Transterrestrial Musings

Defend Free Speech!

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Site designed by

Powered by
Movable Type 4.0
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« I Would Be, Too | Main | Some Thoughts On Unnamed Sources »

What Was Joe Biden Hinting At?

Bill Whittle wonders. So do I. You'd think that the media might spare a couple reporters from the Wasilla Library beat to ask him. At least you'd like to think.


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What Was Joe Biden Hinting At?.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


II wrote:

The most obvious answer is the Financial Crisis which is likely going to cause major problems for years. Things aren't likely to get better for quite a while.

Apart from that, I have as much faith in Biden's predictive powers as Rand's.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Yes, obviously he was talking about the financial crisis in the context of him being tested on foreign policy.

Do you ever bother to think before posting?

MG wrote:

Oooohh... the Snark(TM).

I have about as much faith in II's intellect as I do in Senator Biden's.

Hmmm. Now I understand the attraction. It feels so GOOD!

Rand Simberg wrote:

I can't figure out which of them is more clueless, but at least Biden is sufficiently proud of his ignorance to do it non-anonymously.

ken anthony wrote:

Whatever it was we can be sure of two things. Biden is not likely to tell the truth about it and we are not going to like it.

I also note not all speculation is exclusive... we could disarm and get the draft while having talks with Iran and leaving Israel to twist in the wind. Our ambassador to the UN will join the world in declaring Israel a terrorist nation.

IPv6 will be mandated so that new hate speech legislation can ride on top of QOS.

Bill Maron wrote:

I'm betting he gets a chance to show how little he cares for Israel right off the bat.

memomachine wrote:


I think it's a number of things really and not just one.

1. Considering Samantha Power is a foreign policy adviser for Obama, along with many other anti-Israel wonks, it's pretty clear that Obama will -not- come down on the side of Israel. And this doesn't include Obama's long term relationships with pro-Palestinians either.

Frankly the idea that North Korea would sell everything -but- a nuclear weapon to Iran is a rather silly one. I've assumed that Iran has operational nuclear weapons, bought from North Korea, and that is why Israel has been reluctant to bomb Iran.

But Iran is in a different situation domestically. IMO the Iranian economy is crap and that was when oil was selling at $150/barrel. Now that oil is selling under $70/barrel the Iranian government is literally sinking into a sea of red ink with massive domestic dislocations and unrest imminent.

And one historical way of dealing with such situations is to get involved in war.

2. House Democrats are now talking about eliminating the 401(k) plan and forcibly rolling -all- funds from every 401(k) into a new retirement plan controlled by the SSA. This new plan would offer up to $600 for non-working and a 5% mandatory payroll deduction for the working. It'll pay 3%, which is crap.

Of course this will enable the Democrats to raid this plan for money to fund new spending. This way it'll be like Social Security where any "increases" are all on paper until you draw the money out ... and when that happens the plan will be bankrupt.

But it'll provide $3+ trillion for the Democrats to play with so it's all good.

Me? I plan on getting into being a minority consultant for the government and get in on the gravy train. Mmmmmmmm gravy.

3. The Draft? Yeah it's possible. Maybe even probable. Which makes it amusing since Democrats were screaming that it would be -Bush- who'd implement the Draft.

4. If China moves on Taiwan I don't think Obama would respond in time or at all. This might be what Biden was talking about. The result of which would mean that China would control a lot of electronics manufacturing and design.

5. Maybe Biden was talking about something that would erase American sovereignty. Obama is definitely a pro-UN and pro-internationalist. So are many Democrats in Congress.


Frankly the number of different ways for these clowns to do damage is almost beyond counting.

Rand Simberg wrote:

I've assumed that Iran has operational nuclear weapons, bought from North Korea, and that is why Israel has been reluctant to bomb Iran.

One need not make that assumption to understand Israel's reluctance, but I expect them to do it shortly after the election if Obama wins, to get in under the wire. I don't believe the North Korea has operational nukes. They certainly haven't demonstrated one, and it can't be considered operational without at least one successful test. Also, they don't have any that can be delivered on missiles, so Iran would have to come up with some other means of delivery if they had any.

Carl Pham wrote:

Ach, this is all wrong. Joe Biden was speaking to Democrats, to rabid Obama supporters, the people whose opinion he thinks matters, and who he secretly believe constitute the overwhelming majority of correctly-thinking reasonable Americans.

So he wasn't warning them that Obama would do something the rest of us, the non-Obama supporting reactionary throwback caveman stupids would find upsetting. For one thing, he doesn't care what we think, and for another, he doesn't believe what we think matters, and certainly can't imagine that we constitute enough of the electorate to damage Obama's numbers next year.

What he was doing was telling the die-hard Obamabots that they would be pissed off at what Obama does next year. He's warning the nutroots that Obama is going to stab them in the back, just like he did with FISA and kinda sorta on Iraq.

How will that happen? Dunno. Given that it's foreign policy, I'm going to think that he means Obama is not going to abandon Iraq, and that he may do a "surge" in Afghanistan, too. That all their fond dreams of getting out of "the Bush mess" are doomed, because Obama realizes, as does Biden, that Bush was right, after all, and however useful it may be to bash him around politically right now, after the election they're going to have to pursue essentially the same course.

That's consistent with Biden's earlier criticisms of Obama, and with his own foreign policy experience, and with his historic track record of being right just about as soon as it becomes obvious to everyone what the right way is.

So I think the warning here is not to Obama opponents. It's not, as Whittle is implying, that Biden is admitting that the fears (and hopes) of the McCainiacs and other right-side pundits are going to be realized, with exactly the results they imagine. Rather, it's a warning to Obama supporters, that they're going to be betrayed big time, that plenty of stuff Obama says right now that they think is just "moving to the center" so he can win the election is actually going to be Obama Administration policy, so he can win the next election.

That said, I think it likely Biden is bullshitting himself, so he can be more comfortable on the ticket, knowing what he knows. He's trying to convince himself that Obama takes foreign policy more seriously than he (Obama) actually does. So I don't think this Biden weirdness is either a cause for worry or a cause for hope. It's just noise.

Mike Puckett wrote:

I love all the idiots waiting with glee for us to abandon Israel.

Be careful what you wish for.

Carter tried that early in his term. The Israelis retorted that if they could not afford a conventional defense, they would be forced to resolve it with a nuclear one. Carter suddenly changed his mind.

I am sure that option is even larger now.

If Israel cannot fix Iran with conventional arms, they have a viable fallback position.

Dick Eagleson wrote:

Agree with Rand. If Obama is elected, Israel will definitely settle Iran's nuclear hash on or before 20 January. If Iran tries anything sufficiently rude in response, well , to borrow a turn of phrase from the late Adm. Bull Halsey, by the time this is over, the Farsi language will be spoken only in Hell - and Beverly Hills.

Leland wrote:

3. The Draft? Yeah it's possible. Maybe even probable. Which makes it amusing since Democrats were screaming that it would be -Bush- who'd implement the Draft.

The O already promised us manadatory volunterism. I doubt it would be hard for him to go against Rangel and veto a bill bringing back the draft.

Randy Beck wrote:

Carl Pham is right.

The last thing Obama and Biden want is for a 9/11 on their watch. People would then remember how Bush was criticized for PATRIOT, wiretapping, etc., and they'll conclude Bush was right all along.

Let's not forget, Nancy Pelosi had allowed waterboarding and Al Gore had approved extraordinary rendition when they thought it was still secret. Obama knows he can get away with anything.

Bald Tires wrote:

I would have said Israel would act soon after the US election, perhaps by the 2nd or 3rd week of December if Obama had a clean win and no legal issues remained to keep his victory in doubt. However, Israel has election problems of its own and is currently being run by a caretaker government. Those problems will probably not be resolved that soon. If anyone in D.C. is going to give the green light and undercover help to the Israelis, it may have to be the next POTUS.

TBinSTL wrote:

Do you read Sutter Cane?

Jeff wrote:

Carl Pham says Obama will stab the nutroots in the back; I respectfully disagree. By the time you get to the top, as Biden is, you realize who's on your side, and who isn't. The average nutroot might really believe they're doing good; the nuts at the top of the tree know otherwise. Biden knows that the nutroot-types only make up maybe 10%-30% of the Dems. That's not enough to drive polls down.

My own guess is that Obama is planning on imposing an amazingly hard left smack-down on the country, enabled by a Democrat left-dominated congress. The only thing standing in the way of this would be the Dems failing to get 60 in the senate. The changes will be so sweeping, so vast, that most normal Dems (you know, the generally good folks who don't really appreciate what the left of their party is like) will be sickened by the changes.

Of course, there will be nothing anybody can do to stop it. Get ready, folks. Change is coming.

Michael wrote:

For some time now I've had the thought that if the Obama wins Iran might select Inauguration Day to test a nuclear weapon.

That would sure get the "ahhhs...." and "ummmms..." going.

Not to mention ruin the parties.

Curt Thomson wrote:

I agree with Carl that it is all just noise, though the depth of his analysis is somewhat silly. Joe Biden suffers from a bad case of faulty brain-mouth wiring, as a result of no more than average IQ. He always has and always will.

The timing of an Israili strike on Iran is not going to be remotely related to this election. It's a safe assumption that they know more about Irans nuclear capabilities than we do, and if/when they judge the time is right for Osirak 2.0 (or 3.0 depending on how you look at it), it will happen.

Jonathan wrote:

-As Bald Tires pointed out, Israel has its own problems, namely its worst leaders ever. There may be an election in a few months but that's a best case. And its leaders and political class, even the supposedly adult Netanyahu, have foolishly assumed that the USA would take care of Iran for them.

-Iran may not need missiles to deliver a bomb. It could use commercial aircraft, particularly against Europe. Even a crude gun-type bomb would fit in a jetliner, and the bomb design wouldn't necessarily need to be tested.

-Even in this comment thread the predictions about Obama are all over the place. That's the main problem -- nobody has a clue what Obama will do if he is elected. It's astonishing that so many people are willing to bet the country on a candidate they know so little about.

II wrote:

Rubbish; I certainly know how to read.

The Financial Crisis will be the major driver of your so-called foreign policy crisis.

Meanwhile, enemies of America are sickened by the thought of an Obama Presidency:

They can't compute!

Much better than bombing them - PSY-OPS from Obama will sicken them. He's already pretty much fried his opposition locally without as much as a nasty word about Hillary, McCain or Palin.

However, Carl's alternative theory is plausible. Carl is beginning to sound half-rational recently. At least compared to the majority here.

Mike Drew wrote:

I agree with Carl that Obama is going to be doing somethings that will piss off his own illuminati liberal base. I have a feeling its something that he has no choice in, probably due to the high risk it would have to the US safety. (Will probably blame Bush for it also.)

Carl Pham wrote:

I agree with Carl that Obama is going to be doing something that will piss off his own illuminati liberal base

You misread me. I didn't say Obama would actually do something to stab his base in the back. I said Joe Biden is warning that he will.

But I also said I think Biden is deluding himself, perhaps to remain comfortable being Obama's VP.

That's why I think the proper interpretation of Biden's comments is a wash. Obama supporters might reasonably be alarmed that Biden thinks they'll be betrayed by The One, but Obama opponents might reasonably fear that Biden is simply wrong, as he so often is.

Sam Dinkin wrote:

There's a lot of explanations available. I don't think the weirder portions of the Obama-Biden agenda (like following through on the discussion about sending US troops to fight in Pakistan) will be the reason. It will probably be the economy. It will be a tough year to govern next year.

memomachine wrote:


@ Rand

"I don't believe the North Korea has operational nukes. They certainly haven't demonstrated one, and it can't be considered operational without at least one successful test. Also, they don't have any that can be delivered on missiles, so Iran would have to come up with some other means of delivery if they had any."

Well nobody ever accused the Iranians of being logical. But still I find it hard to believe the Iranians would invest tens of millions of dollars in a nuclear program assisted by people who aren't able to produce a nuclear weapon. Doesn't that defy even the most basic of tests of reason?

As for delivery systems. I figured they'd leave it up to a terrorist group to figure that out.

Leave a comment

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on October 25, 2008 10:42 AM.

I Would Be, Too was the previous entry in this blog.

Some Thoughts On Unnamed Sources is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1