Video: Biden, Iran and emboldening the enemy

posted at 8:30 am on June 18, 2007 by Bryan

Appearing on This Week with George Stephanolopous Sunday, Senator and presidential candidate Joe Biden said that Iran is waging war on the United States:

Biden’s answer would be unremarkable, reasonable even, if he hadn’t blamed Bush for Iran’s actions and said things on his own that have helped pave the way for Iran’s war against over the past few years.

On Hardball on April 2, 2004, Biden had this to say about the situation in Iraq:

MATTHEWS: If this administration gets reelected, with its worldview, that we‘ve talked about for the last hour, going into Iraq, what country is next?

CLARKE: That‘s the scary part. I mean, they made a huge mistake. About as big a mistake as you can make. Because here they have this war on terrorism and they dropped it and started a war on Iraq which made the war on Iraq harder.

MATTHEWS: Well, which was it? Was it Iran? Was it Syria?

CLARKE: If the same people are around, it could be Iran, it could be Syria. And I fear that they haven‘t learned from their mistake.


MATTHEWS: What do you think of that, Senator?

BIDEN: Well, I think that may be what they‘d like to do. But ironically, if they have—if we do not succeed in Iraq, they will have so weakened our resolve militarily, that I think most nations will look at us and say, they‘re not going to do anything to us.

Because I can‘t imagine this administration in a second term without Iraq turning out correctly. I can‘t imagine them getting—daring to think they could invade any other country in the world that has bad guys in it, because they wouldn‘t have a consensus. They don‘t have the troops. They don‘t have the capacity.

Look, things are blowing back up in Kosovo, for Lord‘s sake. We‘ve got to learn to finish one job at a time. The only—you know, if you look for a silver lining, the only thing that come out of this failed policy, in my view, is the inability of them to, I think, recreate that failed policy in the near term.

I added the bold to emphasize what Biden’s saying–that the administration wouldn’t dare do anything about Iran, both because the Democrats wouldn’t back it and because we lack the military strength. The former is evidently true; the latter is a falsehood and Biden ought to know it. We have more than enough air and sea power to deal massive blows to Iran’s nuclear program and to degrade the Revolutionary Guards without ever putting a single American boot inside Iran. But to Biden the “silver lining” of our difficulties in Iraq is that it makes dealing with rogue states like Iran that much harder. Who is that a “silver lining” for, really? Not us.

Iran understood Biden’s meanings loud and clear, and has been ramping up our difficulties in Iraq ever since: Iranian-made EFPs have killed some 170 US troops in Iraq. Iran has also been putting more and more pressure on the Israelis by arming Hezbollah and Hamas and ordering rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. And it has continued with its nuclear weapons program all the while.

How does Biden think we ought to respond to all of this? By addressing Iran’s “emotional needs.”

Senator Joseph Biden said that even if Iran was a full democracy like India, it would want nuclear capability, like India. What the world needed to address was Iran’s emotional needs, he said, with a nonaggression pact.

A non-aggression pact? Mahmoud Ahmedinejad doesn’t seem interested in a non-aggression pact.

Iran’s president said on Sunday (June 3, 2007) the Lebanese and the Palestinians had pressed a “countdown button” to bring an end to Israel.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who triggered outrage in the West two years ago when he said Israel should be “wiped off the map”, has often referred to the destruction of the Jewish state but says Iran is not a threat.

“With God’s help, the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech.

“By God’s will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future,” he said. He did not elaborate.

His emotional needs line up well with genocidal tyrants of the past. Should we move to address them, Senator Biden, or should we move to stop them? Or should we just keep on playing the European game of talking while the world burns down around us?

Obviously I am not blaming all of our troubles in the world on Sen. Biden. But the fact is, when he is one of the more reasonable Democrats on foreign policy, and he’s in the habit of tipping our hand to the enemy, he has made himself a major problem by continually and consistently emboldening our enemies. If they think a) we won’t act against them and b) we can’t, they are more likely to decide that now is the time for them to act against us and against our allies. And here we are.

It’s not hard to see how this is likely to play out. Rather than stand with the administration against Iran, Biden and his ilk have chosen to keep applying political pressure against the administration at home. It has the effect of a classic pincer move, one pincer political and formed by the Democrats for the purpose of weakening the administration to the point that’s ineffectual; the other pincer formed by the Iranians arming terrorists from Afghanistan to Gaza and nearly everywhere in between. I don’t think it’s a coordinated pincer, but it might as well be: The mullahs probably can’t believe the luck they’re having in getting useful noises and pressure from the Democrats against Bush. So we will see more violence in Afghanistan, Iraq, northern Israel and southern Israel, and Biden will use that violence to argue that “See, this administration can’t do anything right.” Biden will never do two things that might help make the situation marginally better. He’ll never show unity against an enemy of the US as long as a Republican administration is in the White House, and he’ll never just shut his yap long enough for the administration to do what may need to be done.

Biden’s own words are telegraphing to the enemy in Iran that Bush, not Ahmedinejad, will be held responsible for all of the blood shed. This is how things are working now, it’s how they’ve worked for years and it’s how they’ll work for the foreseeable future.

Now, against this backdrop–violence up everywhere, jihadis on the march everywhere, Democrats like Biden playing their role in making that violence useful to our enemies–note what’s going on elsewhere.

The Russians are moving closer to Iran and farther from us.

The Gulf states are evidently gravitating toward Iran and away from us.

The IAEA is running interference for Iran.

Leftists in South America have solidified an alliance with Iran, the global jihad and North Korea called the “World Resistance Front.” And leftists here in the US, like Cindy Sheehan and Danny Glover and many others, have joined themselves with Hugo Chavez, who is part of and a leader of the same leftist-jihadi alliance.

Sure, Sen. Biden, let’s keep talking to the Europeans and keep bringing Iran to the UN. And let’s keep pretending that everything is Bush’s fault. That’ll keep the country safe.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


What a moron, on this issue of Iran helping our enemies, it’s not “the same way the Soviets waged war against us in Africa” it’s the same way the Soviets waged war against us in Korea and Vietnam. They’re at war with us by proxy and they MUST be dealt with militarily. It’s gonna happen sooner or later, the Iranians know this which is why they want us kept bottled up next door in Iraq. We need Israel to handle our light work (Syria) while we take out the mullahs and their nukes. Talking to them isn’t gonna work, Joe. Sanctions only cause the people to starve and turn against us. We need to liberate them and thus defend ourselves and Israel from an Iranian nuke attack.

Tony737 on June 18, 2007 at 8:41 AM

The Russians are moving closer to Iran and farther from us.

This wrongly assumes they were close to us and far from Iran in the first place…

Lehuster on June 18, 2007 at 9:19 AM

Emotional needs? Non-aggression pact? Who is he, Jimmy Carter!?! That’s pathetic, even for Biden.

CP on June 18, 2007 at 9:26 AM

Biden has more than one personality running around in his head.

csdeven on June 18, 2007 at 9:35 AM

Right, Biden, because the French have been such a great help.

amerpundit on June 18, 2007 at 10:01 AM

We should demand that all Reps and Sens be vetted out. If their war policies are so good, they all should serve a term on the front.

Then poll them on their opinions.

TheSev on June 18, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Who is he, Jimmy Carter!?!

Well he had to steal it from somewhere.

KelliD on June 18, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Good commentary Bryan. Who cares about a homocidal tyrant’s emotional needs? This guy has watched WAY too much Oprah.

The larger question is, why is this moron voted back into office each time.

Mojave Mark on June 18, 2007 at 10:43 AM

Biden is the quintessential politician. He genuinely comes up with some good ideas once in a while, and then he promptly fricks them all up by over-thinking, over-analyzing, over-consulting, and especially overtalking his points.

His usefulness expired years ago. Now he’s just an irrelevant old windbag that sounds like a siding salesman. His re-election success is due to a small constituency, whom 90% have rec’d some sort of renumeration from his slippery efforts. The rest of his constituency can’t vote because they haven’t been given amnesty yet.

commonsensehoosier on June 18, 2007 at 12:28 PM

… staying with the Europeans … not waging war a tthis time … continuing to tighten the diplomatic noose …

Yeah, that worked so well with Saddam, why don’t we try it again?/sarc off

IrishEyes on June 18, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Biden is not original he’s a plagiarist.

He does not have original ideas, he uses ideas from other people. He just packages the ideas a little better. Hidden, than the obvious, he just gotten better at it.

Like a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and he claims he didn’t do it.

Kini on June 18, 2007 at 12:46 PM

Biden is a dwarf. Why is he taken seriously?

Entelechy on June 18, 2007 at 4:34 PM

I think Slow Joe’s hair plugs are a little too deep in his skull.

Entelechy, nice to hear from you, will keep you in the know once things settle down.

Kini on June 18, 2007 at 7:07 PM

We have more than enough air and sea power to deal massive blows to Iran’s nuclear program and to degrade the Revolutionary Guards without ever putting a single American boot inside Iran.

How does that help our boys in Iraq?

There are those in the military who would disagree, depending on the quality of the intel. There is no doubt in my mind that we may already be “in country” taking a peek, but the who, what, when, where, how much questions have to be pretty dead nuts on for this to work. We also have to not give a damn about our relationships with the rest of the civilized world, much less the uncivilized.

There is only one way to guarantee this, and there are those mad enough to suggest it.

Just how much of the Iraq insurgency problem is caused/abetted by Iran? All? 90%? 50%?

Thomas vs Alexander on June 18, 2007 at 7:08 PM