It's Biden
Did you get the text? Barack Obama as his running mate. Biden knows a thing or two about presidential campaigns -- he has run twice for his party's nomination -- and is one of the most respected foreign policy commentators in Congress. Unlike Obama, he voted for the war in Iraq, but within a year appears to have regretted his support for President Bush and established himself as a critic of the war (and the subsequent troop surge). I still haven't seen a response from Hillary. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall of one of the Clinton residences this weekend?
While you're pondering that, how long do you think it will be before the McCain team's trawl through the history of Biden Gaffes produces a TV ad with this : "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
Comment number 1.
At 23rd Aug 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:Biden ran for President twice and lost miserably. He won't get many votes for Obama. He might serve him as a tutor of foreign policy though. Having regretted his prior position supporting Bush shows he's prone to mistakes, at least in his own mind. His formula for Iraq he has voiced many times is to break it up into three nearly independent countries with a weak central government. This ignores the fact that there are major disputes within Iraq over which ethnicity controls certain oil rich areas that could lead to civil war. Obama has not made one critical decision well yet. He is not qualified to be President. He is certainly not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. That's not just my assessment, it's also the assessment of Senator Hillary Clinton who said so publicly just a few months ago. Was she lying then or is she lying now?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 23rd Aug 2008, gveale wrote:Are we looking at another Cheney? The VP's influence seems to have grown under Bush. Can Bidden call on a similar network of players?
GV
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 23rd Aug 2008, gveale wrote:Marc
What exactly is the solution in Iraq?
GV
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 23rd Aug 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:gveale, I really don't know. Nobody does. But for a start, the US taking back control of Iraq since its civilian government has failed, declaring marshal law, instituting curfews, NATO sending in half a million troops, shooting first and asking questions later, sealing the borders, decisively attacking neighbors who supply munitions and act as waystations for insurgents such as Syria and Iran, and exhaustive search and destroy missions throughout the country eliminating all weapons and killing all insurgents would be a serious effort. Had that been done right after the collapse of the Hussein regime, it would in all likelihood be over by now and civil government with law and order could have been restored. As things stand now, there is not much hope for long term peace and stability.
If European members of NATO don't go along with this plan, then they are of no use to the US and America should tell NATO it will pull out and leave the rest of them to face the Russians alone. That is long overdo. It was a sign of the Bush Administration's fatal weakness that it didn't stick it to old Europe right from the getgo with threats of economic sanctions and a complete break in relations. America's foreign policy flaw has not been that it was too aggressive but that it was far too timid.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)