The Flight of the Hezbollahniaks
By Johnny Roosh
Joe Biden was on a Fantasy World Tour the other night and between he and the fetching Mrs. Palin, he is supposed to be the foreign affairs expert. Not so much apparently. Governor Palin let him get away with some whoppers, a missed opportunity for sure. But this morning she’s getting a little help from her friends.
…what are we to make of Mr. Biden’s fantastic debate voyage last week when he made factual claims that would have got Mrs. Palin mocked from New York to Los Angeles?
Mr. Biden asserted that “When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, ‘Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.’ Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.”
The U.S. never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, and no one else has either. Perhaps Mr. Biden meant to say Syria, except that the U.S. also didn’t do that.
Then there’s the Senator’s astonishing claim that Mr. Obama “did not say he’d sit down with Ahmadinejad” without preconditions. Yet Mr. Biden himself criticized Mr. Obama on this point in 2007 at the National Press Club
Sarah Palin may not know as much about the world, but at least most of what she knows is true.
The conventional wisdom is that Senator Obama picked Joe Biden because he’s older, wiser, and serves to shore up Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience.
Turns out, Joes’s just older.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
My favorite Bidenism from the debate came when discussing Afghanistan.
Biden: A surge won’t work in Afghanistan, what we need are more troops.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Senility is an ugly thing, especially in McCain, but what’s Palin’s excuse?
“There you go Joe, looking backward” – as if she hadn’t spent the preceding 1.5 hours doing nothing but looking backward, well, that and offering platitudes about gettin’ the corruption out of Washington and Wall Street. Pray tell, Ms. Palin, how? Oh, that’s right, no details, but let’s all pick at Mr. Biden’s detail mistakes, it only makes our glaring lack of them look ever more important, and our complaints, ever more hollow.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Peev, I gotta ask — aren’t you bothered at all by Biden inventing a US/French military victory in Lebanon that never happened and blaming others for a failure to capitalize on it?
Pournelle and I (and some of his commentators) were batting this one around this weekend; you can look it up (or go to Totten, who got to it first) if you want some informed opinion and analysis about it, but the short form is that it’s worse than relatively minor stuff like Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia fantasy, and the WJS editorial, because of its brevity, understates how much of a whopper it is, on so many levels.
And this is the guy that Obama brought in because he doesn’t know diddly about foreign policy? I mean, well, yucko.
Let’s get together at Katie’s restaurant and talk it over with Joe, eh?
October 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Peev, at least, has given me cause to reflect on the difficulty Palin had dealing with the questions in the debate. The first question Ifill asked was whether the bailout represented the best or worst in Washington. Biden has been a senator for decades. He could jump right in. Palin is the governor of a small state and has made NOT being part of the Washington crowd a signature issue. If Clinton had been asked a question like that back in the ’92 debates he could have pointed out his close relationship with Arkansas’ congressional delegation & stated his position relative to Arkansas’s senators & congressmen.
Palin couldn’t even do that — she has been doing her best to distance herself from Alaska’s congressional delegation.
So I wonder how Ifill expected her to respond with anything other than a vague answer and an attempt to use the question as a chance to reiterate a McCain talking point?
October 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
JRoosh admitted: “the fetching Mrs. Palin”
I agree she’s well qualified to fetch coffee for those important national security meetings.
October 6th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Puns are the lowest form of comedy.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I agree she’s well qualified to fetch coffee for those important national security meetings.
Now we know why Hillary wasn’t interested being Obama’s VP.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Peni,
Or how about the fact that he taught constitutional law, & has served in the senate for decades, but has no idea that the VP’s main constitutional purpose is to serve as president of the senate… A legislative position.
Even if they are confident & well spoken in their ignorance, they are still ignorant. That does not speak well of their followers either.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:45 am
A legislative position, Mr. Shi(r)t? That whole VP-is-a-legislative-position tripe is a far-out argument that only comes up when Cheney’s trying to duck a subpoena. I suggest you don’t bloviate about things you don’t understand.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:26 am
AC, you are, I’m assuming, literate… correct?
The notion is not Cheney’s, but was first written by James Madison some 220 odd years ago:
“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. ”
That is Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution. That is the only role assigned to the VP through the Constitution, unless the President leaves office.
You should know that, but Biden has NO excuse for not knowing that.
Biden, who instructed Con Law, & as a senator has pledged to uphold & protect the US Constitution has no idea what it says! But hey, He can say “nuclear”, right? Oh yeah, Biden’s a genius, just like you.
October 7th, 2008 at 10:16 am
And AC, just in case you & Joe the Genius aren’t aware, Article I, Section 1 states:
“Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
In otherwords, Article I of the Constitution pertains ONLY to the legislateive branch. The Executive is covered in Article II.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Oh please, Mr. Shi(r)t, you are so far out of your depth it isn’t funny. Wish Thorley Winston were around to rein you kooks in a little on the legal stuff. Also Terry with his lectures on what it means to be editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review. You guys want to puke up non-sensical talking points made up by other people, that’s just fine and dandy. Angryclown will continue to point and laugh.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
So, angryclown is saying the editor-in-chief position at the student run Harvard Law Review is an important piece of executive experience on the Barack Obama resume?
OK … *snicker*
October 7th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
If you’d just stick your fingers in your ears and scream “LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA” you’d waste a lot fewer calories typing, AC.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
So, AC, where are your counter arguements? Right now, you’re coming up short.
Just e-mail Peev… he’ll have some of your kind of nonsense ready to spill out. You’ll need to add some of your provincial humor to personalize it, though.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Hey! I write my own talking points!
I have to do that because all the media tells you about Obama comes from his campaign’s list of talking points.
Bill Ayers was ‘just a guy in his neighborhood’ because Obama says so!
Today the NY Times informs us that Ayers was a ‘personal acquaintance’ of Obama’s, apparently because Obama said that that their kids went to the same school.
Obama didn’t mention that they went to the same school about twenty years apart, meaning that they were not acquainted because they met at personal school functions.
NYT reporters are idiots.
October 7th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Yeah, James Madison was obviously just a stooge for the evil Karl Rove machine.
You are not a clown, You’re an idiot.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Mr. Shi(r)t, give me a quote or citation from a legal scholar who agrees with you on the VP thing, mkay? Then we’ll talk.
I’m guessing we won’t hear from you for a little while…
October 10th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
It takes a legal scholar to get you to agree with the Constitution, AngryClown?
You’re suffering worse than I thought.