Plumbing Biden's Mysterious Warning

Did Joe Biden alert us to an impending international crisis, or did we just dream that?

After Biden repeated his warning the second time in Seattle on October 20, he disappeared into a rabbit hole. Did we see the old media hound him for an explanation of what he meant?  Did the talking-heads news panels thoroughly vet the options as they plumbed Biden's mysterious warning? Nope to both.

Obama blew-off Biden's words saying,

"I think Joe sometimes engages in rhetorical flourishes...A period of transition in a new administration is always one where we have to be vigilant, we have to be careful. (and so on)

Was this credible denial -- the use of a cover story or contrived explanation to conceal the truth? If so, Obama's cover story was "Oh, that's just Joe talking."

You buy that? I don't either. But the old liberal media did, or at least pretended to.

Let's plumb Biden's warning and see what might be there. Among his comments were these:

"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. And he's gonna have to make some really tough -- I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur....  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.... Only thing I'm asking you is, you know, gird your loins. We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Aegean [sic] stables, man.  

The Aegean [sic] stables Biden referred to are, of course, from the Augean stables episode in the Twelve Labors of the fable of Hercules. As the story goes, the Greek hero was ordered to do twelve acts of penitence for having killed his wife and children in a rage induced by a trick of the goddess Hera.

One of his penitent tasks was to clean out the stables of King Augeas, a man of many and varied farm animals.  It was a task made difficult by the stables not having been cleaned in decades. Hercules offered to clean it in one day. And, he did, with some creative hydro-engineering. He literally flushed the dung out of the stables. In advance, he'd negotiated payment of ten percent of King Augean's stock as his fee. But because he was paid, the effort didn't count as one of his twelve pertinences.

Flushing away accumulated...ah, feces, in an act of penitence. Hold that thought.

So, was Biden referring to a specific expected event, or just performing for the audience, showing off his inside knowledge?

Let's assume he had something specific in mind, something other than a general warning.

Biden said that Obama would (1) respond to a generated crisis, (2) in a way that would not initially seem appropriate, and that (3) it would be like flushing out the Augean stables. Okay. So,

(1) Who will generate the crisis? A friend? Foe? And who would be the primary target of the crisis? Here are some options: (a) Foe tests us? Well, that seems possible, but six months is plenty of time for counter measures. (b) Foe against friend? Same situation -- time for counter measures.  (c) Friend against foe? Suppose we had advanced warning of a friend's aggressive move against a common foe. I opt for (c).

Next, (2) what would cause an initial public misperception of the correctness of our response? (a) We over-react militarily? Not likely with an Obama administration. (b) We under-react -- do nothing? How is no action the basis for a misperception? (c) We react against what many Americans perceive as representing both our best interests and those of a friendly country? I opt for (c).

Finally, (3) what could Biden's Augean stables analogy have to do with any of this?

Of course, I don't know for sure. But consider these questions as you join me in plumbing Biden's mysterious warning.

What would be a President Obama's reaction to an Israeli ramp-up toward an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities? A plan intended for execution in several months, but already known to the U.S. government, through direct or indirect sources.

Would a President Obama offer: (a) support; (b) passive resistance by withholding support; or (c) active obstruction?  Let's opt for (c).

Then, later, how would a President Obama react to the testing of an Iranian nuclear weapon?

"...a generated's not going to be apparent that we're's like cleaning the Augean stables."

Is a foreign policy act representing an expression of U.S. penitence in the future? Penitence for what, though?

Bookend Biden's warning with recent comments made by Jesse Jackson, whose congressman son is a key official in the Obama campaign (and a possible replacement appointed to the U.S. Senate if Obama is elected), that Jackson made earlier this month at an international convention in Evian, France.

The most important change [in an Obama administration] would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.  Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

Now, having read these thoughts, perhaps there's an American thinker or two who will propose a possible solution to Biden's mysterious warning, and post it in the comment section below.