# 2nd thoughts on Iraq? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 14, 2004, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2nd-thoughts-on-iraq/245099 "2004-05-14T12:24:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2nd-thoughts-on-iraq/245099/41 "2004-05-16T00:11:49Z")
**pervert** , at risk of getting deeper into another of your parsefests, it says the President shall “make his determination” only after working through the UN as far as possible. Most of the bill refers to that, if you read it. But it didn’t happen that way, did it? Bush wasn’t authorized to do what he did, and Kerry’s claim that he didn’t vote for the way Bush did it is absolutely correct. **John** , is that all the credit you give us here? You expect us to believe a claim that you were only “asking a question”? That’s like claiming you were only joking - another lame tactic we see occasionally here. If you really didn’t know what would happen if Kerry were asked this “question” by a reporter or citizen or in a debate, you would have had to be _unaware_ that Kerry has had reporters around him for the better part of a year. You would also have had to be unaware that there have been debates already, a number of them, in the primaries, and further that the question has been asked many times by reporters and citizens and debate opponents. If a politically-aware person like you \*really \* wasn’t aware of that, it would be very easy to look around the Web and find out what happened. This is going to be a long campaign with a lot more GD threads about it. Better pace yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2nd-thoughts-on-iraq/245099/42 "2004-05-16T00:12:34Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > But “As stated in the bill” is simply that the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House and PResident Pro tem of the Senate “\*\*\*his determination \*\*\*” that etc. etc. > > Nowhere does it say that the president will give peace a chance or whatever it is that you guys seem to think it says. It simply says that the president has to make a determination and that he has to notify congress before or very soon after using force against Iraq. > > As to the OP, I am one who was slightly opposed to the war in the begining, but has reluctantly changed his position. In the words of John Kerry, **"Did I expect George Bush to fuck [Iraq] up as badly as he did? I don’t think anybody did"** ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2nd-thoughts-on-iraq/245099/43 "2004-05-16T08:13:02Z")
Here’s an interesting story that says there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with this war and Rumsfeld in the military and the torture photo’s are being used as a means to express that dissatisfaction. > [@](#): > > Leaking self-doubt: > > Tracing how the photos became such hot public property reveals something striking, not only about the torture scandal, but about the coalition itself. The photos appear to have come from within US military or political circles; they were effectively volunteered for public consumption by elements within the military or higher up in the Pentagon > [http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA521.htm](http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA521.htm) ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2nd-thoughts-on-iraq/245099/44 "2004-05-16T15:09:01Z")
Someone with second thoughts [Andrew Sullivan](http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_05_09_dish_archive.html#108415840160364769) discusses the issue and some of it’s implications. "The one anti-war argument that, in retrospect, I did not take seriously enough was a simple one. It was that this war was noble and defensible but that this administration was simply too incompetent and arrogant to carry it out effectively. To have humiliated the United States by presenting _ **false** _ and _ **misleading** _ intelligence and then to have allowed something like Abu Ghraib to happen - after a year of other, compounded errors - is unforgivable." ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2nd-thoughts-on-iraq/245099/45 "2004-05-16T16:09:16Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **pervert** , at risk of getting deeper into another of your parsefests, it says the President shall “make his determination” only after working through the UN as far as possible. No it doesn’t. It says simply that the president will notify Congress that he has made a 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 It does not say that he must rely on the United Nations NATO, Other European allies or anyone else. Hell, it doesn’t even say that he much rely on Congress to make such a determination. It doesn’t say that he must give peace more of a chance than he did. He issued ultimatums to Saddam. He provided a diplomatic solution to the crisis which Saddam rejected (as we all knew he would, of course). Now, it may be true that President Bush did not do as much diplomatically as **you** would have liked. Heck, I have some problems with some of the pre war diplomacy. But the bill in question seems pretty clear that the President has final authority under it to use force in Iraq. I’m sorry, but all of the objections that President Bush did not follow the law (and thus betrayed Senetor Kerry’s trust) is prattle. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2nd-thoughts-on-iraq/245099/46 "2004-05-16T16:11:03Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > In the words of John Kerry, **"Did I expect George Bush > to fuck [Iraq] up as badly as he did? I don’t think anybody did"** I’m sorry, you have whoosed me. I have no idea what relevance this has to the quote from me you seem to have addressed it to. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2nd-thoughts-on-iraq/245099/47 "2004-05-16T23:13:41Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I’m sorry, but all of the objections that President Bush did not follow the law (and thus betrayed Senetor Kerry’s trust) is prattle. Parse it all you want. The bill very clearly stated the Senate’s intent and what it authorized under what conditions. To claim that Bush followed the intent as well as the letter is “prattle”. We don’t use narrow, weasely definitions of words as part of a rationalization of _going to war_, dammit. If you have to resort to narrow wordsmithing to hold up your view, you’ve lost the moral argument already. If you want to continue this pettifogging approach, you’re on your own. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2nd-thoughts-on-iraq/245099/48 "2004-05-17T04:31:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The bill very clearly stated the Senate’s intent and what it authorized under what conditions. This we agree on. > [@](#): > > To claim that Bush followed the intent as well as the letter is “prattle”. I’m not sure I claimed this exactly. The only thing I claimed is that the bill does not contain any clause or language which required President Bush to give peace a chance. > [@](#): > > We don’t use narrow, weasely definitions of words as part of a rationalization of _going to war_, dammit. Agina, we can agree. > [@](#): > > If you have to resort to narrow wordsmithing to hold up your view, you’ve lost the moral argument already. Dude, seriously. I’m quite good at turning words around to make them mean other things than most people would understand them as. I enjoy doing it. But I’m not doing anything of the sort here. I tell you what. You show me anyplace in the bill which agrees with your assertion that “_it says the President shall “make his determination” only after working through the UN as far as possible. Most of the bill refers to that, if you read it_”. The bill as quoted by **rjung** says nothing about working through the UN at all. Let alone “as far as possible”. The problem is that you are not “wordsmithing”. You are lying. The bill does not say the the President shall make any effort whatsoever to try more diplomacy. It does not say that he shall ask the UN one more time, 2 more times, nor that he should “work through [them] as far as possible”. Let me show you what “wordsmithing” would look like from your side of the isle. Clearly the bill implies that President Bush should make a determination that “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” His actions will not hamper the war on terror. Certainly you could argue that in order to make an honest determination he needed to have given the inspectors more time (2 months, 6 months, 12 years, whatever) or that such a determination could not be honestly made in the face of French and Russian resistance to the invasion (certainly they would not have had any other motives than to keep the peace). You see, you could make those arguments. But you have not. You have simply said that the bill clearly required the President to blah blah blah… Reading of it, however, does not require him to do anything at all except notify Congress that he has made certain determinations. ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2nd-thoughts-on-iraq/245099/49 "2004-05-17T10:15:23Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Dude, seriously. I’m quite good at turning words around to make them mean other things than most people would understand them as. I enjoy doing it. Yes, you are and I think everyone clearly realizes this. The question is - do you even understand what you are posting? In any case, you may recall that I asked a while back that we focus on the question of whether anyone has changed their opinion on Iraq, not these stupid back and forth attempts to parse a statement that doesn’t have any relation to the posed question. Why don’t you create another thread if you want to continue with this foolishness? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2nd-thoughts-on-iraq/245099/50 "2004-05-17T23:28:24Z")
As a matter of fact I know exactly what I am posting. The OP, as I understand, was aimed at discussing prominent figures (and posters here) who might have changed their views on the Iraq war. \*\*John Mace[\b] in a very off hand way and with no intention to defend Bush suggested that Kerry might have to answer questions regarding his possible reversal of position on the Iraq war. To this suggestion many of our Bush bashing frineds responded with indignation. They all vehemently opposed the idea that Kerry had ever authorized any war in Iraq. **rjung** went so far as to post a section of Congress’s Authorization of Force Against Iraq resolution and proposed that it proved the bill Kerry had voted for did not grant President Bush permission to invade Iraq. **ElvisL1ves** went a little further and called any other interpretation of the Bill \ my “parsefests” and “shit” (as in cut the…). **elucidator** posted a very lyrical and totally incomprehendable post about walking on water. You, meanwhile, **iamme99** simply complain that no one is following the rules of your OP (dispite the call for you to show that any of the examples in the OP are infact examples of what you claim). Well, if the question of whether or not John Kerry changed his position on the Iraq war is not relevant to this thread, then cool. I’ll drop the subject. I’m not at all sure what you meant by prominent figures changing their minds… Oh wait! Yes I do. You meant that prominent Republicans, Conservatives, or non-Leftists who changed their minds! Oh. That makes sense now. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2nd-thoughts-on-iraq/245099/51 "2004-05-18T10:04:21Z")
Here is an article by Crispin Blunt, a British Conservative MP who has changed his mind… [We are now the problem in Iraq (I supported the war, but only our withdrawal can end insurgency)](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1219078,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2nd-thoughts-on-iraq/245099/52 "2004-05-18T10:52:37Z")
> [@Frankenstein Monster](#): > > Here is an article by Crispin Blunt, a British Conservative MP who has changed his mind… > > [We are now the problem in Iraq (I supported the war, but only our withdrawal can end insurgency)](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1219078,00.html) A balanced and sensible analysis. I fear it will have no impact on the true believers who make the decisions though who are like losing gamblers who just keep upping the stakes in the hope of getting their money back. Just like in Vietnam, it’s ‘just a few more troops, a few more troops’ until we’re up to our arm-pits in the big muddy. As an ex general (who commanded the first troops into Northern Ireland in 1969) said on the News this morning said. “We were told we’d be home by Xmas 1970, we’re still there now.” ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2nd-thoughts-on-iraq/245099/53 "2004-05-18T23:02:53Z")
Tucker Carlson has changed his Iraq view from PRO to CON recently. An excerpt below. > [@](#): > > For years, PBS has been home to paleoliberals like Bill Moyers. But it seems Mr. Carlson has had a change of heart recently. While he’s still a staunch conservative—he’s anti-abortion, married with four kids—he’s changed his mind about the war in Iraq. “I think it’s a total nightmare and disaster, and I’m ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it,” he said. “It’s something I’ll never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who’s smarter than I am, and I shouldn’t have done that. No. I want things to work out, but I’m enraged by it, actually.” > > Mr. Carlson—never really a card-carrying member of the vast right-wing conspiracy—said he had broken off from the hawkish neoconservatives who flogged the war from the get-go. “I’m getting more paleo every day,” he said, referring to the so-called paleoconservatives. > > Mr. Carlson was beginning to sound a bit like former Nixon speechwriter and Crossfire alum Pat Buchanan, another righty who has been an opponent of the war. In the past, said Mr. Carlson, he had made some unfair attacks against Mr. Buchanan, and he was feeling guilty about that, too. > > “Buchanan is a perfect example of somebody who’s been name-called into oblivion,” he said. “And I did some of that. I definitely called Pat a lot of names. And I feel bad about that. I think he deserved some of those names. On the other hand, calling people names is a way of ignoring what they’re saying. It’s actually an outrage, and I actually feel really bad about my role in that.” > > [Full article](http://www.observer.com/pages/nytv.asp) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2nd-thoughts-on-iraq/245099.md?page=2)