In reply, Senator Joe Biden, Democrat of Delaware, and, regrettably, current chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, wrote this piece a few days later. Ever the copycat, Biden couldn't even come up with his own title, using Lieberman's instead, but replacing "Democrat" with "Republican."
Biden, it should be noted, is a famous plagiarist, ranked second among political plagiarists on a website devoted to outing those who practice this offensive behavior. His article in the Journal was so badly written I actually had to stop after a few paragraphs when I first tried to read it.
Perhaps the paper published this piece of Biden's because, being so poorly constructed, they knew he didn't steal this one from somebody else.
Lieberman's piece is straightforward, honest and clear. He marks the progression of the Democratic party from Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson to today's complete dovishness in the face of any external threat. The Senator finishes his piece by observing,
"Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.
In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.
John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.
There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.
Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.
If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.
A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn."
In contrast to Lieberman's well-reasoned and factually-supported editorial, we then saw Biden publish his mess of a reply.
Right away, Biden loses focus on the actual topic, external enemies of America and the need to confront them, and goes all soft and gooey, writing,
"At the heart of this failure is an obsession with the "war on terrorism" that ignores larger forces shaping the world: the emergence of China, India, Russia and Europe; the spread of lethal weapons and dangerous diseases; uncertain supplies of energy, food and water; the persistence of poverty; ethnic animosities and state failures; a rapidly warming planet; the challenge to nation states from above and below."
Biden is one of those Democrats who prefers a wounded America on a pristine, harmonious planet to a strong America confronting its enemies first, and less-lethal issues second.
He continues in his diatribe,
"Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. Messrs. Bush and McCain lump together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us: Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Iraq and Iran, al Qaeda and Shiite militias. If they can't identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win.
The results speak for themselves.
On George Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb; its influence in Iraq is expanding; its terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and that country is on the brink of civil war."
As is so typical of Biden, he's either wrong or misrepresenting the facts. For example, terrorism is not simply a means to an end in the way that diplomacy is. Currently, several organized non-states employ it as their mode of warfare. Biden doesn't understand this, and, thus, sloughs it off as trivial.
Then he materially misstates- or lies- about Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon capability. The country stopped work on this program thanks to the Bush-led removal of Saddam and liberation of Iraq. The only reason they are resuming work now is that they believe Obama might become President, and, even if not, a Democratic Congress and supine UN will never stop them.
Wrong again, Joe.
Biden then mischaracterizes the choices available to the next US President in dealing with Iran,
"Last week, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Barack Obama was "naïve and inexperienced" for advocating engagement; "What is it he wants to talk about?" he asked.
Well, for a start, Iran's nuclear program, its support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its patronage of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Beyond bluster, how would Mr. McCain actually deal with these dangers? You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. If Mr. McCain has ruled out talking, we're stuck with an ineffectual policy or military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control."
All Biden can come up with is either plead with these terrorists and terrorist states to talk with us, or go to war, and he thinks that's all anyone else can, too.
In truth, there are more options. Diplomatic pressure, whether uni- or multi-lateral, is available, as is economic pressure. Plus trade and other multinational actions to isolate Iran for its rogue behavior toward other nation states.
Poor Obama, if Biden, writing on his behalf, is any indication of how he's approaching foreign policy.
When Biden writes,
"President Nixon didn't demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao. President Reagan didn't insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev. Even George W. Bush – whose initial disengagement allowed dangers to proliferate – didn't demand that Libya relinquish its nuclear program, that North Korea give up its plutonium, or even that Iran stop aiding those attacking our soldiers in Iraq before authorizing talks,"
he, as usual, misses an important distinction. China was working through another nation, not a terrorist group outside of a state. So, too, was Russia an established state. Libya and North Korea are, as well.
When Biden runs out of ideas, which is pretty quickly, he resorts to two other tricks.
The first is to constantly use the term "Bush-McCain," as if to take for granted something very untrue. McCain is certainly no George W. Bush. No, a McCain Presidency will not be like a third Bush term.
The other trick is to punt on what to do with Iran and allege,
"It also requires a much more sophisticated understanding than Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain seem to possess that by publicly engaging Iran – including through direct talks – we can exploit cracks within the ruling elite, and between Iran's rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically."
Meaning, Joe wants to just wait for a hoped-for uprising in this terrorist state. Until then, however, US actions are, in his view, all wrong.
I guess the silver lining in Biden's editorial is that, if a sufficient number of people read and understand it, they won't vote for Obama, because Biden's thought process, twisting of facts and overall stupidity are so egregious. Since Biden defends the junior Illinois Senator in the editorial, it's reasonable that readers may identify Obama with this appallingly bad treatise on foreign policy and vote for McCain.
Now if we could just remove Biden from the chairmanship of that Senate committee, and get a clear-thinking replacement.
No comments:
Post a Comment