Sen. Joe "Six term" Biden was talking at a fund-raising event in Seattle last weekend when the evil Karl Rove used his powerful mind control ray to get Biden to predict doom and gloom -- if he and Barack Obama are elected.
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
So, the No. 2 guy on the Democratic ticket predicts we'll have an international crisis if you elect him that we wouldn't have had if people elected John McCain. Not only that, but the Obama/Biden response to that crisis will be widely seen "initially" as a screw-up.
If a Republican had said this...
I'm sure there are examples, but I'm drawing a blank right now. When was the last time a foreign policy decision looked bad up front, but looked better in hindsight? I can think of plenty of examples where a foreign policy move looked good initially, but later turned sour (Somalia under Bush 41/Clinton, Lebanon under Reagan) but my initial thought is that if it's panned as a mistake up front, it's unlikely to look good later on.