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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Sigh…seriously man, did you READ the freaking poll? Here, let me help you out as to the point John was making:
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:
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:
You gots to read the whole section here:
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.
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.
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?
You left the summary about working with the UN on Iraq out of your response:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And the resolution that was passed quite certainly did leave the matter open to the President invading Iraq needlessly.
I still don’t know if you mean “sane” in the sense of “of sound mind, not deranged” or something like “rational” or “logical”.
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:
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.
[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:
And stated this:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
: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.
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.