The New York Post details some of them from the debate:
…some other Biden gems:
* It’s “simply not true” that Barack Obama said he’d meet Iran’s president without preconditions, Biden insisted.
Yet when Obama was asked if he would in a debate during the primaries, he said yes – a position Biden back then termed “naive.”
* Biden said he’s “always supported” clean-coal technology – after stating emphatically only last month, “We’re not supporting clean coal.”
* Biden asserted – repeatedly – that the US spends more money on three weeks’ combat in Iraq than it’s spent in Afghanistan since the war began.
That claim’s only remotely intelligible if he limits Afghan expenditures merely to US rebuilding efforts – and even then, he’s off by a factor of three, according to State Department numbers.
* Also on Afghanistan, Biden insisted – repeatedly – that “our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work” there.
That may not be an out-and-out lie, but it took supposed foreign-policy neophyte Sarah Palin to bring any context or nuance to the statement.
What Gen. David McKiernan had said was that tribal realities in Afghanistan are very different than in Iraq – requiring a different form of cooperation.
But he flatly said more troops, and more local engagement, are needed.
Sounds like a surge to us.
* Then there was what might have been the biggest head-scratcher of the night. Said Biden of the Bush administration’s supposed Middle East follies:
“When . . . along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, ‘Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.”
Huh?
Assuming that Biden was referring to when, in 2005, American and French pressure helped the Lebanese people kick Syrian troops out of Lebanon, who ever thought NATO occupation of that deeply divided country was a good idea?
As if America’s NATO allies would have gone in the first place.
But hey, as long as it makes Biden sound presidential.
At some point, Americans have to wonder: Is this a fellow who should be a heartbeat away from the White House?
Biden has long been known as a blowhard, but I never suspected him to be a man so entirely disconnected from the facts. These are not the verbal flubs any of us make in the normal course of events, and which Sarah Palin at times made during the debate and are now being used by Team Obama and the left to defend Biden with the “she lied, too” defense, as if that would make their guy look good, supposing that Palin had actually told a lie. Biden again and again and again just spun out the tallest of tales which require a bit of research just to connect them to one possible fact. This would be funny except for the fact that a month from now Biden could be elected Vice President of the United States of America.
This also highlights the rather consistent dishonesty of the man on the top of the ticket – Obama has, at times, lied about his connections to Rezko, lied about his connections to Ayers, lied about what he knew of Jeremiah Wright, lied about McCain’s record on stem cell research, lied about his record on gun control, lied about his record on the “born alive” law…lies, lies and more lies, each designed to get Obama out of a tight spot where the truth would sink his chances in November. Are we supposed to believe that he and Biden will suddenly discover a love of the unvarnished truth after they win? Or is it more realistic to believe that a successful liar will just keep going with what worked in the past?
The main reason for electing John McCain and Sarah Palin is that in them we will find people who love the truth – who prefer the truth, even if it causes them great difficulty. We need an Executive Branch which will stoutly go to war with business as usual in DC, not an Executive Branch which will just give us more of the same business as usual.
Blogs For Victory 