Buttigieg: Biden supported the worst foreign policy decision in my lifetime

[bluewater]

Link to tweet

Seems Pete is trying to find a way to compensate for his own lack of experience on the national stage.

I am not sure this approach of denigrating "Washington experience" will work for him.

[gulliver]

1. Looks like Biden is going to win Iowa.

[bluewater]

2. Remember when Mayor Pete was America's sweetheart... so to speak?

He built his popularity by being extremely pleasant and positive.

I don't think this overly critical posture will serve Mayor Pete well.

[Terry_M]

5. In your opinion - what is the worst US foreign policy decision in the last 37 years?

[bluewater]

8. That's the problem Pete has, he's only 37 years old.

Thanks for pointing out, indirectly, his lack of total life experience due to him being only 37 years old.

I would say the worst US foreign policy decision in the last 100 years was the Viet Nam War, followed by mismanagement of the Korean War. In terms of US casualties and collateral civilian casualties, those two wars stand out by far.

The worst US foreign policy decision in Pete's 37 year old life time would be mismanaging the end of the Cold War leading to a resurgent and aggressive Russia still armed with 7,850 nuclear weapons and allowing technology transfer to China making it into a geo-political military super power also, not to mention an economic rival with all the repercussions that will have over the coming decades.

[Terry_M]

14. I feel like you're trying to dodge

decades of collective inaction by multiple administrations and thousands of people going in and out of political office isn't really something you can use to understand people's judgement the same way as a clear cut vote on taking one major action that one way or another was going to lead to thousands of deaths even in the most optimistic scenario.

But I guess if we look at decades of inaction as evidence for where people's judgement lies, then Biden was there for all those decades not taking aggressive action to contain Russia and China?

[bluewater]

19. I feel you are moving the goal posts.

Seems so.

I gave a direct answer to YOUR question :

In your opinion - what is the worst US foreign policy decision in the last 37 years?

Why trivialize the import of two horrendous wars, Viet Nam and Korea, and the foreign policy decision to allow both nuclear armed super powers, China and Russia, to grow in strength at the expense of our national security?

I think this insistence that foreign policy and people's judgement can be reduced down to a single vote on a single action highlights what I feel is Mayor Pete's problem, a lack of experience leading to a limited and simplistic world view.

But I guess if we are looking for sound bites to score points in a news cycle, then that's what Mayor Pete, a 37 year old local official, has to do? Attack Joe Biden?

But to answer your new question what was the ONE action about the ONE event that was the worse foreign policy decision in Mayor Pete's 37 year old lifetime, I would have to say it was President Bill Clinton's failure to respond to the Rwandan Genocide in 1994.

The scale and brutality of the massacre caused shock worldwide, but the governments of Western states such as Belgium, France, the United States, and others largely ignored the genocide.[6][7][8][9] Most of the victims were killed in their own villages or towns, many by their neighbors and fellow villagers. Hutu gangs searched out victims hiding in churches and school buildings. The militia murdered victims with machetes and rifles.[10] An estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 Rwandans were killed, about 70% of the country's Tutsi population.[2] Sexual violence was rife, with an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 women raped during the genocide.[11] The genocide ended with the military victory of the Rwandan Patriotic Front.

But Mayor Pete was only 1 or 2 years old at the time and seems to feel "Washington experience", meaning, I think, national level experience is not that important, so perhaps that's why he overlooked this genocide.

[StevieM]

34. The inaction in Rwanda did not happen in a vacuum.

Less than a year earlier 19 Americans had been killed in Somalia. The public was outraged and they wanted out. Congress was getting ready to cut off funds for the mission. Bill Clinton had to fight like hell to get a brief extension to partially finish up the mission we were on.

If Clinton had tried to send troops to Rwanda there would have been a major uproar and funds for the mission would have been denied. Actually, Robert Bird made sure that the withdrawal from Somalia was legislated into the defense appropriations bill.

I remember listening in amazement back in 2002 when Republicans lamenting the Clinton presidency in the aftermath of 9/11 actually included Somalia as a place where we supposedly cut and run. It was such a jarring rewrite of history.

[bluewater]

35. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2019, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Especially foreign policy.

That's why simplistic sound bites about complicated and intertwined foreign policy actions are worse than worthless.

Mayor Pete choosing to attack Joe Biden, whom I am a huge critic of btw, instead of stating his own foreign policy vision looking forward was Pete going for the cheap sound bite instead of a substantial answer differentiating his views from Biden's, at least that how it came across to me.

Mayor Pete's continued attempt to denigrate "Washington experience", meaning national level experience, because he lacks it compared to other candidates is simply not working and is counter productive. Honestly, it comes across as desperate and a case of "sour grapes".

Since adopting this overly combative strategy against other candidates, Mayor Pete's standing in the polls has declined, as indicated by The Economist's Polling Model, 538's Polling Model, and RCP POLLS Poll Tracker:

https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

[Terry_M]

59. Sorry, yes I did move goal posts

I didn't clearly state the parameters of my question, I was focusing on demonstrated decisions which I didn't say, and so I felt that going after general inaction that is hard to attribute was dodging my point... But again I didn't say upfront that so yes, I moved the goal posts after.

That aside, I myself being a bit younger than Mayor Pete, would have been a bit younger than his 10 or 11 myself and so wasn't really politically aware at that point. So all I can say about that decision was, based on the same wikipedia page from which you pasted, that given that the genocide was performed by the civilian population throughout the entire country (with over a hundred thousand after the fact convictions) and that it spanned just a few months, I don't really see how a military response from the west could have stopped it. I can see how some airstrikes to support the Rwandan's Patriotic Front would have made their take-over faster by a week or two - but was that clearly the right thing to do? The RPF has its own share of allegations of retribution killings after, and supporting them doesn't seem plainly good either. Then whether we supported them and gave them the country a couple weeks sooner or not, actually stopping the genocide until they took control would have required hundreds of thousands of peacekeepers deployed on the ground very quickly given that the killings spanned the entire country and were handled by the local population - and if that's the sort of operation you're performing - trying to quickly occupy every civilian population center against the population's will, there would have been a lot of peacekeeper casualties. And how long does it take to deploy a few hundred thousand troops and get them embedded into hostile towns and cities anyway? And just how do you pull out after the occupation without expecting killings to start right after when you're facing this kind of a situation?

I'm not saying that we couldn't have done anything to help but I think we would have had fractional impact, at the expense of good amount of American casualties and a very murky exit plan (against a continued steady peacekeeper casualty rate until we did figure out how to exit 2? 5? 10? years later).

So I'm not convinced that was a worse decision.

[BlueMTexpat]

67. For me, the SINGLE worst US foreign policy decision anywhere close to the past 37 years

was the Carter Administration's decision to have the CIA arm the most radical Muslims, including radical Saudis like Osama bin Laden, to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. While this decision occurred >37 years ago, its most effective - and ultimately damaging to the US - implementation occurred during the Reagan Administration. Although that may technically fall outside the 37-year span you describe, its repercussions have literally driven much of US foreign policy since - and certainly affected Pete personally.

I really do not believe that the policy would have continued - at least not at all in the way it was implemented under Reagan - had Jimmy Carter been re-elected. That the decision was taken at all, I blame primarily on Zbigniew Brzezinski (yup, MIka's pa!), who was an absolutely terrible National Security Advisor, IMO. He was also a terrible adviser to Lyndon Johnson. Carter should have stayed well clear of him.

There are so many BAD US foreign policy decisions - some deliberate and some inadvertent - since then that I have lost count. But the consequences of this one are still with us and what has been torn asunder because of it - and the lives that have needlessly been lost, including those on 9-11 and in my own family, can never be reclaimed.

The Vietnam War, as some have mentioned, technically ended with the fall of Saigon in 1975. Bad as the decision to fight that war AND the war itself were, both occurred well over 37 years ago.

And yes, because I have been alive since the later years of FDR's Presidency, I do remember these decisions. All too well.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

52. I think you're wrong on this... Mayor Pete is 100% correct.

I do believe Joe might even admit to this... that would be a net positive in my book.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[bearsfootball516]

27. If Biden wins Iowa, the primary is largely his to take.

Because the next several states are Biden-heavy states.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

53. That would certainly be a feather in his cap... but Joe is going to lose Iowa

to Bernie, which will give Bernie the BIG MO' that will ultimately lead to the Democratic nomination.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[TexasTowelie]

68. It looks like the delegates for Iowa will either be split three or four ways.

Considering that there are only 41 delegates in the first place, the winner will be fortunate to get 15-16 while those at the bottom will get 8-9. That isn't going to turn into any significant momentum shift. I don't know if Biden will have the delegate lead before Super Tuesday, but I expect for Biden to have a big lead afterwards.

[Hortensis]

3. Forget it Mayor Buttigieg. This kind of stuff got you deep IN the hole.

It won't get you out, and it doesn't reflect well on you for any race.

Like Hillary and the rest of our Democratic senators, Biden voted to give Bush the authority to stop Hussein's breaking out of the embargoes imposed after the First Gulf War. NOT to invade Iraq. Further, very idea of invasion was so stupid that it seemed unlikely. Bush I and virtually every authority and genuine expert in the nation and on the planet thought such a thing would be extremely counterproductive, at best, and out of the question.

The reason for the senate voting to expand/renew authority was that for 10 years we'd embargoed their ports and blocked 2/3 of Iraq from Hussein to stop Hussein's genocide in those areas. We didn't lose a single pilot in all those years of patrol, an outstanding success. Hussein knew Bush no longer had the authority to stop him militarily, though, and to give him that authority to keep Hussein in check was what we voted for. NOT invasion.

Some Democrats pushed for a harder line for W to cross, and Biden could have joined them, but they all opposed going to war with Iraq and supported slightly different ways of addressing an imminent emergency that would probably require war to stop Hussein if not dealt with.

The blame for the second war belongs entirely to the Bush II regime. And Buttigieg is contemptible for saying anything else. I'm really sick and tired of all those who blame us for everything the Republicans do.

[empedocles]

7. Both Harris and Warren went for that 'kind of stuff' - it did not work for them either

[Hortensis]

11. :) Almost all have out of desperation. Stupid to keep it up.

Democratic voters keep showing we don't like being blamed for Republican crimes.

That only works for a few Sanders voters, and he and Trump pretty much have those sewn up.



(Btw, Dr. Blasey Ford and her family are still in hiding from vicious Republican reprisals after her very brave attempt to stop Kavanaugh's appointment. What they did to her and our justice system inspired this reminder of what they've become.)

[crazytown]

16. "Warren went for that 'kind of stuff'"

care to elaborate?

Elizabeth has turned down each and every opportunity to lay into Biden on the Bankruptcy Act, despite their history and on a subject close to her heart. On the Hyde amendment, rather than direct criticism, she diverted the conversation onto the experience of poor women denied abortions before Rod v Wade

The Biden campaign on the other hand has accused her of double talk, making it up, falsehood, and most outrageously, was prepared to run with a Bloomberg News lie that Joe was running in the wrong primary.

[BeyondGeography]

18. Good point...Biden has taken more incoming from Trump than from all of our candidates combined

even though he has had to walk back much of his career to position himself as sufficiently liberal for 2019. If he somehow wins one of the early states that will change and his supporters here will be thinking about the good old days when Cory Booker joking about him of being high was fainting couch material.

[Demsrule86]

48. Biden was running in the wrong primary?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

15. Your comments are well thought out and sensible.

However, your use of "Butti" as an abbreviation of his proper name is inappropriate. Please spell it out.

[Hortensis]

22. :) Done. You're right. I meant to but forgot.

[The Valley Below]

20. Well said and quite accurate. The vote was to give W maximum leverage to force compliance

with UN inspections and NOT as a vote in favor of an invasion.

[BeyondGeography]

23. Revisionist history is so easily debunked

Biden was all-in on Bush’s war, claimed the reverse in this campaign then had to walk it back when he was called out for it:

Link to tweet

[ChubbyStar]

24. Thank you

Do these posters think we weren't paying attention to the bullshit march to war?

[Hortensis]

32. And your post proves its own claim. We all have a duty

to learn the truth about what we post. Truth is that NO liberal Democrat was "all-in on Bush's war." There was disagreement among Democrats on how best to handle the authorization of power to block Hussein's breaking out of our decade-old embargoes, but none of the answers included a criminally unnecessary immoral invasion.

[BeyondGeography]

36. There was a lot of political posturing by D's who voted for IWR

Several of whom would subsequently mount failed runs for the presidency. One could be forgiven for concluding that voters weren’t fooled.

But some were more enthusiastic than others, and one even implicitly chastised other Democrats for not being sufficiently hawkish when it was clear Bush had grievously miscalculated:

July 31, speech at the Brookings Institution:

“Nine months ago, I voted with my colleagues to give the president of the United States of America the authority to use force, and I would vote that way again today. It was the right vote then and it would be a correct vote today. ... Contrary to what some in my party might think, Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with sooner, rather than later. So I commend the president. He was right to enforce the solemn commitments made by Saddam...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/09/bidens-claim-that-he-opposed-iraq-war-moment-it-started

[Hortensis]

39. Yes, " to give ... the authority to use force." Stop picking

bits out of context because they reinforce mistaken preconceptions. If you understand WHO people are, you will know when attempts are being made to deceive you about them and their actions.

I know Sanders is a passionate collectivist at heart who's longed for socialist revolution all through the decades he's spent voting for whatever the Democratic caucuses write -- for $174K a year plus the best benefits they can vote themselves. No one can tell me his voting record proves Sanders is really a moderate liberal because I did my homework on him long ago and his behaviors every time I hear about them reinforce what I've learned. He's never changed.

Same for Biden. That makes me almost foolproof as far as Russia or the Republicans, and certainly as far as people regurgitating their propaganda go. Probable dishonesty is usual signaled with the the headline. That's how obvious it is when you know who and what the people discussed are and at least something about the topic.

[Demsrule86]

49. Bush and the GOP are responsible for the war...period. As for Biden the point was he came to

the realization that it was a bad idea quite early and was against the most recent surge too. Try going against the war after 9-11. We lost good people like Max Cleland and others...Bush won the mid term...unheard of. You support a candidate who likely supported and/ or voted for Reagan as she was a GOP until the mid to late 90's by her own admission...no one is perfect. People who live in glass houses...you know the rest.

[David__77]

28. I think Pelosi voted correctly.

As well as Boxer and others.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/apr/11/20030411-090653-2737r/

[betsuni]

40. Thank you.

Sick of Democrats blamed for everything Republicans do.

[Fiendish Thingy]

41. Anyone voting for the AUMF knew they were voting for a blank check

A blank check based on lies.
Biden knew what he was voting for.

To claim otherwise is dishonest.

[Hortensis]

50. To believe these hostile deceptions is to serve the Republicans.

Don't fool yourself that it advances Sanders and is somehow noble; even though he pushes it also, he's not going to be the next president; the best he could rationally hope for would be to repeat 2016. No matter what that might mean to him, your part if it is what would happen to your world if the Republicans and Russia keep power in 2020.

Btw, how is people on the left believing anti-Democratic deceptions any more honest or less damaging than trumpsters believing anti-Democratic deceptions? I see no difference.

[Fiendish Thingy]

62. Which hostile deceptions?

That the Iraq war was based on lies? Lies that were proven false before the vote for the AUMF?

Those are GOP talking points?

Your post just doesn’t make sense.

[Demsrule86]

51. That is your opinion...mine differs.

I don't blame Democrats for GOP policy.

[Fiendish Thingy]

61. I hold all politicians accountable for their votes nt

[Demsrule86]

64. I don't hold Democratic politicians responsible for what the GOP does....

[highplainsdem]

46. +1,000,000

[evertonfc]

4. Pete is right

I support Biden but Pete's statement is true. Pete served and has the absolute right to comment. What makes you think people are looking for DC experience?

[BeyondGeography]

6. Score one for Pete

Obvious truths are obvious.

[Joe941]

9. He is making an excellent point.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. Yes Joe...Mayor Pete is 100% RIGHT...NO QUESTION ABOUT IT!! Was Biden's absolute worst

foreign policy decision. You'd think Joe would admit that even... but, then, heaven to Betsy (!!) if it made Bernie look good.




Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[zentrum]

10. Pete is right.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. Pete is correct

[SaschaHM]

13. Death rattling from an overly eager politician realizing that his elected career is ending.

No amount of Biden slagging is going to make the Warren/Bernie base think you are a good politician. His AA/Latino numbers doom any chance at another primary run, his youth numbers won't compensate for the fallout among his older voter numbers over the next 8 years, and non-college whites aren't going to taken kindly to him going after Biden.


I hope his post primary book deal is lucrative because I doubt that he has the connections to get hired as a lobbyist.

[crazytown]

17. A fact is a fact.

Pete is correct.

June 29, 2003 interview on “Fox News Sunday”: Question after Biden says the intelligence was exaggerated: “So you think, looking back on it, still, that it was a just war, in your opinion?” Biden responded: “Oh, I do think it was a just war.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/09/bidens-claim-that-he-opposed-iraq-war-moment-it-started/

[The Valley Below]

21. On this issue, Pete is dead wrong.

[Renew Deal]

31. You support the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2019, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)

It’s embarrassing that someone would take this position on DU in 2019

[The Valley Below]

33. I supported giving the president the leverage to force compliance with UN Resolutions

just like the vast majority of the Democrats in Congress.

[Renew Deal]

43. You were and continue to be dead wrong

[The Valley Below]

47. No. Quite to the contrary.

Those who'd make the world safe for dictators of all stripes by appeasement are dead wrong.

Did they learn none of the lessons of history?

[Polybius]

66. Sometimes, removing the dictator is the even worse outcome

Iraq is far worse off today without Saddam, sad to say. Libya is also far worse off without Gaddafi.

[David__77]

54. Most Democrats in the house opposed the resolution, including Pelosi.

And over 40% of Democratic senators opposed it. I think your “vast” characterization is misplaced.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Congressional_opponents_of_the_Iraq_War

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/apr/11/20030411-090653-2737r/

I think Pelosi and Boxer and the rest of those who opposed it were right.

[AngelicaHora]

25. Pete's on the money here

And there's a record of him vehemently opposing the Iraq war and protesting it before it started. On the other hand, I doubt it's a line of attack that will cause people to change their mind, especially since it's so overused.

[OnDoutside]

26. Particularly cheap shot. Not impressed.

[Renew Deal]

30. Biden also supported the bankruptcy bill

Which should be disqualifying on its own.

[Demsrule86]

56. Nonsense....bankruptcies still go through...and it would have been much worse if the GOP alone

had crafted it...he put enough stuff in it to make it pretty much useless to stop bankruptcies.

[Autumn]

38. I differ with Pete on many things but on this I 100% agree. I also disagree that authorizing

the Iraq was had anything to do with "Washington experience". It was political expediency for most of them.

[betsuni]

42. Pete: Okay, I was in a Wine Cave. But at least I didn't do a war!!!1111

Anyway, we were told for years and years that Hillary was solely responsible for doing that war, what did Tulsi say, "queen of the warmongers" or something like that. With President Obama is was drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones. The "Democrats are the REAL warmongers" crap is stupid.

[dalton99a]

44. You gotta have a war to get a war photo for your resume

proudly holding a rifle and all

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. That's certainly NOT what Mayor Pete was saying!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Lulu KC]

57. It wasn't a good decision on anyone's part

But the debate season is so poorly timed. They are totally supposed to be doing this, but an inner voice says, “Stop it. Just stop it.”

[David__77]

58. More context.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.desmoinesregister.com/amp/2770308001

[AlexSFCA]

60. so did Hillary, but it's time to move on and focus on the future

Clinton paid for that vote when she lost primary in 2008. Both have done way more good for the country since then. I do think that if Biden loses primary, it would be precisely because of that one vote. This is because we are still paying for that war and will be for a long time. Only BS can claim purity here as he was a senator at the time who voted against it. Pete was not, who knows how he would have voted.

[Mme. Defarge]

63. The arrogance of the Mayor of South Bend

is stupefying.

[NYMinute]

65. This helps Biden tremendously

Thank you Mayor Pete.

[Pachamama]

69. It seems to me that Mayor Pete can start planning the shutdown of his Prez Campaign & say bye to a

...possible VP Nod....

While I was staunchly opposed to the Iraq War from Cheney & Bush, I would say that just alone in the last 3 years we have seen worse foreign policy decisions regarding North Korea, Russia/Ukraine and also Syria and the Kurds are the worst and it could even be argued that going back 37 years we could find some Reagan Era decisions that were pretty fucked up too.

I personally think Mayor Pete has many good qualities and is a smart guy, but he isn't ready for Prime Time and to be leading the Nation globally. This comment of his and tactic shows it very clearly.

Bye Bye Mayor Pete