csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 12:38 PM

I concur with your sentiments. The snark I skipped had to do with everyday tools of extortion and bribery that passes for “building consensus” in Washington. His comments fit this frame of mind rather transparently and why I thought it funny: If you don’t give me what I want (full bill w/ timeline for withdrawal), I’ll shove what you want (MRAP) down your throat.

That, it seems to me, is just another indication Biden has been in Congress far too long for his own mental well-being and he now offers little but bad political comedy.

Biden is a traitor and needs to stand trial and found guilty and executed.

Wrong order, Davy.

Just when you think Biden is a reasonable Democrat,…

Am I the only one who’s never thought this ? :)

Dusty on May 1, 2007 at 12:10 PM

I can give Biden credit for his efforts to get the MRAP to our troops. BUT, he could have made sure they got that money ASAP had he resisted the Dem leaderships insistance to pass a garbage bill that they KNEW the president would veto. In effect he is trying to push and pull at the same time.

I don’t know which, or if both actions on his part are purely political. Is he giving himself some political cover so he can claimed he supported the troops or is the political cover to prove to the nutroots that he was against the war? I do not know how the guy REALLY feels, so until then, his efforts against the troops are a serious cause for concern and he will not get any benefit of the doubt from me.

It’s in there, isn’t it?

Joe Katzman did a post last week about Biden’s efforts in this regard.

It’s silly constituent (voter) rousing for Biden to respond to the question that way because Bush would sign a bill containing only that military provision in an instant, even if ladened with an equivalent in pork.

What’s funny, though, is that Biden did the whisper routine of what he’d do with such a bill. Could it be he didn’t want other Dem leaders to know he would cave on the timeline, or was there a Code Pinker within earshot? Such a whimp.

Answer: Terrorists.

question: I thought Bush was supposed to be stupid, but they got duped by his lies?

pmoshields on May 1, 2007 at 10:01 AM

… along with his managing to pull off 9/11 without a single leak by a patriotic whistleblower. (sarc, of course)

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 9:47 AM

Damascus

Saddam had WMDS, apparently everyone knew he did. Which leaves an interesting question: Where are they know?

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Syria…?

Biden:

I would argue, since 1994 with the Gingrich revolution, ladies and gentlemen, just take a look at Iraq, Venezuela, Katrina, what’s gone down in Virginia Tech, Darfur, Imus. Take a look. This didn’t happen accidentally, all of these things. Since 1994, from the Gingrich revolution to Karl Rove and President Bush, we have wallowed, wallowed in the politics of polarization.

Yet a few minutes earlier he said this:

It (the vote) allowed the president to go to war. It did not authorize him to go to it. You make it sound like it said, “Mr. President, go to war.” It said, “Mr. President, don’t go to war.” It said “go to the United Nations. Mr. President, don’t go to war, try to get a deal here. Mr. President, get the inspectors back in. Mr. President, tell us that that’s what you’re about to do. And, Mr. President, if all else fails, you have authority to use force.” That’s what it said.

Which is what the president DID DO! The inspectors went back in and Saddam frustrated them at every turn. Bush already had authorization from the UN to go to war and was not going to call for another vote that the Chinese et al could veto. (A veto, BTW, whose sole purpose was to keep concealed the fact that they were involved in violating the oil for food program.) Hey, greasy Joe? ALL ELSE HAD FAILED!!!!

Exit question for greasy Joe…..WHO is engaged in the politics of polarization? You friggen tool!

If he suddenly disappears, we’ll know why.

question: I thought Bush was supposed to be stupid, but they got duped by his lies?