# Hubris: The Iraq War **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 19, 2013, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759 "2013-02-19T02:07:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/541 "2013-03-05T01:38:19Z")
> [@](#): > > “…it’s interesting to see that most Americans were not fooled by W” \*\*-John Mace \*\*#537 03-04-2013 07:16 PM 063p0716 According to the Poll John Mace likes to cite, the Public was fooled by W into believing that Bush wanted to work with the UN. Where did they get that? "? John Mace posted a link to to this CBS Poll: > [@](#): > > DOES BUSH WANT U.S. TO WORK WITH THE U.N.? > 10/02 9/02 > Yes 57% 49% > No 38% 40% > > -From CBS LINK Posted by John Mace 03-04-2013 07:16 PM > [@](#): > > “Some of us we Not Fooled By W even in 2002” \*\*-John Mace \*\*02-25-2013 07:20 PM 56p0720 > > But so many are fooled into believing that the “Decider” was not the “Lone Decider” who kicked the inspectors out… …in order to start a war to disarm Iraq **violently** instead of letting the inspections continue.\*\* -Ntfldbw \*\*02-25-2013 07:58 PM 056p0758 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/542 "2013-03-05T02:32:17Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > According to the Poll John Mace likes to cite, the Public was fooled by W into believing that Bush wanted to work with the UN. Where did they get that? "? John Mace posted a link to to this CBS Poll: He did work with the UN. And then later he decide he had worked enough. The key point, though, is that Americans knew he was itching for war. And when you know someone is itching for war, you don’t write him a blank check to go to war. Unless, of course, you ARE fooled by W. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/543 "2013-03-05T03:54:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Senator Levin offered an amendment which **authorized war if the UNSC also authorized war** , but if the US were to go it alone, there would have to be another vote in Congress. Biden, Clinton, and most Democrats voted against it. -Ravenman 02-20-2013 07:29 AM 051a0729.c Had the Levin Amendment passed and Bush agreed to it, then as Senator Clinton points out there were two or three permanment members of the UNSC that held VETO power over Bush’s drive for war. > [@](#): > > In the case of Iraq\*,{under a Levin Amendment Scenario}\* recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons. > > If we get \*,{under the actual AUMF Scenario}\*the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. > > -\* Excerpts from October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of \*\*Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton \*\*on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq’ Brkts mine ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/544 "2013-03-05T04:03:06Z")
No, Bush could have returned to Congress. Then Congress could have assessed whether a nearly unilateral, unauthorized war was justified. In essance, Congress would have had the chance to veto the vetoes. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/545 "2013-03-05T04:08:17Z")
> [@](#): > > DOES BUSH WANT U.S. TO WORK WITH THE U.N.? > 10/02 9/02 > Yes 57% 49% > No 38% 40% > > -From CBS LINK Posted by John Mace 03-04-2013 07:16 PM The above is translated by John Mace to this: > [@](#): > > The key point, though, is that Americans knew he was **itching for war**. And when you know someone is itching for war… -John Mace #542 Today, 09:32 PM 063p That sure looks like re-writing history to me. According to John Mace’s cited poll, most Americans were convinced for some reason that Bush was \*\*‘itching for peace’ \*\*by working through the UN. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/546 "2013-03-05T04:20:15Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The President of the U.S. does not vote in the UN Security Council. . . . What degree of independence does the Ambassador have? Can the President say to him, “You’re going to vote no” and make it stick? Does it ever happen? Does it ever happen that the Ambassador says, in response, “I’m voting yes, and you can shove it?” I had always thought that the Ambassador – all ambassadors – were pretty much under the President’s direct orders. Do they ever assert independence in a really dramatic kind of way? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/547 "2013-03-05T04:29:29Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The above is translated by John Mace to this: > > That sure looks like re-writing history to me. According to John Mace’s cited poll, most Americans were convinced for some reason that Bush was \*\*‘itching for peace’ \*\*by working through the UN. Sigh…seriously man, did you READ the freaking poll? Here, let me help you out as to the point John was making: > [@](#): > > WILL U.S. END UP FIGHTING IN IRAQ? > > Now > Yes 70% > No 24% > > 09/02 > Yes 78% > No 17% I’d say that is pretty clear evidence that they knew Bush was leading us to war in Iraq. They also knew exactly why we were going there: > [@](#): > > BUSH: MORE INTERESTED IN REMOVING HUSSEIN OR WEAPONS? > Removing Hussein 53% > Removing weapons of mass destruction 29% So, at least according to this poll here, WMD was clearly only a smoke screen by Bush et al…it’s pretty clear that at least the folks taking this poll knew it was all about getting SH. As to this: > [@](#): > > DOES BUSH WANT U.S. TO WORK WITH THE U.N.? > 10/02 9/02 > Yes 57% 49% > No 38 40 You gots to read the whole section here: > [@](#): > > However, more Americans believe the Bush administration is generally too quick to use force than to try diplomatic solutions in its dealings with foreign countries. 50% say the Bush administration is too quick to get military forces involved, and 40% say the Administration tries hard enough to reach diplomatic solutions first. > > And most Americans still do not believe the Bush administration has a clear plan for the campaign against terrorism; they say it is simply reacting to events. 54% say the administration is simply reacting to events as they occur, while 41% say the administration has a clear plan. These feelings are virtually unchanged from September. But Americans do think the Administration has a clear plan for taking military action against Iraq: 52% believe it does. > > On the Congressional front, a majority of Americans feel Bush has tried to compromise with Democrats in Congress in order to get things done. 53% say that the President has done so. Just slightly fewer, 50%, believe the Democrats have really tried to work with Bush to get things done. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/548 "2013-03-05T04:41:54Z")
And, of course, history tells us that anyone who was FOOLED BY W was wrong. You can play all the games you want, but the fact is, those who were FOOLED BY W made the mistake in being FOOLED BY W. We didn’t need to wait until the events unfolded. We knew what was playing out. I am someone who was NOT FOOLED BY W. Maybe I can change my username to that. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/549 "2013-03-05T06:07:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Senator Levin offered an amendment which authorized war if the UNSC also authorized war, but if the US were to go it alone, there would have to be another vote in Congress. Biden, Clinton, and most Democrats voted against it. -Ravenman 02-20-2013 07:29 AM 051a0729.c > [@](#): > > Had the Levin Amendment passed and Bush agreed to it, then as Senator Clinton points out there were two or three permanment members of the UNSC that held VETO power over Bush’s drive for war. -Ntfldbw #543 Today, 10:54 PM 063p1054 > [@](#): > > No, Bush could have returned to Congress. Then Congress could have assessed whether a nearly unilateral, unauthorized war was justified. In essance, Congress would have had the chance to veto the vetoes -Ravenman #544 Today, 11:03 PM 063p1103 At what point do you accpet the reality that the Levin Amendment never had a prayer? First of all it died on a 75-24 vote, and second of all it might have or might not have left the matter open to possibilities such as no UN resolution and no solid inspections where the world at least got to see the UN and Iraq finally get their act together, until Bush alone destroyed the peaceful verification that Iraq was disarmed. I saw yesterday that some “IF NECESSARY” deniers would say that Bush’s claim is sane, that kicking UN inspectors out and starting war instead, is exhausting all peaceful efforts and trying to work with the UN. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/550 "2013-03-05T06:32:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And, of course, history tells us that anyone who was FOOLED BY W was wrong. You can play all the games you want, but the fact is, those who were FOOLED BY W made the mistake in being FOOLED BY W. We didn’t need to wait until the events unfolded. **We knew what was playing out**. I am someone who was NOT FOOLED BY W. Maybe I can change my username to that. > [@](#): > > As noted, I didn’t care if SH had WMDs or not. I did not consider him a threat to the US. -John Mace 02-23-2013 04:29 PM 054p0429 There was a much bigger consensus in the country that did care, right or wrong. But that does not negate any US President/Administration need to keep the integrity of that Office intact by telling the truth to US Senators when he speaks direct to them and takes questions from them concerning matters of national security and war. So you knew that Bush would kick UN inspectors out… after giving his word that he wouldn’t if he got them back in? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/551 "2013-03-05T06:52:34Z")
> [@XT](#): > > As to this: > You gots to read the whole section here: You left the summary about working with the UN on Iraq out of your response: > [@](#): > > DOES BUSH WANT U.S. TO WORK WITH THE U.N.? > 10/02 9/02 > Yes 57% 49% > No 38 40 > > A majority, 57%, also believes George W. Bush DOES want the U.S. to work with the United Nations, though more than a third (38%) remain unconvinced\*\*. Bush has made strides in showing his willingness to work with the U.N. since September, when under half of Americans (49%) believed he really wanted to work with the United Nations.\*\* A nine percent jump in one month on impression that Bush wants to work with the UN… My point has been that Bush began promoting himself as ‘peacekeeper’ with regard to Iraq … and those of you who wish to help Bush keep it secret that UN inspections actually were working… and that he never told anybody that he wanted to avoid war if the inspections worked, need to acknowledge that Bush did sell himself as a peacekeeper to get his authorization the way he wanted it. And the last paragraphs you cited appear to be opinions on Bush’s diplomacy in general, not just dealing with Iraq… That’s allies too… I suppose. I have been talking about Iraq specifically. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/552 "2013-03-05T12:11:45Z")
This was written in May 2003, just presenting the political atmosphere right after Busd decided to kick UN inspectors out of Iraq and insanely start a war instead. > [@](#): > > Deciphering the democrats’ debacle: why the republican majority (probably) won’t last. > That brings us to the GOP’s biggest advantage in the last election and the one they’re clearly relying on to carry them through the next: war and national security. Right now, the Bush administration’s war in Iraq enjoys the support of about 70 percent of the American public. But even this advantage is unlikely to last. The war is temporarily suppressing Americans’ genuine skepticism about the administration’s approach to foreign policy, and the underlying softness of their support means that they could quickly tire of a lengthy occupation and the ancillary foreign and security problems. > > **For example, before the invasion, polls showed that Americans opposed invading Iraq without U.N. support and strongly supported giving weapons inspectors more time,** reflecting the public’s overwhelming view that Iraq was a long-range, not an immediate, threat’ And while general, no-conditions-specified questions about military action against Saddam always elicited support, this ebbed once stipulations were raised about U.S, and even Iraqi, casualties or about the possibility of a long-term occupation–now a certainty. Moreover, moderates and independents held these viewpoints more strongly than the broader public, indicating that this was the true center of U.S. public opinion. > > In other words, the public held a very different view of Iraq than the president did. > > **The administration espoused an evolving ideology that essentially relies on asserting unilateral American power, while the public preferred a more nuanced and pragmatic approach of working through allies–more Wesley Clark if you will, than Donald Rumsfeld. And, like Clark, they were inclined to see Iraq as more of an “elective war” than one waged out of necessity**. > > Of course, after the troops hit the ground, these doubts and nuances gave way to patriotic support. But they remain, evident even in post-invasion polls–such as Gallup’s–that consistently find just 59 percent supporting the war as “the right thing to do,” while the remaining 11-13 percent who favor it do so out of a desire “to support the troops” (25-27 percent oppose the war outright). > > There is more doubt and even opposition than during the first Gulf War or the attack against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Consequently, the public is less likely to cut Bush slack if the Middle East situation worsens than it was immediately following 9/11. > > Besides, to truly benefit from being hawkish, it helps if your opponent is a softie. > > [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Deciphering+the+democrats’+debacle%3A+why+the+republican+majority](http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Deciphering+the+democrats'+debacle%3a+why+the+republican+majority)…-a0101861605 ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/553 "2013-03-05T12:36:51Z")
How many Americans and or Democrats do you think hold a robust fixation on the Levin Amendment “what if” scenario? Immediately afterward through the present. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/554 "2013-03-05T13:20:04Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > How many Americans and or Democrats do you think hold a robust fixation on the Levin Amendment “what if” scenario? Immediately afterward through the present. After the invasion, what difference does it make? In fact, after the AUMF vote in Oct 2002, it was too late. The die was cast. Most Americans, as my poll showed, knew that Bush was more interested in getting SH than in WMDs. They needn’t be concerned with the nuances of legislation such as the Levin Amendment. Their Senators are supposed to look out for that kind of stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/555 "2013-03-05T13:55:50Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > There had to be another way to stop the he’ll bent for leather drive for war that paid no heed to intelligence and known realities at that time. As a matter of fact, there was: Congress could have withheld authorization for war, or tied the authorization to a UNSC resolution instead of the President’s opinions. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > If I wrote, "the threat of Iraq’s possible possession of WMD needed to be eliminated"would that clear it up for you. Being accurate does require mentioning that it was not known for certain whether Iraq had WMD or not in October 2002. > > It’s done in the way we have been discussing for a week or so. Completing the UN Inspection Process. > > So may I ask again? I think you’re asking me if war was justified if Hussein refused to cooperate with inspections and disarmament. If that is what you’re asking, my answer is yes. > [@Trinopus](#): > > What degree of independence does the Ambassador have? Can the President say to him, “You’re going to vote no” and make it stick? Does it ever happen? Does it ever happen that the Ambassador says, in response, “I’m voting yes, and you can shove it?” > > I had always thought that the Ambassador – all ambassadors – were pretty much under the President’s direct orders. Do they ever assert independence in a really dramatic kind of way? The same independence as any other member of the Department of State, I imagine: if your higher-ups don’t like the job you’re doing, you can be replaced, though in this particular job, the candidate must be confirmed by the Senate. I only mentioned it because saying that Bush voted for resolution 1441 is simply inaccurate. His Administration’s Ambassador, John Negroponte, did. **NotfooledbyW** has said that Bush “approved of” and “embraced” 1441, and I made no objection, but saying Bush voted for it is simply factually untrue. **NotfooledbyW** ’s stated mission is to correct the historical record and fight myths, so I thought the correction was warranted. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > At what point do you accpet the reality that the Levin Amendment never had a prayer? > > First of all it died on a 75-24 vote, and second of all it might have or might not have left the matter open to possibilities such as no UN resolution and no solid inspections where the world at least got to see the UN and Iraq finally get their act together, until Bush alone destroyed the peaceful verification that Iraq was disarmed. And the resolution that was passed quite certainly **did** leave the matter open to the President invading Iraq needlessly. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I saw yesterday that some “IF NECESSARY” deniers would say that Bush’s claim is sane, that kicking UN inspectors out and starting war instead, is exhausting all peaceful efforts and trying to work with the UN. I still don’t know if you mean “sane” in the sense of “of sound mind, not deranged” or something like “rational” or “logical”. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > But that does not negate any US President/Administration need to keep the integrity of that Office intact by telling the truth to US Senators when he speaks direct to them and takes questions from them concerning matters of national security and war. Have you ever entertained the possibility that Bush was being truthful, but was just badly mistaken and engaging in biased and fallacious thinking? You’ve never addressed that, though I’ve mentioned it many times. I’ve quoted HRC on this matter, here’s [Hans Blix’s take:](http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml) > [@](#): > > Amanpour pressed him to identify the source of that momentum - in effect, why did the U.S. invasion of Iraq seem in retrospect such a foreordained action? Partly it was because, despite the lack of evidence for remaining WMDs, the Bush administration continued to believe in them, Blix said. Although he places some of the blame on a failure of U.S. intelligence processes - the Pentagon relied too much on its own “silo” of sources rather than more heavily vetted intelligence from the CIA and the State Department, as has been documented extensively by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker - the real problem was the lack of “critical thinking,” he argued. > > “In academia, when you write your thesis, you have an opponent on the faculty and you must defend it. And in a court, there is cross-examination from the prosecutor,” said Blix. But in the intelligence arena, because of the confidentiality of the subject matter, it is difficult to find those who will play devil’s advocate. The Bush Administration, he said, did not try. “They took away the question marks [in the reports] and put in exclamation points instead!” > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > This was written in May 2003, just presenting the political atmosphere right after Busd decided to kick UN inspectors out of Iraq and insanely start a war instead. Boy, sounds like the public needed, nay, _deserved_, a Congress that would put their views into law, instead of one that sold out to the President. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/556 "2013-03-05T14:04:38Z")
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] You left the summary about working with the UN on Iraq out of your response: [/QUOTE] Are you being deliberately obtuse? You are an extremely frustrating poster to try and have a conversation with. I left this out because it’s irrelevant to the side discussion. Here is what John said: [QUOTE=John Mace] The key point, though, is that Americans knew he was itching for war. And when you know someone is itching for war… [/QUOTE] To which you posted a part of the poll that is irrelevant to that statement: > [@](#): > > DOES BUSH WANT U.S. TO WORK WITH THE U.N.? > 10/02 9/02 > Yes 57% 49% > No 38% 40% > > -From CBS LINK Posted by John Mace 03-04-2013 07:16 PM And stated this: > [@](#): > > That sure looks like re-writing history to me. According to John Mace’s cited poll, most Americans were convinced for some reason that Bush was ‘itching for peace’ by working through the UN. To which I corrected you, since it’s clear you HADN’T read through the whole poll, and instead did some sort of odd cherry picking to make some obscure point about how Americans felt about working with the UN. Here is the part in the poll that shows what John was trying to say…namely that ‘that Americans knew he was itching for war’. John wasn’t re-writing history…merely trying to fight your clear ignorance on this subject that you are so passionate about. As has many other posters in this thread, most notably Ravenman and Human Action, to name but a few of the guys doing the best job here. > [@](#): > > WILL U.S. END UP FIGHTING IN IRAQ? > > Now > Yes 70% > No 24% > > 09/02 > Yes 78% > No 17% I’d say that 70/24 is a pretty good indication of ‘most’…and do you note that they clearly felt we WERE going to war (under Bush’s direction) even though they felt we should work more closely with the UN and pursue the inspection route more before pulling the trigger? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/557 "2013-03-05T15:16:36Z")
> [@](#): > > After all, if you’re convinced Iraq has WMDs, and they invite you in to make sure they don’t, that just means they’ve hidden them very, very well, right? And when months go by and UNMOVIC hasn’t found what you are certain must be there, the only option is war, right? Such is the grip of fallacious thinking, and confirmation bias. -Human Events#522 Yesterday, 01:58 PM 063p0158. That is what Bush and pro-Bushies are saying to justify Bush’s decision to kick inspectors out. Are you calling fallacious thinking what you previosly call sane language from Bush when he told us he had to kick inspectors out because the UN failed to act. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/558 "2013-03-05T15:26:25Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That is what Bush and pro-Bushies are saying to justify Bush’s decision to kick inspectors out. Yes, exactly. I was trying to illustrate the type of thinking that probably led to that decision. You’re convinced it was lies, I suspect it was a complete lack of critical thinking or outside perspectives. Even if Congress should expect the President to never lie, (and they shouldn’t), they **should** expect all humans, Presidents included, to, at times, display biased and fallacious thinking. Conclusion: don’t hand broad, unchecked powers to one man with an agenda, then act shocked that he pursued that agenda using the powers you gave him. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Are you calling fallacious thinking what you previosly call sane language from Bush when he told us he had to kick inspectors out because the UN failed to act. I can’t answer that until you explain what you mean by “sane”. If you mean “sane” as opposed to “insane”, yes, the decision was sane. If you mean “sane” as “reasonable” or “rational”, no, it was not reasonable or rational. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/559 "2013-03-05T15:26:34Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That is what Bush and pro-Bushies are saying to justify Bush’s decision to kick inspectors out. Are you calling fallacious thinking what you previosly call sane language from Bush when he told us he had to kick inspectors out because the UN failed to act. :rolleyes: He’s rather patiently trying to explain to you Bush’s rationale for doing what he did, not endorsing it. This is going over your head, but no one in this thread, afaik, supports Bush or his decision to to take us to war. I’m probably the closest thing to anyone who is posting in this thread as supporting the war, which I did AT THE TIME, but no longer do. Just about everyone else you are arguing with here either opposed Bush at the time or has come to oppose the decision, in some cases quite vehemently, and who are trying to explain why, while they agree with you that it was a bad idea, it’s pretty obvious you don’t really understand the events that transpired NOR clearly do you understand even the arguments of those trying to reach you in this thread…nor, sadly, are you picking up on all the sarcasm being ladled on you that is also going over your head in this thread. ETA: Sorry Human Action…should have just waited for you to explain it yourself to him. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/560 "2013-03-05T15:57:27Z")
> [@](#): > > WILL U.S. END UP FIGHTING IN IRAQ? > > Now > Yes 70% > No 24% > > 09/02 > Yes 78% > No 17%. > [@](#): > > I’d say that 70/24 is a pretty good indication of ‘most’…and do you note that they clearly felt we WERE going to war (under Bush’s direction) -XT #556 Today, 09:04 AM 064a0904. Do you know that the responders were conceding that war was likely because Saddam Hussein was not going to cooperate and then the UN would authorize it. And notice the 8% increase in optimism that we would not go to war from the month before. Bush was selling his role as peacekeeper in chief and was working in the eyes of the public. And that us because in September 2002, the rift between Powell and Cheney on going throuh the UN became somewhat public, but the President publically sided with Powell. Bush was selling his peacemaker creds along with the idea that given the authority to use force up front, would more force the UN and SH to act and be disarmed peacefully. You may not like that argument, but it had some validity during the dynamics in play at the time. My point is that the Peace Play by Bush is as relevant as the War Plays by Bush and should not be shelved because so many here are perturbed that Dem Lawmakers didn’t vote for the Levin Amendment so hypothetically Bush’s crazed and mad push for war would not be stopped. Mace, attempted to rewrite history by emphasizing the publics recogognition that war was more likely than not. Like I said that perception could be based on no trust that Saddam would back down in the way that he actually did. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759.md?page=29)