I guess we all knew Obama was most likely a phony and a race traitor.
I do think McCain will win now. Obama made a very bad choice with Biden, especially after he got the anti-war support to win the primaries. what a sell out!
Veep choice another indication of the shrinking gap between candidates?
Incipient Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s selection of Joseph Biden as his running mate constitutes a stunning betrayal of the anti-war constituency who made possible his hard-fought victory in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.
The veteran Delaware senator has been one the leading congressional supporters of U.S. militarization of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, of strict economic sanctions against Cuba, and of Israeli occupation policies.
Most significantly, however, Biden, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the lead-up to the Iraq War during the latter half of 2002, was perhaps the single most important congressional backer of the Bush administration’s decision to invade that oil-rich country.
Shrinking Gap Between Candidates
One of the most important differences between Obama and the soon-to-be Republican presidential nominee John McCain is that Obama had the wisdom and courage to oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Obama and his supporters had been arguing correctly that judgment in foreign policy is far more important than experience; this was a key and likely decisive argument in the Illinois senator’s campaign against Senator Hillary Clinton, who had joined McCain in backing the Iraq war resolution.
However, in choosing Biden who, like the forthcoming Republican nominee, has more experience in international affairs but notoriously poor judgment, Obama is essentially saying that this critical difference between the two prospective presidential candidates doesn’t really matter. This decision thereby negates one of his biggest advantages in the general election. Of particular concern is the possibility that the pick of an establishment figure from the hawkish wing of the party indicates the kind of foreign policy appointments Obama will make as president.
Obama’s choice of Biden as his running mate will likely have a hugely negative impact on his once-enthusiastic base of supporters. Obama’s supporters had greatly appreciated the fact that he did not blindly accept the Bush administration’s transparently false claims about Iraq being an imminent danger to U.S. national security interests that required an invasion and occupation of that country. At the same time Biden was joining his Republican colleagues in pushing through a Senate resolution authorizing the invasion, Obama was speaking at a major anti-war rally in Chicago correctly noting that Iraq’s war-making ability had been substantially weakened and that the international community could successfully contain Saddam Hussein from any future acts of aggression.
In Washington, by contrast, Biden was insisting that Bush was right and Obama was wrong, falsely claiming that Iraq under Saddam Hussein – severely weakened by UN disarmament efforts and comprehensive international sanctions – somehow constituted both “a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security” and was an “extreme danger to the world.” Despite the absence of any “weapons of mass destruction” or offensive military capabilities, Biden when reminded of those remarks during an interview last year, replied, “That’s right, and I was correct about that.”
Biden Shepherds the War Authorization
It is difficult to over-estimate the critical role Biden played in making the tragedy of the Iraq war possible. More than two months prior to the 2002 war resolution even being introduced, in what was widely interpreted as the first sign that Congress would endorse a U.S. invasion of Iraq, Biden declared on August 4 that the United States was probably going to war. In his powerful position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he orchestrated a propaganda show designed to sell the war to skeptical colleagues and the America public by ensuring that dissenting voices would not get a fair hearing.
As Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector, noted at the time, “For Sen. 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.”
It soon became apparent that Biden had no intention of doing so. Biden refused to even allow Ritter himself – 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 last year, 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. These included both those who would have reiterated Ritter’s conclusions about non-existent Iraqi WMD capabilities as well as those prepared to testify that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would likely set back the struggle against al-Qaeda, alienate the United States from much of the world, and precipitate bloody urban counter-insurgency warfare amid rising terrorism, Islamist extremism, and sectarian violence. All of these predictions ended up being exactly what transpired.
Nor did Biden even call some of the dissenting officials in the Pentagon or State Department who were willing to challenge the alarmist claims of their ideologically-driven superiors. He was willing, however, to allow Iraqi defectors of highly dubious credentials to make false testimony about the vast quantities of WMD materiel supposedly in Saddam Hussein’s possession. Ritter has correctly 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.”
Supported an Invasion Before Bush
Rather than being a hapless victim of the Bush administration’s lies and manipulation, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of Iraq and making false statements regarding Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of “weapons of mass destruction” years before President George W. Bush even came to office.
As far back as 1998, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of that oil rich country. Even though UN inspectors and the UN-led disarmament process led to the elimination of Iraq’s WMD threat, Biden – in an effort to discredit the world body and make an excuse for war – insisted that UN inspectors could never be trusted to do the job. During Senate hearings on Iraq in September of that year, Biden told Ritter, “As long as Saddam’s at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction.”
Calling for military action on the scale of the Gulf War seven years earlier, he continued, “The only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone,” telling the Marine veteran “it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking Saddam down.”
When Ritter tried to make the case that President Bill Clinton’s proposed large-scale bombing of Iraq could jeopardize the UN inspections process, Biden condescendingly replied that decisions on the use of military force were “beyond your pay grade.” As Ritter predicted, when Clinton ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq in December of that year and followed up with a four-day bombing campaign known as Operation Desert Fox, Saddam was provided with an excuse to refuse to allow the inspectors to return. Biden then conveniently used Saddam’s failure to allow them to return as an excuse for going to war four years later.
Biden’s False Claims to Bolster War
In the face of widespread skepticism over administration claims regarding Iraq’s military capabilities, Biden declared that President Bush was justified in being concerned about Iraq’s alleged pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Even though Iraq had eliminated its chemical weapons arsenal by the mid-1990s, Biden insisted categorically in the weeks leading up to the Iraq war resolution that Saddam Hussein still had chemical weapons. Even though there is no evidence that Iraq had ever developed deployable biological weapons and its biological weapons program had been eliminated some years earlier, Biden insisted that Saddam had biological weapons, including anthrax and that “he may have a strain” of small pox. And, even though the International Atomic Energy Agency had reported as far back as 1998 that there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had any ongoing nuclear program, Biden insisted Saddam was “seeking nuclear weapons.”
Said Biden, “One thing is clear: These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from power.” He did not believe proof of the existence of any actual weapons to dislodge was necessary, however, insisting that “If we wait for the danger from Saddam to become clear, it could be too late.” He further defended President Bush by falsely claiming that “He did not snub the U.N. or our allies. He did not dismiss a new inspection regime. He did not ignore the Congress. At each pivotal moment, he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation.”
In an Orwellian twist of language designed to justify the war resolution, which gave President Bush the unprecedented authority to invade a country on the far side of the world at the time and circumstances of his own choosing, Biden claimed that “I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur.”
It is also important to note that Biden supported an invasion in the full knowledge that it would not be quick and easy and that the United States would have to occupy Iraq for an extended period, declaring, “We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”
Biden’s Current Position
In response to the tragic consequences of the U.S. invasion and the resulting weakening of popular support for the war, Biden has more recently joined the chorus of Democratic members of Congress criticizing the administration’s handling of the conflict and calling for the withdrawal of most combat forces. He opposed President Bush’s escalation (“surge”) of troop strength early last year and has called for greater involvement by the United Nations and other countries in resolving the ongoing conflicts within Iraq.
However, Biden has been the principal congressional backer of a de facto partition of the country between Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shia Arab segments, a proposal opposed by a solid majority of Iraqis and strongly denounced by the leading Sunni, Shia, and secular blocs in the Iraqi parliament. Even the U.S. State Department has criticized Biden’s plan as too extreme. A cynical and dangerous attempt at divide-and-rule, Biden’s ambitious effort to redraw the borders of the Middle East would likely make a violent and tragic situation all the worse.
Yet it is Biden’s key role in making possible the congressional authorization of the 2003 U.S. invasion that elicits the greatest concern among Obama’s supporters. While more recently expressing regrets over his vote, he has not formally apologized and has stressed the Bush administration’s mishandling of the post-invasion occupation rather than the illegitimacy of the invasion itself.
Biden’s support for the resolution was not simply poor judgment, but a calculated rejection of principles codified in the UN Charter and other international legal documents prohibiting aggressive wars. According to Article VI of the Constitution, such a rejection also constitutes a violation of U.S. law as well. Biden even voted against an amendment sponsored by fellow Democratic senator Carl Levin that would have authorized U.S. military action against Iraq if the UN Security Council approved the use of force and instead voted for the Republican-backed resolution authorizing the United States to go to war unilaterally. In effect, Biden has embraced the neo-conservative view that the United States, as the world’s sole remaining superpower, somehow has the right to invade other countries at will, even if they currently pose no strategic threat.
Given the dangerous precedent set by the Iraq war resolution, naming one of its principal supporters as potentially the next vice president of the United States has raised serious questions regarding Senator Obama’s commitment to international law. This comes at a time when the global community is so desperately hoping for a more responsible U.S. foreign policy following eight years of Bush.
Early in his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to not only end the war in Iraq, but to challenge the mindset that got the United States into Iraq in the first place. Choosing Biden as his running mate, however, raises doubts regarding Obama’s actual commitment to “change we can believe in.”
Unless Obama can assert his dominance over Biden and Biden apologizes for his war mongering and incorrect biases and judgments I will not be voting for Obama (again).
I should have known when he groveled before the Kesnet instead of standing up and taking a hard line to their apartheid state of occupation, theft human rights violations and murder like Jimmy Carter and thousands of other internationalists for peace.
not only did you not cite your source, your source didn't cite much to back up the claims in that piece either.
i expect, looking around, that obama had pretty slim pickins' if he only looked to anti-iraq-war candidates for vice president. it couldn't have been a deal-breaker, anyway.
instead, as he said before even announcing biden, he took someone who would challenge him. he's not a phony or a flip-flopper because of a running mate: he's a candidate looking to fill his advisor posts with people who will, like him, think and weigh options.
i bet sometimes they'll even disagree, instead of falling lock-step into the party-line like we've seen for the past several years. because of this, an obama presidency will not be perceived to be as (raised fist) strong as the current presidency, i'm sure, but i think it will be much more healthy and successful without a puppeteer, a backroom dealmaker, and a 'decider'.
Thinking and weighing options and changing viewpoints as circumstances changes is good and all, but.....fascism is SO much easier.
Original thought is hard.
I'd MUCH rather just be told what the right opinion is and spread that around as much a s possible. Gives me lots more time for practicing my goose-step.
Oh please, of all the things to criticize the Biden VP nomination you pick the Iraq war?!? As Steven said, finding a formidable anti-war running mate would've been tough.
I would however criticize Biden for being:
A. Lifetime Washington establishment, i.e. <u>not</i> representing change.
B. A northern state Democrat which does little to shore up votes in southern states. Last northern dem to win was JFK, something I wouldn't overlook.
C. Not a govenor. Again, recent history has shown that people outside of Washington have better odds of winning.
IMO, a Bill Richardson pick would've been far more tactical...and I like him more than Biden. But what do I know. 8 years ago I thought Cheney was going to be the fatal pick for Bush.
biden was all for invading iraq. biden ran what scott ritter called sham hearings about wmd's. biden is the same old song and dance and this call for change cited by the obama campaign has definitely come into question with the choice of biden as v.p. hell barack might as well have picked joe lieberman.
point of correction, Delaware is hardly a North Eastern state, if anyone here has actually visited, you'd note how rural and "southern" it really is. i have family there and it's nearly podunk, even with it's being a suburb between Philly and Baltimore...HRC was all for invading Iraq, Kerry and Edwards too, Byah....so who would've been the "better" choice? as for the 30 years in the Senate, he ranks what 99 of 100 in terms of overall wealth, that's what I would examine; how did someone become maintain his own moral integrity and not become a wealthy fat cat earning a living on the backs of american people, and still find the desire to serve his country.
but then again, McCracker's answer to that would be; I served as a volunteer in a Hanoi prison cell....the answer to a question no one is asking...
beta, I don't think it's a stretch to say you are about as unobjective as Rush Limbaugh. Is there anything Obama could say or do that you wouldn't support? Regardless of party afiliation these people are politicians. Blindly supporting Obama is no different than blind support of Bush, McCain, et. al.
If the iraq war is a major voting issue for you the Biden selection should cause you some concern. Not that it should change your vote, but it is something to call Obama on.
Additionally. sure, you might say Deleware is "po dunk" as I've heard people say about many places in rural New England, but just see how that plays in places like GA, TN, etc. It's a voting block I wouldn't discount and they will not view Deleware as you say. And Biden may not be a millionare but he is Washington establisment. 30 years is a long time and something voters will notice.
I said Richardson would've been a superior choice. Short of Obama offering and him declining, tell me why Biden is a superior choice to Richardson?
aqua, i am too tired and too fucking old to go back and find where i have faults with Obama, and posted them here - too fucking old.
it's either Obama or Mc Cain, choose ups. i would have preferred Jim Webb or Richardson, but one, another junior senator would not have worked, and b, Richardson is only a gurantee of a flame war with the Clintonistas, absofuckinglutely.
-gay marriage = for | Obama against
-4th amendment = for | Obama sided with Bush [now out of fear of being labeled]
30 years IS something voters will notice, and so will the fact that the man owns 1 home, takes the train to work, is supported by fire and police, and oh yeah, he's an ordinary Joe...
seeing as how i have visited or lived in SC/NC/VA/PA/DE/KY/IA/NE/IN/TX/MA - i think i have a good sense of the difference betweeb NE Charrrm and dirt track racing poor in the south...
I agree with Ward on this one: a lot of people were cowed and went along with the Iraq vote...it was a very different atmosphere and a lot of false "proof" was being put out, so a lot of Democrats made that big mistake.
Biden has positive aspects that outweigh his negatives, in my view. And as far as Washington insider, if refusing to live in Washington, instead commuting 80 miles EVERY DAY so that you can raise your kids - who have lost their mother - in a sensible and stable environment does not show an "outside the beltway" attitude and personal integrity, then I don't know what the fuck would.
I agree with Steven and Emilio. I was personally pushing for Wesley Clark as VP, although I would have also been perfectly happy with Richardson or Sebelius. That said, Biden seems like a sensible choice who rounds out the ticket by countering some of Obama's (real or imagined) weaknesses, and he seems like a genuinely decent guy.
I don't agree with Obama's decisions on every issue -- if anything, I think he's too centrist, and his FISA vote particularly disappointing -- but he's still got my vote and my full support. if I wanted to be a brainless minion and let my political leaders to do my thinking for me, I'd still be a Republican.
I havent gotten the full scoop, but apparently Richardson has something in his past that is very embarrassing, and that he himself asked not to be vetted. I have no idea what it is, apparently few do, but even Richardson himself doesnt want it nationally known. The same goes for Web, there are things he wrote and stances hes taken in the past against women in the military and women in general that would have destroyed whatever candidacy he was brought on board to.
So jesus fuck Antisthenes. Get a grip. In the last five years there really has been no more effective voice for getting us out of this war than Joe Biden. If youre really so sore about his initial vote that youd rather watch McCain spend the next 4 years digging us into WW3, thats your prerogative, but it pretty self-defeating of you.
Thanks for the response beta. While it's consistently been shown that the VP nomination makes little difference in the election I think it's a very important choice, even if it's a controvercial one.
Recent history will probably show that Cheney has been a more influential VP than most. Or what if FDR hadn't dumped Henry Wallace for Truman in '44? Some say there would've been no cold war, etc. And the granddaddy of all VP stores is Ford becoming president without ever having been on the ticket in a national vote.
Point is that there's no primary for the VP nomination, but historically they have been handed a great deal of power. Same goes for the cabinet positions. We're not only voting for a presidential canidate, but who he will "appoint" to surround him.
I think both Obama & McCain have been bought and paid for by the PAC's and 527's and I see the Biden pick just another reflection of that. A regular "Joe" wouldn't have spent the better part of his working life in Washington, even if he commutes home every night. From the POV that all incumbents have been corrupted by Washinton and should be ousted, regardless of party, I say it's a bad pick. And I still stand by my assertion that a southern govenor is the best choice for the Dem's.
Full disclosure, this is just armchair politicing. Neither Obama or McCain have truly inspiried me to vote for either.
"I think both Obama & McCain have been bought and paid for by the PAC's and 527's and I see the Biden pick just another reflection of that. A regular "Joe" wouldn't have spent the better part of his working life in Washington, even if he commutes home every night. From the POV that all incumbents have been corrupted by Washinton and should be ousted, regardless of party, I say it's a bad pick."
Now it's just getting endlessly silly. YES, Washington politics is in the grip of PAC's, yes, there's not all that much difference between parties, ok, we get it. But are we really saying that 30 years of dedicated work to one job is now evil or something; that we automatically write someone off because he worked in Washington without actually looking at what he did? Cause that's freaking nonsense. So if in your particular architectural firm there's someone with 30 years experience, and he's very wise, and knows what the hell he's doing, and brings in work, and etc. etc., then you throw him in the trash heap because he must be kowtowing to developers, or planning boards, or taking money from builders or product salesmen? WTF?
And it's ridiculous that every little thing that Obama now does is weighed against the purity of his ideas, the "change-o-meter". WHY DON'T WE LET HIM GET THE JOB FIRST? I think he's shown us that he's pretty politically savvy and he and his team were sharp enough to win a very tight primary. He might actually KNOW something. If you read the New Yorker profile on him, you find out that, in Chicago, he actually learned how to work with existing power structures in order to get elected: so what is wrong with that? It's what you do once you get the job that really counts, and his record shows that he did pretty well. So he chose Biden after I'm sure was careful consideration: if he wins the election, he'll be proven right.
Emilio - I don't think it's a fair comparison to compare Biden's 30 years in congress to an architect being at the same firm for 30 years. We are a representative republic, and our representative are supposed to be people like you and I. Your congress person should be a regular "Joe" that's taking a break from architecture to serve, not a life long politician. I believe in term limits for all elected gov't offices. This would attract a better caliber of canidate all around, i.e. someone that's truly making a sacrifice to better the country.
Yes, aqua, I read your post above about how things SHOULD be, but that's not how things are right now. You're beating up Biden for working in the world he works in, whether he is a good person or not, just like you might attack the 30-year architect for actually woorking with planning boards, developers, code officials, etc., so he can ACTUALLY build some of his work. The way I see it, the rap against politicians creates a dilemma for some Obama supporters, goes something like this:
ALL existing politicians are corrupt; but Obama is in an election in a field that is made up of politicians; but Obama is not corrupt and has new ideas; therefore we will pretend that Obama is IN that world but not OF that world, and we will brook no compromise on his part and desert him at the first sign of such compromise.
And the distinction between Washington and state politics, as if the latter will produce clean, fresh, "outside-the-beltway" politicians is nonsense: the Texas governorship produced our present chief executive.
Antisthenes, i was willing to give you some comedic leeway on the whole "you're not a environmentalist if you're not a vegan" thing but this time you've gone too far. YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING, DO YOU? Biden is scrappy, very intelligent and a very good man, 3 things which you are apparently lacking. This is demonstrated by the fact that you A) called Obama a race traitor for some inexplicable and indefensible reason and B) suggested that McCain get a "gook" VP. You're disgusting.
Good luck with this one guys, I won't touch this thread again with a 10-foot pole, unless it's to ask Paul to remove it.....
he shoulda picked hillary. i mean basically he was looking for credibility with the white working class democrat that hil had. so why not pick hil? oh yeah now i remember. never mind...
WonderK it is quite ok for a white person to be a race traitor it is something that has great historical context behind it.
But for a black man that is uncle tomming.
McCain to this day is racist towards Asians outwardly and his base enjoys this. Look what his sheriff does racial profiling on the daily. Look at the group of Arizona representatives that just got called out for speaking at the National Socialist Alliance meeting.
If you don't understand the statements and are offended i say open up and seek clarity. race is central to this election and how the possible first person of color president plays to end occupations will be very important.
Biden was a bad choice, MoveOn PAC just took a hit and allot of wind out of their sales on this decision. Even Hillary would have been better any woman even.... especially Cynthia McKinney, for some green power.
Biden more pro-war than Bush?!?!
I guess we all knew Obama was most likely a phony and a race traitor.
Veep choice another indication of the shrinking gap between candidates?I do think McCain will win now. Obama made a very bad choice with Biden, especially after he got the anti-war support to win the primaries. what a sell out!
Incipient Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s selection of Joseph Biden as his running mate constitutes a stunning betrayal of the anti-war constituency who made possible his hard-fought victory in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.
The veteran Delaware senator has been one the leading congressional supporters of U.S. militarization of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, of strict economic sanctions against Cuba, and of Israeli occupation policies.
Most significantly, however, Biden, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the lead-up to the Iraq War during the latter half of 2002, was perhaps the single most important congressional backer of the Bush administration’s decision to invade that oil-rich country.
Shrinking Gap Between Candidates
One of the most important differences between Obama and the soon-to-be Republican presidential nominee John McCain is that Obama had the wisdom and courage to oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Obama and his supporters had been arguing correctly that judgment in foreign policy is far more important than experience; this was a key and likely decisive argument in the Illinois senator’s campaign against Senator Hillary Clinton, who had joined McCain in backing the Iraq war resolution.
However, in choosing Biden who, like the forthcoming Republican nominee, has more experience in international affairs but notoriously poor judgment, Obama is essentially saying that this critical difference between the two prospective presidential candidates doesn’t really matter. This decision thereby negates one of his biggest advantages in the general election. Of particular concern is the possibility that the pick of an establishment figure from the hawkish wing of the party indicates the kind of foreign policy appointments Obama will make as president.
Obama’s choice of Biden as his running mate will likely have a hugely negative impact on his once-enthusiastic base of supporters. Obama’s supporters had greatly appreciated the fact that he did not blindly accept the Bush administration’s transparently false claims about Iraq being an imminent danger to U.S. national security interests that required an invasion and occupation of that country. At the same time Biden was joining his Republican colleagues in pushing through a Senate resolution authorizing the invasion, Obama was speaking at a major anti-war rally in Chicago correctly noting that Iraq’s war-making ability had been substantially weakened and that the international community could successfully contain Saddam Hussein from any future acts of aggression.
In Washington, by contrast, Biden was insisting that Bush was right and Obama was wrong, falsely claiming that Iraq under Saddam Hussein – severely weakened by UN disarmament efforts and comprehensive international sanctions – somehow constituted both “a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security” and was an “extreme danger to the world.” Despite the absence of any “weapons of mass destruction” or offensive military capabilities, Biden when reminded of those remarks during an interview last year, replied, “That’s right, and I was correct about that.”
Biden Shepherds the War Authorization
It is difficult to over-estimate the critical role Biden played in making the tragedy of the Iraq war possible. More than two months prior to the 2002 war resolution even being introduced, in what was widely interpreted as the first sign that Congress would endorse a U.S. invasion of Iraq, Biden declared on August 4 that the United States was probably going to war. In his powerful position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he orchestrated a propaganda show designed to sell the war to skeptical colleagues and the America public by ensuring that dissenting voices would not get a fair hearing.
As Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector, noted at the time, “For Sen. 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.”
It soon became apparent that Biden had no intention of doing so. Biden refused to even allow Ritter himself – 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 last year, 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. These included both those who would have reiterated Ritter’s conclusions about non-existent Iraqi WMD capabilities as well as those prepared to testify that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would likely set back the struggle against al-Qaeda, alienate the United States from much of the world, and precipitate bloody urban counter-insurgency warfare amid rising terrorism, Islamist extremism, and sectarian violence. All of these predictions ended up being exactly what transpired.
Nor did Biden even call some of the dissenting officials in the Pentagon or State Department who were willing to challenge the alarmist claims of their ideologically-driven superiors. He was willing, however, to allow Iraqi defectors of highly dubious credentials to make false testimony about the vast quantities of WMD materiel supposedly in Saddam Hussein’s possession. Ritter has correctly 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.”
Supported an Invasion Before Bush
Rather than being a hapless victim of the Bush administration’s lies and manipulation, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of Iraq and making false statements regarding Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of “weapons of mass destruction” years before President George W. Bush even came to office.
As far back as 1998, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of that oil rich country. Even though UN inspectors and the UN-led disarmament process led to the elimination of Iraq’s WMD threat, Biden – in an effort to discredit the world body and make an excuse for war – insisted that UN inspectors could never be trusted to do the job. During Senate hearings on Iraq in September of that year, Biden told Ritter, “As long as Saddam’s at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction.”
Calling for military action on the scale of the Gulf War seven years earlier, he continued, “The only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone,” telling the Marine veteran “it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking Saddam down.”
When Ritter tried to make the case that President Bill Clinton’s proposed large-scale bombing of Iraq could jeopardize the UN inspections process, Biden condescendingly replied that decisions on the use of military force were “beyond your pay grade.” As Ritter predicted, when Clinton ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq in December of that year and followed up with a four-day bombing campaign known as Operation Desert Fox, Saddam was provided with an excuse to refuse to allow the inspectors to return. Biden then conveniently used Saddam’s failure to allow them to return as an excuse for going to war four years later.
Biden’s False Claims to Bolster War
In the face of widespread skepticism over administration claims regarding Iraq’s military capabilities, Biden declared that President Bush was justified in being concerned about Iraq’s alleged pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Even though Iraq had eliminated its chemical weapons arsenal by the mid-1990s, Biden insisted categorically in the weeks leading up to the Iraq war resolution that Saddam Hussein still had chemical weapons. Even though there is no evidence that Iraq had ever developed deployable biological weapons and its biological weapons program had been eliminated some years earlier, Biden insisted that Saddam had biological weapons, including anthrax and that “he may have a strain” of small pox. And, even though the International Atomic Energy Agency had reported as far back as 1998 that there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had any ongoing nuclear program, Biden insisted Saddam was “seeking nuclear weapons.”
Said Biden, “One thing is clear: These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from power.” He did not believe proof of the existence of any actual weapons to dislodge was necessary, however, insisting that “If we wait for the danger from Saddam to become clear, it could be too late.” He further defended President Bush by falsely claiming that “He did not snub the U.N. or our allies. He did not dismiss a new inspection regime. He did not ignore the Congress. At each pivotal moment, he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation.”
In an Orwellian twist of language designed to justify the war resolution, which gave President Bush the unprecedented authority to invade a country on the far side of the world at the time and circumstances of his own choosing, Biden claimed that “I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur.”
It is also important to note that Biden supported an invasion in the full knowledge that it would not be quick and easy and that the United States would have to occupy Iraq for an extended period, declaring, “We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”
Biden’s Current Position
In response to the tragic consequences of the U.S. invasion and the resulting weakening of popular support for the war, Biden has more recently joined the chorus of Democratic members of Congress criticizing the administration’s handling of the conflict and calling for the withdrawal of most combat forces. He opposed President Bush’s escalation (“surge”) of troop strength early last year and has called for greater involvement by the United Nations and other countries in resolving the ongoing conflicts within Iraq.
However, Biden has been the principal congressional backer of a de facto partition of the country between Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shia Arab segments, a proposal opposed by a solid majority of Iraqis and strongly denounced by the leading Sunni, Shia, and secular blocs in the Iraqi parliament. Even the U.S. State Department has criticized Biden’s plan as too extreme. A cynical and dangerous attempt at divide-and-rule, Biden’s ambitious effort to redraw the borders of the Middle East would likely make a violent and tragic situation all the worse.
Yet it is Biden’s key role in making possible the congressional authorization of the 2003 U.S. invasion that elicits the greatest concern among Obama’s supporters. While more recently expressing regrets over his vote, he has not formally apologized and has stressed the Bush administration’s mishandling of the post-invasion occupation rather than the illegitimacy of the invasion itself.
Biden’s support for the resolution was not simply poor judgment, but a calculated rejection of principles codified in the UN Charter and other international legal documents prohibiting aggressive wars. According to Article VI of the Constitution, such a rejection also constitutes a violation of U.S. law as well. Biden even voted against an amendment sponsored by fellow Democratic senator Carl Levin that would have authorized U.S. military action against Iraq if the UN Security Council approved the use of force and instead voted for the Republican-backed resolution authorizing the United States to go to war unilaterally. In effect, Biden has embraced the neo-conservative view that the United States, as the world’s sole remaining superpower, somehow has the right to invade other countries at will, even if they currently pose no strategic threat.
Given the dangerous precedent set by the Iraq war resolution, naming one of its principal supporters as potentially the next vice president of the United States has raised serious questions regarding Senator Obama’s commitment to international law. This comes at a time when the global community is so desperately hoping for a more responsible U.S. foreign policy following eight years of Bush.
Early in his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to not only end the war in Iraq, but to challenge the mindset that got the United States into Iraq in the first place. Choosing Biden as his running mate, however, raises doubts regarding Obama’s actual commitment to “change we can believe in.”
[shakes head]
Unless Obama can assert his dominance over Biden and Biden apologizes for his war mongering and incorrect biases and judgments I will not be voting for Obama (again).
I should have known when he groveled before the Kesnet instead of standing up and taking a hard line to their apartheid state of occupation, theft human rights violations and murder like Jimmy Carter and thousands of other internationalists for peace.
not only did you not cite your source, your source didn't cite much to back up the claims in that piece either.
i expect, looking around, that obama had pretty slim pickins' if he only looked to anti-iraq-war candidates for vice president. it couldn't have been a deal-breaker, anyway.
instead, as he said before even announcing biden, he took someone who would challenge him. he's not a phony or a flip-flopper because of a running mate: he's a candidate looking to fill his advisor posts with people who will, like him, think and weigh options.
i bet sometimes they'll even disagree, instead of falling lock-step into the party-line like we've seen for the past several years. because of this, an obama presidency will not be perceived to be as (raised fist) strong as the current presidency, i'm sure, but i think it will be much more healthy and successful without a puppeteer, a backroom dealmaker, and a 'decider'.
Thinking and weighing options and changing viewpoints as circumstances changes is good and all, but.....fascism is SO much easier.
Original thought is hard.
I'd MUCH rather just be told what the right opinion is and spread that around as much a s possible. Gives me lots more time for practicing my goose-step.
lol, nice!
Oh please, of all the things to criticize the Biden VP nomination you pick the Iraq war?!? As Steven said, finding a formidable anti-war running mate would've been tough.
I would however criticize Biden for being:
A. Lifetime Washington establishment, i.e. <u>not</i> representing change.
B. A northern state Democrat which does little to shore up votes in southern states. Last northern dem to win was JFK, something I wouldn't overlook.
C. Not a govenor. Again, recent history has shown that people outside of Washington have better odds of winning.
IMO, a Bill Richardson pick would've been far more tactical...and I like him more than Biden. But what do I know. 8 years ago I thought Cheney was going to be the fatal pick for Bush.
biden was all for invading iraq. biden ran what scott ritter called sham hearings about wmd's. biden is the same old song and dance and this call for change cited by the obama campaign has definitely come into question with the choice of biden as v.p. hell barack might as well have picked joe lieberman.
point of correction, Delaware is hardly a North Eastern state, if anyone here has actually visited, you'd note how rural and "southern" it really is. i have family there and it's nearly podunk, even with it's being a suburb between Philly and Baltimore...HRC was all for invading Iraq, Kerry and Edwards too, Byah....so who would've been the "better" choice? as for the 30 years in the Senate, he ranks what 99 of 100 in terms of overall wealth, that's what I would examine; how did someone become maintain his own moral integrity and not become a wealthy fat cat earning a living on the backs of american people, and still find the desire to serve his country.
but then again, McCracker's answer to that would be; I served as a volunteer in a Hanoi prison cell....the answer to a question no one is asking...
beta, I don't think it's a stretch to say you are about as unobjective as Rush Limbaugh. Is there anything Obama could say or do that you wouldn't support? Regardless of party afiliation these people are politicians. Blindly supporting Obama is no different than blind support of Bush, McCain, et. al.
If the iraq war is a major voting issue for you the Biden selection should cause you some concern. Not that it should change your vote, but it is something to call Obama on.
Additionally. sure, you might say Deleware is "po dunk" as I've heard people say about many places in rural New England, but just see how that plays in places like GA, TN, etc. It's a voting block I wouldn't discount and they will not view Deleware as you say. And Biden may not be a millionare but he is Washington establisment. 30 years is a long time and something voters will notice.
I said Richardson would've been a superior choice. Short of Obama offering and him declining, tell me why Biden is a superior choice to Richardson?
Why the fuck didn't he pick Richardson? Biden is such a goddamn tool.
aqua, i am too tired and too fucking old to go back and find where i have faults with Obama, and posted them here - too fucking old.
it's either Obama or Mc Cain, choose ups. i would have preferred Jim Webb or Richardson, but one, another junior senator would not have worked, and b, Richardson is only a gurantee of a flame war with the Clintonistas, absofuckinglutely.
-gay marriage = for | Obama against
-4th amendment = for | Obama sided with Bush [now out of fear of being labeled]
30 years IS something voters will notice, and so will the fact that the man owns 1 home, takes the train to work, is supported by fire and police, and oh yeah, he's an ordinary Joe...
seeing as how i have visited or lived in SC/NC/VA/PA/DE/KY/IA/NE/IN/TX/MA - i think i have a good sense of the difference betweeb NE Charrrm and dirt track racing poor in the south...
I agree with Ward on this one: a lot of people were cowed and went along with the Iraq vote...it was a very different atmosphere and a lot of false "proof" was being put out, so a lot of Democrats made that big mistake.
Biden has positive aspects that outweigh his negatives, in my view. And as far as Washington insider, if refusing to live in Washington, instead commuting 80 miles EVERY DAY so that you can raise your kids - who have lost their mother - in a sensible and stable environment does not show an "outside the beltway" attitude and personal integrity, then I don't know what the fuck would.
I agree with Steven and Emilio. I was personally pushing for Wesley Clark as VP, although I would have also been perfectly happy with Richardson or Sebelius. That said, Biden seems like a sensible choice who rounds out the ticket by countering some of Obama's (real or imagined) weaknesses, and he seems like a genuinely decent guy.
I don't agree with Obama's decisions on every issue -- if anything, I think he's too centrist, and his FISA vote particularly disappointing -- but he's still got my vote and my full support. if I wanted to be a brainless minion and let my political leaders to do my thinking for me, I'd still be a Republican.
I havent gotten the full scoop, but apparently Richardson has something in his past that is very embarrassing, and that he himself asked not to be vetted. I have no idea what it is, apparently few do, but even Richardson himself doesnt want it nationally known. The same goes for Web, there are things he wrote and stances hes taken in the past against women in the military and women in general that would have destroyed whatever candidacy he was brought on board to.
So jesus fuck Antisthenes. Get a grip. In the last five years there really has been no more effective voice for getting us out of this war than Joe Biden. If youre really so sore about his initial vote that youd rather watch McCain spend the next 4 years digging us into WW3, thats your prerogative, but it pretty self-defeating of you.
Kucinich would have been the best choice in my honest opinion.
Biden if so is to easily duped it seems and will be a resistance VP.
the source is GNN.tv
anything with a .tv tag line is IMMEDIATELY suspected of terrorist activity.
didn't you get the memo?
Antisthenes more pro-McCain than Leiberman?!?!
;D
Lieberman is Mccains most likely VP choice?
what could really put McCain over the top would be to get a "Gook" for VP.
are their any Asian republicans?
the thing is, we are already in a war. we need someone with more experience than obama to get us out of it! biden seems alright for that.
Thanks for the response beta. While it's consistently been shown that the VP nomination makes little difference in the election I think it's a very important choice, even if it's a controvercial one.
Recent history will probably show that Cheney has been a more influential VP than most. Or what if FDR hadn't dumped Henry Wallace for Truman in '44? Some say there would've been no cold war, etc. And the granddaddy of all VP stores is Ford becoming president without ever having been on the ticket in a national vote.
Point is that there's no primary for the VP nomination, but historically they have been handed a great deal of power. Same goes for the cabinet positions. We're not only voting for a presidential canidate, but who he will "appoint" to surround him.
I think both Obama & McCain have been bought and paid for by the PAC's and 527's and I see the Biden pick just another reflection of that. A regular "Joe" wouldn't have spent the better part of his working life in Washington, even if he commutes home every night. From the POV that all incumbents have been corrupted by Washinton and should be ousted, regardless of party, I say it's a bad pick. And I still stand by my assertion that a southern govenor is the best choice for the Dem's.
Full disclosure, this is just armchair politicing. Neither Obama or McCain have truly inspiried me to vote for either.
"I think both Obama & McCain have been bought and paid for by the PAC's and 527's and I see the Biden pick just another reflection of that. A regular "Joe" wouldn't have spent the better part of his working life in Washington, even if he commutes home every night. From the POV that all incumbents have been corrupted by Washinton and should be ousted, regardless of party, I say it's a bad pick."
Now it's just getting endlessly silly. YES, Washington politics is in the grip of PAC's, yes, there's not all that much difference between parties, ok, we get it. But are we really saying that 30 years of dedicated work to one job is now evil or something; that we automatically write someone off because he worked in Washington without actually looking at what he did? Cause that's freaking nonsense. So if in your particular architectural firm there's someone with 30 years experience, and he's very wise, and knows what the hell he's doing, and brings in work, and etc. etc., then you throw him in the trash heap because he must be kowtowing to developers, or planning boards, or taking money from builders or product salesmen? WTF?
And it's ridiculous that every little thing that Obama now does is weighed against the purity of his ideas, the "change-o-meter". WHY DON'T WE LET HIM GET THE JOB FIRST? I think he's shown us that he's pretty politically savvy and he and his team were sharp enough to win a very tight primary. He might actually KNOW something. If you read the New Yorker profile on him, you find out that, in Chicago, he actually learned how to work with existing power structures in order to get elected: so what is wrong with that? It's what you do once you get the job that really counts, and his record shows that he did pretty well. So he chose Biden after I'm sure was careful consideration: if he wins the election, he'll be proven right.
Emilio - I don't think it's a fair comparison to compare Biden's 30 years in congress to an architect being at the same firm for 30 years. We are a representative republic, and our representative are supposed to be people like you and I. Your congress person should be a regular "Joe" that's taking a break from architecture to serve, not a life long politician. I believe in term limits for all elected gov't offices. This would attract a better caliber of canidate all around, i.e. someone that's truly making a sacrifice to better the country.
Yes, aqua, I read your post above about how things SHOULD be, but that's not how things are right now. You're beating up Biden for working in the world he works in, whether he is a good person or not, just like you might attack the 30-year architect for actually woorking with planning boards, developers, code officials, etc., so he can ACTUALLY build some of his work. The way I see it, the rap against politicians creates a dilemma for some Obama supporters, goes something like this:
ALL existing politicians are corrupt; but Obama is in an election in a field that is made up of politicians; but Obama is not corrupt and has new ideas; therefore we will pretend that Obama is IN that world but not OF that world, and we will brook no compromise on his part and desert him at the first sign of such compromise.
And the distinction between Washington and state politics, as if the latter will produce clean, fresh, "outside-the-beltway" politicians is nonsense: the Texas governorship produced our present chief executive.
or, say it with comics:
the word on the camino de rael is that bill richardson may have a monica lewinsky or two in his amario.
Antisthenes, i was willing to give you some comedic leeway on the whole "you're not a environmentalist if you're not a vegan" thing but this time you've gone too far. YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING, DO YOU? Biden is scrappy, very intelligent and a very good man, 3 things which you are apparently lacking. This is demonstrated by the fact that you A) called Obama a race traitor for some inexplicable and indefensible reason and B) suggested that McCain get a "gook" VP. You're disgusting.
Good luck with this one guys, I won't touch this thread again with a 10-foot pole, unless it's to ask Paul to remove it.....
he shoulda picked hillary. i mean basically he was looking for credibility with the white working class democrat that hil had. so why not pick hil? oh yeah now i remember. never mind...
WonderK it is quite ok for a white person to be a race traitor it is something that has great historical context behind it.
But for a black man that is uncle tomming.
McCain to this day is racist towards Asians outwardly and his base enjoys this. Look what his sheriff does racial profiling on the daily. Look at the group of Arizona representatives that just got called out for speaking at the National Socialist Alliance meeting.
If you don't understand the statements and are offended i say open up and seek clarity. race is central to this election and how the possible first person of color president plays to end occupations will be very important.
Biden was a bad choice, MoveOn PAC just took a hit and allot of wind out of their sales on this decision. Even Hillary would have been better any woman even.... especially Cynthia McKinney, for some green power.
blech
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.