Biden's Iraq war vote not so hard and fast. To evaluate it, we need some background

[emmaverybo]

From conclusion of Mother Jones’ editorial:

Joe Biden and the Iraq War: It’s Complicated


So the story of Biden’s Iraq war vote has more facets than that of Clinton’s. He pressed the CIA for evidence to back up the White House’s fear-mongering, and when he saw the case was weak, this veteran legislator attempted to craft a bipartisan plan to slow Bush’s gallop to war and endeavored to counter the Bush-Cheney propaganda, insisting that Saddam did not pose an immediate threat. He might have succeeded had he not been sabotaged by Gephardt. Yet, when crunch time came, Biden did not say no to Bush, and he did not cast a tough vote against the go-to-war measure. Instead, Biden backed the resolution and tried to convince the public—and maybe himself—that Powell would save the day. That was a miscalculation and perhaps a sign that this Washington institutionalist put too much faith in the system, or at least in one man.

For most Democratic voters, and maybe most voters overall now, Biden ended up on the wrong side of the Iraq war vote—and on the wrong side of history. That’s the bottom line. (In 2005, Biden said he regretted his vote, remarking, “It was a mistake to assume the president would use the authority we gave him properly.”) In his own way—the way of a skilled legislator who could work with Democrats and Republicans—he did try to impede Bush’s war. It was only after he failed that Biden yielded to the forces of conventional political reality and voted in sync with the prevailing pro-war sentiment of the moment.

(The part about Gephardt and Dem hawks interesting)

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/04/joe-biden-and-the-iraq-war-its-complicated/

[mr_lebowski]

1. Fact: anyone who claims Dems like Kerry, Biden or Clinton 'voted for the Iraq War' is lying ...

They voted, in fact, to allow Bush to make the decision whether or not to do so. Bush was saying/doing mostly all the right things at the time to give people the idea he'd use this authority judiciously.

All of them said that the reason they were doing it was specifically NOT to 'go to war' but to strengthen Bush's hand in negotiations for weapons inspectors/to get Saddam to give up any WMD's he might have. It was seen as necessary to 'scare Saddam' into believing the US wasn't fucking around, in order to AVOID going. It was also widely assumed that Bush, should he decide war was necessary, was going to go around Congressional Approval anyway. A scenario which created a LOT of potential problems.

You can argue they were 'suckered', pretty fairly, but none of those 3 ever 'voted for the Iraq War', and it's a lie to say that they did.

[Honeycombe8]

2. Everyone in the world knew that Bush was chomping at the bit to invade Iraq...

He had SAID so. Others in the administration had said so.

There was no secret plan behind the scenes to ask for the authority but hold back and only go in if necessary. No...we all knew the score. No one more so than foreign policy expert Biden.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

53. No question!! Nothing complicated about it... a vote for the IWR was a vote for the "W"!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[still_one]

3. That is what the IWR was about. It was wrong for Congrsss to rlinquish its rsponsibility, but you

are correct, voting for the IWR was not a vote to go to war

The Iraq Liberation Act which was another act which stated the policy of the U.S. was to support efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

and some of the most progressive Congress people voted for that, such as Bernie Sanders

[thesquanderer]

5. Iraq Liberation Act was about providing assistance. Not sending American troops.

Passed overwhelmingly in the House, unanimously in the Senate, and signed by Bill Clinton.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

54. If memory serves... didn't the "W" stand for WAR?!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[qazplm135]

4. anyone who claims that those folks did not know

exactly what Bush was going to do with that authority is either lying or amazingly naive.

It was very clear that was what was going to happen to EVERYONE.

Biden owned up, somewhat, to it being a bad vote.

Obama certainly knew what the deal was as did others, if it was just to "strengthen Bush's hand" why did anyone oppose it?
Why did Feingold and Kennedy oppose it? What, they didn't want Bush to have a strong negotiating hand?

[Crunchy Frog]

23. +1000.

I don't buy any claims that these people didn't know EXACTLY what they were voting for.

I think it was motivated by perceived political expediency, and the belief that it would be quick and easy, and would quickly blow over.

[qazplm135]

58. Pretty much

They thought it would be like desert Storm.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. THIS!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[George II]

7. I've been saying that for more than a decade. None of those three Senators EVER....

..."voted for the Iraq War", there never was a vote "for" the Iraq War. Unfortunately those who insist that it was a "vote for the Iraq War" will never change their incorrect position.

On the other hand, how many of our candidates were even in a position to cast a vote back in 2003?

[melman]

15. You can keep on saying it

but it will never stop being bullshit. Everybody knew Bush was determined to invade. Everybody.

[George II]

16. How did everybody know that?

[melman]

17. Nope

Not going to play the lets pretend not to remember 2002/2003 game. So sorry.

[George II]

18. Most likely because "everybody" did NOT know.

[NYMinute]

34. He obviously talked with everybody nt

[Lordquinton]

25. So you're saying he didn't vote to go to war

He just voted to relinquish all his power to the Republicans. Got it.

[George II]

26. Yes, and no. Got it?

[Lordquinton]

27. Not buying it

"They voted, in fact, to allow Bush to make the decision whether or not to do so."

He voted to give up congressional power, that's literally what happened.

[NYMinute]

35. The IWR is a non-issue

It is brought up only at the time of the primaries to weaken Democrats.

We know the game.

[betsuni]

43. +1

[Lordquinton]

46. Except it is an issue

and we should talk about it. This is the time to hash it out, but it just gets shut down by the champions of whichever candidate.

[NYMinute]

47. Why?

Is anyone going to undo the Iraq war and bring the dead back whilst magically removing the injuries from the injured?

It is simply demagoguery for the benefit of ONE candidate who happened to have voted against the IWR.

What about that candidate's votes against Russia sanctions, against the Magnitsky act, votes supporting the NRA against the backdrop of mass killings in the US?

[betsuni]

48. +1

[Kahuna7]

8. Exacty! There were conditions for that vote. Bush crashed right threw the conditions...

Last edited Mon Jun 17, 2019, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

including throwing the weapons inspectors who were on the ground out of Iraq, before they could complete the inspections, which were coming up empty.

The worst that could be said about the Dems that voted for the IWR they should have known bush and cheney would renege on the conditions they'd initially agree to. That's what ticked me off about the Dems' vote. Bushco had shown themselves to be liars and unreliable. They had not earned the benefit of the doubt.

[mr_lebowski]

12. Exactly. It's fair to say they were duped and/or the vote was ill-advised ...

But factually incorrect to say 'they voted for the War'. Go back and read the speeches Kerry and Clinton gave at the time. They clearly say their vote was cast as it was because they believed it increased the chances for PEACE, not war, by strengthening Bush's hand in diplomacy with Saddam.

[mr_lebowski]

31. One could definitely make a case that that they failed to vote AGAINST it ...

But that's still not the same thing as voting FOR it.

[Celerity]

50. I think this just might show differently (at least for one of them)

you said

All of them said that the reason they were doing it was specifically NOT to 'go to war' but to strengthen Bush's hand in negotiations for weapons inspectors/to get Saddam to give up any WMD's he might have.

Hillary Clinton Iraq War Vote Speech- Oct. 10, 2002

https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2017/03/09/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-speech-oct-10-2002/

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists including Al Qaeda members.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. This is a very difficult vote.

This is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should it be hard, but I cast it with conviction.

[mr_lebowski]

57. Hillary is the one CLOSEST to have voted outright 'for war'

And I think a lot it had to do with the claims that Bill had made as President about Saddam, the missile strikes, Wag The Dog, the sanctions that killed thousands, etc.

But this (missing in your summary) section of her Senate vote speech makes fairly clear what she was hoping for:

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

<snip>

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, 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 way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

IIRC, the Cincinnati Speech referred to is one where Bush very earnestly claimed that he wanted inspectors in place as opposed to going to war, which happened shortly before the vote.

[CentralMass]

51. The had a binary choice, Yes, or No. They chose Yes.

[thesquanderer]

6. Perhaps Biden's Achilles heel... trusting the other side to do what's right.

I'm afraid he still does.

[Kahuna7]

9. The weapons inspectors were on the ground. Who knew bushco would

pull them out because they weren't finding any WMDs? I wouldn't have trusted bushco in the first place. I vigorously protested that invasion. But I didn't have to cast a senate vote for it.

[oasis]

36. Hans Blix and UN weapons inspectors are convieniently ignored

by those so eager to unload on Senate Dems who voted for IWR.

[marylandblue]

40. They were saying there were no WMDs at the same time BushCo said there were.

Maybe that should have been a tipoff?

[oasis]

44. Bush/Cheney brushed Blix aside and went to war. There was

constant deception by the Bush administration from the beginning. Bush ordered Blix out of Iraq and started "Shock and Awe" with no regard to any previous mutual understanding with congress.

That's no fault of HRC, Kerry, Edwards, Biden or any other Democrat who signed onto IWR on condition of war being the "last resort".

[marylandblue]

45. I believed then and believe now it was a serious error in judgement.

I knew Bush was lying based solely on publicly available information and so they either knew or should have known. I believe they made their decision for political reasons because people were afraid and believed Bush.

It also turned out to be a political miscalculation as some Democratic voters held the vote against Kerry, Clinton and now Biden. I voted for both Kerry and Clinton in their primaries, so I didn't hold it against them.

This time around, with many good candidates, I think there are better choices than Biden. I still think he doesn't have good judgement in part for that vote, but also because of things he has said and done as recently as today.

[Honeycombe8]

10. If anyone has any doubt that the Senators knew what they were voting on...here are some speeches:

Teddy Kennedy is at about 7:25. "Make no mistake...this resolution gives the President the power to go it alone" (wage war against Iraq)

Biden is at 16:20. It's short.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?173141-1/senate-session&start=1023

[mr_lebowski]

13. These are not mutually exclusive ideas ...

You can admit the resolution gives Bush the power to decide to go to war, that is true, that's exactly what it did. Obviously.

That's not the same as 'voting to go to war'. Sorry, it's just not. Not when Bush was claiming at the time that his goal was increased weapons inspections to avert war.

Should they have known he was full of shit? Arguably, yes. But it was not casting a vote to go to war.

[BlueWI]

19. The resolution is publicly available.

It authorized the use of armed forces by the president in the conflict with Iraq, at a moment where belligerence toward Iraq was signaled consistently by the Bush administration and its surrogates.

It's splitting hairs to say it wasn't a vote to go to war, IMO. But the text of the resolution is there for anyone to verify the decision of the Congressional majority to allow President Bush to claim authority to use force, which he promptly used, with disastrous and avoidable consequences.

I think that the least we can do is to insist, as voters and citizens, that our leaders share with us lessons learned and how they would handle similar situations that arise in the future, with states such as North Korea and Iran having the potential to be future instances of hard choices.

[marylandblue]

42. That's a good point. I wish Biden would say the open-ended and conditional resolution was a mistake

And as President, he will never seek such a resolution. He would only ask for war resolution as a last resort and only when he actually intends to use force.

[BlueWI]

56. Agreed.

I believe too that this would be a substantive way to go forward on this issue.

[Metatask]

11. It was a vote for war.

Not buying the excuses. I knew back then they wanted to go to war. They thought It would be quick and easy and then they could roll on to iran.
I still voted for obama even though joe was on the ticket. Would probably vote for biden over trump. Still wont accept any bs about making a mistake from anybody who voted yes on that.

[George II]

38. "Probably"?

[sheshe2]

39. Probably?

Would probably vote for biden over trump.

[ehrnst]

49. You would consider not voting for Biden if it was Biden/Trump?

[MrsCoffee]

52. Bookmarking.

Probably? Holy moly.

[Politicub]

14. Thanks for the trivia package.

I feel enlightened.

It is going to be an uphill battle to convince voters who negatively heavily weight the Iraq war vote as they make a decision.

[BlueWI]

20. So the sum total of lessons learned from that vote is

'my bad'?

The vote had a level of historic significance like few others.

I get that Biden has support, despite the vote, just like Kerry and Clinton did, both of whom I voted for in the GE.

But I do not get the dismissals of the importance of the issue and the vote. The level of consequences that resulted from the vote and the failure to stand up to the president speak volumes about the state of our governance at that time.

What has changed, other than the Democratic supporters of the authorization are sorry now? I would hope so.

How will they vote next time?

[Politicub]

22. More than 6,000 American soldiers are dead and 50,000 plus were wounded because

of the Iraq war.

I don’t think the vote should be dismissed. It haunts this country. It rises above the level of which a trite apology will suffice.

The revisionist context of the OP makes me angry, honestly. The vote will and should continue to haunt Biden.

[Autumn]

30. Half a million Iraqis also died in Bush's war. Damn right it haunts this country.

They knew what was going on and they ignored it when they voted to give Bush the power to wage war against Iraq. If we here at DU knew Bush and Cheney were going to war just from watching them on the news they damn well had to have known since they were in office and privy to more information than DUers had.

[BannonsLiver]

21. W and Cheney would have found a way around the congress anyway.

People forget in the winter of 2003 we were still locked in the throes of the 9/11 hysteria and jingoistic nuttery. They could have gotten away with anything.

[mr_lebowski]

32. Yup and Bush/Cheney were making noise that if they decided war was needed

That they would simply use the Resolution that allowed to them to attack Afghanistan.

Dems were basically stuck because of the way the Bushies played it, and as you said the 9/11 hysteria still in effect.

If Dems had said 'No' Bush would've turned around and claimed Dem's lack of unity weakened his hand, making it so Saddam didn't comply with Bush's demands, so THEY actually forced Bush's hand and that's why we're at War. AND our troops resolve is now compromised because Congress didn't give Bush the power to launch it.

They had their whole F'ING PLAN laid out, and YES the Dems IRL KNEW, just as we knew here on DU at the time.

But they made the political calculation that made the most sense at that time.

[NYMinute]

37. Exactly

But if it helps their candidate, they will beat this dead horse with gusto and weaken the Democratic party.

[elleng]

28. Thanks

[Princetonian]

29. Let's focus on beating Chump.

Anyone who focuses on this vote is stirring the pot to divide and conquer Democraic voters.

[peggysue2]

33. People seem to forget public sentiment at the time

After 9/11, I think most Americans were shell-shocked by the attacks. Bush & Co capitalized on that, propagandized, beat the drum until a good 60+% of the public were in favor of the invasion. That turned, of course, but at the time the public wanted to retaliate, even though Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks. Anecdotally, I vividly recall social occasions where my husband and I were the only ones in the room who thought the invasion would not end well, was basically a stupid idea. I also recall your patriotism was questioned if you weren't an enthusiastic supporter. Freedom Fries, anyone? Yeah, even the French were dissed.

At the time, the landscape was very different. As for Colin Powell's involvement? What a huge disappointment! And Powell looked as if he wanted to be anywhere else that day but the UN. I remember I watched that presentation and thought: what a load of crap and the man knows it, too.

The past is never as simple as we pretend it is. Thanks for the link!

[betsuni]

41. Yes! You were called unpatriotic and asked why you hate America.

It was lonely being against the war. My favorite online group was never the same because the majority pro-war members said the most vicious hateful things to the minority anti-war people and that's something you don't forget. It was like 2016 that way on some forums if you didn't hate Hillary Clinton. The propaganda both times was especially successful.

I vaguely remember a congresswoman who voted against the war saying she knew she'd lose the next election because of that. I'd hate to be in that position. It's easy to be objective, seeing it on TV, far away from Washington, and know what's going to happen and who's lying. Being inside that bubble makes it more complicated.