Biden: US Ok With Israel Bomb, Bombing Iran

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:34:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I thought this post from Digby might be of interest:

Is it just me or were Joe Biden's comments on Stephanpoulos this morning somewhat ... uhm ... startling?

Plunging squarely into one of the most sensitive issues in the Middle East, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. suggested on Sunday that the United States would not stand in the way of Israeli military action aimed at the Iranian nuclear program. . . .

What was funny to me was Biden's explanation - "Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else . . ." While Digby rightly wonders if Biden's, um timing, given what' going on Iran, is um, helpful, my thought is about Obama's supposed line in the sand on Israeli settlements on the West Bank. I'm not one to rush into the I/P controversy, and it is not my intention to do so here. But here's a question - is Joe Biden really up to the job? He is a mistake machine.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Open Thread | Palin's Hypocrisy >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Biden: US Ok With Israel Bomb, Bombing Iran | 65 comments (65 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Obama needs to worry about his VP's (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by MO Blue on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:51:31 PM EST

comments not being helpful rather than those advocating for real healthCARE reform. One of the remarks in Digby's post asks what to me is one of the most important questions.

Does this seem like a good idea to anyone at this particular moment? The biggest headline on the front page of the NY Times today was "Leading Clerics Defy Ayatollah on Disputed Iran Election" Does this strike you as a good moment for the US to be talking about Israel bombing the place?

Biden just supplied the Ayatollah with a whole lot of ammunition to use against the opposition and to move the discussion from internal problems to one of national survival. The Ayatollah must be ecstatic with this performance by Biden.

: Indeed (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:52:20 PM EST

: I read your comment the other way around... (none / 0) (#68)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:23:56 AM EST

You said Biden had served to:
move the discussion from internal problems to one of national survival.
You were talking about Iran. But that is also true for the US. The way I see it, Biden has shifted the debate from our own domestic agenda and now the press is fanning the flames in the Middle East and fore-grounding our 'national secuity' - again.

He Is A Moron, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:03:25 PM EST

Although, clumsy and oafish as he is, the statement reflects the long standing US policy toward Israel. Contrary to what he said, It is no coincidence that the national interests of Israel are ours, though.

He sort of reminds me of Quale.

Is Joe Biden really up to the job? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Romberry on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:15:41 PM EST

No.

(This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Easy Questions™.)

But seriously folks...Biden? If something were to happen to Obama, would you really feel comfortable knowing that Joe Biden would become president? I was astonished when Biden was the VP pick. I was also astonished by the 180 done by Obama fans, legions of which spent the primaries telling us what a moron Biden was (which is one of the few things I agreed with them on), who were suddenly fans of Biden and his exemplary political skills* and reputation as a statesman.*

I have no idea why Biden was the VP pick. I get a vibe when I see Obama and Biden together that Obama doesn't really care much for Joe, and vice versa. Me? I'm not a big fan of either and these days often find myself wondering what sort of broken/corrupted political system winds up giving us a choice between sets of candidates like Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin.

*Yes, sarcasm.

I was not surprised. (2.00 / 0) (#34)
by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:23:26 PM EST

Biden was part of a group of Dem leaders who knew just as much about Bush/Cheney war crimes as Nancy Pelosi. They had to shut him up... or at least try. They had to buy him off. The guy was just reeking with guilt over his complicity. Nancy feels no guilt. She feels fear of getting caught, but I do not believe she feels any guilt at all over her complicity.

I still believe that Obama was handed the nomination in Michigan on a platter because he agreed not to allow any prosecution of Bush/Cheney war crimes. The Dem leadership were afraid for their own skins and Omama and his supporters were afraid that the truth of Dem complicity might just make the Dem Party just as unpopular as the Repug Party.


No I would not be comfortable (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:19:41 PM EST

with Biden as President.

But I was not comfortable with Cheney as President either.


: The choice was Biden or Palin (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by BobTinKY on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:30:55 AM EST

still hard for me to believe we were seriouslty presented with that possibility.

: Touche' (none / 0) (#26)
by Romberry on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:37:50 PM EST

Hard to argue with your point, but I will say that your point extends my argument concerning our broken/corrupted political system. In 2000, we had a choice between Gore/Milquetoast and Dim Son/Vader and Dim Son/Vader, thanks to the press and our magnificently informed electorate, actually came close enough to steal it, 5-4.
It's not productive to wonder how things might have been different had that election gone 5-4 the other way, but every now and then I do think about it.

the broken/corrupt politcal system (none / 0) (#59)
by Howard Zinn on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:02:57 PM EST

is a product of the political realities of a party primary and a general election, coupled with an ignorant and highly suggestible electorate.

it's the same feeling i had when we reelected W -- how could these people in this country that i had identified my self with -- how could they possible choose this person.

the sad reality is that the average american is a dolt. hopefully the internet will help assuage some of the ignorance problem, but maybe the opposite will happen.

pure and simple -- biden was chosen as the normal guy to obama's elitism. i think he's fine, it's just that he shoots his mouth off and doesn't think of the implications all the time. it's not like he's actively evil like dick.


He's a silly Dick? (none / 0) (#62)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:29:06 PM EST

He is a common senseless Dick? But not an evil Dick? :0)


: haha, evil Dick (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Howard Zinn on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:34:14 PM EST

that's the title of a Body Count song (the band of "Cop Killer" fame). google it -- funny stuff.

What (5.00 / 0) (#50)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:17:43 AM EST

does this say about Obama's judgement in picking him?

According to Bill Clinton and Hillary (none / 0) (#54)
by BobTinKY on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:33:59 AM EST

it makes Oabama the "home run" champion.

That said, Biden was a disappointing choice and his gaffes are not a surpsie to anyone who has been paying attention to Democratic politics.

I do think he has a chance to be of value in creating a stable Iraqi federation, an idea he has championed and which makes sense.


: Did (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 09:07:06 AM EST

you expect Bill or Hillary to say anything different? I'm one that's more actions speak louder than words and it's a poor choice by Obama among a number of poor choices he's made over his political career.

Seems not (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:41:49 PM EST

Digby asks (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:43:21 PM EST

"It would be interesting to know if Biden is on message or if he did his usual free association."

You can not have your VP engaging in "free association" all the time.

BTW, Biden is no rocket scientist generally.


What are the chances he is on message (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by nycstray on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:01:01 PM EST

even though it may be quickly denied?


: imo (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:02:35 PM EST

zero.

If you don't want your VP... (5.00 / 3) (#57)
by sj on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 10:11:02 AM EST

... in "free association" mode all the time, then don't pick Joe Biden. It's a feature, not a bug.

How can this be a surprise to anybody? I'm thinking that's why support for his presidential campaign was in the single digits from the beginning.


Between this and what he said about (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:49:52 PM EST

the economy, you have to wonder if he's jet lagged or something. In any case, he's clearly not performing up to the minimal standards of his job. (And let's face it, he has no responsibilities).


They should tell him (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:51:49 PM EST

to use Cheney as his nodel and never speak publically.


Well, use Cheney (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Zorba on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:36:58 PM EST

the vice-president as his model- we rarely if ever saw him. Cheney the former v.p. never shuts up. I keep wishing he'd go back to his "undisclosed location."


Lord, (none / 0) (#36)
by cawaltz on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:35:22 PM EST

Do not tell him that. The last thing we need is him believing he can play puppetmaster.

Can't they just give him a job on ESPN? The guy loves his sport analogies and no one gets hurt if he flubs things.


Even ESPN... (none / 0) (#37)
by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:48:12 PM EST

I don't want him anywhere near a microphone. Seriously, the Dem leadership need to talk to Joe and remind him of the only reason he is there.


What is "the only reason he is there"? (none / 0) (#43)
by oculus on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:36:26 PM EST

: The only reason he's there... (2.00 / 0) (#44)
by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:26:22 PM EST

Biden was part of a group of Dem leaders who knew just as much about Bush/Cheney war crimes as Nancy Pelosi. They had to shut him up... or at least try. They had to buy him off. The guy was just reeking with guilt over his complicity. Nancy feels no guilt. She feels fear of getting caught, but I do not believe she feels any guilt at all over her complicity.
I still believe that Obama was handed the nomination in Michigan on a platter because he agreed not to allow any prosecution of Bush/Cheney war crimes. The Dem leadership were afraid for their own skins and Omama and his supporters were afraid that the truth of Dem complicity might just make the Dem Party just as unpopular as the Repug Party.
Speaking for myself only.

Why the 180 (none / 0) (#4)
by Saul on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:49:54 PM EST

Biden in April said Israel would be ill advised to attacks on Iranian nuclear sites.

Biden is an embarrassment (none / 0) (#8)
by Radiowalla on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:58:57 PM EST

to the administration. He's off free-lancing and stepping in piles of deep doo-doo. I wish Obama would put him on a very short leash and keep him off the Sunday shows altogether.

You'd think that by now the man would have better sense.

Which man? (none / 0) (#11)
by nycstray on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:02:45 PM EST

: Now that you mention it, (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Radiowalla on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:57:51 PM EST

both of them.

If anyone is completely competent (none / 0) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:16:00 PM EST

on The Hill right now it had better be the Secret Service who is 1000% on mission protecting our current President. That's all I have to say about Biden's leadership!

Odds on whether Biden (none / 0) (#16)
by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:22:38 PM EST

stays on the ticket in '12?

100% (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:27:05 PM EST

You do not change running mates anymore. That era is over.

Odds on Biden having a chance to be President by getting elected President? 0% imo.


: Probably. . . (none / 0) (#21)
by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:30:02 PM EST

If you have ever read me on Iran (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:26:10 PM EST

you would know I have no illusions about Iran. I always viewed Iran as the threat to American interests, not Iraq.

But there is no getting around the stupidity of Biden's statement.

If they do not walk it back, then you have to question the competence of the Obama Administration.

: Expand on the threat to American interests (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by BobTinKY on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:26:49 AM EST

I am an Amercian who has a hard time getting excited over Iran.
I tend to be concerned about threats to our sovereignty or our Constitutional form of government. I don't see Iran posing such a threat. In fact, I don't see any such threat out there. I see plenty within our borders that threatens our Republic.
I think these "threats to Amercian interets," are simply manufactured to justify obscene "defense" expenditures. As a taxpayer footing the bill for this while being told reforming health insurance industry is too costly, I am pissed.

Let's play multiple choice (none / 0) (#20)
by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:27:58 PM EST

Which scenario is more likely:

a) Israel attacks Iran largely because of these comments; or

b) the Iranian government further represses reformers and dissidents using these comments as an excuse.

: b is possible (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:30:01 PM EST

a is probably not. Israel is well acquainted with Biden and is more likely to dismiss it as more Biden-speak.

Biden has foot-in-mouth ... (none / 0) (#22)
by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:34:26 PM EST

disease. But I don't think that's what happened here.

I think this was a classic political two-step. Make a statement, then deny it. Both statements go out there. And the intended audiences for each get the message they wanted to hear.

Classic BS you mean (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:36:59 PM EST

Both the statement and the denial will hurt the US.

It was clearly a piece of Biden idiocy.


Seems like a classic ... (none / 0) (#27)
by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:47:35 PM EST

US foreign policy play to me.

Have a White House "loose cannon" make a statement. Then the White House denies the statement.


the problem with your theory (5.00 / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:54:43 PM EST

Both the statement and the walkback are negative.

better to have said nothing at all.


: Perhaps ... (none / 0) (#31)
by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:11:35 PM EST

but both seem policy oriented to me. And taken together I think they encompass US policy. There's always been a lot of nudges and winks on this issue. And this, to me, is just another example of that.
Unlike Biden's statement on the White House's view of the economy. This seemed like dumb politics that serves no purpose.
Perhaps my cynicism just cuts a broader swath than yours. Or perhaps I just know more people who need to hear statements like Biden's even if those statements are subsequently walked back.

Biden's a one-termer, (none / 0) (#23)
by Lacy on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:35:09 PM EST

and maybe not even a full one-term.

Hillary Clinton will be the VP candidate with Obama in 2012.

Kinda my thinking as well. (none / 0) (#28)
by KeysDan on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:50:48 PM EST

Obama will really need her to help with the base he is eroding, and, after serving with distinction as Secretary of State, maybe his ego, and original cheerleaders, will permit it.


I think this is likely ... (none / 0) (#32)
by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:15:40 PM EST

the party will want someone who can run in 2016 as VP.


: Doubt it. 'The party' (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by oldpro on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 08:47:01 PM EST

does not want Hillary Clinton. Am I the only one who got that message loud and clear via the last convention? They are only tolerating her because Obama picked her and no one could say no to him.

doubt it (none / 0) (#52)
by BobTinKY on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:29:10 AM EST

Obama is losing the most left leaning portion of his coalition, the portion that vaulted him over HRC in the primaries. HRC does not recover that.


No news. of course, but VP Biden (none / 0) (#40)
by oldpro on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 08:50:34 PM EST

is not as articulate as the president.

He does, however, fancy himself 'the' expert on foreign policy in the administration, above and beyond Hillary and the President...in experience and in judgment. I doubt Joe would check with anybody before he spoke up on foreign policy. And that's the problem.

Crazy just like Reagan (none / 0) (#41)
by diogenes on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 09:37:06 PM EST

Reagan's "gaffe" about bombing Russia, made when the mike was supposedly "off", is the same thing. Just making clear that Israel has an absolute right to exist/self-defense, and that the US would not stop Israeli action. Obama can't say it so he lets the "gaffe-prone" Biden say it--but don't think that they don't get the point in Tehran.

: You really think (none / 0) (#42)
by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:31:58 PM EST

this is the same? You think Obama and Joe put their heads together and planned this? I seriously doubt it. Joe is just... being his usual clumsy self.

VP Biden also recently opined there (none / 0) (#45)
by oculus on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:02:11 AM EST

will be no more deaths of U.S. military in Iraq.

: mordant laugh (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by weltec2 on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:49:52 AM EST

teeth grinding to the gums.

: Good, now he can go visit (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:04:26 AM EST

Cheer all the troops up with his congenial yet hard talking self, and he won't need all that expensive exhaustive security. What a schtoopid thing to say fer crying out loud.

Maybe (none / 0) (#47)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 07:43:05 AM EST

Joe Biden is actually the most honest person in the administration (as honest as a politician can be). I think that's why he makes so many gaffes - he doesn't have a filter and he just says what he thinks, instead of trying to paint pretty pictures of hope and change.

I think the admin DIDN'T know how bad the economy was because they chose not to listen and were too focused on planning the inauguration. My guess is his comment about Israel and Iran is actually the thinking that is really going on in the west wing - even though it isn't the "politically correct" answer.

I have to characterize him (5.00 / 0) (#49)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:06:44 AM EST

as perhaps more sincere than honest, because he has severe selective memory....I can't say he's honest with himself. I think he means what he says though and he has no filter.


lol (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 12:19:35 PM EST

And a sucker is born every minute. I will concede that he does have the sort baby face that makes people think he is not a pol but an honest broker speaking from his heart.


I didn't say (none / 0) (#60)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:18:17 PM EST

he was an honest person - just that he was the most honest in this administration. Joe speaks without trying to parse his words as much as others, and that's what leads to so-called "gaffes" (whihc many times aren't gaffes, but Joe not towing the company line).


More Honest Than Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:20:18 PM EST

lol... do you have them all listed from most honest to least honest?


Wow - you haven't changed (none / 0) (#64)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:39:52 PM EST

When you have nothing to contribute, you go to the old fall back - Hillary.


No (none / 0) (#65)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:56:36 PM EST

You made a definitive statement, and I know you are quite fond of Hillary, so it was an honest question meant to turn your assertion on its head.

IOW, I assume that you believe that Hillary is more honest than BIden, no?

Anyway I do believe that you are falling for his baby face, joe normal, facade. He is as dishonest as any of them. How can a politician be any other way? They have to seem as if they are representing many divergent views, which change like the tides.


Unlike some (none / 0) (#66)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 05:58:42 PM EST

I don't "fall" for politicians. They are all lying scum - I just try to go with the ones who seem to lie to me the least and have the best and most thorough plans that I agree with.

Many people "fell for" a politician this year and made him president. Biden, while someone who should not be president, seems to speak his mind, as opposed to speaking in double-speak about "hope" and "change" and feeding us BS.


: lol (none / 0) (#67)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 06:11:09 PM EST

How evasive, not surprised.

Does nobody else watch Shalom TV??? (none / 0) (#56)
by Samuel on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 10:01:46 AM EST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUxjI8-DUHg

What else would you expect from Joe Biden - the spilled blood of non-Israeli Semites doesn't seem to perturb him.

I wasn't too hot for Manifest Destiny and the State of Israel (as claimed by violent means) doesn't strike me as, you know, ethically justifiable.

"I'm not one to rush into the I/P controversy, and it is not my intention to do so here. But here's a question - is Joe Biden really up to the job? He is a mistake machine"

Sorry but ignoring an actual issue to supply a celebrity gossip analysis of politics ("up to the job" has no meaning) isn't ethical in itself. I imagine you're referring to "the job" of news channel theater - and not his supposed duty to uphold the Constitution (I'm no Constitutionalist) which would seem to demand immediate reduction in our participation or complicity in the murder of thousands and thousands of people a year falsely premised as "defense".

If you were referring to fulfilling his sworn duties then the answer is clearly "no".