Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq

[isbister]

There is so much written about who voted how on the Resolution and, from what is written, it appears there are still many folks that haven't read the resolution.

Have you read the Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq?

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm

...or the President's March 21, 2003 report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_documents&docid=f:hd054.108

If you haven't read these documents, do they say what you thought they did before you read them?

In my case, they did not.

[mouse7]

1. They say that KERRY and Co. VOTED TO INVADE IRAQ

Kerry sipporters want to be distracted by pages and pages of foolishness. There was only one section of the resolution that was discussed on the floor of Congress. There's only one that matters now. The section that says Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman and Edwards gave permission to Dumbya to invade Iraq.

[blm]

3. so did Biden-Lugar and Dean supported that.

But, you don't care about that hypocrisy, because sanctimonious outrage directed against Kerry is your true goal here.

[Scott Lee]

4. Wrong again!

Biden/Lugar had a much more stringent criteria (how many times do we have to post this?) about going into Iraq. IWR was practically a blank check. Thanks for that, John Kerry and the other war appeasers.

[blm]

14. The section that mattered was the same. And B-L was NOT

so stringent when even Dean conceded recently that we would still be in Iraq.

All Bush had to do in B-L with his determination that force was needed was send a letter to Congress saying so. THAT was not exactly the stringent difference that you would have prevented war.

[goobergunch]

16. Post #13 (n/t)

[mouse7]

5. I need a link with a Dean quote on a transcript for that

I've been asking for this for a while. I need to see a Dean quote in it's proper context proving he supported Biden-Lugar, not just a cut and paste.

I'm not confirming or denying Dean supported Biden-Lugar. However, I've been asking for months for a quote in it's proper context supporting this, and nobody will supply it.

Trancript or complete press release will do.

[zulchzulu]

8. You need the link for the 20th time?

I've posted links and quotes from Dean and his flip-flopping on the IWR a number of times.

It seems apparent you don't read the links or quotes and just keep asking for the same thing over and over again...

[mouse7]

26. It's not there so far.

You guys need to post links with the actual quotes in context where Dean endorsed Biden-Lugar.

I watched the "Gore invented the internet" mess happen. Gore never said it, yet the media claimed he did over and over and over again.

I'm not saying Dean never endorsed Biden-Lugar. I am saying I have yet to see a quote in which Dean endorses passage of Biden-Lugar. Without the quote in which Dean is saying he endorses passage of Biden-Lugar, the assertion that Dean endorsed Biden-Lugar cannot be made.

[blm]

19. Read it again for the hundredth time.

BTW...if you were sincere you would have googled Dean and Biden-Lugar and found plenty of info. It was even in the October debate.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031217.html


Dean, Iraq and the war resolutions

Dean has also implied in a number of cases that he opposed giving the president authority to take action in Iraq. Yet on most of those occasions, Dean has not explained that, at the time, he supported an alternate Congressional resolution that would also have granted the president authority to take unilateral action if he made additional certifications to Congress before doing so. Dean contends having to make these certifications would have prevented Bush from taking action, but this subtle distinction is often lost in his rhetoric.

The Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq passed in October 2002 with the support of Dean rivals Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-MO, Senator John Kerry, D-MA, Senator Joe Lieberman, D-CT, and Senator John Edwards, D-NC. As CNN reported at the time, it "requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed. Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the Al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days." (Bush has taken these steps as required.)

Dean did not support this resolution. However, as Kerry and Gephardt have pointed out and as Ron Fournier reported last week in the Associated Press, Dean supported an alternate resolution known as Biden-Lugar:
>>>>>

Plenty of references at the linked article.

[blm]

20. and more...

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1035293/posts
>>>>>
Dean's faithful believe the war was wrong, wrong, wrong. Dean seems to agree. "Had I been a member of the Senate," he said in a speech in February, "I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the president to use unilateral force against Iraq -- unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency." In late November, he ran an ad saying, "I opposed the war in Iraq, and I'm against spending another $87 billion there."

High-octane stuff; but Dean has been more cautious on Iraq than his enthusiasts realize. For example, in that same February speech, he went on to say, "I do not believe the president should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict... without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations." That sentence contains some artful phrasing.

In reality, Dean favored an alternative war resolution (sponsored by Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind.) that differed little from the one that passed. True, Biden-Lugar called on Bush to seek a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing the war, but it did not require Bush to obtain such a resolution, if the Security Council balked. In other words, Dean favored a congressional resolution authorizing exactly the course that Bush took.

"Howard, I think you're all over the lot on this issue," said Rep. Dick Gephardt in a November debate. "All over the lot" is a bit of an exaggeration: Dean made no secret of his opposition to military action after Congress gave Bush a green light. Still, Dean's anti-war posture was less clear-cut -- or, if you prefer, more nuanced -- than his reputation and rhetoric suggest.
>>>>>
many references in the article.

[mouse7]

23. Ain't there in National Journal either

Only text that claims that Dean supported Biden-Lugar.

So far, no quote that has Dean endorsing Biden-Lugar.

[blm]

24. Well...here's another report

that Dean has never asked for a retraction.


http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/012303dean_2002.shtml

>>>>>>
Dean also criticized his opponents for voting to give Bush a "blank check" on military intervention in Iraq - and, now, changing their tune on the issue.

"Today, they're running around telling you folks they're all anti-war," he said. (Later, he acknowledged that Lieberman's vote was consistent with the senator's comparatively "hawkish" position on Iraq.) "We're never going to elect a president that does those things. If I voted for the Iraq resolution, I'd be standing in favor, supporting it right now in front of you."

Dean said he would have voted instead for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which he said supported disarming Saddam using multilateral action, and which did not call for a "regime change."
>>>>>>

btw...How is it that you claim to know your candidate and yet you don't even know that he supported the Biden-Lugar version of the IWR? Don't tell me you never bothered to examine his actual positions...uh...did you?

[mouse7]

25. It's still not there

Here's the whole section of that article about Iraq...

Dean also criticized his opponents for voting to give Bush a "blank check" on military intervention in Iraq - and, now, changing their tune on the issue.

"Today, they're running around telling you folks they're all anti-war," he said. (Later, he acknowledged that Lieberman's vote was consistent with the senator's comparatively "hawkish" position on Iraq.) "We're never going to elect a president that does those things. If I voted for the Iraq resolution, I'd be standing in favor, supporting it right now in front of you."

Dean said he would have voted instead for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which he said supported disarming Saddam using multilateral action, and which did not call for a "regime change."

He said Bush had approached the Iraq issue from the wrong direction - he should have taken the issue to the United Nations first, before he threatened unilateral military action to oust Saddam.

Bush has still not produced the evidence necessary to convince the world - and the American people - that military intervention is necessary, Dean said. He called Iraq "maybe the third, at worst" biggest danger to American security. North Korea's moves toward revamping its nuclear weapons program present a greater threat, Dean said, adding that that that issue will probably be resolved through diplomacy.

Al Qaida is a far greater menace than Saddam at the moment, Dean said, and Bush has not done enough to deprive such fundamentalist terrorist networks of the American oil money that helps fund their organizations.

"We can do better, but it requires a renewable energy policy and an oil conservation policy that makes sense," Dean said. "We are not going to change that unless we change presidents."

So Democrats, he concluded, must nominate a candidate who can win.

"Remember," he said, "we're not going to beat Bush with Bush lite."


There is a reporter's assertion that Dean supported Biden-Lugar, but there is no quote. I do not accept a reporter's assertion. I need to see a quote in context. So far, I haven't seen anything that.

[blm]

28. and here's a recent quote from Dean...

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/december/1_2Dean.shtml
>>>>>>
Another woman asked Dean to clarify his support for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which in October 2002 authorized the president in to use force in Iraq if the United Nations passed a resolution requiring Iraq to disarm.

“I’ve never supported the president’s intervention in Iraq,” Dean said. “The reason for my support of the Biden-Lugar resolution was because I think the president deserves the presumption of right on his side in foreign policy.”
>>>>>

Well......gee....Now that you must be certain...will it make a difference to you that Dean supported Bush being allowed to determine the use of force, even if unilateral? The same measure he demagogued against the others.

If YOU did not know of Dean's ACTUAL position, then how many more are there like you who still do not know?

[mouse7]

30. That one will do it.

That's all I needed. Thanks. :)

[blm]

31. OK, now answer my question....

how is it that you support a candidate all this time and not KNOW by now his exact stance on the resolution for force was closer to Kerry's and the others?

[mouse7]

22. It ain't there on the spinsanity link.

There's a report by Ron Fournier named as the source. Fournier has no Dean qoute in his report.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaries/massachusetts/articles/2003/12/10/kerry_argues_that_gore_backed_wrong_howard_dean/

It claims Dean endorsed Biden-Lugar, but the only quote is from Kerry.

There's a quote further down where Dean discussed Biden-Lugar and why it would have been better than what was passed...

"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."

However, a quote where Dean says Biden-Lugar was better than what passed is not an endorsement of a policy. Getting punched is "better" than getting shot. I'm not endorsing anyone to do either by saying getting kicked is better than being shot.

[Padraig18]

6. Biden-Lugar was QUITE different.

Please, quit defending the indefensible...

[goobergunch]

13. Would you care to post the operative section of B-L?

That way we could compare it with post #2, the operative section of the IWR.

[blm]

21. Sure...

All Bush had to do was send a letter to Hastert and Pres pro tem of the Senate.

This Act may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."

Section 2. Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces.

(a) Authorization for the Use of Force. - The President, subject to subsection (b), is authorized to use United States Armed Forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate -

(1) to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, and other resolutions approved by the Council which govern Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, in order to secure the dismantlement or destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program; or (2) in the exercise of individual or collective self-defense, to defend the United States or allied nations against a grave threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program.

(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).

[isbister]

11. Re: They say that KERRY and Co. VOTED TO INVADE IRAQ

Kerry sipporters want to be distracted by pages and pages of foolishness. There was only one section of the resolution that was discussed on the floor of Congress. There's only one that matters now. The section that says Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman and Edwards gave permission to Dumbya to invade Iraq.

To some people the facts are "foolishness". For me, if the president puts his decision to send Americans to war on paper I want to read what he wrote. If the Congress passes a resolution such as the IWR, I would rather read what it says than rely upon some talking head on tv. People are different, some would rather listen to the condensed version the news networks give them and will rely on that.

By the way, I was not a Kerry supporter at the time of the resolution and only leaning that way at the beginning of the war.

[goobergunch]

2. Here's the operative section from the resolution

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to —

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

[lcordero]

7. a yes vote is totally unacceptable

and I will not be voting for anybody that put in a yes vote, that includes Schumer in his Senate bid.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Exactly, this resolution gave Bush the green light for war

and as the text of the resolution says, Bush could ignore the United Nations Security Council. Bush and Bush alone could determine whether or not to go to war.

IWR is as bad as PATRIOT Act. Both are examples of Congress abrogating its Constitutional authority!

[isbister]

17. Re: Exactly, this resolution gave Bush the green light for war

I disagree. If the IWR gave bush the authority in October 2002 and they won the Congress in November, why didn't he go?

I believe the polls gave bush the green light. He wanted to go to war after he got bored with Afghanistan (Time, first issue in May 2003). Unfortunately the American public didn't without the UN.

Bush then went through the appearance of working with the UN while talking it down and undermining it. The media got out their cheerleading outfits and put 'em on.

As I recall the polls didn't start turning until about a year or so ago and it took until after Powell's speech for the majority of the public to accept unilateral war. I also recall efforts by the Democrats to get the issue of war back into Congress around the time of the Powell's speech but but they were shut out by bush and the republican administration. Does my memory fail me?

[IndianaGreen]

29. I remember Evan Bayh calling the police to evict peace activists

from his office, despite the fact they had sat quietly in a conference room patiently waiting for the good Senator, and current DLC Chair, to listen to their concerns regarding the war.

I remember DLC CEO Al From's memo chastising those Democrats that were critical of the war.

I remember John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, and Joe Lieberman attacking Howard Dean for daring to suggest that the capture of Saddam did not make us safer.

I remember the Orange Alert being declared a few days after we became "safer."

I am reminded every day of the IRW vote by the news about casualties in Iraq.

I also remember Dickless Gephardt in the Rose Garden:

President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution



President George W. Bush along with bipartisan leaders from the House and Senate announced the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iraq. "The statement of support from the Congress will show to friend and enemy alike the resolve of the United States," President Bush said during the announcement in the Rose Garden, Wednesday, October 2, 2002. White House photo by Paul Morse.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html

[zulchzulu]

10. Simplistic thought is well...simplistic.

[quaker bill]

12. It says exactly what I thought

But then I have read it before. A vote against this resolution was the only action I believe to have been acceptable.

That is why I wrote Senators urging them to reject this bill.

[sleipnir]

15. This doesn't excuse Kerry's actions (or any of the other YES voters)

It's even more obvious after one reads the entire bill that he should have voted it down. 26 real patriots voted against the measure, why didn't Kerry? Because he wanted Bush to have his war and was more worried about losing his Senate seat and how he would look in the Primary Election.

Newsflash...voting to illegally invade a country and kill innocent people doesn't get you votes, it gets you a trial at the Hague.

[Padraig18]

18. This is and will remain a matter of fundamental disagreement.

No amount of argumnent on your part will convince those of us who opposed the war that a vote FOR the IWR was correct, and vice-versa. That's the bottom line.

[IndianaGreen]

27. I fear that this is one of those issues that can never be surmounted

either by demands for ABB loyalty oaths, or by calls for reconciliation.

There can be no reconciliation between goodness and evil. Even the Pope referred to the war in Iraq as an unjust war. The Pope was not the only religious leader to condemn this war.

This war is evil!

[blm]

32. Read the Biden-Lugar version above and explain to us

how the ONE additional obstacle of a letter to the Speaker and the pres pro tem of the Senate means Bush wasn't authorized to go to war in a resolution supported by Dean who passes himself off as being against war from the beginning.