Biden calls Bush comments 'bull****'

[RunInRed 16,493]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I really like Joe Biden. Here is a guy who really gets foreign policy.

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joe Biden, D-Delaware, called President Bush’s comments accusing Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats of wanting to appease terrorists "bull****” and said if the president disagrees so strongly with the idea of talking to Iran then he needs to fire his secretaries of State and Defense, both of whom Biden said have pushed to sit down with the Iranians.

“This is bull****. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset…and make this kind of ridiculous statement,” Biden said angrily in a brief interview just off the Senate floor.

“He’s the guy who’s weakened us. He’s the guy that’s increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has. His intelligence community pointed that out not me. The NIE has pointed that out and what are you talking about, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down. So his first two appeasers are Rice and Gates. I hope he comes home and does something.”

He quoted Gates saying Wednesday that we “need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[Tigermike 3,055]

It's obvious that Biden is full of bull$hit. Obama is full of bull$hit. You are full of bull$hit.

Biden's comments are nothing but political spin and total bull$hit running from the truth. Biden shilling and spinning for Obama.

As has been explained in another thread:

Really, is that right? Let’s go back and take a look at the tape, from which Obama has been running for the last few weeks:

You Tube

from Obama's own website:

Without preconditions. That means without Iran guaranteeing anything, let alone the big prize of their nuclear program. Gibbs’ statement makes absolutely no sense in context of Bush’s remarks or Obama’s previous statements. If Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program today, Bush would open diplomatic contacts with Iran and might even consider a summit. He’s made that very clear over the last few years, holding out WTO sponsorship and normalized relations in exchange for just that concession.If Obama now says he won’t meet with Iran until they surrender their nuclear-weapons program, how exactly does that differ from Bush? And how does that fit with his previous statements about having talks “without preconditions”?

Beyond that, Obama has never explained how talks with Ahmadinejad would convince Iran to stop being, well, the lunatic mullahcracy that it is. Instead of supporting the grassroots efforts at real reform, Obama would simply give credence to the sham “reformers” the Guardian Council approves as part of its oppressive control over the political process in Iran. Meeting with Ahmadinejad, who has held regional conferences extolling a world without Israel or the US, would give the hard-liners a boost in stature while reducing our credibility with Iranians looking to rid themselves of the mullahcracy and establish real representative government. They don’t want us to bomb Iran into submission, but they also don’t want us to abandon them for a Neville Chamberlain-like illusory diplomatic exchange that changes nothing.

If Biden wants to eliminate the confusion on these points, then he needs to start with Barack Obama, who apparently has no clue what preconditions mean. Maybe he should have learned that before running for President.

[tiger88 934]

From what I recall Obama indicated that one of the first things he would do was sit down with ahmennijad (sp?) and talk, indicating no preconditions or anything.

That is different than what Bush is indicating here. Preconditions with us having the upper hand.

Obama is waffling now because he realizes how dumb his first statement was.

[arnaldoabru 11]

It's obvious that Biden is full of bull$hit. Obama is full of bull$hit. You are full of bull$hit.

Biden's comments are nothing but political spin and total bull$hit running from the truth. Biden shilling and spinning for Obama.

As has been explained in another thread:

Really, is that right? Let’s go back and take a look at the tape, from which Obama has been running for the last few weeks:

You Tube

from Obama's own website:

Without preconditions. That means without Iran guaranteeing anything, let alone the big prize of their nuclear program. Gibbs’ statement makes absolutely no sense in context of Bush’s remarks or Obama’s previous statements. If Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program today, Bush would open diplomatic contacts with Iran and might even consider a summit. He’s made that very clear over the last few years, holding out WTO sponsorship and normalized relations in exchange for just that concession.If Obama now says he won’t meet with Iran until they surrender their nuclear-weapons program, how exactly does that differ from Bush? And how does that fit with his previous statements about having talks “without preconditions”?

Beyond that, Obama has never explained how talks with Ahmadinejad would convince Iran to stop being, well, the lunatic mullahcracy that it is. Instead of supporting the grassroots efforts at real reform, Obama would simply give credence to the sham “reformers” the Guardian Council approves as part of its oppressive control over the political process in Iran. Meeting with Ahmadinejad, who has held regional conferences extolling a world without Israel or the US, would give the hard-liners a boost in stature while reducing our credibility with Iranians looking to rid themselves of the mullahcracy and establish real representative government. They don’t want us to bomb Iran into submission, but they also don’t want us to abandon them for a Neville Chamberlain-like illusory diplomatic exchange that changes nothing.

If Biden wants to eliminate the confusion on these points, then he needs to start with Barack Obama, who apparently has no clue what preconditions mean. Maybe he should have learned that before running for President.

What is B*&^T is the last 7 years.

[RunInRed 16,493]

So are you saying Biden is lying about Rice and Gates? As chair of the foreign relations committee, I would think Biden has more cred about this than you do TM.

[Tigermike 3,055]

So are you saying Biden is lying about Rice and Gates? As chair of the foreign relations committee, I would think Biden has more cred about this than you do TM.

I'm saying Biden is shilling and spinning for Obama. And you don't want to think about the truth do you?

Yeah the great plagiarizer has a boat load of creds. Who wrote them?

[RunInRed 16,493]

So just to recap, the ultimate hypocrit Bush is now criticizing an approach that his own secretaries of defense have suggested

"We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate" - JFK

[Tiger Al 0]

So just to recap, the ultimate hypocrit Bush is now criticizing an approach that his own secretaries of defense have suggested

"We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate" - JFK

RIR, you don't understand. In Tigermike's world, George is NEVER wrong. He is NEVER responsible for anything that goes wrong. He's misled, taken advantage of, duped, misinformed, etc. Fault and blame, in TM's world, reside solely with dems.

Don't make this mistake again.

[tiger88 934]

Ok. Obama said he would sit down immediately with no conditions and chat with the guy.

The bush admin is currently trying to negotiate an advantageous position to have staff members sit down and negotiate with the guy.

The phrase "no leg to stand on" comes to mind. Biden is wrong on this but is aware that sensationalist type statements often win the ignorant segment of the public over.

[Tigermike 3,055]

So just to recap, the ultimate hypocrit Bush is now criticizing an approach that his own secretaries of defense have suggested

"We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate" - JFK

RIR, you don't understand. In Tigermike's world, George is NEVER wrong. He is NEVER responsible for anything that goes wrong. He's misled, taken advantage of, duped, misinformed, etc. Fault and blame, in TM's world, reside solely with dems.

Don't make this mistake again.

In Al & rr's world it is always better to attack anyone who disagrees with their party line rather than talk on the issue. Also in Al & rr's world Bush is always wrong and Obama is always right.

And for the record there is more evidence on this board of me disagreeing with Bush than there is of Al or rr disagreeing with Obama, the DNC or any other dim.

[channonc 466]

And for the record there is more evidence on this board of me disagreeing with Bush than there is of Al or rr disagreeing with Obama, the DNC or any other dim.

Links please.

[Tigermike 3,055]

And for the record there is more evidence on this board of me disagreeing with Bush than there is of Al or rr disagreeing with Obama, the DNC or any other dim.

Links please.

We have linked that in the past and I'm not going to again. Al & TT knows it and you were around then as well.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Ok. Obama said he would sit down immediately with no conditions and chat with the guy.

The bush admin is currently trying to negotiate an advantageous position to have staff members sit down and negotiate with the guy.

The phrase "no leg to stand on" comes to mind. Biden is wrong on this but is aware that sensationalist type statements often win the ignorant segment of the public over.

Just notice how all of our local lefties are falling into that category. Achmed would just jump right up and go talk to this guy?:

Ahmadinejad says Israel doomed

May 14 01:25 PM US/Eastern

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that Israel is dying and that its 60th anniversary celebrations are an attempt to prevent its "annihilation."

He spoke hours after President Bush arrived in Israel for the anniversary celebrations.

"The Zionist (Israeli) regime is dying," said Ahmadinejad during a speech in northern Iran. "The criminals assume that by holding celebrations ... they can save the sinister Zionist regime from death and annihilation."

Ahmadinejad used an Arabic word, ismihlal, that can also be translated as destruction, death and collapse.

Iran doesn't recognize Israel, and Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. Threatening exchanges between Iran and Israel have intensified since 2005, when Ahmadinejad said in a speech that Israel will one day be "wiped off the map." The Iranian leader has also described the Holocaust as a "myth."

"Nations of the region hate this criminal fabricated regime (Israel) and will uproot this fabricated regime if the smallest and shortest opportunity is given to them," Ahmadinejad said Wednesday in an address broadcast live on state television.

Israel considers Iran a serious threat because of its support for Hamas and Hezbollah militants, its nuclear program and its arsenal of long-range missiles, which can be fitted with nuclear warheads and are capable of striking the Jewish state.

Tehran is equipped with Shahab-3 missiles, which have a range of up to 1,250 miles. Israel is about 625 miles west of Iran.

Israel and the U.S. accuse Iran of using its nuclear program as a cover for a weapons program. Iran has denied the charges, saying its nuclear program is geared merely toward generating electricity, not bomb making.

"These are the words of a man who denies the Holocaust happened and is producing nuclear weapons while threatening Israel with extinction," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Mekel said. "The international community has to take care of this problem to ensure that Iran never has nuclear weapons."

Israel is widely believed to have a large stockpile of nuclear weapons, but follows a policy it calls "nuclear ambiguity" and has never acknowledged or denied having a nuclear weapons program.

Iranian military officials have warned Israel in recent years that Iran would destroy Israel's Dimona nuclear reactor if the Jewish state were to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

LINK

[AURaptor 1,126]

Joe Biden is one of the biggest pricks in all the Senate. Just more worthless, immature 'leadership' from the whacked out fringe Left.

BTW.... Bush was right, in his statement. Those who'd appease the terrorist are flat out wrong for America. If Biden and Obama think that shoe fits, then that's telling on THEM, not Bush.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Israel's Response to the Speech

As President Bush’s speech today continues to cause the Democratic party to spiral into spluttering, expletive-spewing fury, it’s worth taking a step back for a moment and asking what the reaction of the Israelis seated at the Knesset was to the supposedly controversial remarks. Were they shocked and outraged? Did they think it was, as Senator Biden so eloquently put it, “malarkey”--or a partisan attack on Barack Obama?

Not so much it appears. Check out the video.

The response from the Israeli parliamentarians, as Joe Lieberman pointed out a few hours ago on Fox, wasn’t shock, but hearty applause. Perhaps that’s because they agree with what President Bush said--which, after all, is something that every American President, Democrat and Republican, since World War II has similarly recognized: it’s a very, very bad idea for democracies to negotiate with terrorists, or to appease fanatical dictatorial regimes.

Would that the presumptive Democratic nominee and his proxies felt the same way…

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSF...he_speech_1.asp

Oh, come now. What would Israelis know about the dangers of appeasement?

[arnaldoabru 11]

It's obvious that Biden is full of bull$hit. Obama is full of bull$hit. You are full of bull$hit.

Biden's comments are nothing but political spin and total bull$hit running from the truth. Biden shilling and spinning for Obama.

As has been explained in another thread:

Really, is that right? Let’s go back and take a look at the tape, from which Obama has been running for the last few weeks:

You Tube

from Obama's own website:

Without preconditions. That means without Iran guaranteeing anything, let alone the big prize of their nuclear program. Gibbs’ statement makes absolutely no sense in context of Bush’s remarks or Obama’s previous statements. If Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program today, Bush would open diplomatic contacts with Iran and might even consider a summit. He’s made that very clear over the last few years, holding out WTO sponsorship and normalized relations in exchange for just that concession.If Obama now says he won’t meet with Iran until they surrender their nuclear-weapons program, how exactly does that differ from Bush? And how does that fit with his previous statements about having talks “without preconditions”?

Beyond that, Obama has never explained how talks with Ahmadinejad would convince Iran to stop being, well, the lunatic mullahcracy that it is. Instead of supporting the grassroots efforts at real reform, Obama would simply give credence to the sham “reformers” the Guardian Council approves as part of its oppressive control over the political process in Iran. Meeting with Ahmadinejad, who has held regional conferences extolling a world without Israel or the US, would give the hard-liners a boost in stature while reducing our credibility with Iranians looking to rid themselves of the mullahcracy and establish real representative government. They don’t want us to bomb Iran into submission, but they also don’t want us to abandon them for a Neville Chamberlain-like illusory diplomatic exchange that changes nothing.

If Biden wants to eliminate the confusion on these points, then he needs to start with Barack Obama, who apparently has no clue what preconditions mean. Maybe he should have learned that before running for President.

Didn't Bush negotiate(have talks with) the leader of North Korea

Didn't Bush negotiate with the guy in Lybia

Didn't we negotiate with the Soviets

Didn't we negotiate with the Chinese(Nixon)

Also the quote Shrub used in Isreal was from a Republican isolation Senator from Idaho before WWII

[Tigermike 3,055]

Didn't Bush negotiate(have talks with) the leader of North Korea

Didn't Bush negotiate with the guy in Lybia

Didn't we negotiate with the Soviets

Didn't we negotiate with the Chinese(Nixon)

Also the quote Shrub used in Isreal was from a Republican isolation Senator from Idaho before WWII

And what exactly is Bush running for?

[RunInRed 16,493]

Didn't Reagan meet with Gorbachev? Just checking.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Didn't Reagan meet with Gorbachev? Just checking.

Was Russia listed as a terrorist sponsor at the time? Did Reagan declare his intention of negeoiating with Russia with no preconditions? Just checking.

[DKW 86 7,443]

Guys, seriously, the word appeasement in and of itself would seem to inject some "action" into the "negotiations." JFK went and talked with Khrushchev. Khrushchev was so emboldened by what he saw we had Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis shortly thereafter. The closest we ever came to WWIII was because of negotiating with a dictator when we didnt have the upper hand.

When dealing with the N Koreans, we have insisted on Pacific rim partners involved with any talks. It slowed down the process to a crawl for a long time. Why? We made the mistake of 'Talking" with Vietnam. It took "bombing them back into the stone age" to get them to actually negotiate, however. our talking with Vietnam at the time later was viewed as legitimizing N Vietnamese claims.

So, Bush is right in a Teddy Roosevelt sort of way. Negotiate, but with the biggest stick on the planet in your right hand. Or "With preconditions."

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Didn't Reagan meet with Gorbachev? Just checking.

Was Russia listed as a terrorist sponsor at the time? Did Reagan declare his intention of negeoiating with Russia with no preconditions? Just checking.

Iran was when Reagan negotiated with them. Even sold them arms for hostages. And you guys want to put his face and name on everything that's not moving.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

I used to really like McCain. Wanted to believe he was different. But he's really become, or has always been, the kind of politician he claims he's not:

But given his own position on Hamas, McCain is the last politician who should be attacking Obama. Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:

I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

For some Europeans in Davos, Switzerland, where the interview took place, that's a perfectly reasonable answer. But it is an unusual if not unique response for an American politician from either party. And it is most certainly not how the newly conservative presumptive Republican nominee would reply today.

Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election. The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have diplomatic relations with the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

[AURaptor 1,126]

Didn't Reagan meet with Gorbachev? Just checking.

Russia was a super power. Not a band of thugs.

[channonc 466]

Didn't Reagan meet with Gorbachev? Just checking.

Russia was a super power. Not a band of thugs.

I am not so sure the Afghani people would agree with you.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Didn't Reagan meet with Gorbachev? Just checking.

Russia was a super power. Not a band of thugs.

Not a band of thugs? You gotta be kidden me.