Joe Biden, Senator from Citibank (oops, DELAWARE), to Run for President

horse. shit.

"At that first hearing I said, and I quote, "President Bush has stated his determination to
remove Saddam from power. And the view of many in Congress, they share that view,
and I am among them."
I also said as clearly as I could, and I quote, "If removing Saddam is the course we
pursue, it matters profoundly how we do it and what we do after we remove him, for
surely we will if we try."

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20030731.pdf

"Nine months ago, I voted with my colleagues to give the President of the United States
of America the authority to use force, and I would vote that way again today."

If you can sell yourself on the idea that he was trying to avert war, I admire your powers of self-hypnosis.

But it all just kind of proves my point about ignoring before the but - you say the vote was abhorrent but it wasn't really that bad. He wasn't actually in a position of power. He didn't really want to do it.

yeah, he did say that. surprise, mainstream democrat joe biden doesn't talk like dennis kucinich. responsibility for starting the war still rests with the bush administration, which (as i pointed out before) got into power in part because a lot of liberal/left-wing voters decided to withhold their vote from al gore, for a bunch of righteous-sounding reasons that seem like complete horseshit all these years later.

surprise, mainstream democrat joe biden doesn't talk like dennis kucinich.

Yeah, that’s one of the ways we can tell he sucks. But, uh, it directly contradicts your argument that he was trying to avert an invasion.

One wonders why those people voted for Nader in 2000. Future Iraq hawk and GOP convention speaker Joe Lieberman might have played a role?

no, "uh," it doesn't. what you call "my argument" is actually what the intercept article you cited argues -- that biden was trying (in an admittedly weak way) to stop the war. did you actually read the article before posting the link? if biden had just wanted to invade iraq, why didn't he just support bush, instead of trying to hold him to a stricter standard?

"one wonders why those people voted for nader in 2000." i don't know, maybe because people in every election year decide that it's really fun to pretend that there's no difference between the two candidates. after seeing what bush did to the country and the world, some of us have little patience for that shit.

is actually what the intercept article you cited argues

Biden's preferred war, then would have been... just as damaging and criminal. A real victory for humanity.

i don't know, maybe because people in every election year decide that it's really fun to pretend that there's no difference between the two candidates.

But hey, zero danger in 2020 of pissing on young and progressive voters or ignoring Latino voters.

"Give bush less of an excuse for attacking iraq" is your characterization of a "narrower authorization" - nothing else suggests that. As he himself states, he wasn't trying to avert an invasion. As I said, all that means is a different reason for invading Iraq - 'eliminate WMDs' instead of 'regime change.'
Biden's preferred war, then would have been... just as damaging and criminal. A real victory for humanity.
― Greta Van Show Feets BB (milo z), Friday, May 22, 2020 9:33 AM (three minutes ago)

here's the actual history you're ignoring:

Bush sought congressional support for his policies to convey to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, and the world, that the United States meant business. On Sept. 26 of that year, the White House submitted a draft resolution that Biden and others in Congress felt offered the president too expansive powers. Biden reached out to Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., probably the most respected foreign policy voice in the Senate, and they drafted an alternative resolution. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., soon got on board.

The Biden-Lugar-Hagel bill sought to bind the administration more closely to UN Security Council resolutions and to seek a further determination that the threat from Iraq was “so grave” that the use of force was necessary. ...

Few disputed that Iraq and Saddam were a concern. But Biden and others did not buy the imminence of the Iraqi threat and were concerned about a rush to war, including perhaps in support of a so-called "neoconservative" agenda to bring democracy to the Middle East. Biden’s resolution therefore sought to support a multilateral strategy while raising the bar for congressional approval of the use of force, if deemed necessary.

The political deck was stacked against Biden’s effort. Bush had three of the four congressional leaders on his side: Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., and House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo. Only Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., shared Biden’s reservations about the draft White House resolution.

Lott, in his memoir "Herding Cats," said Bush told him to “derail the Biden legislation and make sure its language never sees the light of day again.”

... Lott invited Lugar to helped draft the resolution, which he eventually did. But not before Lugar encouraged Biden to try to get a committee vote on Biden-Lugar-Hagel.

Biden, in his memoir "Promises to Keep," describes his frustration in getting that vote. He and Daschle convened a meeting of Democrats, where a group on the far left would not even support voting the bill out of the committee. As he listened to the "principled" opposition of his colleagues, Biden said he was thinking, “Spare me the lectures. … I thought our objective is to do all we can to avoid an unnecessary war.” Biden-Lugar-Hagel died in the Foreign Relations Committee without a vote.

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/03/biden-vote-iraq-war-congress-iran-attack-iraq-sanders.html

Do you think a Biden administration would be better than a Trump II administration? If yes, vote Biden; if no, don't vote/vote Trump. Everything else is irrelevant. It was relevant in the primaries, but not now there's a binary choice.

#NEW Redfield & Wilton Strategies Polls (5/10-14):#Wisconsin:
Biden 48% (+10)
Trump 38%
.#Pennsylvania:
Biden 48% (+9)
Trump 39%
.#Michigan:
Biden 47% (+8)
Trump 39%
.#Arizona:
Biden 45% (+4)
Trump 41%
.#Florida:
Biden 45% (+2)
Trump 43%
.#NC:
Biden 45% (+2)
Trump 43%

— Political Polls (@Politics_Polls) May 22, 2020

A testy exchange at the end of the interview with @cthagod. Biden, clearly frustrated by the insinuation he hasn't done enough to help the black community, tells him "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump then you ain't black" https://t.co/7u1IReMy6B

— Marianna Sotomayor (@MariannaNBCNews) May 22, 2020

a testy conversation between rapists

“look, Black”

has anyone been denounced yet for posting the new york times's latest piece questioning tara reade's credibility?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/politics/tara-reade-credentials.html

in an ironic development that would be unspeakably traumatic for the victims, if true, this means verdicts where she served as an expert witness in sexual assault cases might be overturned

if she's been telling the truth about biden, maybe this would explain why she's waited so long to say anything, concerned the attention would uncover whatever happened here. if if if

important to point out that charlemagne is a colossal piece of shit and the fact that he has any kind of platform is an embarassment

uncle joe go on akademiks!!!!

maybe she's just a huckster

maybe karen hamilton is a huckster. who to believe

lol yeah it's a conspiracy in the registrar's office

Biden is not winning Wisconsin by 10 points

(I do think he's more likely than not to win in Wisconsin -- but it will probably be close.)

This shit is gonna narrow a lot by November

well, yeah

here's the actual history you're ignoring:

The "actual history" of his self-serving memoir written long after opinion had turned against Iraq.

Whereas his own words written in 2003 are aggressively pro-invasion, as are his public statements of the previous years.

This is untrue.

There’s probably no way of finding out who’s right

Yeah, like that would require Milo to read in good faith.

Not sure “good faith” means anything anymore, people use that phrase a lot, maybe try a different one

I'm good with it.

This is untrue.

"At that first hearing I said, and I quote, "President Bush has stated his determination to
remove Saddam from power. And the view of many in Congress, they share that view,
and I am among them."

Or here's Biden in the Senate:
“You and I believe, and many of us believe here, as long as Saddam is 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. You and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down."

Or again
"The chairman himself broke his agnosticism to say that “one thing is clear, these weapons must be dislodged from Saddam Hussein, or Saddam Hussein must be dislodged from power.”

Like... vote for Biden if you want to but don't pretend he wasn't aggressively in favor of the Iraq War.

in favor while knowing it was waged on false pretenses

I find it egregious that Joe Biden told black Americans they "ain't black," BUT

tbf I think what he means is Corn-Pop black

Tbh Joe Biden already told me not to vote for him but I’m willing to consider it if Nancy Pelosi pledges to start impeachment proceedings against him as soon as he takes office

Skip impeachment, hit him with the heart attack gun they built in case of President Bernie.

milo you've posted your biden hatred hundreds of times on this thread, but barely participated in the trump c/d thread. i'm curious why you'd devote so much more energy to biden

I also haven’t spent much time criticizing the internal politics of Turkmenistan. Clearly I’m a Turkmen agent.

It’s 8:41 here in Moscow, I hope you’re having a nice evening.

deflection

lol

joe biden goe on joe budden

I have kompromat on Joe Biden (his public statements from 1974-2008)

I say this as someone who spends a lot of energy "hating" Trump and wishes he didn't, but....

What's the point? Trump and his ilk are never going to change. He doesn't purport to share your values or speak for you.

It seems logical that energy is better spent taking to task the people who *do* purport to share your values and are misrepresenting them

otherwise you're left with nothing

also I go out of my way to never hear Trump’s voice, he’s a monstrous piece of shit. It’s hard to make fun of someone without seeing or hearing the raw material.

the idea is that only the people who already mostly agree with you can be bludgeoned into completely agreeing with you

the people you really disagree with think you're a worthless piece of shit and aren't paying attention to you so you might as well argue with people who still agree with you on a few things and see if you can alienate them too

better just not to criticize anyone for fear of alienating their fans

i think milo is fine fwiw + is expressing a perspective that has been around on these boards for as long as i've been posting; attacking mainstream democratic politicians from the left and threatening to / actually voting third party is part of ilx's cultural heritage.

Hi! So what's new since 11:35 a.m.?