# 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:** 30
**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 6, 2013, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/581 "2013-03-06T13:28:27Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I wrote this at least four or five years ago, and have never encountered the anti-war orthodoxy that I have found here, which seems to lean much more to leniency towards Bush, not to the extreme that Iraq Invasion defenders do, but it definitely appears to be a much softer reaction than I’ve found over the years where most war opponents, including late-comers to opposition, have had. > > My early impression of what is causing this subconscious leniency toward Bush from avid opponents of the Iraq invasion is the basic human drive to be able to say “I TOLD YOU SO”. At this point, or rather some time ago, it’s quite clear that you will tolerate only a single opinion, which is that Bush is an evil, mad, liar, who is solely to blame for the Iraq War, and that all other parties involved acted with diligence, integrity, forbearance, wisdom, and foresight, _especially_ Hillary Clinton. Those who disagree with you must have a single motive, which is to defend the honor of George W. Bush. Well, I am now stepping off this particular treadmill. Your rapid-fire sequential posts, your attacks on your opponents’ motives, and your refusal to address questions posed to you have conspired to make me weary of continuing this endless, fruitless, exchange. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/582 "2013-03-06T14:08:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, I am now stepping off this particular treadmill. Your rapid-fire sequential posts, your attacks on your opponents’ motives, and your refusal to address questions posed to you have conspired to make me weary of continuing this endless, fruitless, exchange. -Human Action #581Today, 08:28AM. Good Bye! Thanks for insight and challenging thoughts from a perspective I have not encountered from one who articulates it quite well. As to my alleged “refusal to address questions posed” before you go could you leave behind summary of what you think those, are? If I missed some questions because time constraints prevented me from responding, I will be reviewing the thread to find them; however for you to make the charge, you must have a few on thevtip of your tongue. I also note that in your farewell address you did not complain that my grasp of the facts and that my reliance upon the historical record about the run up to the Iraq invasion is lacking or of low standard. I believe with you that this topic is very critical for lessons learned for posterity. So I will continue to comment and summarize the conversations that went on here. ---
**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 6, 2013, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/583 "2013-03-06T14:43:19Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Good Bye! Thanks for insight and challenging thoughts from a perspective I have not encountered from one who articulates it quite well. Ok, glad you got something out of it. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > As to my alleged “refusal to address questions posed” before you go could you leave behind summary of what you think those, are? > > If I missed some questions because time constraints prevented me from responding, I will be reviewing the thread to find them; however for you to make the charge, you must have a few on thevtip of your tongue. Ok, just in the last two pages: > [@Human Action](#): > > Yes. You think Bush was insane in March of 2003? > [@Human Action](#): > > Are you using the conventional definition of “insane”, or do you mean something like “absurd” or “wrong”? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I also note that in your farewell address you did not complain that my grasp of the facts and that my reliance upon the historical record about the run up to the Iraq invasion is lacking or of low standard. No, that would be rather tacky, to attack your argument in a post where I said I wasn’t continuing said argument. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I believe with you that this topic is very critical for lessons learned for posterity. So I will continue to comment and summarize the conversations that went on here. Ok, more power to you. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/584 "2013-03-06T15:02:51Z")
Here’s a couple of questions ‘not Answered’ from yesterday when I was dealing with posts from at least two other posters. I see I must have exceeded my time limit, but I will get to a response in order of priority as soon as I can. > [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by Human Action > Yes. You think Bush was insane in March of 2003? > Quote: > Originally Posted by Human Action > Are you using the conventional definition of “insane”, or do you mean something like “absurd” or “wrong”? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/585 "2013-03-06T15:57:52Z")
> [@](#): > > I also note that in your farewell address you did not complain that my grasp of the facts and that my reliance upon the historical recordabout the run up to the Iraq invasion is lacking or of low standard. -Ntfldbw #582 Today, 09:08 AM 065a0908 No, that would be rather tacky, to attack your **argument** in a post where I said I wasn’t continuing said argument. -Human Action Today 09:43 AM 065a0908. It goes without saying that Human Action was and should and must attacking my argument, even in leaving; but I did not say anything about my **‘argument’** posted above. I specifically mentioned my use if facts and the historical records. There are at times a disconnect between posts and replies in what is written. That happens and it just happened again. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/586 "2013-03-06T18:33:56Z")
> [@](#): > > “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.” -Human Action #555 Yesterday, 08:55 AM 064a0855 When the AUMF in October 2002 was passed, there were 74 US Senators who authorized the use of military force were saying exactly the same thing that Human Action wrote on March 5, at 05:55 am. ---
**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 6, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/587 "2013-03-06T20:09:59Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > When the AUMF in October 2002 was passed, there were 74 US Senators who authorized the use of military force were saying exactly the same thing that Human Action wrote on March 5, at 05:55 am. Except that **Human Action** would not have let Bush be the sole decider as to whether or not such cooperation was good enough. And that would have made all the difference, as Robert Frost might have said. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/588 "2013-03-07T01:08:31Z")
[QUOTE"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." -[COLOR=“red”] Human Action #555 Yesterday, 05:55 AM 064a0855. “When the AUMF in October 2002 was passed, there were 74 US Senators who authorized the use of military force were saying exactly the same thing that Human Action wrote on March 5, at 05:55 am.” -Ntfldbw #586 Today, 01:33 PM 065p0133. “Except that Human Action would not have let Bush be the sole decider as to whether or not such cooperation was good enough. And that would have made all the difference, as Robert Frost might have said.” -John Mace #587 Today, 03:09 PM. [/COLOR]] [/QUOTE] There are a few critical points that you have missed. (a) Until November in 2002, it is true that that Saddam Hussein was not cooperating with the UN and being disarmed in violaiton of international law. According to Human Action (March 5 at 05:55 AM) “YES”, “war was justified if Hussein refused to cooperate with inspections and disarmament.” (b) It was established as a precedent FOR IRAQ’s Non-Cooperation of its disarmament obligations that at least one President had already use Military Force Against Iraq without an Authorization from Congress. > [@](#): > > Power of a President: United States “Use of Force” without congressional authority > > Panama in 1901; > Dominican Republic in 1904, 1914, 1965; Honduras, 1912; Nicaragua, 1926; Lebanon, 1958; > Cuba, the naval quarantine, 1962; Grenada, 1983; Libya, 1986; Panama, that was just cause in 1989; Somalia in 1992; Sudan, Afghanistan, August of 1998. Desert Fox in December of 1998, Kosovo in March of 1999 > On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress. These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1870, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927 (c) Senator Clinton explained in her October 10, 2002 speech before her vote that, Member States were already authorized under INTERNATIONAL LAW to use Military Force Against Iraq to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions whether the UN Authorized them or not. (d) As seen in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 and during the US and UK enforcement fo the North and South No Fly Zones, Air Strikes were at least an option for starting a war without necessary being combined with a ground invasion. (e) US Ground Forces were already on the ground in Iraq during Desert Fox in the Kurdish Controlled Provinces of Iraq, and had withdrawn (maybe) after Desert Fox was concluded., but the Precedent had been set and the Kurds had a 60,000 man Army ready to go against the Regime. Therefore, Human Action has expressed an opinion that Bush was justified to at least launch air strikes similary to Clinton, and we know that Bush had several options to bring the US into a war against Iraq without an AUMF. And Dick Cheney, the most powerful Vice President in American History - Never wanted to go the ‘UN Last Chance for Saddam’ route. So John, It is apparent that Human Action did not have the power to prevent Bush from being the sole decider of anything, specifically with regard to taking military action against Iraq. I personally think had Blair been able to join in the ‘fun’ without going through the UN first. Bush would have gone the Cheney way… Get Congress approval after some Americans got killed in a limited engagement of some type. It was not sanity that drove Bush to the UN… It was Tony Blair. Bush wanted Blair in on it. (This is an opinion and not necessary for the case I am making) ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/589 "2013-03-07T01:41:00Z")
> [@](#): > > **BUSH MAY REQUEST CONGRESS’S BACKING ON IRAQ, AIDES SAY** > > By NEIL A. LEWIS with DAVID E. SANGER NY Times Published: August 29, 2002 > > Senior administration officials said today that they expected President Bush eventually to seek some new explicit sign of approval from Congress – but not necessarily a formal vote – before launching any military campaign against Iraq. > [http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/29/world/bush-may-request-congress-s-backing-on-iraq-aides-say.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/29/world/bush-may-request-congress-s-backing-on-iraq-aides-say.html) Bush, the WarMonger did take us through a spell before He became the PEACEKEEPER where he didn’t think he needed Congress… Legally… to start a war against Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/590 "2013-03-07T06:23:14Z")
Cooperation 01 > [@](#): > > Just to be clear, Human Action, weren’t you in agreement with Senator Clinton that it was necessary that Iraq be verified disarmed and brought into compliance with its disarmament agreement, as opposed to John Mace’s view that he could care less if Iraq had WMD? - Ntfldbw #526 03-04-2013 03:41 PM 063p0341. > I never thought Iraqi WMDs would be a threat to the U.S. even if they existed, but \*\*there is value in enforcing treaties and holding state actors accountable to them. \*\*It promotes the rule of law, and strong oversight can head off larger disasters (Remilitarization of the Rhineland), for instance. On that basis, I supported the inspection and disarmament process. -Human Action #527 03-04-2013 03:53 PM 063p0353.b This is the start of an interensting exchange regarding Iraq’s cooperation and what cooperation meant or should mean on one’s viewpoint that was bing discussed here. ---
**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 7, 2013, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/591 "2013-03-07T07:00:00Z")
I think we may have discovered a perpetual motion machine. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/592 "2013-03-07T12:12:00Z")
> [@](#): > > John Mace I think we may have discovered a perpetual motion machine. - Today 02:00 AM My response to John M, was in response to his post. See it here: > [@](#): > > #588 NotfooledbyW 03-06-2013 08:08 PM 065p0808 Please note, that I did not attack the poster. I challenged a statement that was made and presented a basis for the challenge. And what do I get? I don’t mind a little funnin’on a personal level… but I was told that it was taboo around here early on. Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/593 "2013-03-07T17:27:11Z")
> [@](#): > > “So John, It is apparent that Human Action did not have the power to prevent Bush from being the sole decider of anything, specifically with regard to taking military actilon against Iraq.” -Ntfldbw #588 Yesterday, 08:08 PM 065p0808. My post #588 may have put a stop to the discussion. That is too bad. I won’t know if the facts and historical conditions I presented can be refuted. I guess I must assume they stand. ---
**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 7, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/594 "2013-03-07T20:44:22Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > My post #588 may have put a stop to the discussion. That is too bad. I won’t know if the facts and historical conditions I presented can be refuted. I guess I must assume they stand. I think a more accurate assumption is that everyone is tried of beating their heads against your wall of stubbornness and your infuriating posting style…I know I was tired of it pages ago. The only one still giving you a pass and still trying to engage you was Human Action, and he wisely gave it up as a bad deal. My advice is to start a new thread if you are really interested in continuing to pursue the subject, and learn how to debate and engage other posters in a good faith manner…and don’t spam multiple posts in a row like you seem to enjoy doing (not sure why the mods let you get away with that, but whatever). Do what you like, however. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/595 "2013-03-07T22:29:46Z")
> [@](#): > > I think a more accurate assumption is that everyone is tried of beating their heads against your wall of stubbornness and your infuriating posting style…I know I was tired of it pages ago. The only one still giving you a pass and still trying to engage you was Human Action, and he wisely gave it up as a bad deal. -XT #594 Today, 03:44 PM 066p0344 Did you read post #588? Stubbornly sticking to facts and reality is not necessarily a vice. And I am not Spamming. As is the case right now, younger not addressing the discussion topic at all. Just griping and insulting I guess. That’s all fine with me. I never complain about how others go about expressing their thoughts. I like to exchange thoughts and facts, and see where they go. I’d think if I wish to summarize in a thoughtful and respectful way what went on in this thread that I find quite interesting and informative, it would be OK. I’m more open minded than you think, but when someone, for instance, knocks down a major point of mine that Iraq made a huge offer for peace to let the CIA in, by telling me that the UNSC would not allow it so no big deal - that’s to me what a forum should be about. That reply was nonsense. And do you weigh in on the many points counter points? Nope. I see where your interests lie, in knocking posters instead of posts. But hey, it is a free world and I respect freedom of Speech, but in my stubborn way, I am going to ask that when you bring complaints against me personally, that you back it up with some examples. It’s all written right here on only one thread. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/596 "2013-03-08T02:14:54Z")
> [@](#): > > “Every commentator in “Hubris” last night when mentioning the authorization used the phrase that Senators and Congressmen “VOTED FOR WAR”. That is not true at all. It does not take but a split second to add the proper “if necessary” to that phrase.” -Ntfldbw #072 02-20 2013 12:14 AM 51a0014.b > **They did vote for war.** Read section (b) of the resolution: It says the President may attack Iraq “as HE determines to be necessary.” Not as an impartial person or body thinks, it invests the decision for war in the President alone. That’s a vote for war. -Ravenman 02-20-2013 07:29 AM 051a0729.a Perhaps Ravenman could have accepted, “they voted to invest the decision in the president to determine if war was necessary” but it sure gets the point across must easier to say “they voted for war if necessary”. When Ravenman states in five words, \*\*“They did vote for war” \*\* that is not true and Ravenman tells us why in the following sentence. What is so precious about saying “THEY VOTED FOR WAR”? The voted at least equally for an alternative outcome to war on two conditions, which were both subsequently met prior to Bush’s determination to start a war. They were, (a) The UNSC passed a Resolution to enforce all WMD Resolutions with regard to Iraq and renew inspections. And (b) Saddam Hussein cooperated fully with that UN Resolution and the three months of inspections. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/597 "2013-03-08T11:19:44Z")
Voted for WAR - Posts #596,597 The big dispute here on this Hubris thread, and among those who most agree overall, that the US invasion of Iraq was wrong and amoral and dumb etc, I see as the primary dispute being over whether Democratic Members of Congress “VOTED FOR WAR” or “VOTED FOR WAR IF NECESSARY”. Perhaps I should redefine why I think it matters. The issue today, and the issue going forward is that there is a general split in opinion about the US invasion of Iraq and Bush’s decision to do it, among those of us who lived through 9/11 and who were witness to the aftermath of that fateful event, including the supercharged period when the Administration’s plans were being laid to invade Iraq over the alleged existence of WMD and the potential nexus of those “wmd” and the war on terror. That split in opinion about the merits or non-merit of the war has settled in at roughly 60 to 40 calling it a mistake. To me that is not good enough for the ‘lessons learned for posterity’ matter that has also been discussed here for two reasons. First it did not happen because of 'mistaken intelligence and secondly 40 percent who are ok with the entire concept of the invasion, for whatever reason, is too high. It is too many people who are not educated to what really happened. That is bad going into the future because as time wears on, the sympathy will tend to drift in favor of, looking back on the war as somehow justified. I think the split should be around 90% accepting that Bush deliberately lied us into the war and it was wrong and can never be justified in any way, while the ten percent of hard core rightwingers would still believe Bush was the greatest thing that ever happened and Iraq deserved what it got. I believe the compliant news media is content with a 60/40 split going into history because it relieves them of their being accessories to the crime that Bush committed when he decided to kick the UN Inspectors out of Iraq. There are things going for the News Media and the Pro-Bushies that enter into this. The $10 to $13 Billion Abrams Tanks, F-16 Fighters and other military hardware arms sales to Iraq will make the war more over time seem more palatable and worthwhile. Bush Sr will pass away, sympathy will dribble down to Junior and the historical revisionism will really start to kick in with regard to Iraq. So to me, it matters how we who have a keen interest in this moments in history, can reveal what really happened. What was the mood at the time. What the vote for war really meant. Why is the fact that Iraq COOPERATED with UN inspectors so important. This thread sheds light on all that stuff. It is a shame that it turned into a Let’s villify different thought than the sitting majority kind of thing. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2013, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/598 "2013-03-09T00:20:35Z")
Ten years ago at this time, the scam for war was in full force by the Bush White House. From March 07, through March 17, 2003 the President of the United States clearly was detached from reality to end up producing this report for delivery to Congress as an explanation for the necessity for war. > [@](#): > > On March 7, 2003, the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain presented a draft resolution that would have established for Iraq a March 17 deadline to cooperate fully with disarmament demands. > > Since the adoption of UNSCR 1441 in November 2002, there have been numerous calls and meetings by President Bush and the Secretary of State with other world leaders to **try to find a diplomatic or other peaceful way to disarm Iraq.** > > On March 13, 2003, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN asked for members of the UNSC to consider seriously a British proposal to establish six benchmarks that would be used to measure whether or not the regime in Iraq is coming into full, immediate, and unconditional compliance with the pertinent UN resolutions. > > On March 16, 2003, the President traveled to the Azores to meet with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar to assess the situation and confirm > that diplomatic and other peaceful means have been attempted to achieve Iraqi compliance with all relevant UNSC resolutions. > > Despite these diplomatic and peaceful efforts, Iraq remains in breach of relevant UNSC resolutions and a threat to the United States and other > countries. > > **Further diplomatic efforts were suspended reluctantly after, as the President observed on March 17, “some permanent members of the Security Council ha[d] publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq.”** > > The lesson learned after twelve years of Iraqi defiance is that \*\*the appearance of progress on process is meaningless \*\*- what is necessary is immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation in the complete > disarmament of Iraq’s prohibited weapons. > > As a result of its repeated failure to cooperate with efforts aimed at actual disarmament, \*\*Iraq has retained weapons of mass destruction \*\*that it agreed, as an essential condition of the cease-fire in 1991, not to develop or possess. > > [Text: U.S. Has Clear Authority to Use Force Against Iraq](http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030319-usia08.htm) ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/599 "2013-03-09T02:06:13Z")
Some on tell me this is sane. War was necessary because two UNSC Members would VETO war when, “THE APPEARANCE OF PROGRESS ON the PROCESS of inspections” was the reality. > [@](#): > > Further diplomatic efforts were suspended reluctantly after, as the President observed on March 17, “some permanent members of the Security Council ha[d] publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq.” The lesson learned after twelve years of Iraqi defiance is that \*\*the appearance of progress on process is meaningless \*\*- > > [http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...319-usia08.htm](http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...319-usia08.htm) And there is an outright lie in this statement. Bush says UNSC members would veto any resolution that compels disarmament of Iraq when Iraq was being disarmed like it never had been disarmed before. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2013, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/600 "2013-03-09T09:28:01Z")
Voted for WAR 03 - Posts #596,597,600 Here we see an example that with many to blame, none can be held accountable. Hillary Clinton is as much to blame, (Prison Time) as Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. I have pointed out why a war crimes court would not bring Hillary Clinton to the proceedings if they ever did take place. More on that aspect as the summary continues. > [@](#): > > “Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret ‘the way the president used the authority.’” -Hillary Clinton, April 2004 posted w/050a0959. > > “That was 1 year after the invasion, btw.” \*\*-John Mace \*\*02-19-2013 09:59 AM 050a0959 > > “Let’s throw every single one of those criminal motherfuckers in jail. That’s fine with me.” **- Dick Dastardly** 02-19-2013 10:03 AM 050a1003. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759.md?page=31)