Joe Biden's V-P Acceptance Speech

"Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth..."

Cluck here

On McCain:
Biden, on a post-debate appearance on MSNBC, October 30, 2007: “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.”

Biden appearing on The Daily Show, August 2, 2005: “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off, be well off no matter who...”

On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.”

On Obama:
Reacting to an Obama speech on counterterrorism, August 1, 2007: “‘Look, the truth is the four major things he called for, well, hell that’s what I called for,’ Biden said today on MSNBC’s Hardball, echoing comments he made earlier in the day at an event promoting his book at the National Press Club. Biden added, ‘I’m glad he’s talking about these things.’”

Also that day, the Biden campaign issued a release that began, “The Biden for President Campaign today congratulated Sen. Barack Obama for arriving at a number of Sen. Biden’s long-held views on combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” That release mocked Obama for asking about the “stunning level of mercury in fish” and asked about a proposal for the U.S. adopt a ban on mercury sales abroad at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

Assessing Obama’s Iraq plan on September 13, 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany” of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. “I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”

Speaking to the New York Observer: Biden was equally skeptical — albeit in a slightly more backhanded way — about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Also from that Observer interview: “But — and the ‘but’ was clearly inevitable — he doubts whether American voters are going to elect ‘a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,’ and added: ‘I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.’”

Around that time, Biden in an interview with the Huffington Post, he assessed Obama and Hillary Clinton: “The more people learn about them (Obama and Hillary) and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.”

December 11, 2007: “If Iowans believe campaign funds and celebrity will fix the debacle in Iraq, put the economy on track, and provide health care and education for America’s children, they should support another candidate,” said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro. “But I’m confident that Iowans know what I know: our problems will require experience and leadership from Day One. Empty slogans will be no match for proven action on caucus night.”

Also that night, Biden said in a campaign ad, “When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘experience’ and ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.”

September 26, 2007: Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro said, “Sen. Obama said he would do everything possible to end the war in Iraq and emphasized the need for a political solution yet he failed to show up to vote for Sen. Biden’s critical amendment to provide a political solution in Iraq.

December 26, 2006: “Frankly, I think I’m more qualified than other candidates, and the issues facing the American public are all in my wheelbarrow.”

On Iraq:
Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2002: “Saddam must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2007, on Hussein’s WMDs: “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

Biden, on Obama’s Iraq plan in August 2007: “I don’t want [my son] going [to Iraq],” Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said from the campaign trail Wednesday, according to a report on Radio Iowa. “But I tell you what, I don’t want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference.” Biden criticized Democratic rivals such as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama who have voted against Iraq funding bills to try to pressure President Bush to end the war. “There’s no political point worth my son’s life,” Biden said, according to Radio Iowa. “There’s no political point worth anybody’s life out there. None.”

Biden on Meet the Press, April 29, 2007: “The threat [Saddam Hussein] presented was that, if Saddam was left unfettered, which I said during that period, for the next five years with sanctions lifted and billions of dollars into his coffers, then I believed he had the ability to acquire a tactical nuclear weapon — not by building it, by purchasing it. I also believed he was a threat in that he was — every single solitary U.N. resolution which he agreed to abide by, which was the equivalent of a peace agreement at the United Nations, after he got out of — after we kicked him out of Kuwait, he was violating. Now, the rules of the road either mean something or they don’t. The international community says “We’re going to enforce the sanctions we placed” or not. And what was the international community doing? The international community was weakening. They were pulling away.”

Biden to the Brookings Institution in 2005: “We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out — equally a mistake.”

Analyzing the surge on Meet the Press, September 9, 2007: “I mean, the truth of the matter is that, that the — America’s — this administration’s policy and the surge are a failure, and that the surge, which was supposed to stop sectarian violence and — long enough to give political reconciliation, there’s been no political reconciliation... The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no, no real security in Baghdad and/or in Anbar province, where I was, dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is as strong and as solid and as serious a problem as it was before the surge started.”

Biden in October of 2002: “We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”

On Meet the Press, January 7, 2007, assessing the proposal of a surge of troops to Iraq: “If he surges another 20, 30, or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic mistake, in my view, but, as a practical matter, there’s no way to say, ‘Mr. President, stop.’”

On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “Unless we fundamentally change the rotation dates and fundamentally change how many members of the National Guard we’re calling up, it’ll be virtually impossible to maintain 150,000 folks this year.” (The number of troops in Iraq peaked at 162,000 in August 2007, during the surge.)

Well OC that is pretty impressive.

You must of been up all nite researching to find all those quotes...

On Iraq:
Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2002: “Saddam must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.”

Biden in October of 2002: “We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”

Biden to the Brookings Institution in 2005: “We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out — equally a mistake.”

On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “Unless we fundamentally change the rotation dates and fundamentally change how many members of the National Guard we’re calling up, it’ll be virtually impossible to maintain 150,000 folks this year.” (The number of troops in Iraq peaked at 162,000 in August 2007, during the surge.)

Biden on Meet the Press in 2007, on Hussein’s WMDs: “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

On Meet the Press, January 7, 2007, assessing the proposal of a surge of troops to Iraq: “If he surges another 20, 30, or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic mistake, in my view, but, as a practical matter, there’s no way to say, ‘Mr. President, stop.’”

Biden on Meet the Press, April 29, 2007: “The threat [Saddam Hussein] presented was that, if Saddam was left unfettered, which I said during that period, for the next five years with sanctions lifted and billions of dollars into his coffers, then I believed he had the ability to acquire a tactical nuclear weapon — not by building it, by purchasing it. I also believed he was a threat in that he was — every single solitary U.N. resolution which he agreed to abide by, which was the equivalent of a peace agreement at the United Nations, after he got out of — after we kicked him out of Kuwait, he was violating. Now, the rules of the road either mean something or they don’t. The international community says “We’re going to enforce the sanctions we placed” or not. And what was the international community doing? The international community was weakening. They were pulling away.”

Biden, on Obama’s Iraq plan in August 2007: “I don’t want [my son] going [to Iraq],” Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said from the campaign trail Wednesday, according to a report on Radio Iowa. “But I tell you what, I don’t want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference.” Biden criticized Democratic rivals such as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama who have voted against Iraq funding bills to try to pressure President Bush to end the war. “There’s no political point worth my son’s life,” Biden said, according to Radio Iowa. “There’s no political point worth anybody’s life out there. None.”

Analyzing the surge on Meet the Press, September 9, 2007: “I mean, the truth of the matter is that, that the — America’s — this administration’s policy and the surge are a failure, and that the surge, which was supposed to stop sectarian violence and — long enough to give political reconciliation, there’s been no political reconciliation... The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no, no real security in Baghdad and/or in Anbar province, where I was, dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is as strong and as solid and as serious a problem as it was before the surge started.”

I think it's interesting that when these quotes are placed in chronological order, what you see is the ranking democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the man picked to be V-P for no other reason then he's the democrats #1 guy on foreign relations and foreign policy (an area where Barbie outpolled Obama I believe) clearly thought Sadaam Hussein was a threat in 2002 and had to be removed thus agreeing with OUR President, GWB.

In 2005, he still supported American presence in Iraq and stated to leave would be a mistake and held the same feelings in early 2007.

It wasn't until he was set to run for the democratic nomination for President that he started having ill feelings towards Iraq.

And like one prominent liberal poster on this forum, he also feels John McCain is qualified to be President.

This will certainly be an interesting election decision. I'm anxious to see how that Obama bunch explains their inability to take a first stance on any issue.

Well he seems to be a good solid choice.

And he certainly should be acceptable to most conservatives on the Iraq issue.

So all in all probably a good decision politically.

I think he is a good man, just like McCain is.

And there should be some good quotes from Romney about McCain too.

If that really is his choice.

Yes, I've been up lo these many nights. The quotes are easy to find, however. You can find one to back up just about any position at all if you're willing to go back far enough. I think he's going to stutter a little when he tries to explain that comment he made at one of the debates about Obama being too inexperienced.

I don't think Biden's a bad guy but neither would I vote for him for President. That puts me in the company of a majority of democrats, I believe.

Do you think he answers the foreign policy question for Obama in that his experience counters the NONE Obama has?

I think he goes a long way.

I have heard almost all positive things about him.

Makes you wonder why he didnt do better in the primaries, doesn't it?

I think I have even seen positive posts from some of the conservatives on here.

And this is a pretty tough audience for any Democrat.

So it looks like whoever is elected the warriors will have their way.

You can see Obama's commitment to get out of Iraq fading day by day.

(If there ever was a commitment.)

I see you fellas don't buy into the conventional wisdom that a democrat needs to go to the center to win the White House...

Winning isn't everything.

Whatever happened to solid as a rock principles?

ziggy wrote:Winning isn't everything.

Whatever happened to solid as a rock principles?

In democrats???




Seriously???

OK, now that I got that out of my system...

If democrats (or any opposed to the continued presence in Iraq) had 'solid as rock principals', they would have cut of funding for this war 2 years ago?

Now I'm not saying Republicans are more principaled then the democrats but in the early part of the Republican primary before the surge really started working, John McCain took a stance tha wasn't popular at all and one of the things he stated was that he wouldn't change his stance to win an election.

GWB, for all his shortcomings and failures, hasn't wavered in his commitments regardless of where his poll numbers went.

Would those be the type of principals you're referring to?

Principles? Bush was against it before he was for it:

Somalia. Started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission, and that’s where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price.

And so I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html

Well zig that was then.

This is now.

I know what it means to support a principled candidate that I knew would not win. What if he'd sensed he needed to move only a little to win some support? I don't know. Ron Paul never got to that point and, consequently, never had to sell out.

Obama looked invicible for a long time. The chink in his armor appears to have spooked him.

Why do you think an alum of the Chicago Dailey machine would have principles?

Well they say politics is the art of compromise.

So I don't begrudge a politician the leeway to "make a deal" to get "half a loaf".

If not for compromise nothing would ever get done.

So I am not as hard on them for that as you guys.

But what I dont like is for a politician to say he is for something to get primary votes and then after the primary switch positions.

That is not what I call compromise, that is deception.

Don't you think that is exactly what Hillary Clinton did? Her husband did it. Why wouldn't she?

Well OC I have never supported either Clinton.

I don't know if that is what Hillary did or not, since she never got past the Primary.

Or maybe I misunderstand what you are asking?

You didn't support her in the primary?

No. I was for Edwards.

Some of the Conservatives on here keep saying I was for her and after they keep saying it long enough everyone assumes it is true.

I did defend her against some of the unfair tactics used against her by both the media and the Obama campaign.

That is probably why they thought I "supported" her.

But I have stated my lack of "support" for her several times.

But again, no I did not "support" her.