Biden told many lies, and made many exaggerations last night. One of them — a big and obvious lie — is being ignored by fact-checks on ABC News and Associated Press. And yet it was a known lie caught during his debate with Sarah Palin four years ago. Ryan should have been prepared for this — as both Obama and Biden have a propensity to repeat the same information no matter how false it is.
Biden, during the debate:
And, by the way, they talk about this Great Recession if it fell out of the sky, like, “Oh, my goodness, where did it come from?” It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion-dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there. I voted against them. I said, no, we can’t afford that.
Biden voted to authorize both Afghanistan and Iraq, and spoke eloquently on why we needed to take out Saddam quite independently of the WMD issue. Biden, who was “Senator Let’s Get Saddam” ten years ago today, now denies this. And in a speech on the Senate floor on October 10, 2002, he was actually quite eloquent and made many points I agree with, and did then. Here’s a snippet:
If we knew that al-Qaida had particular weapons, knowing, as we did, what their stated objective was, and with the intelligence we had, we would be fully within our rights–not under any doctrine of preemption–because of the existence of a clear, present, and imminent danger to move against al-Qaida.Conversely, with Hitler in the 1930s, the rationale for moving against Hitler wasn’t a doctrine of preemption because we knew he was a bad guy. It was because his country signed the Treaty of Versailles. He was violating the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles did not have an end date on it. It didn’t say you cannot have forces for the first 2 or 3 years, or you cannot do the following things. We were fully within our rights as a world community to go after Hitler in 1934, 1935, 1936, or 1937. It was not based on the doctrine of preemption but a doctrine of enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles, and in a very limited time.
What we have here, I argue, as the rationale for going after Saddam, is that he signed a cease-fire agreement. The condition for his continuing in power was the elimination of his weapons of mass destruction, and the permission to have inspectors in to make sure he had eliminated them. He expelled those inspectors. So he violated the cease-fire; ergo, we have authority–not under a doctrine of preemption. This will not be a preemptive strike, if we go with the rest of the world. It will be an enforcement strike.
They reflect a very different Joe Biden from the man this evening claiming that he was against attacking Iraq — just like in his last debate.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle