REMARKS BY VICE
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN
ON FOREIGN
POLICY AT A CAMPAIGN EVENT
New York
University, Tishman Auditorium
New York, New
York
April
26, 2012
10:59 A.M. EDT
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Hello, folks.
How are
you? It’s great to be with you all. (Applause.) What
a great
introduction. I just said I hope she remembers me when she’s
President
of the United States of America. (Laughter.)
Ladies and gentlemen, it’s great to be before
such a distinguished audience at a great university. I want to
start
off by doing what the Ambassador will tell you you should never do,
apologizing. It’s all Jack Lew’s fault I’m late.
(Laughter.) No, some of you students don't know that the
President’s
Chief of Staff was the CFO here at NYU, and also taught a public policy
course, and so that's the only reason he got the job as Chief of
Staff. (Applause.) He figured if he could deal
with this great university, he can deal with the country.
And it’s great to see one of the great, great
patriots, one of the finest generals I’ve ever in my 39 years of
working in foreign policy and national security ever met, General
Wesley Clark. Great to see you, General. (Applause.)
I want to just state parenthetically that you
know I ran -- not you know, but I ran for the United States Senate when
I was 28 years old, and no one in my family on my dad’s side had ever
been involved in public life. And as one of
my colleagues said, I’m the first United States Senator I ever knew.
And I ran at the time because I thought the
policy we had in Vietnam, I didn't argue it as immoral, but I thought
it just didn't make sense, the notion of dominoes and so on and so
forth.
And I came to Washington as a 29-year-old
kid. I got elected. Before I was eligible to serve, I had
to
literally wait to be sworn in because I wasn’t eligible under the
Constitution. You must be 30 years old. And my image of the
military commanders at the time was, if you ever saw that old movie, if
you ever rented it, where Slim Pickens is on the back of an atom bomb,
dropping out of an aircraft, yelling, Yippe, Kiyay.
(Laughter.) And
“Dr. Strangelove” was the movie.
But I have to tell you after all the time
I’ve served in public office, if you asked me who the most impressive
women and men that I have met in government in the last 40 years, six
of them would be men or women wearing a uniform.
It’s a different military. This guy was not only a great warrior
-- I
mean literally a warrior, but this guy is a diplomat. This guy is
an
incredibly bright man, extremely well educated. He understands
the
role of the military within our system, and he
understands the Constitution.
And there are -- Thank God, there’s others
like him that are still around today. Wes, thanks for being one
of
those many folks who changed my impression from my younger years.
It’s
a pleasure to be with you. (Applause.)
Folks, over the last -- the past months, I’ve
given on behalf of the campaign a series of speeches on major issues in
this campaign laying down the markers, at least from our perspective,
of the President and mine, the distinguishing
differences between the President [sic] and us on a series of issues --
issues that we believe affect the middle class and our country’s
future.
I’ve spoken about the
rescue of the American automobile industry in Toledo, Ohio. I’ve
spoken about retirement security down in Florida, about leading the
world again in manufacturing in the Quad Cities area, and
about the tax system and the unfairness of it and how to make fair up
in New Hampshire.
Today, I will -- this
is the fifth in the series of those speeches, and I want to talk about
an American President’s single most important responsibility -- single
most important responsibility -- and that's keeping
our fellow citizens safe and our nation secure, particularly at a time
of such extraordinary challenge and change. The poet William
Butler
Yeats writing about his Ireland in the year 1916 in a poem called
Easter Sunday 1916, said, “all’s changed, changed
utterly; a terrible beauty has been born.”
The world has utterly
changed during your young life and your early adulthood. It’s not
the
world it was in 1990 and -- even as recently as 1990. And the
question
is: How are we going to deal with this beautiful
-- this beautiful -- change that also has with its -- fraught with so
many potential difficulties.
On this fundamental
issue, foreign policy, keeping America safe, the contrast between
President Obama, his record, and Governor Romney, and his rhetoric, in
my view cannot be greater.
Three and a half years
ago, when President Obama and I took office, and stepped into that Oval
Office, our nation had been engaged in two wars for the better part of
a decade. Al Qaeda was resurgent and Osama bin
Laden was at large. Our alliances were dangerously frayed.
And our
economy -– the foundation of our national security -– was on the
precipice of a new depression.
President Obama began
to act immediately. He set in motion a policy to end the war in
Iraq
responsibly. He set a clear strategy and an end date for the war
in
Afghanistan, which has been going on for close to
a decade. He cut in half the number of Americans who are
literally
serving in harm’s way. He decimated al Qaeda’s senior
leadership. He
repaired our alliances and restored America’s standing in the world and
he saved our economy. He saved our economy from
collapse with some very unpopular but bold decisions that have turned
out to be right, including the rescue of the automobile industry, all
of which has made us much stronger not only at home but abroad.
If you’re looking for
a bumper sticker to sum up how President Obama has handled what we
inherited, it’s pretty simple: Osama bin Laden is dead and
General
Motors is alive. (Applause.)
Governor Romney’s
national security policies, in our view, would return us to a past
we’ve worked so hard to move beyond. And, in this regard, there
is no
difference in what Governor Romney says and what he has
proposed for our economy than he has done in foreign policy. In
every
instance, in our view, he takes us back to the failed policies that got
us into the mess that President Obama has dug us out of, and the mess
that got us into this in the first place.
Governor Romney, I
think, is counting on collective amnesia of the American people.
Americans know -- American know that we can’t go back to the future,
back to a foreign policy that would have America go it alone
-- shout to the world you’re either with us or against us, lash out
first and ask the hard questions later, if they get asked at all,
isolate America instead of isolating our enemies, waste hundreds of
billions of dollars and risk thousands of Americans’ lives
on a war that’s unnecessary -- and see the world through a Cold War
prism that is totally out of touch with the realities of the 21st
century.
On this and everything
else, President Obama, in my view, has demonstrated that he is totally
in touch with our times. He has acted boldly, strengthening
America’s
ability to contend with the new forces shaping
this century and to attend to the challenges and opportunities around
the world that have been neglected over the past -- or previous past
eight years.
Under President
Obama’s leadership, our alliances have never been stronger. He
returned Europe to its rightful place as a partner of first resort in
dealing with global threats, while at the same time reclaiming
America’s place in Asia as an Asian Pacific power -- a region where
U.S. exports are producing new jobs and driving our economic
recovery.
We’ve forged a new relationship based on mutual interest with emerging
powers like China, Russia, Brazil, Turkey, South
Africa -- all of which are helping advance American
security.
We reduced our
reliance on nuclear weapons, achieved major arms control agreements
with Russia, and brought the world together to secure nuclear materials
from getting into the hands of terrorists. We’ve isolated
countries like Iran and North Korea whose nuclear programs threaten
peace and stability. And we’ve taken far more terrorists off the
battlefield in the last three years than in the previous eight, putting
al Qaeda on a path to defeat.
At the same time, the
President shut down secret prisons overseas, banned torture, and in
doing so demonstrated that we don’t have to choose between protecting
our country and living our values; and, as a consequence
of those decisions, enhanced the security of our own soldiers abroad
and the power of our persuasion around the world.
We plan for conflicts in the future with a
new defense strategy, supported by the entire Defense Department’s
senior leadership. Our military will be more agile, flexible,
better
able to confront aggressors and project power, with
strong partnerships to share the burden and smart investments in
cutting edge capabilities.
We proposed a budget that will fund this strategy and keep faith with
our wounded warriors, our veterans and their families.
We led the fight to
free Libya and the Libyan people from Qaddafi, using our unique
military assets to clear the way for our allies, who stepped up --
stepped up -- to meet their own responsibility. And the result
was something that the General and others before him sought time and
time again but rarely achieved: genuine burden sharing and an end
to
the Qaddafi regime that had murdered so many, including hundreds of its
fellow citizens.
Now, we’re ratcheting
up the pressure on other brutalizers, people who brutalize their
citizens, like Bashar al-Assad in Syria, while engaging the forces for
change in the Arab Spring and putting America firmly
on the side of freedom around the world.
We made the G20 a new
forum for international economic coordination, recognizing again the
realities of the 21st century. We opened new markets around the
world
for American businesses. And we’ve refocused our
development policy on building the capacity of other nations on major
global health and food security initiatives and steadily, steadily
combating climate change.
That’s the essence of
our record. The question is, where does Governor Romney
stand? How
would he keep our citizens safe and our nation secure? In the
face of
the challenges we now understand are ahead of us,
what would Governor Romney do?
Well, the truth is we
don't know for certain, but we know where the Governor starts. He
starts with a profound -- a profound -- misunderstanding of the
responsibilities of a President and the Commander-in-Chief.
Here’s what he said,
and I want to quote him exactly. And I quote: “If we want
someone who
has a lot of experience in foreign policy, we can simply go to the
State Department.” He went on to say, and I quote,
“But that’s not how we choose a President. A President is not a
foreign policy expert.”
In my view, the last
thing we need is a President who believes that he can subcontract our
foreign policy to experts at the State Department, or for that matter,
any other department or agency. Because here how
it works -- I’ve been around for eight Presidents of the United
States. I hate to admit. (Laughter.) I know I don't look
that old,
right? (Laughter.) But eight Presidents. That's not
how it works.
President Obama has
built a great national security team, from Secretary of State Clinton,
to CIA Director Petraeus, to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, to the
Chairman of Joint Chiefs, Dempsey. President Bush
put together his own team of experts. But the bottom line
is this: no
matter how experienced the team, no matter how wise the advice and
counsel, to use that old expression, the buck literally stops on the
President’s desk in the Oval Office.
One of the toughest --
only the toughest decisions land on that desk. And as often as
not,
his advisors are in disagreement -- disagreements among themselves --
all smart people, but they disagree -- seldom completely
unified.
As I know the General
has heard me say before, I cannot think of any consequential decision
in the eight Presidents I’ve served with where the President had more
than 75 percent of the facts. It never works that
way. Almost every significant case, it calls for a final judgment
call
to be made by the President, a call that the Vice President can’t make,
the Secretary of State can’t make, the Secretary of Defense can’t make
-- only the President can make.
I know from experience. I literally get
to
be the last guy in the room with the President. That’s our
arrangement. I can give him all the advice that I have and make
my
case, but I walk out of the room. He sits there by himself,
the President sits there by himself and has to make the decision, often
-- often -- reconciling conflicting judgments that are made by very
smart, honorable, informed, experienced people.
And the President is all alone at that
moment. It’s his judgment that will determine the destiny of this
country. He must make the hard calls. I’d respectfully
suggest
President Obama has made those hard calls with strength and
steadiness.
And the reason he has
been able to is because he had clear goals and a clear strategy how to
achieve those goals. He had a clear vision and has a clear vision
for
America’s place in the world. He seeks all the
help he can get from experts as to how to realize that vision, but
ultimately he makes the decision.
So it seems to me,
Governor Romney’s fundamental thinking about the role of the President
in foreign policy is fundamentally wrong. That may work -- that
may
work -- that kind of thinking may work for a CEO. But
I assure you, it will not and cannot work for a President and it will
not work for a Commander-in-Chief.
Thus far, Governor
Romney has not made many foreign policy-focused decisions or
pronouncements. Foreign policy has not been a focus of his
campaign.
Now, if you’ll excuse me a point of personal privilege, given
President Obama’s record -- the strongest foreign policy in
decades --
I can understand why the President -- why Governor Romney doesn’t want
to make it a focus of his campaign. But it is, these are,
critical
issues.
So how do we fairly
assess the views of Governor Romney on foreign policy? What are
they?
I think a fair way to do this -- and obviously others may disagree with
whether or not I’m being as objective as possible,
I think the fair way to do this is look at the few things that we do
know about Governor Romney.
We know Governor
Romney reflexively criticizes the President’s policy and almost in
every case without offering any specific alternative. We know
that
when the Governor goes -- does venture a position, it’s a safe
bet that he previously took or is about to take an exactly opposite
position -- (laughter) -- and an equally safe bet that he is going to
end up landing in the wrong place and out of the mainstream of the
thinking of Republican and Democratic foreign policy
experts.
We know that when he
agrees with the President of the United States, as he has done, he then
goes on to mischaracterize our record to create what is a non-existent
contrast. And most importantly, we know that the
extent that Governor Romney -- to the extent he has shown any foreign
policy vision, it’s through the glass of a rear-view mirror.
Look, in my view, he
would take us back to a dangerous and discredited policies that would
make Americans less safe and America less secure. And the best
way to
try to make the points I believe are honest to make
is to illustrate these propositions, is to compare President Obama’s
record and Governor Romney’s rhetoric on major foreign policy and the
national security interests of our day.
Let’s start with
Iraq. When President Obama ran four years ago, he promised to end
the
war responsibly. He gave me the honor and the responsibility of
coordinating that policy. He kept this commitment. He
brought
home -- it was already mentioned -- all 150,000 of our troops and
developed a strong relationship with a sovereign Iraq.
Last December,
Governor Romney initially applauded the withdrawal, which he went on to
say -- partially, which is true -- he went on to say the credit should
go to President Bush, but he applauded the decision.
Three months later, he reversed him, saying, and I quote, it was an
“enormous error” -- I can back this up -- and saying that he would have
left tens of thousands of U.S. troops behind in Iraq.
In Afghanistan,
President Obama developed a clear strategy to end the war in 2014,
while building the capacity of the Afghan government, its security
forces and its people. Setting a withdrawal date was the best
way to get the Afghans to step up and take responsibility for their own
country. Without it, we know from Iraq, it doesn’t happen.
If we’re
doing it all, why step up? So we know unless you set a date, the
likelihood of stepping up and taking on the responsibility
is unlikely to occur.
Folks, as I’ve said in
many circumstances, we cannot want peace and security in Afghanistan
more than the Afghans want it. Our NATO partners, the
International
Security Assistance Force -- of some 50 countries
-- embraced the President’s strategy. And so did Governor Romney
embrace the President’s strategy -- at least at first. He
endorsed the
President’s plan to transition to Afghanistan responsibility and
withdraw our combat troops in 2014. Here’s what he said,
and I quote, “that’s the right timeline.”
But two months later,
he was against the President’s plan, calling it and I quote, “one of
the biggest mistakes.” And now, and I want to be completely
straight
about this, he seems -- I emphasize seems -- seems
to want to keep American forces in Afghanistan indefinitely. Here
again I want to quote him. And I quote, “it’s my desire and my
political party’s desire not to leave.” I’m not sure the exact
context. I’m not sure exactly what he meant. But I am sure
he is going to have a responsibility to explain to the American people
what he meant by that. He may have a reasonable
explanation. But the
American people deserve an explanation.
Where Governor Romney
has expressed a clear and consistent point of view, he has been clearly
and consistently stuck in the past -- and, in my view and the
President’s view, I might add, wrong.
When we
came to office, President Obama reset our relationship with
Russia. To
state the obvious, we had then and we have now important disagreements
with Moscow. And we’re going to continue
to have disagreements with Moscow. But in the wake of the reset
-- as
we called it, when I was asked to go over and make that first speech on
behalf of the administration over at a conference called the Wehrkunde
Conference. In the wake of that reset, we’ve
negotiated a major nuclear arms reduction treaty that has made us safer
and sets an example, I might add, for the rest of the world for the
possibility we can continue to reduce nuclear arms around the
world.
In
addition, President Obama convinced Russia to cancel the sale of
Russia’s very sophisticated S300 cutting edge, air defense radar
system, to Iran. Russia joined the United States --
hadn’t been until then -- joined the United States in the toughest ever
sanctions against Iran, gave us permission to transit Russian territory
and airspace with weapons and supplies for American troops in
Afghanistan -- the only other source and now the sole
source, hopefully, only temporarily.
But
just a month ago, Governor Romney, called and here again I quote,
“without question our number one geopolitical foe” is Russia.
(Laughter.) As my brother would say, go figure.
(Laughter.)
And sometimes -- I don’t know whether it’s a slip of the tongue or it’s
a mindset -- but he even refers to Russians as “Soviets” -- (laughter)
-- which I think -- no, I think reveals a mindset. Everybody
sometimes
slips -- I never do, but everybody sometimes
slips. (Laughter and applause.)
Look, I think it’s
fair to say when it comes to Russia, based on only what we know he’s
said so far, Governor Romney is mired in a Cold War mindset.
Similarly, the Governor aggressively attacked New START, the
nuclear arms control treaty that President Obama negotiated with
Moscow. He attacked it. That treaty reduces a number of
strategic
nuclear weapons in Russia’s arsenal and allows inspections of Russia’s
nuclear arsenals to resume without placing any constraints
on U.S. missile defense and our conventional strike capabilities.
Governor Romney was
part of a very small group of Cold War holdovers who never met an arms
control treaty that he likes. He was way out of the mainstream in
this
issue, unless you think that’s just political hyperbole.
Let me tell you why. Virtually the entire Republican foreign
policy
establishment disagreed with him, starting with Secretary Henry
Kissinger, Secretary Colin Powell, Senator Richard Lugar -- the most
informed person on foreign policy in the Senate, National
Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Secretary of State Jim Baker,
Secretary of State George Schulz, National Security Advisor Brent
Scowcroft and President George H. W. Bush, all -- all support it and
strongly support it and helped us get past through some recalcitrant
Republican senators this critically important treaty.
Unfortunately,
Governor Romney’s apparent determination to take U.S.-Russian relations
back to the ‘50s also causes him to misstate the facts. For
example,
he charged that -- as he calls it to appease Moscow --
to appease Moscow, “President Obama has been pliant on missile defense
and abandoned our missile defense sites in Poland.”
Here again he is
either woefully misinformed or totally misunderstands. As it
happens,
President Obama asked me to secure allied support for a new and more
effective missile defense system in Europe, the so-called
Phased Adaptive Approach.
So the first visit I
made was to Poland. And who did we ask to host these new
components
for this more sophisticated system? That’s right, Poland, along
with
Turkey, Romania, Germany and Spain, who all said yes.
These countries and all of NATO embraced our new approach, because they
understand it will protect them more quickly and more effectively than
the missile defense program Romney wanted to stick with.
And I’d add
parenthetically, it also provides better protection for the United
States of America. As then Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, who
served
in Republican and Democrat administrations, said, and I quote,
“we are strengthening, not scrapping, missile defense in Europe.”
But I think nothing
speaks more powerfully to the differences between President Obama and
Governor Romney than one of the defining moments in the past four
years, the hunt for Osama bin Laden. In 2008, while campaigning
for the nomination, Governor Romney was asked what he would do about
bin Laden. Let me tell you exactly what he said, and I
quote. He
said, “there would be very insignificant increase in safety,” then he
went to say, “if Bin Laden was brought to justice.”
He then went on -- that's a quote. He then went on to say, “it’s
not
worth moving heaven and Earth, spending billions of dollars just to
catch one person.”
Here’s how candidate
Obama answered that question. He said, “if I have Osama bin Laden
in
our sights, I will take him out. I will kill bin Laden. We
will crush
al Qaeda. This has to be our biggest national security
priority.”
I was a little bit more direct. I said, we’d follow the S.O.B. to
the gates of Hell if we had to. (Laughter and applause.)
But here’s the deal,
President Obama always means what he says. He said it as a
candidate,
and he kept that commitment. Just a few months into office,
sitting in
the Oval Office, and I spend four to six hours
a day with this President, that's why we’ve become such good friends,
and I’ve gotten to know him so well, literally, and has -- made almost
every meeting he has. We were sitting in the meeting, and he
turns to
Leon who was -- Panetta, who was then the chairman
of -- excuse me, the head of the CIA, Director of CIA and military
personnel there, and he made it clear what his priority was.
And on June 2, 2009,
he ordered Leon Panetta, gave the following written order, and I quote,
“in order to ensure that we have expended every effort, I direct you to
provide me within 30 days a detailed operational
plan for locating and bringing to justice Osama bin Laden.” It
was the
President’s highest priority for the CIA.
Then, he made one of
the most courageous decisions I’ve seen a President make and I would
argue in a long time. He authorized a very, high risk mission to
capture or kill Osama bin Laden, even though -- and I was
one of six people who for four months or so were the only ones who knew
about the possibility of his location -- even though at the end of the
day, there was no better, as you know, General, than a 50/50 chance bin
Laden was present in the compound.
But despite that
reservation -- and I might add the reservations of almost every one of
his -- the only full-throated support for moving when we did was from
Leon Panetta, the Director of the CIA, myself included.
President Obama said
afterwards when he made the decision: “This was a very difficult
decision. It entailed enormous risk to the guys I sent
there. But
ultimately I had so much confidence in the capacity of our
guys to carry out the mission that I felt the risks were outweighed by
the potential benefit to us of finally getting our man.”
And I might add
parenthetically, does anybody doubt had the mission failed, it would
have written -- the beginning of the end of the President’s term in
office. This guy has got a backbone like a ramrod. No, no,
for real. (Laughter.) For real.
On this gut issue, we
know what President Obama did. We can’t say for certain what
Governor
Romney would have done. But we can say that, unlike Governor
Romney,
the American people believe, and I quote, “it was
worth moving Heaven and Earth to get bin Laden.”
I said before thanks
to President Obama, bin Laden is dead and General Motors is
alive. You
have to ask yourself, if Governor Romney had been President, could he
have used the same slogan –- in reverse? People
are going to make that judgment. It’s a legitimate thing to
speculate
on.
Look, on a few core
issues, there’s no real difference between President Obama and Governor
Romney. So in those cases, as I said at the outset, in my view,
Governor misrepresents the President’s approach or suggests
that the President is not doing things that in fact he is already
doing.
Again, let me give you
some examples. Iran’s nuclear program is maybe the clearest
example.
President Obama is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear
weapon. He has stated that no options are off
the table, and he’s been clear and concise saying that containment is
not our policy.
When he took office,
the effort to pressure Iran was stuck in neutral, Iran’s influence --
and think about this, when he took office, Iran’s influence was
spreading in the region. And American leadership was in
doubt. I would argue we were not much respected by our friends,
and
not really feared by our enemies.
But President Obama
understood that by seeking to engage Iran in the first interest, by
going the extra diplomatic mile and presenting Iran a clear choice, we
would demonstrate to the world that Iran, not the United
States, was the problem.
The President’s smart,
tough diplomacy turned the tables on Tehran and secured the strongest
unilateral and international sanctions in history; all the major
powers, including Russia and China, participating.
Now, Iran is more
isolated and the international community more united in their effort to
prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon than ever before.
Tehran
has deep difficulties acquiring equipment and technology
for its nuclear and missile program. It’s increasingly cut off
from
the international financial system, unable to do the most basic
business transactions.
And its economy has
been grievously wounded, and the worst is still to come. In June,
a
European embargo on imports of oil from Iran kicks in. Folks,
look, as
a result of this unprecedented pressure, Iran is back
to the negotiating table. You can't predict what the end result
will
be, but they're back to the table.
Governor Romney has
called for what he calls for a “very different policy” on Iran.
But
for the life of me, it’s hard to understand what the Governor means by
a very different policy. Here’s what he says. He
says we need “crippling sanctions” -- apparently unaware that through
President Obama’s leadership, we have produced just that –- crippling
sanctions.
He emphasizes the need
for “a credible military option” and a “regular presence of aircraft
carrier groups” in the region –- apparently ignorant of the fact that’s
exactly what our policy is and what we’re doing.
The only step -- I
think it’s fair to say -- the only step we could take that we aren’t
already taking is to launch a war against Iran. If that’s what
Governor Romney means by a very different policy, he should
tell the American people. He should say so. Otherwise, the
Governor’s
tough talk about military action is just that -- talk. And I
would add
counterproductive talk.
Folks, loose talk
about a war has incredible negative consequences in our efforts to end
Iran’s nuclear quest. And let me tell you why: Because it
unsettles
world oil markets. It drives up oil prices. When oil
prices go up, Iran’s coffers fill up, undermining the impact of the
sanctions that are in existence. This kind of Romney-talk is just
not
smart.
President Obama has
said, and I quote, “now is the time to let our increased pressure sink
in, and to sustain the broad international coalition we have
built.
Now is the time to heed the timeless advice from Teddy
Roosevelt: ‘speak softly and carry a big stick.’” I promise you
the
President has a big stick. (Laughter.) I promise you.
President Obama
understands what Governor Romney apparently doesn’t: It is
possible -–
it’s indeed necessary -– for America to be strong and smart -- and
smart -- at the same time.
Look, no country is
more concerned about a nuclear Iran than Israel, and rightly so.
And
no President since Harry Truman has done more for Israel’s security
than Barack Obama.
Our administration
provided record levels of security assistance. We funded what’s
referred to as the Iron Dome, a missile defense system that recently
intercepted in those rockets coming out of Gaza, nearly 80
percent of the rockets fired from Gaza just a few weeks ago, saving
homes, schools, hospitals and the men, women and children who inhabit
them.
We’re collaborating
right now and have been on longer range missile defense systems like
Arrow and David’s Sling, and tying Israel into our early warning radar
system. The U.S. and Israel’s top political, defense,
and security intelligence officers are engaged in the most consistent,
comprehensive consultations ever.
You know this better
than anybody, General. Together we’re conducting the largest
joint
military operations in the history of the relationship. And
President
Obama has stood up to what is I think the gravest threat
to Israel, the effort of the rest of the world to delegitimize it as a
state and I might add, often stood up alone -- alone -- in fighting the
effort to delegitimize Israel at the United Nations and other
international organizations -- single vetoes.
Israel’s leaders have
called President Obama’s support for and cooperation with Israel
“unprecedented.” Governor Romney though, said relations between
the
United States and Israel had “hit a low” and went on to
accuse President Obama of -- this is a good one -- “throwing Israel
under the bus.” That’s just one in a long litany of untruths
about our
administration’s policy toward Israel uttered by Governor Romney and
repeatedly debunked by reporters, policy experts,
fact checkers across the country -- and maybe most convincingly
debunked by Israeli leaders.
Maybe the Governor is
simply unaware or misinformed again. Unfortunately, it’s more
likely
in my view the Governor is falling back on one of his party’s favorite
tricks of late -- distort and mischaracterize your
opponent’s position, keep repeating the distortions and
mischaracterizations over and over again even when every objective
observer says you’re wrong, keep repeating in the hope that it will
eventually stick.
President Obama has
reshaped American foreign policy to contend with the challenges of the
present, but also to face the threats of the future. And I
believe he
has done it with strength and wisdom. Governor Romney
wants to take us back to a world that no longer exists, with policies
that are dangerously divorced from today’s realities. Looking
backwards is all the more misguided, because for all the peril of our
times America’s promise has never, never, never been
greater.
In the 20th century,
the wealth of a nation was judged by the size of its population, the
strength of its army, the abundance of its raw materials and the
expanse of its landmass. In the 21st century, these measures
still matter and on that measure America still prevails. But more
than
ever before -- you students know better than any of us -- more than
ever before, the 21st century, the true wealth of a nation is to be
found in its human resources, its people and their
ability to imagine, to innovate, to build, to compete -- folks, by that
measure, America is also uniquely blessed.
And the President and
I believe our job -- our job -- in government is to help provide our
people, all of our people, an environment in which they can fulfill the
incredible potential our younger people have.
If we do our job, I
believe our nation will be more secure, because America’s strength --
America's strength in the world depends ultimately on the strength of
the American Dream here at home and in our economy.
That means investing in our students, our teachers, our schools, our
university. It means investing advanced research and development,
attempting to catch up to the rest of the world in medicine, in science
and the most modern airports, ports, bridges, roads
-- all of which help increase the ability of American businesses to
increase productivity and access to the world; to invest in clean,
sustainable energy in cutting edge manufacturing. No one is
better
positioned -- no one, no nation is better positioned
than the United States in all those areas.
It also means
welcoming people from around the world, which has always been the
source of new blood and new brain power throughout American
history.
It means rewarding hard work, demanding responsibility, insisting
on accountability and creating opportunity for all our citizens.
These
are the investments and the commitments that will grow our economy,
create new jobs, keep America strong at home and allow us to continue
to be the strongest nation in the world and the
leader of the world.
And these investments
and commitments, and the commitments that President Obama and I have
made and will continue to make, I think, is what’s needed for America’s
future. As Vice President, on behalf of our nation,
I have traveled well over a half a million miles since being sworn in
as Vice President, many of them to far-flung countries all around the
world. And like many of you who have traveled, students and
non-students here, we all have the same kind of feeling
when you get home, the same just sort of intuitive feeling -- there is
no country like America, there is no potential like America.
I was asked earlier
how would I best define America. I was with a group of high
school
students. I said one word, possibilities -- possibilities.
I am absolutely
convinced, I am more certain after having served 40 years in government
than I was when I was the idealistic, young senator at age 29 -- I am
more confident and convinced -- that there is no country,
and we want all countries to do well, but there is no country better
positioned to lead the world in the 21st century than the United States
of America, but only if we stay the course we’re on, with the strong,
smart leadership of President Obama looking forward
and not in a rear-view mirror.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. May God bless you all and may
God protect our troops.
END
11:45
A.M. EDT