Reply #94: The point of contention is not the bill itself

[blm]

the bill was the desired one by Kerry, too. The point is that Dean attacked the others for the PROVISION that Bush have the final say on use of force, and yet, that same provision was in Biden-Lugar.


Ryan Lizza on Biden-Lugar- :
>>>>>>
Huh?Did Howard Dean actually support a war resolution giving Bush authority to attack Iraq? The answer is: pretty much. As Gephardt's crack research staff helpfully points out in a piece of paper delivered to reporters at the debate, The Des Moines Register reported on October 6, 2002, that "Dean opposes the Bush resolution and supports an alternative sponsored by Sens. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, and Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican. 'It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally, but that should not be our first option,' Dean told reporters before the dinner." Back in mid-October a Burlington newspaper quoted Dean as saying, "I would have supported the Biden-Lugar resolution."

Dean himself admitted in the debate that he did indeed support it. Mustering some faux shock that his rivals would attack him on this issue, he retorted, "Let me use the first five minutes to correct an important thing that Dick Gephardt just misinformed us about."
Then he explained his interpretation of Biden-Lugar: "The Biden-Lugar amendment is what should have passed in Congress, because the key and critical difference was that it required the president to come back to Congress for permission. And that is where the congressmen who supported that resolution made their mistake was not supporting Biden-Lugar instead of giving the president a blank check."

This statement caused Kerry to almost jump through his television monitor. It was his turn to make a correction. In what would be the final volley of the Biden-Lugar war, Kerry patiently explained, "the Biden-Lugar amendment that Howard Dean said he supported, at the time he said he supported it, had a certification by the president. And the president only had to certify he had the authority to go. It's no different from--fundamentally--what we voted on."
By my reading of Biden-Lugar, Dean is indeed wrong that Bush was forced to "come back to Congress for permission" to attack Iraq.

The resolution required Bush to do one of two things before going to war. First, he had to get a new U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. (This was the key difference between Biden-Lugar and the resolution Congress actually passed.) Obviously Bush got a U.N. resolution. It's a matter of some debate whether the resolution authorized the attack. The Bush administration and Britain say it did. Most of the rest of the world says it didn't. But Biden-Lugar had one more rather large escape clause for Bush to go to war even if he didn't get a the U.N. resolution.

According to Biden-Lugar, all Bush had to do was "make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate 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, notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution."
Isn't this exactly what happened? Bush went to the United Nations. He failed to get a clean resolution authorizing force. Then he "determined" that the threat from Iraq's WMDs was "so grave that the use of force is necessary." At the time Bush complained that Biden-Lugar would "tie his hands." He preferred the Gephardt resolution that had no strings attached. But in the end, assuming you interpret the "make available ... his determination" clause literally, the war resolution Howard Dean supported would probably have led to exactly the same outcome--a unilateral war with Iraq.
>>>>>>

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=dispatch&s=lizza112503