View Full Version : BIDEN: OBAMA WILL BE TESTED BY 'INTERNATIONAL CRISIS' IN FIRST 6 MONTHS...
BMT (RIP)
10-20-2008, 08:40
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html
:D
:munchin
BMT
anythingrandom
10-20-2008, 09:31
If I were an Obama supporter, I would be offended by Biden's lack of faith in his supporters. If the decisions they make are the right ones, the results should speak volumes.
Reading between the lines in my own mind, I think he's bracing his supporters for possible military action in contested regions. Some of these actions may go against the original statements of the BO/JB platform, and he's just making a statement so he can fall back on it when they abandon their pretenses when faced with harsh and uncertain realities. However, adapting a strategy when confronted with new facts is better than failing to do so.
Kind of makes you wonder if they are already planning on going into Pakistan.
Red Flag 1
10-20-2008, 17:02
If BHO wins, Israel hits Iran before the oath of office, IMMHO.
RF 1
If BHO wins, Israel hits Iran before the oath of office, IMMHO.
RF 1
Funny you should say that. We were just talking about that very thing in my non-proliferation class last week. I think there are alot of things that are going to happen between Nov 5 and Jan 20 should BHO win the election, and none of them are good.
Surf n Turf
10-20-2008, 19:52
Funny you should say that. We were just talking about that very thing in my non-proliferation class last week. I think there are alot of things that are going to happen between Nov 5 and Jan 20 should BHO win the election, and none of them are good.
afchic,
Define good :D
anythingrandom
10-21-2008, 00:46
USA/Israel/Iran is a whole can of juicy, ripe worms. I could listen to opinions on that topic....for hours and hours.
sounds like another way of saying "oops" before you have even had the chance to screw the pooch
Off Road
10-21-2008, 18:30
Here's an interesting commentary by Bill Kristol on his comments.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/10/kristol_what_biden_implied.asp
OR
LongTabSigO
10-21-2008, 18:42
If BHO wins, Israel hits Iran before the oath of office, IMMHO.
RF 1
I'm not 100% they won't do it if McCain wins...he's not exactly Ronald Reagan.
With respect to the original post on this thread: I'm troubled by the statement, but I'm not ready to pounce on it as an "ah-ha!" moment. The commenters that assessed this to be a hedging of bets for future action are likely the most correct.
It is also likely a way to divert talk away from "Joe the Plumber" which is an issue/line of thought that is scoring hit-points against BHO/JB. I read a piece on one of the National Review blogs that suggests that all the "national security"votes are swinging for McCain. There's no ground to gain there. The votes to gain in the remaining days are based on other issues. Biden's "gaffe", the analysis suggests, is a ruse of sorts.
Judge for yourself. The relevant blog entry is here: http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjY0ODAwYWZmN2IzNThlZjY2MTI3YzdmYWMxYTU0NGI=
Lee Majors
10-21-2008, 19:00
No disrespect to Biden but I can't think of any president that hasn't been tested his first term in office.
I wonder how uncle Joe spells 'potato' ?
I wonder how uncle Joe spells 'potato' ?
I don't know, but he knows a three letter word.....JOBS!:rolleyes:
The McCain campaign needed to find a way to raise this point in a way that would have neutralized bogus counter accusations of racism. I am going to blow a gasket because McCain didn't pursue this issue.
There have been a number of examples of clergymen using the pulpit to spread a political message of hatred. That practice is unacceptable. And it is unacceptable that a presidential candidate doesn't have the gumption at least to confront his spiritual adviser when that adviser preaches hatred. The guy couldn't rise to a challenge in his own congregation and yet we're to believe he's up to the challenges of an international crisis? Really?
What ever else he is, Senator Obama is not a nationalist. In some convoluted 'enlightened' train of thought he and his supporters have convinced themselves that acceptance and popularity across the globe is more important than building trust and earning respect in 'red' states. "But I'm huge in France" is the punchline of a joke, not a sustainable leadership practice for an American president.
If only a video could surface of Barack Obama attending one of Reverand Wright's tirades!
USANick7
10-22-2008, 09:56
The McCain campaign needed to find a way to raise this issue in a way that would have neutralized bogus counter accusations of racism. I am going to blow a gasket because McCain didn't pursue this issue.
There have been a number of examples of clergymen using the pulpit to spread a political message of hatred. That practice is unacceptable. And it is unacceptable that a presidential candidate doesn't have the gumption at least to confront his spiritual adviser when that adviser preaches hatred. The guy couldn't rise to a challenge in his own congregation and yet we're to believe he's up to the challenges of an international crisis? Really?
What ever else he is, Senator Obama is not a nationalist. In some convoluted 'enlightened' train of thought he and his supporters have convinced themselves that acceptance and popularity across the globe is more important that building trust and earning respect in 'red' states. "But I'm huge in France" is the punchline of a joke, not a sustainable leadership practice for an American president.
"But I'm huge in France" is the punchline of a joke, not a sustainable leadership practice for an American president.
That is priceless! Well done!
Note that Biden made those comments before he realized the media was there.
Here's an interesting commentary by Bill Kristol on his comments.
Mr. Kristol may be correct about Biden implying a weak response by Obama. It would seem reasonable. I have no clue what Biden meant for certain, but the subjugation of U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. is within the realm of possibility for an Obama administration, also.
charlietwo
10-22-2008, 16:57
History says that the next president, regardless of who gets elected, will be faced with an international incident on behest of our Muslim friends around the world. For some reason, I highly doubt the abilities of Obama to successfully navigate this country through those incidents. McCain may be a pseudo-socialist himself, but at least he's not afraid of fighting.
What a bozo...and just a 'heartbeat' from POTUS, the argument they use against Governor Palin. :rolleyes:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
He strikes me as an ultra-Leftist who has a real quest and lust for POWER.
Good point. How about the scenario of suspending Constitutional liberties under the guise of national security? That would certainly fit the "it might not seem right at the time" criteria.
I think that Obama's misplaced faith in his intellect, the inherent logic of 'enlightened' thought, and his own charm would exaggerate any crisis during the initial phase of his presidency.
Like Carter, he'd convince himself he was right and stop listening to the guidance of his advisers. Like FDR, he would think he could charm a sworn enemy into friendship. Like Wilson, he would fail to consult with key members of Congress. Like Clinton, he'd think that a high tech solution would be a magic bullet. Like LBJ, he'd get waist deep in the tactical details and believe that he had to protect the viability of his social spending programs. Like JFK, he'd convince himself that the crisis was mostly about himself and his ego.
Unlike Lincoln, Obama would not do the studying he needs to understand better war and the armed services. Unlike Teddy Roosevelt, Obama would not know how to speak softly. Unlike Eisenhower, Obama would not have the ability to communicate clearly to his subordinates what he wanted done. Unlike Reagan, he would not have a firm set of personal beliefs that would allow him to find out of the box solutions. Unlike Bush the Elder, Obama would not know how to get the most out of his national security team. Unlike Bush the Younger, Obama would not understand that there are in the world enemies who hate everything about you because you're an American.
ZonieDiver
10-23-2008, 12:05
Very well said, Sigaba!
Sir--
To be compared favorably to nmap is a better compliment than I deserve to receive--I'm no where near his league. Thank you very much.
You and the other regulars here set a very high bar on this forum. It takes everything I've got to keep pace.
Sigaba, you and nmap always write such brilliant posts!
Defender968
10-23-2008, 17:23
Well stated Sigaba.
Unlike Bush the Younger, Obama would not understand that there are in the world enemies who hate everything about you because you're an American.
You summed it up perfectly in that one sentence. But Obama is not the only one that can’t grasp the fact that we are hated just because we are Americans, even after 9/11 there are a lot of people with the illusion that we are safe and loved across the world.
MOO, but I think a few of your assumptions here are arguable.
I think that Obama's misplaced faith in his intellect, the inherent logic of 'enlightened' thought, and his own charm would exaggerate any crisis during the initial phase of his presidency.
Maybe; he has no track record there but it's entirely possible.
Like Carter, he'd convince himself he was right and stop listening to the guidance of his advisers.
Disagree. The dominant literature on JEC indicated that he listened too much, as an engineer he wanted 100% guarantees before making a decision, that he listened to the point of inaction or too little too late.
Like FDR, he would think he could charm a sworn enemy into friendship.
This only applied to American politics; FDR didn't feel that way about the 'international' crowd.
Like Wilson, he would fail to consult with key members of Congress.
Our only Phd POTUS; too smart for the likes of the "ultimate gentlemen's club.":rolleyes:
Like Clinton, he'd think that a high tech solution would be a magic bullet.
A 'magic bullet' only in the form of a perceived political distraction or solution.
Like LBJ, he'd get waist deep in the tactical details and believe that he had to protect the viability of his social spending programs.
Agree with this one; everything was 'personal' with LBJ.
Like JFK, he'd convince himself that the crisis was mostly about himself and his ego.
:confused:
Unlike Lincoln, Obama would not do the studying he needs to understand better war and the armed services.
Don't know that now, do we. He has certainly shown a penchant to do his homework on this campaign for POTUS.
Unlike Teddy Roosevelt, Obama would not know how to speak softly.
Neither did Teddy.
Unlike Eisenhower, Obama would not have the ability to communicate clearly to his subordinates what he wanted done.
BHO seems to do OK with this one; they seem to be getting 'er done for the moment, don't they.
Unlike Reagan, he would not have a firm set of personal beliefs that would allow him to find out of the box solutions.
Wholly agree with this one; BHO has the political instincts and backbone of a WJC.
Unlike Bush the Elder, Obama would not know how to get the most out of his national security team.
:confused:
Unlike Bush the Younger, Obama would not understand that there are in the world enemies who hate everything about you because you're an American.
American...or Western?
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I wonder about the nature of the crises - the test, whatever it may be, may dictate appropriate measures, which can then be compared with the background of a potential new President.
Is it possible that those suggesting a crises have some information we do not? Whatever one might think of the several individuals, including Senator Biden, they have been in Washington for a time and we might be justified in assuming they have some connections. Do they, perhaps, have an inkling of a crises and maybe perceive its timing and outlines?
Right now, the U.S. is running a big budget deficit, and there are indications it will increase. The money will probably have to come from foreign countries - but they may have need of their own capital. I wonder, could it be that those predicting a crises expect a diplomatic and monetary crises? Instead of a military confrontation such as the Cuban missile crises, the confrontation might be with China. Or, it might be with the EU. Whoever buys our treasury bonds might decide they want some of the debt they hold payed with something more tangible. They might want some diplomatic accomodation. And if we refuse, they liquidate our sovereign debt - thus delivering a highly destructive blow to the U.S. economy.
What might a President Obama do? Would he seek to "spread the wealth" among the domestic population of the U.S.? Would he make diplomatic compromises? Cuba addressed their financial problems with communism. Might a President Obama follow a similar path?
Sir--
I respectfully offer the following elaborations to clarify our differing interpretations.
Like Carter, he'd convince himself he was right and stop listening to the guidance of his advisers.
Disagree. The dominant literature on JEC indicated that he listened too much, as an engineer he wanted 100% guarantees before making a decision, that he listened to the point of inaction or too little too late.
We may not be too far apart here. My understanding is that his advisers were frustrated by his inability to take their advice to focus on the big picture while he thought he was right to look at issues in great depth.
In his memoirs, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that Carter “had a tendency to become excessively involved in [the discussion of critical issues], with the effect that he would at times overrefine his approach and occasionally alter it by simply sticking with it for too long. At times, I thought he was like a sculptor who did not know when to throw away his chisel.” [Zbigniew Brzezinski, Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Advisor, 1977-1981 (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1983), 352.]
Moreover, during his negotiations with Egypt and Israel at Camp David, Carter imposed a deadline out of his sense of frustration rather than because Brzezinski and others suggested that such a measure was appropriate. [Zbigniew Brzezinski exit interview with Marie Allen, 20 November 1981, Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia, 10. available at http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/library/exitInt/exitBrzski.pdf (http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/library/exitInt/exitBrzski.pdf)]
In at least his dealing with the Department of State, Carter established a pattern of ignoring the guidance from Foggy Bottom. In his memoirs, Cyrus Vance suggests that his resignation went beyond Carter's approval of Operation EAGLE CLAW to the president's habit of disregarding the State Department's guidance. [Cyrus Vance, Hard Choices: Critical Years in America’s Foreign Policy (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), 34-38. The attached PDF offers a slightly different perspective from David F. Trask who served as the head of the Office of the Historian of the Department of State during Carter's presidency.]
Similarly, the president disregarded the advice of the embassy staff in Tehran in his decision to grant refuge to the deposed Shah of Iran. (http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2003_01-03/dauherty_shah/dauherty_shah.html)
More generally, my reading of Carter's speeches on issues of national security affairs is that while the president presented himself of being willing to listen to various points of views, I came to the conclusion that on many issues, especially those centered around naval affairs, he had a preconceived notion of what the answer should be and he would not budge.
Like FDR, he would think he could charm a sworn enemy into friendship.
This only applied to American politics; FDR didn't feel that way about the 'international' crowd.
FDR's used of personal diplomacy to court Stalin and frustrate Churchill's ambitions to rehabilitate the British empire. [Warren F. Kimball, The Juggler: Franklin Roosevelt as Wartime Statesman (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); Mary E. Glantz, FDR and the Soviet Union: The President's Battles Over Foreign Policy (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005), 153-162.]
Like Wilson, he would fail to consult with key members of Congress.
Our only Phd POTUS; too smart for the likes of the "ultimate gentlemen's club.":rolleyes:
Like Clinton, he'd think that a high tech solution would be a magic bullet.
A 'magic bullet' only in the form of a perceived political distraction or solution.
Like LBJ, he'd get waist deep in the tactical details and believe that he had to protect the viability of his social spending programs.
Agree with this one; everything was 'personal' with LBJ.
Like JFK, he'd convince himself that the crisis was mostly about himself and his ego.
:confused:
Here, I am alluding in part to JFK's exploitation of the alleged "missile gap" during the 1960 presidential campaign. Although he knew there was no missile gap, he hammed the point home time and again so he could contrast his youth to the stodgy, outdated approach of the Eisenhower administration. In fact, JFK was informed at least on one occasion during the campaign that the available intelligence did not conclusively support his position. (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/523/1)
[Disclosure: I harbor a deep personal resentment towards JFK for (a) his choice for secretary of defense, (b) his efforts to impede the civil rights movement to his personal political advantage, (c) his disrespect for Ike.]
Unlike Lincoln, Obama would not do the studying he needs to understand better war and the armed services.
Don't know that now, do we. He has certainly shown a penchant to do his homework on this campaign for POTUS.
Unlike Teddy Roosevelt, Obama would not know how to speak softly.
Neither did Teddy.
Unlike Eisenhower, Obama would not have the ability to communicate clearly to his subordinates what he wanted done.
BHO seems to do OK with this one; they seem to be getting 'er done for the moment, don't they.
I am referring to the instances where Senator Obama has had to rebuke publicly Senator Biden for going off message. By contrast, John Foster Dulles, among others, were less prone to go off message due to Ike's careful management. [Fred Greenstein, The Hidden-Hand Presidency: Eisenhower as Leader (1982).]
Unlike Reagan, he would not have a firm set of personal beliefs that would allow him to find out of the box solutions.
Wholly agree with this one; BHO has the political instincts and backbone of a WJC.
Unlike Bush the Elder, Obama would not know how to get the most out of his national security team.
:confused:
I am referring to the system of multiple advocacy that was used in meetings that Bush the Elder attended. [Leslie Dale Feldman and Rosanna Perotti, Honor and Loyalty: Inside the Politics of the George H.W. Bush White House, (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002), 181 details an exchange between Scowcroft and Cheney over the Chemical Warfare Convention. Bush let the debate get very heated, he made a decision, the debate ended.]
Unlike Bush the Younger, Obama would not understand that there are in the world enemies who hate everything about you because you're an American.
American...or Western?
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I would correct myself to say "American...Western...or non Muslim." The Salifists pretty much staked out their position on "us versus them" when they started blowing up Buddhist statues (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0301-04.htm).
troubleshter77
10-24-2008, 21:53
Seems to be a lot of pre-occupation with a new Presidency and the capacity to respond "in an appropriate" manner no matter who is elected.
McCain "indecision" or Obama "experience" both equal the same thing. An incredible challenge for the american People and most assuredly much more difficult times for everyone; especial those of us who know. A man much wiser than any of us once said, "with knowledge comes sorrow".
IMHO we have been challenged quite enough these past several years. At the end of the day it is a Presidents JOB to handle challenges positioned against his country.
For all of the BHO detractors; you'd better pray that he is on his "A Game" if elected. Otherwise some of us may be working overtime a lot more than expected. Furthermore, it looks more and more like he will be the next POTUS.
Same goes true for the Mccain detractors - his age and "judgement" better not "show up" on Jan. 22, if he gets elected.... No comment on Palin. Clearly, this is not the time to be worried about, "no country for old men". Gentlemen this is our reality, one of these two will be the POTUS on Jan 21, 2009. Political idiological banterings be danged, one of these two will be CIC. Presently, they both play for the same team; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. On Jan 21 like it or not only one will be the CIC.
Whomever is elected better be on his best, intellectually, psychologically, emotionally, and physically. And he'd better have the counsel of truly wise men and warriors. Period. There will be challenges and the POTUS will need to be 100% engaged.
Last time I checked there was this little thing called GLOBAL RECESSION gaining on us rather quickly.
:cool::cool::cool: