Now I'll admit when I'm off -- On Biden/Lugar

[Khephra]

There's some question about what would have happened once Bush had come back from the UN to Congress. I REMEMBER the fact being pushed that Bush would have had to have gotten permission from congress twice. I KNOW I heard that repeatedly during the Senate debates. I frigging watched the whole thing. It was a matter of argument for days at the time, both there and in the Senate Watch threads. :shrug: But when I'm off, I'm off...unless I'm forgetting something.

Here's the full text...

There's still no question in my mind about which bill is the one I could have lived with. Heck, the ACLU supported B/L over the other Res.

Here's the full text:

Full Text of Senators' Iraq Resolution


S.J. Res.__

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

September 30, 2002



Following is the full text from a resolution on removing weapons of mass destruction, presented by Senators Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, that is being offered as an alternative to the Bush administration proposal on the issue.

--------

Authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council seeking to enforce the destruction and dismantlement of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missiles program or pursuant to the United States right of individual or collective self-defense if the Security Council fails to act.

Whereas under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), which effected a formal cease-fire following the Persian Gulf War, Iraq agreed to destroy or dismantle, under international supervision, its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs (hereafter in this joint resolution referred to as Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction program"), as well as its program to develop or acquire ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers (hereafter in this joint resolution referred to as Iraq's "prohibited ballistic missile program"), and undertook unconditionally not to develop any such weapons thereafter.

Whereas on numerous occasions since 1991, the United Nations Security Council has reaffirmed Resolution 687, most recently in Resolution 1284, which established a new weapons inspection regime to ensure Iraqi compliance with its obligations under Resolution 687;

Whereas on numerous occasions since 1991, the United States and the United Nations Security Council have condemned Iraq's failure to fulfill its obligations under Resolution 687 to destroy or dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program; Whereas Iraq under Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in its war with Iran in the 1980s and against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq in 1988; Whereas since 1990, the United States has considered Iraq to be a state sponsor of terrorism; Whereas Iraq's failure to comply with its international obligations to destroy or dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program, its record of using weapons of mass destruction, its record of using force against neighboring states, and its support for international terrorism require a strong diplomatic, and if necessary, military response by the international community, led by the United States:

Now, therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."

Section 2. Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces.

(a) Authorization for the Use of Force. - The President, subject to subsection (b), is authorized to use United States Armed Forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate -

(1) to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, and other resolutions approved by the Council which govern Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, in order to secure the dismantlement or destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program; or (2) in the exercise of individual or collective self-defense, to defend the United States or allied nations against a grave threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program.

(b) Requirement for determination that use of force is necessary. - Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that -

(1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1).

Section 3. Consultation and reports

(a) Consultation. - The President shall keep Congress fully and currently informed on matters relevant to this joint resolution.

(b) Initial Report. - (1) As soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after exercising the authority under subsection 2(a), the President shall submit to Congress a report setting forth information - (A) about the degree to which other nations will assist the United States in the use of force in Iraq; (B) regarding measures the United States is taking, or preparing to take, to protect key allies in the region from armed attack by Iraq; and (C) on planning to establish a secure environment in the immediate aftermath of the use of force (including estimated expenditures by the United States and allied nations), and, if necessary, prepare for the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq following the use of force.

(2) Classification of report. - The report required by paragraph (1) may be submitted in classified form. (c) Subsequent Reports. - Following transmittal of the report required by subsection (b), the President shall submit a report to Congress every 60 days thereafter on the status of United States diplomatic, military and reconstruction operations with respect to Iraq.

Section 4. War Powers Resolution Requirements

(a) Specific statutory authorization- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that section 2 is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (b) Applicability of other requirements. - Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.



http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/bidenlugar-resolution-093002.htm

---

And here's the ACLU statement:

ACLU Applauds Constitutional Checks in New Iraq Compromise
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 2, 2002
WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today said that a bipartisan Senate compromise on a resolution allowing the President to use force to oust Saddam Hussein is far more faithful to the Constitution than the blank check resolution being lobbied for by the White House.

"Thankfully, this compromise embodies the lessons learned from the Gulf of Tonkin incident," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Granting the President a blank check to engage in overseas adventures is a recipe for human tragedy. This compromise resolution acknowledges those lessons."

In its letter to the Senate, the ACLU reiterated that it is neutral on whether the United States should go to war. However, it told the Senate that it remains firm in its conviction that the Constitutional obligations on Congress to make decisions about war need to be respected, especially with foreign policy questions of this magnitude.

The new resolution, negotiated by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Former Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), eliminates most of the similarities between the resolution the President wanted and the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which led to a decade-long morass in which tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives.

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:


Clearly identifies the enemy. The proposed resolution closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East. Under the proposed compromise, the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region.

Spells out clear military objectives. Congress would hold a tight leash on the current conflict. This would be in marked contrast to its role in the Vietnam War, which was lost in part because of nebulous war aims. The Biden-Lugar compromise realizes the folly of sending troops into harm's way without delineating the specific military objectives to be accomplished.

Reaffirms the American conviction that war-making power should lie with the people. In contrast with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Biden-Lugar compromise would respect the ongoing prerogatives of Congress during military engagement. The Constitution demands that American military decisions involving the use of force rest only with the people's representatives in Congress.

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html

[Khephra]

1. kick

.

[blm]

3. The bottom line...Kerry and Dean were closer on Iraq than many admit.

This debate was not a black and white debate for many in the middle of this.

Lieberman and Kucinich's positions were clearly black and white, prowar, antiwar.

Kerry was not prowar and Dean was not antiwar. Those who portray them that way are either misinformed, misled or unaware of the actual details.

[Rose Siding]

2. What did you think you were off about?

Kerry saw a distinction, too.

Kerry on Biden/Lugar Oct. 9th 2002

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar, because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and delivery vehicles. The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted by the resolution, to send a determination to the Congress that the United States has tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great that he must act absent a new U.N. resolution. I believe that this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority that Congress was giving the President. The Administration, unwisely in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach. However, perhaps as a nod to the sponsors, it did agree to a determination requirement on the status of its efforts at the United Nations, which is now embodied in the revised White House text.


http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

[blm]

4. There was a distinction and Kerry was FOR it. But, they were still similar

enough in substantive ways and Bush STILL would have gone to Iraq because that's what he had predetermined while he had Colin lying to the Congressional committees about the coalition they were building..

[Khephra]

5. I could have sworn a major part of it was that there was a 2nd

vote needed in Congress, after Bush went to the UN and tried to get their support. That's what I'm admitting to being off about today. I said that it did. When I'm wrong I'm wrong...unless I'm forgetting something else.

Like I said, I watched the entire bloody thing, and I swear I remember a second vote being a major part of B/L.

I've never been against taking out Saddam, it was just in the lying manner in which it was done, the fact that certain people never needed to vote for either of them, and the way in which certain people voted for it, and the unilateral "Go fuck yourself, UN" way that it was done. B/L delayed the "going to war" stage for a couple of more months...a couple of more months that a lot could have happened.

One thing that pissed me off the most was how Lugar, my Republican Senator, could come up with a more reasonable resolution, yet Bayh was more hawkish than him.

[bpilgrim]

10. PREVENTIVE war is what this is really all about and i don't know how ANY

fair minded american can be for that of ANY stripe :shrug:

we shouldn't get bogged down in the details of the FACADE of this debate and focus on what this is REALLY about... PREVENTIVE WAR.

peace

[blm]

30. Which puts Kerry and Dean on similar ground.

My point is that Dean deceptively used IWR as a wedge issue by ignoring his own original support for Biden-Lugar. It also ripped off Kucinich who should have been the recipient who DESERVED the liberal antiwar support and dollars flowing to Dean based on the media's portrayal of him as the liberal antiwar candidate.

[blm]

31. Ryan Lizza on Dean and Biden-Lugar:

>>>>>>>>

Huh?Did Howard Dean actually support a war resolution giving Bush authority to attack Iraq? The answer is: pretty much. As Gephardt's crack research staff helpfully points out in a piece of paper delivered to reporters at the debate, The Des Moines Register reported on October 6, 2002, that "Dean opposes the Bush resolution and supports an alternative sponsored by Sens. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, and Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican. 'It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally, but that should not be our first option,' Dean told reporters before the dinner." Back in mid-October a Burlington newspaper quoted Dean as saying, "I would have supported the Biden-Lugar resolution."

>>>>>>>
Then he explained his interpretation of Biden-Lugar: "The Biden-Lugar amendment is what should have passed in Congress, because the key and critical difference was that it required the president to come back to Congress for permission. And that is where the congressmen who supported that resolution made their mistake was not supporting Biden-Lugar instead of giving the president a blank check."

This statement caused Kerry to almost jump through his television monitor. It was his turn to make a correction. In what would be the final volley of the Biden-Lugar war, Kerry patiently explained, "the Biden-Lugar amendment that Howard Dean said he supported, at the time he said he supported it, had a certification by the president. And the president only had to certify he had the authority to go. It's no different from--fundamentally--what we voted on."
By my reading of Biden-Lugar, Dean is indeed wrong that Bush was forced to "come back to Congress for permission" to attack Iraq.

The resolution required Bush to do one of two things before going to war. First, he had to get a new U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. (This was the key difference between Biden-Lugar and the resolution Congress actually passed.) Obviously Bush got a U.N. resolution. It's a matter of some debate whether the resolution authorized the attack. The Bush administration and Britain say it did. Most of the rest of the world says it didn't. But Biden-Lugar had one more rather large escape clause for Bush to go to war even if he didn't get a the U.N. resolution.

According to Biden-Lugar, all Bush had to do was "make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary, notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution."
Isn't this exactly what happened? Bush went to the United Nations. He failed to get a clean resolution authorizing force. Then he "determined" that the threat from Iraq's WMDs was "so grave that the use of force is necessary." At the time Bush complained that Biden-Lugar would "tie his hands." He preferred the Gephardt resolution that had no strings attached. But in the end, assuming you interpret the "make available ... his determination" clause literally, the war resolution Howard Dean supported would probably have led to exactly the same outcome--a unilateral war with Iraq.

>>>>>>>

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=dispatch&s=lizza112503

[blm]

32. Ted Kennedy on Biden-Lugar in Oct.2002:

Posted by Cocoa:

this is from the debate in Oct. 2002.

Kennedy, and presumably from context Robert Byrd agrees, doesn't seem to see a whole lot of difference between Biden-Lugar and the version that passed.

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0210a/iraqdebate4.html

<snip>
The test in the Gephardt-Lieberman-Warner Resolution says to defend against the continuing threat from Iraq -- that is the operative word. And in Biden-Lugar it talks about dealing with the threat of Iraq is "so grave" that force should be used. New words, "so grave." The President already said it was a grave situation.

In effect, if that was to be accepted -- the President already said it was a grave situation. It would, in effect, grant unilaterally, without any involvement in the international community, any effort whatsoever to try and bring allies into this, give the authority for the President to go ahead with war, as the President has indicated he may very well do.
more...

[goobergunch]

12. Are you thinking of the Spratt Amendment? (n/t)

[Snow]

6. Man, I sure wish we had elected Dick Lugar president in 2000

instead - that is a decent man. Don't often agree with him, but he is truly a man of integrity.

[Zynx]

7. Dick Lugar is a good Republican. So is Chuck Hagel.

I would vote for them over Bush and Zell Miller.

[redqueen]

8. Chuck Hagel?

Isn't he the ones with ties to the electronic voting machine industry?

[paulk]

19. one and the same

He's much better on foreign policy than most of the other Repugs.

I actually like him better than the Dem. from NE, Nelson.

[blm]

22. yes, but I think something weird is going on with Hagel.

It's as if he's bucking Bush because he knows he has info that protects him. I really don't think Hagel likes Bush, and I do know he was friends with McCain.

Sometimes the people who bring you into a crime become your worst enemy. Back in the Nixon era, Bush1 used to get other Republicans involved with deals that managed to turn dirty, and that's how he compromised them and got their votes on legislation Nixon wanted passed. Simple old blackmail.

[ozymandius]

26. Hagel is grooming himself

for a presidential run. I have no facts to back this up but his behavior looks much like window dressing. Expect to hear a "my own man" speech in about 3+ years.

[blm]

28. I have no doubt about that.

I thought he was being groomed just in case Bush goes down.

[janx]

24. I agree with you there.

.

[Khephra]

9. I don't like many Republicans

But Lugar has some major pluses. He's pissed about how his efforts to clean up nukes in the former USSR is being shoved out-of-the-picture by the Boy King, and I totally agree with him on that one.

I think I'd feel safe under a Lugar administraton vs the situation we have under the Boy King.

(Just so you all know, this will probably be my last comment on this tonight. I have a TON of work to do for Truthout and I put it off to watch the debate. Now I have to work late into the night. I'm not ducking out. :-) )

[blm]

11. I agree, Snow. I can respect true conservatives.

It's the neo-cons and Libertarian driven capitalists who prop up the BFEE that I abhor.

[blm]

33. I think Bush sickens Repubs like Lugar.

.

[robbedvoter]

13. Bottom line: who cares? W would have gone anyway, war is on

Clark was right about the irrelevance of litmus tests on who said what and when. As I said before: any parent had to say at one poing: "I don't care who started it, JUST STOP IT!!!" This is the issue now. How do we stop it? Who's the man with the plan? My man, Wes, that's who.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. Thank you.

This obvious fact is so studiously ignored by the Dean partisans here it drives me nuts.

[Tinoire]

18. This is precisely the reason that this is no longer a criterium for me

Over a year ago I had sworn that I would NOT vote for any of the enablers...

Then came along a pair of "I woulda, coulda, shoulda" candidates and they were, despite past statements and actions, given a free ride by many of my well-meaning co-Liberals.

The more I examined Dean and Clark close up, the more I resented that free ride because their past statements did not marry up with their campaign rhetoric or their new marketted personae.

Kucinich and Sharpton shot waaay up in my book and the rest, every last one of them went back to square 0 with an even plate.

So, because of this, from Kerry to Lieberman, all is basically, not forgiven, but forgotten. I can't penalize some simply because we have proof of their choice when other people's words/actions indicate they would have made the same choice. It's actually, in an odd way a plus for the ones with the vote because they are not insulting my intelligence with mis-representations- especially at the expense of other candidates whose positions were/are crystal clear and consistent.

[blm]

21. EXACTLY! That's why I only accepted criticism of Kerry from

Kucinich supporters because Dean was only putting on a show where he exaggerated the differences between him and Kerry on Iraq for his own political gain. Why the press let him get away with it for so long without examination is puzzling.

What Kerry and Gephardt did tonight was to try and go over the head of the press and alert Democrats that Dean's position against them on Iraq is steeped in disingenuousness. It wasn't pretty and I'm not happy about it, but, I sure do understand why they felt forced to do it.

[quaker bill]

14. There is still a difference between Dean and Kerry

Kerry had a seat in the Senate and could have proposed further compromise. Dean could only pick between the available options, IWR or Biden-Lugar. Biden-Lugar was the more sane and responsible choice. Both supported it.

Dean's endorsement of Biden-Lugar could be viewed as, 'if you are going to do this anyway, Biden-Lugar is the best choice'. This being said, Dean clearly supported disarming Saddam. And why not?

While being entirely against the war, I supported disarming Saddam as well. I support disarmament generally, anywhere you want to go with it. The more weapons on the scrap heap, the better I like it.

Not to whip on Kerry too much, while he theoretically could have proposed anything, it is unlikely that anything short of IWR would have passed.

[blm]

15. He was proposing further compromise.

Gephardt accepted the deal which cut off further negotiations. In fairness to Gep, I'm sure he saw the IWR as the end of the road in negotiating with the White House.

[Tinoire]

17. Thanks Keph. It takes a big person to admit this & raises admiration of u

This sort of thing is exactly why I have always respected your opinions because with you it's never been about head-burying or cheer-leading.

This is such a critical election and I wish more people would take to time to see if the perceptions we're being fed marry up to fact.

That said, you go boy! You vote for Dean and I respect your decision immensely because you've made a real, honest effort to know what you're voting for.

Peace

[Khephra]

23. Thanks!

Everyone makes mistakes...I confused some aspects of the debate with others. I'm still a Dean supporter because I personally was for Biden/Lugar. I'm not a dove in the slightest. It's really hard for me to examine Saddam's Iraq and not think that the bastard needed taking out. If I was a dove, I'd be in the Kucinich camp. I've tended to refer to myself as a owl here on DU.

B/L or the IWR...yeah, Bush would have gotten his war probably either way, but B/L tied Bush's hands a bit more and would have drug the process out a few more months--a few more months in which anything could have happened.

I still think that the Democrats were wrong to vote for the IWR, with Gephardt getting most of my wrath because of the way he made the deal with Bush behind the rest of the Democrat's back, undercutting the negotiations that were then currently ongoing.

And as for Kerry? He was my top pick until his speech and vote. He could have easily voted against it and gave numerous reasons why he shouldn't have voted for it...yet he did. Since then I've seen the "other" sides of Kerry and like him even less with each appearance. Some of the anti-Deanies say that Dean is willing to say and do anything to get elected...well, that's exactly what Kerry did with his vote on the IWR and since then in the campaign. Instead of doing what was right, Kerry made a political vote on war, and as a ex-vet and protestor of war that made his vote even worse. It showed that he was willing to put aside his past personal experience with war, and right and wrong, and do what is best for his political career.

That's sickening to me.

But I was wrong about there being a second Congress vote needed with B/L, so let the record stand that I fessed up on that.

:hi:

& Peace!

[KoKo]

20. I remember at the time, thinking a door had been left open for Chimp to

come back to congress. It was hard following all the amendments, but still I thought that the amenments (even though they were defeated) had put Chimp on notice that Congress wouldn't take going into Iraq lightly.

But, when it was all said and done, nothing stopped him, and what I thought about it turned out not to be true.

I've been left feeling we were "lied to" in some way, but there's no evidence unless you look at what was proposed as you just posted, Keph.

And, since only those who followed C-Span and the IWR hearings are aware that there were amendments....it's not something that most Americans would be aware of, so if they are lied to, then what's the difference, they didn't know what was going on, anyway. It's not their fault. They couldn't be expected to watch C-Span all day to understand what was going on.

[blm]

25. That's true. But, speaking for those who noticed

just about every detail, it has been frustrating that so many based their opinions on black and white versions the way ditto monkeys do. Antiwar or prowar with nothing in between. However if they really wanted it that simplistic then there were only two to fit those niches, Kucinich was antiwar and Lieberman was prowar. The others fit in the middle in varying degrees.

[KittyWampus]

27. Great Discussion

The Iraq Resolution, though important, is now ancient history

we are in Iraq and need to deal with it

I bet alot of people don't even really know what the "Iraq Resolution" was and forget Biden/Lugar :(

[blm]

29. Unfortunately, Dean's deceptive use of the perception

that he was antiwar as his cover to beat on Kerry and the others painting them as prowar all the while his actual stance was NOT much different. Especially not much different than Kerry's.

I say SHAME on all who have participated in these beatings knowing full well they were based on deception.