« Coverage of Hurricane Katrina Gustav and where is the Moore/Fowler/Spratt footage? | Main | A Bump That Ain't In The Polls »

Biden to Israel: Obama He will Surrender to Iran's Nuclear Program

The Jerusalem Post reports that Joe Biden told Israeli officials not to expect Obama, should he become president, to do anything about Iran's nuclear program, that Israel will just have to live with a nuclear Iran. Let's not forget Iran's leader has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

Security officials expressed concern Monday over statements reportedly made by US Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Biden regarding Iran's nuclear program

Army Radio reported that the Delaware senator was heard saying in closed conversations with Jerusalem officials three years ago that he was firmly opposed to an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reportedly claimed that Israel would likely have to come to terms with a nuclear Iran. He reportedly expressed doubt over the effectiveness of economic sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic and said he was against the opening of an additional military and diplomatic front, saying that the US had more pressing problems, such as North Korea and Iraq.

The Jerusalem Post says it can't confirm the report, but Haaretz is reporting the same thing:

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden was quoted Monday as telling senior Israeli officials behind closed doors that the Jewish state will have to reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran.

In the unsourced report, Army Radio also quoted Biden as saying that he opposed "opening a additional military and diplomatic front."

Biden, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has long been considered strongly pro-Israel. His nomination as Barack Obama's running mate had been expected to shore up the Democrats' strength with U.S. Jewish voters.

The Israeli government has got to be reeling from what Joe Biden has told these senior Israeli officials, which is that Obama will leave you out to dry. This is completely opposite of Joe Biden's previous position on Israel. Just a year ago, Joe Biden proudly declared himself a Zionist:

During the interview conducted by the Jewish 'Shalom TV' Biden said, "I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist." He also revealed that his son is married to a Jewish woman, of the Berger family from Delaware, and that he had participated in a Passover Seder at their house.

Biden's enthusiastic commitment to Israel seems to have changed very quickly now that Obama is in charge. At the Saddlback Forum, we saw Obama struggle to give an unintelligible answer to Rick Warren about what to do about evil in the world. Now we're learning what Obama's answer really is: when faced with the evil residing in Tehran, Obama will not defeat it; he will surrender to it.

Added: Ok I messed this up. These quotes are from Biden before he became Obama's VP, so they reflect Biden's views and not Obama's. Sorry for the screw up, folks.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/31253.

Comments (25)

This is crazy, you put this... (Below threshold)
Anonymouse:

This is crazy, you put this garbage up here without being able to confirm the information. You have absolutely no credibility unless you are able to quote someone on the record. What is this? The National Enquirer?

Anonymous, apparently you m... (Below threshold)

Anonymous, apparently you missed that it was sourced to TWO DIFFERENT and COMPETING newspapers.

If you wanna talk about just making shit up, take a look at some of the slanders and libels being tossed around about Sarah Palin.

I've been busy cleaning up that mess all over this site...

J.

Is 'surrender' really the r... (Below threshold)

Is 'surrender' really the right word? I'm more picturing Obama and Biden with their hands over their ears, eyes shut, yelling 'LALALALALALALA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU'

Imagine if we would of had ... (Below threshold)
PeachPit:

Imagine if we would of had left Saddam in power but slammed him with further restrictions...we wouldn't be worrying about IRAN! What a smooth move. Take out the watch dog...

National Enquirer has been ... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

National Enquirer has been way faster and more accurate than the LA Times recently.

Plus, from what we know of Obama, does anyone doubt this? I fully expect him not to interfere with the nuclear ambitions of Iran, and he actually desires in his heart to help them accumulate more so that they can attack Israel. Obama is an enemy of Israel.

Why should Israel be any di... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Why should Israel be any different from all the other folks that Obama has thrown under the bus?


"This is crazy, you put this garbage up here without being able to confirm the information. You have absolutely no credibility unless you are able to quote someone on the record"

Jay already busted you out on Palin but it bears repeating that the liberals like yourself who have been posting on this site are the ones with zero credibility. IE the one who said he could tell that Palin's daughter had a baby just by looking at her photograph.


Well if this true it's real... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Well if this true it's really stupid as it makes it more likely that Israel will launch a preemptive attack this year while Bush is still in office. What was that noise about Biden having foreign policy experience?

Imagine if we woul... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Imagine if we would of had left Saddam in power but slammed him with further restrictions...we wouldn't be worrying about IRAN! What a smooth move. Take out the watch dog...

You mean the restrictions Saddam was close to bribing his way out of? Imagine leaving Saddam in power without restrictions and billions of oil dollars to fund his military ambitions. Imagine what a vindictive Saddam would be planing against the U.S. in retaliation for his humiliating defeat in the first gulf war. You're right, we wouldn't be working about Iran.

Considering few would actua... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Considering few would actually voice that opinion, perhaps that's how Obama had to settle on Biden as a choice.

It's true. Biden has becom... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

It's true. Biden has become the talking head for Obama to reveal that which is unspeakable. Obama never had any intentions of stopping Iran's nuclear program, or slowing it at all. Who couldn't see this coming a mile off?

Considering a number of Oba... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Considering a number of Obama's senior foreign policy advisors have been very anti-Israel, it doesn't surprise me that Biden would passively accept this, now that he is within reach of a position that he could never elected to on his own.

Biden's three year o... (Below threshold)
Larry:


Biden's three year old remarks are interesting. He accurately reflects that the US didn't have the military muscle to engage Iran at that time and implied that was because we were bogged down in Iraq, plus had North Korea on our mind. While he didn't mention Afganistan, that would be a factor. He, in effect, told Israel they were on their own.

The latter was in the language of diplomacy.

He said he was opposed to an attack on Iran's nuclear program. Did he mean by Israel or the US? Who knows.

But it was what he DIDN'T say that counted.

What he didn't way was whether the US would come to Israel's defense if Israel attacked.

He also implied that he supported Israel and Zionism in various ways.

To me, that says "Go get 'em, we'll back you up as usual."

Also by the way he is reported to have expressed himself, there isn't much there for the Muslims to sink their rabid teeth into.

Also, how do we know we got benefit of everything he said as opposed to what the IDF wanted us to know?

Demonizing the Bidens of the world is ok with me (they deserve it), so long as there is a solid basis. This time Jay, I think you missed it.

Larry

"Did he mean by Israel or t... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

"Did he mean by Israel or the US? Who knows..."
"But it was what he DIDN'T say that counted..."
"how do we know we got benefit of everything he said as opposed to what the IDF wanted us to know?..."

Rationalize much?

Diplospeak is an int... (Below threshold)
Larry:


Diplospeak is an interesting subject jpm100, I urge you to take a look at how it works. It is almost as bad as politicalspeak, or maybe worse.

Ever hear of Heinlein's "How to tell a lie by telling the truth?"

I recommend an update that ... (Below threshold)
Edward Sisson Author Profile Page:

I recommend an update that basically says this post is in error, and that you are leaving it up only because a key element of blogger honesty is to leave mistakes up (but clearly corrected) rather than disappear them altogether. Biden's remarks are from 3 years ago -- 2005. They don't represent Obama (and claiming they do represent Obama is the only reason this post was written) nor do they necessarily even represent Biden's position today, now that 3 years have passed and so much has changed -- such as we won in Iraq and are now in a much better position to stop Iran from getting nukes (which, by the way, has been a key reason why I supported the Iraq war from the beginning -- our grand strategy in that part of the world, made plain by the actions-on-the-ground though not by the words of our politicians, has been to surround Iran; and we have done it). Correcting the headline isn't doing enough to make clear to the reader that the only thing that's new here is that the papers just heard about the comments.

I recommend an upd... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
I recommend an update that basically says this post is in error,

Why? This post is not the only one saying it:

On Monday Israel's Army Radio reported details of the comments Biden made when he met with "senior Israeli officials behind closed doors."

Reportedly Biden told the officials he opposed "opening a additional military and diplomatic front" against Iran.

"Israel will have to reconcile itself with the nuclearization of Iran," Army Radio quoted Biden as telling the Israelis.

Iran wants Israel annihilated, and it really looks as if Israel is getting no support in case Iran were to strike.

I hate to suggest that a fo... (Below threshold)

I hate to suggest that a foreign nation get involved in US politics, but if Biden really said this Israel needs to get extremely vocal about it.

I suggest one very simple solution.

Israel should start holding daily press conferences, in their capital, in Washington and in New York, Every single press conference should be held in english and extremely simple.

"Should Obama be elected the US president on Nov 4, we launch our entire nuclear arsenal at Syria, Iran, Cairo, Mecca and Medina. There is no negotiation."
And should Obama be elected, they should launch.

For all the peace at all costs liberals to put their asses on the line, cause the open and complete failure of the chosen ones, talk at all costs policy will destroy his presidency before he was even elected.

LaMedusa, the post is in er... (Below threshold)
Edward Sisson Author Profile Page:

LaMedusa, the post is in error because it still says "Biden's enthusiastic commitment to Israel seems to have changed very quickly now that Obama is in charge." This is totally backwards. The Biden comment is 3 years old and so it isn't new and isn't due to Obama.

said he was against the ... (Below threshold)
Bullwinkle:

said he was against the opening of an additional military and diplomatic front

Hey now, wait a minute! What good does it do for an alleged genius at foreign policy to not try diplomacy, especially when he's the veep candidate for a presidential candidate who believes that every problem can be solved by sitting down with the most rabid enemies America has, without setting conditions?

Something's rotten in appeasement land...

The Biden comment ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
The Biden comment is 3 years old and so it isn't new and isn't due to Obama.

That's interesting, because now Biden denies even saying it:
Biden Denies Saying Israel Will Have to 'Reconcile' With Nuclear Iran

I suppose the only way to know exactly what was said, would be to have an audio or transcript of it.

PeachPit - "Imagine if ... (Below threshold)
marc:

PeachPit - "Imagine if we would of had left Saddam in power but slammed him with further restrictions...we wouldn't be worrying about IRAN! What a smooth move. Take out the watch dog..."

Yeah... just imagine.

(HINT, start in the early '90's, ya know before Saddam was worm dirt.)

I get up every morning and ... (Below threshold)
Stu:

I get up every morning and the first thing I do is read up on the news of Israel, Iran, and the Obama and Mccain contest. I'm Australian, so why ? I'll tell you why, because how goes America, so goes the free world.

My number 1 hope every morning is to see that Israel has made such a statement as above..eg.."if Iran is not stopped from getting nuclear weapons, we will attack them and we will escalate it to a full blown nuclear annialation if any other countries involve themselves in Iran's favor....period......end of story"

The insane madmen running Iran only respect or fear fellow insane madmen.

You PC idiots and cultural relativism advocates get real. If someone threatens to kill me that has not got the ability to do so, I'll take defensive measures. Once they start producing the means to carry out their threat......then I will take offensive measures. You pacifists in the world don't realise that you survive entirely because others are willing to take offensive measures on your behalf.

Think about it, whats stopping people from coming into your homes and raping and killing you. Do you think it is because people will take, make laws, etc etc......wrong..it is because even though you will be like lambs to the slaughter in your pacisfist mentality...you will employ the police, security forces etc etc....to physically protect you and avenge you....without people willing to do that.....you pacifists would just be extinct.

You pacifists in t... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
You pacifists in the world don't realise that you survive entirely because others are willing to take offensive measures on your behalf.

Really, Stu? Please entertain us with those offensive measures of Australia. (Besides your offensive comment, that is.)

Think about it, whats stopping people from coming into your homes and raping and killing you.

Probably the fact that human kind isn't as sh*tty as you think it is. How goes America goes the free world? Jeez, Stu. I would put more into this response, but I don't believe you are being honest, and actually commenting to stir up trouble.

LaMedusa -If it we... (Below threshold)

LaMedusa -

If it weren't for America, Australia would be a Japanese protectorate at this point. I believe Stu was trying to be complementary to the US and Israel.

His syntactical style, however, needs a bit of work - it was difficult to puzzle out, and reminds me of someone... else... that... used to use.... disjointing his thoughts... until one day... he insulted one time too many.... and then Thor's Hammer smote.

But Stu IS right - as the US goes, so goes the free world. We go isolationist and let the rest of the world stew in its own juices (and boy, haven't I been tempted towards THAT outlook from time to time) and we're going to see a hell of a lot of problems. We get an appeaser in the White House, and the folks he appeases will take every liberty they can and then some.

JLawson, I agree with yo... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

JLawson, I agree with you, but I don't believe Stu was being honest.

This was the give-away: "You PC idiots and cultural relativism advocates get real."

And this: "You pacifists in the world don't realise that you survive entirely because others are willing to take offensive measures on your behalf."

He accused the people on this blog, which are primarily conservative and pro-military of being pacifists. This tells me he's not paying attention, a little "off center", or inebriated and ended up on the wrong blog. If not, who in the hell was this scatter-gun rant directed to, if not everyone here? You are also also right about the disjointing. Those were the good ol' Blue Moon days when "someone...else..." would come up with one coherent comment for every two-thousand.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy