Biden On John McCain, Election And National Security

Sen. Joe Biden will take to Georgetown's Gaston Hall tomorrow to deliver what aides are billing as an argument in favor of a Democratic foreign policy and national security vision for 2008.

But much of the speech is a sustained argument against John McCain and his foreign policy vision, an audition of sorts, or a template for the type of speech that the running mate of Barack Obama (or, possibly, Hillary Clinton) will be expected to deliver in the fall.

A Biden adviser provided some excerpts. The key line: "When people say ‘this is the most important election in my lifetime,’ they’re right."

More:

"When it comes to Iraq, there is no daylight between John McCain and George W. Bush. They are joined at the hip. When it comes to Iraq, there will be no change with a McCain administration… and so there is a real and profound choice for Americans in November."

"Fifteen months into the surge that President Bush ordered and Senator McCain embraced, we’ve gone from drowning to treading water. We are no closer to the President’s stated goal of an Iraq that can defend itself, govern itself and sustain itself in peace. And we’re still spending $3 billion every week and losing 30 to 40 American lives every month."

"We can’t keep treading water without exhausting ourselves. That’s what both the President and Senator McCain are asking us to do."

"They can’t tell us when, or even if, Iraqis will come together politically, which was the purpose of the surge in the first place."

They can’t tell us when, or even if, we will draw down below pre-surge levels. They can’t tell us when, or even if, Iraq will be able to stand on its own two feet. They can’t tell us when, or even if, this war will end."

"Most Americans want this war to end. They want us to come together around a plan to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind."

"They’re not defeatists. They’re patriots who understand the national interest – and the great things Americans can achieve if we responsibly end a war that we should not have started."

"I believe it is fully within our power to do that. Then, with our credibility restored, our alliances repaired and our freedom to act renewed, we will once again lead the world. We will once again address the hopes, not play to the fears, of our fellow Americans. That is my hope for next November."

Comments

Keep in mind that in truth Hillary would follow the same Bush/McCain policy. That's why Bush didn't mind her getting elected; she would just continue his legacy and attempt to validate it.

Hillary desperately craves to be seen as strong and tough; another Margaret Thatcher. In some ways she may be tempted to be more bellicose than McCain.

We know she cannot be trusted in what she promises or in much of anything, so what she says now doesn't matter. What does matter is that she would try to validate her vote, and would be scared of offending the Limbaugh/Hannity wing of the GOP. She would probably want to use war to try to rally support behind her, like Bush did.

That is what Hillary is all about. More wars, like McCain.

Posted by cm | April 14, 2008 8:21 PM

The last paragraph strikes me as a fantasy. Yes, we have to find a way to end the war without leaving total chaos behind, but Biden makes it sounds easy -- and as if once we withdraw, everything will be okay and it will be 1999 again.

Posted by Asp | April 14, 2008 9:26 PM

I don't fathom for a second that the person that said this her Iraq vote was about this

"If you can't persuade a majority of people that you're going to be strong and tough where we need to protect America and our [national] interests, you can't cross the [electoral] threshold," she said.

Has much of a principled view of foreign relations in the same manner that Biden does. When war is politics, my guess would be to expect more of the same from a certain potential Mrs. President.

Posted by Bubba | April 14, 2008 10:41 PM

Asp: "it will be 1999 again."

Who says it has to be '99? Why do you have to lump 9/11 and the Iraq War together? Even if your point had merit and was correct, shouldn't you be saying "it will be 2002 again"?

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. IRAQ DOES NOT EQUAL AL QAEDA. IRAQ DIDN'T ATTACK US.

I, for one, would love to go back to 2002. But even if, as you argue, that is not possible, what makes you think staying helps us any? Have you read any history? Have you read anything about Britain's quagmire in attempting to create "democracy" in Iraq in the early 20th century?

Or is that too far back for you?

I'm sorry, but sometimes people's ignorance really makes me flip out. And more importantly, makes me gravely worried about this country.

Posted by macman | April 14, 2008 10:57 PM

Hi macman:

I'm a new poster on this blog, so please forgive me if there is a history of posts that demonstrate's Asp's meaning.

That said, I don't think it is a fair inferrence from what Asp wrote that he's equating Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda as the same entity, or had anything to do with 9/11. I think 1999 was probably the most recent high water mark in terms of international support for the US (not counting the brief and squandered immediately-post-9/11 period). The Nato war with Serbia was widely seen as a success, with the last dictator of Europe ending up behind bars in the Hague; the Monica Lewinsky crap was largely behind us (so no more puzzled editorials by European newspapers about why we cared so much who was sucking on Air Force One); sure, the US hadn't ratified Kyoto, but signing it signaled to the world we might finally get serious about our oil addicition and carbon footprint.

In short, we probably had developed a deep and meaningful reservoir of good will amoung our European Allies. Then the Bush administration decided to piss off our allies - slowly at first (withdrawing from the ICBM treaty; "unsigning" Kyoto; running around trying to bully countries into not joining the international criminal court; etc - all before 9/11 or Iraq) - but eventually with a fury unmatched in recent memory.

Now, from the perspective of the more fair minded people on the right (meaning, not those reflexive anti-Europeans or "Freedom Fry" Republicans) this was because the US had moved too far into subordinating its interests in the name of pleasing allies. They argued that, yes, we were pissing them off a little now, but it was important to realign our foreign relations to taking American interests unapologetically first and foremost. They argued we'd become too accomidating in a way that wasn't returned to us.

If you ask me, it wasn't 9/11 that changed everything, it was the war in Iraq. It has totally fucked up our relations with the rest of the world in a fundamental way. Now, countries fear us, but they don't respect us (whereas before the invasion the opposite was closer to the truth). And I agree with Asp that it is easy to say we need to change this perception, but the devil really is in the details. How are we going to do that? I think a mighty good place to start is by withdrawing from Iraq. I also really like the Obama idea of a "dignity promotion" international program. But as someone who worked for years at the World Bank, I know development isn't easy. Identifying problems is much easier then solving them.

Posted by szr | April 15, 2008 12:27 AM

Go Joe!

Posted by Tim | April 15, 2008 5:14 AM

Neither Obama or Hillary will completely get us out of Iraq. Iraq is a mess, but the surge did forstall complete disaster. Had we followed the Reid-Pelosi-Murtha advice a year ago, things would be much worse. A rapid pull out now would reverse the gains we have made.

I suspect both Obama and Hillary know this, which is why they are calling for a draw down but being coy as to the nature of it.

Posted by Joe | April 15, 2008 10:08 AM

Oh yes, if we left a year ago things would be much worse- we'd have saved a couple of hundred billion dollars, about500 americans would still be alive and several thousand more NOT crippled or wounded, the dollar would be stronger, inflation would be less and ouroverall national defense would be better.

How aboutMcCain send his daughter to get burned to a crisp by an IED- then she can shamelessly make a political career out of her injuries and run for President in 40 years just like her Old Man.

This is one Republican who will never vote for any of the NeoCon scum currently driving our country off a cliff.

Posted by RustyJohn | April 15, 2008 10:33 AM

I don't know how anyone feels comfortable predicting the future of Iraq. That chapter is yet to be written. For me, a great first step is electing someone that will likely follow the will of the people and set a policy goal of ending this debacle. He may not be able to clean up this mess according to the stated time table but if he works hard, brings everyone to the table and does so in the light of day I'll be satisfied with the results. Yes I said he and no I don't mean Senator McCain. Peace

Posted by Willy T Patriot | April 15, 2008 10:47 AM

We really needn't concern ourselves with the respective positions of presidential candidates regarding the war in Iraq. The cowards in Congress (the same cowards elected 2 years ago to clean up this very same mess) simply need to stand up and pass, by veto-proof margin, a bill requiring that we start actually paying for this debacle NOW and the American public will see that our open-ended commitment is discharged in very short order.

http://nationaljournal.com/brownstein.htm

Posted by ennui | April 15, 2008 10:53 AM

OBAMA-BIDEN 08

Posted by Howard B. | April 15, 2008 11:33 AM

Thanks, szr, for response to Macman. You got me exactly right.

Posted by Asp | April 15, 2008 11:46 AM

Bush put us in this quagmire so it is his duty to get us out of it, or at least try his level best. Bush is a coward and a shyster so he will leave the conundrum of Iraq to the next president who will be a Democrat. Everyone should remember who brought us to Iraq, who had the stupidity not to anticipate the hardships and who lied about this war. BUSH AND CHENEY AIDED BY THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS. We should bring our troops home in a measured and planned schedule. Let us not dither as to the chaos that will ensure because CHAOS is there already. Iraqis will take care of themselves: they have billions in their coffers already while we Americans continue to slide into economic disaster.

Posted by M. Stratas | April 15, 2008 11:48 AM

Much as I like Joe Biden as a venerated elder in the Senate, I just can't get 100% behind what is excerpted here. The poster here who wrote that neither Obama nor Clinton would get us completely out of Iraq is right, and McCain will actually make things worse. We need to face the reality that our presence in Iraq is now required to prevent further damage to the region. I think the war is wrong, our reasons for starting it were wrong, and Bush needs to be prosecuted for his failure to defend our Constitution (from himself!).

However, if we leave before the Iraqis can defend themselves without our support, we will create a power vacuum. Maliki is worthless and Sadr too powerful and too allied with Iran. Iran wants to go nuclear and dominate the region (in fact, last week it announced an expansion of its uranium enrichment program), prompting concerns in both Israel and Saudi Arabia. We need to face the reality that Bush's mistake, endorsed by Congress, is now America's mistake. We all need to see it through and leave the region better off for our having been there in the first place. I certainly don't like it, and I don't think anyone does. But I also don't like the idea of just cutting it off and pulling out immediately, because I think that things will get worse over there if we do. I don't think that the enemy will follow us home, but I do think that it will plunge the world economy into chaos over the supply of oil. Much as I hate to admit it, we will still need the black stuff to fuel our engines for years to come.

Ugh... excuse me while I go throw up now.

Posted by Old Man E | April 15, 2008 11:57 AM

Old Man E said... Maliki is worthless and Sadr too powerful and too allied with Iran.

Actually, it's Maliki's Dawa Party that has a close relationship with Iran, more so than Sadr. The recent ceasefire was negotiated by the Dawa Party, without Maliki's involvement, and agreed to by Sadr.

Maliki is worthless.

Posted by LFC | April 15, 2008 12:19 PM

In the summer of 2002, I canvassed the streets of NYC trying to build support for alternative sources of energy. One of our key arguments was that in the next 10 years the cost of oil would skyrocket and we would be economically enslaved to the few (mostly totalitarian) regions that have an abundance of the West's black industrial heroin.

It is fascinating to see the complete reversal of nearly every Republican and conservative in government over the last several years, as our predictions came true. However, I think in the end the Iraq war may prove to be to the West's benefit.

After we are forced to leave in 2010 after our military is rendered moot and broken almost beyond repair, the Middle East will burn to the ground. During this civil war, the price of oil will top $250 a barrel, and our gasoline economy will be abandoned.

Spurred by necessity, our innovators will begin to resurrect technologies killed by oil companies during the worst excesses of the 80s, 90s and 00s. Technologies that make electric cars possible, clean energy practical and environmental stewardship genuinely rewarding economically.

All this doom and gloom is to no point; these technologies already exist. The oil companies know where they are buried and will probably dig them up just about the time society stops giving them a pass for raping our natural world.

Posted by John | April 15, 2008 2:21 PM

John writes: After we are forced to leave in 2010 after our military is rendered moot and broken almost beyond repair, the Middle East will burn to the ground. During this civil war, the price of oil will top $250 a barrel, and our gasoline economy will be abandoned.

You write this so cavalierly, as though the implications of this occuring will have nothing but positive benefits for the world economy. I won't argue that it will take a major tearing down of the current oil economy to make meaningful progress into alternative energy.

However, the Middle East's burning to the ground will not be confined to the Middle East. It will be a great global conflagration. Russia, China, India, the E.U., Israel, and the U.S. -- all of them nuclear powers -- will converge on this region hoping to lay claim to the decades of oil left in the ground. I don't predict nuclear holocaust, but I can't imagine a proxy war that causes the Arabs to self-immolate without resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem and Mecca. The Arabs aren't dumb, and the Israelis aren't at all passive.

The economic toll will be tremendous, don't you think? A depression that will make 1929 seem quaint, if you ask me.

The alternative will be that the U.S. will regain some measure of international goodwill and persuade allies to continue propping up Iraq to avoid a collapse of security in the region.

Posted by Old Man E | April 15, 2008 2:53 PM

"...the surge did forstall complete disaster. Had we followed the Reid-Pelosi-Murtha advice a year ago, things would be much worse. A rapid pull out now would reverse the gains we have made." - comment by Joe

Keep your eye on the ball...our national security outweighs all other considerations. If staying in Iraq is compromising our ability to protect America or engage in an armed conflict elsewhere, then we cannot stay there indefinitely. Every one of our military leaders says the situation for our military is worsening...we have to take a greater strategic view (except Petreaus, who says he can only evaluate Iraq, and not North Korea, Afgahnistan, Iran, etc.).

The "gains we have made" are tenuous today, tomorrow, next year, over next decade, maybe for a century. Shiites and Sunnis are not going to coexist, forgetting their centuries old feud, and share oil proceeds and power. A radical group will always surface to stoke the tensions (like bombing a sacred mosque). This was understood by George H. W. Bush and his advisors after Desert Storm.

Bloodshed will come...differences will be fought over...civil war tensions will not be diffused by some government propped up by infidels. Especially if that government gives permenant bases to the Americans. When learned this when our pressence in Saudi Arabia gave rise to Osama bin Laden...hence we got out of Saudi Arabia. The same will always be true in Iraq, and that clearly isn't in our national security intrest.

Reid-Pelosi-Murtha would have let the inevitable happen sooner, rather than later...but that would have been far more prudent than weakening our army, spilling our blood, and spending $3B a week for the unforeseeable future.

Posted by Cadmus | April 15, 2008 3:49 PM

Every war is a gamble, and some people don't like gambling ever. Every withdrawal is a gamble too, a gamble that you won't have to go back.

But the prosecution of war is not like the buying and selling of assets and shares. A nation loses face when it withdraws. Don't kid yourself. The loss of face emboldens enemies for a generation or more. Our enemies take heart whenever they see those images of helicopters leaving the embassy roof in Saigon.

Posted by Tertium Quid | April 15, 2008 4:40 PM