Kerry: No fundamental difference between Biden-Lugar and the IWR

[Karmadillo]

Is this correct? Seems to me to be the case, but I'm open to persuasion. It's hard for me to imagine Bush hesitating to declare Iraq a "grave" threat to the United States no matter how strongly the evidence argued otherwise. That would seem to make Biden-Lugar as much of a blank check as the IWR. (Note: the LA Times requires registration).

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-debate-timenov24,1,4931533.story?coll=la-home-headlines

<edit>

"I think this party's making a great mistake by trying to make a litmus test on who would have or did or didn't vote for that resolution last October," said Clark, who has been criticized for sending mixed signals on whether he would have backed it.

"The real issue in front of us is that this president misled the American people and the Congress into war," Clark said.Gephardt and Kerry insisted there was little functional difference between the resolution Congress ultimately passed and the alternative Dean supported, which was sponsored by Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind.

"It's no different fundamentally from what we voted on," Kerry said.

The main distinction was that the Biden-Lugar approach said Bush could not go to war without explicit U.N. authorization unless he issued a declaration that Iraq presented a "grave" threat to U.S. security.

more...

[Scott Lee]

1. Kerry's a liar, yet again.

He talks as if the part of the Biden/Lugar legislation that requires UN authorization before attacking Iraq was minutae.

Mr. Kerry, that was not a small difference between Biden/Lugar and IWR. That was a WORLD of difference. Since you couldn't tell, you don't deserve the job of President.

(I'm really starting to dislike this guy)

[Cha]

2. Join the crowd!

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Karmadillo]

3. That requirement could be easily bypassed by

section 2(b)(2) of the resolution. Bush, without a Security Council resolution in hand, would have declared Iraq to be a "grave" threat to the US and that would have been the end of the debate and the start of the war.

[bain_sidhe]

4. In fairness

(full disclosure, I used to be leaning toward Kerry... I've been a lot less impressed with him lately)

But in fairness, Biden-Lugar was just as much of a blank check as the IWR... it said the resident had to "go to the U.N. OR certify to congress that Iraq was a 'grave threat'"

Any doubts that Bush would have hesitated to so "certify" regardless of what happened with the U.N.?

In fact, I would argue that Bush explicitly did NOT want the U.N. to authorize or in any way get involved with Iraq. How could he have delivered those no-bid contracts to his campaign contributors if U.N. had any say in the matter?

[Egnever]

5. The diference is that certification would have sunk him

sure he could have gone ahead and gone on record as declaring Iraq a direct threat and going ahead with the war but where would he be now ?

He would be screwed. There is no evidence of a direct threat and he would be able to be called directly acountable for that fact as he "certified" it to be so.

This is exactlky why he wouldnt agree to it. He knew his case was bullshit and he did not want to be pigeon-holed into a direct endorsement of that threat.

It makes all the difference in the world in these two bills and quite honestly I dont understand how people can pretendf this fact would make no difference. Sure we still might have gotten the war but if we had bush would be on his way to impeachment now instead of in the position of no accountability for his lies that he is in now.

[Cha]

8. Thanks for that explaination...this goes on

ad infinitum and everytime I think I'm clear on it somebody makes a declarative statement like kerry did and I'm wondering what he's talking about.

[Karmadillo]

16. As I noted on another thread, Bush would either claim

the evidence as it currently exists supports the declaration of Iraq as a "grave" threat or he would claim the evidence as it existed at the time, even if currently debunked, supported such a declaration.

On his way to impeachment? By Democrats who can't even stop a bill designed to dismantle Medicare? Fat chance.

[Egnever]

22. He couldnt just claim

The Lugar-Biden proposal calls for a two-step process: First, the United States should try to secure a tough resolution from the United Nations, calling for thorough inspections and authorizing enforcement of said inspections. Failing that, President Bush would then have to demonstrate to Congress that the danger posed by Iraq's WMD programs is such that only military action is adequate to the task of containing it--far steeper hurdles than the president's resolution, hurdles which would inevitably tie the president's hands.

http://www.tnr.com/iraq/iraq_dissenters.mhtml

[Karmadillo]

23. Actually, he could

Biden-Lugar doesn't call for a "demonstration" of anything (see post #6 for the text or check Google). Bush would simply have made his determination Iraq posed a "grave" threat to the United States and he would have had his war.

[sandnsea]

6. That's just not true

Actually, the IWR that passed called for him to use all diplomatic and peaceful means to resolve this which was more than what was in Biden-Lugar. He didn't have to get UN authorization to go to war, he just had to try under Biden-Lugar. He did everything required by Biden-Lugar, he would have misled us into a war under a resolution that Howard Dean and Wes Clark supported.

(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).

Here's the letter he sent to Congress, his determination about going to war:

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

[Egnever]

9. Wrong

(A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

That does not satisfy the qualifications of Biden Lugar.

http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/Files/RL31596.pdf
side by side comparisons of the bills available at the time.

The proposals likely to be considered also vary widely in their binding sections.
H.J.Res. 114/S.J.Res. 46 would grant broad authority to the President to “use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate...against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”

The Biden-Lugar proposal
requires that any military action taken against Iraq be to enforce U.N. Security
Council resolution 687 (calling for the dismantlement of Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction and ballistic missile program), or to defend the United States or its allies
against Iraq’s use of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile program.
Biden-Lugar, furthermore, requires that the President consult with congressional
leadership prior to engaging U.S. military force, and that certain conditions have been
met. Biden-Lugar requires the President to prepare follow-up reports on plans to
reconstruct Iraq, economically and politically, following the use of force.

[sandnsea]

12. I copied it exactly

With the numbers included so that it reads correctly. You are also missing the importance of the ORS. And it doesn't say consult with Congress, it just says to give Congress his determination. Read the actual resolution, not somebody else's hatchet job that furthers whatever motives they may have.

[Egnever]

18. No you ignored parts of the bill

well you certainly copied a part of it

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/03/politics/03HTEX.html?ex=1069909200&en=d8ddadaecabcf6bf&ei=5070

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the president shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the Senate his determination thatThis prety much says he has to bring back to congress a determination that says

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

(c) WAR powers resolution requirements.

(1) Specific statutory authorization. Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) Applicability of other requirements. Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

This part is important and conveniently left out by you.This part holds the president responsible for his actions after we are at war by
holding him to the conditions of the war powers act that state.

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

SEC. 2. (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.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

but thats not all

Sec. 4. (a)
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

Sec. 4. (b)
The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
Sec. 4. (c)
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period .


All of that added up makes biden way stronger than the weak assed bill kerry voted for and would make the situation we are in now entirely different.

The IWR is a pale comparison to this bill and doesnt event start to measure up to Biden lugar no matter how many times kerry wants to whine that it does.

[sandnsea]

20. That's what that letter was

"Delivered in accordance with the war powers act giving Congress the President's determination that.." bla bla bla.

The rest of it is standard language and just means Bush has to keep Congress informed, which he did before the war and afterwards. Part of Congress authorizing money is authorizing continued presence. Nowhere in this Resolution does it say another vote is required before Bush uses the military. It's the same bill with UN Resolution wording in it. Bush went to the UN, got a Resolution, and worked with the UN until he determined peaceful means wouldn't work. No difference, none. There just isn't.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. With that lie, Bush did not follow the resolution.

[Scott Lee]

27. Oh but it is! Read the resolution....

The B/L expressly states that the use of force cannot be employed for anything less than a -

grave threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program.

An exceedingly higher threshold than the one used by President Warchimp to launch this farcical war, you have to admit. Had Bush been beholden to the standards of B/L, he likely would have been too squeamish about starting something that he knew might well blow up in his face (as is happening now).

Also, he would have balked on putting forth such bullshit stories as the Nigerian uranium fairytale, knowing that "certifying" such a thing would have put his ass firmly on the line.

Based on that alone, the IWR was nothing like the B/L resolution.

[sangh0]

31. More disinfo

The B/L expressly states that the use of force cannot be employed for anything less than a -

grave threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program.

You left out the part that Bush* didn't have to prove the existence of WMD's. All he had to do was SAY that they were a threat.

[Scott Lee]

36. And YOU left out the part about "certification"

Which would hold Bush's fanny substantially closer to the fire if he were wrong.

I know that facts fly in the face of your Dean hate, but must you be so blatant about it?

[sangh0]

41. Bush* "certifies"

and we all know he'd be willing to lie about it.

[Scott Lee]

48. But that certification would have set him up for impeachment

Had he lied or misled the American people. It was almost like a bond issued, verifiying that he wouldn't create what wasn't there.

As it stands now, the IWR allowed him not only a blank check but a never ending vista of obfuscations, spinning, dissemblence and other assorted instruments of "plausible deniability" to escape culpability for this crime. The B/L resolution would have made it much harder for him to do that.

But please, if it makes you feel better about Kerry, by all means continue to operate in this Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood of antiDean, antireality euphoria.

[sangh0]

55. Yeah, right. The RNC Senate would impeach him!!

You say his lies would have led to impeachment, but you also say he lied without explaining why he hasn't been impeached

[Scott Lee]

57. Don't worry, your boy Kerry would stand up and support Bush*

with friends like that in Congress.....well you know the rest.

[sangh0]

68. Still can't explain your contradiction?

If Bush* could be impeached for lying, then why hasn't he been impeached for lying?

[mitchum]

15. "I' m really starting to dislike this guy" LOL!!!

What a freakin' understatement. Judging from your posts you have a teeth-gnashing obsession with Kerry.

[sangh0]

32. It's tough to be honest

and support Dean

[mitchum]

63. and THAT is the truth

[sangh0]

29. More disinformation

He talks as if the part of the Biden/Lugar legislation that requires UN authorization before attacking Iraq was minutae.

B/L did NOT require UN authorization. In case you'd like to read about the facts, from the original post:

"The main distinction was that the Biden-Lugar approach said Bush could not go to war without explicit U.N. authorization unless he issued a declaration that Iraq presented a "grave" threat to U.S. security."

[killbotfactory]

7. If there is no fundamental difference why did Kerry prefer it

and say it was a mistake for it to be cast aside?

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

If there was no fundamental difference, why did Bush claim it "tied his hands"?

http://onepeople.org/archives/000102.html

[sandnsea]

13. Well, life is funny sometimes

Because the Democrats intended to spin the UN wording against Bush, as a backup plan, just like Dean is spinning it now.

[Cha]

17. Life wasn't so gd "funny" when

kerry and the rest of them voted for the IWR.

[killbotfactory]

19. That might have worked with B-L

But not the final IWR.

Geppy sucks.

[DrFunkenstein]

14. I'm With You On This One

I've always thought the Biden-Lugar was much more preferrable. I don't think it would have stopped Bush, but it would have given Dems political cover. Thanks again, Gep!

[sandnsea]

21. Not much

I see the same scenario playing out. People would be looking at Biden-Lugar through anti-war eyes and calling it a blank check. That's just the nature of the situation.

[blm]

24. He preferred it because it was BETTER. Dean lied all these months

painting Kerry as prowar and himself as antiwar when the IWR with the Biden-Lugar amendment STILL would have seen Bush in Iraq. The difference is that if B-L had passed then Dean would have been grouped in as warmonger here at DU, and treated as unfairly as Kerry, Gep and Edwards are.

[Hep]

25. You mean less horrible

Why did Kerry vote yes?

[blm]

30. Because he was a negotiator under obligation

and if certain terms were met the honorable vote for a negotiator is to support the bill.

He helped preserve the UN, get weapons inspectors and prevented extending hostilities into Iran and Syria.

[Hep]

40. Bang up job he did

My top candidate will NOT be one who negotiated the IWR. We can just differ on that.

[blm]

44. The people of Iran and Syria would agree with me.

So would Kofi Annan.

[sangh0]

47. Hep doesn't care about Iran and Syria

It's "Dean, Dean, Dean"

[DrFunkenstein]

49. Because He Was Responsible For American Lives

He clearly said that Saddam WAS NOT an imminent threat, but that he posed a very real threat in several years, and that Saddam had a very long history of f*cking with the inspections process. They were still finding large caches of VX nerve agents only weeks before Operation Desert Fox - the last time inspectors were on the ground, four years earlier. Kerry trusted the intelligence community, not knowing that intelligence was being tampered with.

And, ultimately, Clinton says it best (again):

"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War."

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1998/12/17/loc_clintons_statement.html

[Scott Lee]

38. You keep screaming "liar liar!" but you've never proven one.

Why is that? Could it be because your emotion against Dean (for whatever reason) has derailed your reason?

That's really pathetic.

[blm]

43. Dean claimed to be antiwar, and painted Kerry as prowar. Neither is true.

They were much closer on the basic issues than Dean revealed on the campaign trail.

[Scott Lee]

50. Wrong again. Dean has amply demonstrated how against the Iraq war

he is. I don't know what other evidence you would need.

Maybe some more popularity points? Woops, he's getting them too. That's gotta hurt.

[blm]

65. He was FOR use of force and FOR waiting 30 days before a unilateral

invasion. There's no denying he said it.

Take your blinders off.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

67. Eight times in one day too

Dean said so- according to him.

[Scott Lee]

28. Kerry "preferred" whatever was the safest for his seat.

This is how an Insider operates. Career over principle, then whitewash to make it look like he was operating by principle all along.

Same bullshit statist apologies, different day.

[blm]

33. That's how someone with an agenda portrays it. Not a knowledgeable, fair

analysis by any stretch of the imagination.

btw, guess you didn't know that Kerry worked with Clinton and Gore on a military strategy for Iraq back in 98. So your theory about it being some dumbass "safe" vote is FALSE.

[Scott Lee]

39. My agenda is to throw out Bush. Why isn't it yours?

And are you trying to suggest to us that Kerry's pro-IWR vote was NOT then perceived as not only the "safest" but most politically beneficial, patriotic fervor pandering one at the time?

Good lord. You keep taking us for fools. Funny, that's what the Insiders do as well!

[blm]

66. Perception and memes can't replace truth

And Kerry is on record working with Clinton and Gore on a military plan for Iraq back in 98.

YOU can't grasp that fact so you try smear Kerry with a poorly thought out "perception" that only appeals to those ignorant of US policies on Iraq from Bush1 through Clinton.

[sangh0]

34. Dean will lie to further his career

That's how Dean operates. Lies over principle, like his commitment to CFR. Then Dean gives a speech claiming it was his position all along.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scott Lee]

51. Let us know when you can prove or demonstrate that

In the mean time, keep up the attacks. They only serve to make Dean more popular.

[sangh0]

56. Then why do you complain about it

if you really think it helps Dean

[Scott Lee]

59. Looks like you're on a nonstop complain train over Dean

so I have no idea why you're trying to put the shoe on the other foot now.

[sangh0]

69. more "attack the critic, ignore the issue"

if there wren't an election coming, I wonder if you would even care about IWR

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

42. career over principle, Howard Dean

Make a statement like "I oppose the $87 billion unless ALL the Bush tax cuts are repealed" and "We can't cut and run" and then figure out which position seems most appealing and go with it. If spending the $87 billion became the politically correct move, he would have later said he meant that tax cuts should have been repealed to pay to offset the $87 billion.

Every Democrat in Congress has ten times more princple than this waste of space.

[Scott Lee]

54. Congressional seat over Iraqi lives, John Kerry

"I oppose the 87$ billion unless ALL the Bush tax cuts are repealed" is an obvious calling out on Bush in order to make the point that Bush will never repeal such cuts because they benefit his rich cabal of friends too much.

And guess what? It worked. Dean was right.

"We can't cut and run" means we can't abandon Americans already there in the meantime. Is this what you propose? Good luck getting the support of the American people with that politically suicidal position.

[sandnsea]

62. So what's his position?

Fund the military because we can't cut and run? Or don't pay the $87 billion unless the sky turns purple and Bush repeals the tax cuts?

Kerry and Edwards positions made the point a whole lot better. They just asked for the $87 billion to be offset by tax cuts and couldn't even get that. That's a reasonable request; unlike Dean's purple sky, fantasyland, never will happen so it means nothing, line of shit.

[Scott Lee]

58. Kerry preferred whatever made him look the best

As any Insider would do. A leopard never changes their spots, so we need a Dean to change the cathouse.

[Karmadillo]

26. Kick just in case someone on the day shift might want to have a go at

whether or not there's a fundamental difference.

[Northwind]

35. Hey, Kerry!

The difference make a difference!

[mrgorth]

45. I am 100% sure that

BLM, NYFM, et al will vote for Bush if Dean gets the nom, encourage their family and friends to just so they can come back here and say "told ya so".

[DrFunkenstein]

52. I Am Going To Vote For Bush Over Dean

And I'm going to get everyone I know to vote for him, just so I'm not proved wrong about Dean's unelectability. When I'm confronted, I tend to hit back and think about it later.

[mrgorth]

53. Very intelligent

why don't you go post with the freepers if you think Bush is so great?

[mitchum]

64. Uh...it's obvious sarcasm

You're not doing much to enhance the image of Dean's supporters

[Scott Lee]

61. Ever heard of the Lemming Society?

Hate Dean hate Dean hate Dean hate Dean hate D-

AAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa *splash*

[Nicholas_J]

46. Biden Lugar was POORLY worded

It stated that Bush could not go to war without explicit U.N. authorization unless he issued a declaration that Iraq presentted a grave threat to U.S. security...but only in the area reagarding Posession of Weapons of Mass Destruction, wheras the Authorization of the use of Force in Iraq Resolution (It is a misnomer to call it the Iraq War Resolution, as it did not authorize war, only the use of the threat of force or actual use of force to the degree deemed necessary to the actual level of threat that Iraq was said to pose. The word war was not used in the resolution regarding the current conflagration, the only time the word war wa used in the resolution was in referring to wars engaged in by Iraq in the past, and the Gulf War).

So the resolution authorized the use of force only if the president got U.N. autthorization for any number of reasons, such as to enforce prior U.N. resolutions that Saddam had broken (which includes WMD's, or the building of other military equipment banned by the treaty ending the Gulf War), the harboring or offering aid and comfort to the perpetrators who had anything to do with the events of September 11th, 1991. and a number of other things banned under the treaty ending the Gulf War). The only conditions that the October Reolution offered the president support for if he went to war (and nothing could prevent the president from using any degree force against Iraq if he deemed Saddam a threat to U.S. National Security, not even the War Powers Resolution, which itself sets criteria for the president engaging in military actions WITHOUT express approval of Congress, and that section of the War Powers Resolution gives the president power to act without Congressional Approval for any reason he sees fit if he determines that it constitutes a threat to vital U.S. Interests). The October Resolution itself states that it does nothing to interfere with either the presidents constitutional powers as commander in chief OR the War Powers Resolution.

Thus Clinton sending trrops into Iraq, the Balkans, Kosovo again in the Balkans, the attacks on the Sudan, the Attacks on Osama Bin Ladens Camps in Afghanistan, and sending troops into Somalia , all after the passage of the War Powers Resolution, and all WITHOUT the support of the U.S. Congress.

Biden Lugar stated that the president had to go to the U.N. to get support to attack Iraq based on its posession of WMD's and that was all, and could still go to war if he deemed that Iraq posed a great threat to the U.S. And in Biden Lugar as well as in the October Resolution, the president could go to war if he perceived a great threat to U.S. security and could do so BEFORE he went to congress to get their support (he had 48 hours after the fact to go to Congress with his reasons.

So in both acts, the president can attack, and then come to congress afterwards giving his reasoning for doing so.

The October Resolution had a laundry list of things that the President had to go to the U.N. and exhaust diplomatic means before he could use force in Iraq unless Iraq was deemed to present an imminent threat to the U.S. Under the October Resolution the president was required to prove that he had exhausted all peaceful diplomatic methods with the U.N.,prove that the U.N. was not going to enforce its own resolution regarding Iraq, and then prove that Iraq constituted and immediate threat to U.S. interests.

Which Biden Lugar did not do, It only dealt with the WMD issue. Under the terms of the War Powers Resolution, if the president perceives an imminent threat to U.S. interests, he can shoot first, and tell the Congress later. All that would have been necessary under Biden Lugar was for the president and the C.I.A. to state that there was some reasonable evidence that Al Qaeda was running a training camp in Iraq for the president to have attacked Iraq, under the termso of the War Powers Resolution, which CONGRESS must obey, as it passed the War Powers Resolution over a presidential veto. They terms of the War Powers Resolution binds both the President AND the Congress, though no president has accepted the War Powers Resolution as constitutional, and the Supreme Court has refused to respond to briefs filed by Congress to rule on the War Powers Reolution, stating that it is non-justicable (that is to state that the Supreme Court does not have the right to take away powers given to him in the Constitution).

So all either Biden Lugar, and the October Resolution did was to tell the president what he had to do for them in order to get their support for any use of force in Iraq.

Biden Lugar limited their request of the president to issues dealing with WMD's and WMD's alone.

The October Resolution dealt with all of the other issues that the President stated he had the right to attack Iraq over, such as all of the other parts of the treaty that eneded the Gulf War which Saddam had broken, in order to gain Congressional Support for the attack on Iraq.

To date, their IS WAS NO WAR IN IRAQ.

AS Congress never issued a Declaration of War.

Because the presdent never made the case to Congress that he had me the terms set in the October Resolution, the president sidestepped the Resolution, adn fell back on prior COngressional Resolutions and the Constitution to use force in Iraq.

[Karmadillo]

70. Kick for those who might be interested in reading this thread along

with Eloriel's new thread on Biden-Lugar. Eloriel's thread can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=788060

[IndianaGreen]

71. Link to the real facts about Biden-Lugar

What the Kerry campaign would rather you don't know:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=788060