CRS Side-by-side comparison:
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/Files/RL31596.pdfThe 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.
=========================
ACLU on Biden-Lugar
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.htmlFOR 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.
=======================
virtualobserver (744 posts) Sun Nov-23-03 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #16
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=76156320. if they were really the same.....
why did Bush object.
http://www.tnr.com/iraq/iraq_dissenters.mhtml-snip
The Lugar-Biden proposal calls for a two-step process: First, the United States should try to secure a tough resolution from the United Nations, calling for thorough inspections and authorizing enforcement of said inspections. Failing that, President Bush would then have to demonstrate to Congress that the danger posed by Iraq's WMD programs is such that only military action is adequate to the task of containing it--far steeper hurdles than the president's resolution, hurdles which would inevitably tie the president's hands. It's a proposal that reflects Vietnam-era concerns about the "imperial presidency": Just under the surface of the debate over President Bush's proposed language is the fear that it's a twenty-first century Gulf of Tonkin resolution that would grant the president essentially unlimited power. And Bush ain't havin' it: "My question is, what's changed?" the president recently wondered aloud. "Why would Congress want to weaken a resolution? Â… I don't want to get a resolution which ties my hands."
================
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=778675NYTimes:
"The major difference between the two resolutions is that the version agreed upon by the House and the president today authorizes Mr. Bush to use force to enforce "all relevant" United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, leaving the White House free to determine what is relevant. In contrast, the Biden-Lugar language specifies that force is authorized to secure the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its ballistic missile program or to defend the United States and its allies against those programs."
http://onepeople.org/archives/000106.html 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(451 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
