A Democrat with a spine!
November 28th, 2007 3:45 pm · 26 comments
Will wonders never cease?
Brody: Some Republicans like Giuliani and others said that some Democratic candidates refuse to talk about a global war on terror and Islamic terrorists. Do you believe there is a global war on terror?
Biden: Sure there is, but with these guys, he knows so little about foreign policy he confuses terrorists cells and organizations with countries. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before this war. Al-Qaeda became a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. It didn’t exist until Bush went to war. Even our own intelligence community says that. But these guys buy into this silliness that if you don’t fight them in Baghdad you’re going to fight them in Boston. Give me a break.
More like this, please.
(h/t Matt Y, via Sullivan)
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Tags: Democratic candidates · War on terror
There are currently 26 comments on this blog postView Topic | Comment on this blogWhirlwind
11/29/07
6:31 AM | When admission of the obvious becomes a sign of having a backbone, we are in pretty deep. |
justplainjoe
11/29/07
6:40 AM | who sez rudy doesn't have a spine? it takes a lot of guts to cheat on and then divorce an italian women especially when she is your first cousin. 
he coulda got himself kilt!!!!
|
hahaha
11/29/07
7:08 AM | Perhaps Mr. Biden should consult with his own party leaders.
"[Saddam] Has Also Given Aid, Comfort, And Sanctuary To Terrorists, Including Al-Qaida Members, Though There Is Apparently No Evidence Of His Involvement In The Terrible Events Of September 11, 2001. This Much Is Undisputed."
That was Mrs. Clinton during a speech on capital hill on 10/10/2002.
|
cyberscribbler
11/29/07
8:12 AM | QUOTE(hahaha @ Nov 29 2007, 07:08 AM) [snapback]339374[/snapback] "[Saddam] Has Also Given Aid, Comfort, And Sanctuary To Terrorists, Including Al-Qaida Members
Mrs. Clinton during a speech on capital hill on 10/10/2002
Based on what little information the Bush admin. provided Congress, we know today this wasn't the case.
I think Biden & Huckabee will surprise many come primary season.
|
hahaha
11/29/07
8:37 AM | "we know today' are the key words in that statement
of course back then we did not know what we know today - so we could not make decisions based on what we know today
Hillary gave a talk just prior to the 2003 invasion in which she reiterated that Iraq had WMDs and she had this on good source from her 'trusted' advisers
were Bush and Co. some of her 'trusted' advisers? |
cyberscribbler
11/29/07
8:51 AM | QUOTE(hahaha @ Nov 29 2007, 08:37 AM) [snapback]339392[/snapback] Hillary gave a talk just prior to the 2003 invasion in which she reiterated that Iraq had WMDs and she had this on good source from her 'trusted' advisers
were Bush and Co. some of her 'trusted' advisers?
Isn't it the exec branch's responsibility to provide Congress with the information needed to authorize troop deployment?
Wasn't Saddam himself claiming to have WMDs to scare off the Iranians?
|
usedmeat
11/29/07
11:55 AM | QUOTE Wasn't Saddam himself claiming to have WMDs to scare off the Iranians? t was a case of heads, Bush wins, tails Saddam loses. When Saddam realized that Bush just wasn't talking tough to appease his rightloon base he turned over all documentation on his WMD programs. It was several volumes of papers and tens of CD roms. The White House response? Saddam buried us in information because he has something to hide.
Hillary might have thought Saddam had ties to al Qaida and harbored WMDs. And yes, she did vote for authorization of the use of force if Saddam didn't comply to U N demands. What the rightards forget was Saddam was cooperating, the UN inspectors were in Iraq but Bush invaded anyway. Once Bush started his murder spree congress had no choice but to keep shut.
|
hahaha
11/30/07
6:23 AM | Now there is that revisionist history meat loves so much. Go back and read about it again meat. This time on truly neutral websites. Read Mr. Blix's final report before the invasion. You have a couple details wrong. |
justplainjoe
11/30/07
6:36 AM | QUOTE(hahaha @ Nov 30 2007, 07:23 AM) [snapback]339579[/snapback] Now there is that revisionist history meat loves so much. Go back and read about it again meat. This time on truly neutral websites. Read Mr. Blix's final report before the invasion. You have a couple details wrong.
gosh...why was mr blix ostracized by the rightwing press?
let me get this straight...bush/cheney really did believe that saddam had wmd's but when they found out he did not it was too late and so as long as we were already there we would bless them with democracy and oh by the way , help ourselves to their oil, and now that democracy isn't working out all that well we may as well help ourselves to their oil.
i mean as long as we are there anyway it isn't really stealing right?????
and if they end up a radical islamic state, godsh at least bush jr tried, right? |
hahaha
11/30/07
6:58 AM | Golly, joe, go back and read almost every speech from around the globe in 2002 and 2003. Everyone thought he had WMDs. Maybe Saddam himself thought he had them. Bill Clinton said he had them. Now he says he didn't. Go figure that after we invaded and we didn't find any, guess he didn't have any. If Saddam would have let the inspectors have full access to his country and his documents and told them the truth, none of this would have happened. I realize it is much easier for everyone to blame Bush and think it was some huge conspiracy for oil. Let's you feel good and pat yourselves on the back that you knew he was a dumba$$ all along. |
justplainjoe
11/30/07
7:47 AM | QUOTE(hahaha @ Nov 30 2007, 07:58 AM) [snapback]339589[/snapback] Golly, joe, go back and read almost every speech from around the globe in 2002 and 2003. Everyone thought he had WMDs. Maybe Saddam himself thought he had them. Bill Clinton said he had them. Now he says he didn't. Go figure that after we invaded and we didn't find any, guess he didn't have any. If Saddam would have let the inspectors have full access to his country and his documents and told them the truth, none of this would have happened. I realize it is much easier for everyone to blame Bush and think it was some huge conspiracy for oil. Let's you feel good and pat yourselves on the back that you knew he was a dumba$$ all along.
you make it sound as if the whole world thought he had wmd's. no so mon ami.
if you recall the pope and many others begged bush not to invade. the french foreign minister begged bush for an addition 30 days to look for wmd,s.
for this the new york post superimposed the head of a weasle on mssr. de villiepan on their front page.
by claiming it is "easier for everyone to blame bush..blah blah blah "you seem to be letting him off the hook.
the world needs to hold him responsible for his actions. we need a full and impartial investigation into what went wrong, right?
i won't hold my breath waithing for you or other excusemeisters to agree to an investigation to find out what went wrong. you will not like the answers.
oh yeah...why was no one fired for such a greivous error? splain that one if you can.
hint: they were all given promotions weren't they.kinda makes you look foolish making excuses for them, ain't?
hahaha
|
oh geez
11/30/07
8:17 AM | Listening to some of Bin Laden's messages and reading some of the TB messages seem to be very similar. Scary stuff
|
usedmeat
11/30/07
10:32 AM | JPJ, you can't change the Bushlicker's view of history. They have their republican "facts" and they are sticking to them.
Bush knew that Hans Blix was coming up empty despite the administration running the UN inspectors ragged sending them on one WMD wild goose chase after another. When Bush threatened the inspectors' by telling them he wouldn't be responsible for ther safety doung his murder spree they had no choice but to leave.
If Bush would have let the inspectors finish their job he wouldn't have any justification for invading.
Do you Bushlickes deny this statment he made,"We had no choice because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in"? Of course you will, or you will parse it to death to change its meaning.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason...bush/index.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/041306.html
QUOTE For instance, just weeks after Bush made his false statement about the bio-labs, he also began rewriting the history of the Iraq War to make his invasion seem more reasonable.
On July 14, 2003, Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein had barred United Nations weapons inspectors from Iraq when, in fact, they were admitted in November 2002 and given free rein to search suspected Iraqi weapons sites. It was Bush who forced the U.N. inspectors to leave in March 2003 so the invasion could proceed.
But faced with growing questions about his justifications for war in summer 2003, Bush revised this history, apparently trusting in the weak memories of the American people and the timidity of the U.S. press. At the end of an Oval Office meeting with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Bush told reporters:
“We gave him (Saddam Hussein) a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.”
In the following months and years, Bush repeated this claim in slightly varied forms as part of his litany for defending the invasion on the grounds that it was Hussein who “chose war,” not Bush.
Meeting no protest from the Washington press corps, Bush continued repeating his lie about Hussein showing “defiance” on the inspections. Bush uttered the lie as recently as March 21, 2006, when he answered a question from veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas.
|
cyberscribbler
11/30/07
10:44 AM | It's HOW we invaded Iraq, and the inept handling of the occupation by the CPA. Not WHY we invaded Iraq.
Debathification, dismissing the Iraq army & police and the ensuing chaos, closing state run businesses, not having a firm ally amongst the various sects, too few troops to maintain order. The insurgency didn't have to become as big of an issue as it turned out to be, if only Bush and company would have planned the occupation out ahead of time, instead of doing it on the fly.
|
usedmeat
11/30/07
10:53 AM | Bush did his murder spree on the cheap for two reasons.
One, to keep the costs down and not raise the ire of the American taxpayer when they got the bill.
Two, dick Cheney and Don Rumsfailed had been the champions of a "small hi-tech fighting force" because somebody was going to make a mint selling those hi-tech gizmos.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...hite-usat_x.htm
QUOTE ... The interview was White's first since leaving the Pentagon in May after a series of public feuds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led to his firing.
Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate "wildly off the mark."
Rumsfeld was furious with White when the Army secretary agreed with Shinseki.
Ask Shinseki how his career is going since the told the truth. Oh, that's right, Bushco ended it.
|
grieker
11/30/07
11:06 AM | QUOTE(usedmeat @ Nov 29 2007, 11:55 AM) [snapback]339430[/snapback] t was a case of heads, Bush wins, tails Saddam loses. When Saddam realized that Bush just wasn't talking tough to appease his rightloon base he turned over all documentation on his WMD programs. It was several volumes of papers and tens of CD roms. The White House response? Saddam buried us in information because he has something to hide.
Hillary might have thought Saddam had ties to al Qaida and harbored WMDs. And yes, she did vote for authorization of the use of force if Saddam didn't comply to U N demands. What the rightards forget was Saddam was cooperating, the UN inspectors were in Iraq but Bush invaded anyway. Once Bush started his murder spree congress had no choice but to keep shut.
Aaahhh, that may be why Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998.
QUOTE(justplainjoe @ Nov 30 2007, 06:36 AM) [snapback]339582[/snapback]
gosh...why was mr blix ostracized by the rightwing press?
let me get this straight...bush/cheney really did believe that saddam had wmd's but when they found out he did not it was too late and so as long as we were already there we would bless them with democracy and oh by the way , help ourselves to their oil, and now that democracy isn't working out all that well we may as well help ourselves to their oil.
i mean as long as we are there anyway it isn't really stealing right?????
and if they end up a radical islamic state, godsh at least bush jr tried, right?
Where are we hiding all that oil that we've gotten from Iraq Joe?
|
usedmeat
11/30/07
11:10 AM | QUOTE Where are we hiding all that oil that we've gotten from Iraq Joe?
Isn't that a question better asked of your Monkey? After all, didn't Bush tell us that the war would be paid for with Iraqi oil revenue?
Seems like a couple of Iraqi Minutemen put the kibosh to that.
|
justplainjoe
11/30/07
11:45 AM | QUOTE(oh geez @ Nov 30 2007, 09:17 AM) [snapback]339597[/snapback] Listening to some of Bin Laden's messages and reading some of the TB messages seem to be very similar. Scary stuff
well if yer good and skeered be sure to vote for that adulterer, kweer lovin, gun control , abortionist rudy. what's a few values when yer skeered?LOL
look out osama is comin to get ya. see why we told you jr should have gotten him instead of the oil.LOL
|
justplainjoe
11/30/07
11:58 AM | QUOTE(grieker @ Nov 30 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]339645[/snapback]
Where are we hiding all that oil that we've gotten from Iraq Joe?
you need to pay attention son. we didn't steal it yet. look at the oil agreement they are trying to shove down the iraqis throats.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html
The law represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth. It represents the death knell of nationalized (from 1972 to 1975) Iraqi resources, now replaced by production sharing agreements (PSAs) - which translate into savage privatization and monster profit rates of up to 75% for (basically US) Big Oil. Sixty-five of Iraq's roughly 80 oilfields already known will be offered for Big Oil to exploit. As if this were not enough, the law reduces in practice the role of Baghdad to a minimum. Oil wealth, in theory, will be distributed directly to Kurds in the north, Shi'ites in the south and Sunnis in the center. For all practical purposes, Iraq will be partitioned into three statelets. Most of the country's reserves are in the Shi'ite-dominated south, while the Kurdish north holds the best prospects for future drilling.
|
grieker
11/30/07
12:11 PM | QUOTE(justplainjoe @ Nov 30 2007, 11:58 AM) [snapback]339674[/snapback] you need to pay attention son. we didn't steal it yet. look at the oil agreement they are trying to shove down the iraqis throats. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.htmlThe law represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth. It represents the death knell of nationalized (from 1972 to 1975) Iraqi resources, now replaced by production sharing agreements (PSAs) - which translate into savage privatization and monster profit rates of up to 75% for (basically US) Big Oil. Sixty-five of Iraq's roughly 80 oilfields already known will be offered for Big Oil to exploit. As if this were not enough, the law reduces in practice the role of Baghdad to a minimum. Oil wealth, in theory, will be distributed directly to Kurds in the north, Shi'ites in the south and Sunnis in the center. For all practical purposes, Iraq will be partitioned into three statelets. Most of the country's reserves are in the Shi'ite-dominated south, while the Kurdish north holds the best prospects for future drilling.
Pepe Escobar, now there's a good un-biased source.
|
justplainjoe
11/30/07
12:38 PM | QUOTE(grieker @ Nov 30 2007, 01:11 PM) [snapback]339678[/snapback]
Pepe Escobar, now there's a good un-biased source.
gee wiz you are saying because his last name is funny sounding a difficult for you to pronounce that he is not telling the truth?
perhaps you would care to refute what he wrote?
or perhap you cannot ?
|
cyberscribbler
11/30/07
12:48 PM | a done deal
The Production Sharing Agreement represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth. It represents the [end] of Iraqi's nationalized (from 1972 to 1975) oil resources. PSAs - which translate into savage privatization and monster profit rates of up to 75% for (basically US) Big Oil.
The Production Sharing Agreement was [drafted] by a US consulting firm hired by the Bush administration and then carefully retouched by Big Oil, the International Monetary Fund, former US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz' World Bank, and the United States Agency for International Development. It's virtually a US law (its original language is English, not Arabic).
The key point of the law is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy "Federal Oil and Gas Council" boasting "a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq". That is, nothing less than predominantly US Big Oil executives.
Iraqi public opinion had absolute no knowledge of it. Were this to be a truly representative Iraqi government, any change to the legislation concerning the highly sensitive question of oil wealth would have to be approved by a popular referendum.
In real life, Iraq's vital national interests are in the hands of a small bunch of highly impressionable (or downright corrupt) technocrats. Big Oil will profit handsomely - and long-term, 30 years minimum, with fabulous rates of return.
|
grieker
11/30/07
12:58 PM | QUOTE(justplainjoe @ Nov 30 2007, 12:38 PM) [snapback]339682[/snapback]
gee wiz you are saying because his last name is funny sounding a difficult for you to pronounce that he is not telling the truth?
perhaps you would care to refute what he wrote?
or perhap you cannot ?
His name is easy to pronounce. Let me help you.
S-CO-BAR.
|
grieker
11/30/07
1:10 PM | QUOTE(justplainjoe @ Nov 30 2007, 12:38 PM) [snapback]339682[/snapback]
gee wiz you are saying because his last name is funny sounding a difficult for you to pronounce that he is not telling the truth?
perhaps you would care to refute what he wrote?
or perhap you cannot ?
Cannot refute it. This particular article of his (like many of his others) is baseless. He sites no references, all speculation.
|
justplainjoe
11/30/07
1:23 PM | QUOTE(grieker @ Nov 30 2007, 02:10 PM) [snapback]339694[/snapback]
Cannot refute it. This particular article of his (like many of his others) is baseless. He sites no references, all speculation.
here is another paper saying the same thing but i guess it isn't fox news so ol greiker can't believe a word of it....LOL
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...icle2132569.ece
if you would bother to do some research you would see for yourself, but sometimes hiding the ol' head in the sand will assuage the conscience of those who dare not seek after truth.
oh here ya go...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assuage
|
cyberscribbler
11/30/07
1:25 PM | QUOTE Cannot refute it .
At least try to, otherwise it's unrefutable.
|
View Topic | Comment on this blog
