Did Dean really support the same war resolution that Kerry did?

[MIMStigator]

Is this article true? If it is why is Dean sending out flyers about Clark being more pro war than he is?

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.

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

[Renew Deal]

1. Well Dean said this:

"It is a good thing for us to have Wes Clark. I have four people beating up on me for being against the war. Now, I have a four-star general saying the same thing I've been saying." -- Howard Dean

[MIMStigator]

2. So Dean said Clark's position was the same as his too?

eom

[TLM]

4. Nope... he said that CLark was saying the same thing Dean said...

But then even CLark admits he said it both ways.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

(CNN 1/21/03)"I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."

(CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

[bearfartinthewoods]

15. if you guys can stop arguing about which was more anti war

you might check out this POLL and tell me how we win without a candidate who supported the war ?

[adadem]

30. They can say

whatever they want. They didn't have to cast a vote...I only listen to those candidates that did cast a "real" vote and their explanations for why they voted as they did. Those that didn't vote can flip-flop their messages any way they want.

[TLM]

3. Kerry did not vote for Biden Lugar..... he voted for the IWR

and since you seem to have forggoten the last 50 times this was posted, here it is again.

FOR 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.

The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html

[cindyw]

13. NO ONE voted for Biden-Lugar. They were not allowed to.

Kerry did support Biden-Lugar.

[zulchzulu]

14. No one voted for the B-L amendment; it didn't have enough votes

Dean and Kerry agreed on it though.

<snip>
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.

Article

[JaneQPublic]

22. Wouldn't it have been nice if IWR didn't have enough votes either?

And it wouldn't have if once it made it to the floor, Democrats like Kerry and others hadn't voted for it.

[mouse7]

23. THEN Kerry went ahead and voted for the IWR

Dean and Kerry might have agreed for a few days, but Kerry tossed that "agreement" out the window and voted for DUMBYA's IWR. Dean NEVER supported the IWR.

[retyred]

31. And just what did dean vote or not vote on?

I don't see where dean's claim is any more than that, "A Claim" and dean's record of statements past just don't equate to his claim being all he'd like us to believe.


retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[MIMStigator]

5. They are both a blank check. I don't see how Dean calls himself a democrat

em

[TLM]

6. They are not both a blank Check.

Read the ACLU statement.

[MIMStigator]

9. Blank Check for * after one more resolution

"unilateral action IF THE PRESIDENT DECLARED IRAQ A THREAT"

<snip>

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

[blm]

12. Neither was a blank check. Being for either is not prowar

It is also not antiwar. It was for the president to use resolution responsibly as promised with war as a last resort.

[sandnsea]

8. Regime change was Clinton policy

I don't know how any of them can call themselves Democrats.

Who has the ability to lead the country in the way Democrats want it led. That's the question.

[Cheswick2.0]

7. nope

try again

[LuminousX]

10. The fact of the matter is

Dean is seen as being more opposed to the Iraq War than Clark.

No matter what was supported at the beginning, the fact that everytime something good happens in Iraq, people say it is the end of Dean's campaign means Dean and opposition to the war are tied tightly together.


Clark didn't even know his own position on the war. "Mary, help!"

[MIMStigator]

11. "I'm not allowed to say i'm happy about anything"

"I've been ball gagged"

[windansea]

16. LOL

:spank:

[kerryistheanswer]

17. Yes - Dean and Kerry BOTH supported Biden-Lugar

As did the beloved Tom Harkin, Joseph Biden and Hillary Clinton. Kerry was all for the B-L amendment like he was for his co-sponsoring of a bill that would force Bush to repeal his tax cuts for the rich in order to pay for the $87 billion mess in Iraq.

The problem is that neither proposal got enough votes to pass so they ended up voted on the initial IWR. Regardless, the B-L would have given the president authority to go to war.

It's a fact that Dean supporters need to come to grips with. The war isssue was not black and white for many - INCLUDING DR. Dean.

[windansea]

18. you are correct

:thumbsup:

[mouse7]

25. Dean would go no further than Biden-Lugar. Kerry jumped the shark

Kerry was the one that voted for the IWR. Quit blaming everybody in the country for Kerry's vote but Kerry for Kerry's IWR vote.

[Oreegone]

19. Excuse me point of order

Dean was a governor, not a Senator....Clark was a military man....neither could vote on any bill.

[Padraig18]

20. Whoa!

The resurrection of a 'moldy oldy'! :eyes:

[Eloriel]

21. The issue isn't the resolution that never even came to the floor

The issue was what happened after that. John Kerry voted for an illegal, immoral, unjustified and unjustifiable war a war that has cost over 500 Americans their lives, and as many as 20,000 Americans their limbs, their health, their mental and emotional health.

And attempts to spin Biden-Lugar as "not that much different" from the resolution Kerry voted for don't change that.

Eloriel

[MIMStigator]

34. Dean probabl would have voted for the final one.

eom

[mzmolly]

24. The Boston Globe campaigns for Kerry daily. The answer to your question

is NO he did NOT support the same resolution Kerry voted for. :hi:

[AP]

28. Kerry's advisor who left said no hometown paper has ever been as hostile

to their hometown candidate as the Gobe has been to Kerry.

[thebigthink]

26. On a Scale of 1 to 5...

...where 1 is strongly opposed and 5 means strongly supported, here's how I would rank the positions of all the candidates on Iraq at the time the resolution was passed, based on their public statements at that time.

5. Lieberman
4. Dean*
3. Clark, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry
2. Graham
1. Kucinich

* The reason I rank Dean a little higher than than most of the others, even though their basic positions were all nearly identical, is that Dean was the only one I ever heard tossing around deadlines and ultimatums.

Sample Statements

Lieberman

"Mr. President, for more than eleven years now, since the early spring of 1991, I have supported the use of military force to disarm Iraq and to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In fact, since the Iraq Liberation Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1998, that has been the law of our land. Therefore, I am fully supportive of such military action now."

-- Lieberman Senate Floor Statement on Iraq, Sept. 13, 2002
http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/09/13/senatorj.html

Dean

"...my problem is not whether we're going to end up in Iraq or not. Saddam Hussein appears to be doing everything he can to make sure we do go into Iraq. My problem is, it is important to bring in our allies."

"I think things have improved in the last couple of weeks, as he's turned to the United Nations. We should have done that in the first place. And we need to continue, as his father did, to build an international coalition to go after Saddam and make sure he does not have those weapons of mass destruction."

"Look, it's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the U.N. Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline saying 'If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.'"

-- Dean on CBS Face the Nation, Sept. 29, 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml

Clark

"Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provide strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts."

-- Clark statement before the House Armed Services Committee, Sept. 26, 2002
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

Edwards

"We must achieve the central goal of disarming Iraq. Of course, the best outcome would be a peaceful resolution of this issue. No one here wants war. We all hope that Saddam Hussein meets his obligations to existing Security Council Resolutions and agrees to disarm, but after 11 years of watching Hussein play shell-games with his weapons programs, there is little reason to believe he has any intention to comply with an even tougher resolution. We cannot trust Saddam Hussein, and we would be irresponsible to do so."

-- Edwards Senate Floor Statement on Iraq, Oct. 10, 2002
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20021010_iraq.html

Gephardt

"I have said for a long time that Iraq is a problem. It presents a problem after 9/11 that it did not before, and we should deal with it diplomatically if we can, militarily if we must. And I think this resolution does that."

Gephardt on PBS Newshour, Oct. 2, 2002
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/bkgdiraq_10-2.html

Kerry

"Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible."

-- Kerry Senate Floor Statement on Iraq, Oct. 9, 2002
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html


Graham and Kucinich

Graham and Kucinich both voted against the resolution, Graham because he was on the Senate intelligence committee and had access to classified information the others didn't have that undermined the entire premise of the Bush administration's case. Kucinich voted against the resolution for more ideological reasons.

[thebigthink]

27. Oh, and to answer the original question...

"I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar, because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and delivery vehicles. The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted by the resolution, to send a determination to the Congress that the United States has tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great that he must act absent a new U.N. resolution. I believe that this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority that Congress was giving the President. The Administration, unwisely in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach. However, perhaps as a nod to the sponsors, it did agree to a determination requirement on the status of its efforts at the United Nations, which is now embodied in the revised White House text."

-- Kerry Senate Floor Statement on Iraq, Oct. 9, 2002
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

[adadem]

29. The most sensible

post in regard to this issue I have seen. Thanks.

[windansea]

32. it certainly is

good post bigthink!!

:thumbsup:

[Padraig18]

33. Could we let a post with 34 responses in 4 days die, do ya think?

:eyes:

[thebigthink]

35. I kind of like this discussion

This single issue has been the most divisive and distracting of this primary race. And there is absolutely no reason why it ever should have been, because with the exception of Joe Lieberman, every single one of the mainstream candidates took a virtually identical position on it at the time the resolution was passed and none of them supported going into Iraq the way Bush did.

I certainly think that merits discussion. Over the past several months, I've heard a lot of loose talk and cheap shots flung around about this issue. I have seen some real brass knuckle politics played with it. But I have to say I have heard very little in the way of reasoned discussion about it.

[windansea]

36. bigthink speak truth

bigthink rating system very logical and well supported