Former Vice President, and current Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden, suddenly finds himself — on the defensive after the killing of Iranian General Soleimani.
In the early hours after President Donald Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iran’s top military official, the Democratic presidential field responded pretty much in unison, condemning the president’s actions, and saying that the move was a miscalculation that had the potential to destabilize the region further and put the lives of Americans and their allies at risk of deadly reprisal.
But, as the potential blowback against the United States became clearer in the days following the death of General Qassem Soleimani, the leader of the Iranian Quds Force and architect of Iran’s war against ISIS across the region, candidates began to divide themselves into two distinct camps: those who argue that only a steady, experienced hand can steady America’s increasingly erratic foreign policy, and those who point to the past two decades of U.S. foreign policy to show the need for drastic change.
That division is now largely aimed at Biden, whose admittedly long career, includes having gotten the US mired in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a former two-term vice president and a major figure in U.S. foreign policy during his decades in the Senate, Biden is particularly vulnerable to attacks on historic U.S. foreign policy as examples of “what not to do.”
“Age does not necessarily correlate with wisdom on foreign policy,” one foreign policy adviser to a “top-tier candidate” told The Daily Beast. “Over the course of years, and in some cases decades, there is a track record that is extensive—and in some cases it is consistent—in pointing to flaws of judgment, and perhaps even a worldview that is not necessarily well-suited to what is required of a commander in chief.”
As we teeter on once again getting involved in the Middle East, not surprisingly, the candidate throwing the most shade at Biden on foreign policy, is Bernie Sanders.
For years Sanders has touted his 2002 vote against authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. Even in the days before the strike that killed Soleimani, when foreign policy was still very much on the back burner for most presidential hopefuls, Sanders had described Biden’s support for the war as “a lot of baggage.”
“I was right about Vietnam. I was right about Iraq. I will do everything in my power to prevent a war with Iran,” Sanders tweeted on Friday morning, alongside a video in which he describes that war and the vote that authorized it as “the worst foreign policy blunder in the modern history of the United States.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, both of whom entered politics long after public opinion and political consensus turned against the invasion of Iraq, have been more implicit in their criticism, instead warning that Soleimani’s death risks an escalation of military tensions with Iran that could result in another “endless war”—like “the one Biden voted for.”
The Biden campaign, however, told The Daily Beast that they see the emergence of foreign policy matters as a central issue in campaign politics as a boon, rather than a burden.
“These events put into greater relief that we need a commander-in-chief who can, from the moment they’re sworn in—and without needing on the job training—start repairing the severe damage that Donald Trump has done on the world stage,” a campaign spokesperson told The Daily Beast.
On Friday, Biden’s response to a reporter’s inquiry about his role in the 2011 operation that led to the death of Osama bin Laden prompted further questions about whether his foreign policy experience is a help or a hindrance. In an exchange with Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy, Biden said that he would be willing to use an airstrike to kill a terrorist leader, using the bin Laden operation as an example. When Doocy followed up by noting that Biden has previously said that he discouraged President Obama from authorizing the operation, Biden brusquely responded, “No, I didn’t. I didn’t.”
However, there are reports that Biden – some of out of his own mouth – that he had not backed the operation in a group meeting at the time.
OK, which are we to believe???
Joe did or DID NOT BACK, ‘the TAKING-OUT’ of Bin Laden???
Joe ‘the Truth-teller’ or. ‘The reports of ‘OTHERS in the ROOM’????
Go for it, JOE!!!!
So…..let’s see….Obama, { Bath House Barry}…Biden, & Hillary, were, {& the COngress}…. “all in ” on killing Bin Laden! Then….along comes Soleimani, { at least as “BAD”, as Bin laden}…..All the *Demoncrats were “”up in arms”, over the trump action to rid the world of this murderer! Now….’ What do they call that?…..{ OH Yeah….I remember: It’s called Gross Hypocrisy, by reason of political insanity}…..Do I get an A-men for that?
A-Men
Sole umami is the 2nd highest official of a sovereign nation. Bin laden was the leader of a terrorist group if you people can’t figure out the difference maybe Hillary was right about you
Why are densa so upset? Obama claimed credit for assinating Bin Laden. Good reddence. Trump tool ut So;eman,with less risk to American troops. Both bad men both gone. I dont see a diference.
TDS has messed up the Democraps minds so they ignore what they said/did previously.
These treasonous hypocrite libs(lying sack of Schiff) don’t know the meaning of the truth! They are at it again and just as mentally deranged as the rest of the Globalists NAZI Muslim Commie Liberal Demoncrats! Deep State, Pelosi, Waters, Schumer, Hollywood, Academia, Fake News, Swamp News and you know the rest!! Expose, Boycott, Sue, prosecute and bring to justice all these lying Fake News deep state treasonous Godless NAZI commie liberal demoncrats and RINOs post-haste,Patriots! Drain the rat infested swamp President Trump!
YES!….I like that! Good Post!….{ take that, you Libretards!}…….:O}}}
Quote: “Biden said that he would be willing to use an airstrike to kill a terrorist leader, using the bin Laden operation as an example.” Great example, Joe. Because rather you did or did not say yes to taking out bin Laden, it was NOT an airstrike. It was the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation (Pakistan) to kidnap and/or kill a Saudi citizen. It involved troops on the ground, attacking and overcoming a home defense, and depending on which rendition is true, shooting a man surprised in his bedroom with his hands up. Or else he was getting ready to fire a weapon at his kidnappers. The one and only thing that every story agrees on is that it was NOT an airstrike. Possibly Joe has that mixed up with his administration using drones against American citizens, including a boy never charged with any crime.
Believe no one. In foreign policy it is advisable that when dealing with a snake, you don’t tread on its tail. Wouldn’t the world be a better place if men in power had the intelligence of using dialogue with the enemy. It has been proved time and time again that belligerence is not the way to go. Trump’s ego and belligerence are monumental: commensurate with his erratic personality. He is dangerous.
The only way the swamp will be drained will be when trump and his administration is out and gone
I see patriot network news is sort of like trump and the republicans only post what suits you. If you are going to take comments don’t cherry-pick like
Trump and the republicans
Retard is an ignorant word and shows your stupidity like all republicans that post on this website.