# NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 20, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475 "2013-06-20T16:02:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 30
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/581 "2013-07-19T03:00:20Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I was not in Congress at the time. But you are too stupid to understand that at the time of the vote it would not have been an unjustified war. Iraq was in violation of international law and the vast majority of Congress members saw that violation of international law would have justified war. That is if Iraq did not submit to inspections. Utter, self-serving bullshit. Lots of countries are in violation of international law. The only legitimate reason to support an action that authorizes military force is to use that force to prevent such a nation from engaging in war. Since Iraq was never going to initiate a war, the AUMF was clearly a pretext. Until you provide evidence of your support for similar AUMF resolutions against all the other countries that were (and are) in violation of international law, you are simply acknowledging that you were fooled by W into supporting his previously announced desire to find some sort of excuse to launch a needless war against Iraq. Your final sentence is extremely ironic in that Iraq never halted the inspections in the first place. The original inspectors were pulled out by the UN when it found that the U.S. had been using the inspection teams to spy on Iraq (in violation of international law) and the U.S. notified them that they would be in the way when Operation Desert Fox was launched. There is no evidence that a threat of military force was required to get inspection teams back into Iraq. Simply keeping the CIA off such teams might have been sufficient. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/582 "2013-07-19T03:41:11Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Lots of countries are in violation of international law. Name one other country that invaded another country, got its ass kicked out of that country, by an international coalition and signed a peace agreement that stipulated it would be disarmed of WMD and a decade later was not verified disarmed of WMD. Name another country besides Iraq in 2002 from your ‘lots’ of countries from your arsenal of very weak arguments. How many UNMOVIC operations were waiting for the offending nation to allow them to come in and finish the job? Your whole argument means nothing since your point is so weak and Baseless? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/583 "2013-07-19T03:59:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post > Lots of countries are in violation of international law. Maybe Mace can explain the majority perception of most lawmakers and most Americans back in 2002 - about the WMDs in Iraq and Iraq’s violation of international law. > [@](#): > > You will note that while many countries did not approve of the US’s action in Iraq, not one country officially came in on the side of Iraq. Not one. I think I outlined fairly well what the US’s justifications were, and while Bush did a lousy job articulating things, it does all come down to the Gulf War of the 90s and subsequent resolutions passed to enforce the permanent disarmament of S.H.s regime. It was clear to me that S.H. did his best to violate the letter and the spirit of that disarmament plan, and therefore the US was justified in invading. - John Mace 07-20-2003 02:44 PM > > Read More: 20030718a1045 Going to war under false pretenses – Bob Graham -Impeachment justified ([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=198596](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=198596)) Those who voted to use the threat of military force to bring Iraq into compliance with his disarmament agreements included the words in the AUMF in support of Bush to continue seeking a UN Resolution demanding resumed inspections and that Bush was authorized to use military force in the event that it was needed to enforce ALL relevant UN Resolutions regarding Iraq. And that included 1441 if it came to pass. And 1441 did come to pass and Iraq cooperated proactively under 1441. And I guess we will see you go away without addressing that point. and this one. Iraq was in violation of international law in October 2002… But Iraq was not in violation of international law in March 2003 when 1441 was still in effect and there were no plans by the UNSC to end it. Bush was required by the AUMF to ENFORCE 1441 but he didn’t. So since he didn’t it is absurd to blame lawmakers for authorizing the use of force under certain conditions that Bush did not adhere to. The fault has to go to Bush. Congress did not actually authorize the war that Bush started in March 2003 because he did not enforce all UN Resolutions including 1441 at the time he started it. You are fooled by Dubya into believing that Iraq was not cooperating according to Dubya so Dubya had no choice but to wage a war based upon that. You are all suckers who believe Bush on that score. Bush could not ENFORCE 1441 because Iraq was cooperating too much and it was even called proactive by Blix and France Germany Canada, India and several other UNSC Members at the time said … NO WAR to Dubya. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/584 "2013-07-19T04:18:45Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Name one other country that invaded another country, got its ass kicked out of that country, by an international coalition and signed a peace agreement that stipulated it would be disarmed of WMD and a decade later was not verified disarmed of WMD. This is an irrelevant dodge. In 2002, Iraq was simply not a threat to any country. Running around pretending that its two previous defeats justified military force against it is about the equivalent of declaring an AUMF against Italy and Bulgaria in 2002, based on their “history” of aggression in the 1930s and 1940s. Since Iraq was not going to be an aggressor, the AUMF was irresponsible and unjustified. Your support of Bush’s announced plan of 1999 is duly noted. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > How many UNMOVIC operations were waiting for the offending nation to allow them to come in and finish the job? Since UNMOVIC removed itself at the behest of the U.S., in preparation for an attack, with neither a request nor an order by Iraq, there is no reason to believe that military force was required to allow it or a similar group to return to Iraq. AUMF was simply the Bush pretext that you swallowed and which you now spend hundreds of pages of text defending to cover your own embarrassment. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/585 "2013-07-19T04:20:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Your final sentence is extremely ironic in that Iraq never halted the inspections in the first place. The original inspectors were pulled out by the UN when it found that the U.S. had been using the inspection teams to spy on Iraq (in violation of international law) and the U.S. notified them that they would be in the way when Operation Desert Fox was launched. Are you able to provide documentation for your claim… President Clinton tells it differently. > [@](#): > > The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we’ve had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down. > > Faced with Saddam’s latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam’s actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. > > Eight Arab nations – Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman – warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN. > > When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. \*\*It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. \*\* > I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. > > I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq’s own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. > > Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq’s cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM’s chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan. > > The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. > > In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars. > > Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party’s other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. > > Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM’s ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM’s effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. > > It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM’s questions. > > Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. > > Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection. > > So Iraq has abused its final chance. > > As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq’s conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. > > \*\*“In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq’s prohibited weapons program.” \*\*In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. > > Saddam’s deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. > > This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. > > And so we had to act and act now. > > Let me explain why. > > First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. > > Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community – led by the United States – has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday – make no mistake – he will use it again as he has in the past. > > Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region. > > That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team – including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser – I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. > **[Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998](https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html)** ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/586 "2013-07-19T04:23:23Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Maybe Mace can explain the majority perception of most lawmakers and most Americans back in 2002 - about the WMDs in Iraq and Iraq’s violation of international law. I have never claimed that Bush’s little propaganda effort was unsuccessful. I do not even spend any time criticizing other people who were taken in by that ploy. Bush ran a successful campaign of disinformation. I do, however, point and laugh at people who swallowed it then, and now continue to believe that hype, all the while posting a lot of nonsense to defend their error by pretending that the conditions, then, were different than we now know them to have been. You are just silly. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/587 "2013-07-19T04:45:49Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This is an irrelevant dodge. > In 2002, Iraq was simply not a threat to any country. Running around pretending that its two previous defeats justified military force against it is about the equivalent of declaring an AUMF against Italy and Bulgaria in 2002, based on their “history” of aggression in the 1930s and 1940s. > > Since Iraq was not going to be an aggressor, the AUMF was irresponsible and unjustified. Your support of Bush’s announced plan of 1999 is duly noted. > > Since UNMOVIC removed itself at the behest of the U.S., in preparation for an attack, with neither a request nor an order by Iraq, there is no reason to believe that military force was required to allow it or a similar group to return to Iraq. > AUMF was simply the Bush pretext that you swallowed and which you now spend hundreds of pages of text defending to cover your own embarrassment. Quite dodgy to bring up artful dodge when your use of ‘lots’ can’t even produce one other similar situation. We are talking about Iraq and WMD and inspections here. You are real clever in the way you discuss things. There’s no point counter point with you. You make an assertion and you essentially come right back with the same assertion supported by nothing and with no specific response to my reply. And then again we see your other typical melodies where you put some words together suggesting I said it… Such as " **Running around pretending that its two previous defeats justified military force against "** … I didn’t suggest that at all. Who are you arguing against? And what is with the “Since Iraq was not going to be the aggressor” … trip down the irrelevant road. This is about enforcing international law… That is why the UNSC voted unanimously in favor of forcing Iraq to get into compliance under Res 1441. And you are just like Ravenman… holding a view that Iraq was no threat, but over 2/3 of our lawmakers would have told you that you were wrong… even without Bush’s hype of the WMD matter in a post 911 world. You walked away from that point a while back… Did you think I would forget? I’m pointing out the reality of the times in 2002 prior to the vote in October for the AUMF. Those in control of the power Democrat and Republican saw Iraq as a significant threat… All members on the UNSC saw Iraq as a threat… because of its disarmament violations. You can’t pooh pooh that reality away just because you don’t like it. It really was not me that put all those people in charge. So some Democrats negotiated perhaps the best realistic AUMF that tied Bush to certain things. Then Bush didn’t do the one big certain thing … ENFORCE ALL UNSC relevant resolutions regarding Iraq. It wasn’t UMMOVIC in 1998 and I don’t believe you have the story right. Perhaps you can verify your sources… ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/588 "2013-07-19T04:58:36Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I have never claimed that Bush’s little propaganda effort was unsuccessful. I do not even spend any time criticizing other people who were taken in by that ploy. Bush ran a successful campaign of disinformation. > > I do, however, point and laugh at people who swallowed it then, and now continue to believe that hype, all the while posting a lot of nonsense to defend their error by pretending that the conditions, then, were different than we now know them to have been. > > You are just silly. Never said you claimed that Bush’s little propaganda effort was unsuccessful. I showed you by polling that Bush’s hype had little or no effect on the opinions of folks on whether Iraq was a threat or not. you need to go back and read what transpired along those lines. I did not swallow Bush’s hype at all. I have been pointing out that you and others continue to swallow Bush’s real war making assertion that Iraq did not cooperate with the 2003 inspectors when you refuse to consider it when passing judgment on what Lawmakers did five months earlier. At least when the AUMF was passed, there were no UN Inspectors in Iraq and an argument of whether that justified the threat of force or the use of force had credibility. But when Bush actually decided to use that force he was granted… there were several months of accomplished and meaningful inspections put on the books. That major distinction means nothing to you for some strange reason. And Bush is a happy man that so many on the left feel that need to agree with Bush that inspections didn’t work and were failing, because Iraq was not cooperating. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/589 "2013-07-19T06:44:32Z")
NFBW: You really should look into decimal time. That way you might look at least _seem_ to be a little less dishonest than the day is long. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/590 "2013-07-19T07:37:49Z")
I really have a hard time believing that you guys are actually _reading_ his walls of Stoid-style text, let alone replying. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/591 "2013-07-19T07:43:05Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > NFBW: You really should look into decimal time. That way you might look at least _seem_ to be a little less dishonest than the day is long. Drat. I messed up the post. Should be: _NFBW: You really should look into decimal time. That way you might at least **seem** to be a little less dishonest than the day is long._ ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/592 "2013-07-19T08:12:40Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > I really have a hard time believing that you guys are actually _reading_ his walls of Stoid-style text, let alone replying. I don’t. Can someone let me know if they found the yellowcake uranium Darth Vader bought from the unwed teen mothers? ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/593 "2013-07-19T12:54:41Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > I really have a hard time believing that you guys are actually _reading_ his walls of Stoid-style text, let alone replying. I’m glad someone is, since it’s only from a **tomndebb** response that I noticed that **NFbW** actually supported the AUMF that gave Bush a blank check for going to war, making his the most ironic username since, well, ever. ---
**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:** [July 19, 2013, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/594 "2013-07-19T13:37:37Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > I’m glad someone is, since it’s only from a **tomndebb** response that I noticed that **NFbW** actually supported the AUMF that gave Bush a blank check for going to war, making his the most ironic username since, well, ever. Since we’re talking about Bush, I think the correct term is “Ironicallistic”. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/595 "2013-07-19T14:43:53Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > I’m glad someone is, since it’s only from a **tomndebb** response that I noticed that **NFbW** actually supported the AUMF that gave Bush a blank check for going to war, making his the most ironic username since, well, ever. T&D does not speak for me. I did not support an AUMF that gave Bush a blank check for war. I have explained my position on that and if you are interested in the truth I will direct you where to look. Basically the case I am making is that there was a reality in 2002 prior to the vote that Bush was going to get an AUMF as close to his liking as possible. The reality that few will accept here is that the public and the representatives they sent to Congress were in favor of granting Bush the authority he was asking for - and some were in fact influenced by Bush’s new demands that Congress show unity by authorizing force to pressure SH into allowing the return of inspections and cooperating with them. I am not stating support one way or the other for any AUMF vote outcome. I am stating a reality that existed and suggest that anti-war types on the left focus on what transpired after the vote for the AUMF. Don’t take T&D’s word on what I have to say. T&D is one who remains in denial of the realities surrounding the vote for the AUMF and distorts what I write to remain within the comfort zone of his non-reality based views on the AUMF vote. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/596 "2013-07-19T15:04:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by 42fish > I’m glad someone is, since it’s only from a tomndebb response that I noticed that NFbW actually supported the AUMF that gave Bush a blank check for going to war, making his the most ironic username since, well, ever. Just curious. Are you capable going beyond skimming and repeating the equivalence of gossip and smear to think on your own? Can you refute one of my major points that Iraq was in clear violation of international law at the time of the vote that authorized a decision to be made if necessary by the President to use force if Iraq continued to defy international law and refused to be verified disarmed of WMD? And if you cannot refute the above can you assert with some basis in fact that Iraq was in violation of international law at the time Bush decided to use force because he said it was necessary? How was SH in violation of International Law in March 2003 when the majority on the UNSC favored continuing Iraq’s final opportunity to comply? ---
**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:** [July 19, 2013, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/597 "2013-07-19T15:08:43Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > T&D does not speak for me. I did not support an AUMF that gave Bush a blank check for war. I have explained my position on that and if you are interested in the truth I will direct you where to look. > > Basically the case I am making is that there was a reality in 2002 prior to the vote that Bush was going to get an AUMF as close to his liking as possible. The reality that few will accept here is that the public and the representatives they sent to Congress were in favor of granting Bush the authority he was asking for - and some were in fact influenced by Bush’s new demands that Congress show unity by authorizing force to pressure SH into allowing the return of inspections and cooperating with them. > > I am not stating support one way or the other for any AUMF vote outcome. I am stating a reality that existed and suggest that anti-war types on the left focus on what transpired after the vote for the AUMF. > > Don’t take T&D’s word on what I have to say. T&D is one who remains in denial of the realities surrounding the vote for the AUMF and distorts what I write to remain within the comfort zone of his non-reality based views on the AUMF vote. Tap dance all you want, but we know what you said: Post 95 in this thread as you are talking about **XT** : > [@](#): > > I recall that you have mentioned that you supported the war at the start but have since turned against it. I take it that means you possibly supported the vote to use force as I did. > > So our differences must revolve around the role of inspections as I see it. > > I supported the vote to use force fully with the understanding that I had seen a change in Bush’s war actions in September 2002 when he put Colin Powell as the face of the pending confrontation against Iraq. IOW, you were Fooled by W as many of us on this MB weren’t. Try and hide behind Colin Powell’s skirt if it makes you feel better, but you were still 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:** [July 19, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/598 "2013-07-19T16:30:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Tap dance all you want, but we know what you said: > > Post 95 in this thread as you are talking about **XT** : > IOW, you were Fooled by W as many of us on this MB weren’t. Try and hide behind Colin Powell’s skirt if it makes you feel better, but you were still Fooled by W. You don’t know what I’ve said because I have never supported an AUMF vote that gave Bush a blank check to invade Iraq because the AUMF that passed did not do that. The AUMF required Bush to enforce all UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq. You are the one who supported and continues to support Bush’s decision to invade in March 2003 by declaring that decision to be both legitimate and justified. I say Bush did not follow the wording in the AUMF when Bush defied the UNSC and Res 1441 when he rejected the UNSC member’s council as a body and invaded Iraq outside of enforcing UNSC 1441 which covered all UNSC resolutions at the time. You are accepting Bush’s lies that Iraq did not cooperate and knowing that Bush lied you still think the war was legitimate and justified. I have posted your post-invasion declarations that prove you were fooled by Bush’s lies about SH not cooperating. And you are still one of Bush’s biggest fools. Anyone who says the invasion of Iras was legitimate and justified after the fact that Iraq let the inspectors back in, is a fool. A self-deluded fool. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/599 "2013-07-19T17:30:17Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > T&D does not speak for me… Of course not. He does, however, quote you in blocks small enough to be read without one’s eyes glazing over. Which is how I discovered that you actually supported the AUMF. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/600 "2013-07-19T17:33:58Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Just curious. Are you capable going beyond skimming and repeating the equivalence of gossip and smear to think on your own? Yes. It’s one of the reasons\* that in 2002 I was able to figure out that handing the President a pre-authorization for going to war before the inspectors had had a chance to do jack and/or squat was a bad idea. \*Other reasons: Enough awareness of history to think, you know, we tried this sort of thing with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. Anyone else notice how that one worked out? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=31)