Comments on: Biden Punks Crocker: ‘I Would Therefore Pick Al Qaeda on The Afghanistan-Pakistan Border’

By: henk

henk — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:29:23 +0000

Actually Biden wouldn't have had to ask Eisenhower anything, because WE WERE DONE WITH WORLD WAR II in four years! Idiot!

By: yurbud

yurbud — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:07:43 +0000

Until he hits big oil's role in pushing for war & Iraq Oil Theft Law, he is just another worthless hack, pointing out an internal flaw in the Bush propaganda that any fifth grader with decent short term could have identified.

Biden is pushing for the division of Iraq on ethnic lines, something the vast majority of Iraqis don't want, and when given a chance to attack the hydrocarbon law Bush is forcing on the Iraqis that gives 88% of their oil income to big oil companies, Biden either feigned ignorance or actually believed the talking points of the Bushies about the oil law that he mindlessly repeated, about the oil law dividing revenue between ethnic groups, which in reality is only a scant few lines in a document tens of pages long.

Iraqis view of oil theft law:
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2008/01/b...

Biden's weasel-ass statement:
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/01/s...

To their credit, the British parliament has had an open debate about the role big oil has played and is playing in the Iraq War.

Brit debate:
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/09/u...

It is a stain on our democracy that no such debate has occurred here, and that we are left applauding when a piece of moral filth like Joe Biden points out a mistake the equivalent of saying Santa Claus lives at the South Pole instead of the North.

By: pacificgatepost

pacificgatepost — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:00:32 +0000

It is time to give Iraqis their nation back before too few are left to remember that most Shiite, Sunni or Kurd Iraqis described themselves as Iraqis above all else and religious or sectarian group members second

By: kenhumphrey

kenhumphrey — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:56:09 +0000

BIDEN: Mr. Ambassador, is Al Qaeda a greater threat to US interests in Iraq, or in the Afghan-Pakistan border region?

CROCKER: Mr. Chairman, al Qaeda is a strategic threat to the United States wherever it is--

BIDEN: Where is most of it? If you could take it out, you had a choice, the Lord Almighty came down and sat in the middle of the table there, and said, 'Mr. Ambassador, you can eliminate every al Qaeda source in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or every al Qaeda personnel in Iraq, which would you pick?'

CROCKER: Well, given the progress that has been made against al Qaeda in Iraq, the significant decrease in its capabilities, the fact that it is solidly on the defensive and not in a position as far--

BIDEN: Which would you pick?

CROCKER: I would therefore pick Al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.

The actual transcript seems to put Biden's punking of Crocker in a different light. Why does "independent media" always seem to mean "disingenuous"?

By: zeibens

zeibens — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:30:48 +0000

Damav:
Are you trying to be cute? That is some 'tortured' logic you're tossing out.
That was then. This is now.
Senator Biden did a great job trying to get these habitual liars to tell the truth.

By: strangely_enough

strangely_enough — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:12:27 +0000

Nothing like a good WWII analogy to bolster the decision to invade and the current occupation of Iraq. Because they are exactly the same. Or at least they would be if Roosevelt had invaded Poland in 1938…

By: dagored

dagored — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:26:59 +0000

Before the Bushthugs invaded Iraq with their lies and distortions, there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq…they were predominantly in Afghanistan…so, you see that Bushco has made us less safe…and furthermore, I believe like other folks that Gen. Petraeus is a true sacophant of the Bush administration or if he was not, he would be replaced by the AWOL Bush and 5 Deferments Cheney…five years of war in Iraq which exceeds the whole of WWII.
This bullshit argument re: going after Germany in WWII or Japan is total nonsense…hey stupid, we went after BOTH for really good reasons…if you do not know the reasons, I suggest you go to Google or your nearest library and bone up on your history…

By: theking

theking — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:25:04 +0000

The correct analogy would be to have asked Eisenhower after being bombed at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, whether we should focus on Germany/Japan or India.

By: rickmassimo

rickmassimo — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:06:27 +0000

America didn't declare war on Nazi Germany (and Italy) until three days after Pearl Harbor, and after Germany (and Italy) declared war on us. But I wouldn't expect a Bushco apologist to know anything about history or geopolitics. All that's for sissies who aren't MAN enough to bomb innocent people, right?

By: leftfrog

leftfrog — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:32:24 +0000

Actually, it would be closer to backing Eisenhower into a corner and asking him if we should be devoting 90% of our resources to go after Nazi Germany, and 10% going after the Japanese who actually attacked us. But even that isn't really right, because you'd need a Germany that wasn't starting a major war at the time we invaded. Anyway, any political argument that invokes the Nazis demonstrates the low intelligence of the person making the argument. So I guess we're both fools.