 Joe Biden's been in the race now for a little over a week and he's finally starting to give us some insight into his current foreign policy positions and as pretty much all of us would expect, it's a mixed bag. So there's some good, but there's also some bad. Some really bad. So we'll get to the good first. When it comes to the issue of US support for the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen, he has come out against that. And as Zach Budrick of the Hill reports, former Vice President Joe Biden, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, is calling for an end to US support for Saudi Arabia's military campaign in Yemen as part of his first major policy proposals released since launching his campaign. Vice President Biden believes it is past time to end US support for the war in Yemen and cancel the blank check the Trump administration has given Saudi Arabia for its conduct of that war. Foreign campaign spokesman Andrew Bates told the Washington Post's Josh Rogan. He urges Congress to override President Trump's veto. All right, so credit where it's due. This is the correct position to take. However, this is the position I would expect anyone running in the Democratic Party primary to take because this really isn't a difficult issue. If you arrive at the opposite conclusion, then there's something wrong with you. I mean, even Tea Party Republican Mike Lee agrees that we should end US complicity in Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen. So if a Democratic presidential candidate didn't come to a solution that's such a no brainer that even a Tea Party Republican can see it, it would be really bad for Joe Biden. We'll just say that. However, since this is an easy issue and I'm still willing to give him credit, the real question is how is he going to respond to more complex issues? Issues like Venezuela. Because as we all know, Joe Biden is someone who has done the bidding of the military industrial complex. He aligned with neocons throughout the course of his career. I mean, he voted for the Iraq war. His administration turned Libya into a failed state functionally. Him and Obama increased Bush's drone war. So is he going to be able to resist his interventionist instincts when it comes to the issue of Venezuela? Did he learn his lesson? Is he going to come out against Donald Trump here and what him, Elliot Abrams, Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton are trying to do? Well, the answer, disappointingly, is no, because Joe Biden tweeted this out. The violence in Venezuela today against peaceful protesters is criminal. Maduro's regime is responsible for incredible suffering. The US must stand with the National Assembly and Guaido in their efforts to restore democracy through legitimate internationally monitored elections. So what he said there is relatively vague. And because he spoke in coded language, I think a lot of people might see or might not see rather why what he said there is problematic, but let me break it down for you there. He essentially just signaled support for the US coup in Venezuela. He's functionally taking the side of Donald Trump here. And his position is incredibly ironic. I don't think he realizes this because you're essentially saying I'm against Maduro because he is an illegitimate leader. He was not elected democratically, but let's side with this person who also wasn't elected. Now he didn't go so far as to recognize Guaido as the president like Donald Trump did. But I mean, this is essentially a wink and a nod to Guaido and it legitimizes Donald Trump's regime change effort currently. So this is a horribly troubling indication of what's to come for someone who again has been very interventionist in the past. The correct answer and the only answer here is to stop meddling in Venezuela. Full stop. Leave them alone. Mind your own business because US leaders don't know what to do to not royally fuck up other countries. I mean, we've already did enough for those of you who don't know both Bush and Obama and now Donald Trump, obviously they wanted Venezuela to play ball with them. They wanted to access to Venezuela's oil reserves. So the US has for years now been trying to find ways to undermine Venezuela to get access to that oil. And once Maduro came to power after Hugo Chavez passed away, well, the United States government thought that this would be an opportunity. Maybe Maduro would be a puppet like other countries are with huge reserves of oil. But Maduro, like his predecessor, didn't want to play ball. So what the US did was they aligned with Saudi Arabia and Israel to destabilize Venezuela since normal diplomatic relationships wasn't possible since they didn't trust us and rightfully so, I think. But what we did was we worked with Saudi Arabia and Israel to artificially drive down the price of oil. And since Venezuela, I think stupidly so, didn't diversify their economy. And their entire economy essentially was propped up by oil revenue. What happened after that? Well, they were forced to compete, which ultimately led to a loss of revenue and since their economy was not diversified. Well, of course, this led to economic issues, which subsequently led to political destabilization. And once we sowed the seeds that ultimately catalyzed political instability, we then placed sanctions on them to punish them for their response to set instability that we tried to cause in the first place. And now we're looking for any excuse possible to invade. And we have John Bolton on national television admit that, you know, it'd be really great if we could get in there and have access to Venezuela's oil reserves if American companies can get in there. This can be a benefit for us and Venezuela. So this has always been about oil. And yes, I acknowledge that that explanation is an oversimplification. But for the most part, we're not worried about what's happening in Venezuela because we have humanitarian impulses. We're worried about Venezuela because we see that as a potential revenue source for us because we want their oil. That's what it's about. This is what it's about a lot of the times. I mean, we are in Afghanistan because we want access to their minerals. We intervene in countries because we want what they have. And if they don't play ball with us, if we don't have a puppet in there to do our bidding, then oftentimes we'll overthrow their entire regime to put in someone who's going to play ball with us. It's really disgusting. And what I am worried about is Joe Biden is now essentially legitimizing Donald Trump's regime change efforts. And what's worrying is that this is someone who's one of the front runners. He could actually win. So if Joe Biden wins, if he becomes the Democratic Party nominee, once again, like in 2016, you have the choice between a warmonger and another warmonger. And as Glenn Greenwald points out, wouldn't it be ironic if Democrats, after spending three years indignantly protesting, quote, meddling by foreign countries in our internal affairs, end up marching behind the person who said this in 2002 about why he supports Bush and Cheney removing Iraq's government. And he linked to a video of Joe Biden saying this about the Iraq War and his support for it. Considered in the context of the president's speech this week and is addressed last month in the United Nations General Assembly, this resolution, though still imperfect, deserves our support. And let me explain why. First, the objective is more clearly and carefully stated. The objective is to compel Iraq to destroy its illegal weapons of mass destruction and its programs to develop and produce missiles and more of those weapons. President Bush did not last out precipitously at Iraq after 9-11. He did not snub the UN or our allies. He did not dismiss new inspection regimes. He did not ignore Congress. At each pivotal moment, he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation. And I believe he will continue to do so. At least that is my fervent hope. I wish he would turn down the rhetorical excess in some cases because I think it undercuts the decision he ends up making. But in each case, in my view, he has made the right, rational, and calm, deliberate decision. So as you can see, Joe Biden has a very troubling history. And for whatever reason, he couldn't see through the bullshit. Other people, like Bernie Sanders and Barbara Lee, realize what George Bush was doing. Essentially lying his way into a war and Joe Biden didn't see it. And now we can see him in real time gravitate towards making the wrong decision once again. Now, he elaborated a little bit more on his position with regard to Venezuela. But for the most part, it was pretty much word solid. But let me play you a clip about him talking about this a little bit more. Look, I've been talking to my foreign policy team back home in Washington. I've not seen anything. I think what I understand so far is that Guadalcan Lopez, and I've spent time with his wife when he was in jail, is I think the anticipation that there was going to be a military rise up has been slightly underestimated. And I think what we have to continue to do is make it real clear to us, because I'm a foreign policy wife. But I think that it's very important we stay calm here. And what I think ultimately what's required is for the international community to demand that there be free elections. Only one democratic election has taken place in that place. And it's for the assembly. There are the people who were actually democratic elected. Maduro was not democratically elected. And there's got to be a commitment that we hold democratic elections. And that's why it's important we continue to maintain and increase the confidence that the rest of Latin and South America has in our judgment. And we've got to put people together because I think that's the only way this works without there being some real serious problems. Now, that was incredibly difficult to follow. But you can really see that his thoughts there were scattered. He wasn't prepared to answer that question clearly. But if you could take anything away from that, you can see that he says, look, Maduro is illegitimate. He was not democratically elected. But yet, ironically, your kind of signaling support for Donald Trump's position, which is to recognize someone as president who also was not democratically elected. Now, let's just say, hypothetically speaking, Maduro really was the authoritarian dictator that they say he is. So is that the new standard that we want to create? We medal and intervene in countries that aren't democratically elected. Because if that's the new standard, then we're going to have to intervene in Russia. We're going to have to intervene in Saudi Arabia. We're essentially going to have to intervene in every single country under the guise of making them more democratic. Do you see the issue with that here? Do you see why, logistically speaking, that is a fool's game? Are we going to invade North Korea and democratize them? Are we going to invade Morocco and overthrow the king? And rather than focusing on our own issues here, rather than focusing on the fact that maybe America isn't the most democratic country in the world, the person who got the most votes is not the president. Someone in Georgia literally was able to control his own election. He was Secretary of State. He put up various barriers to voting, and he won narrowly because he cheated. Maybe if you're worried about democracy, look at what's happening here in America. But Joe Biden, he just has the worst instincts imaginable. And he does not have the best judgment. And this was a huge issue that Hillary Clinton had back in 2016 and why progressives couldn't get on board with her campaign because she was too hawkish. And Joe Biden obviously has the same problem. And by really giving a wink and a nod to Guaido and signaling support for Donald Trump's efforts here, what you are championing is U.S. interference in Venezuela that has essentially devolved into this proxy war between the United States and Russia. So are you going to continue to fan the flames of regime change knowing that you've been wrong before, knowing that this is now a proxy war and that we don't need to escalate the Cold War between the U.S. and Russia? I mean, imagine how damaging it would be if Joe Biden became the nominee. Everybody is talking about electability and how he's the best bet to go up against Donald Trump. But we got someone in 2016 who was overly hawkish who was basically on the wrong side of every U.S. interventionist issue. So do we really want to make that mistake again, people? Really, where we give individuals the choice between a warmonger and a warmonger? I mean, are we crazy? Do we really want to see what would happen if we did the same thing again, if we made the same exact mistake? I mean, we have to learn our lesson, people. And if you're against regime change wars, then you have to be consistent and you have to acknowledge that there are three people who we can trust here. Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Elizabeth Warren. And to her credit, Tulsi Gabbard has absolutely been the strongest in this regard. She's not only spoken out against the New Cold War, she's also been the most forceful in speaking out against the United States' regime change efforts in Venezuela. So for the love of God, people, if we don't want a repeat of 2016, don't vote for Joe Biden. Vote for someone who actually is going to provide voters with an alternative in 2020. That obviously is not Joe Biden, because if he's siding with Donald Trump on a key issue here, there's going to be problems. That is not going to inspire the base to come out and vote. That's not going to get non-voters to want to come out and vote for someone who, again, is going to do the same regime change war policy and allow the military industrial complex to run roughshod over him.