Joe Biden Warned In 2007 That He'd Impeach Bush For Waging War Without Congressional Approval

The sudden involvement of the U.S. military in Libya has prompted some intense debate over whether the executive branch has the right to pursue military action against a foreign power without consulting Congress.

By all indications, the White House has complied with the language of the War Powers Resolution, which essentially says, "Gosh, it would be nice if you let us know in advance if you're going to start warring with people, but if you can't for some reason, you know, just send us a letter within 48 hours, okay?"

That said, an emailer reminds me that once upon a time, Vice President Joe Biden waged a mini-campaign against the Bush White House potentially waging unlateral war in Iran. Here's Biden on the campaign trail in New Hampshire in November of 2007:

QUESTIONER: "I have a great fear that say you're elected as the nominee of the party. Next August sometime during the summer, Dick Cheney and George are going to bomb Iran."

BIDEN: "Legitimate concern."

QUESTIONER: "What can you do about it?"

BIDEN: "I am not one, who if you've observed me for some time, I am not one who's engaged in excessive populist rhetoric. I'm not one that pits the rich against the poor. I'm not one who's gone out there and made false threats against presidents about, and god love him he's a great guy, I'm not Dennis Kucinich saying impeach everybody now. But let me tell you, I have written an extensive legal memorandum with the help of a group of legal scholars who are sort of a stable of people, the best-known constitutional scholars in America, because for 17 years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

"I asked them to put together [for] me a draft, which I'm now literally riding between towns editing, that I want to make clear and submit to the Untied States Senate pointing out the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran. And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record, and I want to make it clear, if he does, as chairman of the foreign relations committee and former chair of the judiciary committee, I will move to impeach him."

And here's Biden a few weeks later, at the Scott County Democratic Party banquet in Davenport, Iowa, saying the same thing:

Now, it's important to realize that there's no way in the wide world that President Barack Obama is going to get impeached over this. As Dave Weigel pointed out Tuesday, the prevailing attitude in Congress over the matter of congressional approval is best exemplified by the statements made by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), who each basically said they'd simply rubber-stamp whatever Obama wanted to do. "I'd be glad to vote on it afterwards," said Graham, all but cementing Congress' ornamental role in military conflict.

Oversight of these matters was a responsibility that Congress abdicated a long, long time ago. (It better suits the modern legislator to preserve the chance to score cheap political points off of warmaking than it does actually providing oversight over warmaking in the first place.) But it would still be interesting to see how Biden would reconcile his position in 2007 with what his executive branch is doing today.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[dazzleships]

08:51 PM on 03/27/2011

First of all, this is not a war, an invasion, or even a 'police action'. It is an effort to assist rebellious civilians (and soldiers) to avoid being slaughtered. It is attack on the weapons of a tyrant, which he used on his own people. The difference between North African rebels and the Iraqi people is that the Egyptians, Lybians and others decided for themselves when and how they would begin their battles. They felt that they were ready to depose their tyrants themselves. We just helped them to survive when they over-reached. The Iraq war was imposed by the Bush admin. without a serious plan to avoid total collapse and civil strife. It was probably a cautionary example for these N. African rebels of how not to conduct a revolution. A successful revolution needs a nation that is ripe and ready to fight for itself, which Iraq is not.

[GustavoRejivik]

06:38 PM on 03/27/2011

Hmmmmm ... I wonder if we'd find the same type of hypocrisy in previous Jason Linkins writings??

Biden is a dunce ...

[GustavoRejivik]

01:59 AM on 03/26/2011

Biden's a hypocrite and flat out dumb. How's this for civility .. weren't we lectured for weeks about civility after the Arizona Shooting .... ??

Biden compares GOP to Rapists and Know-nothings ..
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0311/Biden_compares_GOP_to_Know_Nothings.html

[rshrink]

11:54 AM on 03/26/2011

Biden would be close to correct. Actually repubs are much worse and cause a whole lot more harm.

[GustavoRejivik]

06:39 PM on 03/27/2011

Based on what??

Thanks for your opinion, but from my perspective BOTH parties do harm to this Nation .. Progressives far more than anything GOP.

[spark340]

04:15 PM on 03/25/2011

Does anyone take anything this guy says seriously ! The record of his embarrassments and verbal blunders certainly sets records although he seems to know that we don't have 57 states and Marine Corps is not pronounced "Marine Corpse" . Those darn Teleprompters.
GW Bush received unanimous consent of Congress to invade Iraq , including Babblin' Joe's ,as well as 12 UN Resolution­s including 5 Security Council Resolution­s threatenin­g Military Action that hung on the vine through the Clinton Years . He built a coalition of 32 nations in support of the Iraq Action and carried out the action in Afghanista­n with UN and NATO support and involvemen­t .

George HW "Daddy" Bush also received the Consent of Congress after a UN resolution to pursue the ouster of Saddam's Troops form Kuwait . Now I'm told that Obama is within his rights under the War powers act to commit our troops based on negotiatio­n with a few Euroweenie­s and the Arab League most of whom are bailing on us . Also who have their own troops and military aircraft . We are now involved with enforcing a "No-Fly Zone" against a country with no aircraft within the first 20 minutes of military action when our main objective must be the removal of Gaddafi , the only choice that is in our national interest and that of the rebels who we claim to support .

[GustavoRejivik]

02:00 AM on 03/26/2011

Quit pointing out hypocrisy on here and making sense ... you just might get banned !

[rshrink]

11:49 AM on 03/26/2011

Two seriously deluded pups. Can't see through their own bogus ideologies.

[dazzleships]

05:27 PM on 03/28/2011

Why does President Obama need Congress' consent when we are not invading Libya? Did Reagan get consent when he attacked Libya? This is a very similar action, except for the fact that thousands of rebel lives hung in the balance before we intervened.

[Peter Combs]

12:52 AM on 03/25/2011

Ohh..come on now..we're talking about Joe Biden...he says all kinds of stuff, he is funny, engaging and irrelevent..

he should be sticking to "its a three letter word..J.O.B.S." (Joe Biden, 2009)

[Bowlingkev]

12:22 AM on 03/25/2011

Oh, wait....Libya is DIFFERENT! har de har har.....suck on it, libs....

[rshrink]

11:53 AM on 03/26/2011

You have been bowling too much and now you don't know a strike from a gutter ball. You are throwing all gutter balls here.

[rshrink]

10:23 PM on 03/24/2011

Unfortunately, the repubs have nothing but lies and manipulation. They cannot base any arguments on facts, because they would automatically lose, based on the opinions and agendas that they have undertaken. In the world of rhetoric and propaganda, the liar has the advantage. This is especially true if they have unlimited funds to control media through controlling the MSM and running constant propagandistic ads. What makes it worse is that people have been too easily sukkered by the propaganda and voted against their own interests. They have been sukked in by moralistic appeals which really have nothing to do with the real agendas of repub politicians and the billionaires that they serve exclusively.

Here are a few of the corporations behind the attack on labor and accomplishing this with their unlimited supply of money that they make off of us:

Koch Industries
WalMart
Blackwater CEO - Eric Prinz
Amway

[jennifer nichols]

12:16 AM on 03/25/2011

Hold on there. This doesn't have anything to do with Left versus Right. This has to do with Right versus wrong! Bush already put us in 2 ill legal wars - I thought Obama was different. Now I see he takes his marching orders from the same drummer as the Neo hard right - military industrial complex.

For Gosh sakes - he is a constitutional scholar. I wonder If "they used physiological war fair on him as was done to Senator Levin ( see Rolling Stone Feb 24th 2011).

BTW - Where is Obama on that issue??

PS- And no - I did not and do not support Bush.

[rshrink]

12:35 AM on 03/25/2011

I wrote other posts which address your comment. I am not going to repeat them.

[spark340]

04:08 PM on 03/25/2011

GW Bush received unanimous consent of Congress to invade Iraq , including Babblin' Joe's ,as well as 12 UN Resolutions including 5 Security Council Resolutions threatening Military Action that hung on the vine through the Clinton Years . He built a coalition of 32 nations in support of the Iraq Action and carried out the action in Afghanistan with UN and NATO support and involvement .

George HW "Daddy" Bush also received the Consent of Congress after a UN resolution to pursue the ouster of Saddam's Troops form Kuwait . Now I'm told that Obama is within his rights under the War powers act to commit our troops based on negotiation with a few Euroweenies and the Arab League most of whom are bailing on us . Also who have their own troops and military aircraft . We are now involved with enforcing a "No-Fly Zone" against a country with no aircraft within the first 20 minutes of military action when our main objective must be the removal of Gaddafi , the only choice that is in our national interest and that of the rebels who we claim to support .

[GustavoRejivik]

02:05 AM on 03/26/2011

Is not your scribble above just lies and manipulations??

I see not one fact in your diatribe ....

[rshrink]

11:42 AM on 03/26/2011

Your brane wash shin prevents that.

[RIConservative]

08:04 PM on 03/24/2011

Obama had the right to do it. The point is that Bush did too. If only we had leaders who lead rather than adversaries who argue, we might actually accomplish something.

[rshrink]

10:39 PM on 03/24/2011

The diference is the motivation and correctness of the action. Bush just wanted to be a "war president," in order to be a "great president." He said so. He lied us into the war and all of his assumptions proved to be wrong. He rejected collaboration and insisted on running things, even though he had no idea how to run things. Obama has actually won the support of the people of Libya, went in when there was clearly a reason to do so and he cooperated with the other 19 nations who participate in NATO, which allows the US to conserve resources instead of wasting resources just to prove a point. Bush was always campaigning, totally involved in narcissistic, self-agrandizing, photo op activities. On the other hand, Obama has actually paid attention and responded to what is REALLY going on and responding in measured and calculated ways. That is called dealing with reality, not attempting to promote an image, which is now characteristic of the repub party.

[kopernikuz]

09:51 AM on 03/29/2011

Wait... so which is it... did he lie us into the war... or assume us into the war? Either he lied or he made incorrect assumptions based on faulty intel. The two are not one and the same. Did Obama lie us into additional stimulus that would save jobs (but didn't) or was his decision based on faulty assumptions? One is forgivable while the other is impeachable.

One is also more likely and provable and the other is a fanatical overreach.

[Rational Thought Plz]

07:15 PM on 03/24/2011

DId you just compare Iran to Libya? I find it unfortunate that you get a blog to display your ignorance and I am limited to 249 words to explain the absurdity of your "gotcha" moment. I'll just give you an outline of a few key differences that you will ignore.

Iran = Landlocked
Libya = coastal
Landlocked countries will ALWAYS require a ground force.

Libya = supported by UN resolution
Iran = UN is too scared to even be tough with them.

Libya = Qaddafi on a murderous rampage of his own countrymen
Iran = Mostly posturing against the west

Libya = approximately 30 soviet era Migs
Iran = Long range ballistic missiles that can be fitted with nuclear material. This does not make them nukes, it makes them dirty bombs. The effect would be like what we are seeing happen in Japan right now.

Also, It's a Biden quote. Even among liberals, I do not think most people take what Biden says literally. He just says whatever pops in his head.

It makes me feel so hopeless when the people leading the parade can't even reasonably compare and contrast.

[politicalpinball]

01:46 PM on 03/24/2011

This would be interesting if we actually went to war in Libya.

[sonicsuns]

09:42 PM on 03/24/2011

We're using our military to attack a foreign military, in an actual combat situation. If that's not war, what is? (I'll grant you it's a small war, relatively speaking, but that doesn't stop it from being a war)

[rshrink]

10:43 PM on 03/24/2011

This is doing what is necessary to establish a no fly zone, which has been done many times, not the least of which was the ones we had in Boznia and Iraq for many years. We were not at war with either country at the time.

[ghost geezer]

12:01 PM on 03/24/2011

Bush is still at large.

[rshrink]

11:28 PM on 03/24/2011

along with the rest of his out laws.

[kopernikuz]

09:56 AM on 03/29/2011

Right, along with all the people who voted right along with him based on the same intel he had. Some of those people still have jobs in the Congress and Senate... for shame!

[kopernikuz]

10:03 AM on 03/29/2011

Yes, the above was sarcasm...

[quillerm]

08:59 AM on 03/24/2011

But...but..but this is Obama, he can do no wrong, he even got a Nobel Peace Prize just for getting elected and promising World Peace forever. Didn't Qaddafi get the memo, this is not a War. Obama is just protecting the people of Libya through the use of cruise missiles, bombings and other non-violent means. It is time for the media to line up drop to their knees and kiss Obama's Ring. Thank God for Fox News, the only network not on their knees.

[absolument]

11:16 AM on 03/24/2011

The U.S. Constitution makes Treaties that the United States Congress has ratified "the supreme Law of the Land." The United States is a member in the United Nations according to the terms of such a Treaty. Among the terms of that Treaty is making "armed forces" available as needed, to uphold international law and maintain the peace.

If the President may not order armed forces to deploy, in the course of honoring our commitments under a Treaty which the Congress has already ratified, then where do you draw the line? How much CAN a President do militarily without a declaratio­­­­n of war?

[TPaine1776]

12:08 PM on 03/24/2011

What Treaty Clause are your getting the "making "armed forces" available" part. It ust is not in there.

[ghost geezer]

12:26 PM on 03/24/2011

First, I support this intervention, and I was implacably opposed to the 2nd Gulf War.

That said, the whole statutory enterprise of a formal declaration of war predicated
upon approval by Congress has been a dead duck ever since Pearl Harbor. The Korean
War was officially labeled a "police action," and from that time on, like those 57 ways
to leave your lover, our leaders have found almost that many ways to evade Constitutional rectitude in so grave a matter as putting American citizens in harm's way.

Also, history has demonstrated that no enemy since WWII has been a direct threat
to the United States, one that left alone would have ever come to get us in our beds.
Al Qaeda is exceptional. But one of the exceptional issues about Al Qaeda is location, location. It is like the Scarlet Pimpernel everywhere and nowhere, as such a special
case.

There was one and only on legitimate rationale for short cutting Constitutional procedures for declaring war, and that was the hair trigger response times of nuclear
armaments. But that too added to the firewall that prevented the nation for keeping
faith and cause with the one firewall that protected citizens in uniform from the abuse
of being sent to their deaths in order to fill gas tanks, our standard operating procedure.

So, when a real psychopath finally needs correction, and there is little ulterior motive
for doing so, there is this track record, and the critics howl. This should be expected.

[ghost geezer]

12:14 PM on 03/24/2011

Whose knees, and how many? Is this some kind of insect to which you refer?

[JasonYAP]

07:35 AM on 03/24/2011

Am I the only one who knows what the word unilaterally means? It's not the Presidency vs Congress in the context of world conflicts. It's the U.S. going it alone without support from other countries, the U.N. etc. This headline is false. Biden, Clinton and Obama have all made statements using unilateral in it and they are all referring to the U.S. taking action on its own -- not the President.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20043991-503544.html
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1451.html#unilateral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilaterally

[JasonYAP]

08:07 AM on 03/24/2011

Well, I found that full quote from Obama making it around on the networks and apparently he later does make a reference to Congress in that case. But every time I hear unilaterally in the context of diplomacy and wars, I always think between countries and not Congress and the Executive Branch.

So when I see Biden's quote here I am thinking he means the U.S. going it alone and not just the Presidency. If there is U.N. and world support but the President does not get a vote from Congress that is not unilateral? The wikipedia example refers to the Iraq war as an example of unilateralism. And Congress voted for it.

Anyways, when I read about Obama & Biden making these statements on unilateralism in the past, my belief is they are referring to the U.S. going it alone. And if we do go it alone (such as bombing Iran) without Congress it is overreach. But if there is strong support from other countries, Arab League, the U.N., etc. then it is not. So I don't see the hypocrisy here everyone else does as Libya is a multilateral operation.

Am I the only one who interprets these quotes this way?

[absolument]

10:26 AM on 03/24/2011

"Unilateral" = "go-it-alone foreign policy"

You are absolutely correct about the normal use of the word "unilateral" in international affairs.

[ls1z28chris]

09:58 AM on 03/24/2011

That is a lie. All of their statements refer to the Executive branch taking unilateral action, without the advice and consent of the Legislative branch.

[coffeeshoptalk]

06:42 AM on 03/24/2011

HP, why is "Joe Biden Warned....." a story? At this time, this story is irrelevant.
_____________________________________________________________________

War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

[ls1z28chris]

10:00 AM on 03/24/2011

You missed the important part:

"(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

[absolument]

10:27 AM on 03/24/2011

"(2) specific statutory authorizat­ion" = membership on the UN Security Council

[absolument]

11:41 AM on 03/24/2011

You lie about what I have said. THAT is actual straw man argumentat­ion, an offense of which you recently, FALSELY accused me.

lazy28chris:
"Your entire argument is that the third paragraph of Article 43 does not exist. Or that if it does, it is a vestigial organ."

I never called it a "vestigial organ" and I never claimed that it does not exist. You are a liar.

I have repeatedly, clearly challenged you to define the enumerated "constitutional processes" of OUR Constitution, which the Constitution requires prior to honoring the commitments we make in a Treaty, SUBSEQUENT to ratifying a Treaty.

You have failed to answer because OUR Constitution has no such enumerated "constitutional processes." If we had, then that clause would apply to the United States. It is not a "vesitigial organ," but it only ALLOWS for "constitutional processes" that we do not happen to have. It does not REQUIRE every member nation to have such "constitutional processes" and we do not. Maybe other nations do, and that clause applies to them. But according to our Constitution, once a Treaty is ratified it is "the supreme Law of the Land" and the occasional commitment of "armed forces" to uphold international law and maintain peace is part of what Congress has already ratified.

[timhere]

05:41 AM on 03/24/2011

I don't see a problem here. If the president was acting within the powers granted(abdicated) him by the congress under the war powers act, how is that an impeachable offense. Granted there may be some argument over whether constituionally the president should have these powers, but the war powers act has been around a long time and have not been ruled unconstitutional. Any war powers enjoyed by congress has voluntarily been abdicated to the president with the understanding that congress can defund the effort at their convienence. Biden spoke in the heat of the situation with two ground wars already in progress, Bush would not have been impeached had he invaded iran. Congress could have passed a law defunding the action and then if Bush would have persisted he could then be impeached. Although, when Reagan broke the law by providing funds, support and weapons to contras against the defunding law in effect he was not impeached.

[jkb5371]

08:51 AM on 03/24/2011

I don't think Obama is doing anything wrong with this action. Obama was wrong when he made the claim (while Bush was president) that POTUS does not have the authority to commit US forces without consent of congress.
Biden was wrong as well, he was not speaking "in the heat of the moment"...he made the claim on several occasions, "that he would move to impeach he president" if he committed forces without congressional approval.
If he said it once you could (maybe) give him a pass...BTW both Biden and Obama teach (or taught) constitutional law, which is a bit disappointing to say the least.

[ls1z28chris]

10:02 AM on 03/24/2011

Here is the relevant section of the War Powers Resolution: "(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

This severely restricts the circumstances in which the President may engage in military action. He needs a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or an attack, actual or imminent, against the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. None of those criteria are met with regards to Libya, so this action is unconstitutional.

[jkb5371]

11:44 AM on 03/24/2011

Let me rephrase, I don't agree with Obama sending US forces to Libya (I have a number of reasons as to why) but I believe he has the authority to do so based on the War Powers Resolution from 1973 that you cite.
The Left and Right can pick and choose sections of the Resolution to state our respective points of view, but in reality it must be taken as a whole. You are correct that there has been no attack, no declaration of war, no imminent threat etc.(three of my objections BTW) but I think you are incorrect in that POTUS is severely restricted with regard to using military force. My reading is that he has a great deal of latitude in the matter, but he must inform congress of his actions within a certain time frame and then get their approval to continue the defined mission.
We're spread too thin militarily, we are too weak economically and I don't care what Obama says about "no boots on the ground", when has that NOT happened once military action has commenced?
I am pro military, Republican and an inactive Marine, but I think the LAST thing we need is another front...regardless of how "limited" it will be.