Join 3,523 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Buffoon Of The Day?
October 25, 2001 2:02 PM   Subscribe

Buffoon Of The Day? Sen. Joe Biden criticized the war in Afghanistan and is now being called the "buffoon of the day" by the National Review. Roll Call says he's been criticized by top Republicans and the Washington Times notes that a top fellow Democrat is pretty upset too. The New Republic has another less-than-flattering piece on Biden before he made his comments. Did Biden just kill his chance to run for president in 2004? (via Vote.com and Political Wire)
posted by flip (21 comments total)

 
no.
posted by crunchland at 2:04 PM on October 25, 2001


He still has a chance to run. He never had a chance to win.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:07 PM on October 25, 2001


Come on, if Dan Quayle can run for President, anybody can.

Biden may have killed his chances of winning, except that he never had any chance to begin with.

Of course, all this presupposes anyone will remember or care when the campaigning starts. I suspect not.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:08 PM on October 25, 2001


Biden's name looks too much like Bin Laden for him to win. Sure it's shallow but little things like that matter today.
posted by gyc at 2:16 PM on October 25, 2001


I used to think Biden was an OK guy... for a democrat.

From the NR article: "I'd be willing to pay for universal recognition of the United States as a crazed, uncontrollable, unstoppable, utterly lethal high-tech bully. Just the sort of country you don't want to mess with."

Amen. Michael Ledeen in 2004!
posted by Tubes at 2:27 PM on October 25, 2001


Wait a year, and being against this war won't make you a terrorist.
posted by jragon at 2:50 PM on October 25, 2001


He should have known better than to criticize or have a different opinion.
posted by cmacleod at 3:39 PM on October 25, 2001


Joe Biden appears to be pissing off the correct people to piss off.

It will win him moderate support.

I'll vote for Joe Biden, John McCain, Ralph Nader or whoever it takes to fire the Scam of the Century that sits in the Oval Office right now.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 3:48 PM on October 25, 2001


But he said a long U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan "plays into every stereotypical criticism of us [that] we're this high-tech bully that thinks from the air we can do whatever we want to do, and it builds the case for those who want to make the case against us that all we're doing is indiscriminately bombing innocents, which is not the truth."

God forbid the Administration consider how America's enemies might use our military campaign against us in their propaganda. Certainly the Taliban would never begin escorting journalists to purported cites of civilian casualties in an effort to cause other Muslim nations to withdraw their support for our efforts to destroy al-Qaida.
posted by snarkout at 3:49 PM on October 25, 2001


Is Biden the guy who got knocked for plagerism in a previous presidential run? I know I could just google it, but I don't feel like it. I will apologize if I am wrong.
posted by thirteen at 3:55 PM on October 25, 2001


Yeah, Biden pinched some Brit pol's speech.

Something about being the first person in his family to go to college despite a tough childhood....

Whatever it was, he took the words exactly from the Brit's speech.

There are video clips that were used at the time to compare the two.

I don't know if they are online, though.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 4:00 PM on October 25, 2001


From the Washington Times: Asked by The Washington Times yesterday if his comments were misconstrued or taken out of context, Mr. Biden would only say "the speech speaks for itself."

At least he's not wussying out like Falwell/Robertson that he was "quoted out of context" or some other bull shit. Gotta give him credit for standing by what he said, especially in the face of conservative onslaught!

So the moral of the story is that if you DON'T agree with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld plan, then be PREPARED to be labeled UNPATRIOTIC, or worse. Some moral.
posted by Rastafari at 4:32 PM on October 25, 2001


Yep, Biden's the guy that pinched from Labour Party's Neal Kinnock back during '88 campaign. I really thought that he was political toast after that -- he took quite a beating. Surprised he's made it this long -- but no way would he be elected President.

Howzabout "Cheney in '04!"
posted by davidmsc at 4:42 PM on October 25, 2001


Howzabout "Cheney in '04!" Only if Mary Cheney runs!
posted by Carol Anne at 4:48 PM on October 25, 2001


TNR is criticizing the Administration for not moving quickly enough with the military campaign (link via the Washington Post), so at least part of their anti-Biden jab is probably rooted in a general desire to denigrate discussion of a slower, more deliberate effort that's more focused on diplomatic reprecussions than military victory.
posted by snarkout at 5:42 PM on October 25, 2001


Joe Biden's response in question:

"Again, I'm not a military man. I think the American public and the Islamic world is fully prepared for us to take as long as we need to take, if it is action that is mano-a-mano. If it's us on the ground going against other forces on the ground. The part that I think flies in the face of and plays into every stereotypical criticism of us is we're this high tech bully that thinks from the air we can do whatever we want to do, and it builds the case for those who want to make the cause against us that all we're doing is indiscriminately bombing innocents, which is not the truth. Some innocents are (indiscriminately) bombed, but that is not the truth. I think the American public is prepared for a long siege. I think the American public is prepared for American losses. I think the American public is prepared, and the President must continue to remind them to be prepared, for American body bags coming home."

Daschle's Distancing from Biden? Daschle had this to say in the Senate Chamber yesterday:

"I have the greatest admiration for the extraordinary experience and leadership provided by the Senator from Delaware. I am not surprised he was misquoted, and I think he is wise. He speaks from experience in coming to the floor to ensure if there is any misunderstanding it has now been clarified.

He did it in a way I would expect. He has come to the Chamber with a complete explanation. I have read some of the remarks because after being asked the question, I was informed of the Senator's comments. I applaud him for the way in which he handled the questions and applaud him as well for his speech. I appreciate his willingness to come to the Chamber, and I thank him for the extraordinary job he does every day as chairman of our Foreign Relations Committee."
posted by bragadocchio at 10:18 PM on October 25, 2001


flip, is that "Roll Call" link an error, or did you mean to link to the New Republic twice? Interesting info regardless.
posted by DBAPaul at 1:53 AM on October 26, 2001


Sorry... Here's the Roll Call article -- in the middle of the column.
posted by flip at 5:21 AM on October 26, 2001


What's so controversial about what Biden said? It's easy enough to find English-language web sites in Pakistan and Arab countries, and the American bombing raids are portrayed exactly as Biden says.
These web sites constantly remind readers that the richest, most powerful nation on earth is bombing one of the poorest countries. What is factually incorrect about that? Sure, it's an oversimplification, and told out of context, but that's how this conflict is written about in the Middle East and Central Asia. We're in trouble if our political leaders are prevented from making this important point.
posted by Holden at 5:49 AM on October 26, 2001


Biden is correct. The campaign must change into a LAND war soon because, at some point soon, the major targets will be all gone. At least ones we know about. By the way, for all you innocents, National Review is the most conservative of the legitimate political weeklies (although with the Weekly Standard, I'm not sure how tiny it's subscription base has become). The Washington Times is the equally conservative Moonie-owned paper; not the Washington Post.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:04 AM on October 26, 2001


What's so controversial about what Biden said?

When you read his full answer, not much. But Michael Ledeen and other critics aren't providing Biden's answer in any kind of context, because if they did, it would be harder to slam him.
posted by rcade at 7:08 AM on October 26, 2001


« Older It looks like McGreevey Leads Schundler in NJ gove...  |  Meanwhile, back in some seclud... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments