Biden's "International Crisis" vs. Palin's "Pro-America Parts of the Country"

Hugo, you do realize there's already a definition for the term 'neoliberal' out there? you don't get to turn 'neoconservative' around against your political opponents just because it suits you. just use 'moonbat' or whatever's fashionable among the people who still listen to Michael Savage...

NYC Sniper,

We've really combated Al Qaeda thoroughly since 9/11, are you kidding me? Spain? London? Indonesia? Where have you been, in the Catskills shooting deer all this time?

Billybob:

Now your neo-lib complaint is that we are not doing enough to combat terrorism???? Are you for real? Neo-libs like yourself are constantly telling us that the terror threat was created by Bush and Cheney as a scare tactic.

Where have YOU benn? Marching in the gay parade in your tutu??

NYC Sniper,

We've really combated Al Qaeda thoroughly since 9/11, are you kidding me? Spain? London? Indonesia? Where have you been, in the Catskills shooting deer all this time?

Billybob:

Now your neo-lib complaint is that we are not doing enough to combat terrorism???? Are you for real? Neo-libs like yourself are constantly telling us that the terror threat was created by Bush and Cheney as a scare tactic.

Where have YOU benn? Marching in the gay parade in your tutu??

NYCSniper, neither Right nor left, I'll tell you that!

But I did have hope for a certain third party candidate, who initials are RP!

I appreciate the thoughtful responses, and can't help but notice nearly everyone "guesses" or "reads" positions into Biden's remarks. I can admit my inferences are on the paranoid side.

But what is 'too paranoid' in a day and age when every governmental agency tasked to evaluate 9/11 outright dismisses the "thermite theory" from even being CONSIDERED. In that context, Biden's remarks are truly frightening.

Again, Shinobi Shaw points out the REAL underlying problem Americans face today. Makes me wonder who Shaw supports as POTUS.

#31 the problem is not so much the existing nature of the corporations (although that is a problem in of itself due to their lack of ethics).

The problem is that Political Policies are bought and paid for the interests of the corporations and not the people.

And that is what is fundamentally wrong with politics today.

Somebody should ask Palin or McCain if they believe

"Real" Americans are christian

Considering this nation was built on the very idea that people should be able to worship whoever and however they want

These fascist pigs need to get strung up - the sooner the better

Traitors to the American way this this republican party of hate need to get the punishment they deserve before they start their vision (which you know they have) of try to "Cleanse America"

enough is enough

I think you're seeing hidden messages in Biden's remarks, DCSniper.

As I read them, he's talking about:

- the abysmal financial mess GWB will have left us in, and the difficult budgetary choices which will result--when you start tightening your belt, someone's gonna be unhappy,no matter how hard you try.

--the abysmal foreign policy mess GWB will leave us. Balancing a gradual withdrawal from Iraq with an intensification in Afghanistan will be delicate, and will prompt criticism from some quarters. again, you can't please every one.

--The resurgence of the professional opposition, led by our old friend Newt Gingrich, who will attempt to cast every decision by the new administration as being so sinister in motive that they'll spend a lot of time battling disinformation.

--as someone pointed out above, there will be feints and jabs thrown by other nations, to test the new administration.

Some of these things are to be expected in any new administration. Some are going to be particular to this one, e.g. financial mess, Iraq, etc.

Sniper,

I'm going to provide my most educated guess to these answers (this doesn't mean this is what Biden actually meant):

Q1: I believe the tough decisions include 1) when to withdraw our troops from Iraq; 2) how many troops we leave in Iraq; and 3) how to handle Afghanistan which has incredibly difficult terrain to navigate.

Q2: I don't believe Biden was referring to domestic security. Rather, it might be eluding to Afghanistan, where we likely to struggle for a while.

Q3: We are likely to pare down spending on the foreign military once we make a decision on Iraq. We cannot afford to sustain the current military b/c of costs. It's bankrupting us. We've been "funding" a war with tax cuts.

Q4: Diplomacy goes a long way in repairing relationships and gaining support from other countries that were turned off by Bush's cowboy mentality the past 8 years. It's about getting the rest of the world to trust us again and having allies to share intelligence about possible threats to our country or to provide troops if there's a legitimate war.

you can corporation bash until you're blue in the tits, but it ain't going to change shit! This is how it has been - is - always will be, until the mega bomb takes us all out.

By the way, do you have a better alternative? Abolish the corporations and replace the economy with the revenues from tote bags and shitty art?

fuck you.

Shinobi Shaw nails it.

But that is a different topic. On the point of Biden's remarks, B.O./J.B. followers will never answer the tough questions.

If you think the only way to win in politics is with a larger stick then the answer is a bigger military, even though there is NO MONEY to support such option...not even the mighty USA can give all to war.

If you can consider that there are multiple means in international politics than merely military coercion and unilateralism, then increasing the military expenditure is not the answer you expect.

Legitimacy is the basis of political power not violence, but the hawks have managed to erode efforts to understand politics as something different than war.

Mr. Tissue, Jackdonaghy, Amanda Harlech, Politburo, etc:

Please help me understand your party's positions. What ARE your takes on Biden's views:

HIS WORDS:

"We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us."

QUESTION:

What are these B.O./J.B. decisions that are going to be tough? Will it mean we will have to pay more taxes? Have a draft? What is he implying here? He seems to know something SPECIFIC?

HIS WORDS:

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. [Obama]'s... gonna need you... to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

QUESTION:

What do B.O./J.B. know? Are we going to "not" be "apparantly" right in EACH SCENARIO? Are we safe here in New York City or on the verge of another attack that the Government knows about? What are these scenarios that we are facing in the next 6 months?

HIS WORDS:

"We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes."

QUESTION:

Does this mean B.O./J.B. be building our military LARGER? Or just not further extending our military? Or do they imply complete militarial withdrawl?

HIS WORDS:

"All kidding aside, these guys have left us in a God-awful place. We have the ability to straighten it out. It's gonna take a little bit of time"

QUESTION:

I'm actually sincerely relieved that we have the ability to fix all this. And since Biden says we have this ability, he must know what the "fix" is. So how will B.O./J.B. be fixing this situation? And how much time are they saying it will take?

100 years, maybe?

And people should really read government documents and stop being so ignorant of the government boogyman AKA Al CIADA errr I mean AL QUAEDA .

The point is AL CIA-DA does not exists, it's a major boogyman to scare the people with the War on Terror (while taking their civil liberties in the name of security).

I love it how many people are still foolish in following this LEFT-RIGHT paradigm.

Who is Obama's campaign manager? Brezinsky? Who is Mc Cain's campaign manager? Brezinsky's SON. Both parties are bought and paid for by the corporations.

Obama and Mc Cain are highly funded by the likes of GOLDMAN SACHS (one of the corporate bodies responsible for the Financial Crisis).

The thing is OBAMA is just a puppet of the ELITE, Biden is major CFR member and he knows what's going on. That is why he is hinting of various future crisis.

Do not be fool by neither party candidates, both serve the ELITE.

last i heard, last states to join the union were alaska/hawaii. so in terms of duration of americanness, alaska's a noob. and the rural small-town south? secession, Confederate flags, Ku Klux Klan? i guess that's the real america.

shows how stupid she thinks america is... or how stupid her view of america is.

Joe "the plumber" "tricks" Obama into saying he wants wealth distribution? It's attack Joe the plumber (he's not a real plumber! His name isn't even Joe!) and ignore the position Obama actually espoused.

Biden makes a HUGE foreign policy gaffe? It's attack Bush, Iraq, anything to get off the topic of Biden's actual position.

The main point is, all of this is just a distraction and a way to circumvent the discussion of what Biden actually said and what it implies for an Obama foreign policy.

The Al Qaeda attacks during the Clinton admin were all upon US targets. The London, Madrid, Bali, etc. attacks WERE NOT AGAINST U.S. targets. That is my point. We are actively "taking the fight to the terrorists" and it has been highly effective.

There are too many comments to respond to everything, but overall, I am not personally in favor of policing the world. I'm theoretically an isolationist, but in today's world that just isn't really an option.

Bush has made plenty of mistakes. But I don't buy the fact that protesters were "loud and enthusiastic" during Bosnia because that just was not the case here in NYC. Of course, you are free to attempt to re-write U.S. history however you like. I was one of the few against Bosnia intervention and most libs at the time had invented all sorts of cockimamie excuses as to why we needed to be there. Same people who granted a pass to Saddam a few years back and claim Iraq is unjustified. Yes, Afghanistan needs to be finished and Iraq has been an incredible distraction, but I guarantee that if Obama is elected and leads us into war, we won't see HALF or even a QUARTER of the protests, and the libs will be inventing all sorts of NEW cockamamie excuses as to why it's justified this time.

NYCSniper--

"Retreat will only invite further attacks?!?!"

How's about continued involvement in Iraq will only create more terrorists? The policies of the Bush Administration regarding the "War on Terror" (I hate that term) have done as much if not more to strengthen the resolve and recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda as they have to weaken Al Qaeda. To wit: Al Qaeda is now in Iraq. Guess what? It wasn't there in 2001 when 9-11 happened!

In the meantime, many of the minds responsible for this attack frolic in the mountains on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border b/c of the grievous, arrogant, and absurd misallocation of resources by this incompetent administration.

"Generated" crisis means that a foreign country, or enemy (Al Qaeda), does something to see how America responds. Examples:

1. Russia - Moves troops BACK into Georgia.

2. China - Makes provocative move towards Taiwan.

3. North Korea - backs out of another nuke agreement.

4. Iran - Tries to provoke U.S. Navy in Persian Gulf.

5. Pakistan - Another military coup taking over and running their nukes.

Everyone of those incidents I mentioned is a repeat of an issue Bush "dealt" with. That's what Biden meant,

NYCSniper may think all those things, but until he says so, we shouldn't assume it.

I take issue with what he did say; it's true that AQ hasn't struck the US since 9/11, and if that's your only measure of success, I can see why you'd be satisfied. But it seems to me that 9/11 garnered the US a lot of empathy around the world which bush squandered by pursuing his aims in Iraq, which had no AQ previous to 9/11 and is now crawling with them. The surge appears to e working, but it requires an overwhelming military presence on our part to do so, and how long are we supposed to stay? The top commander in Afghanistan says that the taliban are stronger than they've been in years, and this winter is expected to bring some of the heaviest fighting in years. Los of international respect, AQ in places it wasn't previously, as a direct result of our actions, and one of the most dangerous reimes in the region regaining power 7 years after they were supposedly defeated, because we took our eye off the ball.

That's not success in my book.

As for your statement that libs were silent during bosnia, I suggest you go to the library and scroll through some microfilms. Or maybe the internets. The far left tends to protest all military acts, whether warranted or not. That's another subject entirely, but don't tell me there were no protests, because I watched them on TV and in my city, and they were loud and enthusiastic.

So according to NYCSniper, Clinton didn't react strongly enough, so the results were Mogadishu, Khobar, Kenya/Tanzania and USS Cole. Now skipping the obvious point that four does not equal "dozens..."

But because Bush acted with strength, we have not been hit since 9/11. When presented with the London, Madrid, Bali, Turkish attacks after 9/11, he dismissed those since those didn't happen in the US. Clearly, something is wrong with this guy's atlas if he thinks Somalia, Saudia Arabia, Kenya/Tanzania and Yemen are in the US.

NYCS: I think he's referring to some action by China or Russia. North Korea or Iran possibly, but those are less likely imo. It's pretty clear what the context is.. in the breath before "generated crisis" he says "international crisis". You've already said that "foreign enemies do tend to test new presidents," so I'm not sure why you're confused here.

Plus: the enemy is still at large!

Snipper: cohersion is not a very democratic, sustainable, longstanding strategy. That's what republcians say and we are paying it literally :15 billion dollars in deficit! The means republcians use are just WRONG. But the republican demagogy is such that to evaluate the means is to atack the goal: america's security. That demagogy is pure nationalism at its worse.

NYC Sniper you need to wake up, the Abu Ghairb torture was the single most damaging element aside of illegally invading Iraq against the United Nations sanctions in the first place. If you think that London and Madrid are somehow not interconnected and a practice run for bigger attacks you might be more idiotic than Sara Palin. Let me guess, you also think that:

1) Obama is a closet Muslim

2) There are WMDs in Iraq, we just haven't found them yet

3) You are an armchair quarterback, watching Foxnews/warmongering from the cozy confines of your suburban home, never actually riding the NYC subway.

4) The economy is Clinton's fault

5) 9/11 was Clinton's fault

Biden is correct. America's enemies drool at the prospect of an Obama administration and won't wait long to avail themselves of his appeasement policies. They'll have a jihadi field day.

Obama the appeaser will make Jimmy Carter look like General Patton.

NYCSniper, I think you get off your soapbox and reveal your real identity (I'm guessing you're Bill O'Reilly). Next, you need to wake up and realize that Bush did fail (even most his own party is embarrassed of him) and that his/America's foreign policies make more susceptable to attacks. The more countries that you invade and bomb without a clear justification, the more likely that many of the people (and descendants) from those countries will seek revenge. That said, I'm for National DEFENSE, but the Bush Doctrine (take note, Sarah) doesn't really follow that premise.

Oh, JOE. Please don't give any interviews while Obama's in Hawaii with his grandma.

What exactly is Sarah Palin trying to achieve by suggesting that people in larger cities don't serve in the military, and, more importantly, don't even like their country?

First, I'm pretty certain that thousands of young men and women from cities have in the past or are currently serving in the American military. Her comment is completely obnoxious and unfounded. Second, this idea that large cities are unpatriotic is one of the most vile, repulsive, uninformed and idiotic statements that we've heard in presidential campaign (and we've heard some pretty dumb shit over in the past). Does she (or her followers) even though the definition of patriotism? Do people from cities love their country less because they're likely to be more educated and sympathetic to those who are poor, sick and uninsured? Perhaps, if she spent some time in NYC she would realize that each neighborhood IS a town in itself and that as a whole, NYC represents every ethnicity, race, and religion in the world, let alone America. Therefore, cities, not tiny towns are better symbols of what America is supposed to be about. I guess Sarah Palin was too busy trying to get Alaska to secede from the Union to consider that.

Politiburo: What does Biden mean by "a generated crisis"?

Spain is Spain. London is London. Indonesia is Indonesia. A.Q. has not hit U.S. since 9/11.

And since you point it out, Spain pulled out of Afghanistan after they got hit. UK scaled back after they got hit. Only Sarkozy told A.Q. to stuff it when they held French hostages.

Retreat will only invite further attacks.

No, Biden is not hinting at a false flag attack.

Bush's first test in this context was the China spy plane incident.

NYC Sniper,

We've really combated Al Qaeda thoroughly since 9/11, are you kidding me? Spain? London? Indonesia? Where have you been, in the Catskills shooting deer all this time?

Furthermore, Biden hints that he's going to have to make "tough decisions" that won't be popular. You mean like Bush has had to do over the past 8 years? I'm not a huge Bush supporter --- he's made PLENTY of mistakes, but if the Dems are looking for backup when THEIR necks are on the line, it's going to be hard to come by.

My prediction: Obama will initiate a draft within first two years in office, and siphon off up to 50% of all "working Americans'" income in order to fund HIS war.

Tingo: Yes, foreign enemies do tend to test new presidents. But the claim that Bush failed is pretty laughable.

Al Qaeda tested the Clinton administration after he was elected with the first WTC bombing. Our tepid (i.e.-no) response prompted dozens of additional attacks in the following 8 years: Mogadishu 1994, Khobar Towers 1996, The Kenya-Tanzania embassy bombings, The USS Cole, etc.

Al-Qaeda tested the Bush Admin on 9/11, and our response has been so overwhelming that we have not been hit since.

These statements by Biden are utterly insane. Now if Obama does take us into a war, I can't wait for the libs to go hawkish (or just stay silent like they did during Bosnia). Where are the people demanding "What does Biden know and when did he know it?" And isn't he basically hinting at a false-flag attack?

On another note, it is so blatantly obvious how evenm Gothamist is in the tank for Obama. They can't do a story on Biden's major foreign policy gaffe without having to "balance" it with a totally irrelevant Palin quote.

Supremacist populism and open resistance to intellectuals was a strategy widely used in Europe by the fascist movements, not surprisingly the same strategy used by the McCain and the Bush camps in election and during the mandate.

Yes, everyone jump on the politician for speaking what he truly feels could happen. That's why I like him, he says what he means. It's refreshing. The world might 'test' any president. They surely 'tested' Bush.

He failed.

This neocon nationalism is the future this country has under Palin/antiabortion/prowarcrowd.

What a move foward!