[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

No shit. I heard a really neutral radio host this morning talking about the Joe Biden pick. He said he was totally shocked by it and that Joe Biden is pretty openly known as one of the dumbest Senators on the hill.

[snarg]

yeah, a really neutral one
o'reilly??
you are a knob, flumper
fucking troglodyte

[Anhil8tor]

at least bird and snarg can agree on something.

[BIRD33]

Was this guy from your local morning zoo?Please tell us who it was.

[cLaY]

How could someone be "Shocked" by the pick? He was one of his top choices? Most Dem's wanted Biden in there. There are no neutral talk morning shows in Texas.

[Anhil8tor]

ron paul maybe?

Sen. Joe Biden on Authorizing War on Iraq

Joe Biden in His Own Words, Oct. 10-11, 2002


"The point about whether or not there needs to be an imminent threat to justify the President taking action is what is at stake. I am of the school that suggests the President need not, if the underlying amendment passes, have to show there is an imminent threat. He is enforcing a peace agreement in effect. He is enforcing, not preempting. And he is not responding to imminent threat."


"What we have here, I argue, as the rationale for going after Saddam, is that he signed a cease-fire agreement. The condition for his continuing in power was the elimination of his weapons of mass destruction, and the permission to have inspectors in to make sure he had eliminated them. He expelled those inspectors. So he violated the cease-fire; ergo, we have authority--not under a doctrine of preemption. This will not be a preemptive strike, if we go with the rest of the world. It will be an enforcement strike."

"The reason I oppose the amendment of my friend from Michigan is because the basic premise upon which I began is consistent with where my friend from Connecticut began, and that is the threat need not be imminent for us to take action. That is because we would be enforcing Security Council resolutions. That is authority we are about to delegate to the President."

"The bottom line was, the Senator from Arizona and I felt strongly we had to go. We had to move. Were the Serbs an imminent threat to the United States of America? No. Was it a threat to our security interests? Yes. The stabilization of southeastern Europe. And so I think part of the thing that confuses people here--anyone listening to the debate, myself included, as part of the debate--is this notion of the place from which you began."


On Sen. Robert C. Byrd's Opposition to Delegating Authority to Bush

"The part on which I do empathize with my friend from West Virginia is this is not a very clearly written piece of work. That is why I think Senator Lugar and myself and others had a better way of doing this. But it does incorporate with the President's words the notion that we are operating relative to weapons of mass destruction and U.S. security interests and enforcement--not preemption."

I am opposed to the Byrd amendment, but I hope we don't establish some totally new doctrine in our opposition to it.

http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmid...a/me080823.htm



For the record, Biden later flip flopped after realizing his mistake of judgment on Iraq.


Senator Biden can't use ignorance defense for his bad judgment on Iraq, he should have had access to least as much information as Congressman Ron Paul had at the time when Paul displayed superb judgment and insight on Iraq in this historic interview in 2002:

Ron Paul BEFORE IRAQ WAR w/Bill Moyers October 4 2002

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itx9ij_9OjU"]YouTube - Ron Paul BEFORE IRAQ WAR w/Bill Moyers October 4 2002 Part 1[/ame]

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

How could someone be "Shocked" by the pick? He was one of his top choices? Most Dem's wanted Biden in there. There are no neutral talk morning shows in Texas.

No, this is a guy that just does a local (D/FW) area drive time show in the morning. He's not some political analyst type guy.

He wasn't shocked that Biden got picked this week-end, as that was pretty well known. He was more shocked that Obama ended up going with someone like Joe Biden. First, because he has based his whole campaign on fresh ideas, new washington, etc. And Biden is the anti-thesis of that. And, then compound that by the fact that (according to him) it is pretty widely known that most all of the US Senate have the opinion that Joe Biden is basically brain dead.

[BIRD33]

There is a reason he's stuck doing local morning shows in podunk Texas.

[cLaY]

ron paul maybe?

Sen. Joe Biden on Authorizing War on Iraq

Joe Biden in His Own Words, Oct. 10-11, 2002


"The point about whether or not there needs to be an imminent threat to justify the President taking action is what is at stake. I am of the school that suggests the President need not, if the underlying amendment passes, have to show there is an imminent threat. He is enforcing a peace agreement in effect. He is enforcing, not preempting. And he is not responding to imminent threat."


"What we have here, I argue, as the rationale for going after Saddam, is that he signed a cease-fire agreement. The condition for his continuing in power was the elimination of his weapons of mass destruction, and the permission to have inspectors in to make sure he had eliminated them. He expelled those inspectors. So he violated the cease-fire; ergo, we have authority--not under a doctrine of preemption. This will not be a preemptive strike, if we go with the rest of the world. It will be an enforcement strike."

"The reason I oppose the amendment of my friend from Michigan is because the basic premise upon which I began is consistent with where my friend from Connecticut began, and that is the threat need not be imminent for us to take action. That is because we would be enforcing Security Council resolutions. That is authority we are about to delegate to the President."

"The bottom line was, the Senator from Arizona and I felt strongly we had to go. We had to move. Were the Serbs an imminent threat to the United States of America? No. Was it a threat to our security interests? Yes. The stabilization of southeastern Europe. And so I think part of the thing that confuses people here--anyone listening to the debate, myself included, as part of the debate--is this notion of the place from which you began."


On Sen. Robert C. Byrd's Opposition to Delegating Authority to Bush

"The part on which I do empathize with my friend from West Virginia is this is not a very clearly written piece of work. That is why I think Senator Lugar and myself and others had a better way of doing this. But it does incorporate with the President's words the notion that we are operating relative to weapons of mass destruction and U.S. security interests and enforcement--not preemption."

I am opposed to the Byrd amendment, but I hope we don't establish some totally new doctrine in our opposition to it.

http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmid...a/me080823.htm



For the record, Biden later flip flopped after realizing his mistake of judgment on Iraq.


Senator Biden can't use ignorance defense for his bad judgment on Iraq, he should have had access to least as much information as Congressman Ron Paul had at the time when Paul displayed superb judgment and insight on Iraq in this historic interview in 2002:

Ron Paul BEFORE IRAQ WAR w/Bill Moyers October 4 2002

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itx9ij_9OjU

One thing that is wrong with the Bush era is his failure to admit his mistake. McCain is just another 4 years of Bush.

[quint]

biden's hair plugs work well.
he's no only the president he's also a member.

[cLaY]

You sure about that? He sports the greasy combed back look, but you can see his melon in the back.

[BIRD33]

He definitly has plugs.He's pretty much admitted it.