General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFor those who find Hillary's IWR vote unforgivable, are you equally disgusted with Joe Biden?
He voted the exact same way, after all.
Have you spent the last 8 years hating the fact that this guy is VP based upon that vote?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
brooklynite
(94,594 posts)..you voted for Electors in support of both Obama and Biden.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)brooklynite
(94,594 posts)if the "blood dripping from his hands" (as a recent post described Hillary Clinton) troubled you, you could have voted for a different team.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I actually think Biden has a bigger list of problems, including idiotic legislation like the RAVE act, which he was responsible for.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)SaranchaIsWaiting
(247 posts)
Autumn
(45,106 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)
Cheese Sandwich This message was self-deleted by its author.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)If Joe Biden chooses to run (which it doesn't look like at this time.)
elleng
(130,972 posts)'Support Hillary, because you've lived with Joe Biden for 8 years, and haven't murdered him, or left the country?'
No thanks. I supported Wes Clark until he was undermined; then supported Joe Biden. Now: O'Malley on TPA: “I’m fundamentally opposed to anything we’re not allowed to read-that’s un-American
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026644381
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Furthermore, Biden admitted his vote on the IWR was a mistake long before he was ever considered a candidate for VP, as opposed to others who straddled the fence on the issue way too long. If this is a sly jab at those who oppose Ms Clinton, there are a lot of other foreign policy issues besides the IWR to disagree with her over.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)
pacalo
(24,721 posts)
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Accolades for whom earn hundreds of recs on a thread not too long ago. There is one key difference between them and Clinton, and we all know what it is.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)It is extremely rare that he gets hundreds of recs for anything. I assume you are speaking of when he spoke of the Iran negotiations. This was an incredible achievement - that will only be real if they actually get a deal. In fact, HRC has gotten many threads with 100s of recommendations for various campaign related things - and there very likely will be many many more this year and next.
On the IWR, their votes were wrong, but Kerry in his speech said he would speak out if Bush did not exhaust diplomacy and go to war only as a last resort --- and he did. In January 2003, after the inspectors were in, Kerry spoke out saying "not to rush to war and saying it would not be a war of last resort if he did. Other Democrats spoke out too, but the 2 Democrats with the biggest voice did not in the months between the IWR vote and Bush's order to go to war in March 2003 join them.
Let's consider what would have happened had this Iraq war been like the first - over quickly and labeled a success. Here's my guess. Kerry, was in 2003 already labeled anti war because of his comments and like on the first Gulf war he would have been said to have wrong to have been against it. Clinton on the other hand would have spoken of making the "hard choice" to vote for it because it made America safer.
Even with Kerry's long history of opposing covert and overt wars has not protected him from being held accountable for that vote. Kerry's history, in addition to Vietnam, included opposing the covert effort for the Contras, who the Clintons thought the US should back to the First Gulf War, where neither Clinton had to cast a vote or make a statement, but which they never condemned -- even though that was really a war for oil, as Senator Lugar said in a 2009 SFRC hearing with Jimmy Carter testifying. No one contradicted him. Kerry read antiwar poetry on the floor of the Senate arguing against putting the troops at risk for oil.
Now, HRC is the one spoken of because she, not Kerry, is running for President. There is a question that needs to be answered as to how hawkish a President she will be. That is a question that can't be answered by saying that Biden and Kerry did it too (on the IWR). What seems clear to me from the last 6 years is that Clinton took more hawkish positions than Biden and Kerry on -- 1) the surge in Afghanistan where she wanted a bigger one than Obama ordered, 2) On doing more for the Syrian rebels - when both Biden and (then SFRC chair) Kerry thought too many of them were potentially problems. What troubles me the most is that in interviews after her book was released, she personally argued for her more hawkish positions.
I would argue that you could take Afghanistan where the recommendations of all three are well known and not really in question. Biden would have committed far fewer troops in Afghanistan than Obama, but depended more on antiterrorism (ie the drones) Kerry, from his hearings and statements before Obama made his decision, was concerned that a surge would allow us to take huge areas but he (and Reed) predicted pretty clearly that if the Afghans themselves could not both create good governance and hold the land once we left, it would be unsuccessful. (You hear echoes of this when he speaks of the need for the people in the area to be the ones on the ground against ISIS and his emphasis on the need for the Iraqi government to reform and be more inclusive.) Hillary's preference was a more aggressive version of what Obama did.
Note that you CAN make the case that every single one of these possibilities could have failed and each would have their own ramifications. You could argue that Biden's would look like what we did in Yemen - not a great situation. You could argue that Kerry's is very much what we are doing against ISIS - and in spite of gaining some reform in the Iraqi government and getting a large coalition including countries in the region (a huge diplomatic achievement), facts on the ground are not pleasant.
IF these three people were all running, you could use this and Iraq (where Biden's idea of three states woven into one federation might have kept the Sunnis from being so alienated by their own government that they initially welcomed ISIS and Kerry's of a regional conference to help Iraq create peace between all its people might have been done had they been President.) to see what they might have done - not as Senators, who can vote only yes or no - but as the President. To me, it seems that both Kerry and Biden, fundamentally are committed to diplomacy until it is 100% exhausted. Clinton is more comfortable with using the military than either of them.
Even if everyone accepted these descriptions - which I doubt would happen, that does not mean that everyone would select the same person as being the best on this issue.
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Or her term as Secretary of State? It sounds like both, and while that could be appropriate, it's worth noting puts her in entirely different political positions in any analysis.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)were on issues over the last 6 years where, to varying degrees they had influence on what the actual policy was. The fact that all made some recommendations of what they thought should be done - at a point when decisions were not yet made (and in HRC's case - after the fact (not a knock here as it would have been wrong had she directly opposed the President's position after it was made while SoS)
As Senators, I relied not on votes - where Kerry was by far more liberal than the other two - but on their more detailed speeches - in Biden and Kerry's case often in the SFRC. I assume that others could get other takeaways on these three people, but for the election it may be that only Clinton and maybe Biden are relevant. I included Kerry because of the comment I was responding to.
One observation I should have made to that poster is that all of us favoring one politician/statesman over others, there is possibly always a tendency to think that person was unfairly and unjustly singled out - as she seems to say. Now, it is entirely reasonable that HRC, more than JK is held to account on anything. She is asking us to make her President.
In a way the left by allowing the Republicans to conflate a decision made in March 2003, after inspectors were in for 5 months with a vote taken in October before inspections started. When Jeb Bush argues that everyone had the same information, ALL of us - for HRC, O'Malley, or Bernie - should ALL point out that what was known in March was NOT what was known the previous October. Where it was STILL the wrong vote in October, had Bush done what he said he would when asking for those votes, there would have been no war.
The problem is, whether 2004, 2008 or 2016, not having cast a yes vote helps in the primaries.
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)They should be calling him a warmonger with equal zeal.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)The defense industry are pouring money into her campaign and not to mention her hawkish rhetoric. She made a point in the debate with Obama to quickly threaten Iran before addressing the question.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/
Marr
(20,317 posts)Honestly now, you think it's reasonable to demand that people divide their criticism of IWR votes equally between all the politicians who made that vote, even though only one is running for the presidential nomination?
Kind of the flat tax version of accountability, eh?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Who did the same thing. The combination of votes allowed it to pass.
The obsession of the presidency is interesting. I recall asking right wingers why they did not seem to need to see Biden's birth certificate for proof of his citizenship. They said: Oh but he was not running for President. Even the VP was not important as not the President, laughable in light of the fact the VP specifically should be qualified, as the VPs existence is all about being able to take over as POTUS.
Maybe people should have been interested in who they voted for as Senator as this vote proves Senators have something to do with what occurs. Maybe they should look into whether those individuals are citizens. Or whether they might vote in favor of some war. Nobody cares. Only the President matters.
Marr
(20,317 posts)You can try to convince people that the Presidency is no big deal and that we don't need to worry about the voting records of the candidates for that post all you like, but I don't think anyone's going to buy it. I also don't think I've seen anyone here claiming that votes for the Senate don't matter.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)watched the system play itself out and are far better equipped today to make sure we 'Never Forget' as promised, but clearly didn't mean much to some people when politics got in the way.
However it means a whole lot to enough people still to make sure that those who betrayed the people who elected them will be in danger of being replaced as the people become more and more angry over the games that were played so people could do what you are doing right now, mocking those who found themselves betrayed AFTER they gave their support to certain politicians.
Thanks for the reminder, it won't happen again as is evident in the rising anger and activism resulting from that anger that is occurring and manifested itself in two mid terms when the people threw out those who do not represent them, and the old 'but, s/he's the lesser evil' had no more power to force people into decisions that they knew would be wrong for this country.
Now we have some great choices, and will work harder than ever before to make sure we replace those who betray the people when they side with Republicans with Democrats who actually do represent us.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)I'm also disgusted with anyone that voted for the Enabling Act of 2001.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)same as John Kerry, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman etc...
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)
bemildred
(90,061 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)In my case the answer is no, of coarse. I don't get where people think Biden corrects any Hillary difficiencies. I think it is just the neocon establishment, trying to add a backup candidate in case Hillary fails, hoping nobody remembers what Biden did. That is what Obama was.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And if Joe was the front runner ... it would be passed over.
You have to start with a hate for Hillary, and then apply that hate to every event of the last 30 years when deciding what that event means in 2016.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Not so much disgusted, and I haven't "hated" him for it for 8 years, but I never agreed with his vote on the subject. If Biden ran for president, I would never vote for him, but not only because of his vote on IWR. I think Biden is a bit of a clown.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the war in Iraq.
The candidate I support this time, also opposed it AND voted against it.
I do not support anyone whose judgement was so poor that they failed to see the horrific consequences of that war on millions and millions of human beings. No one who believe Bush/Cheney has the judgement to be in such a powerful position.
As for the VP choice, since I supported Obama in 2008 I have been very disappointed. In his choices of Cabinet members eg, but we made the best choice AGAINST that war that was available at the time.
THIS time we have a far, far better choice.
I don't understand how ANYONE can, for political purposes, simply dismiss that horrific war and then more or less demand that those of us who are still watching the ongoing human tragedies it created, join them in just looking the other way.
I think of the thousands of US troops who were sacrificed and the millions of innocent people who were murdered, displaced, wounded and maimed for life, tortured and deprived of their rights as human beings, and there is no way I can overlook all that.
It's easy I suppose to ignore the human suffering from a comfortable home in the US. I work hard to never allow myself to do that despite all the attempts at emotional manipulation we are subjected to.
The War Criminals who lied us into this human disaster were never held accountable.
One way we can do that is to let everyone who supported them know, that at least some Americans will 'never forget'.
Remember that? 'Never Forget'. I won't.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)about Kerry's vote back in 2004. And I don't remember them damning Obama to hell for selecting Biden in 2008. But remember It is all Hilary's fault. Because she has those superhuman powers going.
The truth is that the GOP knows they can not shoot her down in the general so they are trying their best to shoot her down in the primary a la Muskie 1972. That vote will matter nada in November 2016.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
moondust
(19,993 posts)Her husband had been President of the United States only seven months prior to 9/11 and had presumably received the highest level of intelligence briefings all through the 90s and as late as January 2001, which presumably included the status of any extant threats from Iraq. They were also best buds with Tony Blair, who presumably had access to British intelligence.
