Last I knew, only Clinton had more - when did Obama surge with the Iowa endorsements? It would have to be recent...

...

Biden has the worst national security credentials of the whole field when it comes to Iraq: he voted for the war, AND he is willing to vote for funding indefinitely and unconditionally.  Every one of the other seven Democratic candidates has a better record than that on ending the Iraq war, a conflict that breeds more new terrorists to join the cause against America every day.

I will give Biden credit on one thing, though; he was right to vote against the Lieberman-Kyl resolution on Iran, and right to criticize Clinton for voting for it.  At least Biden learned his lesson enough from the Iraq War Resolution, and knew to not do the same thing again with Iran; I suppose Biden could argue that Clinton's national security credentials are even more abysmal than his.

Biden wants that Secretary of Transportation job bad. Hillary will have to give it to him if he makes a good show.

Biden is better then both Hillary and Obama, atleast we actually know where he stands on things unlike them who continue to dodge questions... The only candidate worth voting for at this point is Ron Paul

Steve Turner:

If he is such an expert on foreign policy, why would he want the secretary of transportation?????

That's like hiring a plumber to fix the electrical system...

Why don't those two just go out back and bare knuckle it?

Biden is the Lieberman of the 2008 race - the Democrat least likely to get the US out of Iraq.  He wants to spend billions more fighting the war in Iraq than even Bush is asking for.  His planned partition of Iraq reflects the same arrogance that got the US into the was in the first place.

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Io: '...Biden wants that Secretary of Transportation job bad. Hillary will have to give it to him if he makes a good show...'

I wouldn't feel safe, riding on the Muni if Bidne were SecTrans, Steve.


Shadow, Hamden, CT:'...Biden has the worst national security credentials of the whole field when it comes to Iraq: he voted for the war, AND he is willing to vote for funding indefinitely and unconditionally...'

True, but the infotainment industry LOVES THIS GUY !!
He wears nice clothes, he's a white male, he looks distinguished........ WOW !! He must be qualified !!

Actually, I'm NOT HAPPY with Obama's and Edward's
positions on ending the war before 2013. What happened to the anti-war movement ??

When was the last time there was an Iraq thread here? Don't even see much about it on the nightly news anymore. Wonder why?

Stephen, you hit the nail on the head.  Do you think that why he gets corporate media attention way out of proportion to his chances of becoming president?

Sierra, SF -- I fear Richardson is our best chance for a fast full exit from Iraq.

Sierra:

If pelosi gets that subway tunnel next to the earthquake faultline in San Francisco, I wouldn't feel safe either.

You were asking about the Michael Savage/San Francisco board of supervisors fight....

San Francisco Supervisor Sandoval proposed a resolution condemning Michael Savage. Savage a radio talk show personality has a talk format show that regularly presents political opinion on far ranging subjects. The resolution seeks to condemn and raise a public outcry against Savage because of his political opinions.

Savage commented on a group of 35 student protesters who are fasting in protest and to pressure congressmen to renew efforts to pass a bill providing financial aid to illegal undocumented immigrant students. The bill was defeated recently. At least two of the protesters, self described illegal undocumented immigrant students, Cesar Chavez and Nallei Sandoval are openly participating in the protest.

Savage suggested the protestors, “fast until they starve to death". This statement has given rise to the call for his firing, and censor by the San Francisco Supervisors. In Part the resolution they are seeking to pass states, the county values the dignity of its residents regardless of immigration status, free from discrimination, to live in safety. The Resolution condemns Savage, and supports the students seeking to obtain public aid.

Broadcast radio shows fall into a type of speech protected by the first amendment. The attempt to censor Savage if it is contested in court will most certainly be found as protected speech. Savage's words did not advocate violent acts, nor suggest anyone take part in any acts or actions to bring about death by starvation. The words are politically motivated satire that state how Savage felt about the protest. To suggest he has advocated any illegal activity is absurd.

To raise his words to the level of racist statements you would have to show he has defamed a protected minority group. A group of persons who fall into the classification as undocumented immigrants does not meet the test. His words can not be demonstrated to defame any protected minority such as Hispanics, blacks or other protected minority group. Since undocumented immigrants could be any person not a documented immigrant the class is not protected.

Prohibitions of politically motivated speech are not favored by Supreme Court decisions. Generally this form of speech is protected. In one case the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against a criminal ordinance. The city’s bias-motivated crime ordinance, interpreted as banning the use of fighting words known to offend on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender, but not on such other possible bases as political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality, was invalidated for its content discrimination. ''The First Amendment does not permit [the city] to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.''

Once the rhetoric has died down the actions by the San Francisco Supervisors certainly be labeled as an attempt to stifle and muffle protected political speech. These actions by a government body should be condemned and protested for the frightening steps toward a totalitarian government control of public political activity.

By: Lou Tompkins
www.loutompkins.com

Actually the vote for the resolution was 9-1 in favor.
Michael probably used it when he ran out of toilet paper......

Stephen Cassidy, CA

You don't know what you are talking about. Biden, is the best candidate running from either party.

and Shadow, Hamden, CT  you know even less. Biden did vote for the war spending, because as he said "there are some things worth losing an election over" Apparently you believe that Obama and Clinton took the high rode in voting against funding for troops that are currently in Iraq. Neither Obama or Clinton spoke on the senate floor regarding how they would vote, and both waited until after the funding passed before they voted against funding. Does anyone really believe that there first vote against war spending would be when their vote woulsd actually decide the matter?

 Senator’s Clinton, Dodd and Obama played politics with the lives of soldiers. But at least Dodd had the courage to not wait until his vote against the spending wouldn't matter.


Senator Biden was able to provide immediate funding for mine resistant vehicles, that greatly increase soldier's risk of death and injury from IED attacks. 80% of soldiers death in Iraq are due to IED's. I've always been against the Iraq war, but 10' away from my office sits a secretary whose son's over there. As much as I want us out of Iraq, I want him back alive even more.

Without 67 votes to override Bush’s veto, the Senate can delay troop protection funding, but not end the war. Three of the ten Democratic Senators who voted in May against funding are Presidential candidates. The supplemental wasn’t about supporting the war; otherwise eleven Democratic Senators who voted against war authorization in 2002 (Akaka, Inouye, Durbin, Mikulski, Stabenow, Levin, Bingaman, Brown, Reed, Murray, and Byrd), would not have voted in favor of the war supplemental. I have always been against the war in Iraq and want it to end. However, I agree with Sen. Biden that as long as US troops are in Iraq we must act to protect them.

The difference between Biden and Richardson are:

- Biden will raise taxes on you and Richardson will not.  

- Biden never has balanced a budget and Richardson has balanced a state budget 5 times.

- Biden never has grown a economy with jobs and revenue, while Richardson has put his state in the top 10 category of fastest growing state economies.

- Biden has never negotiated a deal of any significance for the U.S., while Richardson has negotiated with OPEC to lower oil prices while Sec. of Energy

- Biden never has negotiated for American lives while Richardson has brought Americans home from harm's way.

- Biden has co-author a paper plan but never implemented or directed policy, while Richardson has had on-hands experience as Ambassador to the UN.

- Biden will stoop down to dirty work for politician gain, while Richardson stays gracious and positive about campaigning.

- Biden has a hard time admitting he makes mistake, while Richardson makes no bones about being honest on the spot.

- Biden proves the political axiom, the farther East direction one goes and the smaller the geographical size of the state, the bigger the ego.

hey Dave, Tn

I know!!!!  they're just sick of all the bad news depressing them so much.  they're trying to lift the spirits of the american people by protecting them!

yeah.  it's not that the DNC wants them to change the agenda....

Both Clinton and Dodd voted for Biden's resolution in the Senate to support federalizing Iraq.  Stephen-don't make yourself look stupid- the option to a Federal split is already in the Iraqi constitution that Iraqi citizens voted to pass in 2005.  Do your homework before you sound off. And Shadow- you can't vote to cut off funding for a war when troops are still there- it risks their safety.  That's more important than your short-sighted view.    

Would some kind person please e-mail me a weapon of self destruction/? or a passport to innisfree or some place? I'd really like to go. Can't afford passage on aleaky old boat to sail away to Avalon.

Well, Jerry, we have a draft-dodger leading the Iraq War effort.  If you had been alive (or mentally aware) during the Vietnam conflict you would have known that most people who entered the National Guard at the time did so to avoid being drafted.  So, albeit a legal way to avoid the draft, it was still a way of dodging it.  I guess politics makes strange bedfellows.

LOL, so y'all would rather have Richardson (who supported the war in his 2005 autobio and as this article points out has gone 360 on troop withdrawal), Obama or Edwards (neither of whom support troop funding, but do believe we will have troops there until 2013)?  I'm both a progressive and a Democrat and I don't find anything acceptable about any of the GOP candidates, and that includes Ron Paul.  At least w/Biden what you see is what you get, and he's more of an economic populist than any GOPer (Ron Paul's philosophy boils down to you're free to do whatever you want, if you live in the right place and can afford to pay for it yourself) and possibly more viable than any other Dem.  And if you can't win I don't care how pure you are on the war, those of us in the middle class can survive another GOP term, folks on the cusp or in poverty won't be so lucky.

Biden understands that if we pull out without leaving some kind of political solution behind, we will leave a bloodbath behind.  His plan (PlanforIraq.com) proposes one final effort to propose, not impose, a political solution:  a weak central government in a federal system, to separate the parties in the civil war and stop the killing.  If the Iraqis refuse to move toward a political settlement, then he said in the Dartmouth debate that he would begin immediate withdrawal in January 2009. If you saw him in Iowa, as I have, you would know that he does not duck questions or give mushy triangulating answers.  What a concept--say what you think and what you will do.

It is clear that Bush will not end the war, and that he intends to give us more of the same.  One of the Democratic candidates will inherit the war 14 months from now.  Clinton seems more inclined to support another war than end the one we have, with her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.  She is trying to talk about Iraq and Iran without making any commitments or saying anything definite.  Until recently, the media folks were letting her get away with it.  It remians to be seen whether primary voters will accept it.

Really, is there a question on who the best qualified person is to sit in the oval office and call the shots? whether it be Democrat or Republican, Joe Biden stands head and shoulders above the entire crowd.

There are so many misrepresentations in these posts it would take a gargantuan effort to address them all.  But briefly:

Shadow, Biden's national security CREDENTIALS are second to none.  Compare his experience to anybody else's - anybody's - and you will find he is the most qualified in this area.  I think the point you were trying to make is that you don't agree with his voting record on the war.  That is an entirely different issue than his credentials.

As for "funding the war indefinitely and unconditionally, Biden is the ONLY candidate to actually give a DATE for withdrawing the troops.  At the NH debate he said that if his current play - the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment is implemented and it is found not to be working by the time he assumes the presidency, he would removed all the troops because they would just be fodder.  The next president will take office on January 20, 2009.  Is that specific enough? Does that sound like "indefinitely and unconditionally?" And the majority of other candidates can't commit to 2013?

nuanced - I hate to dash your hopes, but Richardson is now saying "one year" to getting the troops out.  Don't know what happened to his "firm" six month statement.  If he's doubled the exit timetable once...

threeriverscrossing - where do I begin?  I think maybe Biden will stoop down to do political dirty work...  Such inane OPINIONS are embarrassing to even read, and cause me to feel your points aren't valid to debate.

Where do you people get your information?  

Steve Turner - Biden want's the Secretary of TRANSPORTATION job? Whaa??  He's been mentioned repeatedly as being an excellent choice for Secretary of State - due to the experience and accomplishments I mentioned above.  Where on earth did you get the Sec of Transportation idea?

Stephen Cassidy -

Sara - Congress is designated under the Constitution to have the power of the purse.  If they fail to exercise that power permanently, they have no say in war at all, which goes against everything the Founding Fathers and the Constitution stand for;   if Congress hadn't cut funding in Vietnam, after all, we'd probably STILL be there.  That said, we should indeed try to fund a withdrawal (and one that is obviously better planned than Vietnam's was) but if at the end of the day the President refuses to use the funds for withdrawal, Congress can't give him money forever unless you think only the President should have any war powers under the Constitution.  I can forgive Obama and Hillary for funding in 2005 because Democrats were in the minority, and there was no practical reason for them to vote against it, just an opportunity for a symbolic statement.  But in 2007, after the President ignored the mandate of the public in the 2006 elections to end the war, instead calling for more troops, the time came for Congress to take a stand or deem itself impotent under its Constitutional duties.  Obama and Hillary got this.  Biden did not.  

Sierra - The whole 2013 narrative is a red herring to blur differences between Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.  The fact is that Obama and Edwards intend to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within about a one year period; Hillary said she will not remove all combat troops, and it has been suggested she may keep fifty or sixty thousand troops there.  That's the big difference on Iraq policy in this primary campaign; everytime we repeat the 2013 thing, we diminish that fact.  Having a couple thousand non-combat troops or not is also a debatable issue, sure, but I'm not going to stand by while people get so caught up in that debate that the one Democratic contender who would keep the war going sneaks right by.

Thanks Mary Ellen for your clarifications. I guess I missed that part about a firm date being when he assumed office. I had gotten the impression he would start implementing his plan when elected and there would then be a period to see if it worked. If his plan is not implemented before he takes office (highly likely), he will then abandon the plan and start withdrawal? Is that what he is saying? It certainly hasn't been clear from media reporting.

Mary - Supporting the Iraq war is indeed a matter of national security credentials; it is not the only one, you are right, but it is certainly part of the equation whether one supported a war that has decimated our military readiness, bankrupted our treasury, and increased the recruitment of terrorists.

The indefinitely and unconditionally point is valid about Biden because, were a Republican President to remain in office, Biden would refuse to EVER cut Iraq funding out of principle.  Honestly, I don't want to know what Biden would do as President if he's willing to negate Congress's role under the Constitution like that; we need an executive with humility and less ego than the one we have now, and one who will respect Congressional authority, or the powers of the Presidency will just continue to expand.

Shadow (and anyone else) - The problem with defunding Iraq is that, as I understand it at least, Bush doesn't have to bring the troops home even if they have no ammunition, no food and no other supplies.  He doesn't have to bring them home until Congress forces him to do so by passing a joint resolution requiring the troops to be withdrawn.  

You may be willing to trust that Bush won't play chicken with the lives of American soldiers, but I'm not.  

Mary Ellen Gateley:

Let me say, I have never have been impressed with

Biden since his last failed Presidential run and the

plagiarism issue.  That ended it for me as a Biden

fan and that what I mean by stooping down.  All the

differences I pointed out between the two men are

factual points and not subject to debate.  

To Biden's credit, he is likeable and charming

but not well accomplished enough as Statesman to

make the claim he the best qualified in state or

foreign affairs.  I can go on but in the long run

Biden or Richardson bid for the 2008 Presidency at

present seem limited at best and Biden more so due to

fund raising.

Carrie you are exactly right - defunding the war hurts only our troops.  Bush is as stubborn as they come, and will not pull the troops under any circumstances.  Biden offers the only real plan for leaving Iraq in a way that does not cause the entire region to explode.  This is the most important issue of the day and this is one of many reasons why I support Biden.

I don't trust Bush at all, but if he plays chicken with the lives of American soldiers, that's HIS responsibility, not anyone else's; Congress shouldn't cover for him.  If Bush does something so stupid and irresponsible, he should suffer all the consequences, and deservedly so, including impeachment.  However, we can't stand around him like he's a little child and hope that he won't do any damage; he has access to the button, the CIA, and our entire military, after all.  If he intends to do something stupid as strand the troops, he will; Congress can't fall for logic like we have to continue a war that's hurting the troops to prevent the crazy President from hurting the troops.  It makes no sense.

nuanced - Biden had hoped to begin implementing his plan quickly - so it could be determined if it was indeed viable.  I can only use conjecture as to what he would do if it hasn't begun by the time the next Prez assumes office.  If it is Biden that's elected, I would guess that he would begin to implement the plan then because in addition to bringing the troops home, he feels a responsibility in helping Iraq heal and he believes his approach is the best way to do that.  If he doesn't assume office and nothing has changed, I KIND of think he'd be for bringing the troops home asap as he's convinced our current "approach" is accomplishing nothing but creating more death and destruction.

He's been to Iraq 8 times and I feel he's been personally and deeply touched and horrified at what is happening there.  He's committed to ending the nightmare one way or another.  With him, I'm hopeful we can do it in a responsible way.

But that's just my opinion.  I'm not sure he's addressed what he would do, because he believed with such an overwhelming vote of support his plan would be in the works now.

Shadow - I don't agree with your opinion that if Biden became president he would never cut funding due to principle and I'm not sure why you think that.  I'm convinced he sincerely, strongly and deeply wants to end the war.  His own son is due to be called up soon and I doubt he would perpetuate a situation in which his son's life would be at stake merely to prove a point.

threerivercrossing - It's like debate class. You can show me data backing your points, and I can show you mine.  In the end, we'll each go our ways convinced we're right, and the other is wrong.  So I sincerely respect your right to your views - I won't yammer away any longer trying to make you see the light!

Mary - I didn't say Biden wouldn't cut funds as President, I said he wouldn't ever cut funds if a Republican President remains in office.  If Biden were President, however, my concern would be the lack of deference to Congressional authority exhibited in his current stance, which renders Congress irrelevant when it comes to the war.

SHADOW,
You do not think stranding the troops will hurt them?

Shadow - I'm sorry, I don't operate under the "two wrongs make a right" theory.  It's wrong for Bush to refuse to withdraw the troops when the majority of Americans want that to happen.  It's also wrong for Congress to cut the purse strings without assurances that doing so will force Bush to bring the troops home.  

You say it is Bush's responsibility if he is that stupid.  That's all fine and good, but is that the explanation you want to give to the parents, spouses and children of the soldiers that will die if funding is cut off and Bush doesn't bring the troops home?  "I'm real sorry your son died, but Congress can't keep covering for Bush forever and he needs to be responsible for his actions."  

In such a situation, it is not Bush that is being held responsible - it is the troops.  They may be hurting and in danger now, but imagine how that hurt and danger would be multiplied if there was no money coming in to buy their supplies.  

Virginia - I think if the President hurts the troops by stranding them, he needs to be held accountable for it, not Congress; does it makes sense for Congress to keep troops in a counterproductive war forever just because we're afraid the President will strand them?  You can't continue to do something that hurts somebody using the rationale that they'll just be hurt by someone else if you don't; that defeats the entire purpose.  After all, why would the Founding Fathers deem Congress the first branch of government and allow them to end wars only by cutting funding if such behavior was irresponsible?  Clearly, the founders thought that Congress retaining that ability was essential to preventing a President from becoming a monarch; if President Bush treats that Constitutional authority of Congress like a bluff, and ups the ante by stranding our troops, then those are the last vestiges of a tyrannical monarch who will suffer for his crimes.  But it doesn't make sense if we say, gee the President's crazy, he might hurt the troops, therefore we WILL hurt the troops by sending them on multiple tours in a war that increases the amount of anti-American terrorism, kills and maims our soldiers, depletes our military readiness, and reduces our national security.

Carrie, a majority of Americans didn't think the troops should have been in Little Rock to help desegregate the schools either. Should Ike have pulled them out? You must be a clinton supporter; you believe it rule by polling.

Bruce:  I believe we elect leaders to do what is in the best interest of the country.  I also believe that, in doing what is in the best interest of the country, our leaders should pay close attention to what the people want.  They are there to represent the people, not their own selfish interests.  

The desegregation of schools righted a wrong that the US had not only permitted but sanctioned, a wrong that dehumanized and degraded American citizens.  That decision is not even in the same league as Iraq.  

Domenico - where is the piece from Richardson's campaign manager?  This is a rediculous piece - Richardson is still in fourth place, and other polls show Richardson rising in some polls, yet you choose to parrot Biden's campaign.  Lazy journalism.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):