Democrat vice presidential candidate Joe Biden told a Seattle audience in mid-October:
“Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.
“Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. I don’t know what the decision is going to be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it is going to happen.”
Biden then urged the audience to “gird your loins” and to stand by Obama when he makes the tough decisions in response to the crisis, which Biden hinted could be unpopular.
This is a disturbing statement because it comes from a nominee who has shown repeatedly that he may be suffering from some disability brought on by a 1988 brain aneurysm that nearly killed him.
When Biden recently said that people are most concerned about a three-letter word – “J-O-B-S” – you might just start to wonder. When he said that president Franklin Delano Roosevelt went on television just after the stock market crash in 1929, any rational person knows that FDR did not take office until 1932. And that television came along later.
And for Biden to talk about this coming foreign crisis shortly after he and Obama received top-secret briefings on worldwide flash points, it makes you wonder about Biden’s mental state. His comment is like the grade-school kid who can’t keep a secret, which is a bad omen in the world of nuclear terrorism.
A recent release of Biden’s medical records did not include any recent brain scans which would be necessary for doctors to determine if he is at risk of another aneurysm. Because Biden has not been scanned regularly since 1988, and so there is no way to assess his current state.
The big question is: Is Biden sane? And what would happen if Obama died and Biden became president? Or if Obama consults Biden on serious issues?
Meanwhile the chairman of the House financial services committee Democrat congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts is calling for a 25% cut in military spending if Obama is elected. This at the same time that Obama is all over the place on a subject like Iraq – he would pull out troops, he would assess the situation on the ground before doing so etc. – leaving one wondering if he really understands foreign policy.
All in all, what does this mean?
Let’s look back at Democrat Bill Clinton’s foreign policy and national security efforts and you can get a picture of what to expect.
Clinton’s first CIA director R. James Woolsey, who served two years from February 1993 until January 1995, said that he never met with Clinton privately, and only semi-privately twice. And just think that after only 5 weeks into Clinton’s presidency, on February 26, 1993, terrorists tried to bring down the World Trade Center’s north tower with a truck bomb in the parking garage underneath it.
Yes, Clinton was tested early on.
From that point forward, Clinton simply neglected the pursuit of terrorists after repeated attacks on American citizens and facilities at home and worldwide; his deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick helped to build the ‘wall’ of separation between the CIA and the FBI; his Justice Department decided to prosecute the World Trade Center bombers not as terrorists but only as American criminals, making much of the trial material public and giving valuable intel to terrorists; military spending was gutted such that planes and helicopters didn’t have spare parts; top-secret nuclear intelligence was stolen by China from a lax US security apparatus; while in Clinton’s final days in office he even had to pardon his own former CIA chief John Deutch, who served only from May 1995 to December 1996, over mishandling of classified material.
All in all, a lot of damage in a very short time.
Enter George Bush who took office in January 2001. Less than 9 months later, 9/11 hit. Critics say that Bush was in office, and therefore bears responsibility for 9/11. But remember that Bush inherited a blinded CIA from Clinton.
There certainly may be disagreements over other foreign policy issues like Iraq. But recall that all the American media and the Democrats were insisting that George HW Bush “should have gone to Baghdad” in the 1991 Gulf War. And they pounded the Republican party insistently for more than 10 years on that failure. So George Bush went to Baghdad. Are we to assume that he was never provoked?
No. He acted rationally using the information he was given about weapons and genocide and years of evidence that Saddam Hussein was running a murderous, tyrannical and warmongering dictatorship. At the same time Bush relentlessly pursued terrorists around the globe, decimating their infrastructure and leadership, while Clinton did nothing.
Which do you trust? Can we trust the Democrats with national security? Can we trust Obama/Biden?
In the late 1970s, Democrat president Jimmy Carter was humiliated in the November 1979 seizure of American hostages by Islamic fundamentalists in Tehran, Iran, and one month later, seeing Carter’s weakness, by the Soviets invading Afghanistan.
When the Iranians saw strong, no-nonsense, conservative Ronald Reagan coming after his November 1980 election victory, they immediately gave up the hostages. Reagan also was fearless, courageous and trustworthy in the face of a heavily-armed enemy – the Soviet Union – and brought its whole rotten empire crashing down without firing a shot starting in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
We truly are in a new world today, one that we never have experienced before. Terrorists still are maintaining a worldwide network, and Iran is developing an atomic weapon which they wish to pass off to a terrorist group to detonate in New York City.
Obama even said that Iran is a “tiny” country!
Right, a “tiny” country with an atomic bomb program.
The question is: Who can we trust? And is Obama ready to be tested?
Barney Frank’s plan to cut the military by 25% was much like Clinton’s ‘peace dividend’ of the 1990s, when Clinton took the opportunity of the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 to scale back military spending to dangerously low levels. But that was only the half of it. Clinton gutted our entire military/intelligence infrastructure. His failure to meet with Woolsey, his failure to pursue terrorists, his failure to plug the leaks of classified info to China all were part of a disturbing pattern.
You even have to wonder about the infamous Cerro Grande forest fire that threatened Los Alamos, the US government’s top-secret nuclear laboratory in New Mexico. That fire occurred in May 2000 during Clinton’s final year in office. Started as a controlled burn, the fire raged out of control and consumed 48,000 acres and several laboratory buildings. Soot from the fire damaged many of the filters for the lab’s ‘clean rooms’ and took years to remediate.
Damage was estimated at $1 billion. 400 homes in the town were lost. The whole lab could have been burned, destroying a crucial American military facility.Why was a controlled burn started during high winds and in drought conditions?
Is this yet another in a pattern of neglect by Democrats of our national security apparatus?
Today, we have a candidate in Obama who equated victim Georgia to aggressor Russia in last summer’s Russian invasion of South Ossetia. In that conflict, Obama wished “for Georgia and Russia to show restraint”
Georgia and Russia both should show restraint? When giant Russia invaded tiny Georgia?
This is irrational thinking, and the mindset of an amateur.
The potential of an Obama presidency, with a weak and indecisive Obama at the helm eager to strike back at the military for consuming too much of the nation’s wealth; with his known disdain for American power; with his association with flag-stomper William Ayers and other unsavory left-wing characters; with his promise to talk to tyrants without preconditions; with his ties to Rashid Khalidi, a viciously anti-Israel Palestinian, all of this should make us very concerned.
If Obama is elected – which certainly is not assured at this point – who will he put in charge of our national security? Who will be his defense chief? Will there be suspicious activities in an Obama Department of Defense or CIA? And the big question: Is Biden OK in the head?
For peace and security, there is only one choice: John McCain for President. Sarah Palin for Vice President.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more common sense.