[ad_1]
The presidential candidate, Joe Biden, is adding lies to lies to disguise his support for the invasion of Iraq.
During ABC News's Democratic Party debate on the Democratic Party on Thursday, Biden lied about his Iraqi record, just as he did during the first two debates.
Watch:
In the July debate, Biden said: "From the moment" shock and fear "began, from that moment on, I am opposed to this effort and I have been as outspoken as everyone in Congress. "
When he said that for the first time, he was virtually unviewed, with the exception of Middle East researcher Stephen Zunes, who wrote the article "Biden is Doubling Down on Iraq War Lies". Zunes largely described Biden's track record, including his insistence in May 2003 – several months after the Iraqi invasion – that "
During Thursday evening's debate, Biden said he had voted in favor of the Iraqi invasion authorization "to allow inspectors to enter in order to determine if something was being done with chemical or nuclear weapons ".
But the vote of the Congress took place on October 11, 2002 (see Biden's speech at that time). And at that time, Iraq had agreed to allow weapons inspectors to return. On September 16, 2002, the New York Times reported: "US inspectors can return unconditionally," says Iraq. (This was just after a delegation organized by the Institute for Public Accuracy – where I work – traveled to Iraq.)
Freelance journalist Michael Tracey, who recently interviewed Biden in New Hampshire, reports that Biden ridiculously claimed that he had opposed the invasion of Iraq even before it began. Biden said, "Yes, I opposed the war before it started." See Tracey's article: "The Revisionism of the Bhatter War in Iraq by Joe Biden" and video.
Biden initially backed a bill, along with Republican Senator Richard Lugar, which would have somewhat limited Bush's ability to launch an invasion of Iraq completely at his whim. But the Bush administration has opposed the measure. One might think that such an opposition would lead Biden to conclude that insisting that Bush not be coerced would be a reason not to give him a blank check. But Biden finally voted in favor of the law giving Bush the full license demanded by the president.
Bush eventually triggered the war by calling on the UN to remove the weapons inspectors – which would force them to stop their work – before launching a bombing campaign. Immediately, Biden co-sponsored a resolution in favor of Bush.
Tracey writes: "It is unclear whether the Delaware senator sincerely believes in the narrative that he is currently telling or whether he is the product of his apparent cognitive decline." But Biden has been lying about Iraq for years and years and years and years. In 2002, he chaired the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and presided over hearings that were rigged at the time by true critics of the invasion of Iraq.
Nevertheless, the flying flocks of Biden on Iraq – which he adds day by day – have not yet been adequately examined. Biden told Tim Russert at "Meet the Press" in 2007 about the alleged weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein: "The real mystery is that if he did not have any more of them, why did not he? he not say? "
Of course, the Iraqi government, in 2002 and before, had pleaded that it had disarmed. And the US government and the media have largely mocked him.
Saddam Hussein told Dan Rather on "60 Minutes" in February 2003:
I think that [the U.S. military preparations in the Gulf] In fact, they have partly served to conceal Iraq's huge lie against chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. And it is on this basis that Iraq has actually accepted [the U.N.] The resolution accepted, even though Iraq was absolutely certain that what she had said – that Iraqi officials … had repeated … that Iraq was empty, was devoid of such weapons – was the case. But Iraq has accepted this resolution (…) in order to allow no misinterpretation of its position (…), in order to make perfectly clear that Iraq was no longer in possession of … such weapons. [See from FAIR: “Saddam’s ‘Secret.'”]
But such remarks from Iraq have been ridiculed. On November 13, 2002, the New York Times reported: "The United States mocks the Iraqi claim of the absence of weapons of mass destruction." The Bush administration said in its article that the Bush administration rejected Saddam Hussein's claim that he did not possess weapons of mass destruction, but Bush's advisers said they would not be brought in. to reveal the information collected to contradict it after Iraq's publication of a full account of weapons stocks in early December "
Similarly, on December 9, 2002, the International Herald Tribune was titled "Senators Reject the Iraqi Arms Statement to the United Nations," stating, "Copies of an Iraqi 12,000-page statement." on banned weapons were sent Sunday to UN offices in Vienna were on their way to the United Nations in New York for analysis, but senior US senators from both sides rejected the contents as a lie. A probable war that they believe would have surprisingly broad support. "These senators did it without even having access to the documents.
The article continues: "Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, outgoing chairman of the Commission on External Relations, said he assumed the Iraqi report would be" totally obscure. "Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, candidate to the Democratic Vice Presidency of 2000, described the statement as "probably a lie of 12,000 pages and 100 pounds." The document also quotes Biden, saying that Bush would probably have "everything he needs, all the help, all the bases in the Middle East "and a coalition" bigger than anyone else would have expected ".
What Biden did, is help to make sure the war goes off while trying to wash his hands. He helped build the car for Bush, refueled, saw that Bush was drunk, gave him permission to do what he wanted – then told him to be responsible while he handed her the keys. Finally, Biden claims to be shocked that the streets are littered with mutilated bodies.
Biden is the exact opposite of Senator Wayne Morse, one of only two senators to have voted against the Tonkin Gulf resolution, a false pretense used by Lyndon Johnson to dramatically escalate the Vietnam War in 1964 To those, like Biden in 2002, who were arguing Morse replied that they did not understand either the Constitution or their responsibilities as senators:
Why not give a vote of confidence to the president? That was the jargon of the reservists: we must support our president. Since when should we support our president, or should we, while the president is proposing an unconstitutional act? And so these reservists have said that although I support my president, I want to show him that I trust him. I want to warn him that I do not give him a blank check. This does not mean that I do not expect him to consult me in the future. That does not mean that the president can send extra troops there without consulting me, senator from the United States. And you know, very respectfully, but I used language that they understood, they said it was absurd. I want to tell my colleagues in the Senate that you are being consulted right now.
Would Biden also understand his responsibilities?
[ad_2]
Source link