Have you ever watched an old video of someone saying something so clearly, so forcefully, that when you see them contradict it decades later it almost feels unreal?
That’s exactly what happened this week when a 1989 C-SPAN clip of then-Senator Joe Biden started making the rounds again. In it, he’s practically pounding the table, demanding that the United States create an international strike force to go after drug cartels wherever they hide. No safe havens, he said. Take the fight to them.
Fast-forward to late 2025, and the Trump administration is doing precisely that – hitting cartel-linked boats in the Caribbean with missiles. And suddenly half of Washington is clutching pearls, talking about war crimes and “unlawful killings.” You almost have to laugh at the absurdity, except the stakes are deadly serious.
The Speech Everyone Is Talking About
February 7, 1989. The country was in the middle of the crack epidemic. Drugs were pouring across the border, communities were being torn apart, and politicians were scrambling to look tough.
During a televised Democratic response, Biden didn’t mince words. He wanted more prisons, more cops, harsher sentences – the whole 1980s tough-on-crime playbook. But he went further. Much further.
“We should create an international strike force… There must be no safe haven for these narco-terrorists.”
Senator Joe Biden, February 7, 1989
He literally used the term narco-terrorists – the exact phrase the current administration uses when designating Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. The same phrase that sends certain pundits into hysterics today.
Watching the clip now feels like stepping into a time machine. The conviction in his voice is unmistakable. This wasn’t a throwaway line; it was the centerpiece of his message that night.
From Senate Floor to Oval Office: What Changed?
That’s the million-dollar question, isn’t it?
During the four years Joe Biden sat in the Oval Office, fentanyl became the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18–45. Over 100,000 people a year were dying. Cartels built super-tunnels, flew drones, launched submarines, and operated with near-impunity along a border that saw record crossings.
Yet the strike force he once demanded never materialized. The terrorist designation he could have issued with a pen stroke never happened. Instead, the policy seemed to swing in the opposite direction – catch-and-release at the border, reduced deportations, and a noticeable softening of rhetoric about cartel violence.
Now, when the new administration finally starts hitting cartel boats and safe houses, the reaction from many on the left isn’t “about time” – it’s outrage. Accusations of extrajudicial killing. Calls for investigations. Even hints that the military might need to “save the country” from its own commander-in-chief.
The Boat Strike That Sparked the Meltdown
Let’s talk about the incident everyone is arguing over.
Earlier this year, U.S. forces tracked a go-fast boat moving tons of cocaine toward American waters. Intelligence linked the vessel to both cartel operations and elements tied to the Venezuelan regime. The decision was made to stop it – permanently.
The first missile disabled the boat. Two individuals survived the initial blast and, according to multiple reports, climbed back aboard. Sources say they appeared to be attempting to salvage drugs or communicate with other vessels. A second strike finished the job.
Critics immediately called it an execution. Supporters pointed out that combatants who return to the fight remain lawful targets under the rules of engagement. Even usually skeptical outlets ended up confirming the survivors were considered active threats.
“They were believed to be potentially in communication with others and salvaging some of the drugs… Because of that, it was determined they were still in the fight and valid targets.”
In other words, the military followed protocol. But facts rarely slow down a good political firestorm.
When Politics Trumps Reality
Look, I’ve covered enough cycles to know that positions shift with the political winds. But this one feels different. The level of cognitive dissonance is almost performance art.
- 1989: Democrats demand international strike forces against drug lords → Tough, patriotic
- 2025: Republicans launch strikes against drug lords → War crimes, dangerous escalation
The policy is the same. The enemy is the same. The only variable that flipped is who sits in the White House.
And that’s perhaps the most troubling part. When a major political party appears more upset about hitting narco-terrorists than about the terrorists themselves, something has gone badly wrong.
Fentanyl Doesn’t Care About Partisan Talking Points
Every week, another two thousand Americans die from fentanyl. That’s a 9/11-scale death toll every single month, year after year. Most of it comes through ports of entry controlled by the very cartels Biden once vowed to destroy.
These aren’t victimless organizations. They run slave labor camps in the desert. They dissolve rivals in acid. They use rape as a weapon of control. They’ve turned entire Mexican states into war zones.
In my view, treating them like common criminals instead of the hybrid terrorist-criminal enterprises they’ve become is what got us here. The 1989 version of Joe Biden seemed to understand that. The 2020s version of his party… not so much.
A Glimpse of Bipartisan Possibility?
Here’s the irony that keeps me up at night: Donald Trump is implementing the exact drug-war vision many Democrats claimed to want in the 1980s and 1990s. Tough sentences, border enforcement, international cooperation, direct action against suppliers.
If the politics weren’t so poisoned, this could be one of those rare moments where both sides say, “You know what? The other guy finally did what we always said needed doing.”
Instead, we get cable news segments debating whether sinking a cocaine boat constitutes a war crime while funeral homes across the country can’t keep up with overdose victims.
Priorities, right?
Where Do We Go From Here?
The cartels aren’t going to negotiate. They aren’t going to be reasoned with. They make hundreds of billions a year and have armies that rival some nations. Pretending this is still a simple law-enforcement problem is fantasy.
The 1989 Joe Biden got that part right. Maybe it’s time the rest of Washington caught up with 1989 Joe Biden.
Because while politicians argue about optics and old videos, another American family is getting that knock on the door no one ever wants. And the drugs keep coming.
Perhaps the real question isn’t what changed between 1989 and today.
The real question is how much more we’re willing to lose before we decide protecting American lives matters more than protecting political talking points.
