There’s also perhaps another reason. It doesn’t appear that Romney has any idea how to set himself apart from President Obama’s foreign policy, as the Los Angeles Times put it today:

Romney has roughed up Obama with a hawkish tone — at times bordering on belligerent. Yet for all his criticisms of the president, it has been difficult to tell exactly what Romney would do differently.

He has argued that reelecting Obama will result in Iran having a nuclear weapon — without explaining how. He has charged that Obama should have taken “more assertive steps” to force out the repressive regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad — but has said he is not “anxious to employ military action.” He accused Obama of tipping his hand to the Taliban by announcing a timeline for withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, but also accepts the 2014 timeline.

And it almost seems as if the Romney campaign is looking to Obama for guidance. Soon after a report surfaced that the the Obama administration is considering the approval of arms transfers to Syrian rebels via Arab allies, the former Massachusetts governor announced that he would do the same (however, Obama administration officials publicly oppose militarizing the conflict any further at this point).

The Times points out that one key difference has been on military spending. Obama pushed through nearly $500 billion in cuts over the next ten years (with Congress adding another $500 billion), although military spending will continue to grow in that same period. Romney, however, plans to (needlessly) increase defense spending by nearly $2 trillion with no plan on how he will pay for it.

“A lot is made of Romney’s tough talk with respect to Russia and Iran and China, but even there it’s not like I see a dearth of toughness on the part of President Obama,” Cato Institute foreign policy expert Christopher Preble told the Times. “As a challenger, for someone like Mitt Romney, it really is incumbent on him to draw distinctions and differences. He doesn’t. It allows people to paint with a broad brush [what] they would guess … his response would be.”

Rice told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that the U.S. has less knowledge about the Syrian rebels fighting against Bashar al-Assad than it did about Libyan rebels during that country’s uprising against the dictator Muammar Qaddafi. In the Libyan case, the U.S., through NATO, provided air support but didn’t directly arm the opposition. Reacting to a statement from Mitt Romney that suggested helping allies to arm the Syrian rebels, Rice said some advocates of arming the rebels had not thought through all of the consequences:

Wolf, even in Libya, we did not take the very exceptional decision to arm the opposition. And in Syria, we know much, much less about the nature of this opposition. It’s not coherent. There’s not a unified command and control. It’s a series of different groups in different cities. There’s, clearly, also an extremist element that is trying to infiltrate elements of the opposition.

So to argue that we ought to be arming the opposition is a very consequential statement. And I don’t think that those that are advocating that have fully thought through the consequences.

That would mean that we are conceding that the only option is to see the further militarization, to see an intensified regional war, which is hardly in our interests or in the interests of our allies and partners in that neighborhood.

Watch the video:

Rice’s words of caution were preceded by similar warnings yesterday from the Republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers (MI), who told CNN: “I’m not sure arming is the right answer here, mainly because we’re just not exactly sure who the bad guys are and who the good guys are right now in Syria. So you don’t know who you’re giving weapons to.” Top U.S. officials have already acknowledged that they believe, for instance, that Al Qaeda in Iraq is behind some of the anti-government bombings in Damascus.

The proposed U.S. plan, which was at least publicly walked back by the Pentagon, called exactly for the U.S. to provide information on rebels who could be reliably armed. The original report on the U.S. plan, from the AP, said that “some intelligence analysts worry that there may be no suitable recipients of lethal aid in the Syria conflict.”

“Some people believe biometrics and databases are the silver-bullets that will solve the immigrant enforcement dilemma. But biometrics are not infallible, and databases contain errors. These problems can result in huge negative consequences for U.S. citizens and legal immigrants mistakenly identified,” said Michele Waslin, Senior Policy Analyst at the IPC.

“Biometric data collection can lead to racial profiling and can disproportionately affect immigrants,” said EFF Staff Attorney Jennifer Lynch. “It also gives the government a new way to find and track people throughout the United States.”

The EFF and IPC are urging the U.S. government to curb potential racial profiling and discrimination against immigrants by limiting unnecessary biometric collection and addressing the privacy issues that arise from growing and increasingly interconnected biometric databases.

Police use of biometrics has already emerged as a contentious political issue in New York. Earlier this month, the Obama administration expanded the Secure Communities Program, a federal fingerprinting program to identify illegal immigrants in Massachusetts and New York. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo objected to the program. “There are concerns about the implementation of the program as well as its impact on families, immigrant communities and law enforcement in New York,” wrote New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in a letter to DHS. “As a result, New York is suspending its participation in the program.”

While most Americans haven’t yet encountered law enforcement’s increasing use of biometrics data collection and biometrics databases, the Los Angeles Police Department are already using handheld devices to scan the fingerprints of day laborers standing on street corners who are not suspected of any criminal activity.

“While most of us would be really suspect if a police officer randomly asked us to submit to a fingerprint scan on the street,” Lynch told New America Media. “When you feel like you have little voice in society and you lack power to challenge authority, I think harassment like this is a big issue.”

– The Institute for Science and International Security posted new satellite photos yesterday that appear to show ntensified efforts by Iran over the past week to cleanse a military site south of Tehran suspected of being used for nuclear-weapons research.

– The White House has threatened to veto the military spending bill that is slated to come to the House floor this week.

– CNN reports that “[a]n Afghanistan government assessment of its own police force raises concern that unresolved issues are undermining the ability to take over security in the country.”

– The New York Times reports that “the Pakistani doctor who was sentenced to 33 years in prison after helping the C.I.A. track down Osama bin Laden had not been charged with treason” and “was instead convicted of colluding with a local Islamist warlord, to whom he was accused of donating more than $20,000.”

Former Israeli spy chief Meir Dagan at a think tank conference

But today, during a conference at an Israeli think tank closely associated with the country’s security establishment, Dagan further explained his opposition to a strike. He told the audience there — in line with previous U.S., U.N. and Israeli estimates that Iran has not yet made a decision to produce a weapon — that attacking Iran would spur the Islamic Republic into accelerating its nuclear program and push for a bomb. Dagan said:

A strike could accelerate the procurement of the bomb. An attack isn’t enough to stop the project. …

We would provide them with the legitimacy to achieve nuclear capabilities for military purposes.

In a sign of a consensus emerging among former top Israeli security officials, Dagan shares the newly expressed view — that attacking Iran would give the Islamic Republic every reason to boot out U.N. nuclear inspectors, make a “dash” for a weapon, and rally its population to that goal — with other former security chiefs. Former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) intelligence head Shlomo Gazit and former internal security chief Yuval Diskin have expressed nearly identical sentiments. In addition, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Thomas Pickering has expressed such views as well.

A potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The intelligence estimates give the West time to pursue a dual-track approach of pressure and diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Questions about the efficacy and consequences of a strike — not least the one raised by Dagan today — have led U.S. officials to declare that diplomacy is the “best and most permanent way” to resolve the crisis. Perhaps Dagan’s latest comments will lead to a broader discussion about the possible consequences of an attack on Iran.

U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus Has Been Pushing A 'Great Green Fleet'

So in theory, Congress should have no problem passing legislation to provide the funds to make this a reality. However, there are a few hurdles standing in the way: Republicans. The House GOP included a measure in the defense authorization bill this month prohibiting the Defense Department from buying alternative fuels if they cost more than “traditional fossil fuel.” And the Senate Armed Services Committee last week followed suit with an “even tougher” provision mirroring the House version but also exempts DOD from clean energy standards.

Why are the Republicans doing this? VoteVets.org chairman Jon Soltz pointed out yesterday that they get a lot of money from the oil and gas industry:

In short, Republicans would be forcing the military to go back to using the same fuels that hampered it from doing its job — and the same fuels that have resulted in the deaths of so many Americans.

Why? That’s the question that must be asked. And the answer is pretty simple. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Oil and Gas interests have donated 88 percent of their political contributions to Republicans this cycle — nearly $18 million. That’s the highest percentage they’ve given to Republicans since at least 1990.

And, boy, are Republicans delivering for them. Even if it means forcing the Pentagon to stop developing programs that could make our military more effective. Even if it means banning programs that would save the lives of our troops. There is nothing, it seems, that they value more than delivering for their dirty oil campaign donors.

Two Senate Democrats, Jim Webb (VA) and Joe Manchin (WV) joined the Armed Services Committee Republicans in voting for the measure. However, the amendment may have failed had Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who voted against a similar amendment, been present for the vote. The Hill reported last week that “[a] Collins spokesman said she had to miss the vote to speak with the commander of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine after the USS Miami fire. He said Collins would support biofuels if the issue comes up on the Senate floor.”

“While we all love the environment and want to be good stewards of the earth,” Soltz added, “the military isn’t on some kind of ecological mission when it comes to renewables. They’re trying to help ensure men and women come home to their loved ones.”

Construction site at the Mufreesboro mosque

What’s worse, Tennessee officialdom and national political figurues had flirted with some of the bigoted arguments against the construction. Tennessee’s Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey (R) suggested Islam might be “cult,” and the country sheriff brought in Islamophobic speakers on the topic. Then-GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain declared that “this isn’t an innocent mosque,” arguing with his usual befuddling logic that the construction was “an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion,” and that Americans “have a right” to deny other people the right to build places of worship.

But with the groundbreaking in September, the controversy seemed to have passed. Until yesterday, that is. That’s when further construction was thrown into question by a ruling from a local judge that the mosque’s building permits were not valid because notifications about a public hearing on the construction did not reach a wide enough audience. That, wrote the judge, Chancellor Robert Corlew, violated a state law requiring “adequate public notice.” He wrote in his ruling:

Without publication of the issues of business to be discussed at an otherwise routine meeting, citizens may be lulled into the mind set that only routine matters will be raised at a meeting, when suddenly a matter which is to them of earthshaking importance suddenly comes forth.

But county attorney Josh McCreary, who is defending the building permit, contended that the “earthshaking importance” of the building permit was only raised after the lawsuit against the permit. “In this instance, everything they are relying on to prove this is a matter of pervasive public importance came after the lawsuit was filed,” he said.

Opponents of the mosque have already declared victory. “Justice is served,” the lead plaintiff, Kevin Fisher, wrote to the AP in an e-mail. But it’s not clear that’s the case. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) already asked that, should new permits not be forthcoming, the Justice Department step in and “intervene in this case to support the religious rights of Tennessee Muslims.”

Furthermore, the Tennessean newspaper reported today that construction on the mosque expansion might not be ground to a halt by the judicial ruling. Noting that the judge did not order that construction stop, the Tennessean reported that the county that houses the mosque does not plan on revoking the permits:

Rutherford County has no immediate plans revoke the building permit for an embattled Murfreesboro mosque.

“The county is going to look at all the possibilities,” said Jim Cope, attorney for Rutherford County. “This could take weeks.”

An investigation for Time.com by defense budgeting expert Winslow Wheeler into “Pentagon pork” found that “the money being added for ‘Restoration & Modernization of Facilities’ was being added without any meaningful guidance, none whatsoever.” Funding for “Restoration & Modernization of Facilities,” which Wheeler characterizes as a having “the distinct odor of being a slush fund,” totals $594.7 million.

But the House Armed Services Committee members who passed the oversized defense budget draft may have other interests in mind. Four of the top-ten industry campaign donors to House Armed Services Committee members, as categorized by OpenSecrets.org, would appear to benefit from this “slush fund.” “Defense Aerospace,” “Real Estate,” “Misc Defense,” and “Building Trade Unions,” already contributed a total of $4.89 million to House Armed Services Committee members in the 2012 election cycle. The majority of that went to Republicans.

And House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) and his leadership PAC are the top congressional recipients of defense industry campaign dollars. See the chart below to see how defense dollars stack up against his other campaign contributors:

Source: OpenSecrets.org

The apparent contradiction of House Armed Services Committee members passing an oversized defense budget which exceeds that requested by the military and defies the U.S. public’s preference for a reduction in defense spending makes more sense when viewed in the context of defense industry, and industries which benefit directly and indirectly from defense related appropriations, contributions to committee member’s campaign committees and leadership PACs. Indeed, the contributions offer a monetary incentive for committee members to advocate for additional budget items — such as an East Coast missile defense system which Gen. Demspsey said was unnecessary — and create “Pentagon pork.”

Iranian Nuclear Facility

Now, three Members of Congress — Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Keith Ellison (D-MN), and Barbara Lee (D-CA) — are introducing an amendment to an intelligence authorization bill that would demand a government report about the possible consequences of an attack. Conyers and Ellison, among others, also used the amendment process to tag the Defense authorization — another big appropriations bill likely to pass — with language stating that Congress was not authorizing war with Iran.

The first public comments by members on the amendment, which has the support of pro-peace groups, could come this afternoon when the Rules Committee meets to decide on its inclusion in the larger bill. The amendment, Section 306 of the new bill, reads in full that:

Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report containing an assessment of the consequences of a military strike against Iran.

The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has already said that Iran has not made a decision to build a nuclear weapon — an estimate in line with reported U.S. assessments and also the U.N. atomic watchdog and Israeli assessments — and made clear that he thinks Iran can be dissuaded from building a bomb.

But his views on the consequences of a strike are unlikely to satisfy militaristic voices in Congress. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a prominent hawk on Iran, publicly disagreed with Clapper’s Iran assessments during a hearing this winter. Last year, Graham called on Clapper to resign.

While President Obama, like others, considers a potential Iranian nuclear weapon a threat, this Spring he lamented the “loose talk of war” and called on those who are pushing an attack on Iran to hold open discussions about the possible consequences:

If some of these folks think that it’s time to launch a war, they should say so and they should explain to the american people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be.

Instead of hawkish bluster, the Obama administration maintains its options while pushing a negotiated diplomatic solution, which the administration considers the “best and most permanent way” to end the crisis. That’s because Israeli and American experts have noted that attacking could push Iran into building a weapon, and potentially ignite a regional war. Those are exactly the sorts of potential consequences of an attack on Iran that the Obama administration has called for a forthright conversation on, which Conyers, Ellison and Lee are now bolstering. And its exactly the conversation the hawks don’t want to have.

The report found that 26.7 million pages were declassified through automatic, systematic, and discretionary declassification reviews, the lowest number of declassified pages since the 1980-1994 period. See the chart below:

Trendlines in the ISOO report indicate that President Obama’s 2009 goal of reviewing 400 million pages of classified records of historical importance by December 2013 “is not likely to be met,” says a response by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

While the total volume of declassified documents per year appears to be slowing, the ISOO report shows that in 2011, as in past years, the majority of classification decisions that were appealed to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel were overturned in whole or in part, resulting in the declassification and release of records which government agencies had sought to classify. FAS observes:

Because this pattern has persisted for 15 years (since the Panel was established), it represents empirical proof that overclassification has been and still remains pervasive, even by internal executive branch standards. In fact, there are indications that the Panel itself is too conservative in its handling of classification disputes. Recently, even the hyper-retentive National Security Agency decided to fully release a document despite a Panel finding that it should remain partly classified.

The ISOO report doesn’t address the implications that over-classification remains rife in federal agencies but ISOO Director John P. Fitzpatrick, in a letter addressed to the President at the beginning of the report, emphasized that 2011 would mark the launch of the first executive branch-wide Fundamental Classification Guidance Review.

“Agencies with original classification authority began comprehensive reviews of their classification guidance, particularly classification guides, to ensure the guidance reflects current circumstances and to identify classified information that no longer requires protection and can be declassified,” wrote Fitzpatrick. “We believe that significant results will be obtained from this program.”

– The New York Times reports that an Iranian cyberdefense organization said that the computers of high-ranking Iranian officials appear to have been penetrated by a data-mining virus called Flame, in what may be the most destructive cyberattack on Iran since the notorious Stuxnet virus.

– The U.N. reports that civilian casualties in Afghanistan dropped significantly in the first four months of 2012 as a smaller proportion was attributed to coalition and Afghan forces compared to a year ago.

– The Pentagon yesterday tried to walk back rhetoric of possible U.S. military action in Syria. “The focus of the United States remains on economic and diplomatic pressure” to force Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power, a DOD spokesperson said.

– Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said today that Israel should consider unilateral moves if negations with the Palestinians do not yield results. “We are on borrowed time. We will reach a wall, and we’ll pay the price. People who are now in a coma will then ask how we didn’t see [this coming],” he said.

Right-wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson

We do know that Adelson was slated to meet today in his Las Vegas office with Romney, according to a CBS report citing people close to the billionaire.

So who is Adelson? Here’s a reminder of some of the priorities and far right-wing views held by the owner of Las Vegas Sands Corporation and its Venetian hotel:

In February, Adelson and his wife reportedly joined up with the Koch brothers for the first time in their twice-yearly gathering of major right-wing donors largely obsessed with ending regulation on business. Reports suggested that the Adelsons would contribute to American Crossroads, an attack-dog Super PAC run by Karl Rove.

One of the reasons Adelson wants to keep his political giving private is that his gambling empire and, relatedly, close relationship with the Chinese government awkwardly juxtapose with Christian conservative views (Adelson’s been denounced) and Republican antipathy on China (including from Romney). Adelson allegedly helped crush a congressional measure by House Republicans opposing Beijing’s Olympic bid. “The bill will never see the light day, Mr. Mayor. Don’t worry about it,” he reportedly told Beijing’s mayor in 2001 after phoning then House GOP Majority Whip Tom DeLay (TX). Adelson went on to get a lucrative gambling license from China to build a casino in Macau.

Part of Adelson’s Chinese dealings, which came under federal scrutiny in 2011, went through a non-profit called the Adelson Center for U.S.-China Enterprise. According to a WikiLeaks cable flagged by Salon, the association, which was meant to facilitate business between the U.S. and China, was shut down by the Chinese government after some “missteps” with “funds transfer mechanisms” used by Las Vegas Sands. Unlike competitors, the cable said, Las Vegas Sands lobbied Beijing directly instead of going through Macau authorities.

Gingrich told NBC News that Adelson puts a priority on far-right policies on Israel. Adelson opposed the American Israeli Affairs Committee — threatening to withdraw financial support — when the group backed a Bush administration-led peace process in 2007. Adelson has since said, “There won’t be a two-state solution; there won’t be a one-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has, in the past, suggested the two-state solution was “suicide” for Israel

Adelson’s right-wing views on Israel have, at times, descended into bigotry against Palestinians, who he thinks do not have legitimate aspirations to a state of their own. When Newt Gingrich said Palestinians are an “invented” people — a talking point the New Yorker’s David Remnick said was “propaganda” — Adelson backed him up. “Read the history of those who call themselves Palestinians,” he told a group of young American Jews visiting Israel late last year, “and you will hear why Gingrich said recently that the Palestinians are an invented people.”

While Mitt Romney claims to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and advocates for a tough foreign policy on China, the man he was slated to meet with today in Las Vegas has espoused a nearly opposite set of policy views. He’s also shown no timidity in throwing around his money to pursue those political interests in the U.S., China and Israel.

91-year-old WWII veteran Bill Internicola

Three weeks ago, Bill received a letter from Broward County Florida stating “[Y]ou are not a U.S. Citizen” and therefore, ineligible to vote. He was given the option of requesting “a hearing with the Supervisor of Elections, for the purpose of providing proof that you are a United States citizens” or forfeit his right to vote.

This decorated World War II veteran is just one of hundreds of fully eligible U.S. citizens being targeted by Governor Scott’s massive voter purge just prior to this year’s election, according to data obtained from Florida election officials by ThinkProgress. The purge list, according to an analysis by the Miami Herald, targets mostly Democrats and Hispanics.

The Advancement Project, a voting rights group in Florida, has asked the Justice Department to investigate, alleging that Scott’s voter purge violates federal law.

Bill appeared at a press conference this morning with Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL), who has called on Scott to “immediately suspend” the voter purge.

Officials tell the AP that the number of disability claims is increasing because of better treatment for battlefield wounds and more outreach from the Department of Veterans Affairs. And doctors are seeing different types of ailments, including traumatic brain injuries and PTSD:

More of the new veterans are women, accounting for 12 percent of those who have sought care through the VA. Women also served in greater numbers in these wars than in the past. Some female veterans are claiming PTSD due to military sexual trauma — a new challenge from a disability rating standpoint, Hickey said.

The new veterans have different types of injuries than previous veterans did. That’s partly because improvised bombs have been the main weapon and because body armor and improved battlefield care allowed many of them to survive wounds that in past wars proved fatal.

“They’re being kept alive at unprecedented rates,” said Dr. David Cifu, the VA’s medical rehabilitation chief. More than 95 percent of troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan have survived.

But the VA’s outmoded system can’t keep up with the backlog of claims. More than 560,000 veterans currently have delayed disability claims that are more than 125 days old. And as the volume continues to grow and cost of health care for veterans increases, Harvard economist Linda Bilmes estimates that the health care and disability costs of the recent wars will cost the nation $600 billion to $900 billion. Despite the mounting claims, the VA is streamlining its process to more effectively take care of veterans because its mission “is to take care of whatever the population is,” Allison Hickey, the VA’s undersecretary for benefits, told the AP. “We want them to have what their entitlement is.”

The plan Romney and his aides proposed to deal with the crisis, however, sounds a lot like the one Obama administration officials discussed with press just a few days before. “The United States should work with partners to organize and arm Syrian opposition groups so they can defend themselves,” the campaign said in a release on Sunday. On CNN this morning, top Romney aide Andrea Saul echoed the call, saying that Romney would “work with our allies to help arm the Syrian opposition.” Watch it:

If all that sounds familiar, it might be because, three days before the Romney statement, that’s exactly what Obama administration officials told the AP they were setting a plan in motion to do. The AP reported:

[T]he Obama administration is preparing a plan that would essentially give U.S. nods of approval to arms transfers from Arab nations to some Syrian opposition fighters.

The effort, U.S. officials told the Associated Press, would vet members of the Free Syrian Army and other groups to determine whether they are suitable recipients of munitions to fight the Assad government and to ensure that weapons don’t wind up in the hands of al-Qaida-linked terrorists.

As for the goal of pushing for a transition in Syria, the New York Times reported on Saturday — the day before Romney’s statement — that ” President Obama will push for the departure of President Bashar al-Assad.”

The Romney campaign “doesn’t want to really engage” on foreign policy issues. Perhaps that’s because so many of his proposals sound like what the Obama administration is already doing — albeit with more hawkish bluster. Last month, Vice President Biden, while criticizing Romney’s “loose talk of war,” noted that, other than the rhetoric, the policies were the same: “Governor Romney has called for what he calls 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.”

– Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin E. Dempsey warned on Sunday that ongoing violence in Syria could make military intervention more likely.

– The likelihood of a nuclear breakthrough with Iran appeared to dim after last week’s talks in Baghdad failed to deliver results leading Iran, this week, to a take harsher tone, saying that the Islamic Republic won’t halt enrichment of uranium or reduce it below a 20% threshold, a central demand of the international community in Baghdad.

– A new Gallup poll found that Mitt Romney leads President Obama among veterans. Fifty-eight percent of veterans polled said they preferred Romney while 34 percent said Obama.

– The New York Times reports: “The presidential campaign headquarters of Hosni Mubarak’s last prime minister burst into flames Monday night as demonstrators marched in the streets protesting that former official’s confirmation as one of two candidates to advance to Egypt’s runoff election.”

BIDEN: Looking at your kids, most you have kids here, and it was the first time in my career, my life, I realized someone could go out and I probably shouldn’t say this with the press here — but it’s more important, you’re more important.

For the first time in my life I understood how someone could consciously decide to commit suicide. Not because they were deranged, not because they were nuts, because they had been to the top of the mountain and they just knew in their heart, they never get there again, that there was never going to get — there never going to be that way ever again. That’s how an awful lot you have feel.

There will come a day, I promise you, and you parents as well, when the thought of your son or daughter or your husband or wife brings a smile to your lips before it brings a tear to your eye. It will happen. [...]

So, hang onto each other. Hang onto each other. And I can’t tell you, I can’t tell you how deeply the five of us on this stage feel about the sacrifices you’ve made for this country. That doesn’t — that doesn’t fill the black hole. You should know only 1 percent of you have fought these wars and much less thank God than 1 percent of those that fought the wars are going through what you’re going through.

We owe you more than we can ever, ever repay you. As I said, my prayer is that that smile will come sooner than later, but I promise you it will come. God bless you all and my God protect our troops. Thank you.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow aired a clip of Biden’s speech: