October 3, 2008

Joe Biden's Alternate Universe

In Thursday night’s vice presidential debate between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin, Biden said the strangest and most ill-informed thing I have ever heard about Lebanon in my life. “When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.” [Emphasis added.]

What on Earth is he talking about? The United States and France may have kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon in an alternate universe, but nothing even remotely like that ever happened in this one.

Nobody – nobody – has ever kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Not the United States. Not France. Not Israel. And not the Lebanese. Nobody.

Joe Biden has literally no idea what he’s talking about.

It’s too bad debate moderator Gwen Ifill didn’t catch him and ask a follow up question: When did the United States and France kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon?

The answer? Never. And did Biden and Senator Barack Obama really say NATO troops should be sent into Lebanon? When did they say that? Why would they say that? They certainly didn’t say it because NATO needed to prevent Hezbollah from returning–since Hezbollah never went anywhere.

Read the rest in COMMENTARY.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at October 3, 2008 12:04 PM
Comments

Pretty sure he meant Hamas. No?

Posted by: AdAstra Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 1:32 PM

Or maybe Fatah?

Posted by: AdAstra Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 1:34 PM

Probably just PLO.

Posted by: AdAstra Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 1:36 PM

AdAstra,

None of those make any sense either. Israel, not France or the US, kicked the PLO out of Lebanon in 1982. US Marines were truck bombed in Beirut a year later. The PLO is not currently part of the Lebanese government. He definitely wasn't referring to any of that. He was talking about Hezbollah.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 2:29 PM

Yup, looks like Biden screwed that one up. But...

Biden, though, against all expectations and odds, managed to say something far more bizarre and off-planet than anything Palin has said on the topic to date.

Has Palin even heard of Hezbollah? Or Lebanon? Otherwise, why would she not pounce on that and correct him? I suspect she knew less than Biden on the matter.

Also, it's pretty clear that Biden was confusing the Syrians with Hezbollah. He may even consider them to be the same basic political entity. Incorrect, but understandable.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 2:50 PM

Michael I'm glad that someone else noted the glaring error. I couldn't believe it and turned a friend I was watching with and told him that Biden was wrong. My friend missed it and I think most people missed it.

Double-plus-ungood, if Biden screwing up facts like that proves he knows more than Palin, I'll take her over him. She can learn, but he would have to unlearn the false information before he could learn the real story.

He's supposed to be the foreign policy expert, so either he lied, or worse is terribly uninformed.

I think enough people get confused between Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, and the PLO that it's easy to slip something like this by them.

Posted by: ghs159 Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 3:11 PM

Double-plus-ungood, if Biden screwing up facts like that proves he knows more than Palin, I'll take her over him. She can learn, but he would have to unlearn the false information before he could learn the real story.

One would hope she could learn. But I would take someone who verbally confused Syria with Hezbollah over someone who never heard of Hezbollah.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 3:18 PM

Actually, now that I think about it, didn't McCain think that Iran was supplying al Qaeda in Iraq? Does the same thinking apply to him?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 3:20 PM

DPU,

Some in the military do think Iran has supplied Al Qaeda in Iraq. I've spoken to some of those people. I do not know if they are correct or not. I really don't know. Maybe they are.

Iran does support "Al Qaeda in Kurdistan," Zarqawi's old group that was kicked out of Iraq and pushed into Iranian Kurdistan.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 4:36 PM

Good ol' DPU, another knee-jerk response to defend the left/liberal/socialist politician.

Biden makes a FACTUAL error, and DPU SUSPECTS that Palin may not know something. Yep, quite the same thing DPU.

Posted by: rsnyder Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 5:14 PM

At least Biden pronounced the names of these places properly. Palin kept talking about 'Eye'raq and 'Eye'ran.

Posted by: Eliot Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 5:43 PM

Eliot,

Biden pronounced Hezbollah wrong. So what? I have better things to do than criticize him for that.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 6:39 PM

Michael -

Leaving aside some of Biden's misstatements... he came off as in control, intelligent and able to hold a friggin conversation!!

I think I just had an epiphany moment the other night after the VP Debate?

I had one after 9/11 while watching and reading the MSMedia who were patronizing me and not telling me the truth as if I was a moron... thus, I started listening to Hannity and Rush and Fox News...

After watching Fox, even Van Sustren holding a Palin celebration from Alaska!!! Dick Morris, and gang tell me how "wonderful" Sarah Palin was I though I was living in an alternate "spin" universe?

This preening act put on by a former newscaster just spitting out memorized talking points, not answering questions but saying "gotchya, golly gee, you betchya" etc... every 5 seconds.. a person completely unqualified to President except to be controlled by a Rove like figure...

I am now sick of the spin of the Fox Newses and their phony complaining of "left wing bias" and being unfair to this unqualified lady who couldn't even an answer from the biggest softball interviewer in the world, Katie Couric... and the fact that she can't is bcs of the "unfair media"?

I was definitely voting for McCain and now I'm probably going to vote for Obama... though I'd rather vote for Biden and McCain.

Posted by: Mike_Nargizian Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 6:43 PM

MJT: Some in the military do think Iran has supplied Al Qaeda in Iraq. I've spoken to some of those people. I do not know if they are correct or not. I really don't know. Maybe they are.

McCain corrected himself after an aide whispered to him.

So does McCain know what he's talking about?

snyder: Biden makes a FACTUAL error, and DPU SUSPECTS that Palin may not know something.

Given her on-camera performance, I'd suspect that regardless of Biden's error. But because they were in a debate, and because she didn't correct him (which would have given her big foreign policy cred points), I think that makes it clear that she didn't know he made an error.

Does that make my point more clear?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 7:28 PM

Cross posting here, since Commentary has something like 150 comments.

Yup, it’s really scary the lack of knowledge about foreign policy a lot of these candidates have shown. A first term governor may have an excuse, but Joe Biden certainly doesn’t. And that’s a character issue. I don’t expect a candidate to have a perfect working knowledge of, well, everything — not even everything about foreign policy and relatively recent world events. There’s only so many hours in a day, so that’s what advisors and trusted networks are for. But for Joe Biden to be a senator for a long as he has — being entrusted by his constituents to know the big things, like the broad strokes of what happened in Lebanon — and not know these facts is a blight on his character. A first term governor from Alaska, quite frankly, wouldn’t be expected to have nearly the command of foreign policy and world events as a long term senator (or short term senator, like Barak Obama) has.

Posted by: jasonholliston Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 7:41 PM

We can't even get the NATO countries to send sufficient troops to Afghanistan, it's kind of ludicrous to think they're going to be willing to support a mission in Lebanon. Laughable really.

And I always thought that Hezbollah survives and thrives in Lebanon because a sufficient number of that country's citizens support it in one way or another. Or maybe they're just intimidated I don't know. I've also never even been sure we wanted to kick them out of Lebanon. Wouldn't we'd be satisfied if they stopped lobbing rockets into Israel?

Posted by: Bennett Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 8:53 PM

Biden did mean "Syria."

Michael, you know as well as I do that Syria could still be in Lebanon were it not for UN Resolution 1559 (passed in 2004 prior to the assassination), and US and French pressure on the
international community.

The Syrians assassinated Hariri because they thought they could get away with it both domestically and internationally. They turned out to be totally wrong.

Hezbollah prevented an immediate domestic overthrow of the Syrians. In fact, the only reason March 14 happened is because Hezbollah
threw a big, "Thank you, Syria" party on March 8.

The Syrians would have been able to stick around a whole lot longer without American, French, or international support.

This is exactly why the March 14 guys love McCain so much: supporters of democracy and sovereignty in Lebanon know that they need strong American support.

This is why Biden was trying to sound like a hawk. He wanted to seem more pro-democracy and more pro-Israel than McCain. He wanted to
make it appear like McCain and the Republicans appeased terrorists by not doing enough. He did that in the context of Sudan in which the Bush Administration has not done enough.

Don't undercut an honorable American achievement. It was not America's achievement alone. The Lebanese needed international support. They still do. And Biden was saying that he and Obama are the best people to fight terror and spread democracy.

Posted by: CharlesLPJ Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 10:17 PM

CharlesLPJ,

Of course the US (and to a lesser extent France) helped pressure Syria to leave. We aren't in disagreement about that. My point there was that the US and France followed M14's lead. Lebanese did the real work. The US and France had their back, which was good. I could have been clearer.

Perhaps I should have spent more time on his assertion (which almost certainly is not true) that he and Obama wanted to send NATO troops to Lebanon. That's just nuts. I mean, there is a case to be made for that, but only from the type of person Andrew Sullivan calls a "full metal neocon," which Biden and Obama ain't.

After Syria left, Lebanon had:

  • A friendly government
  • A more or less democratic political system
  • No WMD
  • No genocide or other forms of oppression
  • No war that needed stopping

But Biden and Obama wanted to send troops in there and start a war with Hezbollah? On what grounds? How would that not be a distraction from fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

I don't believe for a minute that Biden takes his own rhetoric seriously. His "base" certainly isn't gung ho on fighting in Lebanon.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 11:02 PM

Anyway, it isn't even remotely obvious what Biden actually meant. Read the thread at Commentary. Various readers have said it's "obvious" Biden was referring to Syria in 2005, the PLO in 1982, and Hezbollah in 2006.

Which is it? It can't really be obvious that he meant all three of those things because he only could have meant one of them.

I don't know what he was talking about. No one else seems to either.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten Author Profile Page at October 3, 2008 11:06 PM

Thank you, Michael. This must be added to the other 15-20 lies he told. The more America hears from OB ticket, the more we realize what a mess we would have if we elect them!

Posted by: DagneyT Author Profile Page at October 4, 2008 4:24 AM

"One would hope she could learn. But I would take someone who verbally confused Syria with Hezbollah over someone who never heard of Hezbollah."

Ungood, any literate person in America has heard of Hezbollah. Sounds like you've been drinking OB Kool-aid!

Posted by: DagneyT Author Profile Page at October 4, 2008 4:27 AM

Someone mentioned above something about McCain's confusion relative to Iran's supplying Al Qaeda in Iraq with weapons as though there is some wall between the factions.

I think they might find it interesting to note that during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, congressman Charlie Wilson brokered a deal whereby the Israelis would supply weapons to the mujahaddin. Israel!

The apprehension that Charlie felt about such an arrangement was quickly dispelled when his contacts in the mujahaddin told him that they didn't really care where the weapons were coming from, as long as they helped them kill their enemies.

So do you still think it's outlandish and implausible for Iran to supply weapons to AQI?

Posted by: Bailey Author Profile Page at October 4, 2008 8:28 AM

Oh, I'm SO sick of people passing on judgements on anyone who speaks anything other than Midwestern Standard American English. Eye-rack. Big deal. Would the writer also like to put down people who say "aks" instead of "ask?" Are they morons too?

OK... we all came to the big city and were afraid to call a whore a hoor and to say nuclear instead of nucular and arctic instead of artik the way we did as kids. And we forsook our pasts and fit in. Doesn't anyone but me think that someone who couldn't care less about how they pronounce things and doesn't feel any shame for their roots is a stronger person for it?

Posted by: AbuNudnik Author Profile Page at October 4, 2008 1:44 PM

All these people here apparently have ESP, they "know" Biden meant Syria. But he hasn't acknowledged that yet - probably because no one on in the MSM has called him on his error. Needless to say, if Palin had said the exact same thing regardless of what she "meant" there would be scraming headlines "How can we possibly trust her with foreign policy" etc.

Posted by: Gary Rosen Author Profile Page at October 4, 2008 3:04 PM

So do you still think it's outlandish and implausible for Iran to supply weapons to AQI?

Yes, but not because it would be impossible, or because of Charlie Wilson's war. Because (a) there is no evidence of it, and (b) because McCain clearly misspoke and corrected himself a few minutes later.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 4, 2008 3:33 PM

Biden misspoke. Simple as that.

Palin is a pretty slimy politician. She could not answer any of the questions asked her directly. Instead she referred to her talking points. The fact that she didn't wet her pants or run off stage crying does not count as a tie. She was horrible in her first and only debate. I can't imagine someone voting for Sarah "I was for the bridge to nowhere before I was against it" Palin. Maverick? My ass.

McCain is going to lose in a landslide. He likes to say he puts his country first, but apparently he put his campaign first when he chose Palin as VP since he knew she was his only hope with the social conservatives. Does he really think she's qualified to be president if he dies???

It is ridiculous that John Mcain and Palin can call Obama reckless for stating he would conduct operations against Al Qaeda in Pakistan when McCain goes around singing songs like "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and behind the scenes is pushing as hard as he can to open the war against Iran. Remember, Al Qaeda? The guys who actually attacked us on Sept 11th. It seems like some people have forgotten about them. If they're hiding in Pakistan, and Pakistan can't help, the the US military should go in and get them.

Posted by: Graham Author Profile Page at October 5, 2008 12:37 AM
Michael Totten -
Anyway, it isn't even remotely obvious what Biden actually meant....[..] readers have said it's "obvious" Biden was referring to Syria in 2005, the PLO in 1982, and Hezbollah in 2006. Which is it?
I don't know what he was talking about. No one else seems to either.
He was referring to Israel moving Hezbollah above the Litani (spelling) river off the border with Israel.... he's referring to moving in NATO forces into that area as if they'd do a much better job than the UN "Forces" under which Hezbollah operated their either under their protection and possibly at times with their help.

Biden's gotta know he's full of shit and it doesn't matter what any politician says from now to election it's all snippets of telling the stupid public whatever they can to get elected.... after that everyone forgets what they said....

Either way Palin's phony act and the Fox News infomercial for her afterwards was still so nauseating to me I might not vote for McCain now.

Posted by: Mike_Nargizian Author Profile Page at October 5, 2008 2:50 PM

She can learn, but he would have to unlearn the false information before he could learn the real story

On a similar note, no one is so dangerous as someone who knows he's right (when he isn't). This is the same guy who proposed giving hundreds of millions of dollars to Iran after 9/11 for goodwill, as though they weren't our worst state enemy of the prior decade and as though yanking the Taliban and Hussein weren't (unintentional) gifts enough for them. And people are scared of Sarah Palin....

Posted by: calbear Author Profile Page at October 5, 2008 10:55 PM

This is the same guy who proposed giving hundreds of millions of dollars to Iran after 9/11 for goodwill, as though they weren't our worst state enemy of the prior decade and as though yanking the Taliban and Hussein weren't (unintentional) gifts enough for them.

First I've heard of that. Do you know the details?

That was around the time that moderates were in charge in Iran and were making diplomatic overtures to the US, wasn't it?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 6, 2008 9:25 AM

Speaking of a lack of foreign policy knowledge, Sarah Palin just called Afghanistan "our neighboring country".

Good lord, this reveals a greater lack of knowledge than Biden's.

Or maybe she just made a verbal slip? Nah, that would leave the door open for others to claim that Biden just made a verbal slip-up.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 6, 2008 9:44 AM

The most disgusting part of the debate was when both candidates gushed about their "love" for Israel. Since when is an American citizen supposed to feel obligated to love a foreign country? Israel is an ally, as long, and only as long, as it is in the US interest to have her as an ally. Alliances shift - there have been times when Great Britain has been our enemy - there may come a time when we need to decide unconditional support for Israel just doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't like seeing my candidates so beholden to a foreign power.

Posted by: Dyadya Vanya Author Profile Page at October 6, 2008 10:28 AM

I did not find it disgusting but it was certainly stupid. As to being beholden to a foreign power, it works both ways. And it is what usually happens in relationship between allies. Stupid was to single out Israel among great many.

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at October 6, 2008 10:50 AM

Two points:

1. The mechanized and naval components of Unifil, all of which arrived after the 2006 war, are in my opinion, a NATO Rapid Reaction Force in all but name anyway. Everything about the Franco-Italian-Spanish-German aspect is NATO Standard 1.

2. Do you seriously want a Hockey MILF in charge of US Foreign Policy... I cannot believe any of you even want to entertain the possibility of a Hockey MILF running US Foreign Policy?

Hahahahaha....

Talk about the rise and fall of the great powers. That's the danger of democracy for you.... right there....

Posted by: Microraptor Author Profile Page at October 6, 2008 1:24 PM

Microraptor,

1. UNIFIL is UNIFIL, NATO is NATO. Are you trying to suggest Biden does not know the difference?

2. If Palin does not qualify for anything nor even says or does anything worth noting what are you afraid of then? Have easy victory.

3. Special point regarding your use of 'MILF'. You are quite cheap, aren't you.

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at October 6, 2008 1:44 PM

Speaking of a lack of foreign policy knowledge, Sarah Palin just called Afghanistan "our neighboring country".

Barack Obama wants to be president of these 57 United States:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

Posted by: carlos Author Profile Page at October 6, 2008 3:10 PM

I counted 58: "visited 57 and 1 left to go".
Then, if Obama was not allowed to go to Alaska and Hawaii I wonder maybe he meant 60 states or maybe he meant those two are not part of US. I am lost.

PS. I came up with Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands as possible choices but still few short.

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at October 6, 2008 4:49 PM

I counted 58: "visited 57 and 1 left to go".

So then we're apparently in agreement. Biden, Palin, Obama, and McCain are all seemingly incompetent, making fundamental errors about politics and geography.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 6, 2008 5:08 PM

The most disgusting part of the debate was when both candidates gushed about their "love" for Israel. Since when is an American citizen supposed to feel obligated to love a foreign country? Israel is an ally, as long, and only as long, as it is in the US interest to have her as an ally. Alliances shift

to take you on your point: right now they are an ally, but of course they are greater factors a play:
- History and the contribution Jewish people have made to the USA
- They are almost as many Jews in USA as they are in Israel, and evangelicals support them too.
- To abandon and leave them to fend for themselves among 300 million Arabs it would a major capitulation for 'the world' and a disgrace (another one that is)
- They have a great intelligence system and they help us.
- They are a democracy in a bad neighborhood that needs a helping help.
- They are very well represented in politics and lobbying.

I could go on, but politically speaking, only an idiot comes against Israel, even if privately they agree with David Duke. It isn't just about 'the Jews,' thanks to history, it has taken a much larger meaning today. Israel of course listens to US for the most part so they are more like our 51th state, as supposed to an ally.

Posted by: nameless-fool Author Profile Page at October 6, 2008 8:08 PM

"So then we're apparently in agreement. Biden, Palin, Obama, and McCain are all seemingly incompetent, making fundamental errors about politics and geography."

As usual we are left to pick lesser of two evils. And pick we will.

Obama comes out as weak and as very poor judge of character and Biden lies too much even for politician of his level.

McCain is most deserving and Palin is very fast learner.

I guess, my choice is practicly made.

PS. Either team will have swarms of advisers when elected. Do not worry about their mistakes today.

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at October 6, 2008 8:48 PM
Obama comes out as weak and as very poor judge of character and Biden lies too much even for politician of his level.

...

Either team will have swarms of advisers when elected. Do not worry about their mistakes today.

As Jon Stewart would say, has your second sentence met your first one?

Personally, I think that Obama will do a better job. And those who favor McCain most likely voted for the current Whitehouse wonder twice, so their analytic skills are suspect.

But all this talk is irrelevant, it's extremely likely that Obama will be the next president.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 6, 2008 9:52 PM

"And those who favor McCain most likely voted for the current Whitehouse wonder twice, so their analytic skills are suspect."

I did not vote twice but I voted second time around and I am to regret my choice yet.

"As Jon Stewart would say, has your second sentence met your first one?"

Perfectly. Why would you ask?

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 5:08 AM

Leo wrote:

As usual we are left to pick lesser of two evils. And pick we will.

I'm reminded of the Mae West line, "When faced with a choice between two evils, I pick the one I've never tried before."

Of course, I think we've tried both of these particular evils. If we elect Obama, we'll get four years of Jimmy Carter-style disaster. If, on the other hand, we elect McCain, we'll get four years of a Gerald Ford-like administration. Whip inflation now!

Not that my vote matters; I'm in New York, the state where Democrats could run a corrupt prosecutor using his office for politicaly-motivated law enforcement while cavorting with prostitutes, and still get two-thirds of the vote.

Posted by: Ted S., Catskills, NY Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 5:29 AM

Leo.... I know what UNIFIL is, my point was that the new beefed up contingent is redolent of a NATO standard RRF and could be reconfigured as such at short notice, if needs be. Certainly this was what some people I know in Hezbollah thought when the new UNIFIL was deployed.

As for Mrs. Palin, I think she is simply too ignorant potentially to hold High Office... She isn't especially clever and knows this... I think she even wears clear lens spectacles in a risible attempt to make herself look more cerebral...

And while she may remind many Mrs. average American moms of themselves, I would suggest that one can conclude that these women are equally unqualified to potentially become US President.

I think that the McCain campaign managers chose Sarah Palin in order to broaden the domestic political appeal of their aging candidate, and as such it was a brilliant piece of political chicanery.

But Mrs. Palin is still not smart enough to run your country or manage the global responsibilities that come with it.

More interesting than our disagreements over Palin's MILF status is this breaking story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7657066.stm

Can it be true? If so it's an even better yarn than the Iranian "radioactive / Dirty Bomb" Ship Hijacked by Somali Pirates story....

But I thought a Falcon was the nickname of an F-16 -- which only carries one person deosn't it?

Posted by: Microraptor Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 6:37 AM

I did not vote twice but I voted second time around and I am to regret my choice yet.

'Nuff said.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 7:58 AM

Microraptor,

In my usual fashion - Hezbollah is Hezbollah, Biden is Biden. Hezbollah may think whatever it wants, US senator should know better.

About the link.
It may or may not be true but as it is it hardly has enough information even to be put into print. There is no news, just suppositions and hearsay. Let's wait for more info to come later if it will.

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 8:34 AM

DPU,

I very much would like to know why would you say: "As Jon Stewart would say, has your second sentence met your first one?"

You answer is even more desired after this: "'Nuff said."

And try being more explicit this time. Remember you are talking to somebody whose "analytic skills are suspect".

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 8:49 AM

Aircraft was Hungarian, apparently...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7657066.stm

Are any Hungarian troops part the NATO mission in Afghanistan?

Posted by: Microraptor Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 9:08 AM

There ARE indeed Huingarian troops in Afghanistan... they are to be tasked with (ahem) guarding Kabul airport from tomorrow...

http://www.politics.hu/20081002/hungarian-troops-take-charge-of-kabul-airport

Ending up in Iran by accident not perhaps the best of starts....

Posted by: Microraptor Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 9:25 AM

I very much would like to know why would you say: "As Jon Stewart would say, has your second sentence met your first one?"

Sorry, didn't mean to be confusing. It means that your second sentence renders your first one ineffective.

You answer is even more desired after this: "'Nuff said."

And try being more explicit this time.

Sorry. It's a contraction of "enough said", meaning that no further discussion is required.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 9:34 AM

DPU,

"It means that your second sentence renders your first one ineffective."

OK. Now would be very good time to explain why you think my first and second (not second really but who's counting) sentences contradict each other.

Let me put those sentences together again so we will not lose track of the matter:

Obama comes out as weak and as very poor judge of character and Biden lies too much even for politician of his level.

...

Either team will have swarms of advisers when elected. Do not worry about their mistakes today.

I hope it helps. And here you go ...

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 10:36 AM

Because in the first sentence, you detail character features of two politicians presumably based on mistakes that they have made. in the second and third (thanks), you say not to worry about any mistakes that a candidate might make because they will have swarms of advisers.

Based on the swarms of advisers theory, it could be argued one need not pay any attention at all to the campaign.

Also, are you arguing that Biden's error in the debate should be ignored for that reason?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 10:46 AM

DPU,

You are correct and even including this:

"Also, are you arguing that Biden's error in the debate should be ignored for that reason?"

Yes, it does not matter. But I will get back to Biden's case later.

I must say, while you started correctly you stopped too soon.

It is not just simply saying "Do not worry mistake or no mistake during election run, once elected advisers will help them through".

Both Obama and McCain will get to pick their own team of advisers.

So, let's take McCain. Just looking at who he picked as his running mate make one love the guy. This was genius move in all respects. Sarah Palin alone will make whole campaign for McCain. Looking at this pick I have reason to hope the rest of his team will be just as good. Maybe McCain was not the one who offered Mrs. Palin, which makes my point even stronger. Plus, McCain agreed, which is stronger, still.

Now, let's take Obama. So far he demonstrated his ability to associate himself with racists, terrorists, plain criminals, ... and his readiness to look completely baffled and surprised when confronted (added traditional initial denial, of cause). Do you want leader who has no clue what is going on?

So, eventually we come down to this - Obama's proven inability to pick good team and McCain's proven ability to do so.

"Either team will have swarms of advisers when elected. Do not worry about their mistakes today."

Means not only "do not worry about their mistakes today" but it also means "worry about their mistakes after elections".

Now back to Biden. Man is doing whatever it is he is doing for 36 years. Do you think he should be well versed in whatever it is he does? So, if he could not learn in first 36 years what are his chances to learn in next 4?

And you seriously want me to elect such weak team as Obama-Biden? Ri-ight.

One more thing to add. It is no secret MSM gives free pass to Obama essentially making him a charity case. Should Obama feel insulted or I am to naive?

PS. There are at least two very important qualities necessary for a leader, ability to pick exceptional crew and ability to lead. I do not see either in Obama.

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 11:43 AM

And you seriously want me to elect such weak team as Obama-Biden? Ri-ight.

Actually, I don't care who you vote for. Not even a little bit.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 1:00 PM

"Actually, I don't care who you vote for. Not even a little bit."

Most likely so.
However, there was a reason you decided to get involved in conversation.
Remember? I did not reply to your post, you replied to mine.
So, what was it?

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 1:23 PM

However, there was a reason you decided to get involved in conversation.

Trust me, it had nothing to do with any concern on my part about how you vote. And if you re-read the comment you refer to, you will see this:

But all this talk is irrelevant, it's extremely likely that Obama will be the next president.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 1:32 PM

"Trust me, it had nothing to do with any concern on my part about how you vote."

Yes, you already said so and I reluctantly accepted the fact that I am not the first violin in your orchestra.
What was the real reason you decided to get involved, especially if everything is already decided?

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 2:05 PM

What was the real reason you decided to get involved, especially if everything is already decided?

I can only refer you to what is written above, leo. If that's not clear, I'm afraid that I can't help any further.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 2:09 PM

"I can only refer you to what is written above, leo. If that's not clear, I'm afraid that I can't help any further."

I understand. Some time I too say things I cannot explain.

OK. Looks like we are done with this part.
There is another matter I would like to discuss if you will agree.
Namely, why do you think Bush is bad for US?
Considering comments you made recently explaining it should not be a problem.
Would you like to try?

Many thanks.

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 5:36 PM

Namely, why do you think Bush is bad for US?

The easiest answer to that, I think, is to ask if the US is in a better position now than it was eight years ago. I don't think it is. Do you?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 6:50 PM

"The easiest answer to that, I think, is to ask if the US is in a better position now than it was eight years ago."

No, I do not think so. In an attempt to oversimplify things and lump everything into some kind of hypothetical 'Bush failure' package we are risking missing many important nuances, which may lead us to draw completely incorrect conclusions.

I'd rather you itemized all the subjects at which you believe Bush had failed and offered an explanation as to why you think it is failure and more importantly why you think it is failure caused by Bush's action or inaction.

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 8:32 PM

I'd rather you itemized all the subjects at which you believe Bush had failed and offered an explanation as to why you think it is failure and more importantly why you think it is failure caused by Bush's action or inaction.

Sure. Oh wait, no, I have a life. Sorry.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 7, 2008 8:51 PM

"I have a life."

Just curios, if coming here means putting your life aside then why are you doing this?

Oh, well. No matter. I do not think I will get an answer to that one too.

'Huff sad' indeed. Go, do your life tingy.

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at October 8, 2008 5:08 AM

Jeez leo, I didn't think it would hurt your feelings that much. I just didn't see much percentage in me spending a half-hour detailing all the reasons I think Bush has been a failure. I'm not about to convince you, so why bother?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 8, 2008 11:07 AM

thank you mike for speeking the truth and telling how it really is. looking forward to reading all you have to write.be well and safe and keep kicking ass.

Posted by: lj Author Profile Page at October 20, 2008 12:21 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?




Winner, The 2008 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Read my blog on Kindle



blogads-blog-button.png


Recommended Reading




Warning: include(): http:// wrapper is disabled in the server configuration by allow_url_include=0 in /home/mjt001/public_html/archives/2008/10/joe-bidens-alte.php on line 868

Warning: include(http://michaeltotten.com/mt_essays.php): failed to open stream: no suitable wrapper could be found in /home/mjt001/public_html/archives/2008/10/joe-bidens-alte.php on line 868

Warning: include(): Failed opening 'http://michaeltotten.com/mt_essays.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/mjt001/public_html/archives/2008/10/joe-bidens-alte.php on line 868