That was to send a letter to the Speaker of the house and the Pres pro tem of the Senate. That was it.
Some people mix up other aspects of the B-L, but the actual steps to use of force were nearly the same. Parts of B-L were adopted by the final IWR. Try refuting these articles:
Here's the Daily Howler:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh011404.shtmlFinally, someone is asking why the press never covered it and merely assumed Dean's antiwar stance was true while he used IWR as the BIGGEST issue against the others.
>>>>>>>
Is Kerry’s complaint about Dean on-target? In fact, on October 5, 2002, Dean did “take a public position supporting the Biden-Lugar resolution” (see Des Moines Register excerpt, below). And to all appearances, that proposed resolution did “give Bush authority to go to war if he found that the diplomatic effort had been exhausted.” Here’s how David Rosenbaum described the measure in the October 6 New York Times:
ROSENBAUM (10/6/02): Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and thus the Democrats’ ex officio spokesman in the Senate on foreign policy, stands somewhere between the hawks and the doves.
Mr. Biden and Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, are offering a proposal that would authorize military action, but only against Iraq and not any other country, and only to rid Iraq of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
By that account, Biden-Lugar permitted war on Iraq over WMD. How did Biden-Lugar differ from Bush’s proposed resolution? On October 3, 2002, Elisabeth Bumiller explained that Bush’s proposal “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.” Just how different was Biden-Lugar? David Firestone reported, then let you decide:
FIRESTONE (10/1/02): Instead of citing only the national security interests of the United States, as the White House resolution does, would emphasize the defense needs of the United States and its allies.
It would also require the administration to notify Congress within 30 days of an invasion of the degree of assistance from other countries and the status of plans to rebuild Iraq, with further reports required every 60 days. The White House had agreed to report every 90 days.
Every 60 days, not 90! To be honest, it doesn’t sound all that tough.
There seems to be no question that Dean supported Biden-Lugar. And for weeks now, Kerry has claimed that Biden-Lugar would have let Bush go to war in Iraq, just as the final resolution did. But the press corps has made no attempt to examine this belated complaint. Saletan simply dismisses the claim without attempting to sort it out. “Dean bet his whole campaign on opposition to the war?” That is precisely Kerry’s point! Kerry says that Dean favored a resolution that would have let Bush go to war. Shouldn’t someone see if that statement is accurate? Not in this press corps—a corps which now seems to base all its judgments on what sweater or duck boots hopefuls wear.
>>>>>>
He was for almost the same resolution that was passed. He took that sliver of difference and demagogued it reducing the debate to black and white, antiwar and prowar, when the antiwar crowds grew.
Analysis of Biden-Lugar that hits the nail squarely on the head:
(from a proClark blogger)
There are two parts required of the President.
The second part first:
Biden Lugar restricted the authorization of force to UN WMD resolutions against Iraq and the broader concept of self-defense or mutual-defense.
The actually passed resolution (Public Law 107-243) restricted the authorization to use force to - relevant UN resolutions (including repatriation of war detainees and Kuwaiti treasures, the resolution of the fate of our MIA pilot, and the repression of the population), self-defense or mutual-defense, and the nebulously defined war on terror.
Now the first part - the President had to merely inform Congress that there was no other way but to use force against Iraq regarding the above mentioned restrictions. The only difference between the reporting requirement Biden-Lugar and 107-243 was a time constraint; Biden-Lugar required notification prior to the use of force, 107-243 allowed up to 48 hours after initiating force to inform Congress.
The actual text in both resolution can be parsed almost exactly like this:
"The President shall make available his determination that...."
Here's the actual 'trigger' for the President to use force:
---------------
Biden-Lugar: "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 Sept. 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)."
-----------------
Public Law 107-243: 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 there after 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 resolution 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 terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
---------------
Now, Gov. Dean has an opinion piece in CommonDreams.org from April of this year which hints at the problem he has.
www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm
...snip...
Many in Congress who voted for this resolution should have known better. On September 23, 2002, Al Gore cautioned in his speech in San Francisco that "if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides." And that is why it was such a big mistake for Congress to allow the president to set this dangerous precedent.
...end snip...
This one paragraph shows is Gov. Dean's conflation of the White House resolution, which was not passed and the final resolution which, as I pointed out above is practically and functionally identical to the the Biden-Lugar resolution which he did support. What this means is that Gov. Dean has based his entire criticism of his opponents and other Democrats on his incorrect understanding of what happened in the negotiation phase in Congress. It's quite possible he didn't even read the intermediate or final resolutions involved in the debate, otherwise, he would have known that the 'certification' process for the Administration he claimed he supported in the Biden-Lugar resolution was also an explicit requirement in Public Law 107-243.
Even worse for Gov. Dean, what he claimed was a 'certification' process in Biden-Lugar was nothing of the sort. Gov. Dean claimed that the President had to prove his WMD assertions were false; entirely untrue. As pointed out above, the President merely had to show to Congress that he didn't believe Iraq would comply with UN resolutions or that he was acting under self-defense and that the invasion of Iraq was truly a part of the war on terror.
The only difference between Gov. Dean's position and what actually happened is that the report issued by the Administration would have simply deleted the references to the war on terror. Even that's up for debate, since the war on terror would have been a claim used by the Administration regarding the 'self-defense' angle. Otherwise, the net result would have been the same if Gov. Dean had been involved in the actual debate about the matter. Ironically, he even has a quote saying that he 'got it right' while he was up in Vermont while the Washington insiders didn't know what they were doing.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
