« Avatar murder | Main | New McCain Ad: I am Joe »

Was Biden Warning that Obama Would Be a Pacifist and Unilaterally Disarm?

A few days ago, Joe Biden gave us a warning that Barack Obama, should he win on November 4th, would be tested within the first 6 months of his presidency. This is what he said:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Apparently, this wasn't the first time Biden said this. He made these same statements two days in a row, in San Fransisco on Saturday and then in Seattle on Sunday. So what did he mean when he said Obama is going to need his supporters more than ever to keep those in their communities in line and behind Obama? Investor's Business Daily thinks it's because Obama may unilaterally disarm:

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. [Watch Video]

"I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," Obama told the pacifist Caucus for Priorities last year. "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems."

Here's the video IBD referenced:

He will not weaponize space. That means that he will dismantle our missile defense shield ensuring that we won't be able to defend ourselves should a rogue leader or a terrorist organization shoot a nuclear weapon at us or at one of our allies.

Ed Morrissey expands on this and writes the following:

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.

That video is horrifying. It's becoming clearer and clearer that Barack Obama doesn't want a strong, confident America that pushes back against those who try to wreak havoc in the world for their own purposes. Instead, he wants a weak, disarmed, and submissive America that looks the other way as Iran builds a nuclear bomb, Islamic extremists gain more power throughout the world, North Korea restarts its nuclear program, and Russia takes over Eastern Europe.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/32461.

Comments (34)

Conservatives have nothing ... (Below threshold)

Conservatives have nothing to fear about the ability of Democrats to always rule from the center once elected and protect the nation's security. Democratic presidents did not hesitate to use military force during WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam or against Yugoslavia. And Obama's endorsement by General Colin Powell as well as a meeting with some retired generals yesterday is a clear sign that any of America's enemies better act with restraint or else will face sure and certain actions in response to their aggression.

One such international time... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

One such international time bomb has already been set:

Iraq's cabinet rejects current draft of U.S. troop accord

BAGHDAD -- Shiite Muslim government ministers raised objections Tuesday to a "final draft" of an agreement to authorize U.S. troops to remain in Iraq, and after a four-and-a-half-hour cabinet meeting Iraq's government spokesman said that the agreement wouldn't be finalized in its current form.

The clock is ticking: The United Nations mandate under which U.S. troops are in Iraq expires on Dec. 31.

[ . . . ]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/54551.html

Good luck President Obama

Ahh the smell of desperatio... (Below threshold)
jmc:

Ahh the smell of desperation. It will be a long time in the wilderness I fear.

Paul - your theory is falsi... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Paul - your theory is falsified by one Democratic President.

Carter.

Also - Yugoslavia was made possible by the previous REPUBLICAN administrations and defense spending. Gutting the miltiary of men and machines will severely limit options in the future. We no longer have the luxury of years to build up a response to aggression.

"And Obama's endorsement by General Colin Powell as well as a meeting with some retired generals yesterday is a clear sign that any of America's enemies better act with restraint or else will face sure and certain actions in response to their aggression."

Uh, huh. In what alternate universe?

By the way, I'm surprised you haven't chimed in to spin up on how dismantling the 401K system is going to be so good for the country. They miss sending you the talking points on that?

Interesting take on Biden's... (Below threshold)
Good Captain:

Interesting take on Biden's comments. Your take is possibly the correct one but I adhere to the conventional take that aggressive powers will view Obama as a pushover and test him. Unfortunately, I also believe his response will embolden those same powers such that the first 6 months will be mild in comparison to actions later in his administration (should he win).

If I were a betting man, I'... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that the Russians take Georgia and Ukraine in the first six months, and that Obama just let's em have what they've taken.

With Kerry as Secretary of ... (Below threshold)
MPR:

With Kerry as Secretary of State. Hagel as Sec.Def. and, the "expert" on foreign affairs, Biden not only will they raise the white flag around the world. All military equipment will be painted white so that no one will mistake our military's intentions.

Paul says. . . Con... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Paul says. . . Conservatives have nothing to fear about the ability of Democrats to always rule from the center once elected and protect the nation's security. Democratic presidents did not hesitate to use military force during WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam or against Yugoslavia.
But Obama says. . . "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems."

Paul, you saying that Obama lied to the pacifist Caucus?

For me, I know Obama is a liar, I just can't tell if he's lying to some or if he's lying to everyone.

I don't see what Biden said... (Below threshold)

I don't see what Biden said as calling for unilateral disarmament. I think that's a bit of a stretch.

No, this is Biden's usual haphazard and ill-advised way of saying, "Hey, thanks nutroots for supporting us and thanks for buying into the anti-war hooey we sold you. Like PT Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute, and you're the best useful idiot suckers a party could have. But let's get real. Some stuff's gonna go down, probably involving the military and probably involving us doing something completely stupid like keeping our promise to invade an ally like nuclear-armed Paki-stahn* to get OBL without really knowing where he is. It'll really piss them off and they'll turn against us because they have no other choice. They'll side with the tribes and other anti-American factions inside Paki-stahn lest they fall out of power and the country into chaos. So we really hope you stick by us when even the NY Times, WaPo, LA Times and, heck, even The Nation will wonder just WTF they were thinking when they carried us on their backs into the White House. Oh, and did I mention will be pulling out combat troops from Iraq to achieve this? Man, you don't even want to know what's gonna happen in Iraq while we're dicking around chasing a ghost in Paki-stahn."

But that's just one scenario....

*Please note the Phonetically correct pronunciation of the name, a la The Chosen One's direction, comrades.

I think the first six month... (Below threshold)
Joel:

I think the first six months of an Obama administration would be the most opportune time for China to finally settle the Taiwan issue. Worldwide markets are already down so the economic impact would not be as noticeable, especially on their own population. Besides, with Iran and Russia probably looking to make a move would anyone even notice?

What was I thinking??? No m... (Below threshold)
MPR:

What was I thinking??? No matter what happens it will be Bush's fault! With an excuse like that anything is possible.

"And Obama's endorsement... (Below threshold)

"And Obama's endorsement by General Colin Powell as well as a meeting with some retired generals yesterday is a clear sign that any of America's enemies better act with restraint or else will face sure and certain actions in response to their aggression."

What are we going to hit them with? The rusted hulks of abandoned military projects? Paper cuts from stern letters?

Actually, in the "Mark my w... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Actually, in the "Mark my words" paragraph, Biden sounds like there will be a (staged) generate, crisis created to "test" Obama, and he is asking Americans to "just go along with it, 'kay?" Referring back to the The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis, here's the link if you want to go back to the explanation, http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html, it sounds like an economical staging in a further effort to dismantle capitalism.

It is almost like Biden is trying to warn people of a major financial overhaul (socialistic). The teeny, tiny, detail that Americans are being distracted from, is there is nothing wrong with capitalism. It is only one of many unique advantages we have as Americans. Another teeny, tiny detail not being disclosed by the dems is that greed is the enemy, not the system. The corruption of fortune 500 business owners and attys on Wall Street, as well as politicians are plain evidence of that.

Even with the utopia proposition of restructuring the economy, the corruption and greed remain. So, basically you have pretty much more of the same uneven distribution. Hard working rich should get richer. But in order to appeal to welfare recipients and middle class who don't feel they can't "get a break", Obama is trying to implement a "punish the rich" tax to appear like he is on their side. Anyone who has a clue into how he and Ayers handled The Annenberg Challenge knows Obama has no intention of providing "more relief" to the middle class.

As far as the video is concerned, Obama is, of course, lying through his teeth. Here, again, is what outraged Bill Clinton said when Obama advised of his "stance" on the war,

"It is wrong that Sen. Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time -- not once, 'Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war. And you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004. And there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since.' Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/01/08/bill_clinton/?source=refresh

And I'm afraid I have to agree with the murderous Gaddafi when he says Obama (paraphrased) basically "has no clue" about the conflict in the Mideast. Or, he is also lying to get the vote.

I think what Bidet was tryi... (Below threshold)
Armigerous1 Author Profile Page:

I think what Bidet was trying to tell people is that Obozo won't lift a finger to defend our allies like Taiwan or Israel or Georgia or anybody else that might cause the whackjob left to go berserk if US forces are potentially involved...and that he is asking the non-whackjob Democrats to stand by him even though it might not seem like selling out our allies is 'right'....personally I think Bidet had those hair plugs planted just a little too deep.

This is probably as ... (Below threshold)
Larry:


This is probably as good a place to drop in the concept of the "Lemming" effect so evident in our politics and life in general. The time when we were taught critical thinking in schools is long past.

Modern education consists of teaching to tests and to doctrine. We can thank the likes of William Ayers for some of that as well as others.

We have always had the "Lemming" effect, where those with charisma capture the imagination of those who choose to find someone in whom they can believe and then trust that person. The problem with that approach is that the Dear Leader can manufacture facts and lead by rhetoric instead of the cold hand of reality.

With a couple of exceptions, we see those who believe in Obama using slogans instead of weighted facts to make their case here and on such socially anal sites like dailykos. We saw a similar phenomenon when President Reagan was ascendant in political power.

My point is that "Global Warming," is an example of the "Lemming" effect as embraced by those who choose to believe what their Dear Leaders like Al Gore and many others tell them instead of doing the hard work to figure it out for themselves. So we have carbon credits, Al Gore making nearly a hundred million dollars flogging his junk science, and hordes of ignorant followers trudging along behind him, in some cases freezing their arses off cycling to spread the warning. I am not making that up.

The difference between Obama and Reagan is simple; results. Reagan had a worldview that was based on hard headed reality. So he did not lead those who followed his course into a blind canyon. Obama is another story. Obama seems to have a world view based on negotiating from a position of weakness and appeasement instead of strength and the interests of the US.

He wants to change the world.

And he will fail like so many before him. But meantime, he will lead his "Lemmings" to self distruction along with those of us who don't believe in his empty rhetoric, but do believe that his vision of the world is flawed.

In today's news we see grou... (Below threshold)
DAve:

In today's news we see grounds for speculation that maybe one of the "unpopular moves" would be a gov't takeover of private pension funds.
I still think it's a refusal to back Israel when it's attacked tho-

Mac Lorry, after spending $... (Below threshold)

Mac Lorry, after spending $100 billion dollars on mostly failed missile defense experiments since the 1980's Reagan years, the U.S. has but just 10 operational Missile Interceptors to show for all that money. And it would take two Missile Interceptors on average to shoot down each solid rocket fueled Russian nuclear missile. Russia currently has 5,518 nuclear warheads, but could deploy as many as 8,000 in the event of war. With only the ability to possibly shoot down just 5 of 5,518 Russian nuclear missiles, and war with Russia is unthinkable and needs to be avoided at all costs. It would take 16,000 space based Missile Interceptors to actually prevent most Russian missiles from burning American towns and cities to mere ash. But not a single one exists. And the U.S. space program with the Space Shuttle is greatly troubled with serious safety problems and faulty launch vehicles.

With the American economy greatly suffering right now, and out troops in Iraq and Afghanistan needing basic arms and body armor, it has to be the priority of our military to provide these items and not spend great amounts of funds on dream weapons where the technology really does not yet exist to develop them yet. STAR TREK'S weapons are fictional and not anywhere near reality. Obama is only being realistic and pragmatic here. Who wants to see actual American servicemen die in Afghanistan from a lack of equipment so that the money can be squandered on technology that only exists in dreams and is many years from reality.

Update??<a href="h... (Below threshold)
DAve:
Well argued Paul. If someon... (Below threshold)
jmc:

Well argued Paul. If someone could present an actually feasible bit evidence that this technology is anywhere near being ready, i'd love to see it. Shit, I'd be all for it if i were convinced Missle defense wasn't like the easter bunny or santy claus.

hooson - "Russia curren... (Below threshold)
marc:

hooson - "Russia currently has 5,518 nuclear warheads, but could deploy as many as 8,000 in the event of war. With only the ability to possibly shoot down just 5 of 5,518 Russian nuclear missiles, and war with Russia is unthinkable and needs to be avoided at all costs"

You need to quit riding that horse, it's DEAD.

Name me a single current missile system in the testing stage that is designed as an offensive weapon to be used against Russia.

Just one.

"...after spending $100 ... (Below threshold)

"...after spending $100 billion dollars on mostly failed missile defense experiments since the 1980's Reagan years, the U.S. has but just 10 operational Missile Interceptors to show for all that money.

After spending some 7 trillion (that's trillion with a "T") dollars since 1964 on the "war on poverty", where are we now?

If someone could present... (Below threshold)

If someone could present an actually feasible bit evidence that this technology is anywhere near being ready, i'd love to see it. Shit, I'd be all for it if i were convinced Missle defense wasn't like the easter bunny or santy claus.

Here ya go, sport.

Yes, Virgina, there is a Santa Claus. Hoppity hop!

"...it has to be the pri... (Below threshold)

"...it has to be the priority of our military to provide these items and not spend great amounts of funds on dream weapons where the technology really does not yet exist to develop them yet."

Ah yes, but let's spend billions in embryonic stem cell research where the technology really does not yet exist.

"Who wants to see actual American servicemen die in Afghanistan from a lack of equipment so that the money can be squandered on technology that only exists in dreams and is many years from reality."

Who wants to see actual cancer patients and Alzheimer patients die so that the money can be squandered on technology that only exists in dreams and is many years from reality.

jmc - "Well argued Paul... (Below threshold)
marc:

jmc - "Well argued Paul. If someone could present an actually feasible bit evidence that this technology is anywhere near being ready, i'd love to see it. Shit, I'd be all for it if i were convinced Missle defense wasn't like the easter bunny or santy claus."

Well argued indeed. When considering the source who is utterly devoid of any military knowledge whatsoever.

hooson continues to conflate Reagan's Star Wars project into what is current.

To be kind he's either off his rocker (as my Grand-Mom used to say) or he's signed up to receive Comrade Putin's Newsletter.

"easter bunny or santy claus"

"easter bunny or santy c... (Below threshold)

"easter bunny or santy claus"

Oh, come on now, marc! You know that's all done in CGI and Photoshop! It's just like the Twin Towers, "they" hid the miles and miles of wires and hudreds of detonators and hundreds of drill holes and kept them hidden from public view by implementing a "Matrix" like sub-reality upon the populace.

Same thing here, only it's out in the ocean and fewer prying eyes!

(Do I really need a "sarcasm tag/off" sign off here.....)

Peter F - "Same ... (Below threshold)
marc:


Peter F - "Same thing here, only it's out in the ocean and fewer prying eyes!"

Frightening thing is that's hooson's "defense."

I've pointed him in the direction of many successful tests in the past. His retort always, ALWAYS, reads something to the effect... "well they hit the target because "they" told the missile where it was!"

Not to mention continually conflating the Reagan program with what is in fact being tested, and or, will be deployed to Poland.

To say hooson is clueless is to give "The Clueless" a worse reputation than already exists.

What was I thinking??? No m... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

What was I thinking??? No matter what happens it will be Bush's fault! With an excuse like that anything is possible.

Obama has already used it.

Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhdHkoal31o
Missle

Missile defense works if you realize that we shot down a Satellite at high altitude going much faster than a normal ICBM and requiring us to hit a precise sport to take out the toxic fuel.

"Ahh the smell of desperati... (Below threshold)
John S:

"Ahh the smell of desperation. It will be a long time in the wilderness I fear..."

About 22 months actually. The Democratic Congress is starting out with a 7 percent approval rating. It'll be downhill come January and the whole bunch will be voted out to join the other 50 million that will be unemployed by November 2010.

EXCUSE me but I couldn't ge... (Below threshold)

EXCUSE me but I couldn't get past the first comment in this thread, which is probably the most laughable, ridiculous, and blatantly foolish thing I've read online all year long.

what color is the sky in your world, man?

Berry - If that's the case ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Berry - If that's the case you simply must "improve" your source material. There's laughs a-plenty to be had.

Please I implore you, read all the things that numb-skull has to say next door at wizbangs insane asylum.

P.S. And if you expect to write more than two sentences prior to getting banned by that group of asshats you'll be sorely disappointed.

Marc, that's mean. The guy... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Marc, that's mean. The guy's gonna need a whole roll of mental floss after browsing around there. I'm barely reading the titles of Blue articles in the right sidebar, there's high-pressure toxic crazy over there, and it splatters...

Oyster - you asked...After spending some 7 trillion (that's trillion with a "T") dollars since 1964 on the "war on poverty", where are we now?

It depends on your criteria. The Democrats have developed an essentially locked-in constituency which is dependent on government handouts. Get 'em by their stomachs, and their votes are sure to follow.

But, but...won't the dictat... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

But, but...won't the dictators in the world follow our lead and also disarm so we can all live happily ever after in our Brave New World?

"I'm a goin to stay where you sleep all day

"Where they hung the jerk that invented work

"In the Big Rock Candy Mountains..."

Paul,Mac ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Paul,

Mac Lorry, after spending $100 billion dollars on mostly failed missile defense experiments since the 1980's Reagan years, the U.S. has but just 10 operational Missile Interceptors to show for all that money.

The money was spent on R&D, not on the actual physical missiles. Now that the R&D is mostly done, the actual interceptor missile are relatively inexpensive as far as missiles go and the more we make the cheaper they get. It was the same for the first atom bomb. The first one costs billions, but after that they get cheaper and cheaper.

And it would take two Missile Interceptors on average to shoot down each solid rocket fueled Russian nuclear missile. Russia currently has 5,518 nuclear warheads, but could deploy as many as 8,000 in the event of war.

Thing is the U.S. is not trying to defend against Russia, but Putin has said it's not the intentions that count, but the capability. He know that the U.S. could build 20,000 interceptors for much less than the 8,000 ICBM's you cite. He also knows that the defensive measures Russia is building into their ICBM's are useless if the interceptor can strike early in the flight path of the ICBM. That's why Putin is raising such a fuss. Do you think he's just stupid or what?

As for the U.S. we are depending on MAD to denture Russia, but MAD doesn't work with mad men like the ones running Iran. That's why those 10 interceptors are so important. Of course, Obama plans on dismantling them. If the U.S. is hit by even a single missile in the future, Obama will be regarded as a fool and Bush as one of our greatest Presidents for having the foresight to deploy a missile defense. Even if the shield doesn't work so well, Iran doesn't know that nor can they take the risk of having their few missiles shot down.

No worries, guys, no worrie... (Below threshold)
Hannibal:

No worries, guys, no worries...!

Even if we reduced the size of the military by half, we are still very, very strong and have nothing to fear from anybody. We live beyond our means, we have to reduce spending, and believe me, it's not about being vulnerable if we spend less for the American way of war. If we are bankrupted, yes, then we are vulnerable, there is no future in this outdated and ridiculous idea of eternal overspending.





Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy