Recently, Joe Biden made a statement inferring that when/if Obama becomes President, our enemies will “test” him. Immediately, John McCain and the right wing pundits jumped on the statement as evidence that Obama would place America in greater danger. At the time, I believed that Biden’s statement was a bit reckless in that he should have been aware how it would be received and used by the GOP. However, I also realized that Biden was likely referring to the fact that during presidential transitions, our enemies often do test the President. I think Biden could have avoided the controversy altogether if he had said “whoever ultimately becomes President, they will be tested by our enemies” instead of singling out Obama.
Regardless of how Biden phrased his comments, the fact is that he was essentially right- there is a greater possibility that our enemies would choose the transition period as an opportunity to test the new President, Republican OR Democrat. According to Think Progress:
Recently, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) said that if Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is elected, there will be “an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.” He followed up his comment by saying that Obama will rise to the occasion, because he has “steel in his spine.” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) quickly jumped on the first part of Biden’s comments, declaring that the fact that Obama may be tested is actually a sign of weakness…
[snip]
Increasingly, national security experts are disavowing McCain’s comments. They agree that an international crisis confronting the next president is not a sign of weakness, but rather a very likely occurrence no matter if Obama or McCain wins:
– “I think the enemy could well take advantage” of the transfer of power in Washington, said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, who launched preparations for the transition months ago
– Veteran Pentagon consultant Michael Bayer, chairman of the Defense Business Board, told his fellow panelists that the new president’s inner circle should “set aside time in transition to identify the planning, gravitas and interagency process necessary to respond to a likely first-270-day crisis.”
– Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says the federal government is monitoring “dozens” of potential terrorists in the U.S. … Chertoff says there is a risk that some would see opportunity during the transition between administrations.
– In its Administration Transition Task Force Report issued early this year, DHS’s Homeland Security Advisory Council placed the peak threat period from 30 days prior to the change in administrations, to six months after.
Even Joe Lieberman was on the record as saying essentially the same thing-that we are more vulnerable after a new President is elected. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has not been so quick to put Biden’s comments in perspective given the fact that he is hardly the only person to make such a statement.
Stumble It!
2 responses so far ↓
1 abi // Oct 28, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I want to agree with you, but Biden simply screwed up. He specified Obama, and even linked him to the young and relatively inexperienced JFK, and that gave his statement the clear implication (regardless of his intention) that an Obama presidency would invite a foreign test.
I do agree with him, tho, that Obama would handle a crisis better than the erratic John McCain.
2 tehehehe // Oct 30, 2008 at 9:50 am
Bull. The media was all over the “spin” that “any President” would be tested. And everyone was saying “Biden merely told the truth”.
What Biden said may well be true about being “tested”. Especially when Obama has “welcomed it” by saying he would meet without preconditions with our worst enemies. That positively encourages other nations to step up and take a swing.
But it is the follow-on to what Biden said that gives the conservatives pause. And that is that Biden said, “You will initially think we are mis-handling the situation.” That is what causes concern. It makes people think that the Obama campaign has already been briefed about a “crisis threat” and that they have already formulated a response, and know that the response will not sit well with the general public. THAT’S SCARY.
What does Biden know, and when did he know it? And what plan is contemplated that will not seem “right” and will cause the public to question Obma’s ability and judgement?
We have been safe from external attack of over 7 years. Bush has done the primary job we ask of our Presidents. It certainly sounds like Biden is promising a “change” in that regard. He is “guaranteeing” there will be a crisis, and things will go poorly, and the public willnot initially be satisfied with Obama’s actions in response.
Why wouldn’t the “right” be all over that? That is MORE than “clumsy”. That is dangerous (or stupid, take your pick). It is REVEALING. And being candid can often be a political mistake.
So Biden didn’t simply make a semantic error in referring to Obama instead of “any President”. No. It was muchmore purposeful than that. Biden was making an EXCUSE for Obama specifically, because the team had already developed a policy approach to crisis, and Biden was trying to “innoculate” the public because they knew that the public wouldn’t like the policy approach of Obama specifically. That is because they plan that Obama will not act “as most Presidents”, but will do something else, some “change” that will not go over well.
Your problem is you are focusing on the wrong part of what Biden said. He wasn’t just talking about a “crisis” in a generic fashion. He was talking about HOW OBAMA WILL RESPOND to such a crisis, and Biden expects it to be received poorly by the public (at least in Biden’s estimation, as an expert on foreign policy for the Democratic team).
Your “spin” and tap dance are impressive. But you really should address the issue of Biden’s comments, not some matador’s cape. The “sleight of hand” is done with a florish, but it is merely a distraction from what the prestadigitator is actually doing, which is deceiving his audience.
Nice try though.
Leave a Comment