Dean supporters are inconsistent on Biden-Lugar

[poskonig]

In many of the previous flame-wars here, Dean supporters have attacked Kerry on the IWR issue. Kerry voted for the bill the was eventually brought to Congress, while the virtuous Dean would have voted for Biden-Lugar. This was supposedly good for Dean, for as Bush said, that bill would have "tied his hands."

Now, reading the recent article in the New Yorker, it is learned that Biden-Lugar had a very strong chance of passing. The idea was to get it out in the Senate before Bush broke a compromise in the House. Lugar had something like 25+ Senators, while the Democrats needed 40 to get it passed. Unfortunately, Boxer and Wellstone stuck to "principle," Gephardt came out on the Rose Garden on the next day, and the rest was history.

My problem -- many Dean supporters are praising Wellstone and Boxer for righteously *not* supporting Biden-Lugar, while hammering Kerry to Dean since Dean did support it.

I do not understand this at all, and would appreciate any explanation available.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. You've got to be kidding

You want to stir this up again, now?

[mouse7]

30. Must... have... distraction...NOW!

Here. Look at this for a while. Maybe that will turn people's attention away from re-igniting that stupid flame war all over again.

[wuushew]

2. Can someone find me the text of Biden-Lugar

I am going to to a word for word analysis.

[MurikanDemocrat]

3. Let the dead rest in peace. Dean is not running, this serves no purpose

[dsc]

4. Care to sight one of these many examples

I know what I said, and what I said, was that I have repeatedly been told by several Kerry supporters that those resolutions are the same thing. Now many of those very same Kerry supporters are blaming Gephardt for the fact Biden Luger didn't pass. If the resolutions are the same, as those Kerry supporters repeatedly told us, then why does this story matter at all? I guess that bit of hypocracy was editted out by your computer.

[poskonig]

5. My computer?

I was a Dean supporter until January 2004 and used the Biden-Lugar argument repeatedly in Dean's favor. Now I'm told supporting Biden-Lugar was actually evil from people involved with the campaign, which leaves me somewhat nonplussed.

[dsc]

7. and I see no site at all to back you up

But my point is that you seem to ignore the hypocricy of Kerry supporters on this.

[poskonig]

8. blm and others said it was the same, Dean supporters...

maintained there was a difference. I don't care what the Kerry people have argued, I asserted the Biden-Lugar was a better bill when I was supporting Dean and believe that today. I'm wondering why some Dean supporters have changed on this issue, since I have not.

I have not noticed any Kerry people defending Biden-Lugar lately, so I'm not sure where what "hypocricy" you refer too.

[dsc]

10. There is a thread chock full of them doing precisely that

and it is the only one in which I see Dean supporters doing anything like what you claim them to be doing. And yes I can't type well how thoughtful of you to point that out.

[EXE619K]

6. Biden-Lugar Resolution was clearly the alternative.

I could go on and on about the realities of the BLR and what implications it would have had on the impending invasion that was proposed by the IWR.

BLR would have gotten us crucial time for the Americans and the International coalition that could have altered the course in the process of disarmament by the UN. Even Chiraque/Villepin resolution was in the lines of BLR and that's exactly what we, as a International community should have sought.

That's the BIG difference.

IWR was a blank check regardless....one should know better than to give the executive branch(esp. with a unilateral approach sought by Bush) all the powers to make faulty decisions.

In my opinion, Senators that voted for the IWR knew what was coming.

Just about all provisions to the IWR had signs of executive non-compliance in regards to whatever the legistlative agenda would have been.

edit: schpelling

[AmyStrange]

9. Exactly...

BLR required Bush to come back to Congress for final approval after he went to the UN.

IWR did not. It was a blank check.

Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/




Serious Serial Killer discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. Biden Lugar was a blank check too- it just bought time

all Bush had to do was report back to congress and say: "O.K. we couldn't find any weapons but Saddam won't let us and we know thy're there. It sez so right here..." (and then he holds up paper and then he declares war).

[AmyStrange]

15. The thing is...

we'll never know for sure with BLR. It was never given a chance...

All we know for sure is what happened under IWR

and Kerry voted for it. Bringing this up again is not ABB productive,

Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/




Serious Serial Killer discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

[EXE619K]

16. Yes, but time is exactly what we needed.

As you know, there were clear signs from the Saddam Regime for a complete and un-fettered inspection of their facilities by the UN/IAEA towards the beginning of the war(for example, the Lebanese Representative that secretly negotiated with Saddam in person).

Even the French were in negotiations with the Iraqis for the continuation of inspections while the Americans were preparing for the final assault into Iraq.

Just imagine what would just 30 days would have done, in terms of Iraqi compliance when the Iraqis themselves knew that a full-scale ground war with the US would have a regime change for Baathists?

As I've stated, IWR was a blank check for executive non-compliance and all roads led to exactly that.

Why the hell did he(John Kerry and others) not give a chance for further inspections that might have averted a war?

By not giving a chance at peace, John kerry and the Pink Tu-Tus did what was popular.

Not, what was right and reasonable.

[Zomby Woof]

11. they're inconsistent on all kinds of shit

Why pick just one? ;-)

[dsc]

14. I am sure you have a ton of examples

or am I going to get even more excuses?

[AmyStrange]

21. Woof is mostly bark...

with very little bite... sad really. I hope he proves me wrong. He is a good person at heart and I am speechless to explain why he writes like this,

Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/




Serious Serial Killer discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

[Zomby Woof]

28. having a beer with me does not mean you know me

Marching in a protest does not mean you know me either. That, and there are plenty of asses with my teeth marks in them all over DU, so I'd appreciate if you'd keep your condescension about how "sad" I am to yourself.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Zomby Woof]

25. LOL!

DK needs people like me to kick some ass. Ultimately, I speak for myself, not DK or his campaign. Lots of people don't seem to get that nuance on DU.

I can say though, that most DK supporters loathe Dean, I just happen to be more upfront than others. But the opinions I hold of him are quite common, I assure you.

[indigo32]

26. Personally I don't hold your actions against DK at all

though others may. You are responsible for your own actions. What I don't understand is why ypu can't seem to be nuanced enough to separate Dean supporters and choose sooo often to speak of all of them as a group.

[Zomby Woof]

27. most Dean supporters are friends and decent people

They know who they are. It seems you have missed the difference between what I say to the less civil or intelligent ones I take on in here, and the good ones. ;-)

If they were as fair as reasonable as my Dean-supporting friends, I would have never flamed a soul.

That being said, I do not confuse Dean with any part of his supporters. I loathe him without any help based on the issues and his lack of character.

[indigo32]

29. No Zomby

I can read just fine. If you actually think most Dean supporters are friends and decent people (and thats probably the case) you can act like it. If you have issues with certain supporters here then address them.
And yes I do realize you can't stand Howard Dean all on his own merits ;)

[mzmolly]

13. I wasn't aware of Wellstones record/comments on Biden/Lugar do you

have them at hand. I'd like to view them before commenting on the late Senator.

[LiviaOlivia]

18. See New Yorker article

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040216fa_fact1

[NWHarkness]

17. Is there any good reason to rehash this?

Let's look forward, not backward.

[DrFunkenstein]

19. Here Is All The Proof You Need About Dean & Biden-Lugar

Dean later conceded that he backed an alternative to last fall's resolution that would have allowed President Bush to wage war against Iraq without congressional approval. But he said the measure, which never passed, might have averted war.

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."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1211campaign11.html

Kerry said that at the time of the congressional debate, Dean was on record saying then that Saddam Hussein needed to be disarmed and had supported a resolution sponsored by Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Richard G. Lugar that would have required Bush to report back to Congress if he failed to win international support for the war.

Kerry said Dean was "trying to have it both ways" on his position. "If you don't have to vote, you can run around and say a lot of things. But that's not leadership."

A Senate Democratic aide involved in the discussions over the competing resolutions said Wednesday that the White House had opposed the initial Biden-Lugar amendment, saying it would tie Bush's hands. Later the White House began negotiating with the sponsors, but those negotiations were undercut when Gephardt cut a deal with the White House to support their preferred resolution.

The aide said Biden-Lugar would have added an additional requirement for Bush to satisfy before going to war unilaterally, but added that a president determined to launch military action probably would not have been deterred by the alternate resolution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54585-2003Dec10.html

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.

As a result of Congress's resolution, the Bush administration went to New York and secured unanimous Security Council passage of a new resolution demanding new inspections and threatening serious consequences for disobedience.

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

<>

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country?

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that.

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

Dean: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled.

http://www.deanrocks.com/page.cfm?p=1&c=9

[AmyStrange]

20. I don't see many quotes from Dean...

mostly garbled interpretations of what he said.

It's easy to say that the BLR would have done this or that when it's dead. I know for a fact what the IWR did and is still doing and Kerry voted for it.

This discussion does not furthur the ABB program in my opinion,

Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/




Serious Serial Killer discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

[Nicholas_J]

22. Biden Lugar

Was not an alternate bill to the House Resolution that was eventually passed, but a Senate Amendment to that bill which changed only one thing about the Iraq Resolution. The only differnce was tat the Biden Lugar Amendment prohibited regime change but allowed all other aspects of the Iraq Resolution to stand. It did nothing else. It allowed the president to do exactly the same things that the misnamed Iraq War Resolution allowed except that once the war was finished, Saddam had to be left in power, which makes the statement Lieberman made about Dean true. If Dean was in power, Saddam would still be in power. A description of the legisaltion from an anti war organization:

UPDATE: Senate
If Sen. Daschle and Senate Democratic leaders cannot come to an agreement on the rules for debate by the end of today, then a cloture vote is likely. Cloture is a method of limiting debate or ending a filibuster in the Senate which takes at least 60 Senators. If a cloture vote carries, then it will deny Senators like Sen. Robert Byrd from filibustering. Thirty hours of floor debate is expected in the Senate, making an actual vote likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.

The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.

The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.

http://epic-usa.org/action/alert.php?n=33

[poskonig]

24. Wasn't there an effort to get the Biden-Lugar "bill" out first?

According to the New Yorker article, Biden and Lugar wanted to get their version out before Bush made a deal with Gephardt. Since this failed, it was introduced as an amendment afterwards. Am I understanding this correctly?