« Obama's Very Solid Column in NYT on Iraq Withdrawal Plan | dimitry's Blog | Post-Mortem of the Upcoming Obama/Biden Loss, Damn It! »
Joe Biden: An Early and Often Supporter of Iraq War
I have recently vigorously opposed the selection of Joe Biden as Obama's Vice Presidential candidate. I did that based on my opinion of the tactical political considerations and my perception of the real as opposed to theoretical weakness of Obama as a Presidential candidate.
However, it appears that there is much more substantive reasons to be upset (or very upset) at this selection. Senator Biden worked tirelessly as a supporter, abetter and enabler of the Bush's Iraq war, advocating on the President's behalf many, many times prior to the war. In his powerful position as the chairman of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, he provided invaluable help and support to the President's efforts to start a disasterous and illegal war in Iraq.
As with FISA, the remaining question is: "Why did Obama choose this man, who on key question was on diametrically opposed sides with the candidate himself"?
At this point, I am not sure I even want to know the answer...
----------------------------------------
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5492
----------------------------------------
Advertisement
First, thank you for posting a substantive comment on why you are so vigorously opposed to Joe Biden as VP.
I noted earlier that, once Sam Nunn was ruled out, that Obama would have a hard time finding a running mate who voted against the war in 2002.
So, the question is whether Biden still believes now what he believed in 2002. His voting record indicates that he doesn't.
He's also publicly stated that he regrets his vote on the war - which is more than some other notable Senate Democrats, like Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, have done.
Finally, is Biden going to be more like Cheney on policy, or more like Gore? I say the answer depends upon the POTUS - and Obama will be in full charge of his administration. Biden will be an important voice - but not at Cheney's level, because the C-in-C will be mentally stronger.
August 27, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you read the cited article, you will find several quotes from Biden defending his pre-war actions.
Biden is the quintessential Democratic foreign policy interventionist hawk. His addition to the ticket is likely a harbinger of who Obama will appoint to cabinet level posts in his adminstration - the folks who brought us Kosovo and who have actively supported Bush in his runup to the war.
I do not welcome what this selection foreshadows, nor do I think does the electorate in general. Americans are growing tired of the dual-party interventioninst foreign policy, which really does very little to secure American interests, and produces rather poor results for the world. Interventions continue unabated no matter who is in charge of the White House, only reasons for them change.
I would only point that both Biden and McCain ran to Georgia after the Russian/Georgian war over separatist Georgian provinces (war apparently resulting from Bush's admininstration promising military cover for Georgia it couldn't deliver), with Biden nearly outdoing McCain in anti-Russian belicosity.
So, no, I really don't expect Biden to be a moderating influence in foreign policy in an Obama's future administration. Expect several "humanitarian" interventions (a la Kosovo) under Biden's guidance, if he has enough sway. And since he has been officially selected because of his foreign policy "expertise", I would expect him to be quite influential in this field.
August 27, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read the cited article. It deals with Biden up to his pre-war vote in great detail. And, if that was all there was to the story, I'd agree with your position. But even the article admits (grudgingly) that Biden has changed his position on the war. And it conveniently excludes Biden's strongest statements against the Bush administration.
I would only point that both Biden and McCain ran to Georgia after the Russian/Georgian war over separatist Georgian provinces (war apparently resulting from Bush's admininstration promising military cover for Georgia it couldn't deliver), with Biden nearly outdoing McCain in anti-Russian belicosity.
Your point is more than mitigated by the fact that Saakashvili invited Biden to Georgia. And the fact is, Russia is pushing the envelope. But Biden hasn't done any real saber-rattling there.
So, I have to ask again: If Biden is not your VP pick, who is? Yes, he voted for the war. But his post-2002 votes, and his expressed regret for the war, indicate he believes we need to be out of Iraq. This puts him in line with Obama on this issue.
August 27, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
IGNORE THE ABOVE. I didn't blockquote properly before hitting "Send". Sorry.
August 27, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the cited article. It deals with Biden up to his pre-war vote in great detail. And, if that was all there was to the story, I'd agree with your position. But even the article admits (grudgingly) that Biden has changed his position on the war. And it conveniently excludes Biden's strongest statements against the Bush administration.
Your point is more than mitigated by the fact that Saakashvili invited Biden to Georgia. And the fact is, Russia is pushing the envelope. But Biden hasn't done any real saber-rattling there.
So, I have to ask again: If Biden is not your VP pick, who is? Yes, he voted for the war. But his post-2002 votes, and his expressed regret for the war, indicate he believes we need to be out of Iraq. This puts him in line with Obama on this issue.
August 27, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden is AIPAC-approved. I suspect Obama's hand was forced.The other horrendous Bill Biden passed was the Bankruptcy Act. I believe Obama tanking in the polls is not only the work of PUMAs but progressives disilusioned with his choices.
August 27, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
==Your point is more than mitigated by the fact that Saakashvili invited Biden to Georgia. And the fact is, Russia is pushing the envelope. But Biden hasn't done any real saber-rattling there.==
I think his proposal to give $1b to Georgia is a form of sabre rattling, as well as his insistence of Georgia's NATO membership. And I am sure Saakashivili has a a standing invitation to any Western politician of any standing to visit Georgia. He even welcomes any possibility of the US "controlling Georgia's ports", though unfortunately for him, that is not in the cards.
==So, I have to ask again: If Biden is not your VP pick, who is? Yes, he voted for the war. But his post-2002 votes, and his expressed regret for the war, indicate he believes we need to be out of Iraq. This puts him in line with Obama on this issue.==
Not really. He was very much FOR the war, was instrumental in creating congressional support for it and ONLY changed his mind when the war went VERY BADLY. When challenged over his cheerleading support for the war recently, he notably refused to admit he was wrong, instead relying on the Bush's classic line - EVERYONE thought Saddam was a threat, EVERYONE thought he had WMD. His words were that "I was right!"
I don't know who should be Obama's Vice Presidential candidate. But I would have hoped it wouldn't be a relentless war advocate for years, who only changed his mind when it was CLEARLY politically disadvantageous to keep the pro-war stand. A seeming political opportunist of the worst kind, who voted to kill people apparently out of political expediency. Like Kerry, Hillary, Edwards, etc.
Now, Republicans vote to kill people because they beleive killing people is a good thing for America. Democrats vote for killing people out of fear they would be declared "weak" and "traitors". I am not sure who I dislike more.
August 27, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dimitry, you make good points, but this isn't a site for critical thought, it's a site for cheerleading. You won't get any recs. Let the events unfold, I fear Biden's choice will cost us all dearly, but he's the establishment pick. Without him, *they* won't let Obama run. OTOH, on a personal level, i'm becoming cynical and skeptical about Obama himself as he takes small steps closer to the rot of Washington to win this election. Expressing such thoughts would immediately bring on a chorus of "McCain Troll!" "PUMA!"
August 28, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you are right. I was kind of surprised not to see ANY criticism or even discussion of Biden's selection at TPM. I guess it is not really very interesting or important to "true believers".
On the other hand, I must not be "with the program" because I did not even know what PUMA stood for - my really long term memory told me that it stood for Prostitutes United of Massachusetts, and I did not understand why bloggers were implying that Hillary supporters were hookers.
August 28, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh....I'll think of that whenever someone shouts me down as a PUMA next time, appropriately enough that was my home state.
OTOH, there's conscious "self-regulating" on TPM in the belief that "disunity" will bring about failure. However, there's a stunning neglect of *what* it is that we're uniting behind. Unity is the "effect" part of the cause-effect continuum, first you need a platform that most would agree on wrt. domestic and foreign policy - and it's really not so difficult to clarify this platform as 70% of Americans have given their views - that's the CAUSE.
When there's an undermining of the platform, eg. the selection of Biden, disunity and discord will naturally follow and Obama risks sounding a false note.
We're only forcing "unity" here by censoring dissonance, mitigating the effects, not addressing the root cause.
It didn't work before - think about how the sidelining of Naderites cost us, how the putting down of Howard Dean and the other pugnacious Dems cost Kerry.
But don't even *try* to raise this prospect out there, because the effect is now simulacra of the cause.
August 28, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink