SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Then-Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), ranking Democrat on Senate Foreign Relations, during a February 2003 interview in his office about the possibility of war with Iraq. (Photo by Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images)
Count his role in supporting the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as another part of Joe Biden's long political career that the former vice president--who voted for the war as a senator--doesn't quite remember correctly.
In an interview with NPR published Tuesday morning, Biden told reporter Asma Khalid that he opposed the war from the very moment it began in March of 2003 despite voting for its authorization just months earlier.
\u201cBiden pointed out that he has more foreign policy experience than all of his opponents COMBINED. \n\nBut he's been criticized for being wrong on some key decisions, such as the war in Iraq. \n\nWe asked him about that --->\n\nhttps://t.co/IUpnspS7XH\u201d— Asma Khalid (@Asma Khalid) 1567507560
Biden said that he believed then-President George W. Bush's claim that Bush needed the threat of war to pressure Iraq to give up its weapons program and therefore voted for the authorization to use military force. But once Bush unleashed the "shock and awe" bombing campaign on the country, the former senator said he had a drastic change of heart.
"Immediately, that moment it started, I came out against the war at that moment," said Biden.
As Khalid pointed out in her report from the interview, that's not backed up by the historical record:
In multiple public remarks made after the invasion began in 2003, Biden openly supported the effort. Biden publicly said his vote was a mistake as early as 2005, but not immediately when the war began in 2003.
"Nine months ago, I voted with my colleagues to give the president of the United States of America the authority to use force, and I would vote that way again today," Biden said in a speech at the Brookings Institution on July 31, 2003. "It was a right vote then, and it'll be a correct vote today."
In a statement, Bush spokesperson Freddy Ford told NPR that Biden was misremembering the events in question.
"I'm sure it's just an innocent mistake of memory," said Ford, "but this recollection is flat wrong."
\u201cBiden tells @NPR that he turned against the Iraq War as soon as 'shock and awe' started. But 5 months after the invasion, he said "I would vote that way again today....It was a right vote then, and it'll be a correct vote today." https://t.co/RWvMsZP0Eq\u201d— Alex Thompson (@Alex Thompson) 1567528374
Biden's continued support for military action--even if he was publicly "against" the war--is no better, Stephen Zunes wrote in April:
Biden supported the subsequent bloody counter-insurgency war for the rest of his Senate career, speaking out against bringing the troops home or even setting a timetable for withdrawal. He even became a major advocate of splitting Iraq along ethnic and sectarian lines, seen by most people familiar with the region as very dangerous and irresponsible.
The question asked by NPR was simple, wrote Splinter's Paul Blest on Tuesday, "but because this is Joe Biden giving an interview in the year 2019, he was physically unable to get through the whole thing without saying something that was obviously bullshit."
At The Nation, Joan Walsh wondered if Biden's gaffes were enough to sink his presidency or if a focus on President Donald Trump was enough to save the Biden campaign.
"Maybe Biden thinks toughing this one out will keep the press focused on the bigger issue: Trump's manifest incompetence and corruption," Walsh mused.
Progressive critics of Biden, unwilling to let the former vice president's rewriting of history slide, were less forgiving.
"Biden is flat-out lying," tweeted In These Times editor Sarah Lazare.
Progressive writer Henry Kraemer concurred.
"Biden claiming to have been against the Iraq War from the start is arguably the most outlandish lie any Democrat has told this campaign," Kraemer said.
Arab-American Institute founder James Zogby said that Biden's memory of supporting war wasn't "a mistake or a gaffe."
"It's a whopper," said Zogby.
The former vice president could, of course, be trying to cover for polling on his support for the war that, as Politico reported in May, likely raises concerns for the Biden campaign:
Nearly 3 in 10 Democrats said they were turned off by his Iraq War vote, and more than 40 percent of participants between the ages of 18 and 29 said his record on the issue made them less likely to support him.
Even if one takes Biden's comments at face value, trusting the administration ahead of the war betrays a gullibility that is "alarming," said Rolling Stone's Jamil Smith.
"He voted to authorize military force because Bush 45 'looked him in the eye' and said they needed to go look for Saddam's nuclear program," Smith tweeted. "This is what Biden is saying to defend the vote. My goodness."
Jacobin's Micah Uetrich made the case that "in a just world" Biden would have been tried for war crimes dute to his role in supporting the war.
\u201cIn a just world, Joe Biden wouldn\u2019t be running for president right now because he would have been tried for and found guilty of war crimes, along with Bush & co., for the invasion of Iraq. https://t.co/MahJ1hJSdq\u201d— Micah Uetricht (@Micah Uetricht) 1567531057
Biden's comments weren't his first that have raised doubts about his commitment to--or ability to understand--accuracy. Over the summer the former vice president has been criticized for a completely inaccurate recounting of a war story, calling Keene, N.H. a town in Vermont, and claiming that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated in the "late 70s" (both men were killed in 1968).
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Count his role in supporting the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as another part of Joe Biden's long political career that the former vice president--who voted for the war as a senator--doesn't quite remember correctly.
In an interview with NPR published Tuesday morning, Biden told reporter Asma Khalid that he opposed the war from the very moment it began in March of 2003 despite voting for its authorization just months earlier.
\u201cBiden pointed out that he has more foreign policy experience than all of his opponents COMBINED. \n\nBut he's been criticized for being wrong on some key decisions, such as the war in Iraq. \n\nWe asked him about that --->\n\nhttps://t.co/IUpnspS7XH\u201d— Asma Khalid (@Asma Khalid) 1567507560
Biden said that he believed then-President George W. Bush's claim that Bush needed the threat of war to pressure Iraq to give up its weapons program and therefore voted for the authorization to use military force. But once Bush unleashed the "shock and awe" bombing campaign on the country, the former senator said he had a drastic change of heart.
"Immediately, that moment it started, I came out against the war at that moment," said Biden.
As Khalid pointed out in her report from the interview, that's not backed up by the historical record:
In multiple public remarks made after the invasion began in 2003, Biden openly supported the effort. Biden publicly said his vote was a mistake as early as 2005, but not immediately when the war began in 2003.
"Nine months ago, I voted with my colleagues to give the president of the United States of America the authority to use force, and I would vote that way again today," Biden said in a speech at the Brookings Institution on July 31, 2003. "It was a right vote then, and it'll be a correct vote today."
In a statement, Bush spokesperson Freddy Ford told NPR that Biden was misremembering the events in question.
"I'm sure it's just an innocent mistake of memory," said Ford, "but this recollection is flat wrong."
\u201cBiden tells @NPR that he turned against the Iraq War as soon as 'shock and awe' started. But 5 months after the invasion, he said "I would vote that way again today....It was a right vote then, and it'll be a correct vote today." https://t.co/RWvMsZP0Eq\u201d— Alex Thompson (@Alex Thompson) 1567528374
Biden's continued support for military action--even if he was publicly "against" the war--is no better, Stephen Zunes wrote in April:
Biden supported the subsequent bloody counter-insurgency war for the rest of his Senate career, speaking out against bringing the troops home or even setting a timetable for withdrawal. He even became a major advocate of splitting Iraq along ethnic and sectarian lines, seen by most people familiar with the region as very dangerous and irresponsible.
The question asked by NPR was simple, wrote Splinter's Paul Blest on Tuesday, "but because this is Joe Biden giving an interview in the year 2019, he was physically unable to get through the whole thing without saying something that was obviously bullshit."
At The Nation, Joan Walsh wondered if Biden's gaffes were enough to sink his presidency or if a focus on President Donald Trump was enough to save the Biden campaign.
"Maybe Biden thinks toughing this one out will keep the press focused on the bigger issue: Trump's manifest incompetence and corruption," Walsh mused.
Progressive critics of Biden, unwilling to let the former vice president's rewriting of history slide, were less forgiving.
"Biden is flat-out lying," tweeted In These Times editor Sarah Lazare.
Progressive writer Henry Kraemer concurred.
"Biden claiming to have been against the Iraq War from the start is arguably the most outlandish lie any Democrat has told this campaign," Kraemer said.
Arab-American Institute founder James Zogby said that Biden's memory of supporting war wasn't "a mistake or a gaffe."
"It's a whopper," said Zogby.
The former vice president could, of course, be trying to cover for polling on his support for the war that, as Politico reported in May, likely raises concerns for the Biden campaign:
Nearly 3 in 10 Democrats said they were turned off by his Iraq War vote, and more than 40 percent of participants between the ages of 18 and 29 said his record on the issue made them less likely to support him.
Even if one takes Biden's comments at face value, trusting the administration ahead of the war betrays a gullibility that is "alarming," said Rolling Stone's Jamil Smith.
"He voted to authorize military force because Bush 45 'looked him in the eye' and said they needed to go look for Saddam's nuclear program," Smith tweeted. "This is what Biden is saying to defend the vote. My goodness."
Jacobin's Micah Uetrich made the case that "in a just world" Biden would have been tried for war crimes dute to his role in supporting the war.
\u201cIn a just world, Joe Biden wouldn\u2019t be running for president right now because he would have been tried for and found guilty of war crimes, along with Bush & co., for the invasion of Iraq. https://t.co/MahJ1hJSdq\u201d— Micah Uetricht (@Micah Uetricht) 1567531057
Biden's comments weren't his first that have raised doubts about his commitment to--or ability to understand--accuracy. Over the summer the former vice president has been criticized for a completely inaccurate recounting of a war story, calling Keene, N.H. a town in Vermont, and claiming that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated in the "late 70s" (both men were killed in 1968).
Count his role in supporting the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as another part of Joe Biden's long political career that the former vice president--who voted for the war as a senator--doesn't quite remember correctly.
In an interview with NPR published Tuesday morning, Biden told reporter Asma Khalid that he opposed the war from the very moment it began in March of 2003 despite voting for its authorization just months earlier.
\u201cBiden pointed out that he has more foreign policy experience than all of his opponents COMBINED. \n\nBut he's been criticized for being wrong on some key decisions, such as the war in Iraq. \n\nWe asked him about that --->\n\nhttps://t.co/IUpnspS7XH\u201d— Asma Khalid (@Asma Khalid) 1567507560
Biden said that he believed then-President George W. Bush's claim that Bush needed the threat of war to pressure Iraq to give up its weapons program and therefore voted for the authorization to use military force. But once Bush unleashed the "shock and awe" bombing campaign on the country, the former senator said he had a drastic change of heart.
"Immediately, that moment it started, I came out against the war at that moment," said Biden.
As Khalid pointed out in her report from the interview, that's not backed up by the historical record:
In multiple public remarks made after the invasion began in 2003, Biden openly supported the effort. Biden publicly said his vote was a mistake as early as 2005, but not immediately when the war began in 2003.
"Nine months ago, I voted with my colleagues to give the president of the United States of America the authority to use force, and I would vote that way again today," Biden said in a speech at the Brookings Institution on July 31, 2003. "It was a right vote then, and it'll be a correct vote today."
In a statement, Bush spokesperson Freddy Ford told NPR that Biden was misremembering the events in question.
"I'm sure it's just an innocent mistake of memory," said Ford, "but this recollection is flat wrong."
\u201cBiden tells @NPR that he turned against the Iraq War as soon as 'shock and awe' started. But 5 months after the invasion, he said "I would vote that way again today....It was a right vote then, and it'll be a correct vote today." https://t.co/RWvMsZP0Eq\u201d— Alex Thompson (@Alex Thompson) 1567528374
Biden's continued support for military action--even if he was publicly "against" the war--is no better, Stephen Zunes wrote in April:
Biden supported the subsequent bloody counter-insurgency war for the rest of his Senate career, speaking out against bringing the troops home or even setting a timetable for withdrawal. He even became a major advocate of splitting Iraq along ethnic and sectarian lines, seen by most people familiar with the region as very dangerous and irresponsible.
The question asked by NPR was simple, wrote Splinter's Paul Blest on Tuesday, "but because this is Joe Biden giving an interview in the year 2019, he was physically unable to get through the whole thing without saying something that was obviously bullshit."
At The Nation, Joan Walsh wondered if Biden's gaffes were enough to sink his presidency or if a focus on President Donald Trump was enough to save the Biden campaign.
"Maybe Biden thinks toughing this one out will keep the press focused on the bigger issue: Trump's manifest incompetence and corruption," Walsh mused.
Progressive critics of Biden, unwilling to let the former vice president's rewriting of history slide, were less forgiving.
"Biden is flat-out lying," tweeted In These Times editor Sarah Lazare.
Progressive writer Henry Kraemer concurred.
"Biden claiming to have been against the Iraq War from the start is arguably the most outlandish lie any Democrat has told this campaign," Kraemer said.
Arab-American Institute founder James Zogby said that Biden's memory of supporting war wasn't "a mistake or a gaffe."
"It's a whopper," said Zogby.
The former vice president could, of course, be trying to cover for polling on his support for the war that, as Politico reported in May, likely raises concerns for the Biden campaign:
Nearly 3 in 10 Democrats said they were turned off by his Iraq War vote, and more than 40 percent of participants between the ages of 18 and 29 said his record on the issue made them less likely to support him.
Even if one takes Biden's comments at face value, trusting the administration ahead of the war betrays a gullibility that is "alarming," said Rolling Stone's Jamil Smith.
"He voted to authorize military force because Bush 45 'looked him in the eye' and said they needed to go look for Saddam's nuclear program," Smith tweeted. "This is what Biden is saying to defend the vote. My goodness."
Jacobin's Micah Uetrich made the case that "in a just world" Biden would have been tried for war crimes dute to his role in supporting the war.
\u201cIn a just world, Joe Biden wouldn\u2019t be running for president right now because he would have been tried for and found guilty of war crimes, along with Bush & co., for the invasion of Iraq. https://t.co/MahJ1hJSdq\u201d— Micah Uetricht (@Micah Uetricht) 1567531057
Biden's comments weren't his first that have raised doubts about his commitment to--or ability to understand--accuracy. Over the summer the former vice president has been criticized for a completely inaccurate recounting of a war story, calling Keene, N.H. a town in Vermont, and claiming that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated in the "late 70s" (both men were killed in 1968).
"The Trump-Vance administration is refusing to hand over documents that could show their culpability in hiding international human civil rights abuses," says the president of Democracy Forward.
A coalition of LGBTQ+ and human rights organizations filed a lawsuit Monday against the U.S. Department of State over its refusal to release congressionally mandated reports on international human rights abuses.
The Council for Global Equality (CGE) has accused the administration of a "cover-up of a cover-up" to keep the reports buried.
Each year, the department is required to report on the practices of other countries concerning individual, civil, political, and worker rights protected under international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Governments and international groups have long cited these surveys as one of the most comprehensive and authoritative sources on the state of human rights, informing policy surrounding foreign aid and asylum.
The Foreign Assistance Act requires that these reports be sent to Congress by February 25 each year, and they are typically released in March or April. But nearly six months later, the Trump administration has sent nothing for the calendar year 2024.
Meanwhile, NPR reported in April on a State Department memo requiring employees to "streamline" the reports by omitting many of the most common human rights violations:
The reports... will no longer call governments out for such things as denying freedom of movement and peaceful assembly. They won't condemn retaining political prisoners without due process or restrictions on "free and fair elections."
Forcibly returning a refugee or asylum-seeker to a home country where they may face torture or persecution will no longer be highlighted, nor will serious harassment of human rights organizations...
...reports of violence and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people will be removed, along with all references to [diversity, equity, and inclusion] (DEI).
Among other topics ordered to be struck from the reports: involuntary or coercive medical or psychological practices, arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, serious restrictions to internet freedom, extensive gender-based violence, and violence or threats of violence targeting people with disabilities.
Last week, The Washington Post obtained leaked copies of the department's reports on nations favored by the Trump administration—El Salvador, Russia, and Israel. It found that they were "significantly shorter" than the reports released by the Biden administration and that they struck references to widely documented human rights abuses in these countries.
In the case of El Salvador, where the administration earlier this year began shipping immigrants deported from the United States, the department's report stated that were "no credible reports of significant human rights abuses" there, even though such abuses—including torture, physical violence, and deprivation have been widely reported, including by Trump's own deportees.
Human rights violations against LGBTQ+ people were deleted from the State Department's report on Russia, while the report on Israel deleted references to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial and to his government's threats to the country's independent judiciary.
"Secretary Rubio's overtly political rewriting of the human rights reports is a dramatic departure from even his own past commitment to protecting the fundamental human rights of LGBTQI+ people," said Keifer Buckingham, the Council for Global Equality's managing director. "Strategic omission of these abuses is also directly in contravention to Congress's requirement of a 'full and complete report' regarding the status of internationally recognized human rights."
In June, the CGE sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the State Department calling for all communications related to these decisions to be made public. The department acknowledged the request but refused to turn over any documents.
Now CGE has turned to the courts. On Monday, the legal nonprofit Democracy Forward filed a complaint on CGE's behalf in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the department had violated its duties under FOIA to turn over relevant documents in a timely manner.
"The Trump-Vance administration is refusing to hand over documents that could show their culpability in hiding international human civil rights abuses," said Skye Perryman, Democracy Forward's president and CEO.
"The world is watching the United States. We cannot risk a cover-up on top of a cover-up," Perryman continued. "If this administration is omitting or delaying the release of information about human rights abuses to gain favor with other countries, it is a shameful statement of the gross immorality of this administration."
"Our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own," said the head of the committee behind the measure.
The Associated Press reported Monday that a federal appeals court recently blocked Maine from enforcing a ban on foreign interference in elections that the state's voters passed in 2023.
After Hydro-Quebec spent millions of dollars on a referendum, 86% of Mainers voted for Question 2, which would block foreign governments and companies with 5% or more foreign government ownership from donating to state referendums.
Then, the Maine Association of Broadcasters, Maine Press Association, Central Maine Power, and Versant Power sued to block the ballot initiative. According to the AP, last month, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston affirmed a lower-court ruling that the measure likely violates the First Amendment to the federal Constitution.
Judge Lara Montecalvo wrote that "the prohibition is overly broad, silencing U.S. corporations based on the mere possibility that foreign shareholders might try to influence its decisions on political speech, even where those foreign shareholders may be passive owners that exercise no influence or control over the corporation's political spending."
As the AP detailed:
The matter was sent back to the lower court, where it will proceed, and there has been no substantive movement on it in recent weeks, said Danna Hayes, a spokesperson for the Maine attorney general's office, on Monday. The law is on the state's books, but the state cannot enforce it while legal challenges are still pending, Hayes said.
Just months before voters approved Question 2, Democratic Gov. Janet Mills vetoed the ban, citing fears that it could silence "legitimate voices, including Maine-based businesses." She previously vetoed a similar measure in 2021.
Still, supporters of the ballot initiative continue to fight for it. Rick Bennett, chair of Protect Maine Elections, the committee formed to support Question 2, said in a statement that "Mainers spoke with one voice: Our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own."
A year after Maine voters approved that foreign election interference law, they also overwhelmingly backed a ballot measure to restrict super political action committees (PACs). U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf blocked that measure, Question 1, last month.
"We think ultimately the court of appeals is going to reverse this decision because it's grounded in a misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court has said," Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard professor and founder of the nonprofit Equal Citizens that helped put Question 1 on the ballot, told News Center Maine in July. "We are exhausted, all of us, especially people in Maine, with the enormous influence money has in our politics, and we want to do something about it."
"People are being starved, children are being killed, families have lost everything," said the United Nations agency for Palestinian Refugees.
The Gaza Health Ministry announced on Monday that more than 100 children in Gaza have died of severe hunger during Israel's siege of the territory.
As Al Jazeera reported, the Hamas-run Health Ministry said that a total of 222 Palestinians have died from hunger during the siege, including 101 children. The vast majority of these deaths have come in just the last three weeks when the hunger crisis in Gaza started to garner international media attention, the ministry said.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East on Monday emphasized the direness of the situation in a statement calling for a cease-fire to allow more aid into Gaza.
"People are being starved, children are being killed," the agency said. "Families have lost everything. Political will and leadership can stop an escalation and end the war. Every heartbeat counts."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that there is no starvation crisis in Gaza and has said such reports are part of a "fake" propaganda campaign waged by Israel's enemies.
However, it isn't just the Gaza Health Ministry warning of a hunger crisis in the region, as international charity Save the Children last week said that 43% of pregnant and breastfeeding women who showed up to its clinics in Gaza last month were malnourished, which represented a threefold increase since March, when the Israeli military imposed a total siege on the area.
The latest numbers about starvation in Gaza come as the Israeli government is pushing forward with a plan to fully invade and occupy Gaza, which experts have warned will only exacerbate the humanitarian crisis among its people.
"If these plans are implemented, they will likely trigger another calamity in Gaza, reverberating across the region and causing further forced displacement, killings, and destruction," said Miroslav Jenca, the United Nations assistant secretary general, over the weekend.