Joe Biden is a foreign policy wonk whose credentials sets him apart from the rest of the field

[Gothmog]

Link to tweet

[Renew Deal]

1. Biden was wrong on Iraq and wrong on Bin Laden

Knowledge doesn't equal wisdom.

[jalan48]

2. +1

[Sloumeau]

20. Per Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Iraq

In 1990, after Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Biden voted against the first Gulf War, asking: "What vital interests of the United States justify sending Americans to their deaths in the sands of Saudi Arabia?"[109] In 1998, Biden expressed support for the use of force against Iraq and urged a sustained effort to "dethrone" Saddam Hussein over the long haul.[110] In 2002, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he stated that Saddam Hussein was "a long-term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and that the United States has "no choice but to eliminate the threat".[111] He also said, "I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power."[112] Biden also supported a failed resolution authorizing military action in Iraq only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts,[113] Biden argued that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons.[114] Biden subsequently voted in favor of authorizing the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[56]

In 2006, about three years into the war in Iraq, Biden believed the original authorization on the use of military force in Iraq in 2002 had been a mistake because President Bush "used his congressional authority unwisely." Biden argued that the 2002 resolution needed revision because Saddam Hussein had since been deposed and executed, and because the weapons of mass destruction that the Iraq regime supposedly had stockpiled — a principal justification by the Bush administration for going to war — were never found. Biden opposed increasing troops in Iraq while favoring the training of Iraqi soldiers to maintain the security of their own country and said U.S. troops should "responsibly draw down" and not stay in Iraq indefinitely.[115]

So, what did we learn from this?:

1. Biden voted against the first Iraq invasion
2. Biden voted in the second Iraq invasion for a proposal to only invade after all attempts at diplomacy had failed. That resolution did not pass in Congress.
3. Biden only voted for the invasion of Iraq because a) he thought he thought that Hussein was "a long-term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and b) that Iraq possesed chemical and biological weapons and was also seeking nuclear weapons. And why did Biden believe that? Because the Bush II Administration manufactured evidence that Iraq had WMDs and was seeking nuclear WMDs.

[progressoid]

23. 3. Biden only voted for the invasion of Iraq because...

So basically he was outsmarted by the Bush administration.

That's reassuring.

[Sloumeau]

25. Regarding the AUMF against Iraq:

Per Wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002#Passage_of_the_full_resolution

...the number of people who voted for the AUMF was as follows:

215 Republican Representatives, 81 Democratic Representatives, 48 Republican Senators, and 29 Democratic Senators.

Every single one of them was lied to by the GWB Administration.

Vox.com wrote an article about How GWBs former Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was still lying about the Iraq War in March 2019.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

The article pointed out a Mother Jones story that pointed out some of the Bush Administration lies:

Mother Jones’s David Corn has been excellent about chronicling specific examples over the years. Here are just a few:

In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a “massive stockpile” of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had “no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad’s disposal.” The “massive stockpile” was just literally made up.

In December 2002, Bush declared, “We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon.” That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, “We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009.” Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon — and lied and said he didn’t know to hype the threat.

On CNN in September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs.” This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argued that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too.

Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials — and in any case, the claim that they’re “only really suited” for nuclear weapons is just false.

On numerous occasions, Vice President Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.

More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless, Bush continued to claim that Hussein was “a threat because he’s dealing ith al-Qaeda” more than a year later.

In August 2002, Cheney declared, “Simply stated, there’s no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” But as Corn notes, at that time there was “no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation.” Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney’s speech, would later say in a documentary, “It was a total shock. I couldn’t believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program.”

The Bush administration on numerous occasions exaggerated or outright fabricated conclusions from intelligence in its public statements. Bush really did lie, and people really did die as a result of the war those lies were meant to build a case for. Those are the facts.

[progressoid]

27. Yeah, I remember it well.

I also remember a lot of us contacting our Senators and Representatives to tell them to not fall for the administration's bullshit.

Apparently we were no match to their far superior foreign policy experience.

[samnsara]

3. hes ready to go on day one..no learning curve and this time...

...the best really will be running the country, not a bunch of crooks.

[Voltaire2]

4. Yeah he's the one that voted for the Iraq war.

For once we agree. Biden is all alone.

[Hekate]

30. The one the only, the sole Democrat who sinned!

[Voltaire2]

38. Of the Democratic candidates.

Sorry I thought that was obvious given that the op is about why JB is so good at war shit.

Oh wait, it was obvious.

[aidbo]

5. He wonkishly voted for the Iraq war!

[Demsrule86]

6. Sanders voted for the Afghanistan war and now says it was a mistake...so ?

[bahrbearian]

7. Exactly what the dead Iraqi's said "So?'

[still_one]

28. Sanders also voted for the Iraq Liberation Act which called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein

[Demsrule86]

40. I didn't know that...I do not believe we have the right to seek regime change and look at Libya and

Iraq. I want out of the middle east.

[Hekate]

31. The one the only, the sole Democrat who sinned!

[BlueMTexpat]

8. As somewhat of a "foreign policy wonk" myself,

including 18 years of actual work experience experience in senior legal positions with the USG (State), as well as with international organizations in Geneva, I have found Biden to be a FP lightweight who simply parrots the conventional "wisdom."

Among FP professionals, I am not alone in this.

He may have a slight edge on some of the primary candidates simply because he was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for two years. But he has generally shown poor judgment wrt to major foreign policy decisions, and not only IMO.

So I prefer to support someone who, despite her comparative lack of FP credentials, is open to truly learning what a complex world we live in today. That world will NEVER revert to what it was, if Joe is nostalgic for the status quo ante and if that is what people are hoping for. We lost tremendous credibility with the Iraq War debacle and that reminded people of some of our earlier debacles. Some credibility was regained during the Obama Era, especially with Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, but that is now in tatters. Even a return to the credibility of that era is likely impossible. It's certainly improbable.

In many ways, the world has chosen to move on without us since the Criminally Deranged Thug took office. That world has been made intolerably worse because of his policies.

[crazytown]

11. I've been impressed with Pete Buttigieg on FP

8 years in Navy Reserve intel.

[pfeiffer]

16. Really, Ms. Warren?

[Hekate]

32. I'm unsure what your point is

Should a supporter of Candidate X not take note of something they find admirable about Candidate Y?

[BlueMTexpat]

33. +1! eom

[Thekaspervote]

22. I'll go with the expert with many years experience. Not a novice

[crazytown]

35. I'm sure you will.

[pfeiffer]

9. You can always tell...

your candidate is ahead in the polls...when people repeat the same "Irag War" talking point...over and over and over and over and over again.

[crazytown]

14. You can always tell if your candidate is vulnerable on an issue,

supporters don't want to hear about it.

[pfeiffer]

17. Yeah...ummm...sure...

Bawahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

[crazytown]

24. Wanna talk about the millions thrown out of their homes in the Great Recession

helped out the door by the Bankruptcy Act?

[Thekaspervote]

19. Oh how true!!

[Voltaire2]

39. The op brought the topic up.

Citing Biden’s expertise on war shit just as Trump is starting yet another one.

[ritapria]

10. Biden didn't due his due dilligence as Chair of Foreign Relations

He allowed Khidir Hamza , the chief Liar who got into this mess , to testify and spread his bullshit without challenge ...A 30 minute Google Search would have shown him to be a scroundel at the time of his testimony before Foreign Relations …….We don't need this kind of experience ...We need the guy who warned us that the Iraq War was going to be a nightmare … Polls have nothing to do with this ...The Historical Record speaks for itself.....From The Daily Beast , December 14, 2019 : "How Biden kept Screwing Up Iraq , Over and Over and Over Again '

[pfeiffer]

13. Yes, because of course...

that's what the Foreign Relations Committee relies on...Google Searches, as opposed to our multiple and very robust US intelligence agencies.

[Thekaspervote]

21. The FP wonk speaks!!!

[Gothmog]

12. Americans (and the world) need a Commander-in-chief ready on day one in the Situation Room

Link to tweet

[pfeiffer]

15. You bet your national security!!

You go Joe!!!

[Cha]

45. TY, Goth!

[Gothmog]

18. According to Nate, focus on National Security will help Joe Biden

Link to tweet

[TidalWave46]

26. I don't believe that statement to be accurate.

I don’t view him as a FP wonk though I do believe the term might apply if the names of a couple of countries was used instead of the broader attachment.

That said, one of the big reasons I am with Biden is I believe he can right international diplomacy quicker than anyone. He will put the state and other departments back together better and quicker than anyone. He understands the structure and knows the people her at home and at our embassies.

I get that we need a great decision maker at the top on foreign policy. But after Trump, we need someone who can fix all of the departments and agencies where the people who will be doing his bidding reside. I think we have been set back further than some realize.

[Scurrilous]

29. K&R

[Peacetrain]

34. This is his time.. He is the candidate for the moment that we need!

[TCJ70]

36. I'm hearing the same things said about Biden that I heard about Hillary...

...and it makes me nervous. Electability, x policy wonk, safe choice. I’d rather we weren’t wrong twice.

[Demsrule86]

41. We weren't wrong in 16...Hillary won IMHO. And if we all vote and don't allow divisive primary shit

we will be OK...consider that Biden would have likely won MI, WI and PA...thus denying Trump an EC win.

[TCJ70]

42. And Hillary "would likely have won" the EC according to people last time...

...and last I checked we don’t have a President Clinton right now.

[Demsrule86]

43. If Clinton couldn't win the EC ...blue wall states...how in the world do you think Warren will?

She has no ties and is from Massachusetts...it is a moderate area and we also have a big AA component... Warren isn't doing well well with this group...the left/Greens cost Hillary the election and Comey too...she would have won with the votes Stein took...Let's hope that it doesn't happen again...enough votes to spoil as in Gore, and demonizing Kerry in the primary and Clinton...but never enough to win. And everything they complain about United , Bush's wars, the economic collapse,tax cuts, kids in cages,SCOTUS...they helped bring about.

[NYMinute]

37. K&R nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. K&R