Biden: You're fired

Joe’s trying to get a boost by looking tough.

[quote=“Washington Post”]After pictures emerged from the Abu Ghraib prison showing mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in April 2004, Sen. Joe Biden told reporters he would fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld if he were president. According to the senator’s new book, Biden then found himself with some explaining to do.

“Why do you keep picking on Rummy,” President Bush asked Biden in a meeting that also included Vice-President Dick Cheney.

“I looked at Cheney,” Biden writes. “Mr. Vice-President, I said, full disclosure, were you not a constitutional officer, I’d fire you too. Simple reason, Mr. President, can you name me one piece of substantial advice given about the war in Iraq that’s turned out to be true? That’s why Mr. President.”

Cheney did not respond to Biden’s broadside. [/quote]
Anyone want to take a run at proving him wrong?

Oh yawn. This goes back to the whole argument that because Saddam did not have actual wmds that he was not a threat. It goes to the premise that we invaded despite everyone knowing that he did not have wmds. Neither is true. This type of discussion is ludicrous and everyone “knows” that. Shall we go find all of Biden’s statements prior to the invasion and during the Clinton administration when Democrats such as he needed to talk tough to prove that they had balls? So now things are not working out well and wham, suddenly he and others were tricked? the effort was mismanaged? He knows full well that he had access to the very same intelligence that everyone else in the Cabinet did. How did he vote? I believe it was a “yes” for the invasion was it not? I think that he is more concerned about being re-elected and it is this kind of shameless shilly shallying that makes me so contemptuous of the Democrats.

“…one piece of substantial advice given about the war in Iraq that’s turned out to be true?”

Saddam was a threat and he had every intention of restarting his wmd programs once sanctions ended. Even Kenneth Pollack, no conservative, stated unequivocally even now that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. He based this on his psychological assessment of Saddam and the key decider for him was the fact that Saddam had stated that his mistake was not to invade Kuwait but to do so without a nuclear weapon.

Saddam was a threat. Bush acted before that threat became IMMINENT. No matter how many times we go over this, no matter what wmds were not found, Saddam was a real threat and removing him was one of the greatest things that the Bush administration has accomplished.

I’ll take that as a “no”. Come on, I thought Biden’s statement was a bit over top. Give me one piece of substantial advice that’s not from loony land.

Quick! Act BEFORE the threat becomes IMMINENT.

You can laugh all you want Jaboney, but what do you have to say about all the statements by all the players regarding the threat that Saddam posed before the invasion? Were they somehow tricked by the Bush administration? I mean even the German Ambassador to the US for Christ’s sake is saying a week or so before the invasion that the German government believes that Saddam probably had wmds. What about the conclusions of the Butler and Duelfer reports? hmmm? Cat got your tongue? I thought as much…

So I assume that you did not understand Bush’s statement then about the need to act one way or another to deal with Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat? or are you suggesting that Saddam was like the baby in your picture and therefore not a threat at all? That is again a truly precious view given Saddam’s past history and given the conclusions of the Duelfer and Butler reports, eh? Bit inconvenient for your view though huh?

Come on fred, this should be easy.

Cheney: “A_”
Facts: ‘A’

That’s it. Cheney said “A”, the facts turn out to be ‘A’. That’s all I’m asking for.

For example:

Oh so you want to play past statements eh? Let’s go back and look at ALL the statements.

Actually, I am glad that you supplied this statement of Cheney’s. Why? Because then how can you argue that he also believed that we would be welcomed with flowers upon our arrival? Are you suggesting that he suddenly forgot all those troubles and thought that this would be a “cake walk?”

No. The reality is that he was willing to invade to get rid of Saddam despite fully understanding these difficulties. Why? Because he and everyone else truly believed that Saddam was a threat. He truly believed that Saddam either had or was close to developing wmds. These were the conclusions of the Butler and Duelfer reports.

I will note in concluding that it seems that cartoons appear whenever the poster in question has the weakest argument. You are now MFGR! haha

Oh, I don’t know what changed in the intervening 12 years: that’s been a question asked by a lot of the realists who served under the George who didn’t imagine himself king, hasn’t it?

Come on, fred. I was looking to poo-poo ‘Comb-over Joe’. Am I to believe that he’s on the ball here? Damn, between this and his Iraqi partition plan, I may have to start thinking he really should be the next Sec. State.

Yes, at least now you are talking sense. Not everyone agreed with the invasion of Iraq but at least three administrations were aware of the threat that Saddam posed after invading Kuwait. We have Bush I deciding at the last minute that it was not worth the effort because he knew what would follow. But yet, his son who has close contact with many of his administration officials including Cheney! Who made the very comment that you supplied! were suddenly uniformed? unaware? unconcerned about what would follow? Tell me… What was the discussion regarding the force levels about and why were they deliberately kept small? No one thought of that? Everyone agreed with Shinseki?

Biden is an opportunist. If you do not believe me, why don’t you spend an equal amount of time and energy finding his past quotes on Saddam and the threat posed by Iraq… Oh, maybe he did not have the same access to the same intelligence? Whoops, er what committees does he chair? sit on? Whoops!

Also, the Iraq partition plan would assume of course that the Iraqis are incapable or unwilling to live together. Yet, after the last al Qaeda chief in Iraq was captured, we found that al Qaeda does not have strong roots in Iraq that is why it had to pretend to be led by an Iraqi and that it fully understands this and wants to stir up ethnic violence. Again, why so much intermarriage among so many Iraqis if there was a problem that only partition could solve. The problem is restoring security. We are succeeding in that effort now.

Let me ask you this. IF we had 500,000 troops in Iraq in 2003 and given what we know about the American public’s impatience with lengthy involvements and given the politicization that we fully understand, what would have happened to our effort in Iraq? Would it not have been drawn down and fully out within six months to a year? What kind of strain would that have put on the effort? the military?

And what would the Iraqi people have perceived about this “occupation?” Would it have led to dependence while fostering resentment? And if the Sunnis were not willing to concede that they were no longer in power, was it not necessary for them to come to the realization that there would be a fight. Now, they have a bloodied nose and want to cooperate. Would that have been the case otherwise? with no violence perpetrated against them?

I believe that Rumsfeld was a genius to foresee all of this. History will be very kind to him. People who believe as you do that conditions don’t change, Saddam was not a threat, his capability to develop wmds was not real, and that none of these variables was understood by administration officials will merely be a footnote in a broader discussion of the overall effort. You will be labeled as the debilitating protest movement that a successful leader had to “deal with” as part of the overall equation. Sort of like dealing with “sandstorms” or “insufficient transport vehicles.” Hah!

You do realize don’t you that military strategists formulate plans based on how people like you will respond and react? That you are part of an overall statistical effort? That you are a negative variable that is punched in as a political liability. That public opinion is recognized as being wishy washy and shilly shally and that such views are easily influenced by week to week and month to month events? I am not saying your views are not taken seriously but they are also dismissed equally as being susceptible to sudden victories and sudden defeats and setbacks. While the recognition is there that people such as you can influence events, the respect is not if you get my drift…

Lots of good stuff there fred, but still no single clear statement.
One statement.

[quote]Lots of good stuff there fred, but still no single clear statement.
One statement.

Dear Jaboney:

I understand where you are coming from. I really do. The key question though is does it really matter?

Now, you can have any views you want, any opinions you wish, but what are the chances that they will be implmented as policy? I have discussed this with Spook as well.

People like you may not support an invasion of Iraq, people like me do. What happens? Iraq gets invaded. People like me may support staying. People like you advocate leaving. Yet, we stay. People like you believe that there was some sort of conspiracy about our invasion, people like me do not. What is the result? the Duelfer and Butler reports which support my view.

At the end of the day, you can believe whatever you want. But… people like me will be the ones that have a realistic chance of seeing their positions implemented into policy. Right?

Cute cartoons though… Pity those do not carry more weight in policy briefings. hahahahahahahaah

What’s the result?
Bush I: meaningful coalition, shared costs, legitimacy, support, moral standing.
Bush II: token coalition, burdensome costs, illegitimacy, lack of support, no moral standing… Inability to muster up enough troops to do the job. Political price paid at home. Oh, and lots of whining about why the rest of the world isn’t doing it’s part.

Sure it matters.

One substantive point, fred? That’s all. One point.
Really, I think Joe’s a stuffed shirt… but until you dig up that one point for me, he looks marginally substantial.


Sorry, I understand where you are coming from, but does it matter?

Again, I just have to state that you can believe whatever you want, but what difference does it make? The Democrats swept Congress and? What changed? All of Europe (haha) is against Bush and his effort in Iraq and yet? what? no support? as in no support compared with all the support given past efforts? what has changed? the US has lost moral support? really? compared with what? when?


Dear Jaboney:

I understand where you are coming from. You need a simplistic consistent position on this matter. I cannot give you one. Sorry. Score a point for you. But does it really matter? You have “won” this debate with me as I cannot give you “one” thing that you have asked for. But is the fact that Saddam was a real threat with a real wmd capability as the Duelfer and Butler reports concluded not “1?” You appear to believe it is not. Again, I am sorry that I cannot satisfy your request but can you give me “1” reason why this will have any relevance for anyone actually involved in policy implementation? What relevance do your concerns have there? I mean it is fun to debate this on the Internet but… to what purpose? policy wise?

Well, dammit. I was sure there must be one. Score one for Joe, not me.

What’s it matter?
(Picture me doing Carson doing Carnak the Magnificent)
I see policy makers trying to bring allies on side.
I see a need for trust undergirding politics.
I look to the past and see…

I look to the present, and see no such trust.
I see men once considered honorable, with their reputations in tatters.

I don’t see any of this helping.

Nor do I see many people going time and again to a doctor who gets EVERY diagnosis wrong. Why go to the same poisoned well for their political prescriptions?

Dear Jaboney:

And on that point, we have finally reached agreement. Case closed.

Dear Jaboney:

Well, in the spirit of compromise, here’s ONE or TWO clear statements from Biden on his past er quotes…

[quote]Just in case you missed it- Here is the transcript…
Joe Biden on Meet the Press on Sunday April 29, 2007:

MR. RUSSERT: I want to go back to 2002, because it’s important as to what people were saying then and what the American people were hearing. Here’s Joe Biden about Saddam Hussein:
[color=green][b]“He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security.”

“We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

“He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.” [/b][/color]

You were emphatic about that.

SEN. BIDEN: That’s right, and I was correct about that. He must be, in fact—and remember the weapons we were talking about. I also said on your show, that’s part of what I said, but not all of what I meant. What I also said on your show at the time was that I did not think he had weaponized his material, but he did have. When, when the inspectors left after Saddam kicked them out, there was a cataloguing at the United Nations saying he had X tons of, X amount of, and they listed the various materials he had. The big issue, remember, on this show we talked about, was whether he had weaponized them. Remember you asked me about those flights that were taking place in southern Iraq, where—were they spraying anthrax? And, you know, what would happen? And, you know, so on and so forth. And I pointed out to you that they had not developed that capacity at all. But he did have these stockpiles everywhere.

MR. RUSSERT: Where are they?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t,
[color=red]but everyone in the world thought he had them. [/color]

The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

That one line is worth repeating again…
Biden said:
“This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream.”
Goodness!.. Don’t let the nutroots hear that[/quote] … rbins.html

Ah, that’s better. See, I knew Joe was a nutbar.
Of course, not everyone thought Saddam was a threat, so that’s another point Joe’s wrong on.

And Joe being wrong doesn’t make Dick right, which still leaves me looking for one. :ponder: