Dean willing to support Iraq war, once BUSH declared Iraq a grave threat

[phirili]

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.

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

Bush made this declaration at least a hundred times, so Dean should be ecstatic about his support for the Iraq war and stop trying to mislead and distort.

[bobbyboucher]

1. Uh

:boring:

[Hawkeye-X]

2. Uh. Cite link, provide proof.

Dean NEVER said that, as far as I'm concerned.

Dean's views clearly said to give the inspectors enough time to do their job. 30 to 60 days was asked, but * just rammed it through and started bombing Baghdad shortly. He only wanted justification for war, and so far * has NOT yet provided one. Dean's been proven correct. Kerry was proven wrong. What more evidence do you need?

Hawkeye-X

[dean4america]

4. damn straight. eom

.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

8. "as far as I'm concerned"?

Of course he didnt say it as far as you're concerned! But reality may paint a different picture.

[sandnsea]

9. He said that in Sept 2002

The vote happened in Oct 2002. The inspectors went into Iraq in December 2002. The bombing didn't start until March 2003. Saddam got his 30-60 days, he got 120 days; Bush went ahead with war.

If Dean KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq, why did he ever support Biden-Lugar in the first place? You don't support a war if you KNOW the other country is innocent. Howard isn't even that big of an ass.

[dsc]

3. try once he proved

there is a difference. I can say I won the Boston Marathon but that doesn't mean I did.

[wtmusic]

5. You're wrong again, and again, and again

NYTimes:

"The major difference between the two resolutions is that the version agreed upon by the House and the president today authorizes Mr. Bush to use force to enforce "all relevant" United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, leaving the White House free to determine what is relevant. In contrast, the Biden-Lugar language specifies that force is authorized to secure the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its ballistic missile program or to defend the United States and its allies against those programs."

http://onepeople.org/archives/000106.html

[phirili]

6. U just provided the exact reasons BUSH went to war under Biden-Lugar

the Biden-Lugar language specifies that force is authorized to secure the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its ballistic missile program or to defend the United States and its allies against those programs."

This is why Bush went to war.

[wtmusic]

14. Again

Bush repeatedly cited enforcement of UNSC resolutions as not only *a* reason but *the* reason for going to war.

[phirili]

16. Keep Brushing

[sandnsea]

18. WMD was the reason

Imminent threat, grave and growing danger, mushroom clouds, can't wait.

He specifically DIDN'T choose UN resolutions, after a point, because that would have almost certainly been illegal.

[sandnsea]

7. No, that's not right

Either resolution called for defending the national security. We're talking continuing threat vs. grave threat. There would have been NO difference in the outcome. The link below is the Determination that Bush sent to Congress. Either Howard KNEW Bush was lying and in that case shouldn't have supported war under any circumstances. Or he didn't, and supported war, and would have given Bush the determination to decide when war was necessary under either of the Resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- 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 thereafter 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 that--

(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 joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 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 joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

http://www.itmweb.com/f031903.htm

[wtmusic]

19. the NYT calls it a "major difference"

and I agree. IWR was much broader in scope than Biden-Lugar, which (without any evidence of WMD's) would have prevented the war. That's why it was never even brought to the floor--the resolution would have been doomed from the start in the Repub House.

[Cleita]

10. You have two anti-Dean posts up in the last hour.

What's your game? Don't you have a candidate you prefer? I would appreciate it if you wouldn't post dubious "facts" about my candidate and I won't about yours.

[ShaneGR]

11. I take it you don't like Dean

I mean you're posting material you've found on a conservative compilation site..... twice now in 5 minutes.

[phirili]

12. LA Times and New York Times are both wrong so Dean could be right

[phirili]

13. Grave threat = Weapons of Mass Destruction

[dsc]

15. actually no

If that was all that constituted a grave thread we would be invading North Korea and Iran as I type. Bush continally said that they not only had them but could and would use them to attack us.

[phirili]

17. You'll have difficulty convincing Bush of that