« Review: “Blindness” | Home | Clint Eastwood Disparages Dirty Harry Fans »
Joe Biden: “I’m On Record As Taking All Sides”
By Kyle | October 5, 2008
This is an expanded version of today’s column in The Post, with much more detail.
————–
The question I wanted to hear Joe Biden answer at Thursday’s debate was this one: Joe, did you know that you were once the guest speaker on the Saddam Radio Network?
In January of 1991, when I was an Army lieutenant, I unfolded myself from the shotgun seat of a deuce-and-a-half truck possibly left over from the Korean War and stumbled around my unit’s newest home, which was, like all previous homes, some unknown point somewhere in the sandbox of Saudia Arabia. Several times we packed everything and drove, each time getting farther inland and farther north, closer to the Iraq border.
Our convoy through an infinity of nothing for hundreds of miles. I was dazed with boredom, creaking with the stupor as I shook out my limbs. Someone had gotten reception on his radio, which was surprising because there are no radio stations in the middle of the desert, and we wouldn’t have guessed Armed Forces Radio was set up in the vicinity yet. A few of us gathered around to listen.
It became clear that we were listening to a recording of the U.S. Senate’s deliberations about whether to authorize the use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait, which it had invaded in 1990. Even the U.N. had authorized the use of force to reverse the invasion, and 34 countries, including many Arab states that were essentially fighting on the same side as Israel, had joined the US-led coalition.
Joe Biden was speaking. And the more he talked, the more he warned us of the disaster that was facing us, the more we wilted. This broadcast wasn’t coming from our colleagues and heerleaders at the relentlessly optimistic Armed Forces Radio. It was obviously enemy propaganda from one of the Baghdad Bobs.
Last week I looked up the January 10, 1991 transcript, wondering if it was really as depressing as I remember it. It was. Here is Biden: “Big nations cannot bluff….this is a serious mistake…. when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. We are in a bit of a hole here…95 percent of the casualties in the coalition will be American…It is not preposterous to suggest that we may have an occupying force in Baghdad for years. Maybe a month, but it could be years…four hundred thousand Americans sit in the desert ready to launch an assault that would be vastly larger than D-day in its size and scope.”
Gulp. We’re going to be here for years? Our attack is going to be bigger than D-Day? Didn’t tens of thousands of men get killed on D-Day? And one of our own senators is saying this? Depressing stuff.
The 1991 Gulf War is the only kind of war that actually meets the exacting standards liberals demand: a huge international coalition assembled to reverse undeniably illegal activity, clearly defined and limited and feasible aims, no long-term occupying force, U.N. approval. Yet Biden voted against it. He harbored no presidential ambitions at the time because after his plagiarism scandal of the 1980s, he knew he was no longer a serious contender.
In 2002, he voted for a much more questionable, much more ambitious, much more open-ended, much more expensive and much riskier war with Iraq. Apparently he wanted to look tough because he was thinking about running for president again. But in case the war went awry, he issued lots of dire warnings. He set himself up to take credit if the war was a complete success or a total catastrophe.
In a February 4, 2003 speech, Biden expressed confidence that the war would go badly, and well. He said the war was justified, and not justified. He predicted a lot of bad stuff that did happen, and a lot of bad stuff that didn’t happen. He predicted every possible outcome. So in Thursday’s debate he wanted credit for being right.
In that speech, Biden said, of the president, “I’m not saying he’s wrong to go to war. What I’m saying is that he needs to be very clear about his reasons for it…How many of you think this war in Iraq will be short and essentially bloodless? How many of you think that the war will go well and be over quickly? …Look, I’m one of those who believe the war will go well. I believe it will be prosecuted in such a way that showcase American military prowess. But it may not. It may take a year. It may take two. It may take as many as 75,000 troops five years to secure victory in Iraq. It cost 20 billion dollars more. It cost the lives of innocent women and children in Baghdad and we could become the bad guys in the eyes of the many more Muslims around the world. While it is reasonable to expect the best, it would be irresponsible not to prepare for the worst. Iraq could lash out against Kuwait, Israel, or Saudi Arabia in an effort to start a wider war. It could use weapons of mass destruction against its neighbors or against our troops. It could destroy its oil fields. It could start giving away its weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. It could create a humanitarian nightmare among the Kurds in the north and the Shi’a in the south, denying them food and medicine, even using chemical weapons against them as Saddam has done in the past and as I saw myself when I met with survivors a month ago in northern Iraq. Maybe none of these things will occur, but we must prepare the American people for what could happen.”
And so on. Four days earlier, in a January 31, 2003 speech, Biden was even more Bidenish. He switched from hawk to dove or from dove to hawk in virtually every paragraph. Sometimes he would change sides from one sentence to the next sentence. He debated himself, and yet he lost, because he underlined what senators are: talkers. They don’t manage anything, don’t have to be accountable for anything. If anything they vote for goes badly they can just say they would have done it better.
If something they voted against goes well, even better: that vote is simply forgotten, as Biden’s vote against Desert Storm has been forgotten. There’s no scandal, nothing to investigate, no interest in rehashing the details, when something works out.
To the middle-of-the-road mindset, Biden was wrong on both of the two biggest wars of the last 20 years. It is impossible to guess how he might react to a foreign policy crisis because he has committed himself to every position. But it is reasonable to wonder whether indecisiveness might lead to inaction. Hamlet, Prince of Delaware.
Get a neck brace because you’re about to get whiplash from his January 31, 2003 speech:
“It is in the best interest of the United States and the world that Saddam Hussein at some point be separated from his weapons of mass destruction with as much support and consensus as the world community can muster under our leadership.” (Hawk!)……
“There is no immediate threat in the sense that Saddam Hussein presently possesses the capability to wreak havoc upon the United States…this notion that somehow there is an immediate clear and present danger because he is likely to cooperate or has cooperated with Osama bin Laden, and/or because he has the capacity to thrust upon us biological/chemical or nuclear weapons, is possible but unlikely.” (Dove!)
“But there is no doubt in my mind, speaking as a Democrat who is not happy with this Administration’s foreign policy and the way it approaches it generally, there is no doubt in my mind that, left unfettered over the next five years with access to roughly two billion dollars a year and an unimpeded ability to import material, which it is clear that he has had, that he will have a nuclear weapon within that time frame…I don’t want another President faced with the prospect of a nuclear Iraq if he moves into a Kuwait again.” (Hawk!) “I do not believe that the most urgent threat to our security is Saddam Hussein. I believe our most urgent threat is the unattended and unfinished business of al-Qaeda and it is very unfinished.” (Dove!)
“We are making a botch of Afghanistan in my view. We are putting ourselves in a very dangerous circumstance. North Korea presents more of a clear and present danger because not only can they become the plutonium factory of the world, and, I might add, all you need is two pieces of plutonium less than the circumference of the top of this glass an eight of an inch thick pushed together at very high speeds to develop a one kiloton nuclear weapon.” (Hawk! But on North Korea.)
“As my father, who just passed away, he’d say: “Joey, America is so big, so strong, so capable. No one could screw it up in four years, unless they go to war.” Preemption is dangerous and unacceptable internationally. (Dove!)”
“…I do not question their motives. Their motives are not oil, their motives are not domination. Their motives are what they believe to be the most secure stability and peace for the United States of America. (Hawk!) But I will say I think they are dead wrong.” (Dove!)
At one point in the speech, Biden emits a masterfog of obfuscation. Try to guess what kind of commander in chief he would be when he says, “So to make a comparative point, I think Saddam Hussein is a genuine danger and cannot be left unattended. Do I think it should have been moved front and center to the degree it has now? My answer to that is no, but it has. I think there are other things that are of a much more immediate concern, but that’s not where we are right now. And so what do we do? What do we do?”
Picture a Biden presidency. A baffled man sits at a desk. “What do we do? What do we do?”
Topics: Iraq, News, Politics |
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Whatever…who is this in defense of? Palin? When will the right ever drop their irrational bias against the left and get real for a moment? Palin is a farce. She lost the debate. Its nice to see though that the brainless right wing spin doctors want to say she won because she didnt stand there like a drooling, babbling, idiot like we all expected her to do, and because she had more “personality”(less brains)than Biden. I’m glad she’s auditioning for a reality TV show and not running to be VP. Enough already.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:02 am
PS Agent Smith, do I really need to get into all the Republican party or more precisely, the Reagan administration, did to prop up and arm Saddam with chemical and biological weapons which he later turned around and used on his own people? Again another case of the Republican disease where in they live in some bizarro universe where the criminal Republican administrations we’ve had during the 80’s and over the last 8 years are innocent of all charges. Oh I know what about Clinton? Well getting head off an intern didnt lead to mass causalties and a broken economy. And yeah Barney Frank screwed up. Good for you.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Donnie…you just made the case against Obama too. He’s auditioning for a TV show. No qualifications, more charisma, and personality. Irrational bias is not exclusive doamin of the right.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Sorry, “domain”. Man I wish there was spell check.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Kyle, what was the general sentiment among US soldiers back then after it was clear things were turning into a “turkey shoot”? Did they want to go on to Baghdad?
October 5th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Donnie, you copped that “reality show” line from Huffington. Have you ever had an original thought in your life?
October 5th, 2008 at 10:24 am
When I was on active duty I endured the horrors of .mil hatred coming from our “fighting for you” democrats in the House and Senate. Joe Biden and the rest of the surrender dems was one of the reasons I became a hard core, gun loving, God fearing, low tax seeking conservative republican.
Every time I hear someone like Biden claim to “love the military” I taste a little vomit in the back of my throat. Biden and his band of liberal nut jobs have done NOTHING but de-fund, demoralize, and denigrate the United States Military.
Yes, Joe Biden has experience. He is on record as a champion of the reduction of US Military superiority in any engagement. It’s the dream of all leftist gentle hobbit hippies.
The bulk of the military votes Republican for a reason. The Democrats have been crapping on us for years and will continue to do so while they continue to claim to be “fighting for us”.
The only thing I despise more than someone who hates the military is someone who hates the military but claims to “support the troops”.
Then again, the inability to be honest is a trademark of the gentle hobbit hippie left wing (ie, the democrats).
October 5th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
What good has 36 years of foreign policy experience done for Joe Biden? He voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991 which was supported by a huge coalition of allies and the UN. Imagine what the Middle East would look like today if Biden and his fellow Democrats had prevailed and Iraq had been allowed to annex Kuwait. Saddam Hussein would have been emboldened to cause further trouble destabilizing this important region to our national and economic security. Most importantly, the WMD inspection process which revealed an advanced nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program in the early 1990’s, would never have begun making Iraq a far more dangerous threat. Biden voted for the Iraq War in 2002 and then gave our troops a vote of no confidence in 2007 by voting against the surge and for a time line for defeat. If he and his fellow Democrats had gotten their way, Iran promised to fill the power vacuum destabilizing the region and further driving up the price of oil not to mention the increased threat that would have been posed to Israel. It is scary to think a totally inexperienced President like Obama would have to rely on Biden for that kind of advice.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
“When will the right ever drop their irrational bias against the left and get real for a moment?”
1) It’s not irrational.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html
2) The only group of people that REGULARLY take part in trying to change reality to fit their perception of reality is the left.
“the Reagan administration, did to prop up and arm Saddam with chemical and biological weapons”
3) We propped up Saddam because we thought at the time it would be the best defense against the Ayatollah of Iran that Carter allowed to gain power. (forget that little facet?)
It was a mistake, and it was also a mistake for Bush Sr, not to do what Jr. did. Saddam needed to be removed from power and having a democracy (that is largely successful at this point) in Baghdad will do wonders for future middle east relations.
4) Let’s say your president in 2002. We have just been attacked by Islamic Terrorists, and we KNOW (as did the rest of the world’s intelligence) that Saddam funds these guys, let’s them train in Iraq and gives them fake documents. (the 1993 WTC tower bomber had a FAKE IRAQ PASSPORT!)
AS ACTING PRESIDENT, trying to defend the American people do you think it’s best to not act and wait for another attack? I bet you blame Bush for not doing enough to prevent 9.11, but he did too much to prevent further attacks by pursuing Saddam.
Talk about pretzel logic.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
“military is someone who hates the military but claims to “support the troops”.”
Exactly the type of pretzel logic I’m talking about. You CANNOT support the troops, if you DO NOT SUPPORT THEIR ACTIONS! This is moronic, and the biggest lie the left has foisted on the American People. (besides the whole, “Dissent is Patriotic” BULLSHRIMP!)
October 6th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
You cannot support the troops if you do not support their actions? What a stupid statement. I guess the My Lai massacre was just fine by you then. Cretin.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
We never gave Saddam chemical or biological weapons. We never gave him any weapons at all, at least in any relevant time period here. That’s all total crap and an example of the kind of garbage the Lefties accept uncritically and repeat among themselves. It’s a lie.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Hunter,
I don’t think it’s a matter of impossibility in supporting the troops but opposing their actions. The problem is the insincerity. Seriously many on the left come across like an emotionally abusive spouse constantly pointing out every negative and imperfection (as you just did) but then following it up with a “but I still love you”. Much of this rhetoric only emboldens the enemy as even a high school psychology student could tell you.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
You cannot support the troops if you do not support their actions? What a stupid statement. I guess the My Lai massacre was just fine by you then. Cretin.
Obviously, he was speaking of actions legitimately within the troops’ mandate, which My Lai was not. Cretin.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:29 am
“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
-Hermann Goering
October 7th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Oooh quotes!
“One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.”
Winston Churchill
That was to appeal to your inner patriot Hunter.
October 7th, 2008 at 11:46 am
That had nothing to do with what Goering said.
Getting back to patriotism, from every perspective other than its own, the Hallmark channel that is American patriotism is wholly risible, being equal parts maudlin, folksy and banal.
October 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Hunter,
I was taking your quote as more of an anti-war spin, my bad.
“A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril.”
Winston Chruchill
That’s more on subject. I do have to disagree with you on the notion of patriotism. It is patriotism and love of country that always been the unifying force of a people and has in some measure been the glue that has bound the very notion of a society. Obviously you’ll be able to point out the drawbacks of ultra-nationalism but you can do that with anything since nothing run by human beings is perfect given that we are so prone to corruption.
October 7th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
It is patriotism and love of country that always been the unifying force of a people and has in some measure been the glue that has bound the very notion of a society.
You’re forgetting that Hunter’s a citizen of the world. Patriotism and love of country are not exactly front and center for him.
October 7th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Kishke,
Perhaps. I still hold out hope for Hunter though, he’s a smart guy. Though unless I’ve completely misunderstood he is a British citizen so his not being patriotic toward the US is wholly understandable. My arguement is with the notion of patriotism or nationalism in general being antiquated and thereby useless concepts.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Yes, Brandon, I get all that. My argument is that Hunter, fluttering as he does from country to country, feels no particular allegiance to any.
October 7th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I think that’s a pose, Kishke. I doubt he’s given a thought to what he really feels about God and country but he knows what sounds urbane to say he feels.