Republicans and Our Enemies

[RunInRed 16,492]

Republicans and Our Enemies

By JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

May 23, 2008; Page A15

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1211500002...in_commentaries

On Wednesday, Joe Lieberman wrote on this page that the Democratic Party he and I grew up in has drifted far from the foreign policy espoused by Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy.

In fact, it is the policies that President George W. Bush has pursued, and that John McCain would continue, that are divorced from that great tradition – and from the legacy of Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Sen. Lieberman is right: 9/11 was a pivotal moment. History will judge Mr. Bush's reaction less for the mistakes he made than for the opportunities he squandered.

The president had a historic opportunity to unite Americans and the world in common cause. Instead – by exploiting the politics of fear, instigating an optional war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan, and instituting policies on torture, detainees and domestic surveillance that fly in the face of our values and interests – Mr. Bush divided Americans from each other and from the world.

At the heart of this failure is an obsession with the "war on terrorism" that ignores larger forces shaping the world: the emergence of China, India, Russia and Europe; the spread of lethal weapons and dangerous diseases; uncertain supplies of energy, food and water; the persistence of poverty; ethnic animosities and state failures; a rapidly warming planet; the challenge to nation states from above and below.

Instead, Mr. Bush has turned a small number of radical groups that hate America into a 10-foot tall existential monster that dictates every move we make.

The intersection of al Qaeda with the world's most lethal weapons is a deadly serious problem. Al Qaeda must be destroyed. But to compare terrorism with an all-encompassing ideology like communism and fascism is evidence of profound confusion.

Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. Messrs. Bush and McCain lump together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us: Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Iraq and Iran, al Qaeda and Shiite militias. If they can't identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win.

The results speak for themselves.

On George Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb; its influence in Iraq is expanding; its terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and that country is on the brink of civil war.

Beyond Iran, al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 – are stronger now than at any time since 9/11. Radical recruitment is on the rise. Hamas controls Gaza and launches rockets at Israel every day. Some 140,000 American troops remain stuck in Iraq with no end in sight.

Because of the policies Mr. Bush has pursued and Mr. McCain would continue, the entire Middle East is more dangerous. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are less secure.

The election in November is a vital opportunity for America to start anew. That will require more than a great soldier. It will require a wise leader.

Here, the controversy over engaging Iran is especially instructive.

Last week, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Barack Obama was "naïve and inexperienced" for advocating engagement; "What is it he wants to talk about?" he asked.

Well, for a start, Iran's nuclear program, its support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its patronage of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Beyond bluster, how would Mr. McCain actually deal with these dangers? You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. If Mr. McCain has ruled out talking, we're stuck with an ineffectual policy or military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control.

Sen. Obama is right that the U.S. should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without "preconditions" – i.e. without insisting that Iran first freeze the program, which is the very subject of any negotiations. He has been clear that he would not become personally involved until the necessary preparations had been made and unless he was convinced his engagement would advance our interests.

President Nixon didn't demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao. President Reagan didn't insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev. Even George W. Bush – whose initial disengagement allowed dangers to proliferate – didn't demand that Libya relinquish its nuclear program, that North Korea give up its plutonium, or even that Iran stop aiding those attacking our soldiers in Iraq before authorizing talks.

The net effect of demanding preconditions that Iran rejects is this: We get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb.

Equally unwise is the Bush-McCain fixation on regime change. The regime is abhorrent, but their logic defies comprehension: renounce the bomb – and when you do, we're still going to take you down. The result is that Iran accelerated its efforts to produce fissile material.

Instead of regime change, we should focus on conduct change. We should make it very clear to Iran what it risks in terms of isolation if it continues to pursue a dangerous nuclear program but also what it stands to gain if it does the right thing. That will require keeping our allies in Europe, as well as Russia and China, on the same page as we ratchet up pressure.

It also requires a much more sophisticated understanding than Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain seem to possess that by publicly engaging Iran – including through direct talks – we can exploit cracks within the ruling elite, and between Iran's rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically.

Iran's people need to know that their government, not the U.S., is choosing confrontation over cooperation. Our allies and partners need to know that the U.S. will go the extra diplomatic mile – if we do, they are much more likely to stand with us if diplomacy fails and force proves necessary.

The Bush-McCain saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It achieves nothing. But it forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders. And it spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right from American wallets into Tehran's pockets.

The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on tension with America is an America ready, willing and able to engage. Since when has talking removed the word "no" from our vocabulary?

It's amazing how little faith George Bush, Joe Lieberman and John McCain have in themselves – and in America.

Mr. Biden, a Democratic senator from Delaware, is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

[AFTiger 282]

Mr. Biden is given far more credence that he is due.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Mr. Biden is one of the very few politicans who tells the truth.

[tiger88 934]

Mr. Biden is one of the very few politicans who tells the truth.

Yeah, his biggest claim to fame is being a plagiarist. Real stand up guy.

[RunInRed 16,492]

Very few in this country have the foreign policy credentials he does.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Very few in this country have the foreign policy credentials he does.

And he copied them where?

[RunInRed 16,492]

Very few in this country have the foreign policy credentials he does.

And he copied them where?

1 speech 20+ years ago does not discredit a life time of service. Have you ever made a mistake? Pretty standard response from you...don't address the issues, personally attack the messenger.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Very few in this country have the foreign policy credentials he does.

And he copied them where?

1 speech 20+ years ago does not discredit a life time of service. Have you ever made a mistake? Get over it.

You seem to always have that forgiving "spirit" when it comes to dims, but not for Republicians. Seems more than a little hypocritical. But then we have come to expect that from you. So in thinking about it,,,,,, you get over it.

[RunInRed 16,492]

When you can't discuss the issue, attack the messenger.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Very few in this country have the foreign policy credentials he does.

And he copied them where?

1 speech 20+ years ago does not discredit a life time of service. Have you ever made a mistake? Pretty standard response from you...don't address the issues, personally attack the messenger.

Your post has been edited as can be seen in my response to you. As you and anyone can see I did not attack you. I asked a question. Liar and hypocrite.

When you can't discuss the issue, attack the messenger.

You mean like you are doing here? And above?

[RunInRed 16,492]

What is your beef with the points in the article posted? How about that as a starting point.

[Tigermike 3,055]

What is your beef with the points in the article posted? How about that as a starting point.

That is not what you are bitching and whining about is it?

Very few in this country have the foreign policy credentials he does.

And he copied them where?

You got your panties balled up when I said this in response to your all encompasing and matter of fact statement. In fact there are plenty of people with more and better foreign policy credentials than Joe Biden. Does he have the same "credentials" as say Condeleza Rice or Colin Powell, or any of the former presidents (even Carter), or former Sec of States? No he does not. Nor does Obama after less than a full term as a Senator.

[Tigermike 3,055]

What is your beef with the points in the article posted? How about that as a starting point.

Other than it being a rehash of dim BS & revisionist history, othing.

[RunInRed 16,492]

This is the foreign policy record TM is trying to marginilize b/c of Biden's speech mistake 20 years ago:

Biden took office on January 3, 1973, at age 30, becoming the fifth-youngest U.S. Senator in United States history. He has since won additional terms easily, defeating James H. Baxter, Jr. in 1978, John M. Burris in 1984, M. Jane Brady in 1990, and Raymond J. Clatworthy in 1996 and 2002, usually with about 60 percent of the vote. He is now the longest-serving U.S. Senator in Delaware history.

United States Congressional Service:

Dates Congress Chamber Majority President Committees Class/District

1973–1975 93rd U.S. Senator Democratic Richard M. Nixon

Gerald R. Ford Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1975–1977 94th U.S. Senator Democratic Gerald R. Ford Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1977–1979 95th U.S. Senator Democratic James E. Carter, Jr. Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1979–1981 96th U.S. Senator Democratic James E. Carter, Jr. Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1981–1983 97th U.S. Senator Republican Ronald W. Reagan Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1983–1985 98th U.S. Senator Republican Ronald W. Reagan Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1985–1987 99th U.S. Senator Republican Ronald W. Reagan Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1987–1989 100th U.S. Senator Democratic Ronald W. Reagan Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1989–1991 101st U.S. Senator Democratic George H. W. Bush Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1991–1993 102nd U.S. Senator Democratic George H. W. Bush Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1993–1995 103rd U.S. Senator Democratic William J. Clinton Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1995–1997 104th U.S. Senator Republican William J. Clinton Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1997–1999 105th U.S. Senator Republican William J. Clinton Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1999–2001 106th U.S. Senator Republican William J. Clinton Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

2001–2003 107th U.S. Senator Republican Democratic George W. Bush Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

2003–2005 108th U.S. Senator Republican George W. Bush Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

2005–2007 109th U.S. Senator Republican George W. Bush Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

2007–2009 110th U.S. Senator Democratic George W. Bush Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

Biden is also a long-time member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In 1997, he became the ranking minority member and chaired the committee from June 2001 through 2003. His efforts to combat hostilities in the Balkans in the 1990s brought national attention and influenced presidential policy: traveling repeatedly to the region, he made one meeting famous by calling Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic a "war criminal." He consistently argued for lifting the arms embargo, training Bosnian Muslims, investigating war crimes and administering NATO air strikes. Biden's subsequent "lift and strike" resolution was instrumental in convincing President Bill Clinton to use military force in the face of systematic human rights violations.[citation needed] Biden has also called on Libya to release political prisoner Fathi Eljahmi.[17]

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Biden was supportive of the Bush administration's efforts, calling for additional ground troops in Afghanistan and agreeing with the administration's assertion that Saddam Hussein needed to be eliminated. The Bush administration rejected an effort Biden undertook with Senator Richard Lugar to pass a resolution authorizing military action only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts. In October 2002, Biden voted for the final resolution to support the war in Iraq. He has long supported the Bush administration's war effort and appropriations to pay for it, but has argued repeatedly that more soldiers are needed, the war should be internationalized, and the Bush administration should "level with the American people" about the cost and length of the conflict.[18]

In November 2006, Biden and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, released a comprehensive strategy to end sectarian violence in Iraq. Rather than continuing the present approach or withdrawing, the plan calls for "a third way": federalizing Iraq and giving Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis "breathing room" in their own regions.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_biden

[Tigermike 3,055]

This is the foreign policy record TM is trying to marginilize b/c of Biden's speech mistake 20 years ago:

Biden took office on January 3, 1973, at age 30, becoming the fifth-youngest U.S. Senator in United States history. He has since won additional terms easily, defeating James H. Baxter, Jr. in 1978, John M. Burris in 1984, M. Jane Brady in 1990, and Raymond J. Clatworthy in 1996 and 2002, usually with about 60 percent of the vote. He is now the longest-serving U.S. Senator in Delaware history.

United States Congressional Service:

Dates Congress Chamber Majority President Committees Class/District

1973–1975 93rd U.S. Senator Democratic Richard M. Nixon

Gerald R. Ford Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1975–1977 94th U.S. Senator Democratic Gerald R. Ford Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1977–1979 95th U.S. Senator Democratic James E. Carter, Jr. Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1979–1981 96th U.S. Senator Democratic James E. Carter, Jr. Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1981–1983 97th U.S. Senator Republican Ronald W. Reagan Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1983–1985 98th U.S. Senator Republican Ronald W. Reagan Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1985–1987 99th U.S. Senator Republican Ronald W. Reagan Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1987–1989 100th U.S. Senator Democratic Ronald W. Reagan Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1989–1991 101st U.S. Senator Democratic George H. W. Bush Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1991–1993 102nd U.S. Senator Democratic George H. W. Bush Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1993–1995 103rd U.S. Senator Democratic William J. Clinton Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1995–1997 104th U.S. Senator Republican William J. Clinton Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1997–1999 105th U.S. Senator Republican William J. Clinton Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

1999–2001 106th U.S. Senator Republican William J. Clinton Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

2001–2003 107th U.S. Senator Republican Democratic George W. Bush Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

2003–2005 108th U.S. Senator Republican George W. Bush Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

2005–2007 109th U.S. Senator Republican George W. Bush Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

2007–2009 110th U.S. Senator Democratic George W. Bush Judiciary, Foreign Relations class 2

Biden is also a long-time member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In 1997, he became the ranking minority member and chaired the committee from June 2001 through 2003. His efforts to combat hostilities in the Balkans in the 1990s brought national attention and influenced presidential policy: traveling repeatedly to the region, he made one meeting famous by calling Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic a "war criminal." He consistently argued for lifting the arms embargo, training Bosnian Muslims, investigating war crimes and administering NATO air strikes. Biden's subsequent "lift and strike" resolution was instrumental in convincing President Bill Clinton to use military force in the face of systematic human rights violations.[citation needed] Biden has also called on Libya to release political prisoner Fathi Eljahmi.[17]

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Biden was supportive of the Bush administration's efforts, calling for additional ground troops in Afghanistan and agreeing with the administration's assertion that Saddam Hussein needed to be eliminated. The Bush administration rejected an effort Biden undertook with Senator Richard Lugar to pass a resolution authorizing military action only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts. In October 2002, Biden voted for the final resolution to support the war in Iraq. He has long supported the Bush administration's war effort and appropriations to pay for it, but has argued repeatedly that more soldiers are needed, the war should be internationalized, and the Bush administration should "level with the American people" about the cost and length of the conflict.[18]

In November 2006, Biden and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, released a comprehensive strategy to end sectarian violence in Iraq. Rather than continuing the present approach or withdrawing, the plan calls for "a third way": federalizing Iraq and giving Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis "breathing room" in their own regions.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_biden

rr Obamaboy goes to wikipedia.org in a stupid and ill conceived attempt to bolster and prop up a know plagerizers accomplishments.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Warren Christopher, James A. Baker, George P. Shultz, Lawrence Eagleburger, Henry Kissinger, State Madeleine Albright, Alexander Haig, William P. Rogers, Carter's Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and National Security Advisor Zbigniew, all these have much more foreign affairs "credentials" than Joeseph Bidden.

It's not so much me trying to marginilize Biden's foreign policy record. It's you trying to make it more than it is. In ObamaBoys world a senator has as much or more than the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor.

[RunInRed 16,492]

Biden is one of the most knowlegeable active politicians in regards to foreign policy that we have in this country today. To disagree, only shows your own unwillingness to accept the facts.

And please tell me what Condi Rice has done other than to propulgate Bush's failed policies?

[Tigermike 3,055]

Biden is one of the most knowlegeable active politicians in regards to foreign policy that we have in this country today. To disagree, only shows your own unwillingness to accept the facts.

And please tell me what Condi Rice has done other than to propulgate Bush's failed policies?

Keep it up. You may even convince yourself that you know what you are talking about. To continue pushing your overly inflated opinion of Biden as fact is really sick.

For the record you have not provided any fact to back up your contention of Bidens greatness.

Further more if you think he or any other senator is on the same level as any of the ones I have listed as far as knowledge of foreign affairs, you should be committed. No senator, no matter what their ranking or what committee they are on gets the same information as the Secretary of State or the National Security Advisor. If you really believe they do, I would like to sell you some ocean front property in Wyoming.

[RunInRed 16,492]

Biden is one of the most knowlegeable active politicians in regards to foreign policy that we have in this country today. To disagree, only shows your own unwillingness to accept the facts.

And please tell me what Condi Rice has done other than to propulgate Bush's failed policies?

Keep it up. You may even convince yourself that you know what you are talking about. To continue pushing your overly inflated opinion of Biden as fact is really sick.

For the record you have not provided any fact to back up your contention of Bidens greatness.

Further more if you think he or any other senator is on the same level as any of the ones I have listed as far as knowledge of foreign affairs, you should be committed. No senator, no matter what their ranking or what committee they are on gets the same information as the Secretary of State or the National Security Advisor. If you really believe they do, I would like to sell you some ocean front property in Wyoming.

So Condi Rice knows more about foreign policy than Joe Biden? Riiiiight.

[RunInRed 16,492]

More...

Joe Biden was going to be John Kerry's secretary of State. "That was what we were led to believe" before Kerry lost to George W. Bush in '04, says an aide to the Delaware senator, who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Now Biden, who has been to foreign policy in the Senate what Ted Kennedy has been to domestic policy (almost anyway!), is emerging as a major consigliere to Barack Obama—perhaps with his eye on State once again. Among the top items on Biden's agenda: making sure that Obama has better luck in November than Kerry did. That means, first, relentlessly attacking and counterattacking the Republicans on the campaign trail, especially on national-security issues. And, second, relentlessly defining John McCain as "joined at the hip" to Bush, as Biden put it in a speech in Washington on Tuesday.

In an interview, Biden said that he and other leading Democrats are "absolutely, thoroughly, totally" making a conscious effort to ensure that Obama doesn't become the next Kerry. The failure of Kerry and the Dems of '04 to seize control of the national-security agenda and counterattack Bush was a mistake "that was emblazoned in my mind," Biden says. Hence this week's onslaught of Democratic ripostes to Bush's seeming suggestion, in a speech to the Israeli Knesset, that Obama was guilty of "appeasement" for indicating he would negotiate with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other U.S. adversaries. Biden called Bush's remarks a "long-distance Swift Boat attack" and said that the president seemed unaware that his secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, had "the day before" called for engagement with Iran and that Bush had previously "struck a deal with Libya's [Muammar] Kaddafi and wrote polite letters to North Korea's Kim Jong Il."

On Friday, Biden will fire back at another McCain proxy, Sen. Joe Lieberman, on the pages of The Wall Street Journal. In a Journal op-ed piece Wednesday, Lieberman repeated the appeasement charge against Obama, saying he has "not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing" and that the Democratic Party had drifted away from "Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy," succumbing instead to "the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price." Though the Democrats have been divided throughout the primary season, attacks like these may help bring them together. Biden was among the first Democratic foreign-policy leaders to champion Obama aggressively—though he has not officially endorsed anyone.

So is Biden running to be President Obama's secretary of State? He denies it, saying he's worked with Hillary Clinton "much longer" than with Obama. That's a politician's non-answer, of course. To a striking degree, Biden and Obama seem to be achieving a mind meld on foreign policy. While some differences remain—Obama is more forthrightly opposed to future Iraq funding than Biden—both senators have been out in front calling for two brigades to be moved from Iraq to Afghanistan. And in his speech Tuesday, Biden echoed Obama's much-quoted effort to define down success in Iraq during testimony last month by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker—when the Democratic candidate suggested it was unrealistic to stay in Iraq until every vestige of Al Qaeda or Iranian influence was wiped out. The similarity was no accident, Biden indicated. "I discussed with Senator Obama how to proceed with Petraeus and Crocker," Biden told me. "He asked for my advice." Biden adds that one condition of his taking the State job would be that he doesn't turn into Colin Powell—someone marginalized by taking a different viewpoint than the president. "I wouldn't stay in a Powell role," he said. "I would want to make sure I was on same page as the president."

Obama campaign advisers say that the Illinois senator does seek out Biden's counsel quite often. While the two don't have a "warm personal friendship," says a Biden aide, their relationship has "evolved dramatically" from the early days when Biden watched with some skepticism as Obama rocketed to national renown and eclipsed his own presidential ambitions, as well as those of other more senior senators. "I can tell you that Senator Obama has the highest respect for Senator Biden," says Obama foreign-policy coordinator Denis McDonough. "It's obviously vital to have an open line to somebody who has been a key player in critical national-security debates for some time." Adds Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton: "At this point there's no list [for secretary of State], but when one is drawn up Senator Biden would be on anyone's short list."

Obama, of course, has made his early opposition to the war in Iraq a key talking point; it's a comfort to him that Biden, though he voted for the Iraq War resolution in 2002, was aggressive in urging that the Democratic Caucus "had to take its time on Iraq debate, and couldn't just let president dictate the timing of it," says one Obama adviser. "That whole summer, and in the fall, he said we've got to make sure we kick tires on this. He is a real pro."

If he's elected, Obama will need a real pro at his side right away. The first-term Illinois senator would inherit a landscape littered with more crises than most presidents encounter—in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and the Palestinian territories and possibly in Lebanon and North Korea. Let the negotiations begin.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/138310/page/1

[Tigermike 3,055]

Biden is one of the most knowlegeable active politicians in regards to foreign policy that we have in this country today. To disagree, only shows your own unwillingness to accept the facts.

And please tell me what Condi Rice has done other than to propulgate Bush's failed policies?

Keep it up. You may even convince yourself that you know what you are talking about. To continue pushing your overly inflated opinion of Biden as fact is really sick.

For the record you have not provided any fact to back up your contention of Bidens greatness.

Further more if you think he or any other senator is on the same level as any of the ones I have listed as far as knowledge of foreign affairs, you should be committed. No senator, no matter what their ranking or what committee they are on gets the same information as the Secretary of State or the National Security Advisor. If you really believe they do, I would like to sell you some ocean front property in Wyoming.

So Condi Rice knows more about foreign policy than Joe Biden? Riiiiight.

Not only does she but I gave you a list of five or six people who know more about foreign policy than Biden.

You have been into the Kool-Aid big time today haven't you?

[autigeremt 6,717]

It taste's great, TigerMike!!!! Blahhhhhh!

Biden has some positives, and he has some negatives. I trust him to say what's on his mind, even though he might spew out some very, very odd things. Biden may be a good choice for OhBama.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Mr. Biden is one of the very few politicans who tells the truth.

Yeah, his biggest claim to fame is being a plagiarist. Real stand up guy.

I didn't know he had more than one wife. I thought that was Mitt Romney

[AUTiger1 0]

Mr. Biden is one of the very few politicans who tells the truth.

Yeah, his biggest claim to fame is being a plagiarist. Real stand up guy.

I didn't know he had more than one wife. I thought that was Mitt Romney

Link pls!

[arnaldoabru 11]

Mr. Biden is one of the very few politicans who tells the truth.

Yeah, his biggest claim to fame is being a plagiarist. Real stand up guy.

I didn't know he had more than one wife. I thought that was Mitt Romney

Link pls!

www.arnaldoabru.com

[Tigermike 3,055]

Mr. Biden is one of the very few politicans who tells the truth.

Yeah, his biggest claim to fame is being a plagiarist. Real stand up guy.

I didn't know he had more than one wife. I thought that was Mitt Romney

Link pls!

www.arnaldoabru.com

As usual your link does not work and it's not our job to make it work.

Al get your ass to work.