Biden says he was deceived by Bush on Iraq

[bluewater]

Former Vice President Joe Biden has gotten criticism on the campaign trail for his 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq War. Whether or not it ends up as an issue for voters––a recent poll indicated it may be for some––Biden addressed the issue.

Biden has previously expressed regret for his vote. When asked today in New Hampshire about it, he had this to say:

“The mistake I made was trusting President Bush, who gave me his word he was using it for the purpose of getting inspectors in to see what was going on, whether they were producing nuclear weapons.”

Biden gave a speech recently on ending “forever wars” that, as CNN politics reporter Vanessa Yurkevich noted today, did not mention the Iraq War.

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/biden-on-iraq-war-vote-mistake-i-made-was-trusting-president-bush/

[montanacowboy]

1. I wasn't deceived

and neither were many others who were not trusting or gullible to the war criminals bush & cheney

I marched in anti war marches in DC prior to the fake war along with thousands of people who were not deceived either

[thesquanderer]

4. 21 Democratic senators weren't fooled either. Neither was Sanders or 126 Dem house members. nt

[Nuggets]

128. Um...no. He voted for plenty of war in Iraq and elsewhere.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/



Sanders supported Bill Clinton’s war on Serbia, voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted, backed Obama’s Libyan debacle and supports an expanded US role in the Syrian Civil War.

More problematic for the Senator in Birkenstocks is the little-known fact that Bernie Sanders himself voted twice in support of regime change in Iraq. In 1998 Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

Later that same year, Sanders also backed a resolution that stated: “Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” These measures gave congressional backing for the CIA’s covert plan to overthrow the Hussein regime in Baghdad, as well as the tightening of an economic sanctions regime that may have killed as many as 500,000 Iraqi children. The resolution also gave the green light to Operation Desert Fox, a four-day long bombing campaign striking 100 targets throughout Iraq. The operation featured more than 300 bombing sorties and 350 ground-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, several targeting Saddam Hussein himself.



So no, He was definitely for war in Iraq.
I’d like to know his true reason for voting against it because it’s clear it’s not that he saw through anything.

[thesquanderer]

131. Not exactly.

The 2001 AUMF did not authorize Bush to take military action in Iraq. If it did, there would have been no reason for the 2002 Iraq War resolution to have existed.

And the 1998 resolutions mentioned also did not authorize military intervention. There are other ways to support regime change without approving sending in troops.

And Serbia isn't Iraq. No one has said that Sanders has opposed (or will always oppose) all military interventions. The topic at hand is specifically about Iraq.

[Nuggets]

135. Lol

Bernie Sanders himself voted twice in support of regime change in Iraq. In 1998 Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”



Sanders voted for Iraq regime change TWICE.

He didn’t see through a thing.

[thesquanderer]

136. Voting to support regime change is NOT the same as voting for troops on the ground!

i.e. (wiki)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq ..." It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq.

It did not authorize sending troops. If it did, Bush would not have needed to bother with the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.

I don't get why it is so hard to understand that someone could support the 1998 resolution while still being against the 2002 resolution, i.e. against giving Bush what he needed to send in troops. These are not contradictory positions, lots of people held them, and they still equate to being against the Iraq war (i.e. against authorizing Bush to send in troops).

[Nuggets]

137. Oh please

Lol!


He didn’t see through shit AND it’s the same damned thing regardless of any new paint you try and color it with.

Hilarious! the strrrretches ppl go to on here to defend certain politicians.

[thesquanderer]

140. You do a lot of LOL. Fact remains, some voted for IWR, some did not...

and NO previous vote EVER authorized sending troops to Iraq.

Also see post #141 to see exactly what the 1998 vote authorized and accomplished, and how supporting it was not at all inconsistent with voting against the 2002 IWR.

[Nuggets]

142. Fact remains Sanders was fine with forcing Sadaam out of power and that meanst

means military efforts will be involved regardless of your ridiculous efforts to shield Sanders vote for violence and war.


It is hilarious the lengths some will go to to defend Sanders. 😂

[thesquanderer]

143. re: "Sanders was fine with forcing Sadaam out of power and that meanst means military efforts"

No, you misunderstand the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. Yes, it supported regime change but it specifically did NOT authorize military efforts to accomplish it.

from wiki:

n February 4, 1999 President Clinton designated seven groups as qualifying for assistance under the Act:

The Iraqi National Accord,
The Iraqi National Congress,
The Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan,
The Kurdistan Democratic Party,
The Movement for Constitutional Monarchy,
The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and
The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

The Act authorized the President to assist all such groups with: broadcasting assistance (for radio and television broadcasting), military assistance (training and equipment), and humanitarian assistance (for individuals fleeing Saddam Hussein). The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force

Unless you consider providing "military assistance (training and equipment)" to any of those seven groups the same as bombing and sending in troops. That's quite a leap.

So again, voting for this (as Sanders and virtually all Dems did) did not equate in any way to supporting the Iraq War, which he (and some other Dems) voted NOT to authorize when that later resolution came up. They're not the same thing, nor is it even hypocritical to have supported one but not the other. The U.S. has often supported "insurgent" groups of one sort or another, without going to war with the host country, and many have supported the former without supporting the latter.

your ridiculous efforts to shield Sanders vote for violence and war.

I made NO effort to shield Sanders from accusations of having ever voted for violence or war in every circumstance. He is not a pacifist. However, he never voted for ANYTHING that authorized sending troops into Iraq (which would have been the IWR). He voted against the IWR, period. The fact that he had supported other, less "invasive" actions, or supported military actions in other countries is all irrelevant, because again, I never claimed he was a pacifist. My only claim is that he voted against authorizing the president to send troops into (or to bomb) Iraq. And that is simply fact. The only time it came up, he voted against it. Other votes were for different things. If any of them had authorized going to war with Iraq, Bush would not have needed the IWR at all!

[Nuggets]

144. You made the effort to try and make believe Sanders saw through Bush's Bull

He did not
End of discussion


Btw


The December 1998 bombing of Iraq (code-named Operation Desert Fox) was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from 16 December 1998, to 19 December 1998, by the United States and the United Kingdom.

[thesquanderer]

145. Operation Desert Fix is an interesting precedent

wiki says

Despite the {Iraq Liberation} act's intention of support of opposition groups, Clinton justified his order for US action under the act.

Maybe the fact that he didn't see through Clinton's bull helped him see through Bush's. As the saying goes, fool me once...

(Though still, even just on paper, ILA did not authorize military force, IWR did... so you really didn't even have to see through bull, you just had to read what it said to know what it permitted.)

[Polybius]

139. Why would he want regime change in Iraq in the first place?

Iraq is far worse off with terrorism these days.

[thesquanderer]

141. That's a whole other conversation, but in 1998...

...a lot of people--including Dems--thought there were good reasons to support efforts to depose Saddam. The Senate passed that resolution unanimously (and it passed overwhelmingly in the House as well).

Good summary of the reasons behind it, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

And as for what the act did, it's summarized here:

n February 4, 1999 President Clinton designated seven groups as qualifying for assistance under the Act:

The Iraqi National Accord,
The Iraqi National Congress,
The Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan,
The Kurdistan Democratic Party,
The Movement for Constitutional Monarchy,
The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and
The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

The Act authorized the President to assist all such groups with: broadcasting assistance (for radio and television broadcasting), military assistance (training and equipment), and humanitarian assistance (for individuals fleeing Saddam Hussein). The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force

So getting back to Nugget's post, voting for this (as Sanders did) did not equate in any way to supporting the Iraq War, which he voted NOT to authorize when that later resolution came up. They're not the same thing, nor is it even hypocritical to have supported one but not the other. The U.S. has often supported "insurgent" groups of one sort or another, without going to war with the host country. Whether or not that is a good thing is a whole other discussion, but it has been a staple of American foreign policy.

[NYC Liberal]

24. I knew it was bullshit too.

On 15 February 2003, there was a coordinated day of protests across the world in which people in more than 600 cities expressed opposition to the imminent Iraq War. It was part of a series of protests and political events that had begun in 2002 and continued as the war took place. Social movement researchers have described the 15 February protest as "the largest protest event in human history".

Sources vary in their estimations of the number of participants involved. According to BBC News, between six and eleven million people took part in protests in up to sixty countries over the weekend of 15 and 16 February; other estimates range from eight million to thirty million.

Some of the largest protests took place in Europe. The protest in Rome involved around three million people, and is listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest anti-war rally in history. Madrid hosted the second largest rally with more than 1.5 million people protesting the invasion of Iraq; Mainland China was the only major region not to see any protests on that day, but small demonstrations, attended mainly by foreign students, were seen later.

Consistent with the anti-war sentiment of the protests, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, American public opinion heavily favored a diplomatic solution over immediate military intervention. A January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 63% of Americans wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation, compared with 31% who favored immediate military intervention.

Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, only 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War







?1414780001

[pangaia]

56. OOppsie. looks like a few people were not fooled...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

146. Maybe he should have looked out the window.

[DesertRat]

75. +1

[SMC22307]

96. Ditto... an administration staffed with known warmongers, not to mention the O-I-L.

Does Biden think we're fucking idiots? This really ticks me off. As yet another who marched in DC...

[larwdem]

103. Yes

I think were on are own in america today. Can we do anything but vote???

[SMC22307]

125. Voting is no guarantee, sadly, what with gerrymandering,

voter suppression, hacking, Russians, etc. Rick Scott is right -- suburban white women have got to turn on Dirty Don and the GOP in 2020 like they did during the midterms. And young people HAVE GOT to get off their asses and vote. I still think Medicare at 55 is more of a winner than Medicare for All. I imagine people 55 and older would be running to the polls, many of whom vote reliably Rethuglican.

[Thekaspervote]

2. As it was with so many others that were deceived. Anyone but me remember Collin Powell's

Speech b4 the UN... sharing that little vial of so called chemical weapons?

[roody]

6. And they covered Guernica.

[IggleDuer]

31. Or the "mobile chemical weapons lab"...

.... that looked strangely like a Winnebago.

[marylandblue]

63. I remember that, but I also remember a speech he gave prior to 9/11

where he said Iraq had no WMDs. So he blew hus credibility as soon as he contradicted himself.

[wellst0nev0ter]

95. And I remember Powells lies being debunked in real time

Right here in these forums back then, with the help of the inspectors.

[SMC22307]

147. Kindasleazy Rice told us that a mushroom cloud...

could hit us in 45 minutes. Sane people called BS on that as well as the vial stunt.

[oasis]

3. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and others were waiting for Hans Blix's

team of weapons inspectors to complete their assignment. Bush/Cheney pulled the plug on the inspection and ordered Blix and inspectors out of Iraq.

It was deception on Bush's part, plain and simple.

[pangaia]

57. Well, millions of us saw through the deception...

[oasis]

64. Congratulations, maybe you can qualify for the next debate if

you act now.

[pangaia]

67. LOL.. I don't think so...

I'm too busy anyway.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

69. Yeah, how was that?! And Joe got tricked??

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Farmer-Rick]

81. Off topic but is Bernie and Elizabeth a possibility?

My daughter mentioned it today but I thought she was just being hopeful.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

83. More than a possibility based on recent polling...

I'll take either one, or better yet BOTH... in either order!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[Farmer-Rick]

86. Yeah she was implying Elizabeth as Pres and Bernie as VP

Either way, that would be a dream team.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

89. The Mother Of All Dream Tickets!! tRumpty Dumbty would be history, without a doubt!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[YOHABLO]

60. Okay, call it deception. I call it a complete lie. This is why Bush/Cheney should face war crimes.

Perhaps if Biden had listened to Scott Ritter he'd have chosen differently. That deception, as they call it, is responsible for over 6000 American deaths, and way over 50,000 injuries. Somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 Iraqi citizen deaths It's still damnable; and what was gained? How many more twits like Bush, and monsters like Trump will we have to endure? When you vote to go to war you must be willing to suffer the backlash of that decision; even if you thought it was the right thing to do at the time.

[oasis]

66. Kerry, HRC and Biden never voted to "go to war". For them,

war was a "last resort" measure. They didn't order Hans Blix and weapons inspectors out of Iraq, Bush did. But then, you already know that.

[Lordquinton]

71. Yes, getting semantic they didn't directly vote to go to war

they voted to forfeit their constitutionally given power over weather to go to war to Bush. Honestly that's worse.

[onetexan]

104. Agree

[guillaumeb]

5. Would Biden trust McConnell to work with the Democrats? eom

[jalan48]

7. I think he's already said Republicans would work with him if he became President. I'm

not sure where he's getting these ideas.

[guillaumeb]

8. In my view, he is giving too much weight to what happened in the past.

And not recognizing what McConnell has done since 2009.

[jalan48]

11. Hard to believe since he had a ringside seat for eight years to the spectacle.

[guillaumeb]

13. Agreed.

What exactly did he learn from that is one question to ask.

[Joe941]

124. Because he was able to work with segregationists.

[trev]

9. Biden knew there was no evidence for going to war.

He said so, during the run-up. Bush obviously was deceitful; an idiot like me could see that. Those who voted for war should have known better. Not just Biden--all of them. We didn't need war authority to send in inspectors. Inspectors were already there.

For me, the Iraq vote was a blight on Democrats.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. Of course Joe did...was painfully obvious to anyone takin the time to evaluate the lack of evidence!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[BeyondGeography]

10. Disqualifying eom

[Ponietz]

88. 100%

I wasn’t fooled Bush/Cheney were putting lipstick on a pig and can’t accept, without further explanation, that any US Senator was, either.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

98. Hard to believe, that's for sure... even harder that some can't accept responsibility.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[melman]

12. Everybody knew Bush was determined to invade

Everybody.

[loyalsister]

22. Bush made it clear with his rhetoric

The bloodthirsty jingoism that followed 9/11 was an unmistakable call for war and more war.

[mtnsnake]

15. Yeah, sure, Joe, it's always someone elses fault. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

76. I'm a little surprised to hear Joe make excuses like that... Bernie sure wasn't fooled by Shrub!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[elleng]

16. Didn't mention cheney, the REAL deceiver?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. This is disqualifying

[still_one]

21. So is the campaign that hires people to high positions in their campaign who not only voted for Jill

Stein, but encouraged others to do likewise, and have no regret doing so

[Amimnoch]

48. I find someone who was instrumental in giving us Trump even more disqualifying.

And much more recent.

[Lordquinton]

74. Fortunately there is no one like that in our primary

so no worries there

[Amimnoch]

91. Mmm hmmm. -nt

[Demit]

18. Well, that's a bit of revisionism on Biden's part.

In a 2005 New Yorker article Biden was quoted as saying, “The decision to go to war was the right one, but every decision they’ve made since Saddam fell was a mistake.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/the-unbraiding

That doesn't sound like he thought he had been duped by Bush at all.

[melman]

19. Wow

That is quite a bit different than what he's saying now.

[bluewater]

20. Thanks for that link.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. That's disqualifying

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

82. Yeah, it's gettin to that point for me HBS...I thought Joe had learned

from the two past Democratic primary races he lost in 1988 and 2008, and that his third try at the presidency might be the charm... not lookin like it at this rate.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

80. A bit?! Joe surely know there's a record of the positions he's taken!!

It's getting hard to watch!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[True Dough]

97. Good research!

You see, this is why Biden supporters who insist what was said or done 10 or 20 or 40 years ago is irrelevant. Oh no it's not! There's a lot of scrutinizing to be done. And, in this instance, it doesn't look like Joe's being truthful. Or he's forgetful, which is either convenient or a sign his power of recall is fading. None of the options is reassuring.

[Jake Stern]

23. That's the go to excuse/justification for Dem pols confronted with their vote for AUMF

"We felt we needed to give Bush the authority to invade to scare Saddam into complying with UN Resolution 123227737727273443. We didn't think he'd actually do it! He duped us"

Even more vile is the runner up: "So-and-So was the Representative/Senator from New York. They were under incredible pressure to support the president because 9/11 happened there!"

[rogue emissary]

25. How hard is it to say I was wrong?

Damn, I don't get his and most male politicians inability to bare responsibility for a mistake.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

84. Amazing isn't it?!?! I seem to recall Hillary getting that one right and admitting her mistake.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[quickesst]

26. To everyone who believes....

.... that Joe Biden's Iraq War vote is disqualifying, we shall see how much weight that opinion carries on election day, but, if it makes one feel better saying it.....

[marylandblue]

29. As I've been reminded many times by Biden supporters,

It's not what you or I think, but what millions of other people in a few states think. They probably don't care about Iraq now, but they might after Trump repeatedly attacks Biden on this while distorting his own record.

[quickesst]

68. Then it will be up to Joe Biden....

.... to defend himself when confronted. I have every confidence in his ability to do so. All of the candidates will have one thing or another that will be the focus of attacks by trump. Like Biden, it will be up to them to defend their positions. I have that same confidence in several of the candidates to do just that.

[tirebiter]

28. In 1968 all the anti war candidates had supported the Tonkin Resolution

It’s been more than 3 years since the vote to invade Irag. Closer to 20.

[Nanjeanne]

30. I accept him at his word. He was deceived by Bush. But that's why I prefer a

candidate whose judgement was better.

[brush]

32. i hope he was asked about it at least. Pls stop talking about the past.

It's not a winning argument. Talk getting people out of trump's cages, about healthcare, about infrastructure and all the jobs it will bring, talk about renewable energy programs and those jobs for the future.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

33. Imagine admitting you trusted George W. Bush.

[JudyM]

61. Right! This like Harry Reid trusting McConnell. Or Biden trusting McConnell, for that matter.

After all that has been revealed...

[SMC22307]

94. Seriously. And Cheney. Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz. Feith.

Does Biden think we're total fucking idiots? Ugh.

[StarfishSaver]

34. Why isn't anyone claiming Iraq War vote is off limits because Obama picked him as VP?

After all, Obama was staunchly opposed to the Iraq war resolution, but selected Biden as his VP anyway, notwithstanding his record of support for the war resolution. Doesn't that shield Biden from any criticism for that vote?

[wyldwolf]

51. Yet he took a different position once he was a candidate for president and as President.

See this post.

Also, in a speech at Camp Lejeune in early 2009, President Obama outlined plans for Iraq – stressing his administration would “not let the pursuit of the perfect stand in the way of achievable goals.”

In 2011, he declared the war a success.

Imagine that! He went from a lofty speech opposing the war when he was running for Senate, to admitting he doesn't know how he would have voted had he been in the senate, to declaring the war a success.

[bluewater]

52. mocking President Obama is not a good look.

[wyldwolf]

54. Why do you think this is mocking? The mocking' is you second guessing Obama's VP choice

And I see you quickly edited your post to change "bashing" to "mocking." Reminds me of that silly thread about sniping and bashing and other leftwing "progressive" nonsense.

[AlexSFCA]

105. suggesting that because Obama picked him, his Iraq war vote doesnt matter

is precisely mocking Obama.

[StarfishSaver]

117. Just like insisting that Biden can't have his civil rights record questioned because Obama picked hi

[StarfishSaver]

119. But Biden didn't claim he might have voted differently if he had access to the intelligence

He HAD access to the intelligence, but claimed that Bush lied to him.

That's very different than your interpretation of what Obama said. According to your take on his comment, he said that if he had the information Biden had (i.e., the intelligence available to Senators), he might have voted yes. He DIDN'T suggest that Biden and the others voted the way they did because they were lied to.

Claiming he voted the way he did because he was tricked by Bush is not the best counter to criticism of his vote.

[EffieBlack]

120. There's a pattern emerging

Response to criticism of his record on desegregation: “I didn’t oppose busing, just the court-ordered kind.” (not true and there was nothing wrong with the “court-ordered kind” anyway unless you’re a states’ rights proponent)

Response to criticism of his treatment of Anita Hill: ”I wish I could have done more to protect her ...” (he could have - he was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee)

Response to criticism of his Iraq War vote: “Bush tricked me.” (Seriously?)

If Biden wants to run on his record, he needs to come up with better answers when challenged on the weak parts of that record other than, “Don’t look at me! Not MY fault!”

[wyldwolf]

35. Just as in '04, '08, and '16

Kerry voted for it, he was the nominee.

Obama wasn’t in the Senate but alluded he might have voted for it. He was the nominee. And he later sent air strikes to Iraq and declared the war a success.

Hillary did. Nominee.

Almost two decades later, this is a non-issue to most of the Democratic electorate.

[bluewater]

36. "alluded"

[wyldwolf]

38. allude: suggest or call attention to indirectly; hint at.

You have another take? Did I post something untrue?

[StarfishSaver]

40. Yes, you did post something untrue

Obama never said or even alluded that he would have voted for the Iraq War resolution. He opposed it outright.

[wyldwolf]

42. See post #41

See, unlike you, I was here at DU the first three times "progressives" tried to make this a litmus test for the nomination. It failed each time then and will fail again.

[BeyondGeography]

77. Lol...get a grip, Wolf. HRC wins easily in 2008 if she had voted against IWR

Obama wouldn’t have had a chance and would have been stupid to even run against her.

[StevieM]

99. I just don't think that is the case.

I felt she went down in 2008 over a bunch of manufactured mini-scandals.

Like when the other Democrats were attacking her and saying that she had been running for president her whole life. She finally responded by pointing out that Barack Obama wrote a paper in kindergarten talking about wanting to be president. This quickly became known as "the kindergarten attack." It did enormous damage to her campaign.

Or when a junior staffer in Iowa asked a voter to pose a particular question to her at a town hall. The local media treated it like it was Watergate.

HRC got taken down in 2008 in a similar fashion to how she was taken down in 2016--she was declared to have done reprehensible, scandalous things based on the most preposterous of reasons.

She never really had a shot in either election IMO. Especially with Comey behaving the way he did in 2016. Seriously, I have no doubt whatsoever that if she wasn't under FBI investigation for the fake email server story she would have been under FBI investigation for something else.

What the Hell was Obama thinking when he appointed a former staffer on the Senate Whitewater committee to be FBI director? That was when we lost the election.

As for the Iraq War vote, if it was really central to the race then I don't understand why HRC won states like MA and RI while Obama won Utah and Montana.

[BeyondGeography]

109. Those were caucus states and Mark Penn the genius didn't have a plan for them

In fact, without caucuses Obama almost certainly loses. The caucuses attracted more liberal antiwar voters for whom IWR was a very big deal.

As for the rest, poor HRC! Never had a chance. Apart from all of 2007 when she was ahead in poll after poll because she was ready to serve on Day One. Obama’s answer to that was judgment, and IWR was Exhibit A.

[StevieM]

112. I agree about the caucus states, but Montana was not a caucus state.

Utah was, you are right.

HRC did not start out with as large of a lead as the one she ultimately had. She went out in 2007 and built it up.

I don't remember Obama having won people over with his "judgment" argument. I felt that argument fell flat every time he tried it. What worked in taking Hillary down was declaring that she had done something wrong or misbehaved somehow. The list of examples from that campaign is endless.

[BeyondGeography]

113. Basically it bought him time to build legitimacy

He was, of course, a great candidate and superior campaigner. But she was no slouch either. He needed to leverage every opportunity he had in order to defeat her and her IWR vote was a big one.

[StarfishSaver]

39. Obama never said, suggested or alluded he would have voted for the war

He was against the resolution from the beginning.

Here's the speech he gave on the very day of the the Iraq War Resolution vote.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070418194951/http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

[wyldwolf]

41. .. and here are quotes from 2007:

October, 2007, CNN interview:

Candy Crowley of CNN asked Obama why years ago Obama said he did not know how he would have voted on Iraq if he’d been in the U.S. Senate. Obama essentially confessed to lying.

CROWLEY: I want to talk about your Iraq speech, because have you also said since then that you’re not sure what you would have done had you been in the Senate because you weren’t privy to the intelligence.

OBAMA: The only time when I said I’m not sure what I would do if I were in the Senate was right before the Democratic convention, when we had two nominees that obviously I did not want to be criticizing right before they got up and received the nomination.

CROWLEY: But you didn’t mean it?

OBAMA: So — well, no. What I’m suggesting is, everybody had difficult choices to make. And I — and these were difficult choices.

Newyorker:

You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she’s the most disciplined–one of the most disciplined people–I’ve ever met. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons. She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult ~ Barack Obama

If memory serves, Howard Dean also tried to give himself wiggle room on the issue.

Then there's:

Obama declared the war a success:

[StarfishSaver]

43. He didn't say he would have voted differently. He was giving an out to those who did

Particularly Hillary.

[wyldwolf]

44. I didn't say he said he would have voted differently. Try to stay on task.

He was giving an out to those who did. Particularly Hillary.

That's your spin.

One might easily say, and actually many did at the time, that Obama was pandering to the left when he gave the speech on the very day of the the Iraq War Resolution vote.

[StarfishSaver]

47. Why do you seem to have difficulty engaging in discussions with me without being uncivil?

[wyldwolf]

49. Why do you always think people are being uncivil to you?

[True Dough]

130. Good question

Perhaps some self-reflection would do some good for that poster...

[bluewater]

50. more "alluding"

[wyldwolf]

55. Tell us what isn't true?

[bluewater]

58. So now you are insinuating President Obama was a liar?

"One might easily say, and actually many did at the time, that Obama was pandering to the left when he gave the speech on the very day of the the Iraq War Resolution vote."

So now you are insinuating President Obama was a liar?

I think this conversation is over. I have seen enough.

[AlexSFCA]

107. Iraq war vote cost Hillary the nomination in 2008

and likely cost Kerry presidency being unable to draw contrast against Bush on the most important vote of his senatorial career. In 2008, Sanders and then trump hammered Clinton for that one vote that no one can escape. Trump then smashed Jeb for his defence of his brother precisely cause of Iraq War. In light of Iran situation, the Iraq war vote is going to come back to kick Biden in the rear. He’d better come up with a better lie (“deceived by Bush/Cheney, lol). Is he gonna be deceived by Mcconnell, Pompeo, Bolton, Graham, etc.?! Not a good answer for a former VP.
This isn’t the past, this is present and future as the Iraq War destabilized and reshaped the middle east and we will be dealing with it for many years to come.

[silentEcho]

37. I am really done with this argument. A lot was going on in 2003 and we ignore it all to use it as

an attack. I am over this one. Same with the crime bill. A different time and we ignore the reasons.

[wyldwolf]

45. as are most Democrats.

[silentEcho]

46. I think so, too. Two decades ago. And with all we are experiencing today.

[padah513]

53. Naw

It's just the OP's daily Biden post meant to stir the pot. Take it with a grain of salt

[JudyM]

62. Judgment at that time mattered, and the fruits of that invasion continue to this day.

[silentEcho]

70. So do the facts of the time and the actual vote that was taken, but we never discuss that.

[Lordquinton]

79. The facts at teh time

like the fact that literally the entire world rose up against it in protest, and no on e was buying the republican's like, except members of the house and senate.

[JudyM]

93. i am in complete agreement with you that the facts matter. Not that past judgment calls don't.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

90. True dat!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[End_Electoral]

65. I like Joe, but c'mon own up to it. We all knew Bush and Cheney were not telling the truth.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

85. Apparently, like with Anita Hill, that's not gonna happen.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[aikoaiko]

72. Bush, the idiot son, deceived the wise and experienced Joe Biden?

That's what you're going with, Joe?

Really?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

87. Not a good look for a presidential candidate!!

Shrubby couldn't fool Bernie... but then, no surprise there!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[still_one]

92. Neither is someone appointing people who proudly voted for Jill Stein and encouraging others to do

likewise to high positions in their campaign, and have no regret doing so

[Hassin Bin Sober]

118. They weren't fooled by Shrub either. So there's that...

[still_one]

121. Sorry, no excuse for those that contributed to where we are today, by voting for Stein over the

Democratic nominee in 2016, and that some still act as apologists for them IS appalling.

Supreme Court, Women's RIghts, Civil RIghts, Environmental Rights, etc. etc. etc.


LOL huh. That you find it funny, kind of speaks volumes, doesn't it

[Autumn]

73. He wasn't. nt

[ucrdem]

100. He admits the mistake and let's not forget that he and Barack ended it 8 years later:

Washington Post, December 18, 2011: "Last U.S. troops cross Iraqi border into Kuwait".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/last-us-troops-cross-iraqi-border-into-kuwait/2011/12/17/gIQArEyX1O_story.html

So I don't see this as a problem for Biden.

[Kaleva]

108. "'US forces are needed here.' After 15 years, fight in Iraq not over March 20, 2018 "

"Fifteen years after the U.S. launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, the remaining U.S. troops deployed there are still needed, the spokesman for U.S. operations in western Iraq said Tuesday."

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/03/20/us-forces-are-needed-here-after-15-years-fight-in-iraq-not-over/

It's been argued by some that the invasion of Iraq directly led to the rise of ISIS.

[RockRaven]

101. It's disqualifyingly poor judgment (in believing GWB), or he's dissembling (in claiming deception).

Either way, this claim he now makes is more damaging then exculpatory. What the hell?

Why would he make such a self-damaging statement? That *itself* is poor judgment. Jesus, what a cluster-F.

This is supposed to make us *more likely* to vote for him?

[AlexSFCA]

102. I call BS on this one. Anyone with half brain knew it was a lie

Biden and other dems won’t admit their votes were politically motivated. No they weren’t deceived unlike US military personnel who lost their lives because of politicians votes. I would absolutely love to see Sanders debate Biden on Iraq vote that was one of the most important votes in Biden’s career as a senator and a true test back then. Everyone (even rethugs) knew the war was politically motivated. If Biden truly expects us to believe he was “deceived” then maybe he is not that bright. Was he deceived by Cheney? GWB was dumb as a duck, only those who are dumber would be deceived by him. No one who voted for war in Iraq won presidential election since GWB. The country and the world expected courage of them and they did not deliver when the time came to cast that pivotal vote.

[dchill]

106. I wasn't deceived. Had Dubya given me his word...

It would have been worth less than it cost. Amirite?

[marlakay]

110. Who will he trust when he is president

Thats all I care about, so long as its good honorable smart people not jumping to start wars.

[JudyM]

115. He said he trusts that the rethugs are going to work with him, as if.

[beachbum bob]

111. many were, the only SINGLE person who could have impacted this WAS COLIN POWELL and he

failed the first rule of military leadership, protect your men from unnecessary risk. HE KNEW the truth and yet allowed himself to be the voice of war with the lies he delivered at the UN.

Biden and the rest of the democratic party had no way of stopping this...Powell could have made it 10x worse for bush/cheney to proceed has he spoke the truth.

[JudyM]

114. Votes matter, going along with the crowd should not be a factor with something this important.

[AlexSFCA]

122. they could have stopped it by voting NO

as many dems did.

[BeckyDem]

116. Unbelievable.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

123. I really have a hard time with this argument

As a lay person with no access to anything other than basic knowledge reported by the media and having lived through the Persian Gulf War and the rest of the 1990's, I felt reasonably certain that Iraq was well-contained (no-fly zones, hello?) and couldn't threaten anybody and that, had things been different, it would be common knowledge and made screaming headlines everywhere. Truth is that Iraq was only a "threat" because Bush/Cheney cherry-picked RAW intelligence from the CIA, most of which was questionable to begin with, and because they were able to successfully exploit everybody's fears about more serious attacks than 9/11 because 9/11 had recently happened and everybody was already worked up about it. If you want to make the argument for invading Iraq on other grounds, that's one thing, but claiming to have been deceived by a dumber person with an already well-established penchant for lying and his deceitful "Co-President" whom was a part of group that was known to have been forcefully advocating for regime change in Iraq years before is just ridiculous IMHO.

[walkingman]

126. That's the one thing I fear about Biden - he like to be liked and seems to have a tendency

to agree with people just to be able to "get along". The Iraq War was clearly, without a doubt, a war of choice and he knew that - he just wanted to "get along".

[dflprincess]

127. I gag every time I hear a politician claim Bush misled him or her on Iraq

when most of us on DU weren't fooled & we certainly didn't have access to all the information they did.

I'd have more respect for them if they'd just admit they did what they thought was politically expedient, at least that I'd believe.

[choie]

129. Really?there were

millions of us who weren't - and we weren't in the senate.

[Iggo]

132. I wasn't deceived.

[58Sunliner]

133. Sorry Biden, even a 12 year old could see through that BS.

[BlueWI]

134. Fig leaves are immaterial at this point.

Go back to the electibility argument. It's way too late to blame Bush. The Constitution has a balance of powers for a reason.

[DeminPennswoods]

138. Biden was elected to the Senate in 1973

By the time of the Iraq war, he'd been in office nearly 30 years. He wasn't newbie who didn't know which way was up.

Many Americans, including me, saw through the pretense. I don't think the "I was fooled" defense holds much water here.