Post removed

[George II]

1. You have to (falsely) ridicule his pronunciation of "Iraq"?

You couldn't just use the the MSN.com headline as it was, and dispensed with calling it an "odious, stone-cold, calculated lie".

Unbelievable. Stuff like this isn't going to win the nomination for Bernie Sanders.

[democrank]

6. I don't care how Joe Biden or anyone else pronounces "Iraq" but

I do care about who was for that war and who was against it.

Given the horrific results of that war, those who were in favor of it have a duty to own their vote. Period.

[George II]

11. That "Eye-rack" stuff is offensive and clearly detracts from any point the OP tried to make.

[wellst0nev0ter]

26. That was my own choice,

I called that stupid war "Eye-Rack" ever since the idiots first voted for it. You can look it up on this forum.

[George II]

28. Doesn't make it any less offensive.

[wellst0nev0ter]

31. Any less offensive than being lied to?

Your disgust is curiously selective.

[hlthe2b]

21. Yup.. that sealed my impression that this was nothing more than an attack

[Kurt V.]

25. Regardless of the op's approach, which i don't agree with, it's minuscule

compared with the point. biden needs to stop this.

[Autumn]

2. That's not a gaffe.

He was for it all the way.

[yaesu]

3. this is a big f'in deal

[BannonsLiver]

4. Ok.

[jalan48]

5. Maybe his support in 2003 was just a gaffe.

[George II]

17. And yet your candidate never saw a military funding bill that he couldn't resist.

[melman]

19. "And yet your candidate never saw a military funding bill that he couldn't resist."

Double negative. That's a self-bazinga.

[George II]

27. Glad you're still tracking my posts. Good to know.

[melman]

29. Tracking?

No. You posted in the thread and I replied. That's how message boards work.

[wellst0nev0ter]

33. Wow, imagine that?

Doesn't make sense to roast someone for putting a message on a message board, but these things does happen, apparently

[elleng]

7. 'In 1990, after Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Biden voted against the first Gulf War,

asking: "What vital interests of the United States justify sending Americans to their deaths in the sands of Saudi Arabia?"[104] In 1998, Biden expressed support for the use of force against Iraq and urged a sustained effort to "dethrone" Saddam Hussein over the long haul.[105] In 2002, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he stated that Saddam Hussein was "a long-term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and that the United States has "no choice but to eliminate the threat".[106] He also said, "I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power."[107] Biden also supported a failed resolution authorizing military action in Iraq only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts,[108] Biden argued that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons.[109] Biden subsequently voted in favor of authorizing the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[51]

In 2006, about three years into the war in Iraq, Biden believed the original authorization on the use of military force in Iraq in 2002 had been a mistake because President Bush "used his congressional authority unwisely." Biden argued that the 2002 resolution needed revision because Saddam Hussein had since been deposed and executed, and because the weapons of mass destruction that the Iraq regime supposedly had stockpiled — a principal justification by the Bush administration for going to war — were never found. Biden opposed increasing troops in Iraq while favoring the training of Iraqi soldiers to maintain the security of their own country and said U.S. troops should "responsibly draw down" and not stay in Iraq indefinitely.[110]

In September 2007, Biden and Sen. Sam Brownback, (R-KS), introduced a non-binding resolution (originally drafted with Leslie H. Gelb) to the U.S. Senate regarding Iraq's political future. The measure proposed "a decentralized Iraqi government based upon the principles of federalism and advocates for a relatively weak central government with strong Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish regional administrations."[111]

Key points include:

Giving Iraq's major groups a measure of autonomy in their own regions. A central government would be left in charge of interests such as defending the borders and distributing oil revenues.
Guaranteeing Sunnis—who have no oil rights—a proportionate share of oil revenue and reintegrating those who have not fought against Coalition forces.
Increase, not end, reconstruction assistance but insist that Arab states of the Persian Gulf fund it and tie it to the creation of a jobs program and to the protection of minority rights.
Initiate a diplomatic offensive to enlist the support of the major powers and neighboring countries for a political settlement in Iraq and create an Oversight Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.
Begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces in 2007 and withdraw most of them by 2008, leaving a small follow-on force for security and policing actions.
The bill passed the Senate by a 75 to 23 margin. Reception from Iraqi politicians and the divided Iraqi government was mixed. The United Iraqi Alliance denounced the resolution "as a U.S. attempt to meddle in Iraqi sovereignty." The U.S. Embassy in Iraq warned that it "would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed." President of Iraq Jalal Talabani, who was Kurdish, supported the resolution.[111] The Iraqi people did not view the resolution favorably. According to a 2007 poll conducted by the BBC, 9% of the Iraqi people believed in a partitioned Iraq, 28% believed in a combination of regional governments and a federal government, and 62% believed in a unified Iraq with a centralized government.[112]

In February 2008, in conversation with Katie Couric, Biden disagreed with President Bush's position on Iraq as the primary war in the War on Terror.[113]

[The Afghanistan-Pakistan border] is where we must, in my view, urgently shift our focus to the real central front on the so-called war on terrorism, using the totality of America's strength... The original sin was starting a war of choice [the intervention in Iraq] before we finished a war of necessity [the war in Afghanistan]. And we're paying a terrible price for diverting our forces and resources to Iraq from Afghanistan.

In a 2016 interview with Richard N. Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden spoke about changing "the fundamental approach [America] had to the Middle East," and that the lesson learned from Iraq is "the use of force with large standing armies in place was extremely costly, [and] would work until the moment we left."[114]'>>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden

[George II]

12. Details, details. Thanks for pointing that out.

[elleng]

15. Facts, Facts. You're welcome.

[melman]

20. None of this is the slightest bit relevant

He said he was against it right away. He was not.

[Celerity]

42. indeed, it is pettifogging and attempting to muddy the water

Furthermore, Biden claimed during the interview that the moment the war began in earnest, he "immediately" opposed it.

snip

On CBS's Face the Nation that same month, after plans were leaked to the press outlining an intelligence operation to remove Hussein, Biden provided his assent to a larger mission.

"If the covert action doesn't work, we better be prepared to move forward with another action, an overt action," he said. "And it seems to me that we can't afford to miss."

Months after the invasion began in 2003, Biden removed any doubt about his support for the effort, telling CNN: "I, for one, thought we should have gone in Iraq."

At a hearing that July, he once more proclaimed his support, saying "I voted to go into Iraq, and I'd vote to do it again."

And in a speech later than month, Biden acknowledged what "we have always known" about the war in Iraq, namely that troops "would have to stay there in large numbers for a long period of time."

"Contrary to what some in my party might think, Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with sooner rather than later," he said. "So I commend the president. He was right to enforce the solemn commitments made by Saddam. If they were not enforced, what good would they be?"

snip


just that part shows clearly that he did NOT immediately oppose it, in fact he was still an avid supporter of it

I still think Biden is by far the best chance to oust Trump, but he cannot continue to make false claims like this (no this is not a 'gaffe', his memory simply cannot be that bad, and IF it is, he is not the person for the post-Trump POTUS.)

I am a hardcore partisan Democratic voter, and I am far more pragmatic than many my age (my cohort age-wise is around 18yo at the election, up to around 30-32yo or so) but I am in the minority in this regard. Non 'live-and-breathe-politics' people and the more dogmatic (and both at multiple age cohorts) will start to haemorrhage if this continues more or less unabated for the next 14 months. For the good of the world he needs to tighten it up and fast. Surely there is a limit of how much he can keep this type of behaviour up and still remain rock-solid and by far the most viable. IF there is NO limit to it, if what he does literally simply ceases to matter at all, then that in and of itself is very problematic.

I am going to wait and watch. As of now, if it is not Pete, then Biden is my alternative. Biden is simply my second choice only because we absolutely MUST win. I hope I do NOT have to look beyond that binary option as I do not like my choices outside of that paradigm atm.

[wellst0nev0ter]

30. ...

In 2006, about three years into the war in Iraq, Biden believed the original authorization on the use of military force in Iraq in 2002 had been a mistake because President Bush "used his congressional authority unwisely."

So all you're saying is that Biden realized his mistake three years too late, and after thousands of lives were sacrificed.

This doesn't disprove how he is lying when he NOW claims he was against the war from the very beginning.

[elleng]

32. I'm not 'saying' or advocating anything,

I provided facts, to enlarge the discussion.

[wellst0nev0ter]

34. Yes, his thinking on Eye-Rack "evolved"

No one is disputing that. What we are disgusted about is how he is now trying to Orwell his initial support for the disastrous war.

[elleng]

35. Your word.

[George II]

43. He didn't believe that earlier? I'm sure if you ask him today in 2019 he'd say it was a mistake....

...does that mean it took him 17 years?

Psst, time is a continuum, not a series of finite isolated points.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

8. Tell me when Joe is not the frontrunner

I'll wait

[Hassin Bin Sober]

9. This is disqualifying

[George II]

13. No it isn't.

[Autumn]

14. I agree.

[George II]

16. I don't.

[Autumn]

24. I know you don't agree and that does nothing to change my opinion.

[Funtatlaguy]

37. Good luck with that.

[oasis]

10. Bush ordered Hans Blix/UN inspectors out of Iraq BEFORE they finished

their assignment. "He got them in, and before you know it, we had "shock and awe".

Joe's immediate reaction to Bush's betrayal makes sense to me.

[melman]

18. Not good

Not good at all.

[Demsrule86]

44. Only if you are already against Biden...another faux gaffe...yawn.

[melman]

46. Sorry

This is way more serious than just a "gaffe".

[Autumn]

50. There's a word for "not the truth" and "gaffe" isn't that word.

[BeyondGeography]

22. This is the worst thing he has said

It’s depressing. He’s either lying, which I have never heard him do so blatantly before, or he doesn’t remember his actions.

[Demsrule86]

45. lying or senile huh? What I would have expected...good luck with that.

[BeyondGeography]

49. I don't see any other alternatives...What's your explanation?

[stonecutter357]

23. good let's go Joe !

[DrFunkenstein]

36. As Chairman, Biden Refused to Allow Voices of Dissent To Testify in The Run Up To Invasion

In 2002, Biden was the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Following 9/11, he conducted the “Hearings to Examine Threats, Responses and Regional Considerations Surrounding Iraq” on July 31 and August 1, 2002.

In 2002, Biden was the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Following 9/11, he conducted the “Hearings to Examine Threats, Responses and Regional Considerations Surrounding Iraq” on July 31 and August 1, 2002.

---

Review of the entire transcript revealed there was no real evidence whatsoever that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. or was in possession of WMDs. Shouldn’t we expect a reference to satellite data, perhaps? Or discussions about facilities that inspectors were being kept from? Or maybe special nuclear sensors that had tripped?

Nothing in the transcript provided any evidence that Iraq was a threat. It was all historical and conjecture about the meaning of Saddam Hussein’s speeches. Nothing technical was even mentioned that required my familiarity with weapon systems. Instead, words and meeting dialogs that Hussein had with his engineers were interpreted as evidence that he had WMD and that his engineers were motivated to the extreme.

https://truthout.org/articles/how-bidens-secret-2002-meetings-led-to-war-in-iraq/

When the hearings commenced 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. All three witnesses who addressed the question of Al-Qaeda claimed that Iraq directly supported the Islamist terrorist group.

Despite overwhelming opposition among academics and foreign service officers familiar with the region, among the twelve witnesses who addressed whether the United States should invade, six were supportive, four were ambivalent, and only two opposed it. Among the witnesses 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.

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.

Scott Ritter, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, 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.”

But Biden had no intention of doing so, refusing to even allow Ritter—who knew more about Iraq’s WMD capabilities than anyone and would have testified that Iraq had achieved at least qualitative disarmament—to testify. (Ironically, on Meet the Press in 2007, Biden defended his false claims about Iraqi WMDs by insisting that “everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them.”)

Biden also refused to honor requests by some of his Democratic colleagues to include in the hearings some of the leading anti-war scholars familiar with Iraq and Middle East. Nor did Biden call some of the dissenting officials in the Pentagon or State Department who were willing to challenge the alarmist claims.

Ritter accused Biden of having “preordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts and . . . using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq.”

Had Biden allowed for additional hearings with a witness list more representative of the widespread opposition by those actually familiar with Iraq, it is possible the vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate authorizing the war could have turned out differently, and tragedy would have been averted.

https://progressive.org/dispatches/the-other-reason-biden-shouldnt-run-Zunes-190402/

[Autumn]

38. Wow. That should be a stand alone OP.

Thanks for that link.

[BannonsLiver]

40. Truthout?

It’s a defacto media wing of Sanders 2020. Zero credibility.

[Autumn]

41. Yes I'm a Truthout fan. It goes way back to the Iraq war and our opposition, at that time,

to the Iraq war. Are you saying what is in that article is a lie?

[jalan48]

39. Not good.

[Demsrule86]

48. I don't care even a little bit...Iraq was a cluster fuck...and Bush was either lied to and thought

it was true or he lied...all the Democrats were lied to and once a war begins...what can you do?

[myohmy2]

47. +1

"This is not a gaffe. This is an odious, stone-cold, calculated lie designed to confuse and gaslight the less informed."
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

...