Recent Lieberman & Biden Editorials in the WSJ

On Wednesday of last week, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman wrote a fantastic editorial in the Wall Street Journal supporting John McCain's approach to foreign policy, while bemoaning the dovishness of his own notional party, as epitomized by the Democratic Presidential nomination leader, rookie Senator Obama of Illinois.

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.

Obama's Evolving Foreign Policy Disaster

I took the holiday weekend off from political writing. But I have a pile of clippings from the pages of last week's Wall Street Journal concerning Obama's latest, glaring foreign policy gaffes.

Well, gaffe is really too mild of a word.

Errors in judgment is better. Because these are not 'gotcha' moments. They distill and expose the Illinois freshman Senator's complete naivete on sensitive and important US foreign policy questions.

The compilation of articles was quite revealing.

On Tuesday we had Bret Stephens examining why Jewish voters have reason to distrust Obama. It seems the first-term Illinois Senator has identified with the Palestinians for quite some time now. Well, that is, until his recent Presidential campaign.

Stephens makes a very good, if nuanced point about Mideast negotiations. He notes the tortured conditions Obama placed on whether he'd talk with Syria, Hezbollah or Hamas. They are important, because in the case of Hamas and Hezbollah, they don't currently form a government. But they could. If Obama then negotiated with them, Israel would feel betrayed. And, thus, also would American Jews.

Syria's and Iran's governments don't recognize Israel, so Obama's treating with them poses problems for Israel, too.

Stephens ends his column with this passage,

"Finally, there is Israel itself. In the Atlantic interview, Mr. Obama declared that "my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth," particularly in respect to the settlements. Yes, there are mirrors that need to be held up to those settlements, as there are to those Palestinians whose terrorism makes their dismantlement so problematic. Perhaps there is also a mirror to be held up to an American foreign-policy neophyte whose amazing conceit is that he understands Israel's dilemmas better than Israelis themselves."

You just can't write it better than that, can you?

But wait.....there's more.

On Thursday of last week, Karl Rove weighed in on Obama's foreign policy blunders. Rove is a student of America's governmental and political history on a scale far surpassing mere campaign hacks like Clinton's eminence grise, James Carville.

Entitled "Obama's Troubling Instincts," the architect of President Bush's two Presidential victories noted that in a recent Oregon speech, Obama

"was dismissive of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria. That's the same Iran whose Quds Force is arming and training insurgents and illegal militias in Iraq to kill American soldiers; that is supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in violent attacks on Lebanon and Israel; and that is racing to develop a nuclear weapon while threatening the "annihilation" of Israel.

By Monday in Montana, Mr. Obama recognized his error. He abruptly changed course, admitting that Iran represents a threat to the region and U.S. interests."

Mr. Rove goes on to provide details on Nixon's discussions with the Chinese, apparently to the contrary of what Obama's spokespeople have been affirming on various cable news programs lately,

"Mr. Obama's Sunday statement grew out of a kerfuffle over his proclaimed willingness to meet – eagerly and without precondition – during his first year as president with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. On Monday, he said it was a show of confidence when American leaders meet with rivals; he insisted he was merely doing what Richard Nixon did by going to China.

I recommend that he read Henry Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." Mr. Obama would learn it took 134 private meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats before a breakthrough at a Jan. 20, 1970 meeting in Warsaw. It took 18 months of behind-the-scenes discussions before Mr. Kissinger secretly visited Beijing. And it took seven more months of hard work before Nixon went to China. The result was a new relationship, announced in a communiqué worked out over months of careful diplomacy.

The Chinese didn't change because of a presidential visit. In another book, "Diplomacy," Mr. Kissinger writes that "China was induced to rejoin the community of nations less by the prospect of dialogue with the United States than by fear of being attacked by its ostensible ally, the Soviet Union." Change came because the U.S. convinced Beijing it was in its interest to change. Then the president visited."

Mr. Rove provides similar examples from the other great Republican foreign policy President with whom Obama's supporters compare him,

"Reagan knew rogue states only change when they see there are real consequences of their actions, and when it is in their interest to change. This requires patience, vision, hard work and the use of all the tools, talents and relationships available to the U.S. We saw a recent example when Libya, fearful of American resolve after 9/11, gave up its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. These programs, incidentally, were more advanced than Western intelligence thought.

Reagan knew he must not squander the prestige of the American presidency and the authority of the United States by meaningless meetings that serve only as propaganda victories for our adversaries. Mr. Obama seems to believe charisma and smooth talk can fundamentally alter the behavior of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba."

In closing, Mr. Rove takes direct aim at Obama's arrogance, demonstrated by his implication that once he talks with Iran, Hezbollah, et.al., everything will change, and these rogue terrorist groups will realize the errors of their ways and stop behaving badly,

"But what might work on the primary campaign trail doesn't work nearly as well in Tehran. What, for example, does Mr. Obama think he can offer the Iranians to get them to become a less pernicious and destabilizing force? One of Iran's top foreign policy goals is a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. This happens to be Mr. Obama's top foreign policy goal, too. Why should Iran or other rogue states alter their behavior if Mr. Obama gives them what they want, without preconditions?

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said in Florida that in a meeting with the Iranians he'd make it clear their behavior is unacceptable. That message has been delivered clearly by Republican and Democratic administrations in public and private diplomacy over the past 16 years. Is he so naïve to think he has a unique ability to make this even clearer?

If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions, he owes it to the voters to explain, in specific terms, what he can say that will lead these states to abandon their hostility. He also needs to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea's Kim Jong Il will not deeply unsettle our allies.

If Mr. Obama fails to do so, voters may come to believe that he is asking them to accept that he has a "Secret Plan," and that he is hopelessly out of his depth on national security."

Mr. Rove does a remarkable of debunking Obama's contention that Nixon and Reagan 'talked to their adversaries,' so he can, too, without preconditions or prior back-channel diplomatic groundwork, as well as the inexperienced first-term Senator's belief that these enemies of the US will relent simply by being talked to by him.

Finally, on Friday, the Journal's Kimberley Strassel weighed in with her Potomac Watch column with "The Obama Learning Curve." She wrote,

"Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden took to the airwaves this week to "help" the rookie Barack Obama out of a foreign-policy jam. Oh sure, admitted Mr. Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee had given the "wrong" answer when he said he'd meet unconditionally with leaders of rogue states. But on the upside, the guy "has learned a hell of a lot."

Somewhere Mr. Obama was muttering an expletive. But give Mr. Biden marks for honesty. As Mr. Obama finishes a week of brutal questioning over his foreign-policy judgments, it's become clear he has learned a lot – and is learning still."

Wow. Joe's hit his stride once again, this time demonstrating his tone-deafness for political debate on behalf of his party's probable Presidential nominee.

Ms. Strassel continues,

"Right now, for instance, he's learning how tough it can be to pivot to a general-election stance on the crucial issue of foreign policy. He's also learning Democrats won't be able to sail through a national-security debate by simply painting John McCain as the second coming of George Bush.

Remember how Mr. Obama got here. In a July debate, the Illinois senator was asked if he'd meet, "without preconditions," the "leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea." It was an unexpected question, and Mr. Obama rolled with his gut: "I would," he said, riffing that the Bush administration's policy of not negotiating with terror-sponsoring states was "ridiculous.""

Talk about naivete! Of course, that was then, eh? He's learned.....or maybe not. As the article proceeds,

"A week ago, in Oregon, he adopted the "no-big-deal" approach, telling listeners Iran was just a "tiny" country that, unlike the Soviet Union, did not "pose a serious threat to us." But this suggested he'd missed that whole asymmetrical warfare debate – not to mention 9/11 – so by the next day, he'd switched to the "blame-Republicans" line. Iran was in fact "the greatest threat to the United States and Israel and the Middle East for a generation" – but all because of President Bush's Iraq war.

This, however, revived questions of why he'd meet with said greatest-threat leader, so his advisers jumped in, this time to float the "misunderstood" balloon. Obama senior foreign policy adviser Susan Rice, channeling Bill Clinton, said it all depended on what the definition of a "leader" is. "Well, first of all, he said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn't named who that leader will be." (Turns out, Mr. Obama has said he will meet with . . . Mr. Ahmadinejad.)

Former Sen. Tom Daschle, channeling Ms. Rice, explained it also depended on what the definition of a precondition is: "It's important to emphasize again when we talk about preconditions, we're just saying everything needs to be on the table. I would not say that we would meet unconditionally." This is called being against preconditions before you were for them.

And so it goes, as Mr. Obama shifts and shambles, all the while telling audiences that when voting for president they should look beyond "experience" to "judgment." In this case, whatever his particular judgment on Iran is on any particular day."

So much for the new kid on the block being ready for prime time, eh? Judgment won't be the pillar on which Obama wins the election, if he does. Ms. Strassel concludes her column by writing,

"It wasn't supposed to be this way. Democrats entered this race confident national security wouldn't be the drag on the party it has in the past. With an unpopular war and a rival who supports that war, they planned to wrap Mr. McCain around the unpopular Mr. Bush and be done with it. Mr. Obama is still manfully marching down this road, today spending as much time warning about a "third Bush term" as he does reassuring voters about a first Obama one.

Mr. McCain has every intention of running his opponent through the complete foreign-policy gamut. Explain again in what circumstances you'd use nuclear weapons? What was that about invading Pakistan? How does a policy of engaging the world include Mr. Ahmadinejad, but not our ally Colombia and its trade pact?

It explains too the strong desire among the McCain camp to get Mr. Obama on stage for debates soon. There's a feeling Mr. Obama is still climbing the foreign-policy learning curve. And they see mileage in his issuing a few more gut reactions."

Taken together, this trio of Journal columns illustrates how badly misinformed and lacking in judgment a President Obama would be.

Personally, I can hardly wait for that foreign policy debate between McCain and the rookie Senator from Illinois.