Does Biden Remember Leading The Democratic Calls For Regime Change?

[DrFunkenstein]

I know that memory is a funny thing and that the invasion of Iraq is ancient history, but I wonder if Biden remembers being the leading Democratic voice as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Biden didn’t just vote for the war — he was a leading Democratic voice in its favor and played an important role in persuading the public of its necessity and laying the groundwork for Bush’s invasion in March 2003.

He may have grumbled about the procedurals, but he was out there in February 2002 claiming, "If Saddam Hussein is still there five years from now, we are in big trouble. It would be unrealistic, if not downright foolish, to believe we can claim victory in the war on terrorism if Saddam is still in power."

A few weeks later he added, "There is overwhelming support for the proposition that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power."

His major qualm was that Bush wouldn't be sufficiently committed to the war cause: "I don’t know a single informed person who is suggesting you can take down Saddam and not be prepared to stay for two, four, five years to give the country a chance to be held together," Biden himself recounted telling Bush privately in June 2002.

When the hearings began on July 31, eighteen witnesses were called, none of whom challenged the administration’s claims that Iraq was in possession of chemical and biological weapons and a nuclear weapons program.

Throughout the hearings, Biden insisted that Iraq was a threat to U.S. national security and that “regime change” was a legitimate U.S. policy. And he expressed skepticism that renewed inspections would work.

As chairman, Biden refused to allow the testimony of Scott Ritter, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, who noted just prior to the hearings, "For Senator Biden’s Iraq hearings to be anything more than a political sham used to invoke a modern-day Gulf of Tonkin resolution-equivalent for Iraq, his committee will need to ask hard questions—and demand hard facts—concerning the real nature of the weapons threat posed by Iraq."

Biden also refused requests by fellow Democrats to include in the hearings some of the leading anti-war scholars familiar with Iraq and Middle East, as well as some of the dissenting officials in the Pentagon or State Department who were willing to counter claims about the threat posed by Hussein.

Biden has claimed that his support for giving Bush the power to invade was largely an effort to pressure Hussein into allowing UN inspectors to return. Few would claim that Biden is a hawkish neocon in liberal clothing. It is unlikely that he would have invaded Iraq were he President.

But Biden’s crucial role in enabling the invasion and costly occupation of Iraq - with all the cost in terms of lives and destabilization - remains something for which he needs to be held accountable.

It is not his memory of minor details that matters here. It is our own memory of a defining moment in modern US history that counts here. I'm not talking about his role in the deregulation of the banking system. I'm talking about a war that has cost the nation $2 TRILLION dollars and countless lives that cannot be replaced.

Before the invasion, Bernie Sanders said was clear: "At a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation of Iraq could be extremely expensive." He added, "I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed ... we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause."

Let me be clear: Biden actively silenced dissenting voices such as Sanders while providing political cover for Democrats who handed the keys over to Bush and Cheney. This is not a gaffe.

I don't know how Biden remembers the invasion, but the accounts of history are very clear. This is a deep and tragic mistake that should be held accountable.

[True Dough]

1. I suspect

you'll encounter responses along these lines...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287260093

[still_one]

2. That is why Sanders voted for the Iraq Liberation Act, which called for regime change. DO YOU

REMEMBER THAT?


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/14/1500932/-Bernie-s-Iraq-War-Hypocrisy-where-did-Bernie-really-stand-on-overthrowing-Saddam

[George II]

3. Bazinga!

[melman]

6. Do you remember who was president then?

Or is it your position there's no difference between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

[still_one]

7. Is Clinton running for President now? Isn't that what the Democratic primary forum is about, the

candidates who are running for President now?

[melman]

8. No he's not

But your position seems to be 1998 and 2003 were exactly the same.

And what I'm saying is there might be important differences. Do you disagree?

[still_one]

29. Not mine, then or now, but the OP seems to want engage in this

[George II]

10. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed by Congress, not the President.....

Clinton didn't write the bill.

It passed the House 360-38, and the Senate by Unanimous Consent. Even if Clinton had vetoed it, that would have been easily overridden.

The other bill mentioned, the Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists, was passed on September 14, 2001. Clinton was out of office for almost nine months by then.

So why are you deflecting by bringing Bill Clinton into this like they were his bills?

[melman]

13. "It passed the House 360-38, and the Senate by Unanimous Consent"

So you're saying Bernie's vote was irrelevant here.


Terrific. Glad we cleared that up.

[George II]

16. No I didn't say that, not even close, but I see you're trying to deflect once again....

What I said is very clear in the post to which you responded.

He could have voted his "conscience" like he did against the Russia Sanctions and the Magnitzky Act, both of which passed with more than 90 votes each in the Senate. In fact, he is the ONLY Senator to have voted against both.

Can't have it both ways.

You cleared up nothing.

[melman]

18. No. I'm afraid you self-Bazinga'd there

Too late to take it back. What's done is done. So sorry.

[bluewater]

19. Live by the Bazinga!, die by the Bazinga!

[bahrbearian]

21. Bazinga ,Bazinga

[Hassin Bin Sober]

30. Self-bazinga'd

[George II]

41. Wow...just WOW!

[Celerity]

49. you do have to admit, regardless of the subject/context, 'self-Bazinga'd' is pretty funny

I am NOT taunting you at all. It just made me laugh a bit.

[wellst0nev0ter]

32. OP supports Warren, not Sanders

These hamhanded deflections are tiresome.

[still_one]

34. Not the point. The OP wants to be selective, so i'll be selective

[wellst0nev0ter]

36. All the OP has to say is

"that's why I don't support BS" then you got nothing.

[George II]

43. Exactly, the person who posted the OP went right after Biden, totally ignoring the OTHER candidate..

...who historically has had a very similar position as Biden on these issues almost 20 years ago, maybe even more so.

And I see someone is blaming President Clinton for a bill that passed both houses overwhelmingly.

[George II]

42. The person who POSTED the OP supports Warren, the OP itself doesn't even mention her.

Hamhanded indeed.

[Lordquinton]

44. The op only mentions Biden

And you went straight after Sanders, like a pavlovian response.

As the kids say Bazinga!

[George II]

45. No I didn't, I never even responded to the OP. Sheldon Cooper says "Bazinga!" Lulz.

[melman]

46. "Lulz"

I hear that's considered a derogatory reference

[George II]

50. January, eh?

[melman]

51. So it's not a derogatory reference anymore?

Okay.

[thesquanderer]

4. re: "pressure Hussein into allowing UN inspectors to return"

Saddam DID let the UN inspectors back in. We invaded anyway.

[bluewater]

5. why dwell on things that happened in the previous century?

People rather see blurry photos of candidates eating ice cream.

I know a man in SC that says this does not matter to them.

Besides, while some details might have been conflated, the essence of his position was true.

And everyone has memory lapses, even 20 year olds.

What we need is a return to civility and the ability to reach across the aisle and work with reasonable people on the other side.

Also, George Bush lied to him about Iraq. Who could have seen that coming?

[pnwmom]

11. When someone is pitching himself as the most experienced, it makes sense

to look at that experience.

[bluewater]

15. Did I really have to add the emoji?

Ok... here it is...



That was sorta a greatest excuses montage I was riffing...

[Ferrets are Cool]

37. I "saw it coming". I guess that makes me smarter than most huh?

Why dwell on things that happened 15 years ago? Because almost a MILLION...let me repeat that...A MILLION women, children and men died because of that little "situation". ANYONE who voted for the invasion of Iraq, I will never forgive. I may have to eventually vote for that person because they have a D behind their name, but I will NEVER forgive them.

[OilemFirchen]

38. Indeed.

For example, I don't care what Senator Warren was doing last century.

Do you?

[GeorgeGist]

53. Someone who chaired that committee in 2002 (this century) ...

and refused to call any witnesses that conflicted with his preconceived notion regarding regime change.

[calguy]

9. I don't care what any of Joe Biden's positions were in the past

I really care about what his positions are today. I really like where is right now in the present time. His experience in my view makes the best qualified man in America to lead us out of the trump quagmire and re-establish our moral footing and leadership standing in the world.

[pnwmom]

12. On the one hand, you say he is most qualified based on his experience.

On the other, you say you don't care about his past.

There is a disconnect here.

[bluewater]

17. "we have alway been at war with Eurasia"

I think the applicable word is double-think.

[emmaverybo]

28. Through experience he evolved, became an outspoken critic of the Iraq war. Obama put Biden

in charge of Iraq, post-war, so he went there eight times.

What did your candidate do? Would Obama have left Iraq in your candidate’s capable hands?

That’s a rhetorical question.

No is the resounding answer.

No your candidate’s resume does not begin to rival Biden’s for job-specific qualifications, experience, or knowledge.

No, world leaders did not tell your candidate to run because the world needs her/him.

And no your candidate is not the front runner.

And no, your attempts, continual and unrelenting, to discredit Biden are not working.

[CentralMass]

20. What we needed then was to take a stand against the pack of neocons who were leading us into one

of the biggest foreign policy and military mistakes in modern history.

Work with reasonable people on the other side of the aisle ? Where are these reasonable people ? Who would enable a madman to do
great harm to the this country and block any attempts to stop him.

Compromise with this pack of jackals will yield nothing good.

[bahrbearian]

22. So ,No fundamental changes?

[procon]

23. Can you speak to your chosen candidate's

strengths and weaknesses before tearing down the opposition?

It would be helpful to actually discuss the merits of each canndidate rather than hide behind someone else's issues. I don't understand how that persuades me as an undecided voter that your candidate is capable of more than just running down Biden. Is that how she will deal with diplomatic disagreements as the pres or the incessant GOP shock troops?

At least for this undecided, I don't think this line of attack is as useful as you might think.

[emulatorloo]

26. Well said and agreed. Negative campaigning like this does nothing for me.

[still_one]

33. It will do something, and I think it will be the opposite of what those who are pushing it will

achieve

At least that is what the not so subtle “racist” innuendos, “I know you aren’t a racist but....”

Perhaps it would be instructive for some supporters of certain candidates to examples me which candidates move beyond their base, and which do not engage their n this dispersions

We will see how that works out as things proceed

[Catch2.2]

40. Agree 100%

It does nothing to help us as Democrats

[DrFunkenstein]

47. Someone Running On "Experience" Can't Cherrypick Their Experiences

There are several candidates that I'd be happy with. Warren and Sanders would make me extremely happy. For me, Biden would be a massive disappointment. I would vote for him just like I voted for Clinton, who I disliked greatly for her foreign policy in the Middle East and Latin America in addition to her coziness with Wall Street and deregulation. But any Dem is pretty much better than any Republican, let alone a scumbag like Trump.

I'm not trying to "tear down" Biden. I hardly want to destroy him - he seems a very nice person and I would love for him to retire with a strong reputation. But we are at a very early stage of the game, and it is more than fair to hold him accountable for the experience that he is putting forward - not just as Obama's ticket balance, but also his many years as a leader of Democratic foreign policy.

The talk these days is about Biden's memory, but while gaffes can be illuminating, I find memories far more illuminating that recall how Biden silenced the voices of dissent in the lead up to the war when Dems were most in need of spine.

I also feel strongly about his defense of the predatory credit card industry, but that's for some other time. In the meantime, there are plenty of fish in the nomination bowl, and he is very low on the list for the reasons I've put forward. Everyone is free to their opinion and I embrace our differences within the party, but at the same time I feel no need to silence my deep reservations at this stage of the game.

[uponit7771]

52. Yes they can if they're mind has changed, we know what we're getting with Joe Biden

[DrFunkenstein]

54. As I Said, I Don't He Think He Would Invade But His Silencing Of Progressive Voices

At the time when political courage was most needed is deeply troubling.As committee chairman, he refused - refused - to allow dissenting voices, including former chief U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter as part of overwhelming opposition to invasion among academics and foreign service officers familiar with the region.

Among the witnesses that were allowed a Congressional platform was former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, whom Biden insisted was credible despite multiple perjury indictments for lying before Congress and his history of grossly exaggerating the military capabilities of Nicaragua, Cuba, the Soviet Union, and other designated enemies of the United States.

Biden did not support voices like those of Sen. Paul Wellstone, who faced a difficult re-election but still maintained his opposition to invasion in the face of sky-high poll numbers for Bush. Quite the opposite, he shut down such opposition voices.

This is not about dredging up the past. This about how he would govern going forward. There are progressives who do not feel like the proper response to a massive lurch to the right rom early in the Bush era on everything from foreign policy to Wall Street regulation is "moderation."

There are several candidates who will clearly not leave progressives out in the cold. Biden has demonstrated - powerfully so - that he is not one of those candidates. Moderate does not mean reasonable when we live in unreasonable times. When we have Pelosi selling out upstart voices with their "green dream or whatever," we need someone who will reflect the direction of the Party as we come fully into the 21st century. I simply do not have faith that Biden will be that person.

[treestar]

56. Experience includes mistakes and such

People without experience don’t have that.

[LincolnRossiter]

24. You must not have much faith in your candidate's ability to win enough voters over with her ideas

and vision if bringing up 17yo mistakes is your best strategy.

And just so you know, as a Biden supporter...

[ProfessorPlum]

25. an important reminder

[Vegas Roller]

27. Repeated retakes of this cutting room floor scene

won't make it in the movie.

A majority of the voters want to defeat Trump .. not reminisce and ruminate over "what if Saddam were still alive?"

[Demsrule86]

31. Link? And how many voted against Iraq...but keep it up...it won't help your candidate though.

[Uncle Joe]

35. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, DrFunkenstein

[ArcticFox]

39. Yes, it makes me sick

To think that Democrats might put up Biden against Trump. In my opinion, he's got the least chance of winning.

[jalan48]

48. Maybe not.

[Joe941]

55. Weak sauce. Biden is a strong candidate.

You bring up stuff from almost 20yrs ago? I only care that we beat tRump.