Voting For War to Prevent War

Voting for war to prevent war.

I just heard Don Imus on his MSNBC talk show interview Senator Don Biden, Democrat, Delaware. While I do not have a photographic memory, so thus can not come up with an exact quote, Sen Biden claimed that the reason he voted to authorize Dubyah to use force in Iraq is so that Dubyah wouldn't use force in Iraq. Something along the lines of showing a united front to Saddam to scare Saddam into compliance or something.

Can you imagine that? Sen Biden never imagined that Dubyah would actually USE the authorization the Congress granted him. So I guess if Sen Biden had known Dubyah was going to actually invade Iraq, heck, he wouldn't have been caught dead voting to grant the authorization to do so. So there you have it people, if the people of Delaware want to hold someone accountable for the war in Iraq, Sen Biden asks that you not blame him. He might have voted to authorize the war, but he was only bluffing and never imagined that an actual war might come out of the authorization.

Sometimes Imus puts out transcripts of his interviews, if that happens with this interview I will rewrite this article so that it contains Sen Biden's exact words. I have sent Don Imus an e-mail requesting he publish a transcript of the interview.

Don Imus published the interview, here is Senator Biden in his own words:
The reason we all voted, not all of us, I speak for myself, voted to give the
President the authority to use force was so that the force would not be used. It
was to make the point that we were totally unified and Saddam should understand
that and as a consequence of that we would get inspectors back in there and look
what they did with that authority.

To be clear (and fair), Senator Biden is speaking in the context of why he would not vote to grant Dubyah authority to use force against Iran.


Blogger Michael said...

An aside...

You probably know my view of Bush. I think of him as devisive, petty and incompetent and a danger to the world. Interestingly enough, American historians have a pretty dim view of Bush as well. Read here on a remarkably well written article in Rolling Stone magazine.

Michael Tam
vitulis' Medical Rants

4/20/2006 08:59:00 PM  
Blogger Little David said...

Thanks for the link. It was a pretty decent critique of the Dubyah Presidency, although I think it probably goes a little too far in trying to portray him as the worst President in history.

The article also is a little one sided in that EVERYTHING Dubyah has done is pointed to as a disastrous failure, which isn't completely true. I myself am not a big fan of Dubyah, I voted for Kerry after all. I would point out for example that while the No Child Left Behind effort might not be a blazing success, it did incorporate the Standards of Learning tests into the educational system. Prior to this, some students where earning High School diplomas without being able to read beyond an elementary level.

One thing is certain is that after Dubyah finishes his term, America is going to need a great President to clean up the mess he is making. However one of the people who has expressed an interest in running for President is Senator Biden, and he is the guy who I quoted as saying "The reason we all voted, not all of us, I speak for myself, voted to give the
President the authority to use force was so that the force would not be used." Kind of reminds me of Senator John Kerry's line “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” In Kerry's case, even though it was used very effectively against him, it was at least, to me, understandable. Senator Biden's line just leaves me shaking my head. He voted for war to prevent war. Yeah, right.

4/21/2006 09:28:00 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

I'm not sure that it is "going too far".

Firstly, the US is a "great" nation - in terms of its economy, social progress, world influence, etc, and has been so for around a century. As such, one would expect that the leaders of the US to be relatively "great" men.

Now, I'm not suggesting that all of them would be geniuses in political leadership, but the position would demand a certain degree of acumen and competence.

As per the previous link, there are not too many other American presidents that can claim the infamy of the "accomplishments" of Bush II.

Worst in history? Well, I personally don't know very much of the others contenders in the article but I would certainly agree that he is probably the worst in living memory, including Nixon.

Michael Tam
vitualis' Medical Rants

4/22/2006 12:47:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

Well the majority of Americans, at least now, disapprove of his leadership. However I believe the majority is still against impeachment or even his being censured as has been proposed.

The problem is that we have to have a human being serve as President. I do not know that there are that many "great" human beings walking around who would be willing to serve. Look at last election, while I did vote for Kerry because I felt he was preferable to Dubyah, I doubt his service would have risen to the level of greatness either.

I think we need to start looking ahead to the next election. I am not sure we are going to see a "great" human being willing to take on the responsibility. I most would like to see Colin Powell run, however he is not interested. Senator Biden has expressed an interest in running, however his interview with Don Imus does nothing to inspire hope that he would rise to the level of greatness. A good politician? Maybe. A good President? I doubt it, probably no better then what we have in there now.

4/22/2006 08:08:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home