Joe Biden, Conference Call Performance Artist
| Mon Jul. 14, 2008 9:58 AM PDT
The Obama campaign just held a conference call on Iraq as part of its current effort to reassure leery Democrats that Obama is not going soft on his commitment to withdrawal. The call built on an op-ed that Obama published in the New York Times this morning and featured Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Susan Rice, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under Bill Clinton and a senior Obama adviser on foreign policy. Both surrogates have a very serious chance at top appointments in an Obama Administration, including Secretary of State.
The content of the call, like most of these calls, was completely predictable. John McCain is wrong on Iraq, has been wrong on Iraq, and will continue to be wrong on Iraq. Barack Obama is right on Iraq, has been right on Iraq, and will continue to be right on Iraq. Any suggestion that Barack Obama is changing his position on Iraq is wrong.
But you know what isn't wrong? Joe Biden's performances as a campaign surrogate. The man is famously gabby and pugilistic, and he proved it today. Here are his thoughts on John McCain.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
"I've known John for 32 years and frankly I don't understand anything about John's [Iraq] policy... I don't understand the strategy of John's policy." John McCain says terrorism is the greatest threat to America but wants to keep us bogged down in Iraq. Joe Biden could get in a helicopter with John McCain and show him exactly where the terrorists live. Which would be in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq. (He actually said this.)
"John McCain has no notion [of] what's going on."
"I don't understand where John and [top McCain surrogate] Lindsey [Graham] are coming from here."
"They don't get it."
"He doesn't get it."
"They don't understand the dynamics at play."
McCain's comparison of Iraq to Korea and World War II is faulty because the circumstances of those conflicts are not analogous to the current one's. "We need a fact-based foreign policy… the mere fact that [McCain] makes the comparison is bizarre. I find it bizarre."
"The most inept comparison I can think of."
"We have no strategic doctrine in this Administration and John does not have one either."
"I love John. He's been my friend for 33 years."
Comments
Not to accuse Biden of plaigerism or anything, but it seems like he's borrowed a page from Bob Barr's commentary on McCain's Iraq position.
Example: John McCain apparently believes that the U.S. should be a permanent occupying power in Iraq, but that is not and never has been America's purpose," says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. Sen. McCain announced on the "Today" show that when U.S. forces come home is "not too important."
Ending the occupation obviously is important to the Iraqi people, who have been protesting reports that the Bush administration is seeking more than 50 permanent bases. "And ending the occupation is important to the American people, who are spending $3 billion a week and losing soldiers daily in the midst of factional fighting in Iraq," Barr insists.
The situation in Iraq has improved in recent months, but it would be shocking if there had been no change after the U.S. had sacrificed more than 4,000 lives and over $500 billion. This improvement "cannot justify a permanent occupation, since as long as the American people are paying the bill for Iraq's well-being, the Iraq people and government will not assume full responsibility for their own affairs," explains Barr. Nor need any American troops remain to fight al-Qaeda, since Washington's occupation helps energize the terrorist group. "Every leading Iraqi faction hates al-Qaeda, which would quickly be wiped out following America's exit," he adds.
It isn't only in Iraq where John McCain doesn't "get it," notes Barr. In defending America's presence in Iraq, Sen. McCain said it didn't matter that U.S. troops were still in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, decades after those nations were at war: "That's all fine," McCain declared. But it isn't all fine.
"U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to pay to defend wealthy nations that are able to defend themselves, especially when their own peoples have tired of America's presence," Barr explains. He points to massive demonstrations in South Korea against that government's decision to allow the import of U.S. beef. "America has become the target of nationalist attacks and its forces should come home."
Sen. McCain is stuck with the mindset of the past. "So is Sen. Barack Obama, who, despite his rhetoric of change, wants to keep doing what we've always been doing, as if that is sufficient to defend America in the 21st century," Barr says. "We need a quality military focused on defending American sovereignty, liberties, and interests, backed by accurate intelligence, and ready to strike decisively against genuine threats. We should not be occupying other nations and attempting to build other societies, whether into our image or anyone else's," he added. The starting point for the necessary transformation of U.S. policy is to initiate a speedy and complete American withdrawal from Iraq. "The Iraqi people don't believe that a permanent U.S. occupation is "fine." Neither should the American people," insists Barr.
What's your point...Biden sounds like did a great job. Not sure where the problem is.
He was right...McCain hasn't "gotten it" since he was pushing for us to go to war in the first place. He never understood the politics of the Sunni Shia stuff...and still doesn't.
Not sure what this article has a problem with...
Biden is the best surrogate going, 30 years of foreign policy ...whether you think he talks too much or not...he obviously would know better than a reporter who was in grade school when he was already studying foreign policy in the middle east...don't you think?
and juast to add to the other commenter...if Bob Barr is arguing the same thing...maybe the reporter of this article should actually listen to what Biden is saying...it wasn't just "McCain is wrong" "Obama is right"
It was McCain is wrong because he doesn't get foreign policy in this region.
and he doesn't ...obviously...shia...sunni...I mean shia...Lieberman help me out.
Congressman Ron Paul also had a few thoughts on this matter, published today:
Texas Straight Talk
A weekly column
Getting Out of Iraq
What will it take to get our troops out of Iraq? The roughly 70 percent of Americans who are firmly against the war often ask this question. Those in power are reluctant to give conditions, but when they do and those conditions are met, the goal post is quietly moved.
Voters were promised, passionately and vehemently, that the new Congress would bring our troops home. Many were explicitly elected in 2006 under that banner. But our troops are still overseas, funding has been increased even beyond the administration's wish list, and troop withdrawal has been negotiated away.
When things are going badly in Iraq, they say we must stay until the situation improves. When things improve, they tell us we must stay because our gains cannot be jeopardized.
We are told that we must establish a functioning democracy there, and train Iraqi armed forces so they can keep order in our absence. Iraq now has a Constitution, an elected parliament, and hundreds of thousands of security forces. The problem now is that their troops are supposedly not trained quite well enough, and that could take many more years. Defining an adequate training level for Iraqi troops is highly nebulous and its anyone's guess when or how that criteria could be satisfied.
The latest outrage came last week. For years we heard the administration claim over and over that the Iraqi government wants us there, and is begging us to stay. On the other hand, all they had to do was ask and we would respect their wishes and leave. That also has now happened. Al-Maliki perhaps took his cue from his challenger, al-Sadr, who has been clamouring for us to leave for years. Popular opinion in Iraq now mirrors that in the United States, with about 70percent of Iraqis wishing us to leave.
At the end of the year, our Status of Forces Agreement expires. Without a new agreement and understanding with the Iraqi government regarding our presence there, we officially become occupiers.
To Droolius Sneezer: I think if there was any plagiarism going on, it was most likely Barr picking up on what Biden has been saying for a LONG time. I doubt if Biden has to look to Barr for inspiration.
And I'm sure the last thing you want to do is accuse Biden of plagiarism. You obviously have no agenda.
To MEG
A: Nobody accused Biden of plaigerism here, did they?
Are you protesting too much?
B: At what point after he voted to relinquish the Congress' authority to declare war, and handed it to George Bush, did Biden start being "right"?
Should we do battle over whether Biden or Barr was first to publicly regret their vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq?
Biden's backing a candidate who has said he would commit more US forces to Iraq.
You probably knew that..., right?
I know which guy I Think is "Right on Iraq", and it sure ain't the guy who keeps voting for more funding every time a bill comes through the Seante, when as a candidate for Senate, he said he wouldn't.
He clearly "doesn't get it".
Droolius Sleazer:
Joe Biden has had the same position on Iraq for a long time. The reason he votes for funding the war is that until you have a plan to get out of the war you don't take the funding away from the troops who are fighting the damn thing! He believes that supporting our troops when they are in peril and after they come home is our duty to them. And his son, Beau, is either over there right now or will be shortly. So kindly shut your pie hole! You are only displaying your ignorance.
Cacatua, your civility is underwhelming. Possibly, a civil discourse is unimportant to you..?
Joe Biden voted to hand Congress' war making authority over to George Dubya Bush, in direct contravention of the letter AND the spirit of the Constitution.
www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?co...
He clearly didn't hold his current position back when it would have made a difference.
Live with it.
As to this comment: I know which guy I Think is "Right on Iraq", and it sure ain't the guy who keeps voting for more funding every time a bill comes through the Senate, when as a candidate for Senate, he said he wouldn't.
He clearly "doesn't get it".
That's a reference to Barack Obama.
Clearly, Biden wouldn't have been discussing Iraq war funding before he had attained his seat in the Senate.
US war with Iraq was still decades in the future.
But you knew that, right?
Droolius:
I know very well that Joe voted for the resolution. I also know that he tried to get one to the floor that would have made it harder for Bush to actually go to war, but was undermined by Gephardt. It was unfortunate that Joe voted for the other one, but I don't hold Congress overly responsible for that vote because I remember very well how screwy things were at that time. And by the way, I wrote letters to all of our congressmen, begging them to NOT vote for it.
I was a campaign volunteer in Iowa for Joe Biden and I've heard him speak a number of times. He is the best, and it is too bad so many people wanted to make history instead of nominating the best candidate as there were far better people than Obama/Hillary at the beginning.
Quite frankly I don't care what else you have to say about the subject, because you can't tell me much about Joe that I don't already know and you seem to be getting rather repetative in your posts. I find Barr to be unacceptable for other positions that he holds.
Droolius:
It is clear that your agenda is a Libertarian one and I don't agree with it. Sorry if I come off too aggressive, but I have had it with people raising that old plagiarism canard. It represents to me that either the person doing it is doing so devisively, or because he/she is ignorant of the whole story.
With all of his warts, of which I am aware, Joe Biden is still head and shoulders above the others, in my opinion, and the things he has been saying lately are mostly the same things he was saying on the campaign trail, only no one was paying attention then.
I have no love for Obama, and it pains me to see Joe relegated to supporting someone who to me is all smoke and mirrors, but I guess it is a way to be heard and perhaps to make a difference in the dialog.
Droolius Sneezer--i'm guessing you probably work for a congressman, have never been to or have only been to DC for one or two years. And your so full of yourself you think your the only one can "get past" all the politics and partisan talk. You think RON PAUL is the answer. And I'm guessing you have never taken a government and/or civics class let alone an american history class
Matt, this is America.
You have a Right to be Wrong.
And you are, on every point save one.
I DO think a return to the limited powers of central government, and checks and balances our Founders clearly intended is what our nation sorely needs, and feeling thus, I supported Ron Paul's candidacy.
