Sep 04 2008

Success Has A Million Fathers – Biden Tries To Claim Victory In Iraq As His Own!

Published by at 10:38 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions,Iraq

Joe Biden illustrated a very lame example of twisted logic as he tried to claim the Bush success in Iraq was what Obidenama had always been supporting. He tried to claim that today we see the result of the Obidenama plan in the fact security has been achieved and political reconciliation has developed as a result of it. We are bringing home our troops in victory – just watch this lame argument:

I don’t have time right now to get links but there are numerous quotes of Senator Obama claiming the war is lost, The Surge will not help Iraq but make it worse and that to this day, he doesn’t think the Surge succeeded. But how can Biden say the fruits of our victory are returning soldiers according to the Obidenama plan and try and claim there was no success in the Surge? How can there be political problems AND a draw down? The man is incoherent! And he is still plagiarizing others efforts and successes and claiming them for his own.


13 responses so far

13 Responses to “Success Has A Million Fathers – Biden Tries To Claim Victory In Iraq As His Own!”

  1. crosspatch says:

    I distinctly remember Joe Biden saying on multiple occasions that the only path in Iraq was to split the country into three separate nations; a Sunni country, a Shiite country and a Kurdish country. He re-stated that position over and over again saying that Iraq must be broken up.

    That would have played right into the hands of some unsavory characters as the Shiite portion would then fall into the orbit of Iran and the Sunni into the orbit of Syria.

    I have been listening to Joe Biden’s blithering for most of my life. He is not a good choice to lead this country, or even a small homeowner’s association.

  2. perdogg says:

    “The surge isn’t going to work either tactically or strategically,” Biden told the Boston Globe last summer. “Tactically it isn’t going to work because … our guys go in and secure a neighborhood, but because we don’t have enough troops, we have to turn it over to the Iraqis, and they can’t hold it or won’t hold it.”

  3. crosspatch says:

    This is Joe Biden on NPR saying in his own words that Iraq must be split.

  4. crosspatch says:

    Also, Media Matters is claiming that Rush Limbaugh “falsely” accused Biden of wanting to split Iraq.

    Apparently Media Matters’ memory doesn’t recall anything from 2006.

    And according to Joe Biden’s Wikipedia entry:

    Biden is a leading advocate for dividing Iraq into a loose federation of three ethnic states. In November 2006, Biden and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, released a comprehensive strategy to end sectarian violence in Iraq. Rather than continuing the present approach or withdrawing, the plan calls for “a third way”: federalizing Iraq and giving Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis “breathing room” in their own regions. Iraq’s political leadership united in denouncing the resolution, and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad issued a statement distancing itself. Senior military planners cautioned that a partition policy would require American military presence of 75,000 to 100,000 troops for years to come

  5. Toes192 says:

    Aj… wow… I did not realize what a great picture I got of Senator McCain speaking to us at a Vets For Freedom rally in Washington DC last April.

  6. Toes192 says:

    crosspatch… Yes, I wrote to Sen. Murkowski [Rep – Alaska] about her decision to support this resolution…

    Part of my Sept 27, 2007 letter to Murkowski

    “You know, as I get ready to send this [letter] on Oct 3, I see both Senators have voted Yea on the Biden SEC. 1535. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FEDERALISM IN IRAQ.

    I read this [the actual text of the resolution] about 10 times now trying to make some “sense” of why the United States Senate felt compelled to make this comment.

    I even agree one could hardly disagree with such a great solution if it works. But Whew!…there are sooo many really far leap assumptions included…both stated and that are hidden.

    It just seems to me that this is feel good rhetoric that does nothing to advance the mission.

    But as a Senator, you have nothing to lose…right?

    #1. Iraqi’s adopt this stance… You advised this course of action and it worked. You must be very smart people.

    #2. Iraq goes to hell in a hand basket… You advised splitting up into 3 sort
    of separate sections and they didn’t listen.

    #3. The Iraqi’s ignore this unwanted and unsolicited advice and with our support succeed in establishing a reasonably representative system and pushing Al Qaeda out of Iraq… Sec. 1535 and your Yea vote will be long forgotten so who cares… [end of the salient parts of the letter…]
    Biden is a smart man who has been wrong on foreign affairs many many times. btw, the Iraqi sovereign gov AT THE TIME gave Sen. Biden and this lousy Senate resolution the finger… if you know what I mean… I think we will be reminding the voters about Sen. Biden’s foreign policy “expertise.” from time to time. Sory for the long post, Aj. I will be slamming Biden later on this month with the exact same words at

  7. Neo says:

    Biden introduced a “five-point plan” to “[m]aintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in their own regions.”

    Now what is the definition of “is” ?

  8. Toes192 says:

    Aj… since you wanted a ref, google … Senate SA 2997 SEC. 1535…. called … SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FEDERALISM IN IRAQ… I might word it differently as the NONsense of Congress… but that is just me.
    I am sure this will be well publicized by Nov but the entire text is pretty revealing about Senator Biden’s foreign policy “experience.”

    Neo… Do you really think Senator Biden ever limits himself to a mere 5 points? hehe… Well, at least Fuanglada laughs at my lame jokes.

  9. Dc says:

    I can’t even count the number of times that liberal minded people opposed to the war in Iraq came in here and used their “moral equivocations” and “superior intellect”, to explain why what is happening in Iraq right now ….would NEVER happen. That we were simply ignorant of history of the region to believe that short of carving it up into various regions and accepting the outcome of regional interests over Iraq (such as Iran taking the south, etc.,) we could expect any sort of outcome that would be beneficial to Iraq, the U.S., nor the rest of the civilized world.

    I doubt we will see any of them return here with the same arguments. The evolving and progressing success and integration in Iraq marks an utter defeat for one of their central themes about why it was absolutely necessary (and prudent) to simply walk out (abandon it).

    They’ll not remember their attempts to undermind the surge either (once they suspected it might be working) by calling Gen P., Gen “Betrayus”, and shamelessly shouting down anyone who even suggested to give the surge time to work. Nor will the media drag up or fact check any of them, by recalling their efforts to cut funding for our troops in the field…EVEN as it was becoming clear that the surge was working. (and who voted for it).

  10. crosspatch says:

    Partitioning of Iraq would have set the stage for Iranian domination from China (across the tribal regions of Pakistan) all the way to the Mediterranean Sea (through Syria and Lebanon) and basically a rebirth of a new Persian Empire of a size not seen in a thousand years; not to mention the eventual destruction of the Kurdish area by Iran, Turkey, and Syria who pretty much all hate the Kurds.

  11. Redteam says:

    hey toes, you ought to check out this site:

    http://fuanglada.wordpressdotcom/ (replace dot with . )

    It’s got some info about Palin and Alaska:

    Seriously tho, AJ asked you very nicely a couple days ago if you would only link to your site once per day instead of in EVERY SINGLE comment you make. I think that’s reasonable.
    I bookmarked your site and even commented on it,, but from my perspective, you’re pushing it a little too hard. Yes, I understand your enthusiasm about Palin, most conservatives (me) are also, but out of respect, ease off a little, please.

  12. Terrye says:

    It is just another instance of a Democrat rewriting history. After all it was Bill Richardson who originally claimed that Saddam was training AlQaida in Africa. They do this all the time.

  13. colin says:


    I get your point, but it’s important for us to acknowledge that Saddam was, indeed, training AQ in Africa. Iraqi documents captured after the war attest to that fact. Saddam put something like 2000 (maybe the number was 8000? I can’t remember precisely) Islamist militants through his terror training camps like the one at Salman Pak, and that included members of the GSPC, the Moroccan Islamic Fighting Group, and the Lybian group. These groups, along with others, would later go on to form AQIM in 2006. All of these groups were al Qaeda affiliates, and had direct connection to main AQ organization. You want a iron-clad case of Saddam providing aid to AQ? Look at North Africa. The name means nothing (as in GSPC vs. AQ). The connections mean everything.

    Long story short, Richardson was right, originally. Too bad he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions.