Poll: Would You Have Supported Biden-Lugar?

[DrFunkenstein]

Poll question: Poll: Would You Have Supported Biden-Lugar?

In light of the following statements, I am wondering who would follow their candidate's decision on Biden-Lugar:

Dean later conceded that he backed an alternative to last fall's resolution that would have allowed President Bush to wage war against Iraq without congressional approval. But he said the measure, which never passed, might have averted war.

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."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1211campaign11.html

One of those alternatives -- offered by the top men on the Senate Foreign Relations, Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware and Republican Dick Lugar of Indiana -- authorized the use of force after a new UN resolution requiring Iraqi disarmament and compliance with past resolution; if UN diplomacy was exhausted it authorized unilateral action if the president declared Iraq a threat.

This alternative was not only supported by Howard Dean, it was supported by Senator John Kerry, whom Dean also attacks for being Bush's war buddy.

Lacking votes, the Biden-Lugar proposal was never formally introduced. Instead, the negotiations with Democrats produced the resolution that passed. It authorized force for several other offenses beyond prohibited weapons (including ballistic missiles, which Iraq had), but also encouraged UN involvement. The differences between the two were not huge, and each authorized war, including unilateral war.

After the vote, Dean reiterated his Biden-Lugar position but did not denounce the enacted resolution until later. He also said Bush should be taken at his word that Iraq constituted a threat.

As a result of Congress's resolution, the Bush administration went to New York and secured unanimous Security Council passage of a new resolution demanding new inspections and threatening serious consequences for disobedience.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/23/deans_negative_tilt_in_iowa/

[goobergunch]

1. I abstain, absent the complete legislative language

I suspect I would have opposed it, but I can't say for certain.

I am assuming that this is as on final passage.

[DrFunkenstein]

5. Sitting On A Fence

Even notice that it is very easy for people to criticize when they don't have to actually vote?

[goobergunch]

6. Give me the text, and I will cast my vote (n/t)

[EXE619K]

2. Dean pushed for the unilateral action in Kosovo.

The good Governor is hardly "anit-war" ya know.

But, since you know this, it shouldn't surprise you.

[blm]

3. I was not for war and was for Biden-Lugar, just as Dean and just as Kerry.

It had the same main elements as the IWR.

However, if Bush had implemented IWR honestly, and allowed weapons inspections to work, then there would have been no use of force.

[lcordero]

4. I do not support any action in which the military is deployed

overseas.
There are no "american interests abroad". Corporate interests are NOT American interests.
Iraq was not a threat to the United States and the only liberating that has been done is the liberating of Iraq's natural resources from the Iraqi people. Saddam doesn't even figure into the equation because he was nothing more than a federal employee.