Joe Biden Says He's Ready To Handle The World. He Got Iraq Wrong Three Times.

[DemocracyMouse]

This article is telling. I've had other concerns about Biden's views on the rising cost of college tuition. He blamed a few outlier profs with high salaries, rather than doing the research (which shows that most professors have been pushed into nonliving wage adjunct positions and tuition increases are actually due to a doubling of administration personnel and "for profit" greed at the top).

Huffington Post:
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d02d4e4e4b0dc17ef06d77a

Joe Biden Says He’s Ready To Handle The World. He Got Iraq Wrong Three Times.

After voting for the Iraq War, Biden tried to drastically reorganize the country along ethnic and sectarian lines and helped lay the groundwork for ISIS to thrive.

By Akbar Shahid Ahmed
06/17/2019

The war in Iraq has roiled presidential politics in each election since President George W. Bush launched the invasion of the country in 2003. It was central to the 2004 election, arguably the reason that Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic nomination, and no small factor in Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, when he pitched himself as an alternative to elites in both parties ― particularly his rivals in the GOP ― who had backed the invasion.

As Joe Biden leads the Democratic field for 2020, the U.S.’s bloody history with Iraq is set to again become a defining issue in the race, and not simply because Trump has talked about an indefinite U.S. military presence there. Biden wants to convince voters his resume on foreign policy is an asset. But they’ve got ground to think otherwise. “He’s been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served with Biden in the Obama administration, wrote in his 2014 book.

Just this month, Biden’s primary opponents have zeroed in on his support for Bush’s invasion. “You’ve got to ask yourself where Joe Biden is on the issues that are most important to you. Did he support the war in Iraq that forever destabilized the Middle East?” former Rep. Beto O’Rourke asked on MSNBC this week. Days earlier, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) had called for Biden to apologize. Almost 30 percent of Democrats are unhappy about Biden’s vote and more than 40 percent of party supporters younger than 30 say it makes them less likely to back him, a Politico/Morning Consult poll recently found.

And Biden’s campaign isn’t offering a counternarrative — either about what he has learned from the past or what wisdom he will bring to bear on the current challenge. With more than 5,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq and analysts warning that reconciliation and stability after the defeat of the Islamic State will require painstaking work, what does he want to do next?

[trev]

1. Add another notch to the believer in the Hatch Act.

Biden is too Old School for me. We need someone who can garner new and young voters. I don't think he can do that.

[DownriverDem]

22. Oh please

This isn't a tit for tat game. How far back do you want to go? Who can beat trump? Whether you like it or not Biden can beat trump..

[shanny]

29. Who can beat tRump? In current polling, all of our top five candidates

which includes 2 wimmin, a "socialist" and the gay mayor of a small Midwestern city.

Looks to me like that "lane" is wide open.

[fallout87]

55. So you really believe that polls 1.5 years out

are going to be accurate of who will win the general?

lol

[shanny]

57. well, the answer to that just writes itself:

do you really believe the candidate with the highest poll numbers 17 months out will be predictive of who wins the general?

do some research on that and get back to me


eta: top 5 candidates (2015) for the Republican nomination, in order:
Bush
Christie
Huckabee
Rubio
Walker

[trev]

37. It's a matter of history of belief and action.

There are other uncomfortable things he does.

Nothing will prevent me from voting for Biden if he becomes the candidate. In the meanwhile, I will continue to investigate everyone and will back the person I think is best for the country.

[Autumn]

68. Oh please. Recent polling shows all of our top Dems can beat Trumps ass.

Whether you like it or not.

[George II]

2. He didn't "get Iraq wrong three times."

[qazplm135]

3. Iraq is a manufactured country

Biden was wrong on invasion but returning the area to the pre-British meddling by separating along Shia, Sunni, and Kurd lines?
Sorry, that's the right call. The how would obviously be tricky, but the idea is not wrong.

[George II]

4. Too few people actually know what the votes in the House and Senate were for....

....and just take the republicans' (most notably bush administration) word for the purpose of the votes.

There was never a vote for an invasion of Iraq in 2003.

[qazplm135]

7. oh of course there was

everyone knew what that vote was for. Just stop. No one was surprised. If the war had gone well, the Dems who voted for it would have touted it...they wouldn't have said, gosh had no idea that was going to happen with the Bush administration!

[pnwmom]

41. No, they didn't. The vote said that only if WMD's were found could there be an invasion --

but no WMDs were ever found.

Also, this was a vote just before the election, which the R's were clearly going to win. The Ds went along with this resolution because they wanted it to include the provision about finding WMD's -- and they knew that after the election, the R's could just give Bush a blank check.

As it happened, in the next spring Bush went ahead with the invasion anyway, just as if he had had the blank check resolution. He didn't wait to see if there were any WMD's. And the R's in Congress, who controlled everything, didn't care.

[marylandblue]

46. I remember it very well. They said they had in fact found WMDs.

They even produced areal photos of what they said were missile hangers. I said to myself, "they don't look like hangars to me." They turned out to be chicken coops.

They were lying the whole time, and many people knew it. Others were more trusting. Seems like an error in judgement. I understand people make mistakes. But Obama made the right call and Biden didn't. I can have confidence in Obama without having that same confidence in Biden.

[pnwmom]

49. Obama wasn't in Congress then, so he didn't have the responsibility. They were hoping that

by passing a resolution with restrictions, Bush would follow the restrictions. They were wrong because he just ignored them. But their votes didn't matter, because the R's could have given him a blank check in January if the October resolution didn't pass.

[marylandblue]

58. Yes Obama had an advantage Biden did not. So did I.

But I believed every Democrat should at least be on record as opposing the war. And they should have made the case that there in fact no WMDs. The evidence against it was publicly available. They just didn't use it.

My view is that they were afraid to look weak on defense and too trusting of Bush. I think Biden in particular is too trusting of Republicans. He's always relied on personal connections when working with political opponents. That's a very good talent, but IMO not what we need right now.

[qazplm135]

63. no, it did not say that

it gave discretion to Bush to use force if he determined it was necessary and appropriate.

Which, as I said below, is like giving a cannibal discretion to eat babies if he finds it necessary and appropriate.

[tritsofme]

13. I've always found this line of thinking to be well...nonsense.

I am not one who excruciates those who voted for the AUMF, but I also don’t like to see it misrepresented.

They voted to give Bush the power to launch an invasion if he alone “determined” it to be “necessary and appropriate” to defend US national security.

Dance around and make whatever excuse you like, but that’s what they voted for.

[George II]

15. The bill that they voted on contained conditions that Iraq was supposed have complied with....

....including several United Nations resolutions.

The bottom line is that Iraq did indeed comply those conditions, as we've found out since. Even Colin Powell, who made his long presentation before the United Nations Security Council, has since agreed that the conditions were met.

What WASN'T considered before the votes was that the bush administration would lie about Iraq's compliance.

[Voltaire2]

18. Absolute nonsense.

Colin Powell conveniently continues to pretend he wasn’t one of the liars in the Bush administration lying us into war. And the Democrats who hid behind those lies, lies that were transparently obvious to many of us, do not get a pass for participating in the worst war crime of the 21st century.

[pnwmom]

42. It's not nonsense at all. The Democrats supported it in order to enforce

the UN resolutions. They reasoned that if they didn't pass that bill in October, the R's in January would just give Bush a blank check.

However, once the R's controlled Congress, Bush felt free to invade without finding WMD's.

[Voltaire2]

43. Lulzd.

They gave Bush a blank check to prevent giving Bush a blank check.

Ok.

[oasis]

48. Hans Blix bio still available on Google. nt

[tritsofme]

21. Conditions that Bush alone "determined" whether or not they were met.

The conditions laid out are basically judgement calls, and they empowered Bush alone to make the determination.

It can be reasonably argued that Bush largely complied with his responsibilities under the resolution, as he was granted very broad powers...and that was the real problem.

I really don’t like making excuses for highly intelligent adults, they all knew exactly what they were voting for in authorizing the use of force.

[pnwmom]

44. No, they didn't. Ted Kennedy said he voted against it only because of information

he had based on his membership on the Intelligence Committee -- info he wasn't allowed to share with anyone else.

But he said the other D's vote, from what they knew at the time, was justified. They were lied to by Colin Powell. Kennedy knew that; but most D's didn't.

[tritsofme]

50. The resolution asked Bush to look at a fluid situation and make a judgement call.

Bush did not have to demonstrate how conditions were not being met, he was only required to send a letter to Congress saying he had decided that further diplomacy would not adequately protect national security or lead to the enforcement of relevant UN resolutions, he was then authorized to invade.

It was a very broad grant of power, and Bush cashed it in.

[pnwmom]

53. If the Ds hadn't helped pass that resolution with restrictions, they knew that in January

the incoming R's would simply vote to give Bush a blank check.

So they passed the resolution and hoped Bush would follow it. Not passing that resolution wouldn't have done a thing to prevent Bush's invasion of Iraq.

[tritsofme]

62. The 2002 AUMF amounted to a blank check, as it was passed.

Bush did in fact follow it, he sent his letter to Congress determining that invasion was necessary.

So I just don’t buy that the resolution would have been materially different had it passed under the new GOP Senate majority in early 2003.

That being said, I’ve never argued that stopping the AUMF would have prevented the war, it is just a subject that has I happen to know a good deal about through the years, and don’t appreciate seeing it diminished or misrepresented as a face saving measure for those Democrats that are still embarrassed by their votes.

[marylandblue]

69. I knew Powell was lying because he said Iraq did not have WMDs in 2001.

So did Condoleeza Rice.

[SMC22307]

86. An administration full of warmongers wasn't "considered" by the yes voters?

It was "considered" by many Democrats who voted no. It was "considered" by tens of millions of people across the world who knew we were being lied to and took to the streets.

[marylandblue]

52. Yes that power to make the sole determination is the blank check

they've been using for 18 years. Congress should never give that authority to any President of either party. They should only authorize force for specific objectives and once it is achieved, the authorization automatically expires.

[qazplm135]

61. yes

and the chances of him "determining" that an invasion would be "necessary and appropriate" were about 100.00 percent.

It's like voting for a cannibal to eat children, but only if the cannibal "determines" it is "necessary and appropriate" and then being shocked when someone suggests you voted for a cannibal to eat children.

[DownriverDem]

23. Some folks

just want to attack Biden. Do they think their attacks on Biden will move folks away from him? They are so wrong.

[Thekaspervote]

76. Yup!!

[snowybirdie]

5. Support Democrats

Don't post rw talking points here please. There are plenty of other sites that post false or misleading information. Democrats, be positive. All our candidates are GREAT! (well almost)

[Voltaire2]

19. Opposition to the Iraq war is not a right wing talking point.

[DownriverDem]

24. Move on

Attacking Dems will not do anything. Who do you support and why?

[George II]

27. We don't even know how almost 20 of our candidates would have voted, they weren't in a position....

....to cast a vote.

[shanny]

30. +1

[MarcA]

60. Opposing neo/Con talking points is neither false nor misleading. n/t

[loyalsister]

6. It's a reasonable question

Many predicted exactly this outcome in their opposition to the IRW and bloodthirsty position of the WH at the time. The Iraq war and all that has come with it has parents and their kids fighting in what is essentially the same war in the prime of their lives.
When and how the engagement started matters.
I really think Pete has a strong foreign policy. And he is the perfect candidate to challenge Biden on this.

[DownriverDem]

25. The question

is who can win the Electoral College and beat trump? Biden can.

[shanny]

31. asked and answered post #29

[George II]

28. How did Pete vote on the bill? Oh yeah, he didn't. Unreasonable to "challenge"....

....someone about something which he was never in a position to make a judgement himself.

[loyalsister]

38. Except for when he was doing the real work

As a soldier. He and his peers, including some who wound up injured or dead, had to use their judgement and decision making to carry out an unnecessary war.
Because Congress followed Bush who followed Cheney to a decision to send people like Pete into the theater to do the work they dishonestly demanded and did not have the decency to enact a draft so that there would be many soldiers and families to shoulder the burden. Instead they are living the trauma of multiple deployments.

[renate]

51. I support the policy of not criticizing Democrats on DU, but....

You make a very good point about Pete vs. Joe.

I'm crazy about Pete and would happily and enthusiastically vote for Joe, but Pete does have a lot of credibility in this particular area that Joe does not.

[stonecutter357]

8. let's go Joe !

[still_one]

14. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[LakeArenal]

9. Joe remains the most qualified both nationally and internationally.

[Thekaspervote]

77. Yes!!! He does

[awesomerwb1]

10. Haven't been huffpost for ages

Stopped visiting it when it went 100% tabloid a few years ago.

[SouthernProgressive]

11. I'm sick of seeing ISIS being put at the feet of Democrats.

That alone should get this blocked here. Complete bullshit. It will work on some idiots. That's about it.

[George II]

16. ISIS is the direct product of bush's actions early in the war. Remember, about two weeks after....

....the invasion, the entire Iraqi Army was disbanded and thousands of soldiers were turned out into the streets. Early on in ISIS' existence, about 99% of ISIS consisted of dismissed Iraqi military personnel who had nothing else to do with their lives.

[redstateblues]

12. Wasn't your candidate a Republican who voted for Reagan at one time?

People evolve

[Honeycombe8]

79. Almost everyone in the country voted for Reagan.

It was viewed as necessary by many that first time.

[Politicub]

17. Biden does seem to be a hawk. Not sure how this will really affect his chances.

America has a short memory span, but the fabricated evidence that led to the Iraq war is seared into many people's minds.

Someone should ask Colin Powell if more aluminum tubes will be found to justify invasion of Iran.

Back to Biden: Voting for the Iraq war is a mark in the negative column for me. Doesn't mean I won't support him in the general -- I will do so enthusiastically -- but it factors into the decision for whomever I decide to vote for in the primary.

[jalan48]

20. Poor judgement on the biggest votes in decades.

[DownriverDem]

26. It's not that simple.

Go back and find the tone of the times.

[trev]

40. The tone of the times

was hysterical, IMO. 9/11 was still a recent event, and Bush played on people's fears. Far too many Democrats went along with this.

[Thekaspervote]

78. That's exactly right....so why are others singling out biden if not to just try and drag him down

[trev]

83. I don't know.

You'd have to ask them....

[jalan48]

65. The tone of the times required foresight and leadership on the part of Democratic leaders.

Biden didn't make the cut on the Iraq War.

[BlueWI]

70. The vote to authorize war are votes of conscience and judgment.

The human consequences of such votes are enduring. Those choices can't be dismissed as the politics of the moment.

There were 15 million globally who protested the rush to war on a single day. Our voices were ignored. Weapons inspectors seeking to verify WMD claims were removed in order to start this war based on doctored intelligence.

And if Biden wins, he will be the third candidate I've voted for who authorized this wholly preventable and disastrous conflict. Hopefully he would be the last Democratic nominee who authorized this mistake.

[honest.abe]

32. Most Democratic Senators voted the same as Biden.

United States Senate: Democratic: 29 yeahs, 21 nays.

I was against the war and protested against it but I do understand it was a tough call for Democratic Congressmen. I do not blame Biden or any Democrat for the mess the United States created in Iraq. That is just ludicrous.

[shanny]

34. Who do we get to blame except for the people who voted for it?

An invasion was transparently being pushed by the administration. That was obvious to me in East Jesus, Wyoming--how could experienced and informed congress critters not get it? And if they got it, how could they go along?

Why is the US' default setting for war? (rhetorical question; I know why)

[honest.abe]

35. I blame Bush and Cheney and neocons.

They would have gotten what they wanted no matter what.

[shanny]

36. And they needed to pay dearly for that.

Did they? Kerry arguably did; Hillary did; Biden might. Our leaders paid (and so did we) for going along with that crap; theirs did not.

[PassingFair]

56. That means 21 dem senators (42%) had the guts to vote no.

And that the majority of dems in the house had the political nerve to say no.
It was not a tough call. It was a cynical attempt to be on the “winning team” A cheap Vichy tactic that backfired on them. I’m sure it is Clinton’s biggest political regret.

[qazplm135]

64. sure

and the 29 yeahs voted wrong and should take appropriate responsibility.

Does that make Biden unacceptable? No, no more than Clinton was.

But this whole...actually Biden did nothing wrong stuff is...as Joe would say...malarkey.

[honest.abe]

66. I didnt say he wasn't wrong. He was wrong.. he also admitted he was wrong.

But given the circumstances it is understandable and forgivable.

[qazplm135]

67. sure

and if the comments in here all reflected that, no issue from me...but they don't.

They reflect a weird need to have one candidate be immune to any criticism.

I don't know a candidate we have running that doesn't have a couple of things they could have done better, and the vast majority of those mistakes are indeed forgivable.

[BlueWI]

71. It's not about forgiveness, IMO

and it should be the people who are affected most whose forgiveness matters first. That's not me.

More than forgiveness, it's a matter of judgment. What has changed in the candidate's reasoning should we face a future situation of this kind? Beyond acknowledgement of a mistake, reflective speaking about the issue would be a good contribution to the dialogue during the primaries.

And yes, Republicans are more directly responsible for the Iraq War. That's why I am not voting for, donating to, or volunteering for any Republicans.

[honest.abe]

72. Its more about assigning blame.. IMO

I just disagree Biden and other Democrats who voted for resolution are to blame for what Bush in did in Iraq. It was a tough call at the time. You cant write off every Democrat who voted like Biden. That would be very long list of good congress men and women.

[BlueWI]

87. I haven't written them off.

I have already voted for Clinton and Kerry for president and for our congressperson who supported the IWR too.

I'd say it's more accurate to say that those of us who were genuinely bothered by the vote are written off even by other Democrats and our concerns minimized, eerily similar to how it was when we were protesting against the march to the needless war.

Hopefully with Iran in the mix now, we have genuinely learned not to authorize wars of choice with no clear and present danger involved. We'll see.

[R B Garr]

33. There would have been no Iraq war except for the purity

lies about Gore. That’s what enabled Bush to take power and that is what is responsible for Iraq. Most people know this. All this was close to 20 years ago now.

[ashredux]

39. Who got it right? Who has the "Right" plan?

Not sure.....but I do know we don’t want WAR. TRUMP MAY WANT WAR

[Martin Eden]

45. The 2002 IWR vote is an unshakable litmus test for me

I will vote for the D nominee in the general election whoever it is, but in the primary no one who voted for the IWR will ever get my vote.

That included Kerry, HRC, and Biden.

It was obvious to us here at DU in 2002 that once given that authority Bush would invade.

We knew about PNAC and the systematic campaign of lies and deception.

[PassingFair]

74. +1

The majority of our representatives got it right. The rest were a huge disappointment.

[Martin Eden]

75. "The majority of our representatives got it right. The rest were a huge disappointment."

I was hugely disappointed when John Kerry -- who came to national prominence as a leader of Vietnam Vets Against the War -- cast his Yes vote for the IWR.

Our country desperately needed strong Democratic leaders to stand up and speak truth to power against the lies and the irresponsible rush to war. I was a John Dean supporter in 2004. In March 2003 traveled from Chicago to our nation's capitol to join the protest 4 days before "Shock and Awe" was launched.

We're still paying for that neocon war crime that some Dems helped enable.

In my heart I can forgive Joe Biden but I will never forget, and the litmus test holds.

[PassingFair]

81. I was also a Howard Dean supporter.

I pulled my car over and cried as the IWR roll call was broadcast.

[Martin Eden]

82. I went to Ohio to GOTV on election day 2004

On the drive home I cried when Bush was announced as the winner.

Trump was the last straw, destroying what little faith I had in the American electorate.

[JoeOtterbein]

47. For some reason, this post reminds me of what another Joe once sang:

[link:

|

[CaptainTruth]

54. The PNAC & a gullible GW Bush deserve all the blame for Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld on how long the Iraq war would last:

"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."

[NYMinute]

59. Joe did not get Iraq "wrong"

Right and wrong in this instance is subjective and benefits from a 20/20 hindsight.

[Voltaire2]

73. Were you not old enough to remember?

It was transparently obvious bullshit. Politicians were just afraid to vote against it.

[zipplewrath]

80. Yes, he did

Just ask Obama

[mtnsnake]

85. OMG, that is by far the most hilarious post of the month.

Thanks for the laugh!

[SMC22307]

84. One of the many reasons I can't get enthused about Biden.

I'll vote for him if he makes it to the GE but other than that, meh.