Biden/Lugar--what is it?

[jpgray]

No need to bring candidate fervor in on this one, okay? My only IWR deal-breaker for enthusiastic support involves the Rose Garden.

Here's this bit from the NYT:

The major difference between the two resolutions is that the version agreed upon by the House and the president today authorizes Mr. Bush to use force to enforce "all relevant" United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, leaving the White House free to determine what is relevant. In contrast, the Biden-Lugar language specifies that force is authorized to secure the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its ballistic missile program or to defend the United States and its allies against those programs.

In my understanding, Biden-Lugar also "urges" initial UN action over unilateral action. I remember Lynne Weil, the press sec. for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that Biden-Lugar did not seek to remove Bush's authority to approve unilateral action, but rather encouraged a multilateral approach. I believe there were also provisions that kept Congress more involved, but I don't recall the specifics.

I'm not particularly interested in your interpretation of Biden-Lugar, but if you have facts, or ideally a link to the full text, it'd be much appreciated.

[blm]

1. Daily Howler's recent piece on B-L:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh011404.shtml

>>>>>>>
Is Kerry’s complaint about Dean on-target? In fact, on October 5, 2002, Dean did “take a public position supporting the Biden-Lugar resolution” (see Des Moines Register excerpt, below). And to all appearances, that proposed resolution did “give Bush authority to go to war if he found that the diplomatic effort had been exhausted.” Here’s how David Rosenbaum described the measure in the October 6 New York Times:
ROSENBAUM (10/6/02): Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and thus the Democrats’ ex officio spokesman in the Senate on foreign policy, stands somewhere between the hawks and the doves.

Mr. Biden and Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, are offering a proposal that would authorize military action, but only against Iraq and not any other country, and only to rid Iraq of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

By that account, Biden-Lugar permitted war on Iraq over WMD. How did Biden-Lugar differ from Bush’s proposed resolution? On October 3, 2002, Elisabeth Bumiller explained that Bush’s proposal “authorizes Mr. Bush to use force to enforce ‘all relevant’ United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, leaving the White House free to determine what is relevant. In contrast, the Biden-Lugar language specifies that force is authorized to secure the destruction of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and its ballistic missile program or to defend the United States and its allies against those programs.” Just how different was Biden-Lugar? David Firestone reported, then let you decide:
FIRESTONE (10/1/02): Instead of citing only the national security interests of the United States, as the White House resolution does, would emphasize the defense needs of the United States and its allies.
It would also require the administration to notify Congress within 30 days of an invasion of the degree of assistance from other countries and the status of plans to rebuild Iraq, with further reports required every 60 days. The White House had agreed to report every 90 days.

Every 60 days, not 90! To be honest, it doesn’t sound all that tough.
There seems to be no question that Dean supported Biden-Lugar. And for weeks now, Kerry has claimed that Biden-Lugar would have let Bush go to war in Iraq, just as the final resolution did. But the press corps has made no attempt to examine this belated complaint. Saletan simply dismisses the claim without attempting to sort it out. “Dean bet his whole campaign on opposition to the war?” That is precisely Kerry’s point! Kerry says that Dean favored a resolution that would have let Bush go to war. Shouldn’t someone see if that statement is accurate? Not in this press corps—a corps which now seems to base all its judgments on what sweater or duck boots hopefuls wear.
>>>>>>

And this from a proClark blog:

There are two parts required of the President.
The second part first:
Biden Lugar restricted the authorization of force to UN WMD resolutions against Iraq and the broader concept of self-defense or mutual-defense.
The actually passed resolution (Public Law 107-243) restricted the authorization to use force to - relevant UN resolutions (including repatriation of war detainees and Kuwaiti treasures, the resolution of the fate of our MIA pilot, and the repression of the population), self-defense or mutual-defense, and the nebulously defined war on terror.
Now the first part - the President had to merely inform Congress that there was no other way but to use force against Iraq regarding the above mentioned restrictions.  The only difference between the reporting requirement Biden-Lugar and 107-243 was a time constraint;  Biden-Lugar required notification prior to the use of force, 107-243 allowed up to 48 hours after initiating force to inform Congress.
The actual text in both resolution can be parsed almost exactly like this:
"The President shall make available his determination that...."
Here's the actual 'trigger' for the President to use force:
---------------
Biden-Lugar:   "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 Sept. 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)." 
-----------------
Public Law 107-243: 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.
---------------
Now, Gov. Dean has an opinion piece in CommonDreams.org from April of this year which hints at the problem he has.
www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm
...snip...
Many in Congress who voted for this resolution should have known better. On September 23, 2002, Al Gore cautioned in his speech in San Francisco that "if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides." And that is why it was such a big mistake for Congress to allow the president to set this dangerous precedent.
...end snip...

This one paragraph shows is Gov. Dean's conflation of the White House resolution, which was not passed and the final resolution which, as I pointed out above is practically and functionally identical to the the Biden-Lugar resolution which he did support.  What this means is that Gov. Dean has based his entire criticism of his opponents and other Democrats on his incorrect understanding of what happened in the negotiation phase in Congress.  It's quite possible he didn't even read the intermediate or final resolutions involved in the debate, otherwise, he would have known that the 'certification' process for the Administration he claimed he supported in the Biden-Lugar resolution was also an explicit requirement in Public Law 107-243.

Even worse for Gov. Dean, what he claimed was a 'certification' process in Biden-Lugar was nothing of the sort.  Gov. Dean claimed that the President had to prove his WMD assertions were false; entirely untrue.  As pointed out above, the President merely had to show to Congress that he didn't believe Iraq would comply with UN resolutions or that he was acting under self-defense and that the invasion of Iraq was truly a part of the war on terror.

The only difference between Gov. Dean's position and what actually happened is that the report issued by the Administration would have simply deleted the references to the war on terror.  Even that's up for debate, since the war on terror would have been a claim used by the Administration regarding the 'self-defense' angle.  Otherwise, the net result would have been the same if Gov. Dean had been involved in the actual debate about the matter.  Ironically, he even has a quote saying that he 'got it right' while he was up in Vermont while the Washington insiders didn't know what they were doing.
>>>>>>>

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

3. Sinsanity's breakdown on B-L argument:

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:
he former Vermont governor rarely mentions his support of a resolution by Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Joe Biden, D-Del., that would have asked Bush to get a new U.N. resolution to enforce weapons inspections in Iraq.
If the United Nations had declined, the president would have had to make a formal determination that the Iraqi threat was so serious that the use of military force would be necessary.
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."

Dean may believe that requiring additional certifications to Congress would have prevented war due to political considerations (Bush "would have been forced to certify with his word ... all the claims he made that were not true"), but this is an assertion about a hypothetical. It is undisputed, however, that Biden-Lugar would have granted the president authority to take unilateral action against Iraq if the UN failed to act and Bush satisfied the requirements of the legislation. Dean has implicitly acknowledged this distinction at times, such as a statement on the February 25, 2003 edition of PBS's "Newshour with Jim Lehrer" in which he said "What they voted for was to allow the president of the United States to attack Iraq unilaterally without going back to Congress ."
>>>>>>>

Read the full piece, it also has links.

[oasis]

18. Sure makes sense to me.(n/t)

[TLM]

10. Claiming that IRW and BL are the same is flat out wrong...

The whole crux of the argument being made by the folks pushing this defense of Kerry's support for the invasion of Iraq... is that IWR and BL were so similar that supporting one is the exact same thing as supporting the other.

No amount of after the fact hedging or hair splitting or even personal threats will change this basic premise, which is the foundation of this desperate attack on Dean.

Either... IWR and BL were the exact same thing, and therefore supporting one is the exact same thing as supporting the other.

Or... IWR and BL were not the same and therefore supporting one is not the exact same thing as supporting the other.

Since the argument many try to make is that Dean supporting the BL is the exact same thing as Kerry voting for the IWR... then it is clear either they are willfully being dishonest or they simply are ignorant of the differences.



Also Dean never claimed to be anti-war... he was anti-unilateral war without damn good justification. Dean said repeatedly that if there was proof of an imminent threat, he would support such action, but only if there was a real threat. And he also said over and over that Bush had not made the case for war.

Dean was not against the use of force to defend this nation, he was against going to war without justification. Supporting the biden lugar amendment was in line with that position... as BL also had very strict requirements for justification and specific objectives related to disarming.


It was Kerry's DLC pals who tried to spin Dean's position as that of some fringe leftist anti-war pacifist. They figured that the way to win this election was to be anti-UN war hawks and that's exactly what Kerry was trying to be back in Feb 02. That's why Kerry tried to paint Dean as soft on defense and attacked Dean for wanting the UN behind any actions taken in Iraq.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.



Kerry attacked Dean for wanting to insist on getting UN support. All the flip flops and BS today won't change what Kerry's position was then. Kerry was pro-war and anti-UN.

[jpgray]

11. Biden / Lugar does not require UN support

It does require that Bush take the time to "attempt to seek" a resolution such as 1441. Note that if he did not get something like 1441, all he was required to do was certify to Congress that Iraq was a "threat". This was also required in HR 110, the IWR.

It did not remove the authority of Bush to use the unilateral option.

[Karmadillo]

5. Here's a link to the text of Biden-Lugar

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/bidenlugar-resolution-093002.htm

[jpgray]

6. Okay, found the full text

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/bidenlugar-resolution-093002.htm

On reading it, it appears the above statements hold true. This does not limit the capacity for Bush to act unilaterally, as seen in (a)(2).

The first muddle in my mind comes in section (b)(1). The resolution the President is required to have "attempted to seek" would be 1441, which was adopted in November of 2002. Where then, specifically, is the encouragement towards multilateralism?

It is my understanding of (b)(1) that, 1441 having been adopted by the UN, Bush was all set to use force as he deemed necessary. In (b)(2) it is made clear that Bush had only to declare Iraq's WMDs posed a "threat" to ourselves or our allies, and the use of force was authorized. Does this mean without even 1441?

The President is also required to report on how other nations will assist the US, how allies in the region will be protected, and on planning for an aftermath. Nothing in there seems to indicate much encouragement towards multilateralism.

It is interesting to note that in planning for the aftermath, the possibility of political and economic reconstruction is mentioned. So although this differs from the IWR in its specific intent to disarm Saddam (as opposed to enforcing "all relevant" resolutions), it still provides for the same reconstruction period we are witnessing currently.

Well, I'll go check out the passed IWR and see what the differences are.

Authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council seeking to enforce the destruction and dismantlement of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missiles program or pursuant to the United States right of individual or collective self-defense if the Security Council fails to act.

Whereas under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), which effected a formal cease-fire following the Persian Gulf War, Iraq agreed to destroy or dismantle, under international supervision, its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs (hereafter in this joint resolution referred to as Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction program"), as well as its program to develop or acquire ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers (hereafter in this joint resolution referred to as Iraq's "prohibited ballistic missile program"), and undertook unconditionally not to develop any such weapons thereafter.

Whereas on numerous occasions since 1991, the United Nations Security Council has reaffirmed Resolution 687, most recently in Resolution 1284, which established a new weapons inspection regime to ensure Iraqi compliance with its obligations under Resolution 687;

Whereas on numerous occasions since 1991, the United States and the United Nations Security Council have condemned Iraq's failure to fulfill its obligations under Resolution 687 to destroy or dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program; Whereas Iraq under Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in its war with Iran in the 1980s and against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq in 1988; Whereas since 1990, the United States has considered Iraq to be a state sponsor of terrorism; Whereas Iraq's failure to comply with its international obligations to destroy or dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program, its record of using weapons of mass destruction, its record of using force against neighboring states, and its support for international terrorism require a strong diplomatic, and if necessary, military response by the international community, led by the United States:

Now, therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title.

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).

Section 3. Consultation and reports

(a) Consultation. - The President shall keep Congress fully and currently informed on matters relevant to this joint resolution.

(b) Initial Report. - (1) As soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after exercising the authority under subsection 2(a), the President shall submit to Congress a report setting forth information - (A) about the degree to which other nations will assist the United States in the use of force in Iraq; (B) regarding measures the United States is taking, or preparing to take, to protect key allies in the region from armed attack by Iraq; and (C) on planning to establish a secure environment in the immediate aftermath of the use of force (including estimated expenditures by the United States and allied nations), and, if necessary, prepare for the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq following the use of force.

(2) Classification of report. - The report required by paragraph (1) may be submitted in classified form. (c) Subsequent Reports. - Following transmittal of the report required by subsection (b), the President shall submit a report to Congress every 60 days thereafter on the status of United States diplomatic, military and reconstruction operations with respect to Iraq.

Section 4. War Powers Resolution Requirements

(a) Specific statutory authorization- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that section 2 is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (b) Applicability of other requirements. - Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

[blm]

7. Thankyou for not dismissing this lightly.

The press did for a year and created a wedge in the Dem party that didn't have to be there.

[jpgray]

8. Okay, and here's HR 110

This doesn't appear to require Bush to report to Congress about the nations who will be helping us. Is that the multilateralism encouragement that is missing?

TLM mentions that Biden-Lugar precludes a wider regional authorization. I can only assume the feature of B-L that does this is its distinction of authorizing specifically the disarming of Iraq? There is no such specific purpose for this resolution--at least it is absent from the authorization. In Biden/Lugar, the purpose is clearly stated as enforcing UN resolution 687, and other later resolutions concerning compliance with 687. Is this the limiting factor of Biden/Lugar?

It isn't abundantly clear in HR 110 below WHAT exactly the authorization of force is FOR. It says Bush is authorized to use our troops against the "threat posed by Iraq". Is this what is sufficiently vague enough to authorize force for conflicts outside of Iraq? Biden/Lugar is quite specific on this point, authorizing the President to "enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, and other resolutions approved by the Council which govern Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687."

Very interesting.




Authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, it was demonstrated that the United States is a known target of terrorism;

Whereas in 1988 Congress concluded that Iraq was then in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and thereby threatened the vital interests of the United States and international peace and security, stated the reasons for that conclusion, and urged the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population, including the Kurdish people, thereby threatening peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas Iraq is in breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, to cease repression of its civilian population pursuant to Security Council Resolution 688, and to cease threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq pursuant to Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes use of all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with these `subsequent relevant resolutions';

Whereas Congress, in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), authorized the President to use United States Armed Forces to achieve full implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 678;

Whereas Congress, in section 1095 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-190), has stated that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 102-1)', that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf Region', and that Congress `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Resolution 688';

Whereas Congress, in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338), has expressed its sense that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi political structure and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that political structure;

Whereas in 1998 Iraq rejected full cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to ensure the destruction of all weapons of mass destruction;

Whereas since 1998 Iraq has remained in noncompliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 678, providing it with an open-ended ability to build its weapons of mass destruction programs;

Whereas a key threat from Iraq is its development of weapons of mass destruction and its potential to transfer weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists and terrorist groups it sponsors;

Whereas a key threat from Iraq is the potential of an Iraqi preemptive strike against the United States or its allies or interests in the region;

Whereas the President contends that Iraq remains an immediate threat to the national security of the United States;

Whereas the United States is fighting a war on terrorism and seeks the widest possible support of its allies and the support of United Nations Security Council;

Whereas the United Nations Security Council in approving Resolution 1377 affirmed that `the acts of international terrorism constitute one of the most serious threats to international peace and security in the twenty-first century';

Whereas in the absence of one or more thorough and robust resolutions by the United Nations Security Council to continue the weapons inspections program in Iraq, Iraq remains a threat to all nations engaged in the global war on terrorism;

Whereas the Constitution reserves to Congress the sole authority to declare war;

Whereas the Congress must approve any United States engagement in military action with Iraq through the War Powers Resolution; and

Whereas the United States has never engaged in a preemptive strike against another sovereign nation and must resort to this course of action when, and only when, all other avenues for disarming the threat to its vital interests have been explored and exhausted: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Liberation of the Iraqi People Resolution'.

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

Congress--

(1) condemns Saddam Hussein's ongoing efforts to repress the freedoms of the Iraqi people;

(2) calls on the President to exhaust all peaceful and diplomatic avenues for disarming the threat to United States interests before using military force against Iraq;

(3) calls on the President to obtain allied support for any preemptive strike against Iraq through a thorough and robust United Nations Security Council resolution;

(4) urges the President to consider that in the absence of a post-invasion plan for ensuring the democracy, security and stability of the nation of Iraq, a military invasion will not achieve the desired results for that nation; and

(5) expresses its heartfelt concern for the safety, health, and well being of the people of Iraq.

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

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use United States Armed Forces to defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq.

(b) CONDITIONS OF AUTHORITY- Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a), the President shall--

(1) certify to Congress that--

(A) Iraq is continuing to attempt to obtain conventional, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and carry out ballistic missile programs, and provide appropriate documentation thereof;

(B) Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States or United States interests in the region, and provide appropriate documentation thereof;

(C) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, and 678; and

(D) the United States has sought from the United Nations Security Council a thorough and robust resolution expressing its dissatisfaction regarding Iraq's noncompliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687 and 949 and those resolutions specified in subparagraph (C); and

(2) transmit to Congress a comprehensive plan of action that contains, at a minimum--

(A) a commitment that United States engagement in the war against terrorism shall remain the highest priority of the United States Government to the maximum extent possible;

(B) a comprehensive plan for long-term cultural, economic, and political stabilization in a free Iraq;

(C) a commitment that the United States will take necessary efforts to protect the health, safety, and security of the Iraqi people and existing infrastructure, and safety for all United States allies and interests in the region; and

(D) a plan for the continued stabilization of Afghanistan.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

At least once every 60 days, the President shall submit to the Congress a summary on the status of efforts authorized in this joint resolution.

[jpgray]

9. I can't seem to corroborate two of the ACLU's claims, however

(Biden-Lugar) (s)pells 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.

Biden Lugar does state that the authorization is for disarming Iraq, whereas the IWR does not have so specific an authorization. However, Biden/Lugar allows for "economic and political reconstruction", which is what we are experiencing now, and is nebulous enough for me to not particularly care for it. Certainly "economic and political reconstruction" is vague enough to last for years.

I also do not see where Biden/Lugar forces Bush to respect the perogatives of Congress. It requires that he keep Congress fully informed (S3)(a), and that he make an initial report, concerning how nations will aid the US, how the US will defend its allies in the region, and on planning a secure post-conflict environment, providing for a "political and economic reconstruction" (which I assume would constitute the period we are currently in).

Does anybody know the specifics of these two complaints by the ACLU? What sections of the resolutions are relevant?

[Egnever]

12. Since you seem to be actually trying to investigate this

I will point you first to this post by Eloriel that goes into this into some depth. I repost her original post for you and the link to the old thread so you can look at it if you wish. This is not even close to the first time this has been hashed over on DU but for what its worth here it is.


There are some DUers who persist in trying to conflate the IWR with the Biden-Lugar amendment, as if "there was no substantive difference" between them. Actually, Kerry himself is trying to claim the same thing, so I suppose they're getting this directly from the Kerry campaign.

First of all, that claim doesn't even pass the common sense test. If there was no difference between the two, why the hell would the Biden-Lugar proposed amendment have been NEEDED? or even proposed in the first place?

There was a huge difference, and I did a little googling to pull together some information on it. I do not believe it ever reached the stage of having a S.R. number assigned to it, so I'm not at all sure it's available from Thomas. (However, if someone has the time and energy, it'd sure be great to find the actual language somewhere.)

In the absence of actual language of the amendment, here's the best recapitulation of its provisions I found:

http://onepeople.org/archives/000106.html

CNN provides a summary of the resolution:

The bipartisan resolution includes language:

* Supporting the president's effort to get a new resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council.

* Limiting the use of U.S. military force against Iraq, and the scope of any military operation to dealing with "current ongoing threats posed by Iraq" and to forcing compliance with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions Note: There was just ONE UNSC resolution named. See below.

* Requiring Bush to make a determination to Congress prior to ordering military action that further diplomacy will not succeed in bringing Iraq into compliance

* Requiring Bush to make a determination that using military force against Iraq is consistent with and will not detract from the ongoing effort to take action against terrorists and terrorist organizations

Note: I think this provision is HUGE. It would have made the Bush administration lie further in order to get their war. That alone might have been a more clearly impeachable offense.

* Requiring regular consulting and reporting to the Congress

* Requiring the White House, consistent with the War Powers Act, to report to Congress every 60 days on military operations and planning for "post-military" operations including any plans for peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

This is huge too. Had Biden-Lugar passed, we might have had a better after-the-major-combat-operations-are-over planning in place, which would have helped save lives -- American and Iraqi, as well as Italian and Polish.

===================
This is from the Congressional Research Service "side-by-side" comparison. It reveals that there was only one UNSC resolution it would have authorized enforcement of -- probably about disarming Saddam rather than overthrowing him. (I didn't print this 68 or so page report to study the comparison and the reason will be obvious when you look at this pdf):

CRS Side-by-side comparison: http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/Files/RL31596.pdf

The proposals likely to be considered also vary widely in their binding sections. H.J.Res. 114/S.J.Res. 46 would grant broad authority to the President to ?use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate...against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.? The Biden-Lugar proposal requires that any military action taken against Iraq be to enforce U.N. Security Council resolution 687 (calling for the dismantlement of Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile program), or to defend the United States or its allies against Iraq?s use of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile program. Biden-Lugar, furthermore, requires that the President consult with congressional leadership prior to engaging U.S. military force, and that certain conditions have been met. Biden-Lugar requires the President to prepare follow-up reports on plans to reconstruct Iraq, economically and politically, following the use of force. Finally, the Levin proposal focuses almost entirely on working through the United Nations. It would authorize the use of U.S. military force, but only pursuant to a new U.N. Security Council resolution, and only after consultation with congressional leadership.

Frankly, I'd have much preferred the Levin proposal, at least from its description here, but Biden-Lugar was still much better than the IWR, and substantively DIFFERENT from IWR.

===============

Here's what the ACLU, which supported Biden-Lugar, said at the time:

ACLU on Biden-Lugar
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html

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.

===============
Here's specific documentary support for the fact that Biden-Lugar would not have allowed for "regime change" in Iraq -- just "disarming" Iraq, and it also points directly at Gephardt's miserable failure on the subject:

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-01.htm
Before Mr. Gephardt decided to cave in on the war resolution, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. had hoped to make the Biden-Lugar resolution the basis of a vote in the Senate. That now appears unlikely. Mr. Biden said Wednesday that he was a realist and knew that the new compromise, ballyhooed Wednesday afternoon in the White House Rose Garden, pretty much meant the end of his approach.

Mr. Gephardt has long favored regime change in Iraq and called Saddam a serious threat. But as recently as two weeks ago he said that Mr. Bush was not justified in waging war to overthrow Saddam, only in disarming him -- a position exactly in line with the Biden-Lugar resolution he has torpedoed.

=================

Some DUers also like to toss out the notion that Dean has claimed / does claim he is anti-war and that Biden-Lugar authorizes force so he's being deceitful. There's no "there" there in this claim. Dean has never claimed he is anti-all-war. Quite the contrary. He's probably a little more hawkish than I, but he was against THIS war for the right reasons at the right time. NO Dean Supporter is misled, and the efforts by those DUers to try to make it sound like we are, or that Dean is somehow trying to make his supporters believe that he's a pacifist, are either ill-informed or purposely misleading.

So that's Biden-Lugar. It IS different from IWR, substantively.

Kerry voted for IWR, and he and his supporters can't try to rewrite history by trying to claim that Biden-Lugar was no different than the IWR.

and the link to the original thread



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=788060#789267

[jpgray]

13. Some of these aren't differences

* Supporting the president's effort to get a new resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council.

--This is in IWR

* Limiting the use of U.S. military force against Iraq, and the scope of any military operation to dealing with "current ongoing threats posed by Iraq" and to forcing compliance with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions Note: There was just ONE UNSC resolution named. See below.

--The IWR mentions more than one UN resolution, and it mentions the war on terror, so yes here is a significant difference.

* Requiring Bush to make a determination to Congress prior to ordering military action that further diplomacy will not succeed in bringing Iraq into compliance

--Bush is required to certify that he has exhausted all diplomacy in the IWR as well.

* Requiring Bush to make a determination that using military force against Iraq is consistent with and will not detract from the ongoing effort to take action against terrorists and terrorist organizations

--I can't find this in Biden/Lugar, but I will look for it and check back.

* Requiring regular consulting and reporting to the Congress

--Both do this, but Biden/Lugar is more specific.

* Requiring the White House, consistent with the War Powers Act, to report to Congress every 60 days on military operations and planning for "post-military" operations including any plans for peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

--Both are consistent with the War Powers Act, requiring 60 day reports. Both require commitments for postwar plans.



Sorry if I jumped off the handle in IndianaGreen's thread. I'm trying to get the right handle on this so the endless arguments can end. But still Bush could maintain he went in to enforce 687, and now he is in reconstruction. That would be "okay" in terms of Biden/Lugar, just as it is "okay" that his certifications for IWR involving exhausting diplomacy and proving Saddam sought to acquire WMD were faulty. Bush would have brought us to this phase under Biden Lugar. If he does something else under the auspices of IWR beyond Iraq "reconsctruction", then I will agree that IWR was much worse than Biden would have been. Right now it seems their results would have been very similar. I find it hard to believe Congress would have held Bush to account for lying under a different resolution, when he cheated the requirements of the one we have now and there hasn't been a peep.

[oasis]

14. A kick because information is a DUer's best friend. (n/t)

[jpgray]

15. Long as it's up here, here are my thoughts from the other thread:

From reading the resolutions and the various interpretations, here is what I get.

Bush was required to certify that he had exhausted all diplomacy AND that Saddam sought to obtain WMDs in both resolutions to get the authorization to use US troops. He was also required to attempt to get a resolution from the UN condemning Saddam's behavior (such as 1441), but barring that he could declare Saddam a "threat" to ourselves or our allies and have the authorization anyway. This was also in both.

So it is my contention that under either Biden or the IWR, we would have had Bush with an authorization.

Now proceeding from there our troops invade Iraq, oust Saddam and enter into this "reconstruction" phase. The main difference I can see is that Biden requires a report on reconstruction plans, whereas IWR requires him to certify that he will protect the welfare and infrastructure of the Iraqi people. So a report and a certification--I don't know which one is "better", but we'll say the report because it's more substantial.

Now. We find that Bush has lied about the WMDs. That hurts him in both, and Congress should call him on it (various members have). We knew that Bush did not exhaust all diplomatic avenues before the war, that hurts him in both, and Congress should have called him on it (again, various members have).

So I agree that Biden/Lugar points out his dishonesty and failure to adhere to the requirements BETTER than does the IWR. Moreover, Biden/Lugar is less likely to be used to justify other regional conflicts.

However, Bush could have followed every step he did in the buildup with Biden, and the only significant difference would have been a few more reports to Congress. Biden is better than the IWR, but in my opinion it would still have led us here. Maybe Bush would be more vulnerable, but it would still have led us here.

[oasis]

17. Is it safe to say that IWR and Biden-Lugar are essentialy the same?

[jpgray]

19. In terms of where we'd be today, I think so, yes. In other ways, no.

Bush has flouted the provisions in the IWR that required him to exhaust all peaceful means and to prove that Saddam "sought to obtain" WMDs, so we can safely assume he would do the same in Biden/Lugar. Biden/Lugar does force him to report more than did the IWR, so if more reports would help Congress to hold Bush accountable (hard to say), then Biden is better.

Biden/Lugar is definitely better on defining what the authorization is for. Biden/Lugar ties the authorization to specifically UN resoultion 687, whereas the IWR is more nebulous, auhtorizing Bush for "all relevant" UN resolutions and the "war on terror". So if Bush were to use the IWR as an authorization for conflict outside Iraq, then we would have been much better off with Biden/Lugar.

The ACLU's claim that Biden/Lugar avoids a "Vitenam" style quagmire in Iraq doesn't appear to me to be well-founded. The Biden/Lugar resolution lays out exactly this kind of "economic and political reconstruction" in its text, so again we could be here today under Biden/Lugar as well.

The ACLU's other claim, that Biden/Lugar holds Bush more accountable to Congress also isn't apparent to me from reading the resolution. The only real differences on that count I can see are the explicit definition of purpose for the authorization, and a specific mention for more frequent reports, and for reports on war plans and reconstruction plans. IWR required a ceritfication that Bush would act in the best interest of the Iraqi people, etc. and Biden/Lugar requires a report on reconstruction. So there are a few differences there where Congress would have more reports from the administration.

So there are significant differences, but in terms of where we'd be today, I'd say they are essentially the same.

[mzmolly]

16. That's what it was. John Kerry refers to it now as *simon says foreign

policy* he lambasted Gephardt previously for not supporting it.

I would much rather Biden/Lugar was passed, then the resolution that was.

Some here will contend they were basically the same, but I remind them of JK's *simon says* comments, and the fact that he himself criticized Gep, and they generally go away.

I have lots of info on another PC. I'll provide it later. But, it looks like others have already done a great job :hi: