Joe Biden to Petraeus: "Lie to Me"

If any further evidence was needed to disqualify Joe Biden from consideration for the Democratic presidential nomination -- or for the vice presidential nod, or the secretary of state slot that he is actually seeking with his vanity campaign -- it came when the Delaware senator appeared Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Host Tim Russert -- the man who knowingly nodded along as Vice President Dick Cheney explained in March of 2003 that our troops would be "greeted as liberators" in Iraq -- said, "MoveOn.org, a liberal Democratic group, is taking an ad in the New York Times, and this is what it's going to be: 'General Petraeus Or General Betray Us? Cooking The Books For The White House.' What's your reaction to that?"

"I don't buy into that," responded Biden, whose campaign for the Democratic nomination is running neck-and-neck with that of former Alaska Senator Mike "These Other Candidates Scare Me" Gravel.

Before hearing a word of the testimony from General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq, Biden declared, "This is an honorable guy. He's telling the truth."

The trouble with Biden's rejection of the MoveOn ad's message is that the group is not casually lobbing the "cooking the books for the White House" charge. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has produced a detailed assessment to suggest that Petraeus and his aides have, in fact, been cooking the books in order to create the false impression that sectarian violence in Iraq is dramatically down. The truth is that the violence is not declining, as intelligence sources confirmed to the Washington Post in a series of interviews last week.

If Petraeus tells the Congress today that President Bush's "surge" of troops into Iraq is succeeding in reducing violence -- as part of an argument for maintaining a massive U.S. military force on the ground in Iraq -- then the general will indeed be guilty of betraying the truth, and the troops, for political purposes.

If he has been listening at all to testimony from unbiased officials to Congress in recent days, if he has simply read the papers, Biden knows this to be the case. Even if he is inclined, against all evidence to the contrary, to believe whatever political statement the general makes, the senator has a sworn duty to check and balance the administration with pointed and skeptical questioning of those who speak on its behalf.

By issuing a pre-dated "blank check" to Petraeus, Biden makes it clear that he is not up to his current job. He is certainly not prepared to move up to the presidency.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols, who appeared in Outfoxed, is the author of a critically-acclaimed new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (40)

1. Okay, Mr Nichols, I know where you're going to get hit on this piece from the neo-cons....it was this line---

   "Before hearing a word of the testimony from General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq, Biden declared, "This is an honorable guy. He's telling the truth."

   Their response? "So? Before hearing a word of the testimony, YOU are saying that Gen. Petraeus is LYING....what's the diff, John Nichols???"

   BTW, my view? Petreaus will tell the truth...just not ALL of it. That's not lying, but it's not helpful or honest either.

   Posted by Mask at 09/10/2007 @ 10:43am

2. Surge = Increase Level of Troop in Baghdad, the most ethnic-mixed in Iraq....to pacify neighborhoods....to provide pols to work things out

   Amazingly, NICHOLS article did NOT contain the word "Baghdad"!

   Hey, John, there was a Mexican pipeline explosion....the "Surge" has failed to quell Mexican `violence'!!!

   Posted by Happy at 09/10/2007 @ 11:13am

3. Biden is a doofus. "He's an honorable guy" That is a pathetic qualification. John Wayne Gacy was invited to the White House. They thought he was an honorable guy. Timothy McVeigh fought in our army. He was an honorable guy. Senator Craig, Congressman Jefferson, Congressman Allen, all "honorable guys" Biden. But who truly cares about your perception of the General when people are dying?

   I am having trouble understanding why we should believe someone who: 1) enjoys the perks of tax payer dollars being used on war, 2)will testify to his own competence and 3) has the Bush administration breathing down his neck. Honorable or not, the deck is stacked against him being honest and he has already started to tell lies to the media.

   Posted by jkbriscoe at 09/10/2007 @ 11:42am

4. Remember the last General they cooked the books on:

   Your hero General George Marshall, when he was secretary of state, oversaw the creation of amazing new institutions and doctrines--NATO, the Marshall Plan--to deal with the global threat posed by Soviet Communism. Now that we're faced with new global threats, what type of creative responses would he and his wise men be devising?

   To some extent, he faced a more dangerous threat, and it was an easier one to work with. There was one identifiable enemy that was on the other side of an identifiable terrain feature. It was state versus state. They were able to put in place state-based structures.

   Isn't the new global threat we face even more dangerous?

   What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?

   I would approach this differently, in almost Marshall-like terms. What are the great opportunities out there--ones that we can take advantage of? It should not be just about creating alliances to deal with a guy in a cave in Pakistan. It should be about how do we create institutions that keep the world moving down a path of wealth creation, of increasing respect for human rights, creating democratic institutions, and increasing the efficiency and power of market economies? This is perhaps the most effective way to go after terrorists.

   So you think we are getting too hunkered down and scared?

   Yes! We are taking too much counsel of our fears.

   This doesn't mean there isn't a terrorist threat. There is a threat. And we should send in military forces when we have a target to deal with. We should also secure our airports, if that makes us safer. But let's welcome every foreign student we can get our hands on. Let's make sure that foreigners come to the Mayo Clinic here, and not the Mayo facility in Dubai or somewhere else. Let's make sure people come to Disney World and not throw them up against the wall in Orlando simply because they have a Muslim name. Let's also remember that this country was created by immigrants and thrives as a result of immigration, and we need a sound immigration policy.

   Let's show the world a face of openness and what a democratic system can do. That's why I want to see Guantánamo closed. It's so harmful to what we stand for. We literally bang ourselves in the head by having that place. What are we doing this to ourselves for? Because we're worried about the 380 guys there? Bring them here! Give them lawyers and habeas corpus. We can deal with them. We are paying a price when the rest of the world sees an America that seems to be afraid and is not the America they remember.

   You can drive up the road from here and come to a spot where there is a megachurch over here, a little Episcopal church over there, a Catholic church around the corner that's almost cathedral-size, and between them is a huge Hindu temple. There are no police needed to guard any of this. There are not many places in the world where you would see that. Yes, there are a few dangerous nuts in Brooklyn and New Jersey who want to blow up Kennedy Airport and Fort Dix. These are dangerous criminals, and we must deal with them. But come on, this is not a threat to our survival! The only thing that can really destroy us is us. We shouldn't do it to ourselves, and we shouldn't use fear for political purposes--scaring people to death so they will vote for you, or scaring people to death so that we create a terror-industrial complex.

   One of your legacies to history will be what's known as the Powell Doctrine. How do you define it?

   Essentially it says: Avoid war--and if that's not possible, and it's necessary to use arms to solve a political problem, then do it in a decisive way. You remove as much doubt as you can about the outcome. In addition, you need to have a clearly defined mission, and you must have some understanding of how it's going to end.

   When the first Gulf War came along, I told President Bush [the elder] that when we had 250,000 troops in the region, we could defend Saudi Arabia from an Iraqi invasion. But if he wanted to kick the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, then General Schwarzkopf will need an additional 250,000 troops. Everybody gasped. And I told the president exactly how we would use them all, and he agreed.

   We also had a clear mission, which was to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait. And that's how we built a coalition with almost every other country in the world. We thought through where it was going to end. We said we wanted to leave Iraq with enough of an army so that it is not threatened by Iran. And we want to accomplish the mission we were given, which is getting the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. We were not interested in taking down the government. It was never our mission to go to Baghdad. For twelve years, I had to listen to criticism about that part of the plan. I don't hear it criticized too much now.

   http://tinyurl.com/yved8b

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2007 @ 12:47pm

5. Hey, 'MIC-TIC', is that new?

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2007 @ 1:13pm

6. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/10/2007 @ 12:47pm

   HSUB, you didn't specifically say...that was Colin Powell, right?

   Posted by Mask at 09/10/2007 @ 1:15pm

7. US surge has failed - Iraqi poll Poll taken in Missan, Iraq More than 2,000 Iraqis were questioned in all 18 provinces About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months, an opinion poll suggests.

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm

   The views of those actually living in Irag should continue to remain as irrelevant today as during the 1980s, when the grandfatherly Reagan and his Republican lackeys enabled Saddam Hussein to slaughter his citizens in the name of RealPolitik, national interest, etc. Republicans have as much empathy for Iraqis as they displayed for lower-income African Americans during the Katrina debacle.

   Posted by Oustbush at 09/10/2007 @ 1:27pm

8. Posted by MASK 09/10/2007 @ 1:15pm

   er, Frita, did you miss: "One of your legacies to history will be what's known as the Powell Doctrine. How do you define it?"

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2007 @ 1:46pm

9. BTW, my view? Petreaus will tell the truth...just not ALL of it. That's not lying, but it's not helpful or honest either.

   Posted by MASK 09/10/2007 @ 10:43am

   no, his nose doesn't grow bigger.

   but his ass does.

   .....and more people get sent through the meat grinder.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2007 @ 1:56pm

10. Mexican `violence'!!!

    Posted by HAPPY 09/10/2007 @ 11:13am

    just another backlash against greed* by desperate people.

    *study mexican politics before you say anything more.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2007 @ 2:00pm

11. "Only we can change ourselves."--hsubfools

    "Only we can change ourselves."--iraqi populace

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2007 @ 2:02pm

12. It should be about how do we create institutions that keep the world moving down a path of wealth creation, of increasing respect for human rights, creating democratic institutions, and increasing the efficiency and power of market economies? This is perhaps the most effective way to go after terrorists.

    by HSUBFOOLS

    excellent.

    however;

    1) it is not the u.s.'s responsibility to create any of these things. it is a good idea to HELP create those things, but unilateral action is always seen as an imposition.

    better yet, set an enviable example. y'all invented jazz and now it is played around the world, with each society adding it's own spice.

    2) some well trained POLICE are also good at catching terrorists.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2007 @ 2:08pm

13. Let's show the world a face of openness and what a democratic system can do. That's why I want to see Guantánamo closed. It's so harmful to what we stand for. We literally bang ourselves in the head by having that place. What are we doing this to ourselves for? Because we're worried about the 380 guys there? Bring them here! Give them lawyers and habeas corpus. We can deal with them. We are paying a price when the rest of the world sees an America that seems to be afraid and is not the America they remember.

    by hsubfools (duh, it's colin powell)

    i guess you got to my suggestion 1) in this paragraph.

    i will read on before hitting "submit" --(¿to whom?)

    (duh, it's colin powell)

    i thought it was you dude. oops! i was ready to start a draft hsubfools for prez campaign.

    alright, here we go: draft this bad-ass motherf$%cker (at least from this interview) for prez, now.

    this dude has huevos.

    hsubfools, thanks very much for finding us this interview

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2007 @ 2:20pm

14. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/10/2007 @ 1:46pm

    Yes, missed that, but I just thought you could be clearer at the start as to WHO the interview was with.

    Just trying to help you out on your post....I'll refrain in the future from such altruism.

    Posted by Mask at 09/10/2007 @ 2:53pm

15. .....and more people get sent through the meat grinder.----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/10/2007 @ 1:56pm

    FZ, if ANYTHING I posted made it sound as if I was supporting Petraeus, I apologize. Was merely pointing out that he won't blatently "lie"...just not "fully reveal the truth".

    And was also trying to show Mr Nichols where he would get hit by the Right on his comments.

    Again, as with HSUB, I guess I need to keep my helpful nature in check.

    Posted by Mask at 09/10/2007 @ 2:55pm

16. Do you feel responsible for giving the U.N. flawed intelligence?

    I didn't know it was flawed. Everybody was using it. The CIA was saying the same thing for two years. I gave perhaps the most accurate presentation of the intelligence as we knew it--without any of the "Mushroom clouds are going to show up tomorrow morning" and all the rest of that stuff. But the fact of the matter is that a good part of it was wrong, and I am sorry that it was wrong.

    Was it twisted?

    Not by me. What I used was the intelligence that was also available to everyone in the administration and to the Congress. Some of these senators are now presidential candidates who are saying they didn't read the National Intelligence Estimate they had asked for. It is fair, however, to say that some members of the administration took the intelligence to a higher plane than it deserved.

    http://tinyurl.com/2fdjq3

    XXXxxxxXXXXxxxXXXXxxxXXXxxxXXXxxx

    Drumheller on 60 Minutes

    BRADLEY: According to Drumheller, CIA Director George Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high level meeting at the White House.

    DRUMHELLER: The President, the Vice President, Dr. Rice…

    BRADLEY: And at that meeting…?

    DRUMHELLER: They were enthusiastic because they said they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis.

    BRADLEY: And what did this high level source tell you?

    DRUMHELLER: He told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program.

    BRADLEY: So, in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle that he didn't have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?

    DRUMHELLER: Yes.

    BRADLEY: There's no doubt in your mind about that?

    DRUMHELLER: No doubt in my mind at all.

    BRADLEY: It directly contradicts, though, what the President and his staff were telling us.

    DRUMHELLER: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.

    BRADLEY: Drumheller expected the White House to ask for more information from the Iraqi foreign minister. He was taken aback by what happened.

    DRUMHELLER: The group that was dealing with preparations for the Iraq war came back and said they're no longer interested. And we said, "Well, what about the intel?" And they said, "Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change."

    ...

    BRADLEY: The White House declined to respond to Drumheller's account of Naji Sabri's role, but Secretary of State Rice has said that Sabri, the Iraqi foreign minister-turned-U.S. spy, was just one source, and therefore his information wasn't reliable.

    DRUMHELLER: They certainly took information that came from single sources on uranium, on the yellowcake story and on several other stories that had no corroboration at all, and so you can't say you only listen to one source, because on many issues they only listened to one source.

    BRADLEY: So you're saying that if there was a single source and that information from that source backed up the case they were trying to build, then that single source was okay, but if it didn't, then the single source was not okay because he couldn't be corroborated.

    DRUMHELLER: Unfortunately, that's what it looks like.

    http://thinkprogress.org/60-minutes-42306

    XXxxxxXXXxxxxXXXXxxxxXXXxxxxXXxxx

    'On the Brink'

    "When Tyler Drumheller retired in 2005 as the head of the CIA's clandestine operations in Europe, he took with him a lot of the agency's institutional memory. As the highest insider yet to discuss the now well-known process of the Bush administration cherry-picking intelligence to feed its unstoppable political agenda to go to war, the author had a prime role in the thankless drama of trying to keep the administration honest with the American people.

    ...

    Drumheller's account is pretty probative evidence on the question of whether the White House politicized and cherry-picked the Iraq intelligence.

    So why didn't we hear about any of this in the reports of those Iraq intel commissions that have given the White House a clean bill of health on distorting the intel and misleading the country about what we knew about Iraq's alleged WMD programs?

    Think about it. It's devastating evidence against their credibility on a slew of levels.

    Did you read in any of those reports -- even in a way that would protect sources and methods -- that the CIA had turned a key member of the Iraqi regime, that that guy had said there weren't any active weapons programs, and that the White House lost interest in what he was saying as soon as they realized it didn't help the case for war? What about what he said about the Niger story?

    Did the Robb-Silbermann Commission not hear about what Drumheller had to say? What about the Roberts Committee?

    I asked Drumheller just those questions when I spoke to him early this evening. He was quite clear. He was interviewed by the Robb-Silbermann Commission. Three times apparently.

    Did he tell them everything he revealed on tonight's 60 Minutes segment. Absolutely.

    Drumheller was also interviewed twice by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Roberts Committee) but apparently only after they released their summer 2004 report.

    Now, quite a few of us have been arguing for almost two years now that those reports were fundamentally dishonest in the story they told about why we were so badly misled in the lead up to war. The fact that none of Drumheller's story managed to find its way into those reports, I think, speaks volumes about the agenda that the writers of those reports were pursuing.

    "I was stunned," Drumheller told me, when so little of the stuff he had told the commission's and the committee's investigators ended up in their reports. His colleagues, he said, were equally "in shock" that so little of what they related ended up in the reports either.

    What Drumheller has to say adds quite a lot to our knowledge of what happened in the lead up to war. But what it shows even more clearly is that none of this stuff has yet been investigated by anyone whose principal goal is not covering for the White House.

    http://tinyurl.com/2hf2es

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2007 @ 2:56pm

17. (duh, it's colin powell)

    i thought it was you dude. oops! i was ready to start a draft hsubfools for prez campaign.

    alright, here we go: draft this bad-ass motherf$%cker (at least from this interview) for prez, now.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/10/2007 @ 2:20pm

    Gore/Powell!?!?!?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2007 @ 5:05pm

18. Do you work for this administration? Because you are cherry-picking your information. You chose to stop mid-sentence of what Biden said. All over the msm they got it right, yet you didn't.

    To correct you - this is what Biden said: SEN. BIDEN: I expect him to say that. And I really respect him. And I think he's dead flat wrong. The fact of the matter is that there is--that this idea of these security gains we've made have had no impact on the underlying sectarian dynamic. None. None whatsoever.

    Senator Biden just came back from Iraq and throughout his interview on MTP he said that this surge is not working - it's time to send the troops home

    Check it out for yourself! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20676549/page/3/

    There is no one other than Biden that I trust to get us out of this mess.

    Posted by Jilliansw at 09/10/2007 @ 5:23pm

19. While Petraeus speaks:

    9 U.S. Soldiers Dead In Iraq

    BAGHDAD, Sept. 10, 2007

    (CBS/AP) Nine U.S. soldiers died in Iraq, the military said Monday, including seven in a vehicle accident during a prisoner transport in Baghdad, the U.S. command said. Two of the prisoners also died.

    The seven Multinational Division - Baghdad soldiers were killed and 11 others wounded in a western section of the capital, the military said in a statement. Two prisoners detained previously and being transported were killed in the accident, and a third was injured, the military said.

    The military said it did not immediately have further details.

    Another soldier was killed and two more were injured east of Baghdad in a non-combat incident when their vehicle overturned and caught fire, according to a separate statement.

    The cause of both accidents are under investigation, the military said.

    A Task Force Lightning soldier also died from injuries sustained during an attack Sunday in northern Iraq, the U.S. command said. The soldier's patrol came under rocket fire in the Kirkuk area.

    http://tinyurl.com/39m5ep

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2007 @ 5:25pm

20. Posted by MASK 09/10/2007 @ 2:55pm

    never crossed my mind

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2007 @ 5:25pm

21. Again, as with HSUB, I guess I need to keep my helpful nature in check.

    Posted by MASK 09/10/2007 @ 2:55pm

    yeah, i tried to help you and "v" and now he's gone

    yeah yeah larouche.

    but he's gone

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2007 @ 5:27pm

22. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/10/2007 @ 5:05pm

    was hoping you'd say that

    i didn't dare.

    one good thing about bushco.

    they have set the precedent of "CO-PRESIDENTS"

    instead of gore/powell, ¿how about gore + powell?

    they can balance each other when one goes a little too wacko.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2007 @ 5:30pm

23. "Task Force Lightning"

    wtf? are these people playing g.i. joe?

    Operation Smush Them Like Ants

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2007 @ 5:32pm

24. It is a mark of inexperience and intellectual deficit to resort to villifying people in order to make one's point. Petraeus and Crocker are both honorable men as is Joe Biden. Senator Biden knows how to cut through the personal attacks to get to the core of any issue. And the issue is, even if everything they say is true, what the hell are we still doing in Iraq with no end in sight?

    Posted by SteveCamp at 09/10/2007 @ 6:11pm

25. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/10/2007 @ 5:30pm

    So Frosty, when did you move back to the states?

    Posted by ACook at 09/10/2007 @ 6:15pm

26. instead of gore/powell, ¿how about gore + powell?

    they can balance each other when one goes a little too wacko.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/10/2007 @ 5:30pm

    Yeah, well considerring how popular they both are in their respective parties, they could probably win even as a fusion 3rd party!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2007 @ 7:31pm

27. Just posted these on The Spin post:

    The stat's Patraeus/hsuB/cHeney are putting out is BS. Iraqi and US troop death is up 60% from this period of time last year:

    Year____Jan__Feb__Mar__Apr__May__Jun__Jul__Aug__TOTAL

    2006 ___62___55___31___76___69___61___43___65___462

    2007 ___83___81___81__104__126__101___79___84___739

    Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths

    Period___Total ______Period___Total

    Aug-07___1674 _____Aug-06___2966

    Jul-07 ___1690 ______Jul-06 ___1280

    Jun-07___1345 ______Jun-06____870

    May-07___1980 _____May-06___1119

    Apr-07___1821 ______Apr-06___1009

    Mar-07___2977 ______Mar-06___1092

    Feb-07___3014 ______Feb-06 ____846

    Jan-07___1802 ______Jan-06 ____779

    TOTAL__16,303_______________9,961

    More US Troop wounded than this time last year:

    Jul-2007____608_____Jul-2006____525

    Jun-2007___ 744____ Jun-2006___ 459

    May-2007___655 ____May-2006___442

    Apr-2007___ 649_____Apr-2006___433

    Mar-2007___ 618_____Mar-2006___496

    Feb-2007___ 517_____Feb-2006___342

    Jan-2007___ 639_____Jan-2006___289

    http://icasualties.org/oif/

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/10/2007 @ 7:00pm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2007 @ 7:33pm

28. But aparently these stat's don't matter....

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2007 @ 7:37pm

29. Joe Biden thinks Petraeus is an honorable guy -- who's to say he's not? Biden also says "He's dead, flat wrong". Where's the "lie to me" in that statement? He doesn't agree with the Petraeus viewpoint -- and I'm betting he'll call him on it. Biden wants us out, too -- and he's been saying for a long time -- the sure is NOT working. Sheesh.

    Posted by gateley at 09/10/2007 @ 7:37pm

30. Checking a few blogs....lots of "new bloggers" have arrived on any thread concerning Joe Biden's comments.

    Co-inky-dink? Or could it be the Biden Bloggers are out to help their guy???

    Posted by Mask at 09/10/2007 @ 8:08pm

31. Well, I read the article and I watched Meet The Press yesterday, and I must have watched a different MTP, with another Joe Biden, because Mr. Nichols assessment does not reflect the interview I watched.

    At this time, Senator Biden's analysis of Iraq makes the most sense to me. Meanwhile, I'll reserve further judgment until after tomorrow's senate hearings. I don't think Petraeus is looking forward to a face-to-face with Biden.

    Posted by tsegat01 at 09/10/2007 @ 8:33pm

32. Posted by STEVECAMP 09/10/2007 @ 6:11pm

    Posted by GATELEY 09/10/2007 @ 7:37pm

    Posted by TSEGAT01 09/10/2007 @ 8:33pm

    No chance these new guys will never show up again (until the NEXT anti-Joe Biden article)????

    or that we could (if we would and could) trace their accounts back to www.JoeBiden.com????

    Posted by Mask at 09/10/2007 @ 10:29pm

33. Mask,

    I don't work for the Biden campaign. I visit many blogs and post messages about numerous subjects. I just happen to like Joe Biden and don't agree with Nichols article.

    The Nation is in my bookmarks and I'll be back, Biden or not. I may not comment though, as too many of these message boards are a bit too mean spirited for my tastes.

    Have a good night!

    Posted by tsegat01 at 09/10/2007 @ 10:56pm

34. Posted by ACOOK 09/10/2007 @ 6:15pm

    we say in canada "when the elephant sneezes, the mouse catches a cold."

    i'm tired of the cascade of pus-filled pachyderm snot raining on my parade. just trying to help my brothers.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2007 @ 11:31pm

35. Co-inky-dink? Or could it be the Biden Bloggers are out to help their guy???

    Posted by MASK 09/10/2007 @ 8:08pm

    well, good for them.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2007 @ 11:32pm

36. good morning to all:

    a sad day in mexico, a few years ago

    the secretary told me,

    and so i ran to the t.v. (the one with the good reception)

    and i saw and didn't believe

    and i changed the channel

    but it wouldn't go away

    a crash? the chaos. the bystander standing by,

    hoping as i was, as you were (where were you?)

    dust, screaming, bewilderment, "MOVE, NOW!"

    as if one could put order to the insanity

    and yet time was frozen

    so much confusion

    yet time was frozen

    now the radio, too

    i called my wife

    "oye, no vas a creer lo que pasó"

    "i know" i said, "i'm watching CNN en español"

    and then, the rumours, the hope stopped.

    and the icy grip on time was shattered

    as the second testament to,

    what shall i call it?

    hate, malice, ignorance,

    nothing will suffice

    insufficient words suffer when faced with

    such a daunting task

    and people leapt one last time

    praying to land in the arms of those who wanted them back

    and time raced forward and backward--but with what aim?

    one cannot feel empathy for the dead,

    for death is theirs alone.

    but to those trapped, trapped

    because they forgot their lunch box

    or wanted to get a good start that day

    i felt their pain and fear and why? why? why?

    if only for a moment

    and then i could not share their pain

    now, no one could.

    we could only run

    my condolences to all

    fz

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2007 @ 02:49am

37. I watched MTP. Joe Biden said "I really respect him, but he is dead flat wrong." Please explain how you get "lie to me" from that. Let's see what happens today in the Senate hearings of which Senator Biden is the chairman. By the way, I do not work for the campaign,but my husband subscribes to your paper and since I pay the bills, Guess what? No more Nation in my mail box.

    Posted by demommom at 09/11/2007 @ 10:21am

38. Christ,FROSTY! Do you have to repeat long post on every thread!

    BTW, nothing personal, I don't tend to read most long posts (LRJones & SRJ excepted)....I know you have certain talent either of an original nature or cut-n-paste from elsewhere.....but you know what they say, time is money!

    Posted by HAPPY 09/11/2007 @ 10:51am

    Posted by Happy at 09/11/2007 @ 10:52am

39. Posted by MASK 09/10/2007 @ 10:43am | ignore this person

    MASK, JOHN NICHOLS:

    MASK, I disagree with you. Telling half-truths is lies by omission. And of course Joe Biden is not fit to be President, Vice-President, or Secretary of State. John, As for a so-called vanity campaign, why do those on the left, who profess to love freedom and liberty as much as anyone, if not more than anyone calls those who run for office they don't like, VANITY CANDIDATES? How in the world did America go into such COMMUNIST MELTDOWN where the elitist few decide who should and who should not run for public office? Regardless of the outcome, if a person has a platform they believe would benefit those they would serve, have the right, and the responsibility to run for office, regardless of the actual outcome of the election.................

    John Nichols: In short, let the voters decide who is and who is not, a so-called VANITY CANDIDATE...................

    Posted by POSEIDON at 09/11/2007 @ 11:54am

40. Hi,

    Thought this news might be of some interest to your readers:

    NEW moveon.org TV ad coming out on Monday Sept 17th...basically calling President Bush a traitor.

    Catch it here: MoveOn.org TV Ad [iraqsinconvenienttruth.com]

    For general david betray us fans or not: General David Betray Us [davidbetrayus.com]

    Have a great weekend! Steve

    Posted by streamline5 at 09/14/2007 @ 11:43pm