Joe Biden's Vote for War

[Voltaire2]

In October 2002, he was one of 77 senators who gave President George W. Bush the authority to use force in Iraq. He is still trying to explain that choice.

Mr. Biden, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, had been scrambling to draft a bipartisan resolution that would grant Mr. Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq, but was more restrictive than the war authorization that the president had sought.

As he often had in his long career, Mr. Biden sought bipartisan middle ground — this time, between those opposed to potential war and the White House desire for more open-ended power. Some antiwar members of his committee resisted his effort, worried that it would still pave the way to conflict. “We disagreed very strenuously,” said former Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California.

Mr. Biden’s plan ultimately did not succeed, and he chose to focus on Mr. Bush’s reassurances of a diplomacy-first approach.

“At each pivotal moment,” Mr. Biden said of Mr. Bush, “he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation, and I believe he will continue to do so. At least that is my fervent hope.”

On Oct. 11, he was one of 77 senators to authorize the use of military force in Iraq. Twenty-three colleagues, some of whom harbored grave doubts about the danger Iraq posed at the time, refused to back the president’s request.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/us/politics/joe-biden-iraq-war.html

[Opel_Justwax]

1. Hillary Voted for The Iraq Invasion. It was an infection of the Senate at the time.

[Buzz cook]

11. Clinton was a first term jr senator

While she was just as wrong as everyone else in her vote; it is understandable that she would go along with democratic leadership. Further she represented NY and NYC. Her constituents would not be understanding of a no vote.

Biden was by that time a very senior senator and he could have survived any backlash he got from the party or voters. To simply say he trusted Bush is not enough.
If he was trying to draft another bill and didn't trust the AMF as written he should have voted against it.

[Opel_Justwax]

40. I don't buy the Jr senator excuse.

[Buzz cook]

48. I don't buy your opinion. nt

.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. Neither do I... especially from someone as highly intelligent as Hillary.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[sammythecat]

54. Neither do I

She wasn't some naive fledgling. She was a grown woman and highly intelligent. She knew what she was doing, and why. Although I supported her fully in the general election, her vote for the invasion was craven self-interest in my view. Yeah, she was supposed to represent her constituents, but more than that, she was supposed to be a leader.

[fallout87]

45. at the end of the day Hilarry voted YES

You can make all the excuses you want, but she voted the same way as Biden and the majority of the senate.

[Buzz cook]

49. So your saying

Biden fucked up when he voted for the AMF.

I agree completely.

[Polybius]

44. And that vote hurt her in 2016

It would be nice to have someone running this time that was always against it.

[oasis]

2. Rep. Adam Schiff also voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq. nt

[George II]

3. It wasn't a vote for war. This has been brought up a dozen times in the last few weeks....

...and has been discussed ad nauseum.

People should read the document for which he, and 76 other Senators, voted.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. Everyone at the time knew Bush would invade.

It’s revisionist history to claim otherwise.

[George II]

7. No they (me) didn't, it's revisionist history to read the minds of "everyone".

[Buzz cook]

20. When every causus belli was a lie?

Demonstrably so?

If the Bush administration was willing to lie us into war, why is it a leap to say they would invade on a pretext?

And as you were there then you remember "the Project for a New American Century". The conservative document that said a terrorist attack could be used as an excuse to invade Iraq.

Further as you remember the Bush administration had the full support of the media. A fig leaf was all they needed to get Chris Matthews to have a tingle down his leg.

The only way to have stopped that invasion was if the democrats had stood up. Instead they punted.

[Thekaspervote]

33. Indeed!!

[oasis]

13. "Everyone" didn't know Hans Blix and UN inspectors would be tossed out

of Iraq before completing search for WMD. Legislators had made it clear their votes for IWR was on the condition that war would be a last resort.

[karynnj]

24. As importantly, before the vote Blix was NOT in Iraq

The Republicans have worked hard to equate the vote, which was in October 2002 -- before the inspectors were in and found nothing --and Bush taking the country to war in March 2003. So many people - even in 2005 or so thought that the vote and the invasion were very close in time.

In fact, given that Iraq DID let the inspectors in and gave them the right to look anywhere - unannounced, Bush COULD have achieved a REAL victory by converting the inspections into permanent oversight and declared that he had eliminated the threat of Iraq breaking out. (You can also think of how Obama/Kerry used the threat of an attack on Syria into eliminating 1200 tons of chemical weapons - something that would not have happened had there been no threat of war.)

[booley]

41. yes we did all know it

I knew it the moment there kept being conflicting reports between what the inspectors said wand what the Bush admin said.

Sorry we had this conversation back in 2001 and then again in 2004 with Kerry. And then again in 2008 with Obama versus Clinton.> And then AGAIN in 2016.

Its time to put this to bed. It was a bad vote. And Trump will use it to attack anyone who made it.

[Autumn]

15. We here knew. If we knew, they knew. Those who voted for it voted for their own interests. nt

[sammythecat]

55. Exactly

We knew, and not because of brilliant analysis. It was completely obvious Bush could hardly wait to invade Iraq and be a "war president". Giving him the power to do so was cowardly self-interest. Nothing less and no other way to put it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

37. Bernie sure knew it!! We need a President with sound foreign policy judgment...

That person is President Sanders.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Voltaire2]

6. Odd then that Biden was scrambling to put together a more restrictive bill.

"Mr. Biden, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, had been scrambling to draft a bipartisan resolution that would grant Mr. Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq, but was more restrictive than the war authorization that the president had sought."

Odd. Why was he concerned enough to 'scramble"?

[boomer_wv]

8. Because

The authorization was going to pass regardless and they were trying to get the best option they could.

That's a senators job. Not sitting in the corner with your arms crossed doing nothing so that you can complain about the vote later.

Bernie has a long history of nothingness.

[Voltaire2]

9. The authorization wouldn't have passed if enough senators had the guts to vote against it.

It's called a spine.

[boomer_wv]

12. Easy to say 17 years later and with

nothing on the line.

Biden voted for a war that he sent a son to. To call that spineless is pretty rich.

[George II]

26. What's interesting is that this seems to be the only issue that people can bash Biden about....

That's probably why it's been posted so frequently. Too risky going on about the 1994 Crime Bill because Sanders voted for it AND he balked at it being too "weak"! No mention of the Brady Bill vote(s), no mention of the Amber Alert Bill, etc., etc.

I'll be alert for when this is posted again on Saturday, I have more comments to make.

[vsrazdem]

52. Not really, there's always the Bankruptcy bill.

[Thekaspervote]

34. 1000+ it doesn't fit with a certain campaign wanting to say otherwise

[George II]

16. He wanted a MORE restrictive bill, i.e., even more controls on bush's "authority"...

...what's odd about that? Clearly that sentence indicates that Biden was NOT in favor of the proposed bill.

[karynnj]

25. He and others in both parties on the SFRC committee scrambled because they wanted a better resolutio

than the IWR written by people like Joe Lieberman. When Gephardt promised Bush that he could get the IWR passed in the House, it was clear that Biden/Lugar had no chance. At that point, those same Senators fought to improve the IWR. They won some changes, but ironically, because several of them had said they would not vote for the original language -- it would have been better for those Democrats had they failed to get any language changed.

In fact, Bush would have gone to war with ANY resolution or no resolution at all -- the latter proven in the Downing Street memos.

[oasis]

47. Thanks, karynnj for bringing FACTS into the discussion.

[Blue_true]

19. It was an authorization that was dependent on diplomacy being used first.

Bush subsequently choose to ignore the diplomacy part.

[Voltaire2]

22. obviously it wasn't dependent on that.

[George II]

27. Obviously it was. But the terms of the bill were violated. NO ONE could anticipate that!

[ehrnst]

76. GWB stated that he needed the resolution as leverage to get the UN to

pass a resolution for UN unrestricted inspections of Iraq for evidence of nuclear weapons development.

In fact HRC stated that when she made her statement on her vote, on the floor. She was voting to prevent a military strike in Iran, which was presented as the alternative to the resolution..

“Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/02/hillary-clinton-told-the-truth-about-her-iraq-war-vote.html

GWB went back on his word, did not go to the UN, and went straight to war.

To say that everyone "should have known" that GWB was going lie about this, just 3 months into his first term, is a symptom of "hindsight is 2020."


But what is interesting is that HRC acknowleged that a yes vote was a mistake, knowing what we know now about GWB's intentions and daddy issues with Saddam Hussein, but I have yet to hear regrets from any candidate who voted for these previous direct approval for military strikes 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."

Sanders also voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted.

Authorization for Use of Military Force - Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.
States that this Act is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

Perhaps you've heard him say that he regretted those votes? If you have, please share a link.

[Uncle Joe]

5. Kicked and recommended

Thanks for the thread Voltaire.

[Blue_true]

21. Senator Sanders voted for the money for the war. Without the money, there would be no war. nt

[George II]

28. Yes, our troops would have had to have been withdrawn without that funding. It's like so many....

...other cases, "I voted for it because it would have passed anyway", or "I voted against it because there was an obscure clause that I didn't like", etc.

[delisen]

30. Why did Sanders vote to fund the war?

[Thekaspervote]

35. Yes he did vote for the appropriations...

[ehrnst]

77. Well, that's totally different because..... REASONS!!! (nt)

[Dream Girl]

10. FFS stop, just stop

This is getting so frigging old. Are you a russian troll or some shit?

[The Valley Below]

39. Bingo

[George II]

17. It's Thursday, that article and bash on Biden hasn't been posted for a couple of days. It's overdue.

[Thekaspervote]

36. Won't it be great when sanders goes home to VT!!!

[TexasTowelie]

23. +1

[quickesst]

18. where is the animosity....

.... and outrage toward Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff, Etc? Why single out Joe Biden. Like I said, everyone knows why. It's an outrage of convenience for a political, and not a moral purpose. Otherwise, we would have been hearing about the outrage toward all the senators who voted for that war but it seems the only time we hear about it is when it is advantageous and politically convenient to do so. Go back on Democratic Underground during the 8 years Joe Biden was vice president, and you tell me how many threads were generated concerning outrage towards him over his vote. I will reiterate. There is only one reason why this thread exists. It is politically advantageous, and the lack of similar outrage towards other prominent democratic senators proves that this attack against Joe Biden is clearly not morally driven.

[Voltaire2]

59. None of them are running for president.

And it isn’t animosity, this is one of the reasons why Biden is not my first choice.

[quickesst]

68. so....

.... running for president requires near flawless judgment, but those who have been/are Secretary of State, leader of the Senate Minority, Chair of the House Select Committee and leading the Trump Impeachment Committee should be trusted to carry out those duties honorably and with integrity even though they made the same decision Joe Biden did, but let any one of them declare for the presidency, and suddenly they are disqualified? Give me a break.

[Voltaire2]

70. No, but choosing who to vote requires, for me

evaluating the candidates.

[quickesst]

73. after some light reading...

..... I will say this.

I now understand how advantageous it can be for some people to remain in the undecided column.

I stand by my original sentiments concerning the OP. More so now than then.

[Loki Liesmith]

29. Lol

[left-of-center2012]

32. Same old, same old ?

[Thekaspervote]

38. Yup!!

[highplainsdem]

42. OMG, Biden was one of 77 senators including 29 Democrats who voted for that! That shows

that Biden will have to be blamed for this horrific decision as if no one else could possibly, possibly, have ever been so wrong!

Including Clinton, Kerry, Reid and Schumer, among all those Democrats.

Sigh...

This argument against Biden is so silly.

Especially since the Democratic Party's presidential nominees have included Kerry and Clinton.

[sammythecat]

58. So what's that say?

To me it say that 77 senators including 29 Democrats did the wrong fucking thing. Either they were too stupid to understand what was happening, or, more likely, the certain death and destruction to come was worth it if it meant they'd keep their jobs. Senators Schmenators, the days of "Profiles in Courage" are long gone.

[zackymilly]

62. So you're saying Joe Biden was stupid or would let people die just to keep his job? Alrighty then.

[sammythecat]

64. Yes. It was one or the other.

Less than brilliant politicians are not rare. Those who will act out of self-interest, or even cowardice, are more plentiful. Check out the Senate we have now. One or the other. I really don't know how else to think of this. How would you have voted?

[booley]

43. Biden wanted to remove Saddam years before the Iraq Invasion

Regime change was official US policy for Iraq. And Biden agreed with that policy.

Biden’s earlier suggestion that “taking Saddam down” was the only way to guarantee an end to the WMD program left little doubt where Biden would later come down on the issue.

Biden’s grilling of Ritter is important because it gives context to claims Biden later made: First, that when he voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq as a senator, he did not mean to vote for war, but hoped the resolution would empower inspectors to get back into Iraq and monitor the program. And second, that he never believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

On the first claim, Biden told NPR last year that former President George W. Bush “looked me in the eye in the Oval Office. He said he needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program. … He got them in and before you know it, we had ‘shock and awe.’”

But according to Biden’s own statements in 1998, he believed that Hussein could never be trusted to eliminate his program, no matter how many inspectors were admitted.

In October 2004, by which time it had become clear there were no WMDs, Biden told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations, “I never believed they had weapons of mass destruction.”

In fact, as Biden had said in 1998, he believed not only that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but no amount of inspections or diplomacy could guarantee their removal. That, he told Ritter, could only be done by “guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down.”

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/07/joe-biden-iraq-war-history/

And if we look at what Biden was saying in 2003, he makes it clear he did not regret that vote, he would have done it again. (as he explains here at 15:34 in) His problem wasn't' the invasion. His problem was how the Bush administration handled the occupation and rebuilding afterword.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?177659-1/us-policy-iraq

[still_one]

53. So did Sanders. Ever hear of the Iraq Liberation Act?

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

[we can do it]

46. E Fucking Nuff of this shit

[David__77]

50. I recall that my senator, Boxer, opposes this.

Feinstein, unfortunately, stood with it.

“I trust Bush” was, I think, the message of those who afforded him war authority.

[ehrnst]

57. "I trust Bush," was apparently also the mindset behind the 2001 vote for AUMF...

Sanders voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted.

Authorization for Use of Military Force - Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.
States that this Act is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

So there's that.

[David__77]

65. That's right.

Barbara Lee got it right.

[ehrnst]

66. And Bernie, not so much. Voted with the "I trust Bush" mindset.

Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

[NYMinute]

56. No one cares about this issue anymore except some devotees determined to hurt Democrats

For the rest, it is

[lark]

60. Joe made a mistake, period the end. He acknowledged that and has worked tirelessly to end the war.

Is he perfect - no, but IMO he's got the right heart and the right caring and the right experience and is the most electable - which is why I intend to vote for him if he's still in when we finally have primaries here in June. I totally expect him to be going strong in the race so anticipate that I will indeed vote for him.

[Voltaire2]

61. Problem is he doesn't really acknowledge it.

He like Kerry keeps insisting he did the right thing but Bush did the wring thing.

[lark]

63. That's where I disagree with him.

He did the right thing if shrub had been an honest broker, but he was not and there was evidence of that but obviously Joe didn't see it or didn't believe it - don't know which. I do fault him for that and thought he had said it was a mistake to trust "them".

[ehrnst]

67. As did Senator Sanders' 2001 vote for AUMF

Sanders voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted.

Authorization for Use of Military Force - Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.
States that this Act is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

So there's that.

[myohmy2]

69. "Joe Biden's Vote for War"

" In October 2002, he was one of 77 senators who gave President George W. Bush the authority to use force in Iraq. He is still trying to explain that choice. "

...and amount of fudging is going to change that fact...

[ehrnst]

75. ... no amount of fudging is going to change this, either...

...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."...

...Sanders also voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF[), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted....

Authorization for Use of Military Force - Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

...

[cry baby]

72. Your flamethrower is pointed in the wrong direction. nt

[David__77]

74. Barbara Lee is someone who was right on this and the preceding war authorization.

And I certainly wouldn’t mind her as president!