Biden-Lugar -- the facts.

[Eloriel]

There are some DUers who persist in trying to conflate the IWR with the Biden-Lugar amendment, as if "there was no substantive difference" between them. Actually, Kerry himself is trying to claim the same thing, so I suppose they're getting this directly from the Kerry campaign.

First of all, that claim doesn't even pass the common sense test. If there was no difference between the two, why the hell would the Biden-Lugar proposed amendment have been NEEDED? or even proposed in the first place?

There was a huge difference, and I did a little googling to pull together some information on it. I do not believe it ever reached the stage of having a S.R. number assigned to it, so I'm not at all sure it's available from Thomas. (However, if someone has the time and energy, it'd sure be great to find the actual language somewhere.)

In the absence of actual language of the amendment, here's the best recapitulation of its provisions I found:

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

CNN provides a summary of the resolution:

The bipartisan resolution includes language:

* Supporting the president's effort to get a new resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council.

* Limiting the use of U.S. military force against Iraq, and the scope of any military operation to dealing with "current ongoing threats posed by Iraq" and to forcing compliance with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions Note: There was just ONE UNSC resolution named. See below.

* Requiring Bush to make a determination to Congress prior to ordering military action that further diplomacy will not succeed in bringing Iraq into compliance

* Requiring Bush to make a determination that using military force against Iraq is consistent with and will not detract from the ongoing effort to take action against terrorists and terrorist organizations

Note: I think this provision is HUGE. It would have made the Bush administration lie further in order to get their war. That alone might have been a more clearly impeachable offense.

* Requiring regular consulting and reporting to the Congress

* Requiring the White House, consistent with the War Powers Act, to report to Congress every 60 days on military operations and planning for "post-military" operations including any plans for peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

This is huge too. Had Biden-Lugar passed, we might have had a better after-the-major-combat-operations-are-over planning in place, which would have helped save lives -- American and Iraqi, as well as Italian and Polish.

===================
This is from the Congressional Research Service "side-by-side" comparison. It reveals that there was only one UNSC resolution it would have authorized enforcement of -- probably about disarming Saddam rather than overthrowing him. (I didn't print this 68 or so page report to study the comparison and the reason will be obvious when you look at this pdf):

CRS Side-by-side comparison: http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/Files/RL31596.pdf

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. Finally, the Levin proposal focuses almost entirely on working through the United Nations. It would authorize the use of U.S. military force, but only pursuant to a new U.N. Security Council resolution, and only after consultation with congressional leadership.

Frankly, I'd have much preferred the Levin proposal, at least from its description here, but Biden-Lugar was still much better than the IWR, and substantively DIFFERENT from IWR.

===============

Here's what the ACLU, which supported Biden-Lugar, said at the time:

ACLU on Biden-Lugar
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html

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.

===============
Here's specific documentary support for the fact that Biden-Lugar would not have allowed for "regime change" in Iraq -- just "disarming" Iraq, and it also points directly at Gephardt's miserable failure on the subject:

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-01.htm
Before Mr. Gephardt decided to cave in on the war resolution, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. had hoped to make the Biden-Lugar resolution the basis of a vote in the Senate. That now appears unlikely. Mr. Biden said Wednesday that he was a realist and knew that the new compromise, ballyhooed Wednesday afternoon in the White House Rose Garden, pretty much meant the end of his approach.

Mr. Gephardt has long favored regime change in Iraq and called Saddam a serious threat. But as recently as two weeks ago he said that Mr. Bush was not justified in waging war to overthrow Saddam, only in disarming him -- a position exactly in line with the Biden-Lugar resolution he has torpedoed.

=================

Some DUers also like to toss out the notion that Dean has claimed / does claim he is anti-war and that Biden-Lugar authorizes force so he's being deceitful. There's no "there" there in this claim. Dean has never claimed he is anti-all-war. Quite the contrary. He's probably a little more hawkish than I, but he was against THIS war for the right reasons at the right time. NO Dean Supporter is misled, and the efforts by those DUers to try to make it sound like we are, or that Dean is somehow trying to make his supporters believe that he's a pacifist, are either ill-informed or purposely misleading.

So that's Biden-Lugar. It IS different from IWR, substantively.

Kerry voted for IWR, and he and his supporters can't try to rewrite history by trying to claim that Biden-Lugar was no different than the IWR.

Eloriel

[IndianaGreen]

1. Thank you for posting this, Eloriel

I am sure that those that refuse to be confused by the facts will try to flame you for this post.

[Eloriel]

2. And here, for those interested, is the guts of the IWR

(I'm skipping all the Whereases). The contrast between the two is STARK, IMO:

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

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.

Eloriel

[IndianaGreen]

3. A bump for the truth

and another dig at those that claim there was no difference between IWR and Biden-Lugar.

:kick:

[sangh0]

86. So what's the differnce?

You haven't posted one word about the differences.

[IndianaGreen]

88. The differences are irrelevant to me, for I opposed both

I was against going outside the UN in pursuit of a unilateralist agenda vis-a-vis Iraq. Only the UN Security Council could authorize any sort of military intervention in Iraq, not the US Congress (particularly when Iraq had not attacked the US).

Biden-Lugar provided a window-dressing of legality, although it would have required Bush to return to Congress for an specific war resolution.

My point is that all of the US efforts towards Iraq were wrong and illegal, including the pressure we kept on the UN to maintain the embargo on Iraq which resulted in the deaths of over a million Iraqi children.

I also opposed Clinton's Iraq policies and his bombing campaign.

BTW, the UN inspectors left Iraq in the late 1990s at the insistence of the US, not because of anything Saddam did.

Clinton and Bush have blood on their hands. Bush in particular, is guilty of crimes against humanity.

As you can see, I am against US imperialism and colonialism, which is something that John Kerry, and his old mentor Joe Biden, are quite adept at.

[Cocoa]

95. finally the backtrack

thanks for coming to your senses. Maybe Eloriel will do so as well, in time.

Hopefully if Dean wins the primary, the antiwar Dean supporters won't suddenly see the light and decide they must vote Green because of Dean being among the murderers.

[IndianaGreen]

98. I never said that Dean is a liberal

Dean is a centrist. Dean supporters know that very well.

If Iraq was the only issue, I would be supporting Kucinich.

If national security was the only issue (Iraq is only a small part of it), I would be supporting Clark.

Considering all the problems we are facing, including the budget deficits and the bankruptcy of the country, Dean is the best all-around candidate.

Replacing Bush in 2004 is not good enough. We are going to reverse everything he did since 2000, including repeal of the PATRIOT Act, reversing the reckless deregulation of industry, etc.

[sangh0]

99. How hypocritical!!

You said you don't care about the comparison, but earlier you said:

"A bump for the truth and another dig at those that claim there was no difference between IWR and Biden-Lugar.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=788060&mesg_id=788139&page=

[IndianaGreen]

102. Did you read AND understand what I wrote in post #88?

Reading comprehension is such a must in order to have an intelligent dialogue, otherwise we are just engaging in sloganeering.

[sangh0]

103. Yes, and it's hypocritical

to post that you think the differences are irrelevant, while "bumping" it because it's "the truth"

According to you, it's "irrelevant" but it's also worth bumping.

According to you, B/L would authorize a criminal war, but you don't criticize Dean for supporting it, and have actively (see your posts near the end of this thread) tried to refute the FACT that Dean would have voted to give Bush* a "blank check for war" (as you have called it) if he ever got the chance to vote for B/L.

Dean said he supportd it, but when I say Dean would vote for it, you call that "speculation". You must think "support" means "not vote for it"?

[IndianaGreen]

108. Circular logic will get you nowhere

and neither will Kerry's vote for IWR get him anywhere near the nomination in 2004.

[Cocoa]

107. stop digging, please!

you got yourself into a quagmire, didn't you learn anything from Vietnam?

[IndianaGreen]

110. Kerry obviously forgot his Vietnam lessons, I didn't.

There are differences between IWR and Biden-Lugar, the former was a blank check for war, the latter provided another opportunity for the issue to be debated in Congress had Saddam not allowed the UN inspectors in Iraq (which he did anyway).

Did you follow me so far?

I am against the entire US policy towards Iraq which consisted of the US using UN resolutions as a cover for US unilateral actions.

Point in fact: There were no UN Resolutions regarding no-fly zones. Yet the US and the UK carried out a 12-year bombing campaign against Iraq enforcing an illegal "no-fly" zones (which BTW also protected Al-Qaeda in Northern Iraq).

The US claims that it wanted to protect the Kurds in Northern Iraq, yet the US looked the other way when Turkey conducted cross-border incursions against the Kurds.

As you can see from what I am telling you, the invasion of Iraq is only the latest chapter in a long history of US deception and aggression in the region, including providing WMDs and intelligence to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.

[dajabr]

4. Eloriel, I know you know this but I'll say it anyway...

This is how those in power stay in power.

They count on the short memory of the Public. Throw some obfuscation and scare tactics in, and soon they've got the voter rationalizing away THEIR mistake at the polling place.

They COUNT on the clock running out while dutiful Mr. Voter rewards them for being a shitty leader.

Not me. I don't buy the B-L = IWR crap. And Kerry does not get a PRIMARY vote from me for fucking ME (and us) over.

Nice work on the research. Sad that it was necessary at all.

[dsc]

5. Thank you very much

It has been agravating to see people tell stories Bush likes in this regard. Dean had a clear and well enunciated position that he stuck with. It basicly was no war without either:

a) UN approval or

b) definative proof that Saddam was an imminent thread

Biden Lugar fits in that mold. The IWR didn't.

[Karmadillo]

6. Where does Biden-Lugar require definitive proof?

n/t

[dsc]

9. He has to go to Congress with a determination

that . . . one can not determine things which one doesn't know to be true.

[Karmadillo]

11. We're talking about the Bush Administration, right?

Easy enough to determine Iraq posed a "grave" threat to the US. Here's a good example of how it would have been done.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=771575&mesg_id=771809&page=

<edit>

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

[blm]

62. "I have determined that Iraq is a threat." said Bush.

.

[TLM]

7. Woo Hoo! I'm thankful for you Eloriel....

It's folks like you who are going to put Dean in the Whitehouse.

[blm]

114. Let's see what Ted Kennedy has to say about Biden-Lugar....

as 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...

[Karmadillo]

8. Here's a link to previous thread discussing this issue

Lots of info, insults, and even some debate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=771575&mesg_id=771575

[Karmadillo]

10. Here's the actual language of the Biden-Lugar resolution

Despite the commentary you posted, Eloriel, I'm not sure where I see much difference between B-L and the IWR. Bush would have likely sidestepped the requirement of a Security Counsel resolution by making a determination Iraq posed a "grave" threat to the United States (see section 2(b)(2)).

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

<NOTE: Whereases are edited out>

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.

[Terwilliger]

33. looks evident to me

(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).

------

Pretty evident to me that either way, Bush was going to ignore the UN, and Biden-Lugar is the Dem endorsement of the idea.

[blm]

34. Which shows how DECEPTIVE Dean was in using IWR as a wedge issue

against the other candidates who voted for the IWR.

That's been my contention for over a year and is the basis for my distrust of Dean and his bullshit "straight" talk which is as deceptive as we've seen from a Democrat.

And you have to wonder WHY the press never examined this for well over a year now.

[Terwilliger]

35. yes, but you're damning Dean with his surreptitious agreement with Kerry

they're both in the wrong equally, then

[blm]

38. Nope. I never disagreed with Biden-Lugar. I disagreed with Dean lying

about the IWR and deceptively using it as a wedge issue. A wedge issue based on ignorance and misperception. Very cynical.

[Terwilliger]

127. like Kerry claiming he didn't give Bush war powers

when he knows he did

You can bitch about Dean all day but that doesn't change the stink on your candidate. And why is it important to you if you know that everybody realizes these things?

[blm]

128. All resolutions are coercive tools used to threaten

the targeted country into compliance. ALL of them. Bush didn't use it the way it was intended.

Further, it matters to me that Dean's deception was used to attack other Democratic campaigns. Kerry was unfairly labeled prowar, while Dean deceptively grabbed the antiwar support from my other guy, Kucinich.

YOU can be happy about that and not care.... well, I DO CARE.

[slinkerwink]

12. excellent post, eloriel

[DrFunkenstein]

13. Thank You For Proving The Point, Eloriel

The bipartisan resolution includes language:

* Supporting the president's effort to get a new resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council.

Part of IWR.

* Limiting the use of U.S. military force against Iraq, and the scope of any military operation to dealing with "current ongoing threats posed by Iraq" and to forcing compliance with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Part of the IWR.

* Requiring Bush to make a determination to Congress prior to ordering military action that further diplomacy will not succeed in bringing Iraq into compliance.

Part of IWR.

* Requiring Bush to make a determination that using military force against Iraq is consistent with and will not detract from the ongoing effort to take action against terrorists and terrorist organizations

Part of IWR.

* Requiring regular consulting and reporting to the Congress

Part of IWR.

* Requiring the White House, consistent with the War Powers Act, to report to Congress every 60 days on military operations and planning for "post-military" operations including any plans for peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

Part of IWR.

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.

Anyone with a basic familiarity with legal language will recognize the enormous hole in this "or". Bush could just as easily gone to war.

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.

I think we all know the limits of the term "consult." Secondly, the IWR calls for follow-up reports, as well.

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.

Part of IWR.

* 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.

This is the major difference in the two proposals. This would make Bush spell out the rationale for war (WMDs?) - BUT it would not stop the invasion from happening.

* 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.

Actually, it is Congress's power to declare wars and to fund them, not to manage them. That power lies with the Commander-in-Chief.

Edited for runaway italics.

[DrFunkenstein]

22. No Comments?

n/t

[Adjoran]

14. The differences in the bills

are not insignificant, but they do both say the same thing in essence. B-L reserves some rights to Congress, but that is the biggest difference.

The true point of calling Dean a hypocrite is refuted by his repeated statements in August and September of 2002, before the vote. He was clearly against the war unless Bush made his evidence and reasoning public, and warned the occupation would last "5 - 10 years" i order to establish democracy in Iraq.

Several of these statements are in articles listed here: http://www.rutlandherald.com/deanarchive/2002.html

Supporting the B-L amendment is consistent with his statements expressing reservations about the war. That proposal more closely mirrored the requirements he had previously set forth to support the war.

I am uncommitted to date, leaning towards Gephardt. I don't think it helps the party to distort another candidate's position, though.

[DrFunkenstein]

15. Are These The Statements You're Talking About?

He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html

If anyone's position is distorted, it is Kerry's. He is frequently referred to as pro-war, when he clearly thought the war was unnecessarily rushed. He said that the threat was NOT imminent, and that disarmament was the ONLY rationale for invasion - ONLY after exhausting non-violent solutions. Hardly pro-war.

[ozone_man]

42. Wrong link.

But if you find the right link, make sure to include the section where Dean said that only after proof was established that WMDs existed and if the U.N. failed to enforce its resolution. Neither aspect was satisfied. You can't take news clips out of context, unless you are trying to misrepresent Dean's position on Iraq.

[Karmadillo]

20. Works both ways. Dean's "blank check" rhetoric wears a little thin when

he, too, supported a blank check, albeit one called Biden-Lugar. The issue is hardly as black and white as Dean and his supporters would have us believe.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/iraq030710_bush.html

<edit>

"I am now convinced more than ever that it was a mistake to have given this administration a blank check to engage in this war, as too many in Congress did when they supported the Iraqi war resolution," presidential hopeful Howard Dean said while campaigning in New Hampshire.

more...

[IndianaGreen]

27. The issue is black and white

The IWR was a blank check for Bush to do as he pleases in Iraq AND in the region as a whole (Bush could invade Syria using as pretext that Saddam hid the WMDs there).

Kerry knew better! Kerry had lived through the consequences of the Tonkin Gulf resolution in Vietnam, yet he voted for the 2002 version of Tonkin when he cast his vote for IWR.

[Karmadillo]

31. And Biden-Lugar was also a blank check. Thus,

the efforts of Dean supporters to portray it as something else is at odds with the facts.

[sangh0]

53. Still no comparison of B/L with IWR

which just happens to be the subject of this thread

[ibegurpard]

16. Kick

Thanks for this thread. This recent "there is no difference between Kerry and Dean's stance on this issue" is a theme that seems to be surfacing more and more recently.

[DUreader]

17. kick

[JNelson6563]

18. Well done El, I need some help too

This is the Levin amendment 4862:

Senate Amendment 4862 to House Joint Resolution 114
Sponsored by Senator Levin
"Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002"

SA 4862. Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. REED, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. BOXER, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. AKAKA, and Mr. JEFFORDS) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 4856 proposed by Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. WARNER, Mr. BAYH, Mr. MCCAIN, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. MILLER, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. HELMS, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. LOTT, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. THOMPSON, and Mr. NICKLES) to the joint resolution S.J. Res. 45, to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq; as follows:



In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment, insert the following:

SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) In accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), Iraq made a commitment--

(A) to destroy, remove, or render harmless all chemical and biological weapons and stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support, and manufacturing facilities related thereto;

(B) to destroy, remove, or render harmless all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and related major parts and production facilities;

(C) not to acquire or develop any nuclear weapons, nuclear-weapons-usable material, nuclear-related subsystems or components, or nuclear-related research, development, support, or manufacturing facilities; and

(D) to permit immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical, and missile capabilities, and assist the International Atomic Energy Agency in carrying out the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of all nuclear-related items and in developing a plan for ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance.

(2) The regime of Saddam Hussein consistently refused to cooperate with United Nations Special Commission weapons inspectors in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 by denying them access to crucial people, sites, and documents.

(3) On October 31, 1998, Iraq banned the United Nations weapons inspectors despite its agreement and obligation to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991).

(4) Iraq continues to develop weapons of mass destruction, in violation of its commitments under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions, and the regime of Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against its own people and other nations.

(5) The development of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq is a threat to the United States, to the friends and allies of the United States in the Middle East, and to international peace and security.

SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL POLICY FOR UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION ON IRAQ.

Congress--

(1) supports the President's call for the United Nations to address the threat to international peace and security posed by Saddam Hussein's continued refusal to meet Iraq's obligations under resolutions of the United Nations Security Council to accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range in excess of 150 kilometers, and related facilities, and to cease the development, production, or acquisition of such weapons, materials, and missiles;

(2) urges the United Nations Security Council to adopt promptly a resolution that--

(A) demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access of the United Nations weapons inspectors so that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range in excess of 150 kilometers, and related facilities are destroyed, removed, or rendered harmless; and

(B) authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate military force by member states of the United Nations to enforce such resolution in the event that the Government of Iraq refuses to comply;

(3) affirms that, under international law and the United Nations Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense; and

(4) will not adjourn sine die this year and will return to session at any time before the next Congress convenes to consider promptly proposals relative to Iraq if in the judgment of the President the United Nations Security Council fails to adopt or enforce the resolution described in paragraph (2).

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES PURSUANT TO A NEW UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.--Pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 3(2) that is adopted after the enactment of this joint resolution, and subject to subsection (b), the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and related facilities, if Iraq fails to comply with the terms of the Security Council resolution.

(b) REQUIREMENTS.--Before the authority granted in subsection (a) is exercised, the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 3(2) and that those efforts have not been and are not likely to be successful in obtaining such compliance.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.--

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (22 U.S.C. 1544(b)).

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 5. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this joint resolution, and at least once during every 60-day period thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report containing a summary of the status of efforts--

(1) to have the United Nations Security Council adopt the resolution described in section 3(2); or

(2) in the case of the adoption of such resolution, to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolution.


I'd like to find out how the Senaors votedon this, anyone know where I can find that out?

Julie

[JNelson6563]

19. kickin this for help

would like to know who voted how on this amendment.

[sangh0]

21. A deliberate twisting of Biden-Lugar

According to the CRS report Eloriel cites:

It would authorize the use of U.S. military force, but only pursuant to a new U.N. Security Council resolution, and only after consultation with congressional leadership.

The CRS report also says:

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 the Security Council fails to act.

IOW, Biden-Lugar did NOT require a new UN resolution.

All Bush* had to do is was:

a) fail to get a UN resolution (not hard for Bush*)
b) consult with Congress (Bush* has no problem lying to Congress)
c) invade.

Just like IWR

[sangh0]

23. Another twist

CNN says Biden-Lugar "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."

IWR also "closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East". Under IWR, "the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region."

This is because Dems in Congress, like Kerry and Daschle, negotiated this change to IWR in exchange for their vote. If Eloriel truly cared about limiting the resolution to Iraq, she would be thanking those Dems for the successful work limiting the scope of IWR.

[sangh0]

24. More twists

According to CNN:

"* Supporting the president's effort to get a new resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council.

So does IWR

* Requiring Bush to make a determination to Congress prior to ordering military action that further diplomacy will not succeed in bringing Iraq into compliance

IWR had a similar requirement.

* Requiring Bush to make a determination that using military force against Iraq is consistent with and will not detract from the ongoing effort to take action against terrorists and terrorist organizations

Do you really think a requirement that Bush lie to Congress is an obstacle to Bush*. IWR also requires Bush* to make determinations to Congress.

Note: I think this provision is HUGE. It would have made the Bush administration lie further in order to get their war. That alone might have been a more clearly impeachable offense.

And lying to get us into a war isn't impeachable enough, but THIS one is the one that would convince the majority of Congress (ie. Republicans) to vote to impeach Bush*?

You've got to be kidding!

* Requiring regular consulting and reporting to the Congress

So does IWR, and reporting lies doesn't save any Iraqi or American lives.

* Requiring the White House, consistent with the War Powers Act, to report to Congress every 60 days on military operations and planning for "post-military" operations including any plans for peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

So does IWR

[DrFunkenstein]

25. See My Original Post

n/t

[JNelson6563]

26. back your enabler all you want

Here's what Kerry & Co. enabled the boy king to declare:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Good morning. Welcome to the White House. I want to thank the members of my Cabinet who have joined us. I want to thank the members of Congress who are here on the stage. I want to thank the members of Congress who are here in the audience. I'm honored to have you here.

The resolution I'm about to sign symbolizes the united purpose of our nation, expresses the considered judgment of the Congress, and marks an important event in the life of America. The 107th Congress is one of the few called by history to authorize military action to defend our country and the cause of peace.

This is among the most serious and difficult decisions a legislator can face. Members of both Houses, both political parties, have deliberated with care, and they have spoken with clarity on behalf of the American people. We will face our dangers squarely, and we will face them unafraid.

With this resolution, Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary. Yet, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is necessary, by whatever means that requires. Either the Iraqi regime will give up its weapons of mass destruction, or, for the sake of peace, the United States will lead a global coalition to disarm that regime. If any doubt our nation's resolve, our determination, they would be unwise to test it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021016-1.html

Yes, thanks to the sniveling cowards who were busy tripping over themselves to look good by supporting a "popular" war declared by a frickin' simian, many have died and it can be stated it was near-universal supporty by R's and D's. Oh yes, why there they were, speaking with "one voice" with Jr.

What was it? Were the Dems who supported this slaughter confused? Hard to believe after the Levin and Byrd amendments (which I might add hardly had support of the Dems)? Were they misled?

I think they stupidly believed that Jr was gonna do a easy-peasy video-game style jobbie like Daddy did 'cept they musta not noticed the rest of the world giving us the finger.....

You all go ahead and split hairs over just what the Dem enablers of Jr voted for. He had the ability, thanks to their cowardly support, to say shit like "America speaks with one voice" and "with overwhelming support of Congress".

And some of these men would be our leaders????? And you Funkenstein, who is unable to admit your own faults and who blames others for your own actions, we are supposed to see you and the rest of the rabid, nearly incoherent Kerry supporters as credible when you present your lame case for Kerry-the-fascist-fearing Senator???

There were not limitations set on the boy king and those that were offered were voted down. I don't know why you would even step in this steaming shit pile Kerry has left for you all to defend. Well, except I DO know narcissism does often prevent one from seeing an unwinnable battle as anything but sure success. It's a key symptom, an inablity to achieve a grasp of the concept of losing (at least by one's own doing--it's always someone else's fault). So when Kerry drops out of this race, we'll all be sure to note all you Kerry people stepping up your declarations of how stupid, brainwashed and blind we are.

Oh the irony.

Julie

[sangh0]

30. More "Attack the critic, ignore the issue"

Your post has not one word about the differences or similarities between IWR and Biden-Lugar, which happens to be the subject of this thread.

[JNelson6563]

37. blm thoughtfully provided it

nice to see something productive from blm, thanks dear! :hi:

At the time Bush complained that Biden-Lugar would "tie his hands." He preferred the Gephardt resolution that had no strings attached.

The link provided for this article takes one to a subscriber only site so I can't provide the article but I think it's clear from this quote what the difference is. You know Jr. had it s'plained to him and that's the explantion.

The IWR basically said "drop us a note or something 2 days before you start the party, eh? If that's ok with you your Majesty....sir..."

BTW, do you happen to know how Kerry voted on the Byrd or Levin amendments? You know, that would've provided a few necessary safeguards to the Bush-Gephardt IWR. I mean if he found the testosterone to vote for either I may view him as slightly less despicable, as may some others....

Julie

[sangh0]

39. What a joke of a response

Your excuse for not providing any relevant content is to point out how on-topic blm is, as if that absolves you?

And, to add insult to injury, you base your claim that there is a difference on what the monkey-boy says?

[JNelson6563]

46. whatever dear

The difference is clear and I think you know this. To see Kerry people crying foul that Dean folks are playing semantics is laughable. You can read this thread as well as I.

I see no safegaurds in the IWR and I do in B-L. I saw some of those same safeguards offered in IWR amendments that were voted down. Trying to make IWR more like B-L.

I remember so well speaking with Senator Levin about this very topic last summer. He seemed so frustrated that he was unable to get any of these checks in place that he thought B-L would've provided. But he, unlike others, knew IWR was plain ol' wrong and wouldn't vote for it if it wasn't improved. And he was up for re-election too. Sure, he's as safe in his seat as say....oh, maybe a many-term Dem in some Dem friendly state like oh....maybe Massachusettes....but he still said no when it wasn't so popular to do so.

But hey, I'm sure your fellow Kerry supporters are much more in the know than that simpleton Senator Levin. He obviously didn't know what he was talking about and neither did the boy king. No, no. They were just spewing idiocy (as if the WH didn't know exactly what they needed to get their war on--yeah, I am sure they were unclear as to the details..hahaha).

But I won't take the hours to parse and snip the detailed differences so I'm just an idiot. Sorry but I take the word of Senator Levin, who as you likely know, was in the trenches, to the point of trying to stop some of his fellow Dems from making this grave error...over some poor, frustrated Kerry supporter/Dean basher any day.

Boy, I sure wish I could drag you along next time Levin's in town. He sure could use some advice from you as he obviously doesn't seem to have a clue.

If only I had a good Senator! Like maybe oh, I don't know, Kerry???

Oy!

Julie

[sangh0]

49. More "Attack the critic, ignore the issue"

Still nothing about the comparison of B/L to IWR except "The difference is clear and I think you know this"

I think you nothing about what I know

[JNelson6563]

56. you're right

I'm probably giving you waaaaaaay too much credit. My apologies.

Julie

[sangh0]

61. Still nothing about the comparison of B/L to IWR ?

.

[JNelson6563]

66. how about you?

What makes you feel they are one in the same? Why no info yet on how Kerry voted on those amendments?

:shrug:

You needn't answer, I suspect I know. And again, my heartfelt apologies for giving you more credit than you were due. I know that can be a real stress builder. ;-)

Julie

[sangh0]

74. Asked and answered

You can start with:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=788060&mesg_id=789267&page=

[Eloriel]

112. i think she's answered you just fine

Chewed you up and spit you out, as a matter of fact. )|(Go, Julie!)

You're the only one who hasn't noticed it yet.

Eloriel

[blm]

44. Kerry was for B-L, too, but Bush wanted to end negotiations

and exaggerated the claim that B-L would have tied his hands. The proof is in the bill. Since when do you believe Bush, anyway?

[JNelson6563]

48. read my reply to your tag-team pal

and if you all get time, see if you can't find how Kerry voted on either the Levin or Byrd amendments, willya? Might redeem him somewhat to the unwashed masses.

Julie

[sangh0]

50. Still nothing about comparing B/L to IWR?

Good to see you're still incapable of relevance

[IndianaGreen]

54. More "Attack the critic, ignore the issue"

Throwing your own words to your face.

[JNelson6563]

60. Yes, because reporting what

Senator Levin himself said on the issue and claiming my agreement with his words does nothing to address the issue at hand. But I guess Kerry supporters want mountains of words to parse on it so they can have their "define is" moments.

You're a long timer IG, have so many other posters here always been so cursed with narrow vision and I haven't noticed before? Was it wishful thinking to believe all us Dems were more reasonable than Freepers?

Boy the language framing and beyond ridiculous demands are quite disheartening to see here on DU.

Julie--who has noticed that no Kucinich people seem prone to asshole-itis outbreaks and wonders why that is.....:-)

[sangh0]

64. How hypocritical!

You post another politicians opinion (don't you have one of your own?) and then complain that we want "mountains of words".

How about posting something that compares the two and notes the differences and the similarities?

[IndianaGreen]

68. More "Attack the critic, ignore the issue"

Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.

[sangh0]

70. More "attack the critic, ignore the issue"

At least my post calls for some content. Your's contains none.

[JNelson6563]

73. Gee I went to the trouble

of meeting with a major player in the debacle and asked his views on the matter. He told me how it played out and what disappointments he got out of it. Aside from the friendship I have with Senate aides and the info that comes from that, along with reading the resolutions, and watching the drama on the Senate floor, I felt I had a pretty good handle on it.

From the size of your demands and the lack of input from you I cannot with confidence say the same of you.

BTW, did you track down Kerry to discuss this with him as I did Levin?

Or couldn't you be bothered, feeling you know all there is to know already I am sure.

Funny to see you dismiss a major player in it all as a mere "politician" and to dismiss my own fact-finding efforts as basically taking that lowly "politician's" opinion as my own as I am incapapble of forming one.

No, I watched, read, listened and helped play host to a major player of it all (with great reward to my local party BTW) and it all reinforced my own opinion. The IWR resolution was wrong and so were those who voted for it. I applauded Senator Levin's efforts to get some B-L-like safeguards put on it. BTW, did Kerry come down from Olympus to back either of those amendments from those lowly "politicians"??

Of course, we know you won't answer that this time either.

Julie

[sangh0]

75. Good for you

but this thread is about a comparison between IWR and B/L, not how Levin thinks the issue "played out" and his disappointments.

From the size of your demands and the lack of input from you I cannot with confidence say the same of you.

My "demands"? I just think you might post something about a comparison between IWR and B/L, which happens to be the subject of this thread.

And I've given you a link to several posts of mine where I explain the similarities.

Funny to see you dismiss a major player in it all as a mere "politician" and to dismiss my own fact-finding efforts as basically taking that lowly "politician's" opinion as my own as I am incapapble of forming one.

1) I didn't dismiss a politician. I just noted that quoting a pol makes your complaint about "mountains of words" hypocritical. You complain repeatedly about "demands" (which are really just my pointing out how you say nothing about the subject at hand) and post "mountains of words" that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

No, I watched, read, listened and helped play host to a major player of it all (with great reward to my local party BTW) and it all reinforced my own opinion. The IWR resolution was wrong and so were those who voted for it. I applauded Senator Levin's efforts to get some B-L-like sageguards put on it. BTW, did Kerry come down from Olympus to back either of those amendments from those lowly "politicians"??

And still, not one word about what those "B-L-like safegaurds" actually are.

[JNelson6563]

109. But you have already dismissed them

Yes, I saw your link to where you discuss the "similarities" between the two bills. I've always had the understanding that both bills were about war with Iraq so I had already been well aware there were similarities. Clever of you to point them out. ;-)

As to your bemoaning the fact that I won't tell you what I feel the safeguards were in Biden-Luger that were not in IWR, it seems to me that you have concluded what they are and dismissed them out of hand rather neatly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=788060&mesg_id=789267&page=

IOW, Biden-Lugar did NOT require a new UN resolution.

All Bush* had to do is was:

a) fail to get a UN resolution (not hard for Bush*)
b) consult with Congress (Bush* has no problem lying to Congress)
c) invade.

Seems to me you have very little faith in our valiant Dems. Bush having to come back to the Congress in order to get permission to declare war is not in IWR. IWR's provision is 48 hr. notice before kciking htings off. He would've had to come back and tell more lies. By then maybe the master of Bush facts, Sen. Kerry, could've found his voice and exposed the earlier Bush lies (surely by then the "16 words" SOTU scandal may have been uncovered by BFEE/intelligence expert Kerry?)

But no, here's the safeguards and they'd've been useless so no matter. But I thought there were no safeguards? Oh wait, no, there were, but they were no good. Mmm hmm. Ok.

But wait, there's more:

Just like IWR

By golly I missed that one! In fact, boy that Levin basically is a moron! Did you know he offered an amendment to the IWR that would make Bush come back and consult with Congress before going to war???? Well according to you that safeguard was already in the IWR. My god you'd think someone in the Senate would've noticed the redundancy of that!

Julie

[sangh0]

69. You'r ebeing very deceptive

You haven't posted anything from Levin that notes any difference between IWR and B/L. You just claim that Levin says there is a difference. NOT ONE WORD about what that difference is.

Julie--who has noticed that no Kucinich people seem prone to asshole-itis outbreaks and wonders why that is.....:-)

sangha, who figures it's because the DK's aren't Deanies.

[JNelson6563]

76. I can't help you lack of comprehension

Safeguards, sweetheart. AS in making the boy king come back and get the ok from Congress before kicking off the big adventure.

While it may not seem like much to you it I think it would have been substantial. It would've provided time for folks like Levin and Byrd and any other "politician" to get some of the tough questions into the public discourse. It could've shone a light on the many things that were wrong about this war.

But of course we know that the boy king enablers were in no mood to do any such thing. No they voted down their own Dems amendments to quickly pave the road.

Yes, they missed the boat on Daddies war but they weren't gonna make that mistake again were they? No. And safeguards to help expose the lies they either were party to or were just stupid enough to believe were not a good thing.

Nope. No need to come back to congress for permisssion (read that part slowly hun, that's the biggest difference and I'm highlighting it for you for the last time) let's just et this party started so we can begin filming campaign commercials with Kerry/Edwards/Lieberman rejoicing with our returning, victorious troops.

It hurts, I know.

Julie

[sangh0]

78. More deception

B/L did NOT require that Bush* get an OK from Congress. From ELoriel's initial post:

Biden-Lugar, furthermore, requires that the President consult with congressional leadership prior to engaging U.S. military force,

B/L only requires consultation with Congress, and not authorization from Congress.

Just like IWR.

No need to come back to congress for permisssion (read that part slowly hun, that's the biggest difference and I'm highlighting it for you for the last time)

Highlighting it doesn't make it a fact.

Bush is a strong leader

You see?

[sangh0]

82. More

From Eloriels initial post:

* Requiring Bush to make a determination to Congress prior to ordering military action that further diplomacy will not succeed in bringing Iraq into compliance

* Requiring Bush to make a determination that using military force against Iraq is consistent with and will not detract from the ongoing effort to take action against terrorists and terrorist organizations

Note: I think this provision is HUGE. It would have made the Bush administration lie further in order to get their war. That alone might have been a more clearly impeachable offense.

* Requiring regular consulting and reporting to the Congress

* Requiring the White House, consistent with the War Powers Act, to report to Congress every 60 days on military operations and planning for "post-military" operations including any plans for peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

B/L requires "determinations" and "consultations" and "reporting". B/L has NO requirement for getting Congressional approval.

Nice try. Next time, try to use some facts

[sangh0]

91. Julie, cat got your tongue?

You agreed with Eloriel's post even though it contradicts your claim that Congressional approval was required by B/L. Can you explain the contradiction?

[JNelson6563]

113. are you trying to taunt me?

I see you are impatient. Terribly sorry but I have a real life going on here int he real world and cannot devote my day to running around in ciruclar reasoning ditches with you dear.

As to your question, you seem to feel there was something required of Congress with a B/L bill.

I've taken a look at your "arguments" and posted my thoughts here. You will see my opinion and make of it what you will.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=788060&mesg_id=790035&page=

Now I see you feel "consulting" means only sending notice. That is not my understanding of it and I think Eloriel's original post highlights differences in the bills. As you yourself stated earlier in the thread, you highlighted the similarities. On bills about the same issue.

And you wonder why I don't drop everything and devote my day to discussion with you? Interesting.

Perhaps you are just way beyond my capabilities to contend with. Yes, I am sure that is it.

Julie

[Eloriel]

115. I'm not IG, but I'd like to respond to that anyway

We've gotten to the point you describe as a result of the influx of supporters from two candidates whose only purpose seems to be aggressively (and I do mean aggressively) "supporting" their candidate.

It's not the same DU it used to be, as is obvious. The quality of discourse -- and the quantity of quality discourse -- has plummeted.

Eloriel

[blm]

55. Why try to pretend that Dean wasn't being deceptive

by accusing the others of giving a Blank check while supporting a bill that STILL would have allowed Bush the discretion to go into Iraq?

[JNelson6563]

63. I'll go slow for you blm

IWR no safegaurds=blank check

B-L some safeguards {not} blank check

Much like Senator Levin explained it. But slower of course. ;-)

Julie

[sangh0]

65. What are the differences?

You keep claiming there are differences, but you have refused to post anything more details than "there are differences"

How about it?

[blm]

67. Keep telling yourself that to cover for Dean's deceptions.

.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Cocoa]

29. what was the reaction to Biden-Lugar at the time?

I'd be curious to see how many people saw Biden-Lugar as a significant alternative to the IWR. It seems to me people are pretty absolutist about the war.

In the past I've posted positive things about things Biden has said and proposed, though I'm not a big fan of his. I gave up along time ago, I got tired of getting nothing but "Fuck Biden!!!" responses.

Surprised to see the Dean people so Biden-friendly all of a sudden.

[JNelson6563]

41. I'm a Dean person and I have to admit

to having seriously mixed feelings on Sen. Biden.

My most recent exposure to him at length was when he was talking about funding Iraq. He went on for a very long time and I was shocked to find myself agreeing with all the stuff he said about doing it right now that we've made such a mess. The ways he wanted to go about fixing Iraq made so much sense and was so insightful I wondered how come he got so much wrong so often. ;-)

Julie

[Cocoa]

45. thank you

I know that most Dean supporters are honest, it's nice to hear them display it like you just did.

Whenever there's a dem purge discussion, Biden is usually right up there in the hit list, especially on foreign policy, especially on Iraq. Not usually, or ever, a lot of dissent on that image of him as one of the superhawks.

Kind of hard for me to square with this sudden view of Biden-Lugar as somehow a way the war might have been averted.

If Biden's proposal could have prevented the war we all hate, then how does it make sense that he's one of the bad dems, no discussion allowed?

[Egnever]

101. I have allways wondered about the Biden hate

I honestly thought he was spot on during the lead up to the war right up till it was clear there was no stoping it and he jumped on board the support our troops train.

He often uses praise of republicans in his speeches but usually follows that up by poimtimg out everything they are doing wrong. No one hit rumsfield harder than biden really except perhaps boxer in the hearings leading up to and during the war.

I really dont understand where the hate for him comes from.

If he had run this year I would probably be supporting him instead of Dean.

[Eloriel]

116. Nonsense on the "Biden-friendly" comment

And what a fabulous example of lousy reasoning ability.

It's an AMENDMENT called Biden-Lugar we're discussing, not the Senator himself.

Get it?

In addition, it's not really pro or con disussion about the amendment itself, but a discussion of the differences between that and what passed. I myself said I'd have preferred Levin. I don't think anyone else has weighed in at all (well, IG did, I think, denouncing both). Pro and con discussions have been tangential.

Get it?

Eloriel

[blm]

32. Dean DECEPTIVELY used IWR as a WEDGE ISSUE

as if IWR was a "blank check" and few of his supporters even knew about his support for Biden-Lugar which is not SUBSTANTIVELY different and would NOT have stopped Bush from going into Iraq.


>>>>
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

[IndianaGreen]

36. Kerry is dead as a Presidential candidate

You might as well come to accept that. Once Clark entered the race, Kerry could no longer claim a monopoly on being a "war hero" or strong on "national security," which Kerry has exploited for years.

The harsh reality is that Kerry has been running as the John Kerry of VVAW, when the truth is that the real Kerry is a tired old Senator that has been too willing to compromise on issues such as war and peace, and even missed a Medicare vote.

[blm]

40. Realize this: DEAN LIED to use IWR as a wedge issue and the media let him

do it. WHY?

And why do you pretend that honesty is important to you and support someone who deceived his supporters by pretending that the IWR was a blank check while claiming that he was antiwar?

[IndianaGreen]

51. The war is a wedge issue, and IWR is a litmus test

Your candidate failed the litmus test, and his ongoing support for the occupation of Iraq puts him on the wrong side of a wedge issue. Kerry is not alone! Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman have to answer for their support for this criminal war, and for the loss of innocent Iraqi lives.

They are all murderers!

President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution



President George W. Bush along with bipartisan leaders from the House and Senate announced the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iraq. "The statement of support from the Congress will show to friend and enemy alike the resolve of the United States," President Bush said during the announcement in the Rose Garden, Wednesday, October 2, 2002. White House photo by Paul Morse.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html

[sangh0]

57. More "attack the critic, ignore the issue"

Nothing about the comparison of IWR to B/L, and nothing about how Dean supported the "blank check" provided by B/L

[Cocoa]

59. how did Joe Biden vote on IWR?

[blm]

72. Untrue. Kerry called for end of occupation last July.

Why do you continue to spread something you know is untrue? Narrow political agenda that has no regard for truth?


http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_0721.html

>>>>>
While Kerry spent most of his time focusing on economic issues, he returned consistently to the theme that Bush will seek to make the election a contest of who can be toughest on security.

Kerry warned that has led to foreign policy steps that have put America more at risk. He said the U.S. should move quickly to involve other nations in the occupation of Iraq.

"We need to take the target off of American troops and get rid of the sense of American occupation of the country," Kerry said.

Kerry voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, but said Bush has bungled the issue since that time.

"We have a right to expect the president to build the coalition we need to internationalize this effort," he said.
>>>>>

[IndianaGreen]

80. This war was a criminal war of aggression

Asking other countries to join the US in the ongoing rape of Iraq is not ending the occupation or the war.

Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate that is 100% correct about Iraq. Dennis calls for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US troops and personnel from Iraq. I agree with Dennis 100%!

[sangh0]

83. Still nothing about comparing B/L with IWR?

That's the subject of this thread. And Dean supported B/L, which gave Bush* a "blank check" to wage a "criminal war of aggression"

[IndianaGreen]

84. Kerry VOTED for war

What part of "V-O-T-E-D" don't you understand? Or do you prefer to spam the board with your meaningless chatter?

[sangh0]

89. Still no comparison of B/L and IWR???

After all, it is the subject of this thread.

[blm]

94. Dean SAID he would have voted for Biden-Lugar. You give him a pass.

And you give him a pass for using deception to divide the Democratic party even further while using IWR as a wedge issue against the other Democrats.

[sangh0]

43. More "Attack the critic, ignore the issue"

IG doesn't have anything to say about the comparison of B/L to IWR, which is the issue of this thread. Just another partisan attack on a Democrat.

[IndianaGreen]

47. I suggest you adhere to your own advice

as your posting record shows.

[sangh0]

52. More "Attck the critic, ignore the issue"

Another post with no content related to comparing IWR to B/L.

[IndianaGreen]

58. More "Attack the critic, ignore the issue"

I can also sound like a broken record, except that in my case it is because I choose to, not because it is an inherent quality.

What's your excuse?

[sangh0]

71. "More "Attack the critic, ignore the issue""

My "excuse" is I have posted a rebuttal to Eloriel's claim of "there's a difference" complete with explanations of the similarities.

You have yet to post ANY comparison of the two.

[quaker bill]

122. You are correct.

Clark is the anti-Kerry candidate. He was never the anti-Dean candidate, advertizing notwithstanding.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. Great post! Thank you, Eloriel.

The fact is that Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman signed a blank check for the Turd-in-Charge to conduct his photo-op invasion, and are now trying to squirm their way out of it. Fortunately, given the mood of Democratic voters in the primaries, their belated peacenik gestures are being seen for what they obviously are.

Keep up the good work.

[sangh0]

85. You left out Dean's support for a "blank check"

by supporting B/L which

a) Did not require the approval of the UN, and
b) did not require the approval of Congress.

[IndianaGreen]

87. Dean is not a member of Congress, unlike the Bush war enablers

IWR and Biden-Lugar were considered in Congress, but Biden-Lugar was essentially dead when we had the Rose Garden photo op with the likes of Gephardt endorsing IWR.

[sangh0]

90. Dean supported a "Blank check" for war

Dean would have been happy to "vote for war" if he was able to win an election to Congress.

[IndianaGreen]

92. You are speculating about what Dean may have done if he was in Congress

There is no speculation as to how Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman voted.

[sangh0]

93. Dean said he supported B/L

which would have given Bush* a "blank check" for war.

I could just as easily accuse you of speculating about how Dean would vote on IWR.

[IndianaGreen]

96. Speculation are not facts

Fact: Kerry voted for IWR.

Fact: Dean did not have a vote in Congress.

Fact: People will not for Kerry on account of his vote for IWR.

Speculation: Kerry may or may not recover from the fallout of his IWR vote.

[sangh0]

97. Dean would have voted for IWR also

and if you try to refute that, you'll have to speculate about what Dean would do IF he was in Congress.

And still no comparison of B/L and IWR

[IndianaGreen]

100. Your entire argument is baseless

Dean is not a member of Congress. Now, if you want to discuss fiction and philosophy, perhaps you should be posting in The Meeting Room.

[sangh0]

104. Dean said he would vote for B/L

and you call that "speculation".

[Egnever]

105. Nice to See the TRUTH posted

Thanks for your work on that Eloriel. I see the response you got from it is from the usual suspects.

Bottom line though is the two resolutions are a lot different and B-L is the stronger of the two.

[sangh0]

106. How is B/L stronger

All of things Eloriel listed were also included in IWR

[phirili]

111. The Deaners cannot deal with the truth, they twist distort the truth

and often start talking of killing cats to kill the Thread

[Egnever]

118. Quite possibly the lamest post on this thread

:yourock:

[Egnever]

117. A few ways

First it requires repeated consultation with congress, Write it off if you will but the uglier the war becomes the more teeth that provision has. There would likely have bbeen no haliburton sweetheart deals if that provision had been in place.

Also the language directing the support of the war dirrectly at WMD covered by the UN resolutions changes the focus of congresses support away from a regime change scenario. Had he gone to the UN under the pretext of only addressing the removal of wmd the UN would have likely have signed on or have come up with a resolution adressing specifically the WMD and nothing else. Then the focus would have changed to proof of a threat from the WMD in order to ignore the UN. Which the UN was allready covering with the inspectors on the ground. No proof of wmd ever came. There would have been a UN Resolution addressing what congresss had voted for so he couldnt come back and say the UN wasnt acting.

[JNelson6563]

138. too bad they are busy covering thier ears and chanting

their mantras.....

The epitome of the term "excersize in futility".

Julie

[Egnever]

140. Well considering the usual suspects on this thread

I really didnt expect a much different response. :shrug:

[phirili]

121. Sangh0 you have been brilliant on this thread. The answer is

obvious, but the Dean cult cannot deal with the truth on this issue.

[Eloriel]

119. To all those suffering from reading comprehension problems

and so keep wanting to insist that there is "no difference," or actually it's more (now) like "not enough difference" between IWR and Biden-Lugar:

Your insistance that there's no/insufficient difference doesn't make it so, and some of your efforts have been laughable (and pitiful). I for one am not going to take MY time trying to explain something that is patently obvious and which the explainees have a vested interest in pretending they don't / can't see anyway. Life is too damn short to suffer clowns and fools.

Thanks for playing.

Eloriel

[quaker bill]

120. Amen and thanks

Thanks for the posts. The obfuscation and misdirection on this issue had gotten a bit too thick.

[ibegurpard]

123. I suspect

That some people are just trying to turn this thread into a flame war so they can get it locked. That way they can continue their bullshit "no difference" campaign unimpeded by the subject matter right there for people to read for themselves,

[blm]

124. Who's telling the truth, Eloriel or Ted Kennedy on Biden-Lugar (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...

[IndianaGreen]

126. What else did Kennedy say that Kerry's defenders are not saying..

I intend to oppose the Lieberman-Warner resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until all other reasonable alternatives are exhausted.

<snip>

I am concerned that going to war against Iraq before other means are tried will jeopardize the war against terrorism. One year into the battle against al-Qaida, the administration is shifting focus, resources, and energy to Iraq. The change in priority is coming before we have eliminated the threat from al-Qaida, before we know whether Osama bin Laden is dead or alive, and before we know whether the fragile post-Taliban government in Afghanistan will succeed.

<snip>

There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre- emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary. Nor has the administration laid out the cost in blood and treasure of this operation.

With all the talk of war, the administration has not explicitly acknowledged, let alone explained to the American people, the immense post-war commitment that will be required to create a stable Iraq.

<snip>

In a September 10 article, General Clark wrote: "Unilateral U.S. action today would disrupt the war against al-Qaida."

We ignore such wisdom and advice from many of the best of our military at our own peril.

[blm]

129. That was Kennedy's position. Dean's position was Biden-Lugar.

YOU don't support Kennedy, you support Dean. And you DON"T CARE that he has used lies and deceptions on the very issue that you CLAIM is so important to you.

[IndianaGreen]

131. I support all the antiwar candidates, including Clark

and I oppose all the prowar candidates, including Kerry.

While I prefer Dean for reasons I stated before, I will work like mad to prevent any of the Bush war enablers from winning the 2004 Democratic nomination.

A candidate's position on the war on Iraq, particularly if they are members of Congress, is the critical litmus test. Kucinich is the only one that is as pure as Caesar's wife on this issue. While the door is always opened to those that truly repent of their complicity in this crime, none of the Bush war enablers have shown any remorse for voting for IWR, quite the opposite.

I have made peace with how far I am willing to compromise in supporting a candidate. Don't you think it is time for you to do the same and ditch that loser Kerry for someone else?

[Cocoa]

132. what if Dean gets the nomination?

will you still see him as an antiwar candidate, or will "new information" lead you to conclude that he's no better than the rest, and thus free you to bash away.

[IndianaGreen]

135. My views on what happens after a nominee is selected...

The undemocratic Electoral College, and the lack of proportional representation, creates a de jure 2-party dictatorship in the United States.

As long as the 2-parties in question had some significant differences along the margins, they are bourgeois parties after all, this situation did not pose much of a problem, e.g., New Deal is better than Hoover economics, Kennedy better than Nixon, etc.

The problem began when the differences between the parties began to blur. I don't know exactly when the blurring began, but I venture a guess that it began when many baby boomers and their children bought the Reagan philosophy: liberalism baaad, conservatism good (defined by lower taxes, gutting of social programs, and "feel good" militarism).

To make a long story short, Bush is so bad and presents such a clear and present danger to us and to the rest of the world, that anything we do to get rid of him is virtuous. This includes voting for the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2004!

Getting rid of Bush is meaningless if there is no commitment to reverse what Bush has done since 2000. America is on the cusp of fascism, and we have an obligation to dismantle the machinery of the police state that Bush has been building since 9/11. We also have to heal the wounds that Bush's reckless foreign policy and military adventurism have caused in the world.

Just as the rightwing has been determined to destroy every trace of what they consider liberalism, we will have to destroy every trace of Reaganism.

[blm]

133. Biden-Lugar passes, Bush goes into Iraq, Dean is an "enabler" to you?

Try some intellectual honesty, IG.

You would rather throw over most of your liberal principles to support an opportunistic centrist whose support for use of force wasn't that much different than Kerry who you KNOW is a solid liberal. Your sanctimony would ring true ONLY if you were a Kucinich supporter, but, you're not.

[phirili]

134. Support outside of Congress does not count as much as support in Congress.

Where is the Logic?

If you oppose all prowar, you oppose Dean. Is that your position?

[phirili]

130. Kennedy on Biden-Lugar: It would, in effect, grant unilaterally,......

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct in terms of his whole analysis, I believe, of the underlying resolutions that are before the Senate and the fact that we were effectively yielding the decisionmaking power of making war or peace -- effectively unilaterally turning that over just to the decision of the President of the United States, as the Senator pointed out.

The Gephardt-Lieberman-Warner language says they can take unilateral action without a Security Council mandate to defend against a threat posed by Iraq. It talks about the test to defend against the continuing threat from Iraq.

The Senator, in his earlier exchange, points out that language is certainly not even implied in terms of whatever authority the President has to provide for the security of the United States. It would have to be an imminent threat. The Senator had a very strong exchange and made that case effectively.

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.

URBAN WARFARE

"In urban warfare, you could run through battalions a day at a time. All our advantages of command and control, technology, mobility . . . are in part given up and you are working with corporals and sergeants and young men fighting street to street. It looks like the last 15 minutes of Saving Private Ryan." -- General Joseph P. Hoar, USMC (Ret.), Former Commander in Chief, United States Central Command, September 23, 2002.

"I think if it gets to urban warfare, and the likelihood is certainly great that it could, just like the likelihood is very good that the he could use weapons of mass destruction, it could get very messy. The collateral damage could be very great. And our own casualties could increase significantly." -- General John M. Shalikashvili, USA (Ret.), Former Chairman, Joints Chiefs of Staff, September 23, 2002.




Weapons of Mass Destruction Use
"The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses." -- Brent Scowcroft, Former National Security Advisor, August 15, 2002.




No Convincing al Qaeda Link
"To my knowledge . . . there has not been a case made to connect Iraq and al Qaeda." -- General Joseph P. Hoar, USMC (Ret.), Former Commander in Chief, United States Central Command, September 23, 2002.

"There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the September 11 attacks . . . He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorist who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address." -- Brent Scowcroft, Former National Security Advisor, August 15, 2002.




Al Qaeda Threat
"Last year I told you that the Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network were the most immediate and serious threat this country faced. This remains true despite the progress we have made in Afghanistan and in disrupting the network elsewhere." -- CIA Director George Tenet, February 6, 2002.

"It seems as we came upon the 11th of September, 2002, with ground-to-air missiles ringing the Capitol and uncertain about where and when we might be attacked again by terrorists, that we need to continue, as our primary effort, to defeat al Qaeda." -- General Joseph P. Hoar, USMC (Ret.), Former Commander in Chief, United States Central Command, September 23, 2002.




Cost of Unilateral Use of Force
"We should try our best not to have to go it alone . . . The costs in all areas will be much greater, as will the political risks, both domestic and international, if we end up going it alone or with only one or two other countries." -- James A. Baker, III, Former Secretary of State, August 25, 2002.

"This is not the time to risk the loss of support from so many countries shocked by the attacks of 11 September last year who have offered to help us and, indeed, provide it on a daily basis." -- General Joseph P. Hoar, USMC (Ret.), Former Commander in Chief, United States Central Command, September 23, 2002.

"If we go in unilaterally or without the full weight of the international organizations behind us -- if we go in with a very sparse number of allies, . . . we're liable to super- charge recruiting for al Qaeda." -- General Wesley K. Clark, USA (Ret.), Former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, September 23, 2002.


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

[Ksec]

125. Good post. Very well done Eloriel N/T

[Scott Lee]

136. "I know you are but what am I" rebuttals by Dean detractors

Hilarious! And voluminous!

Well done Eloriel. Once again we see that the best way to drive the antiDeans into fits of kindergarten anger is to post facts.

[blm]

137. Try comprehending the FACTS for a change.

>>>>
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 
 

[Scott Lee]

139. Try POSTING a fact sometime

And lay off the hysterical spin and flamebait. Life is too short to be so negative, blm. Smile.