Biden Knocks Administration "Phonies"
Democratic Presidential Candidate Dismisses Notion That Troop Withdrawal Result Of Progress
-
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joe Biden, D-Del., listens to testimony by Andrew Natsios, the special U.S. envoy to Sudan, not pictured, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 11, 2007. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
-
In-Depth 2008 Presidential Hopefuls Profiles and the latest news on the Democrats and Republicans running for the White House.
- Stories
- Petraeus Defends Iraq Testimony
In a conference call with reporters, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Democrats made the "right decision" to not claim that the drawdown was a result of their congressional pressure.
"I think it would have made us look as bad as they are, the phonies that they're being," said the Delaware senator.
In a televised address Thursday, President Bush said that 5,700 U.S. forces would be home by Christmas and that four brigades - for a total of at least 21,500 troops - would return by July 2008, along with an undetermined number of support forces.
The U.S. troop strength stands at 168,000. When the cutbacks are complete, about 132,000 U.S. forces will be in Iraq.
If Bush had wanted to maintain the troop buildup through next year, the military would have had to consider drastic measures, including extending already long combat tours or relying more heavily on reservists. Biden said Bush was simply acknowledging that the strain on the military would have been too great.
"There is no plan 'to win,"' Biden said. "No plan how to leave. No plan how to end this. It's just a plan to keep ... all the venom from spilling out over the region, and we're using somewhere 160,000 to 130,000 troops to do that. The bottom line of it is is that we are no safer."
©MMVII, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
- You would have to ask each candidate why they are running. I have contributed small amounts for John Edwards and Bill Richardson because I want them to stay in the race and add to the dialog. Sometimes that is all you can hope for, to have good ideas heard and maybe we are all better off for at least that much.
- Reply to this comment
- Look at the downside. If Democrats did succeed in a troop withdrawl and Iraq decended into an even worse civil war, the Democrats would be blamed.
This is Bush''s war. Let him bumble and fumble along and we should all hope that our brave troops come home in one piece.
I am so proud of all those people. They have been abused by the worst president in U.S. history and still bravely do their jobs like the patiotic Americans that they are. - Reply to this comment
- Democrats have now shown the world that they will denigrate and destroy anyone or anything to placate their far-left, deep-pocket donors. Do the American people really want this party in power?
- Reply to this comment
- In the real world .. In the real! There are viruses. There is war. There are demons and monsters and angels. And there is a God. And its us.. US!! Who don''t understand.
- Reply to this comment
- The problem of anonymity is an old one. And generally an evil one. Plato, for example; was supposed to be a fictitious student of Socrates. Now, not only am I able to theorize about the world, but I am able to make my theories completely understood! By my invisible self..
I tell you that people don''t just "not understand us". They hate us. And for good reason. - Reply to this comment
- Donnie, did you know that when Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, among others, were sparring about a Federal Bank, that both copiously published papers anonymously ~ under delightfully fictitious names.
- Reply to this comment
- Anonymity is the biggest drawback of the internet. Some people say its a good thing.. a toastmasters thing.. the stutterer genius.. But I say its a tragedy. A human tragedy.. when a fella''''s constitutional freedoms are things perverted into online anonymity. How does anyone be accountable to anything in such a place? Where, in the history of the whole world, has such a place ever existed before?
Nowhere.
Posted by donnie900 at 08:07 PM : Sep 14, 2007,,,
You are both right and wrong! If only Americans and the United States were connected to the Internet then online Anonymity would be bad because as Americans we enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of expression so Anonymity isn''t necessary. But since the Internet connects the entire World and many nations where freedom of speech and freedom of expression is not tolerated and will get you killed, online Anonymity is a good thing. Americans enjoy unprecedented freedoms compared to other nations and take freedoms of speech and expression for granted in the context that Americans forget the World can''t freely express like we can. Just a fraction on what Americans express will get them killed in countries like China, Iran, N. Korea, Russia, and Syria just to name a few! Americans will talk about any and everybody and if you''re *** up will dog you out in the process! - Reply to this comment
- THE NEOCONS ARE BUYING OUR CONGRESS FIGHT BACK GET KNOWLDEGE!
Remember WEELKY STANDARD IS AN AIPAC, Israeli Neocon Supporter pushing America to fight their wars for them!
Founded in 1953 by Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen, AIPAC''''s original name was the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs. According to UCLA political science professor and author, Steven Spiegel, "the tension between the Eisenhower administration and Israeli supporters was so acute that there were rumors that the administration would investigate the American Zionist Council. Therefore, an independent lobbying committee was formed, which years later was renamed [AIPAC]."Today, AIPAC has over 100,000 members.[1]
Activities and stated goals
AIPAC''''s stated purpose is to lobby the Congress of the United States on issues and legislation "to ensure that the U.S.-Israel relationship is strong so that both countries can work together" to meet the challenges of "stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, fighting terrorism and achieving peace".[2] It regularly meets with members of Congress and holds events where it can share its views. It also provides analysis of the voting records of U.S. federal representatives and senators with regard to how they voted on legislation related to Israel. The New York Times described AIPAC on July 6, 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East."
READ AIPAC AD BELOW
http://www.aipac.org/forms/join_a
ipacClubs.htm - Reply to this comment
- .. you don''t appease. You sit.
You sit there.. all day long.. ALL DAY LONG! And talk politics? The politics of where?
THE POLITICS OF WHERE?! - Reply to this comment
- Are you the policy of appeasement?
ARE YOU THE POLICY OF APPEASEMENT?! Huh?
Is it you? Who''s fooling people? Into thinking an injustice has been done?
INTO THINKING AN INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE?!
In which world? This one? Or the real one? - Reply to this comment
President Obama's 



