Joe Biden doesn't think Iraq has any bad guys? This man is a FOOL.

"McCain keeps changing his foreign affairs policies every way the wind blows!"

Jennifer, can you actually back up this statement with facts or is this just a liberal talking point you found somewhere?

Biden "a) used to advocate a “soft partition” of Iraq in the knowledge that the surge would never work; (b) previously called for sending U.S. troops into Darfur, presumably on the theory that “the bad guys” live there; and (c) even within the parameters of his own impoverished view that the “bad guys” encompass no one outside Osama’s inner circle still manages to miss the fact that, yes indeed, some of the bad guys have been known to turn up in Iraq from time to time." Source: Hotair.com

Senator, the bad guys live everywhere and nowhere! It's like wacking gophers!

The Republicans as well as quislings like John Lieberman are downright confused. Their priorities are upside down. How can they call Barack Obama a flip-flopper when he promises to refine his Iraqi policy after talking to the generals, but when he maintains his troop withdrawal policy they accuse him of rigidity. How duplicitous and hypocritical?

Dean Barnett at the Weekly Standard has Biden dead on:

"What’s more, Biden’s comment turns what ought to be a serious conversation about two vital foreign theatres into a juvenile schoolyard taunt.

"I have a suggestion for the senator: Perhaps he could bring his newly benign assessment to our soldiers who are serving in Iraq and the veterans who have served there. It would surely come as a huge relief to our soldiers currently in Iraq that their work has suddenly become “bad guy free.” Perhaps Biden should also share his crass bad-guy-appraisal with all of the Iraqis who have stood by us and who, like our soldiers, have given and still are giving so much for that nation’s freedom.

"We all understand that the Democrats have pivoted from Iraq-is-a-quagmire to Iraq-is-over, the better to pretend that Afghanistan has become their foreign policy obsession. Politics necessitates certain idiocies at times, and we are cognizant of this. But it would be nice if Senator Biden could perform his surrogate duties while maintaining an appropriate respect for our soldiers in Iraq and our Iraqi allies who continue to pursue a very dangerous line of work."

The left continues to play semantics with the surge: the surge will not work, the surge failed (and OBTW the war is lost), the surge has yet to work (we haven't left yet). It's all politics and positioning.

"Gore and Schwarzenegger overseeing and restarting America's "engine" with a new energy push."

HAHAHAHAHA, wait, you were serious?

So lets plan our energy policy after California. Oil is bad, electric cars, and a faltering power grid with insufficient electric supply.

Lets try for blackouts nationwide at least once a month, heading for once a week once we switch over to electric cars. Once a day will be an easy target if we give this any real effort.

But if you haven't figured out that California's grid can't handle the load it has now, much less charging 8 million cars; or that California won't build new power plants to even try to meet their demand needs, or that they are unwilling to revamp the grid to come close to the capacity their "goals" would require then I doubt I can help you.

Maybe we can "hope" things into working, because California has needed "change" in their electricity supply and transmission capacity for decades and that just never seems to happen.

Or maybe you actually believe that the required infrastructure that will need to be in place will start happening?

Sure, and the Solar plants in Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona will go forward for supply... (just as soon as the Mojave Ground Squirrel's habitat is protected; that building plan is delayed at least another 18 months).

But after that I'm sure there won't be another reason for delay from the enviro-nuts. This will certainly be the last time a delay will stand in the way of moving forward; except for the next one... and the infinite number after that.

At least Gore has greened his house with new technology costing tens of thousands of dollars, but increasing his eletricity and nat. gas bills (and thus his CO2 footprint by 10%)... what a great plan. Pay more, pollute more, feel good.

Can I just pay less, pollute more and feel good? I'm on a budget.

Or maybe you can pick someone who has a track record of success. Or even a track record of mediocrity. Actually a track record of minor incompetence would be a step forward here...

"The “bad guys” don’t live in Iraq".
darned if you aren't right for once Joe. The "bad guys" occupy the halls of Congress.

'Terror' is a TACTIC. It is not a country. It is not a group. It is not a person. Bush has a real gimic going with 'The War On Terror' ~ he can change the faces and locations with the same battle cry, and the uninformed, unthinking, isolationist sheep will follow. It's easy. It's 'American'. It works. JOE BIDEN gets who the real enemies are, without an oil or big-biz personal agenda. He's knowledgeable, informed, experienced, outspoken, unafraid... if he isn't going to be president, let's make sure he's VP or Secretary of State, or ask him what role he thinks he can provide the most value to our country and the world, and then let him do it! AN OBAMA/BIDEN win can possibly turn these 8 years of MESS, around and head us in the right direction. (Hey, all of you head-in-the-sand right-wingers who will undoubtedly refute me... save your breath. I was one of you for 40 years.) It's amazing how a little research, reading, questioning and thinking can change your mind & your vote. This is NOT the Republican Party we knew & grew up with. OBAMA & BIDEN won't be perfect ~ they are human & they will be only the executive branch, not judicial or legislative, but their direction is the only hope we have to straighten out this mess we're in. REPUBLICAN FOR OBAMA/BIDEN!

Well, I've NEVER been a "head-in-the-sand right-winger...", and I'm going to refute you anyway.

As for "...the uninformed, unthinking, isolationist sheep will follow. " do you know the meaning of the term "isolationist"? It appears that you do not. For your information, President Bush is approximately the opposite of an "isolationist".

"This is NOT the Republican Party we knew & grew up with."

Be that as it may, this is clearly not the Democrat party I grew up with. How about you do a little more "...research, reading..." into what President Kennedy did and said - e.g. income tax cuts as an economic stimulus, meeting force with force to preserve democracy worldwide (no matter the cost - "we will pay any price, bear any burden"); what FDR did about surveillance and how he dealt with illegal foreign combatants.

I'll grant that Senator Biden has said some sensible things about the war in Iraq, including comments on how inadvisable it would be to have a set timetable for withdrawal (I suggest you do some "...research, reading..." on this as well, if you don't believe me).

That being said, his recent suggestions that Senator Obama is in ANY way (much less suggesting that it's generally accepted that in MOST ways) more qualified to be President than Senator McCain is simply ridiculous.

Not that I expect anything but his whole-hearted support for the presumptive nominee of his party. I just don't take him seriously, despite whatever left-wing media lackeys and party hacks you may cite to the contrary.

"What I want is a debate between John McCain and Obama on foreign policy."

What I want is for Senator Obama to live up to his "any time, anywhere" declaration and debate Senator McCain on ANY subject.

The latest example of this is Senator Obama wimping out of a live debate near a military base, claiming he had other commitments, despite the debate organizers offering to change the date to fit Senator Obama's schedule.

The sad truth of the matter is that Senator Obama is a terrific orator, so long as he's reading a prepared speech that someone else wrote, and he's essentially hopeless in anything resembling an extemporaneous setting.

A recemt example was his referring to the "bomb" (singular) that was dropped on Pearl Harbor. A while back there was his reference to visiting "all 57 states"

"The Republicans as well as quislings like John Lieberman are downright confused. Their priorities are upside down. How can they call Barack Obama a flip-flopper when he promises to refine his Iraqi policy after talking to the generals, but when he maintains his troop withdrawal policy they accuse him of rigidity. How duplicitous and hypocritical?"

My goodness, so many five dollar words in one short paragraph.

Senator Lieberman is a "quisling", eh? Actually, his foreign policy positions are rather similar to what President Kennedy's were, as well as other, sensible Democrats such as "Scoop" Jackson.

To answer you question, we just don't think Senator Obama gets to have it both ways (as much as the media supports him in this). If there's anything that's " duplicitous and hypocritical?" about this, it certainly isn't on the part of the conservatives.

And I don't know of any conservative or Republican that has EVER accused Senator Obama of being "rigid". "Wrong" yes, "rigid", no. Besides, such an accusation, made by anyone, would be very hard to justify.

At any rate, our point is that Senator Obama is either for withdrawal from Iraq on date certain or he isn't, and his stated position has varied considerably on this (even in recent weeks). Which would be fine and understandable, if his position had evolved in just one direction, instead of going back and forth between withdrawal on date certain or not.

And, wonder of wonders, his sudden declaration that he would "refine his Iraqi policy after talking to the generals" is EXACTLY what President Bush has been saying for years - that it's up to the Generals on the ground to say when the situation warrants troop withdrawals, and how many.