Feel better?
 

Washington (CNN) -- Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday that terrorists continue to try to harm the United States, but another "massive" terrorist strike like the September 11, 2001, attacks is unlikely.

"The idea of there being a massive attack in the United States like 9/11 is unlikely, in my opinion," Biden said in an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live."



(*note - Spence supported this guy for president due to his international experience)

Yes.

Biden: Major terror attack on U.S. unlikely - CNN.com

...that intelligence suggests tactics have shifted towards smaller but dramatic attacks -vs- a grand scale event like 9/11.

This is "lame"?

Please help me understand.

-spence

So the man is not entitled to give his opinion? So you disagree and that is fine but lame? As for how big an attack in the future is anybodies guess as we are all armchair quarterbacks who knows what the future holds as the U.S. will always have its enemies from abroad and within.

Maybe they are hoping to stir chatter or create actionable intelligence and this statement is a feint? Far more likely it's just Joe Biden making a gaff.

he makes this statement based on what exactly?

a hunch? or What the Pentagon is telling him :huh:


i thought he was put in charge of helping out the AMERICAN peoples dilemma's some where....


IT seems like............ he's doing NOTHING

Maybe the Dems are preparing themselves since the GOP is already positioning for their typical election-year attacks about how the Dems are soft on terrorists and how we were somehow safer under Bush - which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

JD, how did you come to that conclusion?

You're probably right, Joe.
Everyone here probably knows that I'm not a fan of Palin at all, but it seems that her gaffes get a lot more attention than Bidens.
YouTube - Joe Biden Gaffe Blooper Mix

If it was a gaff wouldn't that mean a big attack was imminent?

-spence

With Biden, you never know. He may have been referring to the band Massive Attack. They have no plans on being in the US any time soon. So he would actually be correct in that there will be no Massive Attack in the US in the near future.
Massive Attack Tour Dates | Pollstar - The Concert Hotwire

Is Joe still warning everyone to stay off jets and avoid crowded places to keep from catching Swine Flu??????

In the same Larry King interview he stated that one of Obama's great accomplishments will be Iraq......WTF

Joe's a "Meathead"

Yes, and after all the accusations by Biden and Obama, during the Bush years that the Iraq invasion, and the surge were wrong, a failure, a mess, that we should have pulled out, that it destabilized the area and made the world a more dangerous place, that the Iraquis could never come together--on Larry King, Biden says "I am very optimistic about--about Iraq. I mean this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. . . .You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. . . .I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

He has the hutzpah to give the Obama administration the credit for something he and Obama railed against.

There certainly was a popular line of thought at one time that reconciliation among Iraqi's was impossible. Even today the Kurds have retained a sense of autonomy from the central Iraqi government...

But to remark that Iraq might not end up a total disaster in the end does in no way contradict the assertion that it was a mistake to begin with. Additionally, the cost to US taxpayers and families to keep if from completely destabilizing the region has been quite severe.

That the sitting VP would put a positive spin on a US interest that hasn't fully played out??? OH THE SHAME...

-spence

You are the King of spin Spence.
He said" could be one of the great achievements of this administration. . . .You're going to see a stable government in Iraq"

NOT "might not end up a total disaster"

Where was Obamas, Bidens, Yours or any Bush haters positive spin a year ago?

So the idea that the Obama Administration could cleanly pull 90,000 US troops from Iraq over a year into the term isn't an accomplishment they can take credit for?

-spence

isnt it funny that I did not voice my opinion but was attacked for having one in the first few posts. It was a simple question.

so my answer? No, I dont feel better, I want the VP of the United States to say some thing like this -

"We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

Didn't some guy named George speak those words? I think he got a reprimanded for :whackin: some guy in a MASH tent. What was his name General............General Patton?

The far Right's only purpose for Palin is because she gets a lot of PR. Having her do a keynote speech at any event will trigger massive publicity.

Palin is shadowed by controversy due to the reports from the McCain camp after the campaign and because of her public comments. Reporters flock to controversy.

Biden is expected to make gaffs (this doesn't make them acceptable). Where as just about any appearance by Palin gives the news stations hours of commentary - be it by FoxNews and how they agree with her, or CNN for how she's an idiot.

We read the "lame" remark in your sig as your opinion.

The point is to lead, not blow smoke up voter's asses. Biden was being honest. Honesty is one of the four pillars of leadership.

-spence

Yea, cause she's good looking. Were she not we wouldn't know her name, unless we moved to Alaska.

-spence

The eventual draw down of troops from Iraq was ALWAYS part of the BUSH policy. What is it about success in Iraq that the Obama administration can take credit for, other than continuing the previous administration's policies?

The chutzpah is in continuing to trash the invasion, long after it was relevant to do so, in order to win back the congress and presidency, then turning around and claiming the previous "debacle" a success of the current administration.

Biden giving credit for success in Iraq to his administration (and none to Bush) is being honest and not blowing smoke up voter's asses?

Ya chutzpah for sure, wasn't it Obama and Biden that voted against the surge that ended up turning things around, and wasn't it Biden who wanted to split Iraq in 3 parts and now saying there is a good chance it is becoming a young Democracy?

For sure--among MANY criticisms that they launched. There was such a negative drumbeat against the war that they helped to turn public opinion against it, calling it a Vietnam, and emboldening the enemy to hope that we would treat it as such and withdraw. Instead, Bush refused to let that happen, and we now have an ally in the place of a former enemy. And Biden now claims it as a success of his administration!

I have to believe Biden is locked in his room right now.

The time frame for leaving Iraq that biden is trying to give credit to the Obama administration was already hammered out in the Bush administration, no need to argue about it. :rotf2: :rotf2:

I guess that the fact the Status of Forces agreement to drawn down the troops in 2010 signed under Bush had nothing to do with it..fact wise that is.

Oh yes and Spence; Patrick Kennedy is not running for re-election, you should run for the seat, RI needs you, really needs you.:soon:

TT

HONEST??? He is being stupid. Its that mentality that allowed for 9/11. Anything is possible and we need to be prepared. I know......Im a fear monger.

And PR BUZZ - That was a quote from Winston Churchill, not Patton

So Biden makes a comment that he thinks a small but dramatic attack is more likely than a large scale plot...and you...

Let's get this straight...

Interpret this as the Obama administration completely ignoring the possibility of another 9/11 scale attack?

And to cap it off you parrot some cheap election year rhetoric?

Talk about lame, that's just n#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g futz.

Sounds like a more sophisticated version of Palin's "we win, they loose" approach to foreign policy :jester:

-spence

Bush hasn't been POTUS for over a year now, these are Obama's orders and he hold the accountability for success or failure.

-spence

Yet for years they refused to state our intentions were short-term or even recognize the idea of a time line for withdrawal. We're not talking about a "date" mind you but even the idea.

I'd also note that the SOFA mentioned above was largely a product of the Iraqi government trying to get us to leave, not Bush itching to get the troops home.

Obama has been in charge for a year and has been negotiating Middle Eastern politics along the way. Though the security situation in Iraq had certainly improved by the time Bush left office, that's no guarantee that it would remain better, continue to get better or that the political situation, which is still quite fragile, could not fall apart.

So the voters think the Iraq war was a mistake, and it's off the table to challenge your opponents for supporting a failed foreign policy?

Just because it happened in the past?

This is a new concept, the idea that an elected official shouldn't be held accountable for their record in future elections. It certainly would make elections more exciting!

-spence

Lets not give credit to a President and Vice President that vehemently opposed the troop surge and remember that in his presidential campaign this had become part of his platform to be elected.

It is the fault of those that have voted for him under false pretenses.

Obama definitely remarked that he didn't believe the surge was working in mid 2007 after troops had been deployed, but violence had yet to diminish.

As we all know today, it's wasn't really the "Surge" that started the reduction in violence but the fact that Sunni's started taking their future more seriously led by the Anbar Awakening which began the year before. The extra troops certainly helped provide extra security though, and it's a combination of factors that have let to the conditions today.

The assertion that this was a part of his election platform doesn't really hold water. In September 2008, just two months before the election Obama stated that he thought the surge "worked" but also that it was costly.

Why would somebody change their stance just before a vote on such a critical issue? Perhaps Obama is less of an ideologue than some think...

-spence

If you'r referring to my chutzpah comment, I didn't say the chutzpah belonged to the voters. It belongs to Biden claiming that Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of" his administration. And "you're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government." Which is exactly what the Bush administration was derided for (by Biden, Obama, nearly the whole political left)--nation building--imposing democracy in the Middle-East where it was supposedly impossible. And --"I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences"--when he had wanted to partition Iraq into 3 states.

The Anbar awakening was fueled by our marine counter-insurgency which inspired even further Al-Qaeda stupid killings of Iraqis. The Iraqis in general and the Sunnis in particular, were "awakened" to the obvious fact that it was Al-Qaeda and the "insurgents" who were killing Iraqis and trying to destroy their elected government, and it was not Americans doing that killing and destruction. And the surge, in combination with embedding our troops with the locals, not in separate bivoucs, was absolutely essential to provide the confidence and security to allow that "awakening" to flourish.

You didn't get the memo?

Obama is the end all, be all - responsible for everything that is going on in the country - but only when that everything is dire and furthers the Conservative agenda. If something good follows through, well "Bush set the wheels in motion for that." They forget that 'Bush set the wheels in motion for the economy - right off a cliff' or that he 'set the wheels in motion to be in Iraq under false pretense for 7 years.'

I see.

So if it were not for Americans killing Iraqi's so that Iraqi's would respond by killing Iraqi's that the Iraqi's wouldn't have come to the conclusion that it wasn't worthwhile to continue to kill Iraqi's?

It's a good think we invaded in the first place, otherwise the Sunni's wouldn't have had the motivation to stop attacking us!

-spence

Another amazing display of evasive maneuvers--wiggling out of defending Biden, spinning to the Anbar Awakening, and winding into the invasion of Iraq. It's difficult to conclude anything when the topic keeps changing.

Perhaps you didn't get the memo circulating for the past eight years that Bush is the end all, be all of everything bad . . . oh . . . wait . . .you must have gotten the memo, or part of it--"the economy-right off a cliff" . . ."in Iraq under false pretense".

Actually, the economy was beginning its fall during the last year of Clinton's administration (the bursting of the dot.com bubble) and continued through the first year of Bush (of which Bush only served 7 or eight months--remember the delay due to Gore's challenge). Then Bush corrected the fall with tax cuts, etc., and the economy boomed again untill the banking failure that was inspired by, supposedly, a cluster of things that were initiated before Bush, and Bush again, initiated the corrective, the bank bailouts, taking the PR hit for doing so, and handed over (for Obama to inherit), an Iraq on its way to Biden's glowing appraisal, and the bank correction that "saved" the economy from depression, and Obama quickly acted by piling on to the correction an unnecessarily massive "Stimulus" and abandoned fixing the Social Security crisis by trying to add on to it a massively expensive public health care plan. And there's your economy being dragged toward the cliff again, and probably prolonged in the dumps longer than it normally would be.

Again, we get off topic.

And what is the opposite of a false pretense? A true pretense? Was Bush's pretense false because he knew WMDs didn't exist when he went searching for them. Or was his pretense a true pretense because he believed that there were weapons.