Biden defends Democrats' OK of Iraq war

[Evergreen Emerald]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071229/NEWS09/712290315/1001/NEWS

Biden defends Democrats' OK of Iraq war

snip

It wasn't necessarily failed intelligence, Biden said, but misuse of it. He defended his vote, saying it was a directive to the United Nations to keep sanctions on Iraq. If not, the United States would have the permission to act.

"Up to this time, Bush had acted rationally," Biden said. "Everybody says they knew he would not keep the spirit of the agreement. Not true. Go back and read the major editorials of the liberal newspapers in America. He had acted rationally in Afghanistan. He didn't go to war immediately - he built the bill of particulars."

[Captain Hilts]

1. Read the statements they made when making the vote and it becomes clear their vote's intentions. nt

[Seabiscuit]

2. From what Biden's saying, it sounds like he voted without ever reading what the resolution said.

It also sounds like he has no clue as to how the United Nations works.

I wish he'd stop sticking his foot in his mouth like this.

[rucky]

7. Why do you say that?

What's on the resolution that he missed?

What about his statement shows that he doesn't understand the UN?

I'm not an expert, but I read the resolution, and followed the actions leading to war pretty closely. I suspected Powell's "intel" was bogus, but there were no consequences for me if I was wrong, and I was pretty sure the Security Council would not authorize an attack.

[Seabiscuit]

26. I said it because Biden's statement makes absolutely no sense at all.

"He defended his vote, saying it was a directive to the United Nations to keep sanctions on Iraq. If not, the United States would have the permission to act."

The IWR was NOT a "directive to the United Nations to keep sanctions on Iraq." The U.N. sanctions were currently in place. It was a directive to President Bush authorizing him to go to war in Iraq.

Secondly, "If not, the United States would have the permission to act" makes no sense re: the U.N. One country's internal resolution has nothing to do with the U.N. If the U.N. had on its own lifted the sanctions on Iraq, that does NOT give any country, including the USA, "permission to act" by invading Iraq. Nor did the IWR state that if the U.N. lifted its sanctions on Iraq Bush could use the IWR as Congress' permission to act by invading Iraq.

The IWR had nothing to do with the U.N. sanctions. It called for Bush to first move the U.N. to send inspectors back into Iraq to search for WMD (it didn't call for the U.N. to keep existing sanctions on Iraq), and secondly it authorized Bush's invasion of Iraq at his discretion, regardless of the result of any such inspections.

Bush and those gunning for an invasion of Iraq were hoping that Saddam would refuse to allow the U.N. inspectors back in, and that Saddam's refusal would trigger U.N. approval of a U.S. sponsored U.N. resolution to allow the U.S. to lead a coalition invasion of Iraq.

That didn't happen. Instead, Saddam let in the inspectors, who, of course, found no evidence of WMD's. So Bush resorted to plan B, by pressuring the Security Council to pass a U.N. resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq despite the lack of evidence justifying such an invasion. When he failed in that attempt, Bush resorted to Plan C, using the IWR as his "authority" to invade at his own discretion despite disapproval by the U.N.

Biden made it sound as if all the IWR did was tell the U.N. to maintain its sanctions on Iraq, and if the U.N. didn't, then that in itself would trigger U.N. permission to invade, or, because of the ambiguity in his language, failure of the U.N. to keep its sanctions in Iraq, the IWR on its own would give Bush permission to invade.

The IWR did give Bush permission to invade, but it had nothing to do with the U.N. sanctions against Iraq.

[rucky]

27. sanctions = 1441.

passed unanimously by the UN security council. When passed, it was made clear that it did not justify aggression, and Bush would have to go back to the Security Council for that. That's what the Senators knew going into the IWR vote.

Saddam said he would comply. Bush broke his deal by saying Saddam wasn't complying when he really was. Bush pulled the inspectors out - not Saddam. Then he gave Saddam 48 hours to disprove a negative.

[Seabiscuit]

28. All true, but none of that is made clear by Biden's statement.

I've edited my last post since your most recent response. You might want to check it again.

The whole problem with the IWR is that it gave Bush apparent authority to invade Iraq regardless of any action or inaction by the U.N. And Bush has used it without objection by Congress, as his justification for his invasion.

If all the IWR did was authorize Bush to move the U.N. to (1) demand that Saddam allow U.N. inspectors into Iraq and (2) move the U.N. for a resolution permitting an invasion of Iraq, then it wouldn't have been necessary. Bush could have done that on his own without the IWR.

I'm very disappointed that Biden is fishing around at this point in time for some ludicrous excuse to justify his vote in favor of the IWR. His current excuse makes absolutely no sense. It deflates my otherwise high opinion of his foreign policy experience and judgment about international affairs.

[bunnies]

3. uhm hmm.

Who could have known that the PNAC saturated bush administration was chomping at the bit for war with Iraq. :eyes:

[sellitman]

6. Russ Feingold figured it out.

Biden had access to the same information.

Shame on all of them. Including my candidate.

[bunnies]

11. It just frustrates me SO much.

And these damned justifications really piss me off. Everyone *says* they knew because they DID know. Geezus. The PNAC was nice enough to spell it out for us in print. Now these guys want to say they had no way of knowing what would happen? Give me a freaking break already. Poor judgment on top of poor judgment. :mad:

I applaud Feingold and the others that had the intelligence to see through bushs smoke & mirrors. But I have a real hard time accepting excuses from those who didnt do their job.

[Didereaux]

4. I have to agree with him, it is logical (IF applied to a rational regime)

I do think it a MAJOR error to have given this bunch the benefit of the doubt based upon a singularity(the Afghan mission). A good example of an Obama-like 'Hopeful- attitude. Back to the point, it was almost inconceivable to experts that anyone would be crazy enough to divert the entire military resources of this nation from legitimate conflict in order to fulfill 2-3 radical agendas and a 'business' opportunity.

Be that as it may, I still trust Biden FAR and away over any other candidate at this stage. Obama had it right, but in retrospect and in light of exposure in the campaign I think his stance was not based upon understanding of the issues, so much as political points for the future. Hillary, unfortunately should have been the most suspicious of these insane freaks...perhps hers too was Obama-like and political futures played the key deciding role, albeit from a different perspective.

There are no omniscient beings running for president, nor aliens, if you wish to include Dennis! ;)

[1corona4u]

8. Yes, he did make a mistake....

and he publicly apologized for it;


"It was a mistake," Biden says. "I regret my vote. I regret not realizing how incompetent (the Bush administration) would be. The president did not level with us. And if I had known it, I would never have voted to give him that authority in the first place."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2828.html


And, since that time, he has been speaking out against it;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1op8vwF5UA

I think there might be some hypocritical statements being made in this thread, by a couple of other candidates supporters, who's candidate also supported the war, and has apparently been forgiven for their vote.

And it's also Joe Biden who has come up with a plan to fix the mess. Unfortunately, that seems to be of little relevance to some people. And, let's not forget, that he didn't vote for the KL bill either. I'd say lesson learned.


And, I still trust him as well.

Oh, and one more thing. I think anyone, on or off this board,(not politicians)who claims now, that they knew what Bush would do, prior to going into Iraq, is either a liar, or a psychic.

[bunnies]

15. Anyone who claims to know what bush would do is a liar or psychic?

Bullshit. Rummy and the PNAC gang had been pushing for war with Iraq since Clinton was President. So, anyone who claims they didn't know bush would actually DO it is either incredibly naive or didnt do their homework. Simple as that.

[JerseygirlCT]

17. That's certainly a more frank statement

than I've heard from others.

And I agree. I think the world situation now is scary and dangerous - thanks to Bush & Co. - and I feel far more secure at the thought of Biden at the helm wrt those matters than anyone else.

I don't dislike many of our other candidates, don't get me wrong. But on this subject, I do think Biden is the smartest and most experienced one we've got.

[Tellurian]

24. What really captured my attention..

is when Biden said he had his 'Plan for Troop Deployment out of Iraq' sitting in his desk drawer. He had me then as a supporter for a VP slot should Hillary Win the nomination. Now that Cheney has given the VP a more authoritative position, Biden is the perfect Pit Bull for keeping the Neocons in line.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Biden knew he was gambling when he voted for the IWR. He knew better than

Edwards or Clinton of just what he was dealing with--the Biden-Lugar resolution proves that Joe knew that Chimpy was hell-bent on war and didn't want any restraints. Joe knew all this, and voted for it anyway. That's worse than somebody who wasn't high-up on the FRC who voted for it.

[Armstead]

9. That's my main difference with Biden

Bush was not acting responsibly before that. All it took was observation based on Human Nature 101 and Abuse of Power 101 to recognize what a sham the whole Iraq "crisis" was at the time.

It was a manufactured crisis. There was absolutely no reason to move Iraq up the priority list beyond one more nation that had to be watched closely and contained, as it had been for years.

Millions and millions of us common dolts out here saw through Bush's propagandistic "justifications" and the phoniness of his stated desire to solve it without war.

[1corona4u]

10. See my post above.

[Armstead]

12. I understand it and appreciate Biden's recognizing it now

But I do remember how all of those who opposed this war were being told by the MSM and the the Democratic leaders were being dismissed as being foolish and naive for our objections. How Howard Dean and Kucinich were demonized for their common-sense opposition.

It wouldn't push Biden out of my consideration now. I do support Edwards, although I feel the same about his role back then too.

However, it's hard to forget how obvious a sham the IWR was at the time, how badly those who recognized the truth were treated and how little opposition the Democratic Party leadership (with exceptions) gave to Bush's plans as the war ground on.

[dmosh42]

13. I don't believe the UN voted approval for regime change...

Bush and Cheney wanted to do it alone. Now Biden is ok with that?

[1corona4u]

14. If you read the statement, he said it was about

sanctions, not "regime change". Please refrain from the spin. The media has taken this already out of context, and we don't need anymore of that.

[JerseygirlCT]

16. This is where he, and all the rest of them who voted for it, disappoint

me.

WE knew not to trust Bush within an inch of his life. WE knew it meant war - no uncertainty about it. We knew we were being had, and that the UN was being used as cover and a rubber stamp for Bush's dreams of world domination.

So why didn't these guys? And if they did, why do they insist they didn't? I'd prefer to hear "yeah, we were afraid of being cast as scaredy-cat liberals who hate America, so we gave in". Not good to have done, but confession is good for the soul.

[Lurking Dem]

19. Remember the DU threads at the time?

People were outraged. Furious. They were demanding heads on silver platters, swearing they would never vote again for anyone who voted for this piece of shit (I guess they just meant for the Senate), and calling them traitors.

[1corona4u]

20. You know...

it's been said ad nauseam on this board, but Bush was going to do this, one way or another. With or without congress. We'd still be having this same conversation about Bush invading Iraq. Why do people choose to ignore that, and instead lay the blame on all of those, and I'm not just defending Joe here, but all of the people in congress, who apparently, thought they were doing the right thing? Is it that we constantly have to have someone to blame? Are we eating our own?

Their vote, has not in anyway, for any of them, been a factor in who I would and would not vote for. People do make mistakes, and I think it's time for all of us to stop looking for a scapegoat, and start laying the blame where it belongs, on GEORGE W FUCKING BUSH, DICKLESS CHENEY, and the rest of his fucking clowns.

Stop eating our own people.

[JerseygirlCT]

22. I'm not looking for scapegoats, but I do think it was a serious

serious mistake in judgement.

I'm sure Bush would have sought another way to get the war he wanted. But it would have been far more difficult to do, and we would have presented a united front against his efforts. It would have been better.

Not a one of the candidates is perfect. The best of them understand that fact. (I'd include Biden in this). Others continue to prevaricate on this particular issue -- which I don't much like. I guess the real question is what was learned, and will that experience shape future actions?

Nothing, but nothing can take the blame, and the blood, from GWB's hands. No stupid move by our senators could possibly erase that. He will go down in history as a stupid, evil, power-hungry brat, and the worst president of our time, and possibly ever. That doesn't change.

[1corona4u]

23. Exactly...

what has been learned, and will that experience shape the future. This is what is most important now.

[Evergreen Emerald]

18. I think they had more information than we did. I think Bush came to them

personally and told them that he needed the support of the Congress to fend off this "bay of pigs" type of issue. He promised that War was a last resort. And they trusted him to do the right thing.

It was a bluff for Saddam to give up the weapons and allow the inspectors back in. And, it actually worked. According to reports, the night before Bush attack Iraq, Saddam did back down.

But, Congress did not know that. And Bush LIED.

[bread_and_roses]

21. It was a cowardly political calculation by every one of them

and to see it defended adds insult to injury. My memory is that I read endless articles in the non-MSM press predicting exactly what would happen. Millions around the world knew exactly what would happen - and took to the streets in the largest world-wide demonstrations ever to proclaim it. There is no excuse for any of them.

Oh, and some of us did not support the "war" against Afghanistan, either, correctly predicting that the majority of its' victims would be civilians while it would do nothing to "protect us" from AQ.

I'd still like to know how those who supported that war would have reacted had England bombed Ireland in retaliation for the IRA, and we'd seen photos of Irish mothers holding dead Irish babies.

[suston96]

25. It isn't about how they voted....

...it's about the balance of powers and the attendant checks and balances that are supposed to exist between the branches of government.

Congress relying on the Executive for intelligence has been and will continue to be tenuous if not tragic, as long as there is the possibility of disturbed people in the Executive intent on plunging the nation into war.

This is one of the serious flaws in the Constitution that must be addressed. A limited but disastrous war in Iraq is pretty bad. A nuclear confrontation based on equally contrived or even flawed intelligence cannot, must not be allowed to happen.

[sellitman]

29. That is just happy horseshit.

See post # 6

[no name no slogan]

30. "I was for it before I was against it"

Sounds familiar.