Was Biden talking about Obama’s plan for unilateral disarmament?

posted at 12:25 pm on October 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Plenty of people have been scratching their heads over Joe Biden’s warning to voters that electing Barack Obama would precipitate an international crisis to “test his mettle”. Investors Business Daily agrees with Biden, and notes that this wasn’t an off-the-cuff gaffe; Biden repeated the warning in two different venues. IBD points to this early Obama campaign video, in which Obama pledges unilateral disarmament on several fronts, as evidence supporting Biden’s hypothesis:

But there’s another angle to this, based on what Biden the senator knows — that Obama’s defense policies, once it’s obvious how they’ll undermine us, are likely to be very, very unpopular. In this case, Biden may be calling on his party’s hard, pacifist core — Moveon.org, Code Pink and the like — to stand by their man.

He’ll need their support. Like Jimmy Carter in the 1970s, Obama’s policies often sound good on the surface, but will in fact materially weaken America’s ability to defend herself. That’s not just our opinion, mind you; it’s straight from the horse’s mouth. …

Such policies will create a vacuum that our foes will be only too happy to exploit.

In response to seeing a weakling in the White House, will Russia do something rash in Eastern Europe, like invade Ukraine? Will South Korea develop a bomb, knowing the U.S. won’t stop it? Will Iran attack Israel, as it has promised, thinking America has become a paper tiger? We don’t know, but maybe Joe Biden does.

Indeed. This video had been largely forgotten since its appearance early in the primaries, when Obama sought the support of the Kucinich Left in his party. Obama deliberately positioned himself to the left of Hillary Clinton in the hopes that he could wrest support from people like Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd and emerge as the alternative to the Restoration. Only after he beat Hillary in the primaries did he move back towards the center on issues like the FISA reform bill, long after he had locked up enough support to gain the nomination.

Since then, though, Obama has tried hard to position himself as a Scoop Jackson Democrat. He has dropped all mention of the missile defense system or of unilaterally cutting back nuclear weapons. Obama worked hard over the summer to project himself as a traditional strong-defense candidate, and it seemed to have worked … until Biden inadvertently undermined him this week. It eliminated any help the Colin Powell endorsement gave him in terms of national security, and gave John McCain and Sarah Palin a gift on the campaign trail in reopening the national-security issue.

But did Biden mean to warn that unilateral disarmament would be unpopular, or that Obama would initially alienate the Left by demonstrating military strength in an international crisis? One could argue it either way, but I don’t think he meant to worry about the Left leaving Obama. I think Biden wanted the Left to remain activist to support a retreat philosophy in the face of aggression from our enemies. Obama has consistently fronted that policy, in Iraq and elsewhere, both as a Senator and as a presidential candidate.

Biden knows Obama will need the Left to support the consequences of its Kucinich vision for American foreign policy. That’s what the warning meant, and this video is ample evidence of the direction Obama will take in national security.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And rather than tamping down the scandal situation, they’ve only fanned with flames with another week’s worth of questions and denials to come.

Sweet. How sweet it is.

Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM

“We’re not crooks – we’re incompetent” is their battlecry. The water is circling the drain, Barry.

Philly on May 19, 2013 at 3:46 PM

This.

When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM

ear relevant…

driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.

kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.

savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.

However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)

What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.

(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)

AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM

I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.

Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM

Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.

tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM

Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…

Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Perfect!

lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM

Comment pages: 1 2