Biden Claims That He Voted For Iraq War And Then “Immediately” Opposed It

For those of us who opposed the war resolution on Iraq, the later spins by presidential candidates John Kerry and Hillary Clinton left us incensed. At the time, many of us criticized the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq as a blank check to President Bush that jettisoned the responsibilities given to them by the Framers. When they voted for the war, it was popular and that seemed the only determinative factor. When thousands died or were wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, they followed the polls in belatedly opposing their own prior positions. Kerry and Clinton later insisted that they were tricked about the resolution despite such objections in the press. Now we can add presidential candidate Joe Biden who is raising objections over his insistence that he never really supported the war and that he “immediately” opposed it.

In a NPR interview, Biden said that he was misled on the war but then opposed it. First, he recounted a story that Bush’s people have flatly denied. He says that he went to the Oval Office and was expressly told that Bush had no intention to invade: “[Bush] looked me in the eye in the Oval Office. He said he needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program. He got them in and before you know it, we had ‘shock and awe.'”

However, Biden’s insistence that he “immediately” has been challenged across the media. Nevertheless, Biden continues to maintain: “That moment it started, I came out against the war at that moment.”

Biden is on record (and videotape) supporting the war before and after the passage of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. When the invasion was being planned and reported publicly, Biden told Face the Nation that “If the covert action doesn’t work, we better be prepared to move forward with another action, an overt action. And it seems to me that we can’t afford to miss.”

More importantly, months after the invasion, Biden told CNN: “I, for one, thought we should have gone in Iraq.” Later than that, he said at a hearing “I voted to go into Iraq, and I’d vote to do it again.” Still later, he expressly stated that “we have always known” about the war in Iraq, namely that troops “would have to stay there in large numbers for a long period of time.” He also stated publicly (again after the invasion) that “[c]ontrary to what some in my party might think, Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with sooner rather than later. So I commend the president. He was right to enforce the solemn commitments made by Saddam. If they were not enforced, what good would they be?”

Biden has been challenged on the veracity of other stories or factual assertions that he has used on the campaign trail. That has been a long-standing problem with Biden. However, this is about his record in supporting an unnecessary and unwarranted war that costs thousands of lives and ultimately over a trillion dollars. Like Kerry and Clinton, Biden cast the popular rather than the right vote. No level of revision of history will change the cost of that war for thousands of families or the country.

These denials and revisions are precisely why the Framers wisely insisted on declarations of war — a constitutional requirement that has been effectively removed from the Constitution by our politicians.

66 thoughts on “Biden Claims That He Voted For Iraq War And Then “Immediately” Opposed It”

  1. PCS again asking for bona fides from someone he disagrees with while ignoring all the clowns in the clown car he drives.

    So nice to have you back, PCS.

    1. R. Lien – I know the bona fides of the people in my clown car, however not Anon1.

  2. So in other words:

    “I was for killing over 100,000 civilians in Iraq then immediately opposed the ensuing debacle that someone else caused .”

    “Let’s win one for the gaffer”

    1. Why are you attributing 85% of the civilian death toll during the period running from March 2003 to December 2011 to the U.S. military? It wasn’t American troops who were staging suicide bombings all over the place.

        1. Nor would their be several million permanent refugees, ISIS, and an Iran without a neighboring rival.

        2. It would not have happened had the invasion not occurred to begin with.

          Waal, no. You’d have had excess deaths from other sources. Not as if Iraq between 1958 and 2003 was congenially governed. That aside, your evaluation implicitly endorses the political goals of the people running the suicide bombing campaigns. Why are you doing that?

          1. TIA insists on posting despite his complete ignorance of the effects of our invasion while trying to pin some of that on someone who opposed the war. As a war supporter, the blood, destruction, dislocation, and political instability with increasing power for Iran which is it’s legacy is on his hands.

            1. TIA insists on posting despite his complete ignorance

              Yeah, one of David Brock’s 20-something bitc*es is going to school all of us. Been an education.

            2. Anon1 – what are your bona fides that we should listen to you about any war or its effects?

              1. Paul, like you I’m an educated citizen of our democracy who has been around during some of the notable events we discuss here, including the Iraq War. I was as involved in following events then as I am now. I read history, including researching those things I have not previously learned before commenting.

                Other than that I have no special credentials – I assume like you and most posting here – and you can discount what I say if you don’t think it makes sense. The insistence of some here that I am a young paid poster is amusing, and of course irrelevant to most all our discussions even if true. I hope my personal remembrances add some flavor and 1st person substance to some of my posts, but they rarely hinge on that. If they can’t counter what a 20 something posts, they’re double losers. Just above TIA shrinks from defending his nonsensical defense of the Iraq War and chalks up his retreat to the presence of a ringer – me. What a joke……he is.

  3. I share JT’s censure of Biden, just as I shared his opposition to the Iraq war during the build up. I seriously doubt many on this board opposed it as the GOP leadership overwhelmingly favored it while the Senate Democrats were split with a slight majority in favor and House Democrats were strongly opposed to it.

    United States Senate
    Party Yeas Nays
    Republican 48 1
    Democratic 29 21
    Independent 0 1
    TOTALS 77 23

    United States House of Representatives
    Party Ayes Nays Not
    Republican 215 6 2
    Democratic 81 126 1
    Independent 0 1 0
    TOTALS 296 133 3

    Just as someone could vote for Trump and then later realize what a disastrous decision that was, so with the Iraq War some supporters later opposed and admitted their mistake. Kerry did quickly, while Hillary took forever – that was why I opposed her from the beginning in 2008. OK, admit it and move forward. Biden doesn’t seem willing to face this one and it did cost thousands of US lives and over a hundred thousand Iraqi lives, not to mention the dissolution of ancient neighborhoods and literally millions of refugees. The Congress is full of proponents of that war who will never face their responsibility – what to do with them?

    By the way, when Obama was elected, he early signaled Congressional democrats and the DOJ that he had no interest in running a recriminations program against the W administration and the deceptions they ran to justify their invasion. That was in the interests of moving forward while the country was mired in deep recession. But how much remains buried and festering?

    1. So hows that “construction” business you keep telling us keeps you oh so busy….cutting and pasting from Wikipedia?

      Memo to David Brock: this troll is due for the glue factory


      1. Insurance audit just completed, so I was stuck to the desk all day getting ready.

        Thanks for asking.

        Maybe you can come up with a comment with substance mixed with facts instead of just ankle biting – probably not.

  4. What two Presidents refused to honor the War Powers Act? Clinton and Obama.
    What two Presidents honored the war powers Act Bush and Bush

    How did Obama get around it when he finally pulled troops out of Iraq?
    By then had the war renamed as The War Against Terror which effectively nullified the War Powers Act.

    Which party created the WPA? Democrat Sociaists under Clinton.

  5. I have a lot more respect for people with principals, rather than feelers for which way the fickle wind blows.

    Own the past, admit mistakes, and take a principled stance. You won’t be the most popular, but you’ll have a spine and be believed.

    1. Thanks for that GOP propaganda from 2005. One assumes you supported that war and still do.

  6. The only Democrat who would not be a disaster is Pete B. And he won’t be nominated.
    Biden? Incompetent in the extreme. He would be led around by a nose ring by his “aides” and the polls. Sanders/Warren: communists at heart. Andrew Yang: worse than Warren/Sanders, Kamala Harris: ewww….. as usual, the balanced clear-minded people will be ignored and we’ll get another horror in the lead, one way or another.

    1. Perhaps if Biden started barking like a dog it would help his campaign.
      It didn’t work for Hillary when she barked at Republicans but desperate times require desperate measures


      1. She was very stiff and awkward. Probably difficult to relax knowing she lied about deleting emails in violation of the Federal Records Act, lied about keeping a bootleg server in her bathroom where people with zero clearance had access, kept classified information on it, backed it up to the Cloud…essentially shouting the information onto the internet.

        That would make anyone a little stiff.

    2. Without agreeing with you assessment of the other democrats, Amy Klobuchar would be the best candidate and also a solid president. She’d win in a runaway and has a strong record of serious minded accomplishments, many of which involved crossing the aisle. She ran the Minneapolis DA’s office for 8 years before being elected to the Senate in 2006. She won all the Minnesota Congressional districts, including MIchelle Bachman’s old district.

  7. He’s completely unprincipled in addition to all his other shortcomings. Tell us something we didn’t know.

    As for you, who you want, Uday or Qusay?

    Prior to July 2017, the quietest 12 month period on record in Iraq was registered between 1 Oct. 2010 and 30 July 2011, when the civilian death toll averaged 330 persons per month. Since April 2018, the monthly totals have been persistently below that threshold and are currently running at about 1/2 that. About 85% of the deaths are occurring in provinces where Sunni Arabs form a critical mass. About 1/2 the population lives in securely Shi’ite Arab or securely Kurdish provinces. Anyone interested? Of course not.

  8. If Joe Biden is elected president

    Joe Biden Is The Only Man Who Can Save China In 2020

    “China can’t afford to ignore half the global economy if we’re united. That gives us substantial leverage to shape the future rules of the road on everything from the environment to labor to trade to technology to transparency,” Biden said.

  9. All military actions by the United States since the end of the so-called “World War II have been and are Wars Of Aggression. War Crimes!

    The Nuremberg principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations to codify the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.

    The principles

    Principle I
    “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.”

    Principle II
    “The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.”

    Principle III
    “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law, acted as Head of State or responsible government official, does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”

    Principle IV
    Main article: Superior orders
    “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.

    This principle could be paraphrased as follows: “It is not an acceptable excuse to say ‘I was just following my superior’s orders'”.

    Previous to the time of the Nuremberg Trials, this excuse was known in common parlance as “Superior Orders”. After the prominent, high-profile event of the Nuremberg Trials, that excuse is now referred to by many as the “Nuremberg Defense”. In recent times, a third term, “lawful orders” has become common parlance for some people. All three terms are in use today, and they all have slightly different nuances of meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.

    Nuremberg Principle IV is legally supported by the jurisprudence found in certain articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which deal indirectly with conscientious objection. It is also supported by the principles found in paragraph 171 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status which was issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Those principles deal with the conditions under which conscientious objectors can apply for refugee status in another country if they face persecution in their own country for refusing to participate in an illegal war.

    Principle V
    “Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.”

    Principle VI
    “The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

    (a) Crimes against peace:
    (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
    (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
    (b) War crimes:
    Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
    (c) Crimes against humanity:
    Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”
    Principle VII
    “Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.”

    Since the end of the so-called World War II, the citizens of the United States have been and are “Good Germans.”

    Nuremberg Diary (1947)

    These statements were recorded in Gustave Gilbert’s transcriptions of conversations with many of the Nazi leaders during the War Crimes Trials at Nuremberg, and later published in Gilbert’s Nuremberg Diary ( 1947 )

    * Göring: Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
    * In an interview with Gilbert in Göring’s jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)

    A people who elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, traitors, liars, initiators of Wars Of Aggression, ethnic cleansers and genocidal mass murders are not “innocent” victims …
    but accomplices.
    [ updating and paraphrasing George Orwell ]
    ( Eric Arthur Blair )

    Why am I wrong?

    dennis hanna
    p.s. Please note the professor like all oligarchs and all war criminals never mentions the millions, upon millions of innocent non-threatening or non-attacking “Others” were murdered by the United States Military.
    U.S.A. Number 1!!!

    1. All military actions by the United States since the end of the so-called “World War II have been and are Wars Of Aggression. War Crimes!

      All of Dennis Hanna’s posts are evidence toward the proposition that closing state asylums was bad policy.

  10. John Kerry said he was against Gulf War II before he voted to authorize it.
    Biden says he was against the war AFTER he voted to authorize it.
    Kerry’s flip- flop of “against-then-for-it’ caused him some problems when he ran against Bush in 2004.
    Biden’s ” I was for-then-against-it” claim, the reverse of the Kerry dodge, isn’t likely to help him either.

  11. Mr. Biden is a liar. But we knew that.

    Most of the rest of the Democratic field are also liars.

    As is Pres. Trump.

    Why are so many people selectively outraged?

    It is up to us, the voters, to elect the most competent president, not the most appealing liar.

      1. yawn

        One of the best political videos on Youtube is one featuring Hillary arriving in Bosnia depicting her “sniper fire” lie where bombs and shells are included in her arrival, men and women around her being blown to smithereens and fires erupting everywhere. Quite a hoot, all based on Hillary’s favorite past-time: to lie, lie, lie which gratifies her idiot supporters to no end

      2. If you cannot tell the difference between Biden taking a sharpie to his voting record supporting the Iraq war and Trump taking a sharpie to a weather map, then it is you that is the problem.

        1. Olly, Trump uses a Sharpie everyday, all day, including on current national security issues. See his latest ignorance on Lil Kim’s dance.

          “..Now, American intelligence officials and outside experts have come to a far different conclusion: that the launchings downplayed by Mr. Trump, including two late last month, have allowed Mr. Kim to test missiles with greater range and maneuverability that could overwhelm American defenses in the region.

          Japan’s defense minister, Takeshi Iwaya, told reporters in Tokyo last week that the irregular trajectories of the most recent tests were more evidence of a program designed to defeat the defenses Japan has deployed, with American technology, at sea and on shore.

          Mr. Kim’s flattery of Mr. Trump with beguiling letters and episodic meetings offering vague assurances of eventual nuclear disarmament, some outside experts say, are part of what they call the North Korean leader’s strategy of buying time to improve his arsenal despite all the sanctions on North Korea.

          Sign up for The Interpreter
          Subscribe for original insights, commentary and discussions on the major news stories of the week, from columnists Max Fisher and Amanda Taub….”

          1. Should President Trump go back to the foreign policy of his predecessors that did absolutely nothing regarding NK?

  12. No politician in this country can get elected and/or remain in a high position if they don’t support the military industrial complex, and every serious candidate knows that. The last two presidents that didn’t support wars of aggression (waged usually to steal the natural resources of the target nation) were JFK & Carter.

    1. Lets keep giving the Dept of War $15,000,000,000 (lotta zeros) every week so they can set foreign policy, murder innocent people and call it a job.

  13. Biden lies. Trump lies. Bill Clinton was “an usually good liar” according to Democrat Senator, Bob Kerry, and Hillary “Bosnia sniper fire” Clinton was no slouch.

    Then there are Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy lied about killing Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick, Jerold Nadler, James Comey, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, all of the Left, and Donal Trump of course, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, CNN, NYT, Wash comPost, and on and on and on.

    America deserves better but alas Americans elect liars to represent a populace that lacks morals. So there ya go

    1. America deserves better but alas Americans elect liars to represent a populace that lacks morals.

      I believe America deserves what it gets. It’s not as though government in general, and our government specifically, didn’t come without a warning label. And it’s not as though we haven’t had additional warnings since. Jefferson was clear when he wrote in the DoI:

      all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

      Sixty-four years later, Alexis de Tocqueville described what he has observed regarding the relationship between the people and government:

      After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the government then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

      Twenty-six years later, James Garfield gave a speech with a warning for Americans in which he said:

      Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

      If this great experiment has proven anything, it is that self-government is impossible to maintain if the citizens remain free to be ignorant of history, apathetic to constitutional governance and dependent on the state. We want freedom, liberty, equality, security of rights, but it is not in our nature to do the heavy lifting required for it.

      1. Good post Olly and I agree on all counts, though I remain optimistic. The idea that our leaders are not as moral as the citizenry in general is false I believe, and I also think that those in office now have passed more rigorous inspection than those in our past due to changes in the laws and election rules. There are downsides to this, and some greats from the past may not have passed that rigorous inspection and their service thus lost. The task is clearly on the voters more than the leaders. We have the control, there no more party bosses in smoke filled rooms, though money is flowing too easily into politics and money can buy PR and therefore a place on the ballot. We have access to information, but must exercise it wisely and diligently. This board is discouraging on that front. We have no one to blame but our collective selves if we can’t do better with all that has been handed to us.

        1. “we have the control, there no more party bosses in smoke filled rooms”

          ha ha ha the only thing that’s true is smoking is banned inside now most place

          otherwise yeah there will ALWAYS be bosses and behind the scenes people picking winners

          the thing that stinks for you is that the guy on the Republican side that outwitted the “political bosses” is none other than the current POTUS DONALD J TRUMP

          1. kurtz, maybe I missed something, but last I looked candidates must not only win a general election, but the primaries to get on that ticket. Is it your belief that the GOP party “bosses” picked Trump and the Democratic “bosses” in 2008 picked Obama?


            1. Anon1: Of course not trump that was kind of my point

              For Obama, I think not either, but it is not clear. Recall this story please


              Now i have posted about this before but I Think you will enjoy reading this and read it very very carefully. Butch Morgan is precisely such a “boss,” He was a local Democrat capo for decades in that corner of the woods. And he was found guilty of electoral fraud in a primary …. faking signatures for both Hillary and Obama.

              Why both? I am too dull to know such things. So I wondered until I read this excellent analysis

              In other words, according to the following analysis: advantage Obama. Hillary was at a crticial juncture and Morgan’s actions favored Obama.


              “The allegations of electoral fraud first emerged in 2011 when a Yale University undergraduate student looked through the signatures of the petitions that were filed with Indiana election officials to get Barack Obama qualified for the Indiana Democratic primary ballot.[17] Ryan Nees, a former Obama White House intern, pored through the “byzantine and complicated” petition signatures.[18] Page after page of the voter names and signatures in St. Joseph County turned out to be complete forgeries.[19]

              Nees said the fraud was easy to detect “because page after page of signatures are all in the same handwriting.” A close inspection also revealed their similarity to signatures from a petition for a previous gubernatorial election. Even worse, some of the names appeared on the list several times.[20]

              Erich Speckin, a forensic document specialist, confirmed the forgeries, concluding that 19 of the ballot petition pages for Obama filed with election officials were illegitimate.[21] Nees uncovered the fraud while working as an intern for Howey Politics Indiana, a nonpartisan political news website, and later published his findings through the South Bend Tribune.[22]

              In the wake of these revelations, the state chairman of the Indiana Republican Party wrote to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, David Capp.[ 23] Mr. Capp was nominated to serve as the U.S. Attorney by President Obama in 2009.[24] The letter requested that federal officials investigate the allegations of election fraud.

              Although Mr. Capp refused to act, state officials ultimately charged four people with conspiracy and forgery.[25] In an ironic twist, the state trial court had to appoint a special prosecutor, Stanley Levco, because St. Joseph County Prosecutor Michael Dvorak could not press charges since his signature was one of the ones forged, making him a victim of the crime.[26] Dvorak was not the only Indiana official with that problem: Former Governor Joe Kernan’s name was forged on a petition as well.[27]

              The ringleader of the election fraud was Butch Morgan, chairman of the St. Joseph County Democratic Party.[28] Morgan conspired with three other local officials to duplicate signatures from a previous petition for a Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Jim Schellinger.[29] In Indiana, the authenticity of the ballot petitions must be reviewed by the Republican and Democratic members of the county Board of Voter Registration, with the signatures of the board members executed on the ballot petitions to evidence their review.[30] In this case, Morgan and his coconspirators illegally used a rubber stamp of the signature of a Republican member of the St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration, Linda Silcott, to forge her approval of the ballot petitions when she was out of the office due to the loss of her husband.[31]

              Former Board of Voter Registration worker and Democratic Party volunteer Lucas Burkett revealed the details of the fraud.[32] Burkett confessed that “there were meetings at which several people explicitly agreed to forge these petitions” and that his job was to “forge petitions for candidate Barack Obama.”[33] Furthermore, Board of Voter Registration worker Beverly Shelton “was assigned to forge petitions for candidate Hillary Clinton,” while former County Board of Voter Registration worker Dustin Blythe “was assigned to forge petitions for candidate John Edwards.”[34] John Edwards dropped out of the race at the end of January 2008, and at that time, Burkett had a change of conscience and refused to participate further in the scheme. Consequently, Morgan instructed Blythe to forge signatures on the remaining Obama petitions.[35]

              In June 2013, the fraud trials concluded,[36] and the group’s ringleader, Butch Morgan, was convicted of conspiracy to commit petition fraud and felony forgery.[37] Morgan was sentenced to one year behind bars, the only defendant to receive prison time.[38] Former St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration worker and Democratic volunteer Dustin Blythe was also convicted of conspiracy to commit petition fraud and felony forgery, receiving one year of probation.[39] Former St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration Democratic board member Pam Brunette and board worker Beverly Shelton pleaded guilty and testified against Morgan. They received two years of probation.[40]

              Following the convictions, St. Joseph Superior Court Judge John Marnocha stated: “The defendants who were saying, ‘I was just following orders,’ or ‘I was just doing my duty,’ that’s no excuse. Through history a lot of evil has been done by those saying they were just following orders.”[41]

              In this case, the very people meant to be ensuring the fairness of the election were engaged in a scheme to subvert it. For example, Brunette was the Democratic member of the St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration. Her signature on the petitions was meant to signal that she verified the authenticity of those signatures. According to evidence produced at trial, the officials falsified 90 names for Barack Obama and 130 for Clinton.[42]

              These numbers are critical because, in Indiana, each candidate must obtain 500 signatures from registered voters in each congressional district in order to be placed on the ballot. After the fake names were removed, Obama had only 444 actual voter signatures, falling short of the statutory minimum in St. Joseph County. Hillary Clinton, however, would have remained qualified for the ballot because there were still enough authentic voter signatures on her petitions to meet the 500-voter minimum threshold.[43]

              Had the election officials been doing their job, or had Clinton challenged Obama’s ballot petition signatures and the fraud been discovered, then according to prosecutor Stanley Levco, “Barack Obama wouldn’t have been on the ballot for the primary.”[44] Thus, Clinton would have won all 72 of Indiana’s delegates. The systemic election fraud on the part of local Democratic Party officials allowed President Obama to appear on a ballot for which he did not legally qualify. As a result, he was awarded 34 delegates to whom he was not entitled.

              Clinton would ultimately win Indiana, but only by a narrow margin. Consequently, Obama received close to half of Indiana’s delegates—34 to Clinton’s 38.[45] Four days later, Obama took the lead in superdelegates.

              It is not difficult to see how the course of the campaign—and history—could have changed if Obama had been kept off the ballot in Indiana. There is a strong possibility that the momentum of the campaign might have shifted not only because Clinton would have been almost even with Obama in the total delegate count, but also because Obama’s campaign would have been enveloped in a major scandal involving his disqualification from the ballot because of election fraud by local Democratic officials.

              Such a scandal could have affected Obama’s fundraising and his ability to compete effectively in the remaining primaries, as well as the crucial and pending decisions of the on-the-fence superdelegates who had not yet declared which one of the two candidates they were supporting. It is impossible to say with certainty what would have happened, but the results of the 2008 election could have been quite different.”
              ps WHO ELSE IS FROM THERE? I forget, somebody remind me.
              pps i like BHO more than Hillary, in retrospect

              PPS maybe you would like “When Corruption was King” by Robert Cooley, i recommended that to Hill and he hasnt got back with the book review yet. Very interesting stuff!

              1. i notice whenever i make a post about the 2008 court-proven felonious electoral fraud by a Democrat political boss, none of the usual suspects has anything to say about it.

        2. Thanks Anon, unfortunately I don’t share in your optimism.

          The idea that our leaders are not as moral as the citizenry in general is false

          That’s not the idea at all. The point is they are exactly as moral as the citizenry. They have the same human nature as those that elect them. The problem has always been and will always be that those in public service know they are playing on offense and the citizens that elect them should be on defense; they just don’t know it.

          The citizens have ignorantly been groomed to believe being a member of a political party puts them on offense with the government side of their party, and that they are both (government/citizen) motivated by the same thing, to defeat the other party. The fact is the political class has more in common with the other party than they do with their own constituents. The one common motivation is the power that comes from remaining in office. The citizenry is under the illusion they are electing to remain on offense with their party, when they are actually electing a force that is a constant threat to their rights.

          History has proven this doesn’t end well.

          1. I agree that our elected leaders are generally as moral as the citizens, for better or worse. From there however, I think you lean toward a conspiratorial view of leaders vs citizens that allows citizens to relinquish the responsibility we have for our fate, and it contrast to what I thought you were describing – we get what we deserve.

            While those who are good at getting elected must also have skills at manipulating voters, I believe all leaders through out history probably have had that social skill, and it may not be their controlling impulse, i.e., they may actually also have high principles and beliefs which are their primary goals. I think viewing OUR government as an opponent is a cop out and a mistake. I don’t believe, except for some fairly minor reforms, that a better more responsive system of self governance is possible, given the size of our nation’s population and we should take the bit, bear down, and take responsibility for it.

            1. From there however, I think you lean toward a conspiratorial view of leaders vs citizens that allows citizens to relinquish the responsibility we have for our fate, and it contrast to what I thought you were describing – we get what we deserve.

              I have no idea how what I wrote would lead you to conclude I believe citizens should under any circumstances relinquish their responsibility to their fate. The theory is self-government, by definition is, of the people. This is all of the people, those elected and those that elect them. The elected swear an oath, and those that elect them hold them accountable to honor that oath. The reality however does not come close to the theory. In reality, the citizens elect and they abandon their duty for accountability to the very people they elected. That’s insane. That’s expecting something that has never existed.

              The idea that the political class is on offense and the citizens are on defense is not conspiratorial. It’s a healthy way for citizens to view the government. It encourages people to behave completely different. Here’s a question for you: if we viewed our relationship with government as less of an alliance and more of contest between forces, wouldn’t it be important make sure the citizens were qualified, motivated and accountable for the challenge?

              1. Ok Olly, thanks for the clarification.

                As to your question, I believe the attitude you are encouraging is a defacto cop out already prevalent and used as an excuse. “There all a bunch of crooks, so why bother.” Not only do i think it is an excuse, I don’t believe it’s accurate. Sure, there are powerful people who abuse their position for selfish goals, but there are others who truly wish to positively affect the future and our lives. We need to be able to sort them out without the broad brush strokes. Of course there are some of the latter who’s leadership we still think is wrong. Being dedicated doesn’t make one right.

                We may not come any closer than our agreement that we have and will get the government we deserve, but that’s an important one. In my opinion there is no other way to interpret that but optimistically – what else do we need to live as free people? The tools are in our hands.

                Some think that even with out low voter turnouts and lack of political awareness, the American people have a native and intuitive ability to pick the right direction at election time and that at least partly explains our success. Sometimes I think that and other times not so sure. What is critical to me is the realization that there is no “they”, only “we”. “We” have the power if we use it and wisely. That’s opposite of how you come off this.

                1. I believe the attitude you are encouraging is a defacto cop out already prevalent and used as an excuse. “There all a bunch of crooks, so why bother.”

                  Once again I don’t see how you would logically conclude that. We are partners with those we elect in this self-government experiment. If history has proven anything, our government partner has never proven they will not abuse their power. There are institutional checks, but they are largely dependent on those within government to carry them out. Kind of an honor among thieves sort of oversight. Understanding this, we should be even more encouraged to actively carry out our own check on government, not as you say so why bother.

                  1. If history has proven anything, our government partner has never proven they will not abuse their power.

                    That is a self-evident truth. Another self-evident truth is we the people will ignorantly, apathetically and dependently enable that abuse of power.

                    So whose bright idea was it to remove for the people any requirement for civics literacy, any requirement to be civically engaged (at least vote) and any sense of self-reliance?

  14. Thank you Professor Turley. I have a feeling the truth of past votes will mean little to far too many people. I have also been talking to everyone I know about all the nonsense of our non-wars we have been in since WWII. Seems to me if you drop bombs, or shoot guns on or into a foreign country, that is an act of WAR. Our constitution is clear, an act of war requires an “act of war”. We have far too many cowards in the Senate and House, Biden was among them.

Comments are closed.