Joe Biden Just Not Trustworthy

Even the liberal press is able to face the facts once in a while... as more and more realize that Joe Biden cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

LA Times- Biden the Master Gassbag:
"In short, he just makes stuff up. But he does it with passionate, self-important intensity. He's like a politician in a movie with a perfect grasp of a world that doesn't exist. He's not an expert, he just plays one on TV."

North Star Writers Group-October 6, 2008 "Biden uses a variety of rhetorical tools to convince Americans that his lies are actually truths".

Vice Presidential Debate Shows Joe Biden Is a Liar

"Here is a sickening (and, due to editorial necessity, painfully abbreviated) top 10 list, in no particular order, of Joe Biden’s lies on Thursday night:"

One Picture Says A Thousand Words

Fair And Balanced

Just to be fair, Sarah Palin has had a few mistakes when speaking. She's been on the national scene 5 weeks and the worst error she's committed was to mispronounce the General in Afghanistan's name.
So, to be accurate lets just say Sarah Palin hasn't made a 36 year career out of misstatements, gaffes and plagiarism.

Biden Ready To...

Biden is ready to...


Enjoy the debate everyone, may the best woman win.

Joe Biden On Faith, Patriotism and Taxes

Biden, Faith, Patriotism and Taxes

by Joseph Farah

10/01/2008

Following Joe Biden's logic is not always easy.

Recently, he told Americans that paying more in taxes is the "patriotic" thing to do; that Jesus supported higher taxes; and that he is heeding -- selectively, on the issue of taxes -- Catholic social doctrine.

Let's start at the beginning.

There's nothing remotely patriotic about raising taxes -- especially income taxes. Income taxes are nothing more than legalized theft. The only reason people pay them is they are forced to do so. Not paying them means going to jail. The most truly patriotic thing Americans could do would be to deprive the federal government of as much money as possible -- to stop feeding the irresponsible beast that is wrecking the American economy and turning a once-free people into a dependency class of serfs.

Anyone who actually believes giving more money to the federal government is patriotic is, of course, free to do so at any time -- voluntarily. If Joe Biden believed it, he would overpay his tax bill. He never has done so -- not once. Nor am I aware of any other prominent politician -- Republican or Democrat -- voluntarily overpaying his taxes
because he believes the government knows how to spend his money better than he does. Please tell me if I am overlooking anyone.

Given that Joe Biden always has paid the bare minimum in taxes demanded by the government, can we assume he is not patriotic? If paying more in taxes suggests patriotism, why would anyone need to be forced to pay more? Why is Joe Biden waiting for Congress and the president to tell him he needs to pay his fair share? Why doesn't the man who wants to be vice president of the United States show some leadership? Why doesn't he lead by example and voluntarily pay more of his income to Washington?

Next, Biden dares to bring Jesus into his argument. Suffice it to say the notion that Jesus supported man-made governments forcibly extracting excessive amounts of wealth from citizens cannot be found in Scripture. And please don't cite the "render unto Caesar" line as proof. That response from Jesus came in answer to a question from the disciples as
to whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Rome. Jesus' response was: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's."

What is Caesar's, and what is God's?

I know this: Everything is God's. The question of what is Caesar's is still up for grabs.

And that brings us to Biden's newfound faith in Catholic social doctrine. Isn't this the same guy who has disputed all the major bishops of his church by rejecting the belief that life begins at conception? Why is it that this so-called Catholic feels free to deviate from his church's social doctrine on a matter of life and death but feels compelled to prostitute
Christian teachings about charity to justify the government's seizing of private property by threat of violence?

"Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most," Biden semi-articulated.

Does Biden take this teaching to heart in his own life? The evidence strongly suggests the answer is no.

Biden not only does not pay the government any more than the bare minimum required to keep him out of the pokey to "take care of the people who need the help the most" but also gives next to nothing to charities -- Catholic or otherwise -- to demonstrate his own commitment to this principle.

Biden's tax returns show that during the past 10 years, he and his wife have given, on average, $380 a year to charity. That's a microscopic 0.2 percent of their income, or only 10 percent of the national average.

Who is Joe Biden to lecture Americans about helping the less fortunate, about Christian charitable ethics or about patriotism when he has proved to be the living embodiment of a modern-day Scrooge?

---

Mr. Farah is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Biden Loose Cannon Behind The Wheel

Hat tip to Mike McCarville... the hits just keep on comin'!

The Joe Biden Gaffe-mobile Continues.

""Let's start telling the truth,"
Biden said during a presidential primary debate sponsored by YouTube last year. "Number one, you take all the troops out - you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at."

When questioned later it was..."I was near where a shot landed."

Biden went on to later say he was actually just shaving in the morning when he felt the building shake, "No one got up and ran from the room-it wasn't that kind of thing" .

FOX News (seems to be the only news agency that) has been asking the Obama campaign for details of the alleged shooting in Iraq ever since Biden was tapped to be vice president. Biden campaign spokesman David Wade promised an answer last week, but failed to provide one.

Now we also have the foreign policy expert for the Democrat party saying things like this...

"If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me," Biden bragged to the National Guard Association. "Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are."

But it turns out that inclement weather, not terrorists, prompted the chopper to land in an open field during Biden's visit to Afghanistan in February. A convoy of security vehicles was dispatched to retrieve Biden and fellow Senators Chuck Hagel and John Kerry.

No explanation why Senator Biden didn't simply alert the generals with him at the time as to the location of Osama B Laden that he now claims to know...

Quick, somebody ask Biden how to spell potato!
lol -red

McCain Unleashing Sarahcuda on Biden

Thanks to Okie Campaigns for the headsup...

Let Sarah - Be Sarah: Warning to Joe Biden: McCain Has Released the Barracuda

September 29, 2008
OP-ED COLUMNIST
How McCain Wins

By WILLIAM KRISTOL
John McCain is on course to lose the presidential election to Barack Obama. Can he turn it around, and surge to victory?

He has a chance. But only if he overrules those of his aides who are trapped by conventional wisdom, huddled in a defensive crouch and overcome by ideological timidity.

The conventional wisdom is that it was a mistake for McCain to go back to Washington last week to engage in the attempt to craft the financial rescue legislation, and that McCain has to move on to a new topic as quickly as possible. As one McCain adviser told The Washington Post, “you’ve got to get it [the financial crisis] over with and start having a normal campaign.”

Wrong.

McCain’s impetuous decision to return to Washington was right. The agreement announced early Sunday morning is better than Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s original proposal, and better than the deal the Democrats claimed was close on Thursday. Assuming the legislation passes soon, and assuming it reassures financial markets, McCain will be able to take some credit.

But the goal shouldn’t be to return to “a normal campaign.” For these aren’t normal times.

We face a real financial crisis. Usually the candidate of the incumbent’s party minimizes the severity of the nation’s problems. McCain should break the mold and acknowledge, even emphasize the crisis. He can explain that dealing with it requires candor and leadership of the sort he’s shown in his career. McCain can tell voters we’re almost certainly in a recession, and things will likely get worse before they get better.

And McCain can note that the financial crisis isn’t going to be solved by any one piece of legislation. There are serious economists, for example, who think we could be on the verge of a huge bank run. Congress may have to act to authorize the F.D.I.C. to provide far greater deposit insurance, and the secretary of the Treasury to protect money market funds. McCain can call for Congress to stand ready to pass such legislation. He can say more generally that in the tough times ahead, we’ll need a tough president willing to make tough decisions.

With respect to his campaign, McCain needs to liberate his running mate from the former Bush aides brought in to handle her — aides who seem to have succeeded in importing to the Palin campaign the trademark defensive crouch of the Bush White House. McCain picked Sarah Palin in part because she’s a talented politician and communicator. He needs to free her to use her political talents and to communicate in her own voice.

I’m told McCain recently expressed unhappiness with his staff’s handling of Palin. On Sunday he dispatched his top aides Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis to join Palin in Philadelphia. They’re supposed to liberate Palin to go on the offensive as a combative conservative in the vice-presidential debate on Thursday.

That debate is important. McCain took a risk in choosing Palin. If she does poorly, it will reflect badly on his judgment. If she does well, it will be a shot in the arm for his campaign.

In the debate, Palin has to dispatch quickly any queries about herself, and confidently assert that of course she’s qualified to be vice president. She should spend her time making the case for McCain and, more important, the case against Obama. As one shrewd McCain supporter told me, “Every minute she spends not telling the American people something that makes them less well disposed to Obama is a minute wasted.”

The core case against Obama is pretty simple: he’s too liberal. A few months ago I asked one of McCain’s aides what aspect of Obama’s liberalism they thought they could most effectively exploit. He looked at me as if I were a simpleton, and patiently explained that talking about “conservatism” and “liberalism” was so old-fashioned.

Maybe. But the fact is the only Democrats to win the presidency in the past 40 years — Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton — distanced themselves from liberal orthodoxy. Obama is, by contrast, a garden-variety liberal. He also has radical associates in his past.

The most famous of these is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and I wonder if Obama may have inadvertently set the stage for the McCain team to reintroduce him to the American public. On Saturday, Obama criticized McCain for never using in the debate Friday night the words “middle class.” The Obama campaign even released an advertisement trumpeting McCain’s omission.

The McCain campaign might consider responding by calling attention to Chapter 14 of Obama’s eloquent memoir, “Dreams From My Father.” There Obama quotes from the brochure of Reverend Wright’s church — a passage entitled “A Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.”

So when Biden goes on about the middle class on Thursday, Palin might ask Biden when Obama flip-flopped on Middleclassness.

Obama Puts Handlers On Biden; Worries About Gaffe Soar

Thanks to Mike McCarville at The McCarville Report-

Can Biden Withstand Palin Debate Pressure?
Can Joe Biden withstand the pressure of his debate with Sarah Palin this week?

It's a fair question to ask given Biden's repeated gaffes and while Palin has stumbled during recent television interviews, it is Biden whose comments have drawn "He said what?" responses.

The most recent Biden gaffe came when he said that when the Depression occurred (in 1929), President Franklin Roosevelt went on television and reassured the nation. Herbert Hoover was president in 1929; commercial television was, at that time, unknown to the nation. The mainstream media, however, have given Biden a pass on this gigantic gaffe and instead focused on Palin.

Writing on the National Post, Sheldon Alberts reported, "In recent days, Biden has claimed it was the “patriotic” duty of wealthy Americans to pay higher taxes, urged a wheelchair-bound man to 'stand up' at a Democratic rally, and suggested Hillary Clinton 'might have been a better pick than me' as Obama’s running mate.

"But many of those remarks were lost amid the media fascination with Palin."

Those remarks, and others, have prompted what Alberts described as "growing concern" in the Obama camp that Biden will make a campaign-staggering gaffe in the debate with Palin.

A Los Angeles Times columnist wrote of Biden, "And, of course, last summer Biden attempted to endear himself to an Indian American supporter by telling him that in Delaware, 'you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.'
Not only was this an offensive line, it didn’t even make any sense: The observation, familiar to anybody who watched a comedian on cable television 15 years ago, is that Indian Americans are the only ones who work in convenience stores, not that they’re the only ones who shop there.

The man can’t even keep his condescending cliches straight." Then there's this, from a New York Times columnist, who wrote that Biden is "a human verbal wrecking crew. "This is the fellow who nearly derailed his nascent presidential campaign last year by calling Mr. Obama 'articulate and bright and clean,' and who noted that a person needed a slight Indian accent to walk into a Dunkin’ Donuts or 7-Eleven in Delaware, his home state.

"The man who, reading his vice-presidential acceptance speech from a teleprompter, bungled Mr. McCain’s name and called him 'George.' ('Freudian slip, folks, Freudian slip,' he explained.)

"The man who, on the day Mr. Obama announced him as his running mate, referred to his party’s presidential nominee as 'Barack America' and noted that his wife, Jill Biden, a college professor, was 'drop-dead gorgeous' but, problematically, possessed a doctorate.

"The man who has said he is running for president (not vice president) and who confused Army brigades with battalions.

Who referred to Ms. Palin as the lieutenant governor of Alaska.

"Aides to Mr. Obama said that Mr. Biden’s propensity to misspeak could pose problems, particularly in the vice-presidential debate on Oct. 2. They are watching his performance but have not tried to rein him in.

They have assigned two veteran minders to travel with him — David Wilhelm, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, and David Wade, a former spokesman for Senator John Kerry."

posted by Mike @ 4:46 PM
Reposted by red @ 8:37 PM

The Joe Biden Gaffe of the Week

Hat tip to Mike McCarville at TMRcom blog

Joe Biden to Katie Couric...
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened."

Do you see any problem(s) with that statement boys and girls? Katie didn't.

lol, what an absolute moron. (both of them)
Herbert Hoover was president during the 1929 stock market crash and the television had not yet been invented.
Thank you Barack Obama for giving us Joe "I exaggerate when I'm angry" Biden.
Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you !

Update... Spank that Donkey has this...

“I hope you won’t hold it against me, but I am a hard-coal miner, anthracite coal, Scranton, Pa. It’s nice to be back in coal country. … It’s a different accent [in Southwest Virginia] … but it’s the same deal."~ Joe Biden

From what I can find, Jihad Joe never worked in the coal mines nor given a ratsass about coal miners... till he wanted their votes that is.
"I exaggerate when I'm angry" -Joe Biden

Obama, Biden, Democrats Completely Lost Regarding Al Qaeda

Research Professor Engram at BackTalk Blog takes apart Joe Biden, Barack Obama and fellow Democrats on Iraq, Afghanistan and Al Qaeda in his two latest posts.... starting with:

"The Superhighway of Terror Between Afghanistan and Pakistan"
Here is Joe Biden exhibiting some bravado and acting as if he has a clear understanding of the relationship between al Qaeda and Afghanistan:
"Ladies and gentlemen, where are we now? Where are we now?" Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said to the National Guard Association today, talking about the war in Afghanistan. "If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me," Biden said. "Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are."...Biden said he would ask Palin about "The superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down...John McCain wants to know where Bin Laden and the gates of Hell are? I can tell him where. That's where Al Qaeda is. That's where Bin Laden is. It's not in the country of Iraq."

Bin Laden is where your helicopter went down in the mountains of Afghanistan?
Or is he across the border in Pakistan?
This is important to get straight because there is a world of difference between the two. For starters, we have 50,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan and about zero in Pakistan. In addition, Pakistan's new president (Ali Asif Zardari) has this to say:
Zardari said the Pakistani military was well-equipped and experienced in conducting operations in the mountainous areas where U.S. officials insist that al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is hiding. All they need, he said, is information and logistical support.Signaling his willingness to face off with Bush over the critical issue, Zardari did not disavow a reported order issued to his military last week to open fire if U.S. troops launched another air or ground raid across the Afghan border.
“Our orders are they (Pakistani forces) are not to allow any intrusion of anybody in Pakistan," he said. "If the American troops are coming in without letting us know, without Pakistani permission, they are violating the United Nations charter.”Asked if U.S. personnel would be confronted militarily, he replied, “Whatever it takes.”

Thus, not only do we have zero NATO soldiers in Pakistan, the Pakistani army seems ready to fire on any U.S. soldiers who cross into Pakistan in pursuit of al Qaeda targets.

In light of this, I wish some reporter would just take a map like the one below, present it to Joe Biden, and say "please tell me where they are:"
Are al Qaeda's leaders here, where your helicopter landed in Afghanistan, or there, in Pakistan? If the latter, what do you actually propose to do about it?
And about that "superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan,"
what the heck is that, anyway?
It sounds like he is talking about the Taliban, who use Pakistan as a safe haven and then cross the border to fight in Afghanistan. But I don't think anyone believes that Osama bin Laden is on that highway (nor are al Qaeda's suicide bombers, because they are busy in Pakistan).
Instead, many Taliban use that superhighway, plus a few al Qaeda field commanders who offer them guidance and direction. What does that have to do with capturing Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking al Qaeda operatives (all of whom are thought to be inside Pakistan)? Perhaps Joe Biden thinks they are in Afghanistan.
Or maybe he thinks they are hiding "between" Afghanistan and Pakistan (even though no such place exists). I wish some reporter would ask him to clarify.
-end.

And Engram again in his most recent post...
Casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan
"I am glad that Democrats like Barack Obama think that it is important to win our fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, but I am bothered by the fact that virtually all Democrats pretend that al Qaeda is resurgent there (and has found safe haven there) because we "took our eye off the ball" when we invaded al-Qaeda-free Iraq in 2003. In fact, unlike the U.S., al Qaeda abandoned Afghanistan to resist the American-led invasion of Iraq.

That's the part of the story that no Democrat seems able to comprehend.

Al Qaeda not only came to Iraq, they deliberately ignited the hellacious increase in sectarian violence that prompted virtually all Democrats, including Barack Obama, to propose giving up the fight (which they misleadingly called a "civil war").

Now, the Democrats have a new misleading argument, which is that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are resurgent in Afghanistan, and they make this argument by repeatedly blurring the absolutely critical distinction between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They do so by referring to an area "between Afghanistan and Pakistan" or by claiming that al Qaeda is resurgent "along the Afghanistan-Pakistan" border.
This is misleading because virtually everyone agrees that al Qaeda's leaders (and high-ranking officials of the Taliban) are 100% inside Pakistan. This matters because our troops are not welcome in Pakistan, so any troops we take from Iraq to help in the fight against the Taliban will, at best, take on the few low-level al Qaeda field commanders who are helping to make the Taliban better fighters.
By pretending otherwise, Obama and his like-minded Democratic allies make it seem as if sending troops to Afghanistan will help us to "finish the fight" against Osama bin Laden (who, in all likelihood, is completely inside Pakistan). In any case, because everyone will be focusing more on Afghanistan in the coming months and years, I thought it might be useful to compare recent casualty trends in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One country is quieting down while the other heats up. Still, violence in Afghanistan is nothing compared to what we saw in Iraq. Lets take a look at overall casualties first. For Iraq, these numbers come from Iraq Body Count because that source provides the most complete database. The figure for 2008 is a projection that assumes that casualties will continue to accumulate at the rate they have accumulated so far in 2008.

For Afghanistan, the numbers come from various counts provided by the AP that I linked to here. Again, the 2008 figure that I show in the chart below is a projected figure. I do not really know how complete the AP counts are, but they are all we have. Here is the chart that compares overall casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2005 to 2008:In Iraq, most the casualties were civilians. In Afghanistan, most of the casualties are Taliban.
The number of people killed in Iraq far exceeds the number killed in Afghanistan, but the two are becoming more similar now that things are becoming relatively quiet in Iraq.

A similar story emereges from a comparison of coalition force casualties in Iraq (mostly U.S.) and Afghanistan (NATO, with about half being U.S.). I got these figures from Iraq Coalition Casualty Count:Again, the 2008 figures are projected values based on the number killed so far this year. As you can see, there really is no comparison in the level of violence these two countries, though they are similar now that violence in Iraq has dropped to relatively low levels. If the AP figures are accurate, the numbers suggest that while NATO casualties have increased this year, overall casualties in Afghanistan (mostly Taliban) have come down somewhat. That might reflect the fact that, in 2008, al Qaeda has been re-engaging the fight in Afghanistan by having some of their field commanders lend an assist to the otherwise hapless Taliban. I assume it's clear to everyone that we must prevail in Afghanistan.
Allowing it to become a failed state is a nonstarter because we've seen the consequences of that before.
The Taliban cannot prevail if NATO does not lose its will, and because even the Democrats support our cause there, I see no chance of a Taliban victory there.
But what should we do about al Qaeda in Pakistan?
That's the question, and it seems to me that we are going about that fight in the only way that we can (i.e., encouraging Pakistan to launch offensives against militants in the border region and using pilotless Predator drones to target al Qaeda leadership from the skies).
I hope that John McCain and Barack Obama explain their views on this when they meet in Friday night's debate. -end

Veep Joe Biden's Foreign Policy? Give Iran $200million !

Joe Biden's Foreign Policy Judgement:
By Lorie Byrd
Townhall.com
Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as running mate hasn’t helped him in the polls, and it has highlighted Obama’s lack of experience in matters of foreign policy and national security, but more than that it has given Republicans additional grounds to question Obama’s judgment.

At first glance the addition of the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a man with 35 years in the Senate, might seem the perfect balance to a ticket headed by a candidate with very little experience. The fit might look perfect on paper, but the reality does not quite live up to the promise. A look at Joe Biden’s recent foreign policy judgment says a lot more about a possible Obama presidency than the fact that Biden has been in the Senate for 3 ½ decades.
The Hill reported of Biden’s speech at the Democratic National Convention this week: Biden “got confused about some very simple military terminology” stating that Obama advocated for “two additional battalions in Afghanistan” when “in fact, Obama called for two extra brigades – a small verbal slip, but a significant numerical one. A brigade is composed of a varying number of battalions.” Although an embarrassing mistake for a man hailed for his national security knowledge, that slip of the tongue was probably just that, a verbal slip. The same cannot be said for some of Biden’s past statements.
October 2001: Shortly following the September 11 attacks, Michael Crowley reported of Biden in The New Republic: “At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: ‘I'm groping here.’ Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we're not bent on its destruction. ‘Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran,’ Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.”
And more recently:
April 2007: Biden told reporters “"The surge is not succeeding, and the president refuses to see that."
July 2007: Biden said he had been “shot at” in the Green Zone in Iraq, but later had to “revise” that claim .
September 2007: Just before Gen. David Petraeus was scheduled to report to Congress, Joe Biden said President Bush's war strategy is failing and that Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, is "dead flat wrong" for warning against major changes. "The reality is that although there's been some mild security progress, there is in fact no security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence.” Biden claimed that Bush’s purpose for the surge was to buy time long enough to push the burden of the war onto the next president. Biden said, "I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out.”
September 9, 2007: From an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you what you said in Iowa last week. “If we do not change course in Iraq soon, you’re going to see, two years from now, helicopters hovering over our embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad with people hanging” onto “the ladders just like Vietnam. Mark my words.”
SEN. BIDEN: Absolutely, positively, unequivocally, I believe that. Look, let me tell you, Tim, there is no possibility—no possibility—of a central government governing Iraq in any near term…
MR. RUSSERT: General Petraeus said in a letter to his troops that we have not had the political reconciliation we thought we would have at this time. It’s been much slower, but there is some hope. And then he added this: “My sense is that we have achieved tactical momentum and wrested the initiative from our enemies in a number areas of Iraq. We are, in short, a long way from the goal line, but we do have the ball and we are driving down the field.” Is that what you expect him to say tomorrow?
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… And can anybody envision a central government made up of Sunni, Shia and Kurds that’s going to gain the trust and respect of 27 million Iraqis? It’s not going to happen".
…
MR. RUSSERT: Your presidential campaign is on the air with a political ad about Iraq. Let’s watch it for a second.
(Videotape)
NARRATOR: (From Biden political ad) In a world this dangerous, with a crisis as tough as Iraq, hard truths need to be told. Joe Biden says this war must end now.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: "This war must end now". In, in ‘05, this is what Joe Biden was saying: “We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out—equally a mistake.” You’ve changed your mind.
SEN. BIDEN: "Well, I have changed my mind, but I haven’t changed my mind in any fundamental way… "
September 26, 2007: The Senate passed Biden’s amendment "calling for creation of a federal system of government in Iraq with regions divided along ethnic lines."
On the result of Biden’s statements and actions, Michael Rubin recently wrote:
“The November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate …found that Iran had pursued a nuclear weapons program until 2003. Although Biden's embrace of engagement coincided with Iran's nuclear warhead work, he acknowledged no error. He told reporters on Dec. 4 that Bush had "misrepresented" the intelligence in a drive to war and declared the same day, "You cannot trust this president." Such poor judgment was not lost on Iranian leaders. Indeed, one of Khatami's top aides suggested that they came to count on it…Biden’s political games have made him Tehran’s favorite senator. As Gen. David Petraeus struggled to unite Iraqis across the ethnic and sectarian divide, Iran’s Press TV seized on Biden’s plan for partitioning Iraq and featured his statements with the headline “US plans to disintegrate Iraq.” Biden’s attack-dog statements about U.S. policy failures emboldened Iranian hard-liners to defy diplomacy. In the Dec. 7, 2007, official sermon, Ayatollah Mohammad Kashani speaking on behalf of Iran’s supreme leader, declared, “This Senator [Biden] correctly says Israel could not suppress Hizbullah in Lebanon, so how can the U.S. stand face-to-face with a nation of 70 million? This is the blessing of the Guardianship of the Jurists [the theocracy] . . . which plants such thoughts in the hearts of U.S. senators and forces them to make such confessions.” The crowd met his statement with refrains of “Death to America.”
In April 2008 Biden remained convinced the surge was a failure. As an early rebuttal to upcoming testimony by Gen. David Petraeus Biden said, "The purpose of the surge was to bring violence in Iraq down so that its leaders could come together politically… Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together." He later added, "There is little evidence the Iraqis will settle their differences peacefully any time soon."
By July 2008, Iraq had “met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” According to a report this week, “The U.S. military will hand over responsibility for the security of Anbar Province, once a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency and one of the most violent regions in Iraq, to the Iraqi government as early as Monday, Iraqi and U.S. officials said.”
Many have recently pointed to comments Biden made about Barack Obama in August of 2007: "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. It's awful hard, with only a little bit of experience to have a clear sense of what you would do on the most critical issues facing us today."
That is very true, but Obama’s choice of Biden to be his foreign policy expert gives us a good idea of how an Obama-Biden administration would handle such matters if elected.

Democrat For Jihad Of The Day: Joe Biden For VP

Obama picks "Jihad Joe Biden" for his veep? This is too good to be true for conservatives!
How did Joe Biden get the nickname "Jihad Joe"?
By supporting the Jihad in a speech in Syria during the Petraeus hearings of course.
He could NOT have been more wrong, but the lefty media gives him a pass... of course.
LINK to JIHAD JOE BIDEN

Nobody Wants To Play With Jihad Joe Anymore

"Jihad Joe" Biden is in Des Moines Iowa whining and complaining that "nobody wants to play with us anymore".

Of course Jihad Joe is referring to his claim that the rest of the world doesn't want to 'play' with America because America lacks 'credibility'.

"Until we solve the situation in Iraq, we have no credibility to solve problems with more dangerous places in the world,” said Biden, “If you remove that boulder that is Iraq, the rest of the world is going to follow us again. Nobody wants to play with us anymore.”

Senator Biden doesn't get out much these days... running for president takes a lot of time. That could be the only explanation for how Biden could have missed speeches and talks from BOTH the newly elected leaders of Germany AND France where they said just the opposite.

Both the German-American and the broader transatlantic relationship have improved considerably because of an increased emphasis on discussion and dialogue. It started with President Bush’s trip to Mainz and Brussels last February, and under Chancellor Merkel's leadership, momentum has picked up.
"I had the privilege of being present at the meetings between President Bush and Chancellor Merkel. They met for extended discussions on a wide range of subjects. The President and the Chancellor have a very good rapport and have developed a close friendship."

OR newly elected French President Zarkozy's glowing speech praising America and proclaiming the great friendship between the two countries...
Today as in the past, as we stand at the beginning of the 21^st century, it is together that we must fight to defend and promote the values and ideals of freedom and democracy".
"Together we must fight against terrorism".
"For me, failure is not an option. Terrorism will not win because democracies are not weak, nor because we are not afraid of this barbarism".

So if not Europe, then who does Jihad Joe Biden want America to 'play' with that doesn't want to 'play' with America?
September 11, 2007- During the Petraeus Report hearings while General David Petraeus was being called a "liar", Joe Biden reached out to 'play'... with THE ENEMY. At this critical time when al Qaeda was hoping desperately for a democrat pullout in September... Joe Biden was just the man to give them hope...
Al Jazeera- 9/11/07:
Sen. Joe Biden:..."The "surge" strategy can not succeed, as national Iraqi leaders were not committed to reconciliation between sectarian and ethnic groups."
"It's time to stop the surge and bring the troops home"

Instead, the surge is being termed a "great success", tribal leaders had reconciled with sectarian and ethnic groups to help defeat al Qaeda, Iraqis are flooding back into their country from refuge by the hundreds of thousands and FREEDOM is taking hold in Iraq. Joe must have missed this news also. Too busy I'm sure.

It seems very clear that the only people Jihad Joe Biden is worried about not 'playing' with America any more are the Jihadists themselves. Biden cares more about what terrorists think of America than what Americans think of America as evidenced by his own statements. Except for his loyal flock of "fly in the dark" followers that is.

Joe Biden needs to be worrying about what Americans are starting to think about Joe Biden.
It's the democrat party and people like you (Joe) that nobody wants to 'play' with anymore, if democrats are sensing a lack of respect and credibility they need to look in the mirror before pointing the finger at America.

Note to America; Keep...correction GET Joe Biden AWAY from Pakistan.

Iraq Pullout Now Would Be "Madness"

"It would be madness."
"Let us make sure that now we are winning in Iraq, we do win (and) we don't snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory by... stupidity."

November 21, 2007 - 4:49PM
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has again taken aim at Labor's pledge to pull combat troops out of Iraq, saying it would be "political stupidity" to do it anytime soon.

Downer said the US-led coalition was finally "winning" the war in Iraq. To withdraw troops when progress was now being made would be "madness", he said.

"I feel that we are at long last, making real progress in Iraq," Downer told reporters in Singapore, where he is attending the East Asia Summit.

"There is a very substantial decline in the level of violence in Iraq.

"The last thing we want to do - just at the point of making real progress - ... is a sudden change, a 180 degree change of policy on Iraq, which would only lead to a regression back to the violence we had before.

"It would be madness. Let us make sure that now we are winning in Iraq, we do win (and) we don't snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory by political stupidity."

Labor plans to withdraw the 500 combat troops Australia has in southern Iraq if it wins government, leaving around 1,000 still in Iraq and the Middle East.

Meanwhile on the other end of the earth, Jihad Joe Biden, Wild Bill Richardson, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and 99.999% of the dhimmicrats are indeed that stupid and indeed that "mad".
Over here though, we just call it "Bush Derangement Disorder" to be polite.

War, Lies and Videotape, A Democrat Plan for Defeat

Here is your democrat party position on the war in Iraq as detailed by Senator Jihad Joe Biden as recently as October 2007...


Here is what lefty reporter Michael Ware said about the dangers of the democrat position on pulling US troops out of Iraq back in March 07.


In July of 07 while democrats were proclaiming "the war is lost", news reports from previously anti-war reporters told a different story was unfolding...


Later in July 07, Centcom reports that the surge is indeed working...


September 07, al Qaeda in Iraq being "wiped off the map"... as General Petraeus was being called a liar by democrats like Jihad Joe Biden on al Jazeera News and by Hillary Clinton in Washington...


And what are those in Iraq saying NOW in November 2007?


Summary:
Democrats said the surge wouldn't work, couldn't work, that the war was lost, that al Qaeda in Iraq was fiction or simply the result of America being there.
Democrats like Jihad Joe Biden said that the standing up of the Iraqi military is impossible and that nobody believes that it will ever happen.
Well it did happen and yet democrats are still trying to cling to that last sliver of possible defeat even in the face of total victory by the US and Iraq against al Qaeda and Iranian 'insurgents'.
On September 11th 2007 during the Petraeus Report hearings, while Hillary Clinton was calling General Petraus a liar, Joe Biden was quoted on Al Jazeera...
"He (US Senator Joe Biden) said the "surge" strategy could not succeed as national Iraqi leaders were not committed to reconciliation between sectarian and ethnic groups." "...it's time to stop the surge and bring the troops home."

What does YOUR democrat party think about Jihad Joe Biden?



I have documented the success of the surge and the defeat of al Qaeda along with the Mahdr Army story including the rise and fall of the so-called civil war as detailed by Research Professor Engram at Back Talk, and even the main stream media is now forced to admit that democrats were totally wrong about Iraq. Democrats now have no where to go but to cling to that last hope of defeat for America in Iraq even as US troops are in fact beginning to draw down and the Iraqi forces take control of their country.

From the democrat debate on CNN last night Bill Richardson (D) NM said "the surge isn't working".
No Bill, the surge has already 'worked'... film at 11:oo
-red