Did Joe Biden Believe That Saddam Hussein Had Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Back in 2002, he said he did.

By
11

In an interview on MSNBC’s The Last Word on Monday, former Vice President Joe Biden claimed that he did not believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when he voted in favor of the Iraq war as a senator in 2002.

“The reason I voted the way I did was to try to prevent a war from happening, because, remember, the threat was to go to war,” said Biden.

“The argument was because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. So [President George W. Bush] said that, ‘I need to be able to get the security council to agree to send in inspectors to put pressure on Saddam to find out whether or not he’s producing nuclear weapons.’

“And at the time, I said, ‘that’s your reason? All right, I get it.’

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
11
By
Comments (11)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    Actually, WMD were found. UNMOVIC had found what was called the "Air Force Document" which itemized a number of chemical filled weapons (bombs). Some of these were later found, and there are at least 3 incidents of US soldiers suffering effects from chemical filled IEDs. The official reason Iraq was invaded was because they did not disarm per the Security Council requirements and UNMOVIC in Jan. 2003 issued their final report with this conclusion.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Logical

      This the best you can do? If you go digging in the basement, you may find all sorts of stuff. May be some left overs from Iran-Iraq war. The sale was made on a mushroom cloud.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Neil Hansen

        Those “leftovers” would have caused mass hysteria had one or two been transferred to a terrorist organization and set off in NYC, LA, London, Paris,...
        It was not the possibility Iraq would attack the US directly with chem or bio weapons but that it would share such weapons with al Qaeda or other terror group or that Iraq would again use them against a neighbor or its own people that caused concern among military and intelligence professionals.
        FTR, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

        Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Logical

    Another thing the Dispatch can do, unless it wants to eventually bretbartize itself, by giving a context. Describe the actual resolution, and its ambiguity. I too, a commoner but with top 1% of cognitive abilities by any measurement, gave the resolution and W. enough benefit to avoid war at all costs.

    Also, the Dispatch should provide a parallel with the changing narrative by Trump...if it thinks it's fair to start parsing Biden because he is the Pres candidate; so is Trump.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      This is a "fact check", not a column or news article. Did he say what was reported. And I think it gave sufficient context.

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Logical

    The consevative hero William Saffire, now dead, wrote incessantly how the war was going to pay for itself. Do you want to open this nonsense again. Is this the priority of the Dispatch. If so, let's start with Goldberg, French, and other heroes from this blog.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      "The consevative hero William Saffire, now dead..."
      That was an unnecessary slam at the deceased. It wasn't his fault he passed.

      Collapse
  4. Melissa

    Hmm. As a current and veteran democratic voter from years past, I seem to recall the entire moderate and Republican establishment being in favor of the war at the time, including the National Review, where two of the headlining writers of The Dispatch came.

    It's fine to parse out who saying what during the Iraq War. Want to start with the entire Republican leadership?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      Few made an argument that Iraq did not have WMD, that was what the intelligence had said for some time, and the whole point of several Security Council resolutions. The official policy of the US was to remove Saddam, with the Iraq Freedom Act, signed into law by Pres. Clinton.
      The discussion was whether or not military action was the correct course, or ratchet up sanctions. And the leaders of both parties in congress were fully read into the intelligence.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Shawn Gallagher

    “The reason I voted the way I did was to try to prevent a war from happening, because, remember, the threat was to go to war,” said Biden.

    What is this word salad? I voted for the war to prevent the war from happening?

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    The revisionist history, CYA surrounding this event has been breathtaking.

    Collapse