Former President Joe Biden’s past words show a stark contrast with his present silence regarding the ongoing conflict with drug traffickers. In a passionate 1989 speech, Biden, then a senator from Delaware, called for aggressive measures against foreign narco-terrorists flooding the United States with highly addictive substances. His plea for an “international strike force” to combat these drug lords struck a chord during a time when America faced a surge of cocaine and crack cocaine use. “Let’s go after the drug lords where they live,” he asserted, emphasizing that these criminals needed to know there would be “no safe haven.” This firebrand rhetoric resonates today, especially amid the current administration’s military actions against drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean.
Biden’s 1989 speech was an official response to then-President George H.W. Bush’s proposals to tackle the growing drug crisis. Bush announced significant increases in federal funding—$1.5 billion for law enforcement initiatives—aimed at curbing drug trafficking. Yet, Biden argued that this response was inadequate and called for “another D-Day” to effectively wage war against drugs, criticizing what he deemed the administration’s half-hearted approach. “What we need is another D-Day, not another Vietnam,” he said, advocating for a full-scale offensive rather than a drawn-out, limited engagement.
In his remarks, Biden outlined the severity of the drug crisis, labeling it the “number one threat to our national security.” He indicated that this crisis impacted not just health but also the readiness of the military, the productivity of workers, and the achievement rates of students. “America is under attack, literally under attack by an enemy who is well financed, well supplied, and well armed,” he stated, painting a vivid picture of the drug epidemic as a declaration of war against the nation and its citizens. This passionate declaration prompts one to reflect on his current stance amid ongoing military efforts against these same drug trafficking organizations.
Today, President Trump faces criticism from Democrats for military strikes targeting boats suspected of drug trafficking from Venezuela. The Trump administration has defended these operations with claims that the U.S. is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, now viewed as transnational terror organizations. Trump himself has framed these strikes as essential to stopping the flow of deadly drugs into America. “The drug cartels are waging war on America, and we will destroy those cartels!” he vowed just before his inauguration, emphasizing his commitment to curb narcotics trafficking.
Democratic response to these military actions has been swift and harsh, with accusations of potential war crimes following reports of multiple fatal strikes against suspected drug traffickers. The discourse has become heated, with critics questioning the legality and morality of the operations, such as those mentioned regarding the September 2 strikes, which allegedly targeted incapacitated survivors of a previous engagement.
Yet, certain Republicans on key committees advocate for the administration’s approach, insisting it operates well within its rights to confront the Maduro regime in Venezuela. They express enthusiasm for potential outcomes that include not only reducing drug flows but possibly leading to a regime change in Venezuela. The political divide on this issue echoes Biden’s earlier assertions that drug trafficking is an existential threat that warrants decisive action.
As Biden’s words from 1989 resurface in today’s discussions on drug-related military interventions, they serve as a reminder of how the landscape of drug policy and national security has shifted over decades. The urgency and clarity of his past calls to action starkly contrast with his current silence and raise questions about the consistency of political messaging across party lines. The ongoing dialogue surrounding these military strikes underscores the complexity of addressing drug trafficking and its ramifications on American safety and security.
"*" indicates required fields
