Kerry defends Biden on Iraq War, says Bush administration 'broke their word 😎

[Iamaartist]

MUSCATINE, Iowa — Former Secretary of State John Kerry defended former Vice President Biden over the Iraq War, saying that the George W. Bush administration “broke their word with respect to how they would proceed” in Iraq.

“The fact is that we were promised by a president, by an administration, that they were going to do it as a last resort after exhausting diplomacy, that if they have to go to war it would be with a coalition that they built broadly, and that they would do it only in conjunction with our allies,” Kerry said Friday. “It didn't have to happen; it was a war of choice.”


“It was a mistake to have trusted them, I guess, and we paid a high price for it,” Kerry added. “But that was not voting for the war.”

Senator Bernie Sanders has recently escalated his attacks on Biden over the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“Joe Biden voted and helped lead the effort for the war in Iraq, the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in the modern history of this country,” Sanders said in an interview with CNN earlier this month.

Kerry argued against Sanders’ characterization that Biden voted “for” a war against Iraq.


I think he knows full well, as a lot of other people do, that there was a difference in people who felt they needed to give a president the leverage to be able to get Saddam Hussein back to the table, without having to go to war, and that that vote was unfortunately structured in a way that it was sort of either-or,” Kerry said. “But that didn't mean you were in favor when the administration made the decision of actually going to war.”


Thanks John Kerry..... Go Joe. 😎




https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1114111

[David__77]

1. It was a mistake to have trusted them.

I agree.

[Iamaartist]

2. Bush's War

Bush would have gone to war regardless voting yes or no ...he had to finish Daddy's War

Reason Daddy war

And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."
Among other excuses he had...

[David__77]

3. I think that's true.

...

[Martin Eden]

24. I don't think that's true

GW might have started the war without the authority given him by the IWR. Or not. We can never know for sure.

But of this I am fairly certain:

The 2003 invasion of Iraq had little if anything to do with GW's personal desire to finish what his daddy started. It was, first and foremost, about the neocon agenda to remake the Middle East by force.

Dick Cheney and many other influential neocons held key positions as policymakers in the Bush43 administration. The PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" became the blueprint for the official National Security Strategy.

This was not the brainchild of Dim Son. It was a preexisting agenda by those who believed (with the USA as the unchallengeable superpower in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union) we had an historic opportunity to use our military might to remake the Middle East by force -- and to make the 21st century a New American Century.

This was not the whim of some idiot POtuS drunk with power. It was the delusion of neoconservatives with their "think tanks" and allies in the fossil fuel industry -- a deadly mixture of flawed ideology, political ambition, and greed.

[PatSeg]

27. I think you are both right

For Bush, there were a lot of Daddy issues in involved and for Cheney and his neocon friends it was an opportunity to remake the Middle East and make a lot of money for their war profiteer friends. I think Cheney took advantage of Bush's need to finish Daddy's war and be as good, if not better a president than his war hero father.

[karynnj]

71. Not to mention, had there been no prior resolution, there might have been one after the attack

n 2002, Howard Dean said he favored Biden/Lugar, the SFRC alternative to the IWR. In fact, the problem with BOTH resolutions was that Bush had the ability to take the country to war - even with the war powers act - by claiming an "imminent" threat (sound familiar) and the requirement was that he would have to go to Congress within 60 days. The ONLY real thing the IWR did (and Biden/Lugar would have done) was to enable the Republicans to blame the Democrats as being in favor of the war. However, if the US had soldiers on the ground, do you think it would be difficult to vote no.

In fact, there was a resolution labeled "Expressing the support and appreciation of the Nation for the President and the members of the Armed forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom." on March 21 - about a week after the President took the country to war ... AND BERNIE SANDERS VOTED FOR IT. https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/104/all-actions?overview=closed&q={%22roll-call-vote%22:%22all%22}&KWICView=false

It is very likely that results of a resolution then would have been as universally supported.

[Buzz cook]

88. Perhaps

But if the democrats had gone the other way to full obstruction it might have delayed things long enough for Hans Blix to finish his investigation and report back to the UN.
Remember that every cause given for the invasion was proven to be false or questionable before the invasion. The Democratic party decided not to take advantage of that.

[Martin Eden]

19. Especially since their case for war was a pack of lies

I joined DU in 2002 before the vote which gave GW Bush authority to invade Iraq.

We knew about PNAC and the agenda to invade Iraq which predated 9-11.

We knew about the half-truths and lies being spewed to hype WMD and conflate Iraq with al Qaeda.

We knew in October 2002 that a vote for the IWR was a green light for Cheney/Bush to launch their war of choice.

If John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton along with nearly half the Dems in Congress didn't know all that, then they weren't qualified for the offices they held.

Much more likely in the post 9-11 environment was a political calculation to appear "strong" on national security before the election -- or being on board with the neocon agenda of remaking the Middle East by force.

To actually "trust" Cheney/Bush and their pack of lying warmongers was at best unforgivably naive.

Since October 2002 I have held to my vow that those who voted for the IWR would never get my vote in a Democratic primary.

However, I might break that vow and vote for Joe Biden in this primary if I'm convinced he has the best chance to beat Trump.

Winning this election is absolutely imperative.

[redqueen]

38. ALL OF THIS RIGHT HERE!

Fucksake I can't say in strong enough terms it is to see that the old spirit of DU is still here.

We didn't used to damn people for calling out centrists. Now I see people saying the word 'centrist' is a term used by "our enemy" and "the Russians".

[loyalsister]

68. YES!!!!

My appreciation for Howard Dean and Barack Obama originated with their opposition to the IRW. All of the dire unintended consequences that were predicted during the debate has come to be.

[karynnj]

73. Howard Dean was not as antiwar as you think

In 2002, Howard Dean said he favored Biden/Lugar, the SFRC alternative to the IWR. Also, on Face the Nation in Fall 2002 before the vote, Dean actually spoke of the type of resolution he would have written. It was worse than either the IWR or Biden/Lugar as it defined a red line that would take the country to war. (Dean never included that interview - where he did a good job explaining his position on gun control - on his web site in 2004)

Not to mention, Howard Dean even years later spoke of supporting the first Gulf War, which really was to secure our access to oil. Kerry and Biden voted against that war. Kerry actually read antiwar poetry in his Senate speeches. Years later in 2009, Jimmy Carter came to the SFRC that Kerry then chaired to speak mainly about climate change. Senator Lugar spoke of importance of moving away from fossil fuels - pointing out that GHWB followed the "Carter doctrine" when going to war with Iraq. He then defined the Carter doctrine as considering our access to oil as a national security need while working to move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. No one on the SFRC or Jimmy Carter corrected him when Lugar explicitly said that that war was for oil.

[loyalsister]

93. He saw through Bush and Cheney

I wasn't fooled, Dean wasn't fooled, Obama wasn't fooled, Barbara Lee wasn't fooled, nor were many other Democrats, but the wise elder statesmen were? It still smells.

[karynnj]

99. Dean did not have to vote -- or Obama, for that matter

In 2004 Joe Trippi positioned him as THE antiwar candidate. As I said, his position in fall 2002 was not more anti war than either Kerry or Biden. In fact, he said he favored Biden/Lugar - the SFRC bill. He also spoke of the resolution he thought was needed.

However, in 2004, he had the advantage of not having had to vote. In addition, John Kerry, who spoke against the rush to war in January 2004 - something he cared enough to do even as he dealt with cancer treatments. One interesting thing is that in 2004, KERRY, not Dean, got the higher percent of people who said they were against the war.

Biden worked hard with the SFRC on Biden/Lugar trying to push Bush to go to war only as a last resort. He was also involved in fighting for language in the IWR to make it clearer. I actually think the worst they can be accused of is having too much self confidence that they could push Bush to a better outcome. They couldn't - and this discussion is the price they pay for that. (Especially for Kerry, with his history, that is a tough cost. )

[karynnj]

72. Kerry is not speaking of being misled on intelligence, but on what Bush would do with the authority

Looking back at 2002, most foreign policy Democrats were strongly opposing Bush using the Afghanistan resolution and unilaterally going to war against Iraq. In the summer of 2002, they argued that Bush should go to the UN to get an international coalition and that he had to come to Congress. In the summer, it was clear that Bush was on the verge of starting a war.

In fact, the story could have worked out very differently. Bush did go to the UN and Bush did ask the Congress to give him a resolution. After the vote, the UN through the IAEA sent inspectors in and they were given permission to look anywhere. Iraq even destroyed their most technologically advanced missiles after it was determined that they had a larger range than allowed (only when they carried no payload). If the sole goal of the Bush administration, had REALLY been concern of WMD , these inspections, perhaps followed by on ongoing inspection regime could have been the outcome.

The problem with the resolutions was that they should have offered support for the inspections et al and NOT given the authority when at that point many said in their speeches that there was not yet proof. However, Bush could and would have said there was an imminent danger and committed troops. The War Powers Act would then have required that he come to the Congress within 60 days.

In fact, there was a resolution labeled "Expressing the support and appreciation of the Nation for the President and the members of the Armed forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom." on March 21 - about a week after the President took the country to war ... AND BERNIE SANDERS VOTED FOR IT. https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/104/all-actions?overview=closed&q={%22roll-call-vote%22:%22all%22}&KWICView=false

[Martin Eden]

77. It was obvious what Bush would do with the authority

When the IWR passed, war was inevitable.

If Kerry thought Bush would act in good faith, he was a fool.

[karynnj]

78. Given that they had delayed him from the summer to the fall

and gotten him to go to the UN and to Congress, my guess is that both of them had to consider what path would be more likely to lead to war.

Bush not getting the resolution could have still gone to war -- claiming an imminent danger and then possibly getting a resolution with troops on the ground. In 2005, the Downing Street memos actually backed that that would happen.

With the resolution and the inspectors in, there was some chance that war could be avoided.

[Martin Eden]

90. "With the resolution and the inspectors in, there was some chance that war could be avoided."

The IWR gave Bush the imprimatur of Congress to launch his war. What he would have done without Congressional authority is a matter of speculation. What he did with it is a matter of fact.

There was only one imminent threat in all of this, and it came from the UN inspectors who were given wide access to sites in Iraq. They were already reaching the conclusion that the vast infrastructure needed for a nuclear weapons program simply didn't exist, and if they were allowed to complete their mission the rationale for this war would have evaporated along with the "mushroom clouds" Bush and his pack of war criminals told us to fear.

That was the imminent threat that precipitated the March 2003 invasion.

I doubt very much Bushco wanted the UN inspectors in Iraq. They wouldn't have gone that route unless they saw it as a political necessity to get the predetermined war of choice on which they were hell bent.

Once they had the IWR in their pocket, war was a foregone conclusion.

[Martin Eden]

79. The Democratic Party needs to be a big tent, to win elections

And as such, we need to treat everyone in our tent with respect.

That doesn't mean we can't be passionate about the issues and our preferred candidates, or speak uncomfortable truths, or have vigorous debates.

But we have to remember we're all on the same side, and resist the impulse to demonize diversity of opinion.

[Hortensis]

54. Kerry speaks truth. As for trust, Iraq was breaking out

and once again threatening surrounding countries and to resume genocide against two major ethnic groups within Iraq whom we'd kept safe and had a duty to continue to keep safe.

That was because Saddem Hussein knew Bush no longer had the authority to stop him. Congress gave Bush the power to continue our control, and Bush broke his word and invaded on false pretenses that took several months to gather partial proof to disprove.

Btw, for those who weren't there, every 2-3 weeks for the year before physical invasion, another retired expert, including First Gulf War coalition forces commander Normal Schwarzkopf, spoke out publicly against the lie of WMD, including on the evening news "everyone" watched in those days, but no one I spoke with seemed to notice or care. It seemed to me that a large majority of Americans wanted war, supported war, or were indifferent.

And that combination of public support is what I blame for Bush going renegade. He knew lack of voter opposition would let him get away with it.

[SMC22307]

55. Bingo. And not all Democrats trusted the warmongering Bush administration...

and voted accordingly. The problem is with those who *did.*

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

65. EXACTLY!! BUT THERE WAS BERNIE, SHOWING EXCELLENT JUDGMENT, IN NOT TRUSTING THOSE ASSHOLES!!

Why is it so hard for some to admit they made a MISTAKE?!

Joe, just needs to be honest with folks about the positions he took and who's side he was on... that's not too much to ask of our politicians who ask us to put our trust in them!!


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

[karynnj]

70. It is more complicated than that - they wanted Bush to have the leverage to get the inspectors back

Remember the vote was in October 2002 - and inspectors had not been in Iraq since they left when the Clinton administration warned them to leave before bombing Iraq.

Note that what Kerry said, which is what he has said since 2002 is that they wanted to give Bush the leverage needed to get the inspectors in. To understand what was meant by giving Bush leverage for diplomacy, consider that in 2014, the ONLY reason Kerry was able to negotiate a deal that removed 1200 tons of chemical weapons from Syria was that Russia and its client state, Syria, were concerned that President Obama had threatened to bomb Syria because of their use of chemical weapons. Obama HAD spoken to Putin earlier about the weapons, but until there was a threat of war neither Syria or Russia were moving forward on this.

After that vote, the inspectors went into Iraq and found no WMD. It actually seemed in November and December that war might actually be avoided. Republicans - and unfortunately some on our left ignore that there were 5 months between the vote and Bush taking the country to war.

Kerry has himself said his vote was wrong in 2005. However, even in 2003, before the war he said that if Bush attacked, he would not have exhausted the diplomacy and that it would not be a war of last resort. As a Catholic, that means it fails the test as a just war. (Kerry in 2006 very explicitly said that when he spoke at Pepperdine - https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801046_pf.html

The only thing I fault Biden for is that - unless I missed it he did not speak out during those 5 months against going to war as Kerry did. As someone protesting the rush to war, I wish that he would have, but it is clear in retrospect that he and likely everyone in DC could see that nothing they could said would change the likelihood of there being a war.

In 2002, Howard Dean said he favored Biden/Lugar, the SFRC alternative to the IWR. In fact, the problem with BOTH resolutions was that Bush had the ability to take the country to war - even with the war powers act - by claiming an "imminent" threat (sound familiar) and the requirement was that he would have to go to Congress within 60 days. The ONLY real thing the IWR did (and Biden/Lugar would have done) was to enable the Republicans to blame the Democrats as being in favor of the war. However, if the US had soldiers on the ground, do you think it would be difficult to vote no.

In fact, there was a resolution labeled "Expressing the support and appreciation of the Nation for the President and the members of the Armed forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom." on March 21 - about a week after the President took the country to war ... AND BERNIE SANDERS VOTED FOR IT. https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/104/all-actions?overview=closed&q={%22roll-call-vote%22:%22all%22}&KWICView=false

Where Bernie has badly over stepped the truth is that Democrats in the summer of 2002 argued that Bush could not use the Afghanistan authority to go to war in Iraq and that he should go to the UN to get international support. At the time of the vote, Bush had (obviously) come to Congress and had also gone to the UN. (later the UK, Spain and US argued that they did not need the UN) The truth of what the SFRC Democrats did was likely that they had hoped that by delaying a war they could avoid it - but all they did was delay in 5 months. This was important because it was in that interval that the world learned it was unlikely that there were WMD.

To say that Biden was a leader on the war is a lie. For one, he - and all the Democrats - were not in the position to change the President's decision.

[David__77]

83. I don't think it was the right position to take.

I get the argument that military threat can be a tool to employ. Voting for Bush to have that tool wasn’t the right move, in my opinion. A lot of Democrats didn’t support that move, including Nancy Pelosi for instance.

All that said, my concern now is much more about current stands of candidates on foreign policy and use of military force.

[PADemD]

4. 15 February 2003 anti-war protests

On 15 February 2003, a coordinated day of protests started across the world in which people in more than 600 cities expressed opposition to the imminent Iraq War. It was part of a series of protests and political events that had begun in 2002 and continued as the war took place. Social movement researchers have described the 15 February protest as "the largest protest event in human history".[1]

According to BBC News, between six and ten million people took part in protests in up to sixty countries over the weekend of 15 and 16 February;[2]

Some of the largest protests took place in Europe. The protest in Rome involved around three million people, and is listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest anti-war rally in history. Madrid hosted the second largest rally with more than 1.5 million people protesting the invasion of Iraq; Mainland China was the only major region not to see any protests on that day, but small demonstrations, attended mainly by foreign students, were seen later.[3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests

Joe ignored the millions of people who protested the war.

[Sherman A1]

6. Yeah,

There is this.

It just rings up “No Sale” with me.

[Iamaartist]

7. Sanders doesnt have perfect voting record...

But it was just the cherry on top of a Sundae of bad international priorities that we saw Sanders endorse during the month of April.

In the last two weeks Sanders has called for regime change in Syria, praised Trump's North Korea policy, defended Ann Coulter, and now this

On April 9, shortly after President Donald Trump launched missiles at a Syrian airfield,

Yea right such perfect recond....on Sanders .he made many mistakes....I would not trust him as my president.

We could been dead from Nuke war...

[PADemD]

18. Links, please.

[BlueWI]

61. He voted against the IWR, along with a large number of Democrats.

Biden and Kerry voted to authorized a predictably disastrous conflict, ignoring their political base and showing poor instincts at a crucial time. The rationalizations for a mistake need to stop.

The best thing to do is to talk about what was learned, and move on.

[questionseverything]

98. the worst part of biden voting for the iraq war is

he still believes he can "work" with repubs

I do not think he learned anything

[David__77]

66. Sanders opposed Trump's 2017 attack against Syria.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1280218769

I think that was a good position.

[redqueen]

40. +1

Thank you for sharing this.

[karynnj]

76. You are ignoring that the vote was in October 2002 - that is February 2003 the war started in March

BUSH ignored the inspectors' results and those protests.

[Martin Eden]

95. I was at the Feb 15 protests in Chicago, where I heard Barack Obama speak.

The next month I took a long bus ride to Washington DC for the March 15 protest.

During the march a small group of counter-protesters started shouting SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! I started chanting along with them, but changed it to SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME! Others soon joined me, and we drowned them out with the new chant.

[ritapria]

5. Both John and Joe are reportedly good guys but

a vote Yes on the Iraq War Resolution gave Bush and Cheney the Constitutional Greenlight to launch the disastrous War in Iraq … Everyone knew this administration was on the warpath when John and Joe cast their fateful votes … Everyone …………...Bush and Cheney were so desperate to start this war , they put out a ridiculous cock and bull story that Saddam and Bin Laden were 9/11 conspirators … So many easily disproven lies - fed to Judith Miller and Fox News ...Joe and John placed faith in such men ? ... Everyone knew this gang was hot to trot go to war …...

[jpak]

8. Hillary too

And your point is?

[RandiFan1290]

16. She lost too. nt

[MyOwnPeace]

33. Gotta' ask............

What will you do if Bernie does not get the nomination?
Staying home?
Voting for IQ45?

Not meaning to be critical, just want to get a sense of your position - we've seen this happen in the past with voters not pleased with their party's candidate.

[RandiFan1290]

34. I will vote for the nominee

Like I did for Hillary

Nice try.

[MyOwnPeace]

43. "Nice try?"

What, is reading difficult for you?
It was a simple question also followed by the statement "not meaning to be difficult....."

Any other interpretation is your own and I really asked no questions about that.

[redqueen]

41. Exactly.

It was unquestionably an abdication of their responsibility.

[jaxexpat]

9. "broke their word" indeed. for the umpteenth time and counting.....

How many decades must pass until the default, by unassailable logic, is to mistrust them at every turn?
The underlying truth of republicans is always fraud. Can a single incidence of plain honest dealing and self evident integrity be found?
Democracy is a sublime and rational concept. The justice of it sensed in the marrow. Surely simple injustice is at least detectable.

[Iamaartist]

10. Keep bashing or smears wont change my mind

I am sticking with Joe... Joe's supporters know who is best for president..and will stick with him to the end....in primary ..

[BeyondGeography]

11. One for the turnip truck files

[betsuni]

12. K&R

[Iamaartist]

13. Bush's War

There were 82 Democratic representatives who voted for the Iraq War. There were 209 Democrats at the time so 40 percent of them were for the War.

GOP control..wins get rid of GOP cons..

[Raven123]

14. Well said John Kerry

This is a hot topic and certainly Biden, Clinton and others were on the wrong side of history, while Sanders is on the right side on this one. Kerry’s statement aligns with my memory of the debate over the resolution.

[Iamaartist]

17. Kerry Statement is well said..thank-you

We seen Kerry here in Mich when running for president great guy...
.

[RandiFan1290]

15. "We trusted them"

How naive

[Locrian]

62. yeah that's a hot one

Voting for it because you wanted to is pretty bad

Voting for it because of a "promise" - yeah, right up there too. In fact - it's such an obvious political calculation that it was a decision to "try to have it both ways" that puts it in the "you can't trust any of them" category

[oldsoftie]

20. Dick Cheney lied to Bush and the rest of the world to get that war.

Why do you think you NEVER see Bush anywhere with Cheney? Because HE knows he was played too

[usaf-vet]

23. I have alway wondered if Bush wasn't simply the useful idiot to Cheney, Rumsfeld & neocons.

That doesn't mean I excuse Bush for his role in invading Iraq.

Colin Powell did not fare well in that run-up to the war in Iraq. I have always felt he could have stopped it if he had tried.
I'm sure many have and will disagree with regards to Powell.

[PatSeg]

29. I agree

and I just said something similar on this thread. Cheney and his neocon friends encouraged an invasion of Iraq and took advantage of a rather naive and unworldly GW Bush. I don't excuse Bush either, but he had a lot of help in his push for war.

[oldsoftie]

44. Powell also has no use for Cheney. But he has worked with W since then.

I certainly think Bush should have been able to see through it all, but the fact that Powell was also duped makes me feel a bit differently. Colin Powell was no fool. But to be handed reams of bullshit presented as fact by people you trust would have an imapct. I think it would with ANY of us
Dick cheney, to me, is the major stain on our foreign policy history & the cause of so much of the grief in the ME

[usaf-vet]

67. Cheney's goal WEALTH! The rest is all fancy trimming. Reports have said he has made BILLIONS.

Blood money. Other peoples blood his money.

[Iamaartist]

25. Dick Cheney was another con with Bush

Would not had to worry with. that war.if Bush didn't rig the election that year...Just to finish Daddy's war..GOP only knows how to win is to cheat

[Voltaire2]

36. That gets Bush off the hook.

So like no, Bush also knew it was bullshit

[melman]

45. So now Bush gets a pass too?

Holy Fucking Hell.

[oldsoftie]

64. Not a "pass", just pointing out who i think is the main culprit.

Why did Hillary and other Dems vote for the war? They were lied to. And the architect of the false information was Cheney not bush
I'm not holding the votes of Dems against them because they thought the intel was REAL

[SMC22307]

75. Other Dems knew they were being lied to and voted no.

They're the ones we should be listening to. Cheney had been in the public sphere for decades and was a known warmonger -- why would any Dem believe him?

[Iamaartist]

21. Bernie Sanders Seems to Have Forgotten a Few of His Votes

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-voting-history/

[Voltaire2]

37. Which one was for the Iraq war?

[karynnj]

80. Well, there was this vote

In fact, there was a resolution labeled "Expressing the support and appreciation of the Nation for the President and the members of the Armed forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom." on March 21 - about a week after the President took the country to war ... AND BERNIE SANDERS VOTED FOR IT. https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/104/all-actions?overview=closed&q={%22roll-call-vote%22:%22all%22}&KWICView=false


By the way, that very vote was used on DU to suggest that Kerry was ok with going to war in 2003 - in spite of his Georgetown speech. Note - Kennedy voted for it too.

[Voltaire2]

85. That is not an authorization for war.

[Eric J in MN]

22. The Bush administration was treating everything

...as a reason to go to war with Iraq.

Also, Joe Biden said in 1998 that the only way to deal with Saddam trying to get WMD was war. https://theintercept.com/2020/01/07/joe-biden-iraq-war-history/

[BlueMTexpat]

26. Kerry NEVER should have

trusted them either!

BOTH he and Biden should have known MUCH better!

After all, Kerry was VERY much involved in the Iran-Contra investigations and the Bush II Admin was literally littered with those who had been involved in that and managed to slither their way out, due to pardons from Bush I, etc. Was Kerry completely unconscious of that?

How is it that my two MD Senators AND Ted Kennedy, among others, were able to understand that Dems were effectively voting for war with Iraq?

And how is it that Hillary Clinton, who was a junior Senator in 2002 from NY, whose major city had been devastated by 9-11 and who did NOT have anywhere near the foreign policy "expertise" of either Biden or Kerry, was held to a MUCH higher standard on this issue in 2016 than either Biden in 2020 or Kerry in 2004?

There is one word that covers this, IMO: misogyny.

[loyalsister]

69. My only reluctant presidential votes were cast in 2004 and 2016

I was seeing Kerry in a better light after his tenure as sec. of state. But that he defends this vote, and channels energy to supporting someone who has embraced policies that have perpetuated white supremacy and dismantling the social safety net is really disappointing. I would be more inclined to name white supremacist patriarchy values as the explanation.

[karynnj]

81. He is NOT defending his vote - he is explaining his and Biden's votes

As to white supremacy, Biden is not a white supremacist - and has the largest AA support.

As to Kerry, he had both Ayanna Pressely and Setti Warren as top Senate aides - Warren was his Chief of Staff. (Kerry was even picked as the Godfather for his baby.)

[loyalsister]

94. Because they known white people suck

And don't trust us to support someone who has a an actual anti-racist history. If they can't have a full on racist at least let them have a white supremacist enabler who was happy to lock them up and gut social program spending along with Strom Thrumond, Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell, etc.

[karynnj]

96. How do you get that Elizabeth Warren has an anti-racist history and John Kerry or Joe Biden don't?

Have you ever read the full 1971 testimony of John Kerry before the SFRC. In addition to speaking against the war, he spoke of how it was disproportionately minorities who paid the price. In addition to war itself, he was speaking of how many returning soldiers were not getting the help they needed. In that, he was not speaking of the white privileged John Kerry with his fiancee, his family and his friends who had all support he needed. That, and having key African American senior Senate staff - long before it was an issue and even though he is from a mostly white state. (PS Warren's campaign manager started with John Kerry, who gave him his first chance.)

As to Biden, I don't think President Obama, who actually knew him well, thought the same thing as you did.

Personally, I would give ALL the Democratic candidates credit for not being racist. It is not helpful to blow up details that do not represent who the person is. Biden did not gut social programming spending.

[loyalsister]

97. The 1994 crime bill was

Last edited Sun Jan 12, 2020, 06:14 PM - Edit history (1)

topped only by welfare "reform" as a deliberately racialized narrative intended to appeal to white conservative leaning voters.
The ones who saw no problem with government spending for their own GI Bills and FHA loans or even welfare until after the Civil Rights act when it became available to everyone.
Joe Biden was all in when Reagan was pushing the welfare queen narrative.

"We are all too familiar with the stories of welfare mothers driving luxury cars and leading lifestyles that mirror the rich and famous," the column read. "Whether they are exaggerated or not, these stories underlie a broad social concern that the welfare system has broken down — that it only parcels out welfare checks and does nothing to help the poor find productive jobs."

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-warned-welfare-mothers-driving-luxury-cars-1988-column-2019-8?fbclid=IwAR2ImSTTx3POnqzGkDvbnFO4Rqt3PXndkRn0C1QVOKkeRTPSuF8WGs7L4pY

Elizabeth Warren is talking about black infant mortality and knows the history. It started to increase with the anti-welfare initiatives and racialized narrative which pathologizes blackness and devalues black grief, pain and trauma.

[Demsrule86]

104. Warren became a Republican in 96 her words...she was a Republican during the Reagan years/remember

'welfare queens' ...spare me. Biden and Kerry have a great record on civil rights ...Warren not so much. I have no doubt both she and Sanders support civil rights but they don't have the record Kerry and Biden both have. And did you know the violence against women act was in that crime bill? By the way, Sanders also voted for the crime bill and ran on it as late as 2006...nice try though.

[Demsrule86]

100. Thanks for sharing...really.

[Iamaartist]

28. Bush's War

Everybody was worried about weapons of mass destruction at that time was scary thought...what reason they had was up to them...and I trust both ....not one candidate didn't make mistake in life
Nobodys perfect...though life

[PatSeg]

30. John Kerry is an excellent spokesperson

for Biden to have on his side.

[Iamaartist]

31. K&R ....😎 Lucky to have him on Joe's side

[PatSeg]

32. There are so many times

when it is better to have a respected and credible person defend you or praise you. Otherwise it can appear like you are just an apologist who is full of him/herself.

[Voltaire2]

35. Well of course. Kerry was just as wrong on it

and refused to just simply admit he was wrong.

[kacekwl]

39. Anyone who experienced 9/11

Was angry beyond angry and the Cheney administration took advantage of the anger and used lies and propaganda and patriotic pressure to get the war they wanted. I don't blame anyone who supported the wars because of this. If shortly thereafter the truth started to come out and you still gave your support for Bush and company, that's on you. We were lied to at a time when you wouldn't expect it but should have not been surprised.

[BlueWI]

106. The whole point of leadership is making the right decision

whether or not it has public support. Plenty of Democrats and 15 million protesters globally saw through the ruse and we're on the right side of history. Kerry and Biden, not so much.

Admit your mistake, mention the lessons learned, and move on. That would be better than post hoc excuses.

[Kahuna7]

42. Exactly. Nobody voted "for" a war. The votes were conditioned on criteria for proof

that the bush admin agreed to, then promptly, as soon as they got the authorization, blew past and started their war of choice.

Of course those of us who protested and did all we could to avoid the invasion, never trusted bush in the first place and felt confident that he would lie and do what he intended to do.

[Iamaartist]

46. K&R I agree Bush would have done it anyway....with or not permission

[melman]

53. "felt confident that he would lie and do what he intended to do"

Yeah same here.


So how come you and I had it figured out but John Kerry and Joe Biden didn't?

[Kahuna7]

56. Optics. Pure and simple. You have Colin Powell

vouching for it at the UN, as ridiculous as that was. The UN security council members were rolling their eyes at Powell's nonsensical presentation.

So, as usual, they use high profile black officials, Powell and Rice, to vouch for it. And it would look very bad for anyone to suspect such "respected" officials.

[melman]

58. Oh so you're saying they did have it figured out

But went along with it anyway because "optics".


Okay. Hardly a profile in courage but okay.

[Kahuna7]

59. I know. I have to be honest. Optics went a long way. However they did

try to get weapons inspections, but of course, when none were found, dubya kicked the inspectors out and began, "shock and awe."

[Voltaire2]

86. Lulzd.

[melman]

47. Outrageous

[Iamaartist]

48. Dems who voted...who cares wrong or right..and I like Adam Schiff...

House Democrats who voted for the Iraq War still in office
1. Adam Schiff (D-California)*
2. Brad Sherman (D-California)*
3. Mike Thompson (D-California)*
4. Sanford Bishop (D-Georgia)*
5. Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland)*
6. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts)
7. Stephen Lynch (D-Massachusetts)*
8. Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota)*
9. Bill Pascrell (D-New Jersey)*

11. Carolyn Maloney (D-New York)*
12. Eliot Engel (D-New York)*
13. Nita Lowey (D-New York)*
14. Gene Green (D-Texas)*
15. Adam Smith (D-Washington)*
16. Ron Kind (D-Wisconsin)*
Senate Democrats who voted for the Iraq War still in office
17. Dianne Feinstein (D-California)*
18. Tom Carper (D-Delaware)*
19. Bill Nelson (D-Florida)*(not there)
20. Chuck Schumer (D-New York)
21. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington


Just some....listed

[NYMinute]

50. Joe Crowley and Bill Nelson are no longer there nt

[Iamaartist]

52. Thank-you ........

[NYMinute]

49. Thank you Sen Kerry. You're a real soldier. nt

[Iamaartist]

51. Would you hold it against Adam Schiff if he ran for president...in the future ...heck no

[questionseverything]

107. depends on who he ran against

[The Valley Below]

57. Kerry, Biden, and HRC made the right vote, for the right reasons.

[Iamaartist]

60. I agree...and I trust their judgement.....

[Voltaire2]

87. In upside down and backwards world.

[The Valley Below]

92. No, in a world where the United States has a role to play in exercising responsible leadership

and where shirking that responsibility though isolationism would be a gift to tyrants and despots around the globe.

We need wise statesmen like Obama, Biden, Kerry, and HRC at the helm.

Not neo-isolationists who echo the America First style isolationism of the 1930's. It was a mistake then (and now). FDR knew that. So does Joe Biden.

[Midwestern Democrat]

63. I like Biden and Kerry, but I've never been a spinner and I'm not going to pretend that I think

they made the right choice in voting for the IWR - I didn't then and certainly nothing that's transpired in the ensuing 17+ years has caused me to change my mind.

[Bummfuzzle]

74. Would have been nice if Kerry and Joe came out in 2016 and put that to rest.

Almost two decades ago, it is such an unintelligent argument today because all the circumstance of that time and the actual facts of the vote is not part of the argument, just who vote and Sanders didn't. Such a dishonest argument.

Would have been grand if others spoke up and took this on in 2016.

[karynnj]

84. Kerry was not allowed to be involved in politics in 2016

even though that had had to be very very hard for him.

[Bummfuzzle]

91. He was SOS. That is right. Thank you.

[totodeinhere]

89. I never trusted Shrub and his cronies. Why were so many Democrats naive enough to

trust them? I think it's perfectly valid to call out Democrats who went along with the lies.

[no_hypocrisy]

101. What I remember:

1. Bush/Shrub/* made an announcement to Saddam Hussein that he had to leave his own country in either 24 hours or after the week-end.

2. If Saddam Hussein was still in Iraq after 24 hours/the week-end, the U.S. military would invade.

3. Hussein didn't respond, but stayed in Iraq.

4. War ship and airplanes and bombs exploded, as promised.

5. The media treated the U.S. invasion like it was a video game with loops of footage of explosions with commentary.

[Bradical79]

103. I don't recall the week the war started

But I do recall the sales job for war leading up to all this. There was the debunked assertions that Iraq was involved with Al-Qaida, and 9/11. There was also the media tour trying to link Iraq with WMD development using the NYT article as a second source backing them up. Of course the source in the article was a White House official in the first place.

[Bradical79]

102. We knew they were lying before the war

There was no reason to take them at their word. It was foolish for anyone to do so. It was very very clear what they wanted to do.

[Gothmog]

105. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war and still won the primary. Can Joe Biden?

This silly attack did not work against Clinton. Why does sanders think that it will work now? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/08/hillary-clinton-voted-iraq-war-still-won-primary-can-joe-biden/

In months of debates, interviews and campaign appearances in the 2016 primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was unable to take down Hillary Clinton by attacking her vote for the Iraq War. Clinton was clearly the more hawkish of the two contenders, defending President Barack Obama’s handling of the war against the Islamic State and calling for a responsible drawdown in Afghanistan. Despite the Democratic Party’s staunch opposition to the war, Clinton won the nomination. She acknowledged the vote was a mistake, but also truthfully recounted that she understood President George W. Bush to be using the resolution to get the United Nations to buy into a joint resolution.

In 2020, Sanders is now making the same argument against former vice president Joe Biden, namely that his Iraq War vote is disqualifying. As Clinton did, Biden may point to his overall record on foreign policy under Obama (e.g., opposing the surge in Afghanistan or using sanctions and diplomacy to get the Iran nuclear deal). He also may attack Sanders as vulnerable — that is to say “unelectable” — because President Trump will easily tag him as weak on national security.....

In any case, Sanders’s critique might get him only so far, even with progressive voters. Biden plainly is skeptical of Trump’s rush to war now and fought in the Obama administration to stop further troop commitments. At worst (from the perspective of the average Democratic primary voter), one could say he was too trusting of Bush, became a war critic (although not immediately), showed his commitment to thoughtful internationalism under Obama and now seems fully capable of taking down Trump on his foreign policy blunders.

Voters are remarkably willing to judge candidates on what they are saying now as long as the candidate appears trustworthy and confident. Many candidates, to the frustration of opponents and/or media critics, have gotten away with changes in position or with past missteps. Voters tend to look at candidates in the present, assess their sincerity and demeanor, and then decide if they can trust them to do the right thing when the candidate is the decision-maker.

[Gothmog]

108. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war and still won the primary. Can Joe Biden?

This silly attack did not work against Clinton. Why does sanders think that it will work now? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/08/hillary-clinton-voted-iraq-war-still-won-primary-can-joe-biden/

In months of debates, interviews and campaign appearances in the 2016 primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was unable to take down Hillary Clinton by attacking her vote for the Iraq War. Clinton was clearly the more hawkish of the two contenders, defending President Barack Obama’s handling of the war against the Islamic State and calling for a responsible drawdown in Afghanistan. Despite the Democratic Party’s staunch opposition to the war, Clinton won the nomination. She acknowledged the vote was a mistake, but also truthfully recounted that she understood President George W. Bush to be using the resolution to get the United Nations to buy into a joint resolution.

In 2020, Sanders is now making the same argument against former vice president Joe Biden, namely that his Iraq War vote is disqualifying. As Clinton did, Biden may point to his overall record on foreign policy under Obama (e.g., opposing the surge in Afghanistan or using sanctions and diplomacy to get the Iran nuclear deal). He also may attack Sanders as vulnerable — that is to say “unelectable” — because President Trump will easily tag him as weak on national security.....

In any case, Sanders’s critique might get him only so far, even with progressive voters. Biden plainly is skeptical of Trump’s rush to war now and fought in the Obama administration to stop further troop commitments. At worst (from the perspective of the average Democratic primary voter), one could say he was too trusting of Bush, became a war critic (although not immediately), showed his commitment to thoughtful internationalism under Obama and now seems fully capable of taking down Trump on his foreign policy blunders.

Voters are remarkably willing to judge candidates on what they are saying now as long as the candidate appears trustworthy and confident. Many candidates, to the frustration of opponents and/or media critics, have gotten away with changes in position or with past missteps. Voters tend to look at candidates in the present, assess their sincerity and demeanor, and then decide if they can trust them to do the right thing when the candidate is the decision-maker.