I look forward to your analysis of the reports issued this week by the United Nations weapons inspectors. To me, they clearly show—they clearly show—that Saddam continues to thumb his nose at the world and is in material breach—and is in material breach—of the 1441, the most recent U.N. resolution. They bolster the case that the United States has made that Iraq is violating the terms of surrender. And I want to term it in terms of surrender. I am so frustrated by some other parts of this administration of injecting into this debate a notion relating to preemption that has not a damn thing to do with whether or not we move against Saddam Hussein. I would hope the president and everyone else would stop talking about a doctrine you can't even explain—you can't even explain—to the American public. You can't explain to us because it's confusing to the rest of the world. We are not acting as if we act preemptively. We are enforcing a surrender document. Saddam Hussein invaded another country. The world responded. If this were 1930 he would have signed a peace agreement. It's not. We have a United Nations. He signed onto in return for his ability to stay in power, he made a commitment to the world, several commitments. Enforcing that if necessary is not preemption—is not preemption—whatever the hell that doctrine is supposed to mean. And so, I would respectively suggest that when you talk about this, do not further confuse the devil out of the rest of the world and make us sound like a bunch of cowboys that we're going to be out there preemptively imposing our view. This is an enforcement of a binding international legal commitment that a man made to save his skin and stay in power. In the legal sense, it's clear that Iraq is in material breach. But the court of international opinion is not a court of law. You have to meet a higher standard of proof, not legally have to meet it, but practically to enhance our greater interest. We have to meet the highest standards of proof in order to convince the Security Council and the thousands and thousands of people out there, or millions, who do not understand and are not ready to believe. I'm going to say something that's mildly controversial, but since I said it in front of 500 world leaders the last three days in Davos, every world leader in Europe and the Middle East knows he's in material breach. They know it. Why aren't they responding? We have no, with the possible exception of England, significant, powerful leader in Europe today. That's not a criticism, that's an observation. And they are unwilling, in my view, to stand up the face of public opinion in their communities that run from 95 percent to 70 percent against this war based upon him being in material breach as defined.
Much more in Biden's own words here. Perhaps some FReepers will read more than I did, which was a bunch.
Is that, like,....one of them oxymorons?