Joe Biden: Right on Iraq, Right on Afghanistan

No, that's not a header for a political ad, but I'm sick and tired of JRB getting underappreciated. Years ago, he advocated for the partitioning of Iraq into three separate states: One Sunni, one Shia, one Kurd. Is there anybody here who honestly believes that country won't go directly to shit when our troops leave? (Oh, sorry: IF our troops leave. :grr:)

Fact is, the Mesopotamian entity called "Iraq" was an artificial construct of two British diplomats-cum-mapmakers at the end of World War I. If US troops ever totally withdraw, Biden's paradigm is the most likely outcome.

As for the Af/Pak theater, hellooooooooooooooo? The Vice President's model of counterintelligence+Special Ops is EXACTLY how we got OBL. Keep that going and bring the grunts home already!

Ohhhh, yeah, that's right, Biden makes "gaffes" when he speaks, which is something his predecessor could never be accused of: Dick Cheney, after all, only made whoppers when he opened his mouth.

to the mainstream media, whereas Bush's gaffes were "endearing".

because he accidentally tells the truth.

Bush's were just "endearing" because they showed how little command he had over the English language.

It would have left the Shia and Iran in charge of Iraq's oil which is its only real resource. No one would ever agree to that and it would lead to endless civil war with Iran taking over most of Iraq. Disaster. Thankfully Obama ignored that "advice".

And peace and harmony shall reign forever and ever.

If the people of Iraq want one nation, two or fifty it is THEIR business not OURS. We have no right to be drawing lines and telling them where their nation is going to be. But out!

that the minority Sunnis remain in charge of the country.

When it had been made our business.

when he was running for president in the primaries - "Joe is right", quoting the other candidates during the debates. He has been "right" more often than most people, especially when it comes to foreign affairs.

Biden says -- "Israel would be JUSTIFIED in attacking Iran" -- !!!

Is that really what you want?


We also have Clarence the porn clown on the Supreme Court because of Biden's

duplicity!

...is not the same as "calling for" an attack.

And if memory serves me correctly, Biden voted against Thomas.

:thumbsup:

:rofl:

if it weren't so sad --

The vote in committee was 7-7 with Biden voting no but Biden voted to send the Thomas nomination to the floor without a recommendation (the first time that had ever been done). If past practice had been followed the nomination would have died in committee.

and, of course, he did everything he could to suppress the information

about Clarence Thomas' pereversions!!

Or are you glad we have a Vice President Biden?

But I would prefer someone who could run in 2016. Biden could not because is is elderly and is clearly showing signs of senility.

It would have gone to the full Senate with a negative rec.

No SC nomination has been sent to the floor without a recommendation. It was 7-7 so it was not a negative. This was the first time.

Was Clarence Thomas mentioned in the thread title? Was Iran? No? Then eff off!

You certainly don't have to reply to them if you don't want. If others do that is their business.

But rathe "defendandprotect." My apologies.

I HATE these zigzaggy reply threads!

Especially if I have a few in me :)

but nice attempt to alibi --

Biden made Thomas possible by duplicity --

He lied to pretty much everyon about presenting witnesses who would oppose

Thomas and then closed down the hearings.

Thomas was an unqualified candidate -- a sexual pervert which even his friends made clear

to Congress -- and Biden made him seem acceptable by permitting his nomination to be

voted on --

Interesting book on that -- "Strange Justice" --

And -- if we're trying to move away from corporate control over Dem Party, certainly

Biden isn't the way to go --

Unless that's what you want?

All these claims you're making about Biden: Any links?

Was Iran? Did I endorse Biden for the Presidency? No? Then STFU!
PS: Unless you've got links for your claims (irrelevant though they are to this subject), then I take NOTHING that you say as being factual.

*

On Iraq, very few Senators got on board the original concept of creating three parts that he sponsored - until the plan was switched to supporting a regional conference that could partition the country. At the time, Republican Senator John Warner pointed out that that plan reduced to the regional conference that was included in a defense bill the year before- that he accepted from Kerry/Feingold. The difference was significant. The original plan backed by Biden had the coalition involved in drawing the lines of the partition - the same thing the British did! What passed, but didn't happened, would have been a conference where the Iraquis, with the support of the entire region, would settle many of the political questions.

On Afghanistan, the reason that so many were against a pure counter terrorism plan was that without some support for those helping us, the likelihood was that the intelligence would get ever poorer as we were seen ONLY killing Afghanis. I don't think the surge made sense either. It may have been that NO plan suggested by anyone would have worked.

Biden has proved himself on domestic issues - and he is no more prone to gaffes than most people in government covered as non-stop as he is, The difference is that anything he says that is "off" - is played a million times and there is a canonical list of his gaffes - while the gaffes of Bush, Cheney or Democrats like Obama or Hillary Clinton are not collected and they have no reputation for gaffes.