2008 @ 05:42am
"the Surge worked"..."we won the war"...
but "we can't leave in 16 months or we'll lose"!?!?!??!?
Yeah, as long as you don't think TOO hard...it sounds good!
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/24/2008 @ 08:46am
Ponti-You have,for obvious reasons,been unable to show that the war is won and the troops home and wonder why you repeat what you know to be a lie?People who are informed know that the terrorists achieved most of their goals in Iraq which means that they,too can claim a certain degree of victory and informed people know that it will be years before we know what,if anything,was "won" by attacking Iraq.You may now return to your fantasy life and declare victory while troops and civilians are still dying.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/24/2008 @ 09:33am
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/24/2008 @ 08:46am
"but "we can't leave in 16 months or we'll lose"!?!?!??!?
Yeah, as long as you don't think TOO hard...it sounds good!
LOL"
So, you've been wrong every step of the way, here, MASK, and you refuse to admit it, preferring instead to try to salvage some dignity from the fact that 'yeah, but we're not leaving fast enough". Your intellectual integrity has now reached the pathetic.
Posted by pontificus at 08/24/2008 @ 09:41am
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/24/2008 @ 09:33am
Yes, IM, I realize that for the sake of your self-image, you cannot ever see the war in Iraq to have been won. For you and those like you, there will always be some caveat, some unfulfilled expectation, some unrequited hope that will justify your condemnation of the entire proceeding, because god forbid you should ever be wrong.
Posted by pontificus at 08/24/2008 @ 09:44am
ĞDivide et imperağ is the standard practice of all Empires. It's perceived legitimacy depends, of course, upon who is doing the perceiving and who the dividing. People like Senator Biden believe that dividing up Jugoslavia or Serbia, or Iraq is quite legitimate, while dividing Bosnia or Georgia would be a crime. The mote in one's neighbour's eye is always much more visible than the beam in one's own....
Henri
Posted by mhenriday at 08/24/2008 @ 09:46am
Ponti-The reason that I know that the war is not won is because it's still going on and claiming that a war is won while it's still going on is as brilliant as claiming that a sports game is won while the game is still being played.My self image can't be affected by the outcome of the war, for a wide variety of reasons, including the fact that our troops were used to create an Islamic state which is wrong and will be always wrong and because my self image isn't based on the outcome of a particular war.Sorry.Obviously,your self image is wrapped up in the outcome which is why you are declaring victory even though you know that no victory has taken place..I noticed that you ignored the fact the terrorists achieved many of their goals in Iraq and ignored the fact that it will be years before we really know the outcome of the attack because you know that both facts are quite true.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/24/2008 @ 09:56am
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/24/2008 @ 09:56am
Well, IM, all I can say is, read a few papers, most people think it's over and we won. But if you prefer to go into a cognitive hole and close the lid after yourself, you have my leave to do so.
Posted by pontificus at 08/24/2008 @ 10:04am
Ponti-I prefer reality and don't care if most people think that a war is 0ver and we won while the war is still going on because I'm not so ignorant as to claim that something is over while it's still going on.Talk about Orwellian.The only people who live in a hole would be those who believe that something is over while it's still going on.?You advanced the cause of islam and call that victory.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/24/2008 @ 10:14am
Ponti-You used our troops and money to create an islamic state in the middle east.Wow.How exciting and is a wonderful "victory", for conservative and extremist muslims.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/24/2008 @ 10:24am
joe lieberman is slime.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/24/2008 @ 11:32am
and richardson would have been a much better choice.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/24/2008 @ 11:32am
The only thing worse than libs throwing Liberman overboard....
is the cons sticking their collective snout up his sphincter on the same issue.
----
Actually my comment today is;
Hope for Change.
whatever happened to that? Primaries ended?
Posted by crabwalk at 08/24/2008 @ 12:00pm
I HOPE that's NOT what you teach your son!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/24/2008 @ 11:46am
gotta run.
joe said the iraq war was the mccain-lieberman war.
slime.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/24/2008 @ 12:04pm
Questions for the neo-cons:
How are you going to turn Biden into a Muslim?
Is his Christianity "real"?
Is he elite enough for ya'll?
HAPPY, do some research on Florida 2000,2004, Ohio 2004. Then get back to us about the "alleged" voter suppression. Crimes were committed, in Ohio at least some were punished. I know, I know, laws mean jack shit to you, but to some people they have meaning.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/24/2008 @ 12:09pm
FZ, CRUSTY curmudgeonous crustaceans appreciate your consideration and collaboration in collapsing the culture of corruption in 08.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/24/2008 @ 12:11pm
Happy-There is a bit of difference between being more tolerant and tolerating everything.You see,war is a serious thing and tolerance should never extend to something like war.If Lieberman left the fold over some less relevant issue then tolerance comes into play,but not when it comes to the subject of war.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/24/2008 @ 12:14pm
Happy-You must,also,remember that it is right wing Christians who say that Lieberman will rot in hell for eternity because he is pro abortion.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/24/2008 @ 12:28pm
Robert Dreyfuss entirely misses the point of Biden's 'plan'. Biden's plan is nothing more than recognition of the status quo - the situation on the ground. Kurdistan exists, is entitled to operate largely independently of Iraq, and is embroiled in a political, economic, and occasionally military struggle to expand its territory. It is in an off-and-on-again state of war with its northern neighbor, Turkey. No one can doubt that the 'federal' model of governance in Iraq will, like that of the early post-communist federal Yugoslavia, most likely fail, and Kurdistan will be an independent nation. Killing thousands of Americans, and tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Kurds, in order to keep that doomed federal model together, hardly seems a sensible plan. Does it seem one to Dreyfuss? If so, that explains a lot!
Posted by sagibson at 08/24/2008 @ 4:43pm
Liver, can you supply the links that show 3000 dead Americans in Japan, Korea or Germany, after those wars were "accomplished"?
Can you explain to us librools how it is that those aforementioned war/police action were completed in less time than it has taken your son to finish off a third world/third rate military?
Oh, wait, it is the medias fault. never mind.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/24/2008 @ 4:54pm
Biden was talking sense about the partitioning of Iraq. He also talked sense about how bad Rumsfeld was.
But, he was wrong about the need for war.
Big boo boo. Hard to forgive such a failure in policy.
Unless one is a neo-con. Then there are no mistakes, only blame for those that are not actually pulling strings.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/24/2008 @ 4:59pm
Giving us Dubya in 2000 was "help"?!?!?? Posted by Maskdelta at 08/23/2008 @ 1:34pm
give it up, plant used in the making of pickles.
Gore lost all by his-self. Couldn't even win TN, couldn't fight for his-self in FL recount. HE gave us Bush, as did YOU.
Go ahead, plant used in the making of pickles, tell DJGOODY who YOU voted for in 2000. Explain to us how it is those who voted FOR Bush didn't help, but those that voted for NAder did. And explain it while noting that 1/2 of Nader voters were republican.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/24/2008 @ 5:15pm
Maskdelta
"Explain to us how it is those who voted FOR Bush didn't help, but those that voted for NAder did. And explain it while noting that 1/2 of Nader voters were republican."
Posted by crabwalk at 08/24/2008 @ 5:15pm
Please.
Eric
(Characters left: 1549)
Do I get rollover characters, in my next post?
Is this the result of anything called "Rese's Law"?
Posted by Malcontent at 08/24/2008 @ 5:45pm
2HAPPY,
I disagree, Bill Richardson is like a bowl of oatmeal soaked in cold water for three days.................
Posted by POSEIDON at 08/25/2008 @ 02:49am
2HAPPY,
ACTUALLY:
Bill Richardson is like a bowl of oatmeal soaked in beach water for three days.................
Posted by POSEIDON at 08/25/2008 @ 02:59am
Robert Dreyfuss:
ON IRAQ BIDEN IS WORSE THAN MCCAIN:
And that is why Barack Obama picked him to be Vice President..........
Posted by POSEIDON at 08/25/2008 @ 03:01am
for those who were surprised that Biden has been a pro-war hawk
Biden, Iraq, and Obama's Betrayal By Stephen Zunes | August 24, 2008 Incipient Democratic presidential nominee 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 advan
Posted by lastmarx at 08/25/2008 @ 3:53pm
Instead of all this talk about partitioning Iraq, how about letting the Iraqis decide what they want to do about the future of their country.
U.S. meddling in Iraq's affairs has caused these horrific problems in the first place. And now the primary instigator of this fiasco is somehow qualified to tell the Iraqis what is best for them?
A political hack from DC (Biden), who originally supported the war and turned against it only when it had become political liability, is in no position to give lectures to anyone on nation building.
Posted by blue photon at 08/25/2008 @ 7:43pm
"he's picking a running mate whose ideas about Iraq are even worse than, and stupider than, John McCain's."
I don't know but I have a hard time taking seriously a statement calling Joe Biden's ideas on Iraq "stupider" than John McCain's. When you use a word such as "stupider" it makes you sound more stupid than the ideas you are trying to impugn.
Posted by katsu-shin at 08/25/2008 @ 9:10pm
Biden's plan is the reality on the ground. Neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed, get a clue. It is unfortunate 2 million refugees are not there to rebuild there country or reclaim their homes.
Posted by RAJORO at 08/27/2008 @ 07:08am