now have a face to go with the word duplicity. It is the face of Vice President
It is well known that candidate Biden’s solution
for Iraq was the partion of that country in three parts. It is also well
established that he vehemently opposed the sending of additional troops to
Iraq, in what was called “the surge”.
It is also well
known that the current adiministration blames every problem we are facing as
problems inherited from the previous administration. There is one
exception, “I am very optimistic
about, about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this
administration”, said VP Biden on Larry King (2/10/10)!!
Both VP Biden
and President Obama opposed the surge, and not only that but constantly
threatened to halt "the war" and any effort in Congress toward its success.
According to both, the war was one “of choice” and a distraction. According to
leading Democrats Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Biden the war in Iraq was “Bush’s War”.
But let us let words speak for
“I’m going to
actively oppose the president’s proposal (the surge)…I think he is wrong”, Sen.
Obama, July 21, 2008.
"We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is
a guy who is an extreme danger to the world", Sen. Biden, April 4, 2002.
"He is a long-term threat and a short-term threat to
our national security", Sen. Biden, April 13, 2002.
"He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged
from his power", Sen. Biden, September 26, 2002.
"When the inspectors left, after Saddam kicked them
out, there was a cataloging at the United Nations saying he had X tons of… X
amounts of...and they listed various materials he had. He had these stockpiles.
Well it turned out that he didn't but everyone in the world thought he had
them, weapons inspectors SAID [Biden's emphasis] he had them. He catalogued
them, they catalogued them. This was no Cheney pipe dream. This was in fact
catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them...?",
Biden with Tim Russert, 2008. Well, that
is a question that rational people would have.
Given all this, it is most likely that whether with Gore or
Kerry the US was going to attack Iraq unilaterally—even though, and people
forget, the US was still part of a UN coalition that had approved the removal
of Saddam by force from Kuwait.
Perhaps some generals were right. In 1991 the UN should have
allowed the coalition to go all the way to Baghdad and arrest Saddam for war
crimes (initiating a war of aggression and conquest). The rest, were we ended
up at, would have been avoided.
The fact is that the policy of regime change in Iraq was a
Clinton policy that had been in place prior to Bush and had the support of all
the top leadership of the Democrats. The policy of unilateral action was also a
policy of the Clinton administration, and it was put in practice in Bosnia.
The policy of regime change in Iraq was the policy of the
Clinton administration to its last days. It was supported and parroted by Sen.
Biden. After the Bush administration came to power and after 9/11 all that changed.
Biden, for one thing, turned against the surge.
On December 26th, 2006, we saw this Associated Press story:
"Biden Vows to Fight Any Iraq Troop Boost." This was prior to
the surge. Anne Flaherty, AP writer, "Sen. Joseph Biden, the
incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he will fight
President Bush if the administration decides to send more US troops to Iraq.”
Sen. Biden, who then had his eyes on the Democratic
presidential nomination, also warned “I just think it's the absolute wrong
Later referring to Gen. Petraeus, and the effect of the
surge on military and political success in Iraq, Biden said On Meet the Press,
September 9th, 2007:
“Petraeus is dead wrong. He's dead, flat wrong. The
fact of the matter is that there is -- that this -- uh -- this idea of the
security gains we made have had no impact on the underlying sectarian dynamic.
None. None whatsoever. Can anybody envision a central government made up
of Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurds that's going to gain the trust and respect of 27
million Iraqis? There have been some tactical gains, but they have no
ultimate bearing at this point on the prospect of there being a political
settlement in Iraq that would allow American troops to come home without
leaving chaos behind.” Biden proposed dividing Iraq into three separate countries.
Before, and during the primaries, Sen. Obama went from
immediate withdrawal, to appease the “anti-war” left, in less than 16 months to "I
will evaluate the situation and listen to what commanders on the field have to
On September 15, 2008, while campaigning in public for a
speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama was at the same
time trying in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a
draw-down of the American military presence. During a BBC television interview of November 5, 2008 Iraq’s
Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari confirmed the reports, “Obama has
"reassured us that he would not take any drastic or dramatic
Obama opposed the U.S. intervention in Iraq from the
beginning. His promise to pull U.S. troops out of the country was a cornerstone
of his campaign.
“I am not
persuaded that 20,000 additional in Iraq is gonna solved the sectarian violence
in there in Iraq. In fact, I think
it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at
the sort of political acommodation…so I’m going to actively oppose the
president’s proposal (the surge)…I think he is wrong”, Sen. Obama, July 21, 2008.
in his speech of February 27, 2009 in Camp Lejeune he
“Thanks in great measure to your service and sacrifice
and your family's sacrifices, the situation in Iraq has improved. Violence has
been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and
in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq's security forces
and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq's security
forces has improved, and Iraq's leaders have taken steps towards political
relative peace and strong participation in January's provincial elections sent
a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing
their aspirations through a peaceful political process.
there should be no disagreement on what the men and women of our military have
During the presidential campaign, according to Obama, Iraq was a distraction and
had no strategic or national defense relevance. The popular “anti-war”
demagoguery was that we sent our troops for oil, not for any strategic,
national defense, much less altruistic humanitarian goals.
But in the same
speech at Camp Lejeune:
future of Iraq is inseparable from the future of the broader Middle East, so we
must work with our friends and partners to establish a new framework that
advances Iraq's security and the region's.
And so I want to be very clear: We sent
our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime, and you got the job
kept - we kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government, and
you got the job done.
we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better
life. That is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.
starting point for our policies must always be the safety and security of the
American people. I know that you, the men and women of the finest fighting
force in the history of the world, can meet any challenge and defeat any foe.
is a sovereign country with legitimate institutions.”
To this day the partisan left, from Democracy Now to the Huffington
Post, etc., insist we are occupying Iraq, and for oil. “Bush lied people died.”
But important questions remain for history.
One question is, (as then Sen. Biden stated) what happened to the
stockpile of Saddam's WMDs which the world catalogued and Democrats thought he
Two, after 9/11, and knowing that Saddam was indeed
harboring terrorists in Iraq, and the fact that prior to Bush the White House
and the New York Times had documented the connection between Osama bin
Laden/al-Qaeda and Saddam, and knowing he had and was capable of using weapons
of mass destruction, what was any American president supposed to do?
Three, why did the Democrats made a u-turn on everything
they believed about Saddam and left on the table for a post-Clinton coming
administration? And why they are now doing another u-turn and claiming the
invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam’s as "one the greatest
achievements of this administration"?
Fourth, if, according to all these acknowledgements Bush
didn’t lie, who is lying now?
During a press conference then Sen. Biden claimed that during
a meeting with then President Bush he told him “Mr. President, this is your
Now, VP Biden wants to claim that war on President Obama’s
behalf. Why? Duplicity, simple duplicity.