Joe Biden tends not to be the blogosphere's favorite Senator, but his opening statement at today's hearing was really pretty great.
« My Anbar Question | Main | Catching On »
Maybe It Was Plagiarized?
11 Sep 2007 10:46 am
Comments (14)
Joe Biden is a deceitful little weasel. I watched him on Meet the Press this Sunday and he was almost Kerryesque in his incoherent hypocrisy.
Joe was asked if he would vote to cut off funding and he went into a long, tear-jerking recital about how some troops in Iraq had showed him an upgraded personnel carrier that survived a large mine. Joe argued funds were needed to protect the troops.
Which is utter bullshit -- because Joe knows that his vote to continue funding the war ensures that at least 1200 more soldiers will be dead this time next year -- and that thousands more will have been crippled for life by loss of arms ,legs and brain damage.
Democrats like Joe don't even realize the deep hatred and contempt that their artful hypocrisy arises among the voters.
The ONLY justification a Senator has for asking a soldier to risk his life is in defense of the US. If Democrats think our Army in Iraq is defending the US, then they are obliged to support that Army. If they think our soldiers in Iraq are NOT defending the US, then they have a moral obligation to do everything they can to move those troops out of a civil war.
Re Don Williams
The troops in Iraq are not defending the US, they are defending the US access to Iraqi oil. Senator Biden and all the other assholes in the Congress should be asked whether they think that US troops should be risking their lives for oil.
What Don doesn't seem to get is that Joe does want troops out, though his partition plan he believes can help achieve a modicum of something other than all-out genocide when we leave Iraq.
Do we just cut off funds for the troops? You really think that means Bush will just accept the inevitable and give the ok to withdraw?
The only way, really, is to put pressure on more U.S. Senators and Congresspeople. Failing that, the troops will only leave with a Democratic president.
Yea, it's complete shit that we're in this position, but what's our alternative? Anyone who thinks that stopping funds for the troops will get them out of their hasn't been paying attention to the way George W. operates the last 7 years.
There's nothing wrong with a politician stealing a good idea. In fact, that's the way good government works.
As a writer, I'm sure you consider plagiarism a capital crime. You understandably want credit for your work. But personally, I'd be thrilled if our political leaders stole all my brilliant insights. I think most of us would.
Re Steven's comment "Anyone who thinks that stopping funds for the troops will get them out of their hasn't been paying attention to the way George W. operates the last 7 years."
-----------
Democratic leaders can always find an excuse for being cowards.
The point is NOT what George Bush and the Republicans do. Let them act -- and suffer the electorate's judgment.
The point is what Democrats DO. Acting like the timid , abused wife of a vicious drunk is pathetic leadership. Especially when you hold the majority in both Houses of Congress.
LOOK at these pathetic losers. The Republicans are denouncing MoveOn.
By contrast, the Democrats do NOT let out a fucking PEEP about the deceitful war-mongering propaganda of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly.
What infuriates me is NOT that Democratic leaders don't follow the policy I favor.
What infuriates me is that Democrats have NO Iraq policy --other than to sit on their asses and whine, complain, bitch, snipe and duck any responsibility.
To exploit the war for their personal benefit even as thousands of AMericans have died and thousands more stand to die.
It chagrins me to write this, but I read some of Biden's upcoming autobio/as-told-to in unedited m/s form and it, too, is pretty fucking great.
Seriously.
The candor with which Biden has undone his chances for attaining higher office is precisely what makes his book so pleasurable to read.
Biden's mostly frustrating. When he's good, he's good -- and on foreign relations, he's pretty clued. But he's also long-winded, self-regarding and blows his chance to be incisive more often than not. And then there's the whole MBNA thing, but that's just what comes from representing the Corporate Republic of Delaware.
I'll bash Biden for something apolitical - running a crappy hearing. He lets the witnesses go off on tangents, repeat information already in the record again and again, and tell general anecdotal stories about whatever they choose in response to specific pointed questions. Biden knew that there was an afternoon hearing and he couldn't squeeze two rounds of questions in 4+ hours.
There were good questions at times but think how much better things could have been if Kerry and Feingold had a second round. The Senate is so self important. My local city commission runs a better hearing and I think my local city commission is incompetent.
What Don doesn't seem to get is that Joe does want troops out, though his partition plan he believes can help achieve a modicum of something other than all-out genocide when we leave Iraq.
I suspect that what Joe "Perpetual Motion Mouth" Biden wants most of all is what other national Dems seem to want as well: An Iraq debacle that drags on into election season, when they hope to pin it on their opponents. In the long run (i.e., within a year at most), this will end up tarnishing them at least as much as their 2002 sell-out, but hey, such is Dem "strategizing" these days.
In fairness, I can never listen to Biden for any length of time, so maybe there are magical details to his partition scheme that missing. But it seems to me that one of the central realities of Iraq has always been that neither we, nor our Quisling proxies in the Green Zone, really control a whole helluva lot. Never have. So how exactly we're going to engage in clever boundary-drawing exercises has always been a bit of a puzzle. What answer does The Mouth have for that?
Re sglover's comment "In the long run (i.e., within a year at most), this will end up tarnishing them[Democrats] at least as much as their 2002 sell-out, but hey, such is Dem "strategizing" these days."
--------------
exactly. The Democratic leadership doesn't seem to understand the concept of "accountability"-- i.e., that if the voters give you control of both Houses of Congress--hence, control of the purse -- they hold you accountable for results.
Sitting on your ass and making bitchy comments does not equal leadership.
There are any number of Republicans who want a Bridge to Nowhere built in their district. Several of them aren't up for election for 4 years. The idea that you can't buy off a few is ludicrous.
Plus, there are any number of Senators who are retiring and no longer need the RNC's financial support. John Warner. Chuck Hagel.
A little pork for their states -- hell, a big fat hog -- should help grease the skids for a little "bipartisanship".
Hell, Larry Craig could probably be persuaded to stick around for a couple of months if Reid stuck those Ethics Committee hearing off in a closet. And I suspect the Republicans' armtwisting might have ole Larry hankering for a little payback.
Plus someone needs to take Joe Lieberman into a corner for a little quiet conversation and nutsqueezing.
So all this whining of "we don't have the votes" does NOT add up -- unless you take Iran into account.
The above points assumed that the big whales who fund the Democratic Party -- the Israel Lobby -- don't want the Army positioned on Iran's western border as setup for an attack/invasion. Those Air Force smart bombs do a lot, but you still need someone to walk through the rubble. I suspect that is the real "surge".
Joe Biden is the definition of a preening blowhard. He's also gutless.
"Failing that, the troops will only leave with a Democratic president."
Which one?
Comments closed September 25, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Senator Hagel...wow.
Posted by mq | September 11, 2007 11:08 AM