If Biden-Lugar were really the same as IWR...

[CTLawGuy]

Why would Dean support one but not the other? He gains nothing politically. It makes no sense. if he was trying to hedge himself, he would not have opposed the war when it had 70% popularity, he certainly would not oppose it upon the capture of Saddam Hussein. If he kept his BL support as an ace in the hole to mollify pro-war people, he would certainly have pulled it out now that Saddam has been taken. The point of hedging politically is so you can say you supported the war when it is politically expedient, but criticize the war when it is going poorly.

The truth is that BL WAS different. Its biggest difference was that force was ONLY justified FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING RID OF WMD. Bush would not have been legally able to conquer and occupy the country. The key is, how can Bush justify going to war without EVIDENCE of WMD under BL? If he does it anyway, then it is illegal and Congress can take action.

IWR was so vauge as to be a "blank check". to paraphrase, it said that the president can use any force necessary to defend the US and enforce UN resolutions. Very vague.

Howard Dean is not against disarming Saddam. He is against military action based on lies and lack of evidence. If Saddam had possessed WMD, Dean would have been in favor of a military action to get rid of them, and if those WMD threatened the US, then he would favor unilateral action. Since BL essentially required evidence of WMD, any legal action taken under it would have been OK by Dean. However, this action under IWR was based on a lack of hard evidence of WMD and a lack of evidence of any threat. Under BL, Congress would have been able to stop Bush, because he would have stepped outside his bounds.

[robbedvoter]

1. The good bill was Kennedy Byrd . WH aide disagrees with you:

A Senate Democratic aide involved in the discussions over the competing resolutions said Wednesday that the White House had opposed the initial Biden-Lugar amendment, saying it would tie Bush's hands. Later the White House began negotiating with the sponsors, but those negotiations were undercut when Gephardt cut a deal with the White House to support their preferred resolution.
The aide said Biden-Lugar would have added an additional requirement for Bush to satisfy before going to war unilaterally, but added that a president determined to launch military action probably would not have been deterred by the alternate resolution."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54585-2003Dec10.html

[w4rma]

4. 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

[blm]

9. Where does ACLU defend Dean's deceptions on IWR

and B-L or explain why he reduced the entire issue to prowar and antiwar without any acknowledgement of his own nuanced position that was so close to the others and their nuanced positions?

[blm]

2. B-L only required Bush send a letter that he had determined use of force

was necessary.

Dean attacked the others for allowing Bush to make that decision, even if unilateral. But, B-L had the same provision that Dean was using to attack the others. THAT was Dean's deception.

He framed the debate as prowar and antiwar and never bothered to tell his antiwar supporters that his stance was actually as nuanced as Kerry's.

[mb7588a]

5. The IWR included Presidential determinism...

and Bush did submit a report...though the link I had for it is broken.

[TexasSissy]

3. Bull-cracky. The bill Dean supported gave Bush full, sole authority to

wage war against Iraq, once he filed a statement under oath with Congress. But it gave Bush full, sole authority to do the act. By himself. Alone. No Congress. In full contravention of our constitutional guarantees prohibiting such an act as one person committing our democratic nation to war. Dean supported that....even when he didn't have to . He didn't have to commit one way or the other. He was a governor, not a national politician. He believed in the cause so much that he actively, publicly supported Bush's decision to go to war.

And that ain't hay. Now, I'm inclined, personally, to be somewhat lenient with all the politicians who signed off on the war, given the time, the circumstances, the lies to us all. And that includes leniency for Dean's going along with it, as well. But the Repubs will sure make hay out of it, is all. And it's disingenuous for Dean to keep pretending that he has been steadfastly and loudly opposed to "Bush's war" from the outset. It doesn't place Dean in a good, truthful light.

[killbotfactory]

6. If Bush had been limited to taking out WMD's

He wouldn't be able to act... because there were no WMD's!

[robbedvoter]

7. Here were the good bills to support:

:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030131/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_4
>
> Two senior Democratic senators, Robert Byrd
> of West Virginia and Ted Kennedy of
> Massachusetts, this week proposed separate
> bills on the matter. Byrd's would require President
> Bush (news - web sites) to seek a fresh vote
> in the U.N. Security Council before attacking Iraq;
> Kennedy's would require new votes in
> Congress before doing so.
>
> But the chance of approval for either
> measure is slim, given GOP control of the Senate and a
> lack of enthusiasm from Democratic
> congressional leaders.
>
> The bills aren't supported by any of the
> four Democratic members of Congress running for
> president: Sens. John Kerry of
> Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) of
> Connecticut and John Edwards of North
> Carolina, and Rep. Richard Gephardt (news, bio,
> voting record) of Missouri.
>
> "We authorized the president as commander in
> chief to take action," Lieberman said. "These
> decisions ultimately can't be made by 535
> members" of Congress.
>
> At a news conference Thursday, Byrd and
> Kennedy conceded that most senators don't
> support their proposals, but said they hope
> that will change as debate continues.
>
> "We're not in a minority out there where the
> people are," Byrd said.

[Egnever]

8. This was beat to death

here

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