He doof’d the fuck out of this one, but essentially, he’s right. And McCain doesn’t have a fucking clue how to respond appropriately to world issues today.
Somebody should tell Biden…
Meh…
IMO he was doing what all campaigns do. They talk as if their guy WILL be the President. Not IF he will be President.
So Biden was speaking rhetorically inserting his guy as the President elect. Look at the quote again. It is spoken as though Obama as President is a foregone conclusion.
As noted Libermann said something very similar (albeit better) than Biden did. It should not come as a surprise that if the enemies of the US want to attack or generally mess with the US the best time to do it is during an administration change.
Also, as mentioned above, I think it is apparent that if McCain win the presidency countries will seek to manipulate him more than “test” him. What Obama will do is a tough call…he is a smart guy who will listen to his advisors. McCain can have his chain yanked a lot more easily which, in my view, is much more dangerous to our country.
Boy, you’re really stretching it, aren’t you?
But Biden didn’t attribute it to any administration change - he said it would happen if Obama took over. Because Obama is inexperienced, and an unknown quantity. Thus the Iranians, or some other fuckholes, will be that much more likely to try something, in hopes that he will panic or wet himself, or invade Pakistan or something.
Regards,
Shodan
Perhaps we should think about who is stretching what…this post here seems quite rubbery.
Exactly, which is pretty standard rhetoric for any campaign that’s either a long-way-out or flush with their poll-position close to the election date.
They also do things like introduce themselves as “The Next President of the United States,” or “Your Next Vice President.”
Also, post-hoc-ergo-propter hoc fallacy; meaning, after it does NOT mean because of it. Just because Biden spoke about a hypothetical crisis under Obama’s tenure doesn’t mean you can infer any kind of attribution for that crisis to Obama. The juxtaposition of ideas is between the hypothetical crisis and the “test” created by the unforeseen, not that Obama, uniquely, creates a crisis which will test him - a forced interpretation which defies common sense.
The simple fact is life does involve unknown unknowns and the existence of these UUs encompass the possibility of a significant international crises. Admitting this publicly, no matter the awkward phrasing, is absolutely boilerplate, innocuous foreign policy received wisdom. You could trawl through decades of expert testimony on both sides of the aisle and find countless examples of such a statement issued without controversy.
Biden simply created a discordance with his words because he didn’t phrase it in neutral language, which acknowledged a counter-factual post-McCain victory UU crisis.
Just WOW!!!
So, is this the game changer?
(rhetorical question)
I don’t know about that. I don’t think ANYONE can be ready for the aftermath of the credit meltdown and collapsing economy, combined with an Iraq withdrawal and very possibly (maybe even likely) serious, maybe even successful, terrorist attack attempts on American soil, all at the same time. The next president is in for a bunch of trouble, and will likely be in over his head.
Then I suppose the victory should go to the candidate who has shown that he’s better at multi-tasking, right?
I agree. Probably why I trust in my one vote. I would not want to be the person to clean up after the Bush administration. That’s the point really, many people think McCain would simply lift the carpet and brush the dirt under it…where Obama will orchestrate a cleaning crew and hazmat team to deal with the mess.
Why did Biden include this request:
So, we’re (potentially) not going to like whatever solution might come along?
How is it different than “Trust me. Victory is right around the corner. The next six months will be crucial.”?
If I were to don my conspiracy theory hat, it sounds like Biden is building an escape clause for his administration to decide (in the future) to renig on a campaign promise or two. (Like the withdrawal from Iraq in the first couple years of the new administration.)
“The next six months will be crucial” is columnist Tom Friedman, not Bush. But anyway this isn’t the same kind of statement. Biden is asking Obama supporters to stand with him even if not everybody else believes in what Obama is doing. That part of the statement is pretty unobjectionable in my opinion. “Victory is right around the corner”-type remarks become a problem when somebody keeps saying them and the corner is never turned in spite of repeated assurances.
Neither a former domestic terrorist become professor and nor vietnames prison guards engaging in torture are not the same as the Al Qaeda, you have a strange manner of thinking.
Right. I know neither Obama nor Biden ever said “Victory around the corner/next six months”. That wasn’t exactly what I was asking about.
My point was that Biden said that whatever solution to a hypothetical future crisis may not be immediately popular (or apparent) with the (I assume) American citizens. He is laying the groundwork for any unpopular decisions that he may see become possible in the future. (Which, as a Senator, he is going to have more access to info the regular shmoes like me does not.)
The same message, generally, has been said (by Bush and others) about the war on terror, and Iraq. “This is going to be a long hard road.” etc etc.
Why does he (Biden) feel the need to prep the masses this way?
Is he concerned that the Democratic supporters may have unrealistic expectations, in regards to the foreign policy decisions Obama/Biden may have to make?
Is he concerned that there is a real (i.e. probable) chance of crap hitting the fan, somewhere (Iran? Russia/Ukraine? Struggle for power in N. Korea?)?
Is there a chance that the “change” that Obama/Biden will bring (in regards to foreign affairs) can only be a small, incremental one, and he know’s it?
(This is coming from someone who has a slight cynicism of all our beltway politicians.)
Allow me to further calrify.
Obama/Biden promise to be different in attitude and policy from Bush/McCain.
If McCain had come out saying that there will be unpopular or “tough” decisions that he will have to make (in regards to foreign polciy) in the future, it would not get a raised eyebrow out of me. No one expects McCain to make radical changes in this way.
But here is Biden saying it. That’s why I’m going “Hmmm? Wait. Are you suggesting you may not be able to make (foreign policy) changes after all?”
Why the escape hatch?
That’s the same message most politicians give on everything. ‘It’s going to be hard work, but with your support, we’ll make it happen,’ etc. It’s being conservative. If you say something is easy and don’t do it, you look like an idiot.
Like I said - especially when he’s speaking off the cuff, as I think he probably was here - Biden’s reasons for speaking are usually obvious to him and nobody else. But I think I gave a fair guess at why he said what he did. He’s not telling people their expectations for Obama are too high, he’s saying that his supporters should trust him and stay with him because not everybody else will.
He says nothing about not being able to make changes, though.
No, but I could infer that they (Obama/Biden) think that they may possibly (if unlikely) have to backtrack on a campaign promise (say, for example, withdrawal from Iraq).
That would be a policy decision that runs counter to the expectations that have been raised in the campaign. It would be a decision that would be unpopular with his own supporters.
The thing is, I doubt that reasonable people expect either Obama or McCain to have a crystal ball in regards to Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc. If something unexpected comes up, and Obama/Biden have to make a tough decision on that new “testing crisis”, most of us will say “Crap. Well… whatcha gonna do?”.
For example, North Korea. Let’s say it turns out Kim Jong is sick, ands ends up dying in the next six months. A power struggle ensues, and the UN Security council eventually decides to station “peacekeepers” in N. Korea (and including US troops). I don’t think it would be fair to whine about Obama failing to reduce oversea US military commitments. It was an unexpected emergency.
Senator Biden does not need to apologise for things that he can’t control (he can’t read minds, he can’t forsee the future 100% accurately), but here, he says “We may have to make unpopular decisions.” Why the warning? It seems odd to me.
I’m not outraged. It just makes me curious in the vein of “What do you know that I don’t, Senator?”
If the sectarion violence re-erupts in Iraq, and the Obama/Biden administration decides that US troops need to remain commited to Iraq past 2010, how many here, on this forum, would find this to be an unpopular decision? (That is the kind of situation I could see Senator Biden having to lay some preparatory ground work for… 
)
Why couldn’t Biden simply have been thinking about and speaking on the fact the there’s a deep hole left for our future president to dig the country out of in general and asking for people to recognize that fact and not judge to early or harshly – just simply give Big Ears a chance.