Union Leader re Dean and Biden Lugar flap...plus Cleland weighs in

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.theunionleader.com/prez_show.html?article=30127

Bush would have been required to send Congress a letter - not seek a vote of approval - before waging war, Kerry said. He argued there was no significant difference between the Lugar-Biden resolution and the one passed by Congress.

Dean acknowledged that the alternative resolution was not binding against the president, but argued that Bush would have somehow been more likely to use restraint.

"Biden-Lugar required the president to come back to Congress - not for a vote," but only to certify that a number of actions were taken, including more diplomacy, Dean said. "Had the president done that, we would not have gone to war, because then he would have been forced to certify with his word ... all the claims he made that were not true."

Former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, who campaigned in Iowa for Kerry on Wednesday, criticized Dean. Cleland said Dean "avoided the war of his generation and now is finally admitting that he did support a resolution for unilateral action against Iraq. The truth will out in my point of view."

[Larkspur]

1. Kerry folks whining again

Kerry and his cohorts just can't accept the fact that Kerry, the supposed foreign policy expert, screwed up big time on the IWR vote and totally underestimated the anger among the Dem base, most of whom are solidly behind Dr. Dean.

No cheese with your whine, Kerry and Co..

[flpoljunkie]

2. Hit a nerve, did we? Dean supporters as thin-skinned as he is.

You can dish it out, but you don't seem to be able to take reasoned criticism. Dean's position on the IWR is a totally crass one--timed to optimize support from the anti-war left in the early primary states.

Dean has said he would do whatever it takes to win, and I think his actions in his campaign reflect this lack of principle. This is the kind of thing we Dems expect from BushCo, not from a Democrat.

[Larkspur]

5. Dean's position on IWR and the Iraq war mirrors Gore's

and always has.

You can distort Dean's position all you want, but Kerry's campaign is going the way of the Titanic and he is paying the full price of ignoring the Democratic base, most of whom opposed the war and showed up at his office during the MoveOn.org campaign to tell him to oppose IWR.

[paulk]

7. the Dem base is not "solidly" behind anybody

What's Dean polling at nationally? 20%?

If Democrats with the stature of Max Cleland are using the "Dean dodged the war" line, just imagine what the Republicans will do.

And "neener, neener, Kerry and Co." is such a compelling rebuttal.

[mzmolly]

3. Lucky for Kerry he took the Biden / Lugar information off his website...

as he fully supported it before. I'll see what I can dig up anyhow ;)

[mzmolly]

4. OH wait... Look what I found on Kerry's website..

And he has the NERVE to call other candidates duplicitous?

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/quotes.html

Republican Senator’s Staff

"Kerry's Position on Iraq Was Foiled by Gephardt – John Kerry was a strong supporter of the Biden-Lugar resolution which would have clarified the authorization of force to include a new UN Security Council resolution. Kerry said, “I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.” However, this resolution’s effectiveness was foiled once Rep. Dick Gephardt in the House of Representatives agreed make a deal with the Republican leadership. “Lugar spokesman Andy Fisher concurs: Gephardt's deal ‘really ended the whole Biden-Lugar idea’ he says.”

Which is it John? :freak:

[TLM]

8. Wow...looks like Kerry is a liar who'll say anything to attack Dean

even if it contradicts what Kerry himself already said.

And the point lost on most Dean bashers is that Kerry can not argue that he was right to vote for the IWR... so the very best he can come up with is to say that Dean was just as wrong for supporting the Biden Lugar... and BL was the same as the IWR.

Well the ACLU says Kerry is wrong...


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.

The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html

[Cocoa]

9. Kerry never said he was against Biden-Lugar

so where's the duplicity?

Kerry has been consistent, imo. If you think he hasn't please spell out the inconsistency, don't just suggest it, spell it out.

[mzmolly]

11. See post # 6...

:hi:

[Scott Lee]

34. Kerry voted against BidenLugar by voting for IWR.

Nuff sed.

[flpoljunkie]

10. Nothing duplicitous here. No secret Kerry did support Biden-Lugar.

But, as blm and others have repeated over and over, Biden -Lugar essentially gave Bush the right to declare unilateral war against Iraq with only a written notification to Congress advising that Bush considered Iraq a threat to the United States.

Bush acted in bad faith and abused both the Congressional IWR and UN Resolution #1441. Bush is the one we should direct our anger toward. Howard Dean's unprincipled use of the IWR to gain a foothold of support with the angry, anti-war left in the early primaries is what has split the Democratic party.

Dean may succed in winning the Democratic nomination, but at what cost to the Democratic party--especially in the South where we urgently need to win Democratic Senate seats.

[mzmolly]

12. I'll refer you as well to post # 6...

:*

[flpoljunkie]

43. I refer you to the actual text of Biden-Lugar...

I have a copy of Biden-Lugar that was published on Friday, October 11, 2002, in the New York Times. It is no longer available online, except perhaps in paid archives.


Relevant portion of Biden-Lugar:

Section 2. 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-

(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 weapons PROGRAM is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursurant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1).

Hardly insurmountable obstacles for a President who was apparently determined to go to war in Iraq--even as he repeatedly lied to the American people and the world by repeating, "War is my last resort." A lie such as this, told over and over again to the American people and the world, ought to be grounds for impeachment.

(caps mine)

[mzmolly]

44. I fail to see your point.

John Kerry read Biden/Lugar before he said it was preferrable to the one he voted for did he not?

[flpoljunkie]

45. Preferable, yes, but insurmountable for Bush to use to go to war, NO!

What about the text below do you not understand? The determination of the threat was left to the sole descretion of George W .Bush and all that was required of him was that he notify the leaders of House of Representatives and the Senate.

OR (2) that the threat to the United States OR allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic weapons PROGRAM is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursurant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1).

[mzmolly]

50. Nope, you seem to be missing the pieces of information

that made B/L preferrable to John Kerry and Howard Dean. You know the ones that 'tied Bush's hands'...

[flpoljunkie]

53. Altho preferable, Biden Lugar did not tie Bush's hands.

Requiring Bush to make available his determination to Congress that the use of force was necessary (read letter to Congress, just as Kerry states) would not have been any real obstacle for Bush to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

[blm]

16. Kerry was for Biden-Lugar, too. That doesn't mean that Dean had the right

to attack them over IWR for the very same provision that Dean supported in B-L.

It's well knowmn that Kerry wanted B-L. It's not so well known that Dean supported it, too, and that it called for Bush to make the final determination on use of force and unilateral war if necessary. Did Dean ever say that in any of his speeches while he was claiming to be the only antiwar candidate?

[ibegurpard]

19. If Kerry wanted Biden-Lugar

why did he vote for the IWR? He could've stood on the senate floor and offered an impassioned defense of Biden-Lugar and said that was why he couldn't vote for IWR. He wouldn't have been alone.

[mzmolly]

32. Damn right he should have...

He criticized Gephardt for caving just before doing it himself. Now he criticizes Dean for supporting a bill he himself "PREFERRED!"

[TLM]

23. Why did Kerry lie and say there was no real difference

when he previously said there was a difference?

[blm]

56. Not on the key issue that Dean attacked on.

Dean attacked on BUSH getting the final determination for force, including unilateral. Why pretend he didn't support what he attacked others for.

[mzmolly]

30. Nice spin, but it's getting old

Dean criticized John for the same thing John criticized Gep for.... caving to Bush.

"To recap, the Biden-Lugar resolution was an attempt by the eponymous senators last fall to tether the war authorization to some form of multilateral cooperation. Most importantly, it required President Bush to return to Congress and argue that war was immediately necessary if he considered U.S. security hopelessly mired in fruitless U.N. diplomacy. Gephardt instead endorsed Bush's preferred resolution, which contained no such encumbrances. And with Gephardt's support, Bush was able to hold up his resolution as a true product of bipartisan compromise, effectively killing Biden-Lugar."

http://tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=1009

BTW, it is well known that Dean supported Biden/Lugar, Kerry's been spouting it for months. Kerry mentions it at every debate, and speaks about it almost daily. There are threads here on a daily basis.

Newsflash # 507 Dean never claimed to be the 'antiwar' candidate. IF non Dean supporters could grasp this significant truth, you might be able to move on to something productive. And so would John Kerry. It's time he find another avenue to 'attack' Dean b/c this road is deserted.

[blm]

47. But Dean didn't tell people he too supported the SAME measures that were

in IWR and B-L, did he?

He didn't tell audiences that back then he was FOR Bush having the power to determine use of force, did he? Gee, isn't that IMPORTANT to share?

He didn't tell audiences that back then he supported Bush acting UNILATERALLY after he determined use of force was needed, did he? Gee, isn't that imporatnt to share?


Instead he said he was antiwar and Kerry was prowar, Bushlite. Black and white. Now it seems they were way closer than Dean ever wanted his audiences to know.

[mzmolly]

49. No he said he supported B/L and did not support the IWR

next. :hi:

Didn't Kerry say B/L was 'no different' then the IWR while earlier claiming it was 'preferred'. Didn't he criticize Gep for 'caving' to * by authoring the IWR while voting for it himself? YUP

[blm]

57. You won't acknowledge the PROVISIONS in the bill

that were the same, the VERY same provisions that Dean was attacking them for, so please cut the peripheral crap. If Dean was so proud of how he would have voted on Biden-Lugar why didn't he ever explain to any of his red meat audiences exactly what he supported?

Can you find a speech where Dean tells people that HE supported giving Bush the power to determine use of force even if unilateral force?

[mzmolly]

6. John wants it both ways....

“I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.” John Kerry ~ Then

And...

"Bush would have been required to send Congress a letter - not seek a vote of approval - before waging war, Kerry said. He argued there was no significant difference between the Lugar-Biden resolution and the one passed by Congress." John Kerry ~ Now

He also criticized Gephardt for 'caving' to Bush by not supporting B/L. John's desperation is becoming transparent.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0221-03.htm

"When a questioner said Kerry implied that Gephardt had compromised too easily with the White House, Gephardt replied that the president had made it clear he would not accept a "two-step" process that required him to come back to Congress for authorization of force."

http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2003/11/what_if_john_ke.html

[Cocoa]

13. not a contradiction

Kerry wanted Biden-Lugar. Gep prevented it. Kerry voted on the resolution that was put up for the vote.

Where's the contradiction?

[mzmolly]

15. LOL...

Denial is setting in I see :hi: The contradiction is clear if you read post # 6.

[Cocoa]

21. spell it out

here I'll do it with Dean, then you can do it with Kerry.

Dean supports Biden-Lugar, then runs against the IWR. Kerry and others make a good case that Biden-Lugar is not significantly different than IWR. Thus Dean is running against a position not significantly different than the one he himself took.

I think it boils down to how much you buy the case that Biden-Lugar is essentially the same as IWR. If you buy the case, there's a contradiction, if you don't then god bless you, there's no conflict, vote for Dean the only antiwar candidate. But I buy it, so there's a contradiction for me.

Now, go for it with regard to the Kerry statements. I'm not seeing it, where's the contradiction.

[ibegurpard]

25. I think I'll trust the opinion of the ACLU over yours thanks

n/t

[blm]

26. Did ACLU explain why Dean attacked the others for the very provision

he supported in Biden-Lugar? I don't see that in that piece by them. So, how does it clarify why Dean used that line of attack?

[mzmolly]

33. He didn't attack others for a 'provision' of anything, he was angry with

them for caving to Bush. Just like Kerry was before he did the same thing.

[BootinUp]

27. Yea they've never been wrong j/k

[mzmolly]

31. Let's see I failed to see any quotes from Dean saying on the one hand

that Biden/Lugar was 'preferrable' and on the other hand it was 'no different'.

I won't respond to your paraphrased version of my candidates positions. Seems that's all you folks have to go on is your own 'spin' :crazy:

[mzmolly]

40. S P E L L E D O U T

“I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar..." John Kerry ~ Then

...there was no significant difference between the Lugar-Biden resolution and the one passed by Congress." John Kerry ~ Now

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0221-03.htm

"... Kerry implied that Gephardt had compromised too easily with the White House,..." Compromised on what? There is no significant difference anyhow? :eyes:

[Cocoa]

48. ok

If Kerry runs against Gephardt, say, running ads using the infamous rose garden photo, then there would be a contradiction.

Kerry is running an uphill race, he could score some antiwar points by claiming that his initial support of Biden-Lugar represented an antiwar position, blaming the war on Gephardt and Lieberman.

But has he ever done that? Has he ever suggested that Biden-Lugar could have prevented the war?

Has Biden claimed that? Why not, why with the war going so poorly wouldn't the coauthor of the amendment that would have prevented the war not claim that?

If Kerry runs the rose garden campaign against Gep and Lieberman, then yes he's a hypocrite. Maybe he'll get desperate enough, but so far he has done nothing like it.

[mzmolly]

51. If he did that he'd admit he was wrong...

and your right, he's never admited his 'wrongs'. John Kerry want's it both ways.

He knew B/L was a better prop, he criticized Gep for giving up on it and authoring the IWR. Too bad he didn't do what he knew in his heart he should have.

[w4rma]

14. ACLU Applauds Constitutional Checks in New Iraq Compromise

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 2, 2002

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today said that a bipartisan Senate compromise on a resolution allowing the President to use force to oust Saddam Hussein is far more faithful to the Constitution than the blank check resolution being lobbied for by the White House.

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

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

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

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:

• Clearly identifies the enemy. The proposed resolution closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East. Under the proposed compromise, the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region.
• Spells out clear military objectives. Congress would hold a tight leash on the current conflict. This would be in marked contrast to its role in the Vietnam War, which was lost in part because of nebulous war aims. The Biden-Lugar compromise realizes the folly of sending troops into harm's way without delineating the specific military objectives to be accomplished.
• Reaffirms the American conviction that war-making power should lie with the people. In contrast with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Biden-Lugar compromise would respect the ongoing prerogatives of Congress during military engagement. The Constitution demands that American military decisions involving the use of force rest only with the people's representatives in Congress.

The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=769599

[mzmolly]

17. Oh and...Bush didn't like Biden Lugar....

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/bush.iraq/

""We'll continue to work with the members of Congress, but I don't want to get a resolution that ties my hands," Bush said."

[blm]

20. It didn't tie his hands, he just wanted to hurry the vote for IWR.

.

[mzmolly]

24. Ah, so Bush was wrong about his hands being tied...

:eyes:

[blm]

38. Exaggerated for political effect, most likely.

,

[mzmolly]

41. You should know. Bush exagerated, Kerry exagerated, the ACLU

exagerated, the list of "exagerees" is endless. ;) Especially given the fact that there was no need to 'exagerate' because there was no difference anyhow :eyes:

[blm]

18. But, that doesn't explain why Dean attacked the others for that

provision in B-L that supports giving Bush the final say on use of force and even unilateral war. Does it?

[mzmolly]

22. Dean didn't attack Kerry for supporting B/L he attacked him for supporting

the IWR, which was different *according to John Kerry ~ then*

[blm]

29. Wrong. He attacked them for allowing Bush to have final say

on use of force and even if it was unilateral force as per IWR and the B-L. And you know that. How many times did he shout it at speeches anyway...a few hundred?

[mzmolly]

35. He was angered by the same thing Kerry was when he 'attacked' Gep

Kerry was angry that Gep caved to Bush by not supporting Biden/Lugar. Dean was angry at them both for the same thing.

[blm]

37. But at speeches Dean didn't SAY he was for Bush determining use of force

and unilateral war. Nope. he just attacked the others who supported it when the truth is he did, too.

Why can't that truth be told?

[kerryistheanswer]

39. You seem to be missing the point

Kerry has not build his campaign off attacking Gephardt regarding Biden-Lugar.

Dean has - at a campaign rally yesterday, he mentioned it again. "I am the only candidate who opposed the war..Blah Blah Blah".

Dean has made it an issue since the beginning and now you are crying foul because it's been accurate revealed that he wasn't that far off.

It's total hypocrisy and what really sucks is that the media NEVER picked up on it.

[mzmolly]

42. No he's trying to build it by attacking Dean...

What's hypocricy is John saying the Biden/Lugar prop was 'perferred' criticizing Gep for not supporting it, and now saying it was no different. That's hypocricy.

[John_H]

46. Nobody attacked more than Dean

and his supporters when he was the underdog.

[mzmolly]

52. Now that's a gas...

If you count every thread here slamming X candidate. Dean would clearly outweigh the others in the number of slams by other candidate supporters, bar none.

[TLM]

28. Kerry said there was no real difference...

The ACLU piece spells out those differences.

Frankly I think the ACLU's grasp of the differences is a little more trustworthy than your defense of Kerry's hypocritical position.

[mzmolly]

36. Well in post # 6 Kerry said he 'preferred' Biden/Lugar and criticized

Gep for caving to Bush. Now he says their is no difference. At one time he felt passionately that their was. Go figure?

There is much more information out there on Kerry supporting Biden/Lugar. Now he says it's neither here nor their. Sad really.

[SOS]

54. Manchester Union Leader!

This is one of the most extreme right-wing papers in the country.
Don't let the name fool you.
This paper HATES Democrats. Heck, back in the 70's they even ran an editorial called "Kissinger the Kike" because Kissinger was to far to the left for the editors taste.
Don't let this revolting right-wing rag bait us into arguing amongst ourselves.

[flpoljunkie]

55. This is an AP article by Ron Fournier, political AP writer..

which has been published in the Manchester Union Leader. This same article will have been published all over the world as Ron Fournier is considered to be the premiere political writer for the Associated Press.

[SOS]

58. OK

But the editors of the Manchester Union Leader decide what runs on their pages, not the AP. The M-U-L editors carefully cherry-pick wire articles to meet their agenda.

[Hep]

59. Poor John Kerry, Poor Max Cleland

John, you voted for the IWR. You think we don't know that what you're doing now is nothing but political posturing? Did no one ever teach you that you can't account for your actions by claiming what someone else did? Take responsibility.

Max Max Max. Wow. I defended you. I was horrified at the way you were treated by the right. I'm saddened that you lost your seat. But your mean spirited and ham-fisted comments about Dean are just sad. If I may quote your man John Kerry:

“I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way… What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be re-fighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.”

Mr. Kerry, your campaign is over. What you do from now until you quit will determine how you are perceived in the future. I recommend you err on the side of grace.