Sunday, September 7, 2008

Biden - Experience Does Not Equal Competence

Obama's pick of Senator for Life Joe Biden as his VP pick was a choice made from weakness. Obama's naivety showed on foreign policy and national security, thus he chose the second most long serving Senator who was also the Chairman of the Sentate Foreign Relations Committee. As I have pointed out before, Biden may have years of experience, but those years have not brought him a scintilla of judgment. To the contrary, as WSJ points out, Biden's foreign policy and national security "experience" is a resume showing one disastrous position after another.

This from the WSJ:

decade after decade and on important issue after important issue, Mr. Biden's judgment has been deeply flawed.

In the 1970s, Mr. Biden opposed giving aid to the South Vietnamese government in its war against the North. Congress's cut-off of funds contributed to the fall of an American ally, helped communism advance, and led to mass death throughout the region. Mr. Biden also advocated defense cuts so massive that both Edmund Muskie and Walter Mondale, both leading liberal Democrats at the time, opposed them.

In the early 1980s, the U.S. was engaged in a debate over funding the Contras, a group of Nicaraguan freedom fighters attempting to overthrow the Communist regime of Daniel Ortega. Mr. Biden was a leading opponent of President Ronald Reagan's efforts to fund the Contras. He also opposed Reagan's efforts to send military assistance to the pro-American government in El Salvador, which at the time was battling the FMLN, a Soviet-supported Marxist group.

Throughout his career, Mr. Biden has consistently opposed modernization of our strategic nuclear forces. He was a fierce opponent of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Mr. Biden voted against funding SDI, saying, "The president's continued adherence to [SDI] constitutes one of the most reckless and irresponsible acts in the history of modern statecraft." Mr. Biden has remained a consistent critic of missile defense and even opposed the U.S. dropping out of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty after the collapse of the Soviet Union (which was the co-signatory to the ABM Treaty) and the end of the Cold War.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and, we later learned, was much closer to attaining a nuclear weapon than we had believed. President George H.W. Bush sought war authorization from Congress. Mr. Biden voted against the first Gulf War, asking: "What vital interests of the United States justify sending Americans to their deaths in the sands of Saudi Arabia?"

In 2006, after having voted three years earlier to authorize President George W. Bush's war to liberate Iraq, Mr. Biden argued for the partition of Iraq, which would have led to its crack-up. Then in 2007, Mr. Biden opposed President Bush's troop surge in Iraq, calling it a "tragic mistake." It turned out to be quite the opposite. Without the surge, the Iraq war would have been lost, giving jihadists their most important victory ever.

On many of the most important and controversial issues of the last four decades, Mr. Biden has built a record based on bad assumptions, misguided analyses and flawed judgments. If he had his way, America would be significantly weaker, allies under siege would routinely be cut loose, and the enemies of the U.S. would be stronger.

There are few members of Congress whose record on national security matters can be judged, with the benefit of hindsight, to be as consistently bad as Joseph Biden's. It's true that Sarah Palin has precious little experience in national security affairs. But in this instance, no record beats a manifestly bad one.

Read the entire article. Lunch bucket Joe may have a lot of experience, but it is not the kind which qualifies him to be allowed within a mile of anyplace where serious decisions on foreign policy and national security are being made. Indeed, his experience makes him less qualified for the Vice Presidency than the tabula rasa that is Palin.

(H/T Weapons of Mass Discussion)


Scott said...

So Biden does not bring experience to the Obama campaign. Instead, he brings validation. Obama will inevitably point to Biden's positions and say how an experienced senator, an old hand in the foreign affairs business, actually proves that Obama's judgment was correct, even without the years of experience.

Hopefully the McCain campaign will point out that Obama is simply recycling the more extreme positions of the left wing of his party. Nothing really new here, after all.

It should be an interesting debate between Palin and Biden. Palin can compare Biden's record and Obama's rhetoric and ask "What change? And what exactly are you hoping for?"

Biden: Obama's 301st foreign affairs advisor.

Mr Bob said...

Dear Mr Wolf Howling,
You have my vote for my favorite blog in the last few weeks, great job...mostly because I agree with you on everything but today, i have to point something out.
This;"Without the surge, the Iraq war would have been lost, giving jihadists their most important victory ever." is not true.

We would have only lost if we gave up and went home, if we had stayed on our current path we would have eventually won but it would have taken a long time...too long for most folks. We were still kicking butt and taking names but were not winning the hearts and minds fast enough. The surges success is because we moved out among the Iraqis and got off base.

MK said...

Here's an ad for McCain to run, Joe Biden, endorsed by Iran, always on the wrong side.

Socratease said...

Some senators have 36 years of experience, and some senators have one year of experience repeated 35 times.

Experience does not equal competence, but experience plus accomplishments gives a pretty good indication. Obama has neither.

Joanne said...

Pelosi has experience; is there anyone dumber?