DocumentDump.com ^ RWCS.com > Steal This Blog

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Popularity: 1% [?]

Popularity: 1% [?]

—-

4-24-09:
The Pentagon and the military will soon release over 2,000 photographs, from 400 separate cases of alleged abuse at U.S. military prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan & Guantanamo Bay.

—-
BONUS VIDEO (Former CIA Tyler Drumheller discusses torture & waterboarding):

Popularity: 2% [?]

Popularity: 2% [?]

Popularity: 2% [?]

By Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation
Posted on August 28, 2008, Printed on August 29, 2008

Barack Obama not only had the good judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, he argued for the need “to end the mindset that took us into” that war. So it is troubling that a man of such good judgment is now ramping up his rhetoric about how we need to end the war in Iraq to focus on what he calls the “central front in the war on terror” — Afghanistan.

In his convention speech Wednesday night, Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Biden sounded hawkish notes — not only in flagrantly misrepresenting the Georgia-Russia crisis but in talking about Afghanistan. (This holds true not just for the two Senators, but for too many Democrats in Washington who argue, mantra-like, that we need to leave Iraq in order to free additional troops to serve in “the right war.

Last month, the bipartisan Rand Corporation concluded in an important report that the very notion of a “war on terror” is counterproductive, and that intelligence and police cooperation should be the centerpiece of our strategy. More recently, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman — no milquetoast when it comes to using military force — criticized the Dems’ position on Afghanistan as ill-conceived “bumper sticker politics.” Friedman quoted a valuable Time article by Afghan expert Rory Stewart. Reporting from Kabul, Stewart explains: “A troop increase is likely to inflame Afghan nationalism because Afghans are more anti-foreign than we acknowledge, and the support for our presence in the insurgency areas is declining … The more responsibility we take in Afghanistan, the more we undermine the credibility and responsibility of the Afghan government and encourage it to act irresponsibly.”

Stewart, a longtime observer of Afghan politics, makes clear that the temptation to throw more military forces at the problem may do more harm — to our security, to the Afghan people who are already angry about mounting civilian casualties, and to the stability of a region whose underlying conflicts require political resolution not more US or NATO troops.

If elected, Senator Obama has the possibility of re-engaging with a world repulsed by Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. His election, allied with smart and more just policies, could turn a page on the reckless and destructive policies of mad men. But extricating the U.S. from one disastrous war to head into another will endanger that possibility — while posing grave risks to the domestic agenda he has laid out. Before the new Democratic ticket of Obama/ Biden make a commitment to this new war, consider the sobering fact — confirmed by the U.S. military — that attacks by militants against the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan have risen 40 percent this year, compared with 2007.

In a recent statement, the British humanitarian organization Oxfam urged a change of focus: “Unless the next American President … builds on the existing commitments to help lift the Afghan people out of extreme poverty and protect civilians, it will be impossible for the country to achieve lasting peace…” We need to think beyond the reflexive response of troop escalation and begin the necessary, tough search for sane alternatives. If Americans are given a clear choice, how many would support bleeding more lives and resources in another failing occupation as an effective strategy of combating terrorism and promoting our national security?

Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.

© 2008 The Nation All rights reserved.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Video 1 of 2:
[SOURCE: countdown.msnbc.com ~alt. here~]

—
–
-

Video 2 of 2:
[SOURCE: CBS @ YOUTUBE: "Courting The Evangelical Vote"]

-
–
—
—-
—–
—–
—-
—
–
-

abc7.com
Friday, August 15, 2008
By Jovana Lara

Tune in to watch the Saddleback event live on abc7.com between 5 p.m. – 7 p.m., Saturday, Aug. 16 (among other live on-line feeds and TV broadcasts)

LAKE FOREST, Calif. (KABC) — Saturday, the two leading presidential candidates will share the stage at Reverend Rick Warren’s evangelical megachurch in Lake Forest. The event could have a big impact on the race to the White House.

It could be the hottest ticket in town, and Saddleback Church representative say only about 2,200 people got their hands on them. Apparently space is limited for Pastor Rick Warren’s forum Saturday with Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Many residents in the area believe an event like this should have been open to the community.

“I’m very, very excited,” said Meriven Deocariza says luck was on her side. And now, she’ll be among the 2,000 people or so to watch presumed presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama in their first joint appearance since the end of the primary season.

“I didn’t think that I would be able to get tickets,” said Deocariza. “It was something I wanted to do, and when they called me yesterday to say that I had won tickets because I had been leader of a small group, and they put me in a raffle ticket. I was ecstatic.”

And for good reason: Tickets to Saturday night’s event, during which Pastor Rick Warren will question McCain and Obama on personal morals, faith and leadership, have been hard to come by.

Church representatives say the forum is an invitation-only event, open exclusively to church members. But local residents say that’s not what they read on the church Web site.

“There was just an unfortunate situation where they promised there would be tickets available to the general public, and they kept postponing the date on their Web site, and finally Wednesday, the big day, they said all tickets have been distributed,” said Jan Young. “I happen to have made a contact here, and she was kind enough to find two tickets for me. She works here. So I’m very mixed about my feelings. In general I think it was unfortunate.”

Some church members say the ticket controversy has been blown out of proportion, and despite the disappointments, the forum will be remembered as one of the most exciting events ever to take place in south Orange County.

“Absolutely exciting,” said Saddleback Church member Tony McGivern. “Guaranteed the next president is in the room, that’s just unbelievable. It’s exciting, it really is.”

Church representatives say they will be streaming the forum live to hundreds of people on campus at three nearby locations. Two of them are tents, and tickets are required to attend those events.

Tune in to watch the Saddleback event live on abc7.com between 5 p.m. – 7 p.m., Saturday, Aug. 16 (among other live on-line feeds and TV broadcasts)

Popularity: 4% [?]

[SOURCE: 'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Wednesday, July 16]

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Coming up: Barack Obama and John McCain have stark differences over the war in Iraq. And as Obama heads to the Middle East for his big trip over there, whose strategy will the American people back? And if the surge worked in Iraq, is it time for us to leave? We‘ll talk to two Iraq veterans with very different opinions.

You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. The surge of U.S. troops in Iraq is coming to an end. Those brigades that were sent over there a couple years ago are coming home. Did it work? Did it create a strong Iraqi government? That was the purpose.

Jon Soltz is an Iraqi war veteran and co-founder of Votevets.org. And Eric Egland is a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan. He‘s the founder of Troops Need You.

Gentlemen, here‘s the story. Back two years ago, this country was on the verge of getting out of Iraq, and the president made the case, Before we leave, let‘s make one big last hoorah. Let‘s go in there in strength. Let‘s go in and clear the streets of Baghdad and let those politicians—

Sunnis, Shia and Kurd—get their act together and form a strong government so that we can then leave. Has that succeeded, Jon Soltz?

JON SOLTZ, VOTEVETS.ORG: Look, it‘s never succeeded. I mean, from a tactical level, sure, you put the best American troops on the ground and you take names and you clear streets. But the Iraqis want us out of Iraq. And so the major reason it failed is—Afghanistan‘s, you know, a two-brigade mission, now a three-brigade mission. If you had taken those five combat brigades that you sent to Iraq for the surge and you‘d sent them to Afghanistan, you would have, you know, upped your brigades by five, from two to five. You got seven brigades on the ground in Afghanistan, taking fight to the enemy.

So the surge is a policy of retreat that Senator McCain and George Bush have supported against al Qaeda and bin Laden. And Senator Obama‘s always been right about Iraq, not to go, not to support the surge and to take the fight to the enemy in Afghanistan. So it‘s been a failure.

MATTHEWS: So we have failed to establish a strong central government in Iraq that‘s capable of defending itself.

SOLTZ: I think the priority is to protect America. And the enemies that attacked our country are in Afghanistan and…

MATTHEWS: OK, you‘re not answering the question.

SOLTZ: … Iraq is (INAUDIBLE) to that fight.

MATTHEWS: I just want to know if the stated goal of the surge, which was sold to the country in late 2006, after the big political defeat in the elections of 2006 here in America—the goal was to give them a breathing space to create a strong central government so that we could begin to leave. Has that goal been achieved, Jon, yes or no?

SOLTZ: It hasn‘t. There‘s been no political reconciliation at all.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let‘s go to Eric Egland. Your verdict on the goal of the surge. Has it been met?

ERIC EGLAND, TROOPS NEED YOU: Yes, Chris. We‘ve made tremendous progress in the last 16 months at…

MATTHEWS: At what? At what? At giving the government in that country a chance to form itself?

EGLAND: Sure. Yes. That‘s why, you know, we‘ve seen that 15 out of the 18 benchmarks for the Iraqi government have been met. And security gains have been improved dramatically. And so when you combine that, an improved security situation and improved political progress…

MATTHEWS: OK…

EGLAND: … the strengthening local government—remember, Iraq‘s a tribal society. The political progress on the ground at the local level has been tremendous, and that has bubbled up with the counterinsurgency strategy to the national government. So that‘s why we‘re seeing real progress and that‘s why it‘s a little hard for people to answer that question who sort of do answer it out of ideology, to not be able to admit that, Hey, we have made tremendous progress out there.

MATTHEWS: So where do we stand now in Iraq in terms of our ability to ultimately leave that country? You first, Eric. Where do we stand in Iraq in terms of our ability to ultimately leave that country?

EGLAND: Yes. I think we stand in good position to continue to—we‘re bringing home the surge troops now. We‘re going to do that at a methodical pace, at a pace that‘s dictated by events on the ground. Remember, we face dynamic battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan. The policy needs to be dictated by the truth on the ground. And with those gains, political and security, we‘re able to continue to draw down those troops.

And I see that, you know, that will continue. And, again, what I like is – is, having been on both battlefields, these are dynamic situations. We need to do it not out of ideology, but our policies need to be driven by facts.

MATTHEWS: No, but I‘m just asking—look, I‘m trying to get to the facts here.

EGLAND: Yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe that we are gradually able to leave Iraq now over the next several years?

EGLAND: You bet. Yes. I think we were going to lose—I think there‘s—in my mind, there is no question we would have lost with our old strategy. With the new strategy, we have demonstrated tremendous progress. We‘re on the verge of winning. We—this will go down…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: But, in other words, define—just get away from these cliche words like winning.

EGLAND: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

EGLAND: OK.

MATTHEWS: Winning means leaving behind a government that can stand up by itself, right?

EGLAND: And defeating al Qaeda in Iraq. That‘s right. Those are the two main things.

MATTHEWS: Well, Iraq wasn‘t even there when we got there, so, how can you say defeating al Qaeda in was our goal?

Is our goal to leave behind a government that can defend itself? What is our goal?

EGLAND: Yes, absolutely. A goal is a government that can defend itself to rout al Qaeda in Iraq, which I‘m not saying they were there before we went in. I‘m saying that, in ‘05 and ‘06, they made a strategic decision. You can look at bin Laden‘s quotes and all the manpower shifts.

MATTHEWS: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: So, you both agree…

(CROSSTALK)

EGLAND: But, yes, we are on the road…

MATTHEWS: To getting out of there? We‘re going to get out of there?

SOLTZ: Wrong.

EGLAND: We‘re going to succeed. And then we‘re going to come home.

(CROSSTALK)

SOLTZ: Iraqis don‘t want us there. American troops shouldn‘t fight and die wanting security more than an indigenous population wants it for themselves.

The Iraqi government asked us to leave. If that‘s not—hey, the Iraqi government asked, we‘re gone, bottom line. We have an enemy to fight in Afghanistan that John McCain and George Bush don‘t care about. If they had, they would have sent the surge brigades to Afghanistan.

MATTHEWS: OK.

SOLTZ: And they would support Senator Obama…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Let‘s—look, I‘m just trying to reach some sort of consensus here. You both seem to be saying that there we‘re in a strong enough position to get out of Iraq right now. Is that right? Eventually.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK. Let‘s take a look at Obama.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Here‘s Senator Obama on Afghanistan yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It is unacceptable that almost, seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And, yet, today, we have five time more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Let‘s take a look at what Senator McCain said yesterday as well. Let‘s get them both together here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It is by applying the tried-and-true principles of counterinsurgency used in the surge, which Senator Obama opposed, that we will win in Afghanistan.

With the right strategy and the right forces, we can succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And they are not disconnected. Success breeds success. Failure breeds failure. I know how to win wars. I know how to win wars. If I‘m elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory. I know how to do that.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Of course, the question holds there right now, Eric. If we have won the war in Iraq, we ought to be coming home. He didn‘t win the war in Vietnam. We lost the war in Vietnam in terms of our ambitions over there. So, what wars have we won under John McCain? I‘m curious what he means by won the war.

You could argue that the surge has left an environment over there where maybe that government can get its act together, but that‘s not done yet. We don‘t know that yet.

EGLAND: I agree. No, I agree.

It is premature to put it in the past tense. But it is also denial to not acknowledge all the tremendous gains on the national political level, at the local political level, and on security all around the country will.

SOLTZ: John McCain is a man who has caused this country to lose the war in Afghanistan by being obsessed with Iraq.

His plan yesterday that he released to counter Senator Obama‘s plan, it was like amateur hour at the McCain campaign. You can‘t increase the size of the Army, stay in Iraq 100 years, and send three more combat brigades to Afghanistan without the draft or adopting Senator Obama‘s position, which is to get out…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK. Well, that‘s the question.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I‘m sorry. Jon, that‘s…

(CROSSTALK)

SOLTZ: … Iraq and go to Afghanistan.

MATTHEWS: I hate to interrupt. But I want to put the same question to both of you, exactly the same. Give me the answer.

Jon Soltz, can we fight the war in Iraq on the level we‘re fighting it and fight the war in Afghanistan at the level we have to, both at the same time?

SOLTZ: Absolutely not. You can‘t do it. And that‘s why Senator Obama has a realistic plan. And the McCain campaign has amateur hour that leads us to the draft.

MATTHEWS: OK, same question to Eric. Same question to Eric.

EGLAND: Yes. With the current facts on the ground, I think we can.

Gains in Iraq mean we can continue to bring home those surge forces, which will free up forces that we can use in Afghanistan. The important thing is to remember that we—these are dynamic battlefields, and we need leaders who are open to the facts on the ground as they change. So, we don‘t want ideology driving these decisions.

SOLTZ: The McCain campaign is not committed, though.

MATTHEWS: Just a minute.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Jon, let him finish.

EGLAND: Jon, let me finish.

So, you want it to be driven by facts on the ground. Last year, security was pretty solid in Afghanistan. And McCain said, well, I would be up for more troops, but I don‘t think it‘s necessary.

SOLTZ: It was not solid in Afghanistan.

MATTHEWS: Jon, let him finish.

EGLAND: Security—security has worsened in Afghanistan. And now Senator McCain is saying, hey, we need to—we need more troops there.

In contrast, Senator Obama seems to have these rigid policies that don‘t address the changing nature of the fight on the ground.

MATTHEWS: Last word from you now, Jon.

SOLTZ: Look, the bottom line is, the McCain campaign—the McCain plan doesn‘t add up. You either have to have a draft or adopt Senator Obama‘s decision.

That‘s why, yesterday, they—they backtracked from sending three combat brigades there to sending NATO troops. It is amateur hour at the McCain campaign.

MATTHEWS: OK.

SOLTZ: They have supported a policy of retreat from bin Laden for the past six years with George Bush.

MATTHEWS: OK. We will do better with dealing with facts than assassination talk.

Anyway, thank you very much, Jon Soltz.

Thank you, Eric Egland.

(CROSSTALK)

Popularity: 2% [?]

[SOURCE: NYTimes.com]

By BARACK OBAMA
Published: July 14, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor

THE call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

Barack Obama, a United States senator from Illinois, is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Popularity: 2% [?]

[SOURCE: Joe Biden E-Mail Alert @ Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:03 PM]

Dear Friend,

In the months since our presidential run came to an end, I’ve done my best to uphold the promises I made throughout the campaign. I still believe, with every fiber of my being, that this year’s election is the most important in our lifetime — no matter what our respective ages are.

There is so much at stake:

• the physical security of our children;
• the economic security of our families;
• and the retirement security of our parents.

We must ensure that our local law enforcement is equipped to keep our families safe, that our veterans are treated with the dignity and care they have earned, and that – above all – we responsibly end this war that we should never have started.

To that end, I recently addressed the Connecticut Democratic Party at their Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, and I wanted to share my remarks with you. You can read the full speech on my website.

On another occasion, I spoke at Georgetown University on “2008 and the Stakes for America’s Security”. I started with a simple premise: After eight years of the Bush Administration, our country is less secure and more isolated than it has been at any time in recent history. We cannot afford another four years of Republican stewardship of our nation’s security.  You can read the full Georgetown speech online

.As we move towards November, I pledge to you that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to steer our nation towards responsible, forward-looking policies both at home and abroad — and that starts with electing Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

Let’s stay in touch — let me know what you’re thinking and how, together, we can move this country in the right direction.

Thanks,

Joe

——–
——-
——
—–
—-
—
–
-

What They Say About Joe

Biden has been critical of Bush’s approach to Iraq and the world for the right reasons, and from the beginning. In the fall of 2002, he tried, with Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar, to pass a more modest war resolution that put additional constraints on Bush… Even before the war began, Biden was warning of the costs of a lengthy occupation and predicting a decade-long intervention.—E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 6/10/08

Joe Biden gave us an example of a leading national politician exhibiting decency and class… Senator Biden, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. He spoke insightfully about the complexity of dealing with Iran, moving the discussion beyond the tedious and simplistic argument over whether to meet with certain foreign leaders. He defended Barack Obama against the searing attacks by the Bush administration, John McCain and Joe Lieberman… – Bob Herbert, New York Times, 5/27/08

As a man who knows many of the world’s leaders and has a formidable grasp of geopolitical complexities, Biden has the expertise to help the Democrats propound – and defend – a very different foreign policy. This country badly needs that debate, which is why it’s good to see him stepping into the fray. – Scot Lehigh, Boston Globe, 5/23/08

Sen. Biden spoke his mind. He told the truth as he knew it – about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, crime in the streets, and responsibility in Washington. Sen. Biden did what few other politicians are ever willing to do. He told voters there are consequences to their choices…He forced the candidates and the pundits to go beyond the sound bite…The best thing that can happen now is for his influence to linger. – Editorial, Wilmington News Journal, 1/5/08

With the world as on edge and fraught with danger as it is, having a leader with Biden’s ability, experience and contacts is extremely important…In respect to qualifications for a world leadership role at this juncture in the nation’s history, Biden takes a back seat to no one. – Jim Flood Sr., Dover Post, 1/2/08

If there was a Winston Churchill award for having been the longest and strongest in terms of warning about at troubled spot, Joe Biden of DE deserves the award. Because when others were focusing on Iran and Iraq he kept always saying ‘Pakistan is the ballgame, and that’s where our energies and attention outta be.’ – Mark Shields, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, 12/28/07

Biden’s plan crossed party lines Wednesday to win the Senate’s nonbinding support; no one should be surprised if it ends up providing the next administration’s road map. – Jonathan Rauch, National Journal, 9/29/07

Biden’s outstanding credentials as an expert on foreign relations makes him the acknowledged leader of his party in this field and will allow him to push his plans for resolving the Iraqi quagmire. – Harry Themal, Wilmington News Journal, 11/13/06

Some public figures are no longer able to create their own beliefs, and just believe those talking points it is useful for them to believe. But Biden, sometimes sarcastic, sometimes profane, always overlong, is still a real person, and a genuinely nice one – and he has been in the Senate since age 30, almost his whole adult life… Biden is one of those people who make the Senate interesting and even serious. – David Brooks, New York Times, 1/15/06

~ joebiden.com/about/quotes

Popularity: 2% [?]