Sunday, October 5, 2008

Looks like more Biden Blunders

Here are some quotes from Biden that have been fact checked by the New York Post. It should come to as no surprise that Biden was wrong or lying about many of the things he said in the VP Debate. I feel sure this is just a the ones the Washington Post had room for in their paper.

It's "simply not true" that Barack Obama said he'd meet Iran's president without preconditions, Biden insisted.
I wanted to post the video, but embedding has been disabled upon request. I wonder who would request such a thing? In case you just want to take my word for it he said it and it's on tape.

* Biden said he's "always supported" clean-coal technology - after stating emphatically only last month, "We're not supporting clean coal."

* Biden asserted - repeatedly - that the US spends more money on three weeks' combat in Iraq than it's spent in Afghanistan since the war began.

That claim's only remotely intelligible if he limits Afghan expenditures merely to US rebuilding efforts - and even then, he's off by a factor of three, according to State Department numbers.

* Also on Afghanistan, Biden insisted - repeatedly - that "our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work" there.

That may not be an out-and-out lie, but it took supposed foreign-policy neophyte Sarah Palin to bring any context or nuance to the statement.

What Gen. David McKiernan had said was that tribal realities in Afghanistan are very different than in Iraq - requiring a different form of cooperation.

But he flatly said more troops, and more local engagement, are needed.

* Then there was what might have been the biggest head-scratcher of the night. Said Biden of the Bush administration's supposed Middle East follies:

"When . . . along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."

We never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon we kicked Syria out of Lebanon in 2005. By the way who else thinks that there in no chance that the countries in Nato would have sent their troops to fight Hezbollah in Lebanon. They won't even help us with Al Qaeda in Afgahnistan.


  1. Yea, its amazing to me that Biden can get away with saying pretty much anything he wants to, even if it TOTALLY contradicts reality, his own record, and his own recent comments. Amazing.

  2. Yeah, I figured the clean coal line was b.s.

    But the rest of your post is pretty tilted. Let's be honest on this whole "precondition" thing. Obama said he'd be willing to talk with Iran without pre-conditions last year in a debate. When asked to clarify that the next day, his campaign made it clear that he was speaking of engagement generally, not a literal sit down meeting without so much as a single lower level diplomatic talk.

    Hillary Clinton and now the Republicans have continued to bring this up and suggest that he favors sitting down -- himself -- with the leaders of Iran without doing any prep work, which never was and is not now his position. And anyone who doesn't understand the difference between these two points is an out and out idiot.

    When Bush refused to talk to Iran because he wanted certain preconditions met beforehand, it was a total black out. Not even lower level talks. That's what it means to refuse to talk unless certain preconditions are met. That's what Obama opposes. But the opposite of that position is not literal presidential level talks without any lower level diplomacy first. That's absurd, and the GOP's continued insistence on not understanding this point makes them look really stupid.

    And yes, Henry Kissinger did say he favored talking to Iran without preconditions, and just like Obama, he was talking about lower level diplomacy as well. The fact that Kissinger's statement and position (both of which were identical to Obama) have been defended by McCain's people, while they still refuse to honestly assess Obama's position simply reveals the absolute intellectual bankruptcy of the Republicans.

    The "surge" does not simply mean more troops. Obama supports putting more troops in Afghanistan. In fact, he's the only presidential candidate who has a plan to do it (hint, it ties in closely with his Iraq policy). And McKiernan was absolutely clear on what he meant. That the tactics that have been successfully used in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan.

    Here are his exact words: "Afghanistan is not Iraq. The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge'. I don't want the [U.S] military to be engaging the tribes."

    But yeah, you guys just keep shutting your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears and pretend Obama has a whole bunch of wildly reckless policies even if that's not the case. Good luck on winning an election that way.

    Oh, and I like how you've now admitted you don't read my comments because you "know what they say in advance." That's pretty typical Republican denial. Make it disappear by pretending it doesn't exist.