This is what frustrates voters MOST

He's better off just owning it and saying he made a mistake. It was a different time and I think most people would understand and forgive the error.

Voters would easily forgive him if he did that.

Not at all.

The thousands in the street world-wide when that war was voted on will not easily forgive.

Thousands dead.
A vector of the recession of 2008.
Middle East destabilized.

Huge foreign policy blunder.

Of course will vote for him to defeat the Monster, but there's not much trust.

Definitely Iraq war was the 2nd biggest foreign policy blunder since WWII.
If the bad dictator Saddam was left alone in Iraq, we would never have ISIS.
Because Saddam was executing ISIS type people all along.
Middle-east was relatively stable before invading Iraq by Bush-43.
Now it is a bigger chaos by orders of magnitude.

But it was a different era, and no one could see the future consequences.
So I would forgive Biden for his vote if he genuinely admitted it was a mistake.

#1 foreign policy blunder was starting a guerrilla war in rice paddies of Vietnam,
with military supply lines extended 8000+ miles, and restrictions on bombing N.Vietnam
cities of Hanoi etc. The chess players in Kremlin must have laughed them selves silly seeing
United states was getting involved in a no-win war.

I don't see how it was a "different era." Many of us knew that the push for war was bogus. We were expecting our Democratic leaders to stand up and say something. Most didn't. We knew there would be future consequences.

because Saddam was indeed a very brutal dictator. So it was easy to fall in that trap, and Biden along with scores of other people did.

Attacking Hitler was also starting a war, but that one was beneficial in the long run. Which proves all wars are not necessarily bad. So I can forgive Biden for thinking similar thoughts about Saddam.

Back then, the common understanding among the intelligence agencies was that toppling Saddam would destabilize the Middle East by giving the "true believers" a void that they could fill. Saddam was Westernized compared to the countries in the Middle East that were theocratic.

This was known back then. Biden, Hilary Clinton and others chose to ignore it because it was more convenient politically NOT to swim against a very strong stream heading for war.

My sister-in-law lost her son in 9/11. She received a good chunk of money to alleviate the pain, but because it was quickly settled she never had the chance to look at what really happened. To this day she thinks that going into Iraq was a positive, because GWB II at least did something.

See, that's a problem I have with my in-laws. Like most white Americans, they don't differentiate between one dark skinned country from another.

I can't think of anything Bush-43 did that was good.

They think they're independent thinkers because they voted for Hilary Clinton, but if you really listen to what they say, they are very submissive to the hard right wealth that exists in New York.

If I ever have that conversation with her again, I will point out to her that it is conventional wisdom that Iraq was a mistake, and how does she feel about spreading her pain to all those American mothers to soldiers that died in a war that should have never happened.

Creating a gigantic power vacuum in a place like the Middle East will stabilize the region????

And comparing the overthrow of Saddam with going to war with Hitler is the kind of false equivalency that I normally associate only with Republicans.

We started WWII? Hitler had conquered most of Europe and killed millions of people, and was allied to Imperial Japan that had just attacked us.

I honestly can't believe that anyone on DU would make that kind of argument.

Including GHW Bush.

Since I grew up in South Asia, and have more familiarity with the mentality of people in that region.
So I was against starting the Iraq war. But I can fully understand why majority of American people thought getting rid of a brutal dictator (Saddam Hussein) was a justifiable pursuit, equating Saddam to Hitler. But in reality Hitler & Saddam had totally different objectives.

It was well known that the evidence was cooked up.

It was also known for decades that a war there would be a quagmire.

especially since we have all seen that movie before. Such as our Vietnam war, USSR in Afghanistan, etc.
My best guess is people and legislators were prejudiced by witnessing brutality of dictator Saddam and that clouded their thinking. And then we repeat the same mistake by attacking Libya.

Since I grew up in south Asia, I can posit that the middle-east is nowhere ready for American style democratic political system. Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, etc operate more stable with dictatorships at the moment. That is just the fact proven by historical results. I would just stay out of there militarily. We don't even need the oil from there anymore. China and Japan do need that oil. So let them spend the money to keep order in straits of Hormuz. With Trillion dollar budget deficits every year, why the heck are we spending Billions for military operations in the middle-east? That money would be better spent paying off the national debt.

is this one vote (dont get me started on that war, my family paid a price for that war, not the ultimate price but it was god damn annoying, so yes I opposed it from day one LOUDLY) is enough to make you grouse about Joe so others can hear you grousing?

While in the WH is a MADMAN FASCIST TRAITOR MASS KILLER?

Really?

Wow...I dont get it, I really dont.

He still defends his 94 crime bill.

We are human beings and we make mistakes. It is best to admit them and move on with changes necessary instead of stubbornly refusing to admit you were not wrong.

If he wasn’t, he’d abide by the statement his campaign made for him four months ago when he first screwed this up:

They pundits and the Pukes will have a field day with this.

and anther first lady showing her bare arms. You know damn well they didn't get the same reactions from the pukes and the media so yes it matters.

Trump's campaign isn't jut about convincing people to vote for Trump. It's also about making sure that no more than 17,000 new democratic voters show up in Wisconsin. His voters are already going to turn out.

Can Trump's campaign/surrogates prevent a few thousand votes from bothering to show up at the polls by running ads on social media targeted specifically at younger urban voters in Wisconsin (who would generally be a lot more likely to vote democrat if they bother to show up at all) by running ads with fact checking site quotes layered in while driving the point that while Trump is an old idiot, Biden is a senile old man that can't even remember how he voted or why? If his campaign thinks that will suppress a few thousand more young voters from bothering to vote (not make them show up to vote Trump - they're already unlikely to do that anyway, just knock them out of the pool altogether), then those ads will be there and those ads will make flipping Wisconsin a little harder.

for the reminder.

The contrast and implications are interesting.

dayum….all these missteps do not help us at all.

Less than a month before the Iowa caucus and his number are going up.

just like it hurt Kerry and Clinton.

The point fo the Primary is to pick someone who can win in the general, right?

will hurt him? You all been trying this forever, and it won't work. Bernie is now tied in Iowa...

Thinking people blame W for Iraq.

...my candidate but i do look for empathy and lot and lots of foreign policy experience. Only one has that.

easily verifiable? Why not just tell the truth?

criticism of Biden myself and check every source before believing anything...and I don't...wanna know why...I don't care about the Iraq vote 17 years ago...I voted for Kerry, Clinton and Biden as VP...don't give two shits...but work it folks...it won't help but you have to try I guess. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

on what he says and has to come out and clarify things he says. Especial things like this that are well documented. He's for it, he's against and and repeat the cycle.

Any person who served as Obama’s VP would have the name recognition and trust that Biden has today. This election seems to be about name recognition more than anything else right now.

I'd say we'd still have both of those in America today.

He would have performed the same no matter who was on the ticket with him.

Obama needed help in Ohio and other mid western states. Biden delivered.

Should he win the nomination, this will definitely come up again and again. Especially if the current occupant of the White House gets us into war with Iran.
I kept a list of those who voted for the Iraq War and vowed never to vote for any of them (in a primary,) and I haven't.

People would never let her hear the end of it.

that have a problem with his vote are not voting for him and won't until the general...as everyone wants to get rid of Trump.If it were me, I would worry about WWIII now begun by Trump the asshat and save your ire for him...your candidate won't benefit from any of this.

It’s January 2020 not March 2003. Most people live in the now, blame W for Iraq and have more pressing personal problems than geopolitics. That’s why this is just a flaccid hunk of nothingburger as an issue, desperate attempts to make it one aside.

Here's a time line of how we got there. Read it at your leisure.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/

If you remember a memo was leaked that detailed how Bush and the republicans were going to run against the democrats as weak on war and the defense of the nation. They were going to use the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his WMDs as an example.

The democrats in order to inoculate themselves against those charges, passed the AMF. Of course it didn't work. With the help of the media republicans gain seats in 2002 running against weak on terror democrats.

During this time any half smart person with an internet connection could prove that all the claims about WMDs were either false or questionable.
A senator with access to intelligence files could have found this out as well.

The AMF was a blunder. It gave Bush cover to invade. He might not have needed one, but it would have been more difficult.

Had the democrats stalled and played out the clock till Hans Blix had finished his investigation, we wouldn't be here.

There are a couple points in Biden's favor. One the AMF was not a free ticket to invade it had several conditions Bush would need to meet in order for it to go into effect. He ignored those and invaded anyway. Two "if" we had an effective media ...need I go on.
With the media cheering on the war and the democrats not having 2020 hindsight the odds were against them.

and others jumped onto the bandwagon on that simplified premise.

Biden voted for the war authorization, and when Dumbya finally launched his bullshit war, Biden had Dumbya's back:

"I support the president. I support the troops. We should make no distinction. We should have one voice going out to the whole world that we're together," Biden said. "We should be on the floor of the United States Senate and every capital in the world hear one voice from both parties, saying, we support the troops. We support the president."

that the resolution to allow Bush to use force. Allowing him the power to use force doesn't mean you have to agree with the timing or the using of it on the excuses Bush used.

The war started in March 2003 after the inspectors were there and were finding nothing.

BushCo came up with their WMD fiasco and got Colin Powell to ruin his reputation convincing skeptical democrats to support the IWR that BushCo sent to Congress.

efforts. Then came the big lie about WMDs and that shot the legs from under the democratic congresspeople's efforts to force Bush to take a saner route.

Was a mess, and got me further involved.

'They' ARE the war party.

That’s what history says about it as well. Always fascinated when DU’ers give Bush a free pass.

over they finally having to vote yes after all resistance had been removed by BushCo lies.

The nation was different then, we were not far removed from 9/11. No sane Senator was going to risk not going to war when told that Saddam had nukes and was planning to use them. Turns out that the people that voted No look better today, but I wouldn't call them the wiser during the days leading up to the vote on the IWR.

The evidence being offered up that Saddam has WMDs was convincing and from very trusted organizations, plus there was agreement from multiple foreign intelligence services.

Let's not forget the state of the world in 2003. Support for the war in the early days of the invasion was near 80%.

We hammer Trump for not believing our intelligence agencies, but we expect that Democratic senators at the time should have disregarded what they were being told by those same agencies at that time?

war drums. The situation was ripe for distorting intelligence agencies data to favor war, and that is what BushCo did, capping the effort with the dramatic "testimony" of Colin Powell to Congress.

How is a person supposed to know for sure if the intelligence is wrong? An incredible gamble to disregard it. I think of how they had a source who was lying about everything, Curveball, but his information was used as evidence of WWD in Iraq. Wrong. The intelligence G.W. Bush got of an imminent terrorist attack that he waved off. Right.

I wouldn't want to have that grave responsibility.

We have to remember that this was 18 months after 9/11 and nobody was willing to take any kind of chance of that happening again. When you are sitting there having to make this decision and this is the information in front of you, what choice do you have.

I have a lot most questions for the people who voted against it. I remember that Byrd did so because he was worried about needing limits on the authorization. He didn't want it being used to justify decades of occupation, for instance. Why did Bernie vote against it?

I still don't believe the decision to invade was the mistake. The mistake was the criminally negligent planning for what to do after the military campaign ended. History should have told us that long term foreign occupations were not good ideas. The plan should have been to do whatever we needed to to ensure that power was handed to the Iraqis as quickly as possible. That would have meant to keep the Iraqi army intact and keep Bathists, who weren't members of Saddams inner-circle, in their positions. Instead, every decision that was made was part of a perfect recipe for an insurgency.

Muslim in Iraq. It's not like his father had any dealings with Iraq while he was president.

So often the most unqualified people are put in change of things.

for the sake of the country.

Every soldier that gets recruited also opposes the war yet he/she still fights it right?

I don't think there are any "pro-war" people who want a war but sometimes one has to take tough votes.

Joe Biden was one of many people who voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq and many have since expressed their regrets. Bush lied. He said he would only use force as a last resort, but he knew he was going to war. Biden and others believed him.

As others have said, it was a very different time. After 9/11 any outward criticism of the Bush administration was often considered unAmerican and unpatriotic. It is easy to cast blame in hindsight.

We have a madman in the White House who could start World War III. That is where our focus should be.

I guess he could have done that.

In fact, that is less true than Biden trying to explain what his position really was. Biden and Lugar led the SFRC in writing their version of a resolution. Biden/Lugar more explicitly defined what Bush should do before initiating war. You might remember that in 2003, Howard Dean said he was against the IWR, but for Biden/Lugar. In fact, Biden/Lugar was never voted on by the full Senate because Dick Gephardt agreed to the IWR that Bush preferred.

In the summer of 2002, most liberal Democratic foreign policy Senators/Congressmen demanded that President Bush could not attack Iraq under the 2002 (Afghanistan) authority. They pushed Bush to both go to the UN and to go to Congress. They were trying to slow the rush to war -- and probably delayed it 5 months or so, but obviously it happened anyway. Not to mention, it ended up putting Democrats in the position of voting for a resolution that did specify some steps that should be taken before going to war. Many voted for it referring to those provisions. Bush ignored those provisions and went to war.

Reading between the lines of various Democrat's statements, I think that many realizing that Bush could attack Iraq by declaring it a national security threat. Remember that there were many military actions or wars in the previous 50 years that were not declared by Congress - and even the IWR was not a declaration of war. Encouraged by having prevented Bush from attacking in the summer and having pushed Bush to go to the UN, they might be able to use the resolution (Biden/Lugar would have been slightly better) to leverage some constraint on the rush to war and that it could strengthen diplomacy.

That complexity is likely behind Biden saying he was "against" the war from the moment it started. Unlike Kerry, I don't know if there was a speech given before or when the war started PUBLICLY speaking against it. However, in politics, nuance or shades of grey are hard to argue. Kerry said it would not be a war of last resort (which to Catholics means it would not be a just war) at a Georgetown University speech in January 2003. It is very likely that Biden agreed with him that attacking at that point meant it was not a war of last resort - given that Biden/Lugar referenced things NOT DONE that should be tried before going to war.

Democrats, including Biden tried to either stop Bush from going to war, or put severe limits on him, requiring diplomacy first. Also, 9/11 was fresh in the politicians and public's mind and things hadn't started to go south in Afghanistan at that time, so the drums of war were load and a large segment of the public was behind Bush. Biden and others were called "soft" and anti-American for trying to stop Bush's rush to war.

No amount of truth and explanation of history ever means a thing to those who post this kind of thing. They need a safe place to indulge among people who share their problems, and so everyone else doesn't have to see these hostile deceptions and distortions over and over and over until after the nomination and DU finally outlaws them.