Joe Biden Calls Bush Comments 'Bull****'

[#98QBKiller]

:applause:

Biden Calls Bush Comments 'Bull****'

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/biden-calls-bush-comments-bulls-t/

Biden had some strong words for the president.

(CNN) — 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 "bulls**t” 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.”

[Spaceman Spiff]

Woooooooooow, a liberal calling Bush's ideas horrible, except this time he used an expletive. ZZZZZZZOMFGZ!!

[Thiebear]

If your going to use the word Bull****, following it up with "malarkey" is stupid.

So going to the 60th anniversary of a countries modified existence etc and giving the country stating it wants to kill them all a hard time it out of bounds... got it.

[Burgold]

I hate this kind of infighting, especially when it's being done across borders. Bush was playing politics and now Biden's playing reprisal politics. They're both bull****. Biden is more correct though. Iran is not a Terrorist State. North Korea is not a Terrorist State. You don't close down communications to a foreign state. Talking also is not appeasement.

Syria and Saudi Arabia are much closer to being Terrorist states.

[Ax]

Biden,

What a maroon. :laugh:

[Burgold]

Actually, I'll change my mind. Bush is a genius. Who else could take the Democrats when they are feeling disorganized, discouraged, and dis-united and bring them all together? Bush may yet heal the democratic party. Maybe he is right after all? Maybe he is a uniter and not a divider.

[twa]

What part of Bush's speech is any different than foreign policy that has been in effect for decades?

What exactly singles Obama out?...help me out here.

[Ax]

What part of Bush's speech is any different than foreign policy that has been in effect for decades?

What exactly singles Obama out?...help me out here.

Nothing. This is just a manufactured rally cry for a group doing everything they can to lose a "can't lose" election.

[Burgold]

I think this is the difference. Reagan negotiated with Lebanon and Iran and other hostile states. A state in and of itself is not a terrorist group. We have negotiated with states we do not like throughout our history. Only recently has a policy emerged that if we think you are bad we won't talk to you until you act better. Then again, it's not uniform. Syria and Lebanon recently have engaged in boatloads of terrorism, but we talk to them. We decry Chinese human rights violations, but we talk with them and do tons of business with them. We're talking to Myamar, and Sudan both of whom have despicable leadership.

Nixon went to China. Reagan talked daily with Gorbachev. They were much more solidly the enemy than Iran. Mind you, I distrust Iran. I think that they are exceptionally dangerous. The silent treatment is not good policy. More, talking is not appeasement.

So, it isn't that Obama is advocated a new unheralded policy. It is that he is suggesting a return or a continuation to normalcy.

[Smoot Point Really]

Actually, I'll change my mind. Bush is a genius. Who else could take the Democrats when they are feeling disorganized, discouraged, and dis-united and bring them all together? Bush may yet heal the democratic party. Maybe he is right after all? Maybe he is a uniter and not a divider.

You do realize they are being united to a cause they can't win:

Bush never named names in front of a foreign government... He wasn't talking about individuals, he was talking about a philosophy of appeasement that is held by many: Democrats, Republicans (Hagel and Baker), and many in foreign governments across Europe and the Middle East.

BHO should criticize Bush and Republicans on their economic record... He shouldn't touch this at all. He will lose this one badly.

[twa]

I think this is the difference. Reagan negotiated with Lebanon and Iran and other hostile states. A state in and of itself is not a terrorist group. We have negotiated with states we do not like throughout our history. Only recently has a policy emerged that if we think you are bad we won't talk to you until you act better. Then again, it's not uniform. Syria and Lebanon recently have engaged in boatloads of terrorism, but we talk to them. We decry Chinese human rights violations, but we talk with them and do tons of business with them. We're talking to Myamar, and Sudan both of whom have despicable leadership.

Nixon went to China. Reagan talked daily with Gorbachev. They were much more solidly the enemy than Iran. Mind you, I distrust Iran. I think that they are exceptionally dangerous. The silent treatment is not good policy. More, talking is not appeasement.

So, it isn't that Obama is advocated a new unheralded policy. It is that he is suggesting a return or a continuation to normalcy.

What country do we not talk to?...and what does that have to do with negotiating with terrorists and radicals?

If you are referring to closing embassies,that has always been done and loooong before Bush.

What is the problem with what Bush said?

[Bang]

Meanwhile Ahmadinejad sits back and looks innocently around while we tear at each other, gaining sympathy, gaining credence.

~Bang

[Smoot Point Really]

I think this is the difference. Reagan negotiated with Lebanon and Iran and other hostile states. A state in and of itself is not a terrorist group. We have negotiated with states we do not like throughout our history. Only recently has a policy emerged that if we think you are bad we won't talk to you until you act better.

We haven't talked to Iran in a very long time... That isn't recent. For a while, we weren't talking to Libya. Negotiating with states we don't like is not the same as negotiating with states that openly support Terrorism. I think Bill Clinton is the only President who entertained PLO-leader Yasser Arafat. I haven't researched it and could be mistaken there...

[Burgold]

I don't know. I remember reading how the Constitutional Congress was deadlocked 6-6 on whether they should debate independence. The newest arrival, a preacher (from Georgia? Florida?) arrived and his duty was to break the tie. When told about the issue, his response was something to the nature of...

I don't know of any issue that's so horrific that we can't even discuss it.

I think if you ask most Americans should we have an embassy in Iran and should our diplomats be talking to the Iranian gov't you'd get a decent sized "yes." After all, we're not at war with them, we're buying their oil, they haven't attacked anybody (well, that's kinda, sorta, true). Doesn't that sound like a group where we would have diplomatic relations? Why wouldn't you? What's the benefit of not talking with them? What advantage do we get from it?

Look how much progress China has made? Though they still have a hell of a long way to go. Do you regret Nixon going there? Was Nixon an appeaser for going there? I admit I have been against them having most favored nation status because of human rights issues, but economically and even socially they do seem to be growing. Enviornmentally, they sure do stink though.

[Smoot Point Really]

Meanwhile Ahmadinejad sits back and looks innocently around while we tear at each other, gaining sympathy, gaining credence.

~Bang

Gaining credence? Sympathy? I would ask you to explain your logic if I thought you had one here.

Barak Obama's stance is a complete waste of time for everyone but Iran... He is offering talks with Iran without "pre-conditions", however in the negotiations there are conditions that they have no intention of meeting anyway... I'm pretty sure that when he gets in those discussions, he will want a "political victory" so badly that he will be the one folding on those conditions. He'll negotiate exactly as Bill Clinton did with North Korea and the Palestinians by giving up a lot or making our allies give up a lot with very little in return just so he can claim a political victory.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Biden,

What a maroon. :laugh:

Get a brain Morans!

[twa]

Meanwhile Ahmadinejad sits back and looks innocently around while we tear at each other, gaining sympathy, gaining credence.

~Bang

Ask yourself just who is tearing at who?

Bush simply stated the same damn policy he (and the US) has stated for decades....and gets attacked for it :laugh:

So if Biden and company think the policy is wrong say it plainly,instead of acting like it's a personal attack.

[Smoot Point Really]

I don't know of any issue that's so horrific that we can't even discuss it.

I doubt one side was telling the other that it (or its allies) shouldn't exist... You don't know if those two sides had already agreed to "pre-conditions" before even talking. There is a benefit to talking, but you have to have some measure of agreement before you have fruitful talks.

BTW, the United States has communicated through the media what Iran should do in order to have these talks... I don't really see what BHO gains by showing the world he can sit down with people who have promised to destroy our allies. We will give up far more than we get if this negotiations takes place without meeting those pre-conditions... No doubt about it.

[Smoot Point Really]

I think if you ask most Americans should we have an embassy in Iran and should our diplomats be talking to the Iranian gov't you'd get a decent sized "yes."

You do realize that we had an embassy in Iran 30 years ago... They held our hostages for 444 days. Would you volunteer to go?

[Burgold]

I guess I just don't get that part of it. I have seen so many talks that ammounted to nothing. Talks that were a get-to-know-you, talks where they hoped they would reach an accord and didn't, talks where the parties clearly hated each other. Simply having talks just isn't that big a deal to me.

I think Iran is dangerous and there's some real evil going on there. I agree that you shouldn't appease them. I just don't get where "talks" equals "appeasement"

Edit: I think if assigned to serve in an Iranian embassy I would go. I would be nervous about it, but that's nothing new. I have friends in State that have been assigned to go to Iraq, and other less than safe places. I would ask them about it and they would often voice excitement and nervousness.

[Spaceman Spiff]

You do realize that we had an embassy in Iran 30 years ago... They held our hostages for 444 days. Would you volunteer to go?

Really? Maybe the hostages should have just decided to sit down and talk and reason with them. I bet they could have made it out on their own in like, a week.

BTW, I love your user handle. Makes me chuckle every time I see it

[Thiebear]

Talk to certain people on this board about the benefits of being Catholic. Far less radical but you ignore them. Yet, we should talk to people that actually want to kill you... got it.

[Burgold]

Talk to certain people on this board about the benefits of being Catholic. Far less radical but you ignore them. Yet, we should talk to people that actually want to kill you... got it.

Huh?

No, I have talked in the religion threads, but if extremeskins has ever proved anything it's that listening to someone else's point of view is a long way from being converted. Very often, an ES exchange is a little like :gus:

But that's also the thing, Theibear, they actually want to kill me a bit more (or at least my family living in Israel) and I still think having a dialogue is not an act of evil. Now agreeing, copitulating, or appeasing is a different issue, but talking... often does nothing, but every so often it isn't a waste of time.

[twa]

Now agreeing, copitulating, or appeasing is a different issue, but talking... often does nothing, but every so often it isn't a waste of time.

So you agree with Bush's speech now?...I'm confused

[Burgold]

So you agree with Bush's speech now?...I'm confused

lol

Sadly no, but I am hopeful I am wrong. Like I said earlier, I didn't think that China deserved to get Most Favorable Nation status over and over again while they were still acting like a bunch of idiots, but slowly, very slowly, like glacially before global warming slowly, they seem to be getting their act together.