Skip to main content

(Cross-posted at My Left Wing, ePluribus Media, and my blog.)

He's a blowhard.  He's a DINO.  He uses ten words when three will suffice.  He's a DLC shill.  He has hair plugs.

Figure out who I'm talking about yet?  Joe Biden.  While I may agree with all of the characterizations above, he got a few key essential things about Iraq and Afghanistan absolutely, completely right and did it on Hardball last night.

Just so I don't get a lot of "HOW can you support this guy?" questions, let me state for the record: I'm leaning pretty strongly for Edwards at this point.  I have also had some issues with some of Biden's votes in the past.  But his interview on Hardball contained so much truth I have to share it.  Follow me.

DISCLAIMER:  PLEASE do not allow the comments to devolve into a pro- and anti-Biden pissing contest.  I wrote this because of what he said, I agree with what he said, and I'd like the comments to stay on that point.  Pretty-please?  Thanks.

The transcript was just made available (thankfully, so I don't have to transcribe from the video):

MATTHEWS: Senator Biden, is your resolution a resolution of no confidence to the President's campaigning [sic]... running of the war in Iraq?

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D-DE), CHAIR, FOREIGN RELATIONS CMTE.:  The answer is yes, it is.  If this were a parliamentary system, there would be—it would bring the government down, I believe.  But obviously we‘re not.  

You know, look, Chris, what made me realize how fractured this was is when we had Condoleezza Rice before my committee, 21 members of the committee.  It was stunning, and you reported on it.  It was stunning that 20 of the 21 senators, meaning 10 of whom were Republicans, absolutely made it clear they were not at all supportive of the president‘s new policy.  


MATTHEWS:  When do you think you will have a vote so that the American people can watch you, members of the Senate, debate this question publicly?  Will it be after the State of the Union next week?  

BIDEN:  Yes, I had a chance to do it before the State of the Union, but I thought that was inappropriate.  We‘re going to bring it up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a vote—excuse me—on Wednesday.  I expect that we‘ll be able to get that vote.  

It will then be reported to the floor of the United States Senate.  And my guess is that the majority leader, in conjunction with the Republican leader, will set a time.  

The word is that the Republican leader is not going to even let us have a vote on it, that they‘re going to filibuster it.  I don‘t know that to be true, so—but the point is, the debate will ensue by the end of next week is my expectation.  

MATTHEWS:  How long will it take you to get the debate to end, in other words, to get a cloture vote, if you can get one, so you could actually have a vote?  

BIDEN:  Well, you know, I really—I don‘t know that, Chris.  My guess is pretty quickly.  If the Republican leader decides that he‘s going to filibuster it, which I hope wouldn‘t be the case—but let‘s say he does.  It still has the same political impact.  

If it‘s clear he‘s not going to let a vote take place, then it‘s still clear that it means he knows there is a clear majority of—a bipartisan majority that want the president to understand, Mr. President, please change course.  Listen to your generals.  Listen to former generals.  Listen to the Iraq Study Group.

Let me pause a moment.  I thought this particular line of questions and answers was very effective.  In my diary last week entitled NO!, my primary complaint was that the media and administration were putting the onus on Democrats to propose an alternative plan for "success".  By getting out in front of this issue and raising the potentially impending Republican filibuster, Biden shifts the onus back to the Republicans.  



MATTHEWS:  Let me ask you about a constitutional question, Senator.  Stephen Hadley was on "Meet The Press" this weekend and sort of dodged the question.  Should the president be required to get the approval of Congress before he attacks Iran, should he decide to do so?  

BIDEN:  Absolutely, positively, unequivocally.  I have a second resolution—a law actually—that I‘m in the process of drafting.  I will be seeking bipartisan support, making it clear that the authorization for the use of force that the president got three-and-a-half years ago does not—emphasize does not—give him the authority to attack Syria or Iran.  That would be a disaster.

Again - to me, this is the equivalent of a pre-buttal, laying the groundwork for any hostile activities towards Iran and Syria as being unconsitutional.  It places a lens of "WRONG" in front of the whole issue, and automatically sets the bar very high for Bush to do such a thing.

MATTHEWS:  But you don‘t expect him to sign that bill, do you?  

BIDEN:  No, I don‘t, but I expect it to generate a constitutional crisis were he to ignore it and to, in fact, him—for then attack Iran.  

MATTHEWS:  Suppose the president makes the case to the public that he is not attacking Iran because of its nuclear program, he is attacking it because of its involvement in Iraq, its supplying the forces against our men in the field—men and women in the field, and he says he is simply operating as commander in chief.  And then it, of course, escalates it to a blowing up of their nuclear sites if he can find them.  Can he go in under that cover?  

BIDEN:  No, he can‘t do it Constitutionally, and I don‘t believe the American public are willing, for a moment—for a moment—to trust his judgment to go into war against 72 million people in an adjacent country with 150,000 Americans tied down in the region, in a war that‘s—a civil war that has bogged us down.  I don‘t think there is a prayer of him being able to convince the American people of that rationale.  

MATTHEWS:  One of your potential rivals for the Democratic nomination for the president is Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Senator Clinton has said we need more troops to go to Afghanistan, although she agrees with you on the need to cap the troop number in Iraq.  Do you agree we need more troops in Afghanistan?  

BIDEN:  Yes.  When the president announced his surge, I made the case that he should be surging in Afghanistan, not in Iraq.  Chris, I know you know a lot about this.  Imagine if we fail in Afghanistan.  

What that will mean is Musharraf will cut even a closer deal with al Qaeda and with the Taliban, and if he doesn‘t, he puts himself in the position of being overthrown more than he is now.  That is a radicalized country.  It has nuclear weapons and it will be a disaster.

Let me interject here - this is a key point.  Those of us out here who follow the news but are not by any means foreign policy experts (like me - essentially a layperson) should have gotten chills when they heard what was said above.  The idea that the repeated unwillingness to ensure succes in Afghanistan to bolster a tragic decision in Iraq could lead to a nuclear Pakistan in a position where it HAS to cater to Al Qaeda and the Taliban is chilling.  Utterly chilling.

BIDEN: If there was a totally just war since World War II, it is the war in Afghanistan, and we are not—we are not—dealing with it properly.  We have diverted resources to Iraq from the beginning.  And if anything, we should be increasing resources in Afghanistan which I called for three months ago.  

MATTHEWS:  You know, I was watching—or actually, I was listening in my car to satellite radio the other day, Senator.  I know this will get to your heart.  I was listening a young serviceman, a young kid, who had just been brought into a field hospital in Iraq, and the doctor was saying we‘re going to have to take off that left leg.  

And the poor kid is begging for his leg.  He says can‘t you try, doctor, can‘t you try?  And the doctor is doing his job, I guess, and just says no, we can‘t save that leg.  And then finally he says we can save the right leg, and the kid says good.  

I mean, that kind of courage...

BIDEN:  Well, I‘m telling you what, Chris, I‘ve been over there...  

MATTHEWS:  And I wonder—I just don‘t know why we‘re wasting those lives.  I don‘t know why.  I mean, the human cost of this war seems to be something that nobody talks about.  They talk about surges and escalations and all this nonpersonal language.

YAY!  Love Matthews or hate him, he took a stand on this particular issue and injected his own personal disgust both that a) it's happening at all and for no apparent reason; and b) that the administration repeatedly tries to eradicate the human element from the conversation.  Surge indeed.

BIDEN:  That‘s exactly right.  Exactly right.  Look, I have been there a total—counting Afghanistan—eight times.  The fact of the matter is, these people are incredible.  I know that sounds like so much malarkey coming from a United States senator.  

But all you have to do is see these forces on the ground, see them in Fallujah, see them in Basra, see them in Baghdad, see them in Ramadi.  And you see what they are doing.  They are incredible.  

And, Chris, what people don‘t realize yet is that because we‘re able to—use the fancy word—triage these injuries, meaning we have incredible medical capability, there are thousands of people coming back with severe head injuries and amputees in a percentage much higher than any other war since the Civil War who are living.  Had it been Vietnam, they would be dead.  

And what people don‘t understand is the human cost that is going to continue, continue.  If the war ends today, that‘s going to continue for the next 20 years is amazing.  And why?  And now we‘re putting 21,500 people, 17,000 of whom will be going door to door in Iraq?  

I had five—four generals before me this morning on Foreign Relations, Chris, people you know, from Barry McCaffrey to General Odom to General Ahora (ph).  These are commandants of the Marine Corps, et cetera.  

And to a person—to a person—they pointed out that there is—and including the general who supports the surge, says we‘re not going and supporting the Iraqis.  We‘re going to be in the lead.  In a city of six-plus million people, we‘re going to have young men in the middle of a civil war and women knocking on doors?  This is absolutely, absolutely the wrong thing to do.  

MATTHEWS:  Senator, we had Congressman Duncan Hunter of California, the recently chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the House on yesterday.  And he posed what looked to me like a strong political argument.  He said if people try to oppose this surge, this 21,000 more troops going to Iraq, they are basically killing reinforcements on the way to protect our service people.  

Pay attention - this is key.

BIDEN:  Wrong.  We‘re not sending reinforcements.  There are no forces knocking on those doors in those 23 neighborhoods in Baghdad now.  Give me a break.  Let‘s talk about what the facts are.  

If you talk about reinforcements for troop protection, that‘s a fundamentally different thing than saying guess what we‘re going to do now.  We‘re changing our mission.  We are going to go in and take out the Sunni insurgency, and then turn on—as they are telling us—then turn on the Shia militia in a city of 6.1 million people.  Chris, we are not doing that now.  This is a change in mission.  So Mr. Hunter—Congressman Hunter is putting a red herring out there.

I thought that whole line of discussion was absolutely critical.  If there are any moves, following a no-confidence resoltuion, to revisit the AUMF, the simple fact that there has been a change in mission is critical to requiring a new authorization.

MATTHEWS:  Let me ask you a last question, Senator Biden.  You are chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.  You‘ve got to be up to date on all this stuff.  When we go to vote in November of 2008, will we still be fighting this war?  Will it still look like it does this week with all these Iraqis getting killed, our guys walking door to door, kicking down doors, facing hell?  Will we still be fighting this war when we vote in November of 2008?  

BIDEN:  Yes, if the Republicans do not make it clear to the president.  Now, look, we‘re in the majority by one.  But what‘s going to happen—you‘ve been around this town a long time, like I have.  The thing that brought Nixon down and made it clear that he‘d hand over the tapes wasn‘t any vote in the Congress.  It was when a group of Republican senators got in the car and went down to the president, said, "Mr. President, the jig is up."

What‘s going to happen here, Chris—and you know this town better than I do, living here—what‘s going to happen is when the leading members of the House and Senate on the Republican side say, "Mr. President, no more of this.  Listen to all the advice you got."  

Think about it, Chris.  You had a former secretary of state who‘s a Republican.  You had leading Republicans on the Iraqi Study Group.  You had the chairman—you had the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  You had the outgoing leader, General Abizaid, the outgoing leader, General Casey.  You had—every single, solitary one of them told him, "This is a mistake.  This is a mistake."  

And every one of them said some version of the following: "Mr.  President, you need a political solution.  The only way you‘re going to get it is get the region involved and make it clear to the president of the Iraqi government that we‘re not staying, we‘re not going to precipitously leave, but they‘ve got to step up to the ball and make the hard decisions."  

Every major voice on both sides of the aisle has said that to him.  And the idea that he can make the case politically, that what he‘s doing makes sense, I think is just divorced from reality.

Republicans, meet Onus.  Onus, go sit with the Republicans.  I thought that was masterful.  I can't say whether or not it was intentional, but it served multiple purposes: It called on history to point out that an Act of Congress did not stop Nixon's activities.  In that statement alone, It at least opened the idea that there are limits to what Congress can do.  One of the big risks in running against the Iraq War, in my opinion, was that it would create undue pressure on Democrats to solve the Iraq War.  As I argued in NO!, Congress is incredibly limited in what it can do, Constitutionally, to actually stop the war.  This statement reinforced that simple fact while shifting the responsibility to leading Republicans to be honorable and to go to the President and inform him that all Congressional support was absent.  And if you think about it, this isn't a very risky move for leading Republicans.  We are in full 2008 election swing and these guys are severely worried about the blowback from the administration's decisions regarding Iraq.  It's the right kind of pressure applied in the right place at the right time, and it's our best chance to get these guys out.  

If the Republicans do go to the President, there is an appearance of Democrats as having led that strategy and call.  And if the Republicans don't rise to meet the challenge, they set themselves up to fail in 2008.

MATTHEWS:  Well, senator, we‘ll have to bring back Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania to do that walk down to the White House.  I don‘t know if any of the Republicans are tough enough to face Bush on this one.  

But thank you very much for coming on HARDBALL, Senator Joe Biden, candidate for the presidency.

Loved the last zinger from Matthews, because it really increased the size of the challenge being issued.

I'm no supporter of Joe Biden for Presdident and can't envision becoming a supporter under any circumstances.  But he gets props from me for this interview, because he set up a LOT of necessary traps and baselines upon which Democrats can fight this war and this administration.  Regardless of what we think about him, he spoke credibly and forcefully and, overall, I think it can only come to good effect.

DISCLAIMER:  PLEASE do not allow the comments to devolve into a pro- and anti-Biden pissing contest.  I wrote this because of what he said, I agree with what he said, and I'd like the comments to stay on that point.  Pretty-please?  Thanks.

And if you've read this far, I thank you - this was a long one (sorry!).

Update [2007-1-20 8:48:18 by RenaRF]: Holy poo.  This diary was doing what diaries do, dropping off the rec list when I went to bed last night.  How the heck did it bump back up overnight?  Oh well.  At least this gives me an opportunity to thank everyone for the infinitely civil discussion.  As I said in a comment below, my biggest concern was that there would be a flood of "Biden's Bad" people followed by a host of proclamations about why [insert candidate name here] was the BEST and then another candidate's supporter would reply and tell why THEIRS is the best candidate and pretty soon we're all punching each other and rolling in the dirt.  Not for me.  So THANK YOU for not doing that.  :-)

Originally posted to RenaRF's Random Ramblings on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 08:23 AM PST.


Joe Biden

65%1078 votes
29%485 votes
4%70 votes
0%7 votes
1%17 votes

| 1657 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

, Leslie in CA, enaud, Mark Sumner, wozzle, Jake McIntyre, DCFD Rudi, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, paradox, tsackton, NorthCountryNY, nota bene, DeminNewJ, dwellscho, coral, kid oakland, jab, Sean Robertson, Ray Radlein, Radiowalla, Odysseus, randompost, Rayne, SarahLee, chassler, glitterscale, Thom K in LA, Margot, tikkun, cpa1, TaraIst, lrhoke, Hlinko, wildlilacs, stephdray, pHunbalanced, Unstable Isotope, Powered Grace, saraswati, kainah, stumpy, RunawayRose, rovdjur, JTML, littlesky, Shockwave, Jambro, Wintermute, kpardue, SanJoseLady, wintersnowman, LEP, Stein, dash888, ilona, lilorphant, Matilda, BenGoshi, bumblebums, Poika, ralphie, mbguenth, HariSeldon, strengthANDwisdom, kissfan, Eternal Hope, RubDMC, labradog, Cho, monkeybiz, Marc in Oakland, sexton, PaintyKat, Babsnc, mentaldebris, DrKate, wonkydonkey, SamSinister, annrose, dionys1, nyceve, SecondComing, Baldwiny, Morague, NoMore, SLJ, Glic, scamp, luna, mkfarkus, pattisigh, otto, roses, standingup, Miss Blue, Bearpaw, exconservative, BruinKid, ornerydad, Spindizzy, thingamabob, lilnubber, ctsteve, rioduran, Gonzophile, Southern Bell, Cedwyn, high uintas, Alna Dem, celticshel, litigatormom, Boris Godunov, Alohaleezy, aitchdee, Eddie C, webweaver, dejavu, TexDem, oldjohnbrown, QuinnLaBelle, Viola Lee, synth, Stampy51, HeyMikey, NYFM, niteskolar, Penny Century, chachabowl, MmeVoltaire, joliberal, tabbycat in tenn, BrooklynVoice, hells kitchen, beachmom, apc, lecsmith, Timbuk3, Eddie Haskell, lcrp, Liberaljentaps, welshvalleymaid, Sargent Pepper, Democratic Hawk, inclusiveheart, TheJohnny, bwintx, horatio in il, Bluefish, AllisonInSeattle, Sam Loomis, Sembtex, jen, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, SanDiegoDem, Little Red Hen, Schwede, realalaskan, rolet, drmacdonald, matthewpm, gsbadj, jim bow, greeseyparrot, oortdust, Gowrie Gal, SteveK, davidincleveland, Los Diablo, Fabian, chumley, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, marina, 3goldens, bellevie, Methion, ichibon, m16eib, Sam I Am, LarisaW, Freakinout daily, LisaZ, ek hornbeck, mjd in florida, Maditude, Chinton, nape, OpherGopher, Erik the Red, PBen, PsychoSavannah, Jashugan, ejmw, Alien Abductee, clammyc, Clem Yeobright, terrypinder, stitchmd, juliesie, KiaRioGrl79, trinityfly, Simpletonian, boofdah, Jules Beaujolais, marathon, IL dac, Morrigan, Pam from Calif, jimreyn, thered1, dunderhead, GreyHawk, rlochow, annefrank, QuickSilver, nwsound, Phil S 33, Joy Busey, illyia, lasky57, sunbro, Yamara, RElland, Geekesque, shiobhan, neroden, wiscmass, sodalis, sbdenmon, Shaking the Tree, pdknz, Tex Kosmaniac Dem Lady, oibme, Ghost of Frank Zappa, hcc in VA, empathy, the cubist, danger durden, Land of Enchantment, orphanpower, soyinkafan, liberalsouth, Sister Havana, Asinus Asinum Fricat, fhcec, xaxnar, Jim P, CCSDem, SSMir, snewp, taracar, Denny in Seattle, martini, Karyn, Coherent Viewpoint, LeftOverAmerica, dannyinla, Dr Rock, BachFan, Thundergod, irishwitch, Debbie in ME, The Sinistral, sherlyle, BlueInARedState, Russgirl, DemiGoddess, Arclite, Gorette, Yellow Canary, kestrel9000, turning blue, compbear, rsquire, The Wizard, Esjaydee, kck, blueoasis, Irishkorean, MJ via Chicago, global citizen, StrayCat, Lashe, Glorfindel, condoleaser, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, nowheredesign, edgery, Dinclusin, Jax, Turbonerd, Pete Rock, JugOPunch, Mad 60, CA Nana, profh, Roatti, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, VoteHarder, toys, MarketTrustee, Dreaming of Better Days, chgobob, DanC, Downtowner, kurious, bstotts, coolsub, Temmoku, sea note, Pandoras Box, BentLiberal, eastmt, The Time Is Now, wildNwonderful, The Other Steve, BeninSC, Feeling Blue, donnamarie, Cronesense, Alkali Bill, Loudoun County Dem, blue armadillo, PhantomFly, VA02 femocrat, mdgarcia, dallasdave, edsbrooklyn, jayb, Mary Mike, Busted Flat in Baton Rouge, kath25, mommyof3, DWG, mystic, Flirtin with Disaster, St Louis Woman, newpioneer, bnasley, newhorizon, klondike, lizpolaris, ever hopeful, vbdietz, Wreck Smurfy, Brass Tacks, UneasyOne, ImpeachKingBushII, JML9999, TexasTwister, scratchinmybutt, MichiganGirl, Terra Mystica, MKinTN, Delta Terp, Phil N DeBlanc, Han Solo, Edgar08, Arlys, Foundmyvoice, stone soup

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site