Reply #19: Biden-Luger, which is what Dean supported [View All]

[Larkspur]

put more pressure on Bush to be honest about the reasons to go to war. That's why Bush DID NOT WANT Biden-Luger. IWR allowed Bush to go to war and then come back to beat Congress over the head with the "Patriotism" mantra to fund the war.

Dean and I are not pacifists. Like Dean, I support military operations when they are needed, but military operations must be a last resort. That is what Dean's basici premise on war and military engagements was about.


From a Bill Todd's excellent DU post made in April 2004, here's the difference between IWR and the Biden-Lugar varient

The Iraq War Resolution Which Passed vs. The Biden/Lugar Variant

Until shortly before the Senate vote on the Iraq War Resolution, Kerry opposed it, favoring the Biden/Lugar variant (as did Dean). However, when push came to shove, he supported it (and of course voted for it). Without wishing to go down too deep a rat-hole, the distinctions between the IWR and the Biden/Lugar variant have been so widely misrepresented that a quick review seems appropriate (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A3... for additional comments).


Biden/Lugar

"(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 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)." ( http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/bidenlugar-resoluti... )

Note that since no such U.N. authorization for use of force was ever obtained, Biden/Lugar would have forced Bush, before starting the war, to provide Congress with his determination "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" - a very specific assertion of need (clarified in the preceding section as "the exercise of individual or collective self-defense") for which he could later be held accountable and if appropriate impeached.


The Iraq War Resolution

"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." (The complete text appears at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/03/politics/03HTEX.html?ex=1082520000&e... ; the first 1.5 pages are standard Congressional meaningless "Whereas..." embroidery.)

This resolution merely required Bush to assert that war was necessary to protect our 'national security' - itself a rather poorly-bounded concept - or to enforce "all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions", a sufficiently vague grab-bag to make later accountability comfortably nebulous. Furthermore, it conveniently ignores the fact that absent U.N. approval, the U.S. had no right under international law (nor under U.S. law, by virtue of the fact that we have ratified the U.N. charter as a treaty) to attack Iraq for any reason save self-defense against an imminent threat (a point that was not lost on Paul Wellstone at the time - see http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_10/alia/a2100413.htm , right at the end).

Bush himself rejected the Biden/Lugar variant because he claimed it would 'tie his hands' ( http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200210/02/eng20021002_104296.shtml ) - and indeed at least to some degree it would have. The ACLU held that view as well ( http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html ). In any event, those who assert that Dean's support for Biden/Lugar was equivalent to Kerry's support for the IWR are simply wrong: Kerry's vote for the IWR supported the war in a way that Dean's support for Biden/Lugar would not have, and Kerry voiced no other real opposition at that time while Howard was increasingly critical.