Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE) traveled to Munich last week to give a speech on the new administration’s foreign policy, particularly vis-à-vis Old Europe. Surprisingly — or not — that address sounded like it was pulled straight from the campaign speeches of Johns Kerry (D-MA) and Edwards (D-NC) from four and a half short years ago.
In other words, in a nutshell, Vice President Biden’s speech announced a shifting of America’s foreign policy and international security burden onto Old Europe — an announcement pregnant with the expectation that the latter would agree to take up this mantle because (how New Democrat of them) we asked them to very, very nicely.
These people really don’t live in the real world. Some excerpts from the speech are below.
I come to Europe on behalf of a new administration, an administration that’s determined to set a new tone, not only in Washington, but in America’s relations around the world.
Translation: the U.S. will no longer “go it alone” with 38 of our best friends; rather we’ll kowtow to Old Europe, which has nothing to offer and even less willingness to do so, in all of our foreign policy decisions.
we will be asking others to take responsibility for some of those now at Guantanamo as we determine to close it.
Because the reason those folks are there in the first place is that we denied them to France, Germany, Spain, et al — not because those countries refused them in the first place. Ah, conventional wisdom and Democratic revisionism — like a breath of fresh air, is it not?
America will do more. That’s the good news. The bad news is that America will ask for more from our partners as well.
And, like they did before, they’ll say no. 2009 may be five years later than 2004, but Joe Biden and Barack Obama have no more ability to convince Old Europe to join a fight it wants no part of than Johns Kerry and Edwards did five years ago — particularly given that they have absolutely nothing to offer Old Europe as an incentive to do so.
The United States rejects the notion that Nato’s gain is Russia’s loss, or that Russia’s strength is Nato’s weakness. The last few years have seen a dangerous drift in the relations between Russia and the members of our alliance. It’s time – to paraphrase President Obama – it’s time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia.
That sound you hear is the ice on Vlad Putin’s face cracking as he bursts into an ear-to-ear grin. Is there any more quintessentially liberal, and pathetically naive, belief than that of overlooking real aggression and attempting to practice “strength through weakness”?
We’ll strive to act preventively, not pre-emptively, to avoid whenever possible and wherever possible, the choice of last resort between the risk of war and the dangers of inaction. … In short we’re going to attempt to capture the totality of America’s strength, starting with diplomacy.
Wait wait wait — how are those two things different? Just a change in the words used — “preventively” instead of “preemptively”?
Am I the only one who hears nothing but Newspeak and Old-as-Dirt Liberal tripe here?