Sen Biden's Iraq Vote

Sen Biden in his Senate Vote to attack Iraq, uses the main reason for supporting the resolution being 'an enforcement action'. This is 100% correct, and as anyone who knows the truth about the 'Public Law 107-243', known as the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq war will tell you, this was one of the primary reasons.

The joint resolution does not claim that Saddam Hussein 'has' WMDs but only that Saddam Hussein 'had' WMDs -- Which is 100% true. Iraq signed a ceasefire, did not surrender, after the 1991 Iraq war, and was required to meet certain terms and conditions if Saddam Hussein was to remain in power. Violating those terms, resumes the war. Sen Biden correctly acknowledges that fact.

From the American Thinker blog ...

Our invasion of Iraq was not based on a public relations drive; it was based on Public Law 107-243, otherwise known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, passed by the 107^th Congress in October of 2002 . (Herein referred to as the "Authorization".) It passed the House with a vote of 296 to 133 (by 69%) and the Senate with a vote of 77 to 23 (by 77%), including 58% of Senate Democrats. In short, it was overwhelming; it was bipartisan; and it was law.

From Biden's Senate floor speech is this final passage ...

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.

Sen Biden spoke the truth

At the time of the start of the second Iraq war, there were 32 participating countries. The fact that Iraq was targeting U.S. planes, and firing on same, kicked out the authorized UN inspectors, was all the legal justification necessary to resume the 1991 conflict. Iraq had signed a ceasefire, had not surrendered and had in fact agreed to a series of terms and conditions, that if not met, the war was resumed. All legal, all proper, no lies, no need for WMDs to be found, just stratightforward ceasefire terms.

Why no Bush impeachment

There would be a whole lot of testimony and reading of the 'Authorization' that would be brought out that would make the carefully crafted "Bush lied" drive by media narrative inoperative. Couldn't have that, better to just stick with the drive by media lies.

So why did the drive by media lie about the WMD angle? Well they needed an understandable story line that they could feed a gullible public, hurt Bush and help Democrats. Sad but true, they lied to the American people. They now are getting their come uppance and are slowly going broke -- I say good riddance.

Sen Biden now says his vote was a mistake

It was not, his reasons were 100% legally and morally accurate, as were a large majority of the Senators who voted in the affirmative.

There are no Mulligans for the office of the President. Decisions matter and have consequences -- That you may be able to weasel word your way out of as a Senator, but not as Vice President. Words matter, remember that Sen Biden.