Biden bucks Obama

**Papasito** · October-13-09, 11:41 AM

"Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?" Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. "And how much will we spend on Pakistan?" Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. "Well, by ...my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/217090
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/wo.../23policy.html

Mr. Loose-Lips Biden is actually making some sense, and bucking Obama by doing it. Gotta give the old man some credit where it's due!

**ejames01** · October-13-09, 11:49 AM

So you would like the U.S. to invade/occupy Pakistan?

Originally Posted by Papasito

http://www.newsweek.com/id/217090
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/wo.../23policy.html

Mr. Loose-Lips Biden is actually making some sense, and bucking Obama by doing it. Gotta give the old man some credit where it's due!

**ghettopalmetto** · October-13-09, 12:00 PM

You left out the context of the quote, Papasito. The article reads:

During a long Sunday meeting with President Obama and top national-security advisers on Sept. 13, the VP interjected, "Can I just clarify a factual point?..."

Why is this important? Someone who didn't know any better, or was just plain lazy, would read the portion you quoted, and presume that Joe Biden is publicly taking steps to undermine his boss. In fact, Joe Biden is providing constructive input during a meeting at which critical strategy is being devised. Frankly, I don't see why you're so bent out of shape about it.

A lack of goose-stepping by Joe Biden does not necessarily equate to "loose lips". Obama picked Joe Biden specifically for his expertise in foreign policy. I'd say that the Vice President is earning his salary.

**rb336** · October-13-09, 12:37 PM

This just points out one of the many ways in which Obama is a superior prez to his predecessor -- he didn't let himself get surrounded by his veep's evil henchmen, but made a conscious decision [[something i doubt dubya ever did) to surround himself with people who hold vastly different opinions.

some on the right somehow see not surrounding yourself with yes-men as a sign of weakness. they are morons

ccbatson · October-13-09, 03:40 PM

Maybe because we are actually and officially engaged in warfare in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan.

**Sstashmoo** · October-13-09, 04:31 PM

Quote: "warfare"

Oh please. Anyone who believes we are involved in a war anywhere, has got to be totally disconnected.

**Papasito** · October-13-09, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Oh please. Anyone who believes we are involved in a war anywhere, has got to be totally disconnected.

yeah, like those silly families that get shiny new caskets sent back every week from Afghanistan.

Yes, I understand the context of the article. Biden was pointing out that our dollars are better spent where Al Qaeda actually is, and that's Pakistan.

I've stressed before that fighting Al Qaeda does not require invading/occupying/rebuilding an entire country. This should be handled by bombers and special operations. Our fight is with the organization that took the 2 towers down, and should stay confined to only that. When they move, we should move.

If we want to move away from old American politics, then we need to stop nation building, and stick to defeating our enemies.

**ghettopalmetto** · October-13-09, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

If we want to move away from old American politics, then we need to stop nation building, and stick to defeating our enemies.

You might have wanted to make that point about 6-1/2 years ago.

**Detroitej72** · October-13-09, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Our fight is with the organization that took the 2 towers down, and should stay confined to only that. When they move, we should move.

Since 15 of the 19 hijackers from 9-11 hail from Saudi Arabia, we should have taken the fight there. Unfortunately, the previous regime's family has been in bed with the Bin Laden family for decades. Combine that with the fact that America has allowed the House of Saud to control so much of our market that if they pulled out tomorrow, the stock market would collapse.

**Sstashmoo** · October-13-09, 07:03 PM

It is simply amazing the media has convinced some we are in some sort of war. We are a security force, just wish they would tell people what they are really securing.

**elganned** · October-13-09, 08:08 PM

Why, we're securing the routes for central Asian oil and natural gas to reach the coast for shipping. Didn't you know that?

Afghanistan has nothing of value, except that it lies between the oilfields and gasfields of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan and the outside world. There has been a long behind-the-scenes struggle over how that natural wealth will get out of the hinterland and into the gastanks and furnaces of the West. Iran is one route, Russia another, Afghanistan a third, and China a fourth. All require long overland pipelines.

We don't want Iran to get the oil, as they are unpredictable and developing nukes. We don't want the Russians to get it, and besides they have plenty of their own for the moment. We certainly don't want the Chinese to get it; they're already eating our lunch. Afghanistan is the safest most secure overland route--for us. That's why we're in Afghanistan and trying to build a government sympathetic to our interests.

Any other questions?

**Sstashmoo** · October-14-09, 08:23 AM

I know why we're there. But, thanks for that very eloquent excuse anyway.

ccbatson · October-14-09, 03:11 PM

As recently described by Henry Kissinger, Afghanistan and Pakistan are nearly contiguous in terms of the population, having a relatively arbitrary border establish back when colonial England was calling the shots. Given this reality [[Pakistan), the import of Afghanistan takes ona new meaning.

**elganned** · October-14-09, 03:48 PM

The import of Afghanistan is as I stated. All else is window-dressing.
You don't seriously for a minute believe that India will allow a fanatical Muslim group to seize control of nukes on its border, do you?

**firstandten** · October-15-09, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

You left out the context of the quote, Papasito. The article reads:

Why is this important? Someone who didn't know any better, or was just plain lazy, would read the portion you quoted, and presume that Joe Biden is publicly taking steps to undermine his boss. In fact, Joe Biden is providing constructive input during a meeting at which critical strategy is being devised. Frankly, I don't see why you're so bent out of shape about it.

A lack of goose-stepping by Joe Biden does not necessarily equate to "loose lips". Obama picked Joe Biden specifically for his expertise in foreign policy. I'd say that the Vice President is earning his salary.

If you know anything about Obama's management style he does not want nor desire a bunch of "yes men" around him. According to the Newsweek article Obama has valued Biden for his straight talking and his ability to be a devils advocate, while still being loyal to the administation. He also uses Biden to play "good cop, bad cop" with some of the foreign leaders, with Biden being of course the bad cop.

**Papasito** · October-15-09, 08:17 PM

It's good that he doesn't have a bunch of yes men.

as far as my reference to Biden's loose lips, I think everyone is aware of his racist and offensive quotes over the course of his career. I thought you guys would know what I was referring to, as you are all political buffs and should be up to speed on Biden's loose lipped past.

**ghettopalmetto** · October-15-09, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

It's good that he doesn't have a bunch of yes men.

as far as my reference to Biden's loose lips, I think everyone is aware of his racist and offensive quotes over the course of his career. I thought you guys would know what I was referring to, as you are all political buffs and should be up to speed on Biden's loose lipped past.

What does anything in Biden's past have to do with the passage you quoted?

**vetalalumni** · October-15-09, 10:50 PM

VP Biden played an admirable role in pressures to end apartheid in South Africa. Those involved have spoken well of his efforts in that regard.

**Gistok** · October-16-09, 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

You left out the context of the quote, Papasito. The article reads:

Why is this important? Someone who didn't know any better, or was just plain lazy, would read the portion you quoted, and presume that Joe Biden is publicly taking steps to undermine his boss. In fact, Joe Biden is providing constructive input during a meeting at which critical strategy is being devised. Frankly, I don't see why you're so bent out of shape about it.

A lack of goose-stepping by Joe Biden does not necessarily equate to "loose lips". Obama picked Joe Biden specifically for his expertise in foreign policy. I'd say that the Vice President is earning his salary.

Papasito: "Mr. Loose-Lips Biden is actually making some sense, and bucking Obama by doing it. Gotta give the old man some credit where it's due!"

Geeze Papasito... you sure are good at putting your own spin on news items...

**rb336** · October-16-09, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

As recently described by Henry Kissinger, Afghanistan and Pakistan are nearly contiguous in terms of the population, having a relatively arbitrary border establish back when colonial England was calling the shots. Given this reality [[Pakistan), the import of Afghanistan takes ona new meaning.

considering pakistan was part of India at that time...

but henry is right -- except he forgot to mention that most of the original taliban were from pakistan, that we trained them and al queada and sent them into afghanistan to fight the russkies

ccbatson · October-16-09, 04:13 PM

No, he didn't forget to mention it...you forgot to thoroughly review what he said.

ccbatson · October-16-09, 04:14 PM

BTW, your general agreement with the premise I posted seems to indicate that you also agree that Afghanistan is very much an important political and military/national defense concern...correct?

**elganned** · October-18-09, 08:51 AM

What, exactly, was the premise you posted? Other than that Pakistan and Afghanistan are very similar in cultural outlook and share many historical ties? And how does that thereby render Afghanistan an important political and military/national defense concern?

Leaping to non sequitur conclusions again?

ccbatson · October-18-09, 02:05 PM

You can't be serious...Al Qaeda, the Taliban and many other sundry terrorist operatives operate from the regions between the 2 countries, on the other side is India and Iran. 2 countries with nuclear weapons and one nearly there. You can't see the connections and danger of surrendering our position?

**elganned** · October-18-09, 04:40 PM

No, quite frankly, I can't the danger of "surrendering our position" [[which implies that we have some legal or moral grounds for the position, which I do not concede but will let pass for the moment).

Unless you propose to widen the theater of operations to include Pakistan and Kashmir, maybe the central asian "-stans". Is that what you propose? That would be military adventurism on a very grand scale, indeed. I'm sure Stalin and Bismark would be very proud--realpolitik in action.