# 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:** 36
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/701 "2013-07-23T17:37:49Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > And if the intent of the AUMFAI was to tie the United States to specifically carrying out the will of the UNSC, why did the Senate overwhelmingly reject the Levin amendment that would have done just that? The only answer is that the pro-war people who were voting for the resolution didn’t actually want the resolution to be tied to what the UNSC may (or may not) authorize. At the time of the vote for the AUMF it was a fact of indisputable reality that no US Senators could know what the will of the UNSC would do with respect to a new resolution that would demand that Iraq would allow unfettered inspections and the UNSC would unanimously demand that Iraq allow itself to be verified disarmed and brought into compliance with international law. The Levin Amendment was not acceptable to a majority of Senators because it took the desired use of the threat of military force to force the resumption of inspections, off the table. Giving up the ‘threat of force’ at that point in time when the UN had not passed 1441, could have played better into Bush’s hand, if it turned out the UNSC with three potential vetoes from permanent members - would have decided to do less or nothing like 1441 and SH felt he was off the hook again. The Bush goes back to Congress after the midterms and negotiates a real AUMF that would be a blank check for war. Like it or not that was a factor that was being weighed in October 2002 and the Senators that did the weighing did not have the advantage if 20/20 hindsight that this forum’s AUMF-obsessed stooges now have. ---
**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:** [July 23, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/702 "2013-07-23T17:51:23Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > … the Senators that did the weighing did not have the advantage if 20/20 hindsight that this forum’s AUMF-obsessed stooges now have. Back to the lies. You quote me saying contemporaneously that the war resolution was the wrong thing to do, and then you say I’m using “20/20 hindsight.” At least keep your fabrications straight with your other arguments, will you? ---
**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 23, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/703 "2013-07-23T18:13:25Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > My point has always been that regardless of one’s own view of Iraq being a threat prior to the AUMF vote, there was a verifiable perception of the majority of citizenry and lawmakers that Iraq was indeed a threat, And they were wrong. People like **Ravenman** and I were right. > [@](#): > > and that Bush’s hype and propaganda did not create that majority opinion or affect it much. And how do you know that? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/704 "2013-07-23T21:44:41Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You quote me saying contemporaneously that the war resolution was the wrong thing to do, and then you say I’m using “20/20 hindsight.” > > At least keep your fabrications straight with your other arguments, will you? Perhaps you can find your contemporaneous objection to the AUMF vote specifically prior to when it occurred. A quick search on the Key Word “Iraq” shows your first post was in January 2003 long after the AUMF vote, and long after 1441 became a reality. > [@Why can't the US 'legally' attack Iraq today?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/21): > > Regarding the ceasefire in 687, there is no clause in that resolution from which one could infer a “right” to restart hostilities if Iraq does not comply with the requirements laid out. To the contrary, > > “34. [The Security Council] Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region.” > > It is hard to read that any other way than to mean that the UN Security Council would have to decide whether “further steps” would be required for implementation. > > Furthermore, as previously stated, the ceasefire is with the UN. Neither the US, nor Britain, nor France, nor any other member has the standing to un-do a UN resolution. > > The point is well taken that 1441 notes that there are no-fly zones in effect. However, that resolution does not have any automaticity in authorizing the use of force by member states. This was acknowledged by Ambassador Negroponte at the time the resolution was passed. > > 1441 does note that Iraq “will face serious consequences” if it continues violations of that and previous resolutions. > > Pulling back from the question of resolutions for a moment, the UN Charter holds that member states have an inherent right to self defense, and arguably anticipatory self defense, but only in those situations where the Security Council has not had time to consider the matter. That is clearly not the case here. > > Even more generally, if one accepts the legal (as opposed to moral or practical) legitimacy of the United Nations, it is extremely difficult to see how there can be any other ultimate authority on the meaning and intent of actions by the UN, aside from UN bodies themselves. That a single country can seek to define the meaning, intent, and application of the UN Charter or UN resolutions would contradict the acknowledgement of legal legitimacy. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/705 "2013-07-23T22:31:55Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > My point has always been that regardless of one’s own view of Iraq being a threat prior to the AUMF vote, there was a verifiable perception of the majority of citizenry and lawmakers that Iraq was indeed a threat, and that Bush’s hype and propaganda did not create that majority opinion or affect it much. Then you are just stupid. Iraq was never a threat to anyone outside its borders after 1992. Never. People who believed that it was a threat were the sort of people who actually believed Bush’s “Axis of Evil” bullshit. (He put together three countries–two of whom were actually enemies and the third unrelated to them and a third of the world away–and called it an “axis.” If you really believed that, you are truly incapable of logical thought.) Claiming that the people who felt Iraq was a threat were not influenced by Bush’s rhetoric and propaganda campaign is just dumb. The ONLY source for claims that Iraq was a threat to anyone was the Bush propaganda campaign. That is why there was such a high correlation between people who thought that Hussein was involved in the WTC/Pentagon attacks and viewers of Fox News. Iraq was not a threat after 1992 and there was never any evidence that it was. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > T&D won’t let that reality into his mind, because it wipes out all the reasoning behind his obsession with the AUMF vote. Pure lie. I have no obsession with the AUMF vote. It was simply one gambit (among several) by Bush to get support for his war. I only note that you stupidly supported it for bad (non-existent) reasons and now you spend inordinate amounts of time defending it and twisting its words to defend your bad decision. ---
**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:** [July 24, 2013, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/706 "2013-07-24T00:07:47Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Perhaps you can find your contemporaneous objection to the AUMF vote specifically prior to when it occurred. A quick search on the Key Word “Iraq” shows your first post was in January 2003 long after the AUMF vote, and long after 1441 became a reality. Huh. I guess I was lurking then. Which means my posting record on the matter is as thorough as yours? But [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9047129&postcount=6) is still an awesome and relevant post. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/707 "2013-07-24T00:49:09Z")
So it may have taken Ravenman four years to spit a hokker on the AUMF vote that restrained Bush in as much restraint that Bush was going to be restrained. But this stooge just keeps on giving… including giving GWBush and his illigetimate, unjustified, amoral and deplorable invasion THE BENEFIT of the DOUBT. Ravenman and Mace deserve each other. > [@Why doesn't the US want the UN to run post war Iraq?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-us-want-the-un-to-run-post-war-iraq/164947/24): > > The US is invading Iraq because our gov’t believes it is necessary for the defense of this country. You may disagree with that, as the UN has done. **I’m giving the administration the benefit of the doubt myself on that one.** But since the UN has shown that it’s interests are NOT the same as the US’s in Iraq, why should we get them involved in the “rebuilding” effort? The rebuilding is as important, if not more so, than the toppling of S.H. Man what an anti-UN, Bush butt kissin’ stooge this forum had back in 2003 in the one the only John (Hussein didn’t cooperate) Mace. When Bush forced the inspectors to leave Iraq there was nothing that could be claimed ‘as necessary’ for the defense of our country that involved starting a full scale war. When Iraq had zero inspectors inside Iraq during the AUMF vote - at least some could argue that Iraq posed a considerable threat and was violating international law. But when inspectors were there and finding nothing and Iraq began to cooperate even proactively. It appears that according to Mace now… he had everything ass-backwards with regard to Iraq being a threat. ---
**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:** [July 24, 2013, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/708 "2013-07-24T01:09:44Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > So it may have taken Ravenman four years to spit a hokker on the AUMF vote that restrained Bush in as much restraint that Bush was going to be restrained. Better’n you. It is a decade later and you still support it. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/709 "2013-07-24T01:53:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Better’n you. It is a decade later and you still support it. I support the language that directed Bush to ‘enforce all UN Resolutions - which he did not enforce ANY… Not a freakin’ ONE. You have failed to explain how anyone supported or opposed paperwork that emerged from closed door negotiations between the WH plus the Senate and House leaders. There is a huge difference between supporting it… and accepting something that happened as a reality and then figuring out the best move with regard to that reality. And that was to realize that the AUMF did in fact restrain Bush to use force only to enforce UN Resolutions, and that it was not the AUMF at fault, it was Bush the liar’s fault. So prior to the war the emphasis should have been on getting the truth out that SH was cooperating. I know you don’t think Bush lied about WMD… but if you had any sense you could see that Bush lied about Iraq not cooperating with the 1441 inspection regime. And another thing… this from your 2007 post: > [@What's wrong with my Iraq War narrative?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-my-iraq-war-narrative/421590/6): > > I disagree. The resolution was offered by the White House to provide political cover by having Congress sign up to the war that Bush intended to prosecute. Does that mean the White House could have started war at any time without bothering with the whole messy UNSC thing, like under the War Powers Act? > [@So is this war and if so who declared it?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-this-war-and-if-so-who-declared-it/160899/12): > > Oh yeah, the War Powers Act. In 1974, Congress passed, over Nixon’s veto, an act that is supposed to be a guideline of how war powers are split between Congress and the president. > > In practice, the president can use troops for 60 days for basically any purpose, but he must made a good-faith effort to inform Congress prior to deploying forces into hostilities, and then those troops may only be kept there for 60 to 90 days without explicit congressional authorization. It also has some reporting requirements so that Congress can be “informed” about what’s going on, but those reports are basically a joke in that they don’t contain much useful information. > > [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020927.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020927.html) > " If Bush “intended to prosecute” an invasion of Iraq regardless of any restraint Congress could put on him, then what is your entire point? I think Bush was forced to take cover of going through the UN because Blair forced that upon him. Many members of Congress like Lieberman were gung ho for war… but not all. But some of those could not be certain that Bush was not crazy enough to send some advance forces in, and get the ground war rolling and then, take some casualties and … it wouldn’t take much to get a full authorization to ‘avenge’ the deaths of a few US troops killed, when the time had come to go all out to rid the world of an evil that no one could refuse to support. The AUMF produced what it was supposed to produce. It is just that Bush lied about Iraq’s cooperation. ---
**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:** [July 24, 2013, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/710 "2013-07-24T02:07:15Z")
Dude, seriously…you are either delusional or a complete troll. Or, more likely, you are both. [QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] So it may have taken Ravenman four years to spit a hokker on the AUMF vote that restrained Bush in as much restraint that Bush was going to be restrained. [/QUOTE] It’s not like these events are unfolding now…they are fucking history you idiot. The AUMF DIDN’T FUCKING RESTRAIN BUSH. Didn’t you notice? He DID invade Iraq and there were NO consequences for him. HE FUCKING GOT REELECTED YOU FUCKING IDIOTIC MORON! You are either the stupidest mother fucker who has ever posted to this board or you are the biggest troll (these are not mutually exclusive, of course, and I’m willing to believe at this point that you are both). > [@](#): > > But this stooge just keeps on giving… including giving GWBush and his illigetimate, unjustified, amoral and deplorable invasion THE BENEFIT of the DOUBT. Again, moron, all of this is in the past. There is no benefit to give Bush…he took us to war, the AUMF was the instrument he used, and no one made a peep. You are living in a fantasy world where this document constrained him, rather than what it actually was, which was a blank check. A blank check he cashed without any ramifications to him whatsoever. None. Zero. Zippo. Nada. Fuck, the man got reelected for a second freaking term you fucking idiot! Not only were there no ramifications for doing this, the people actually voted him in for another term! What part of that do you NOT understand, you drooling idiot? ---
**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 24, 2013, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/711 "2013-07-24T02:42:45Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Man what an anti-UN, Bush butt kissin’ stooge this forum had back in 2003 in the one the only John (Hussein didn’t cooperate) Mace. Ooooh, our dim-witted friend thinks he found some kind of gotha as he trolls through past posts. But, as usual, he’s wrong. I was never in the “Bush is evil/Bush lied” camp. I have no doubt that he sincerely thought he was acting in the best interest of the country as opposed to sitting in the WH, rubbing his hands together and cackling about how his “evil” plot was playing out. If you really want to take a trip down memory lane (and the search function seems to be severely impaired once you try to go back more than 10 years), here’s my response to an OP in Jan 2003 when someone asked us to play devil’s advocate and offer a justification for invading Iraq: > [@OP](#): > > Weapons of Mass Destruction - ooh, there’s a catchy title to throw around as a reason to take unilateral action. But as I read the articles, listen to the reports, watch Tony Blair muddle his way through a press briefing etc I have still to be convinced of what is the actual REASON for invading Iraq. > > Let’s just take a step back for a second and consider what is a good reason for starting a war. And when I say a good reason, I mean a SPECIFIC reason, one that stands up to justify not just a war against Iraq, but any war. Perhaps rather than ‘starting a war’, the phrase ‘going to war’ is probably more appropriate. > [@John Mace](#): > > Iraq invaded Kuwait, a sovereign nation, and has not live up the terms of the cease fire that ended the war to expell the former from the latter. > > Having said that, I still would not go to war for that reason. But I can see where some people might consider that enough. Emphasis added. So, that’s my thoughts on a reason someone might have for going to war, but I wouldn’t go to war for that reason. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/712 "2013-07-24T03:06:27Z")
XT repeats the Bush lie… “the AUMF was the instrument he (Bush) used” but cannot even try to explain how Bush was in fact ‘enforcing UN Resolutions’ when he used military force to bomb and invade Iraq in March 2003. Bush could not have used the AUMF as an instrument if he didn’t do what the Instrument directed him to do. If Bush ‘used’ the instrument of the AUMF then he would have ‘enforced all relevant UN Resolutions regarding Iraq’ and that would include 1441 which would have included waiting a few months to see those inspections resolve the disarmament of Iraq peacefully. > [@XT](#): > > Dude, seriously…you are either delusional or a complete troll. Or, more likely, you are both. > > It’s not like these events are unfolding now…they are fucking history you idiot. The AUMF DIDN’T FUCKING RESTRAIN BUSH. Didn’t you notice? He DID invade Iraq and there were NO consequences for him. HE FUCKING GOT REELECTED YOU FUCKING IDIOTIC MORON! You are either the stupidest mother fucker who has ever posted to this board or you are the biggest troll (these are not mutually exclusive, of course, and I’m willing to believe at this point that you are both). > > Again, moron, all of this is in the past. There is no benefit to give Bush…he took us to war, the AUMF was the instrument he used, and no one made a peep. You are living in a fantasy world where this document constrained him, rather than what it actually was, which was a blank check. A blank check he cashed without any ramifications to him whatsoever. None. Zero. Zippo. Nada. Fuck, the man got reelected for a second freaking term you fucking idiot! Not only were there no ramifications for doing this, the people actually voted him in for another term! > > What part of that do you NOT understand, you drooling idiot? Why did you butt in on the Bush Library thread that was about contemporaneous news just to complain about something that I wrote in response to a war supporter? And then it turns out you were the freakin’ nit-pickin’ factless fool that had it all wrong… but you ran away without defending or admitting your ignorance… Just like your ignorance in March and April 2003 when you supported the invasion that Bush had just kicked off. Yes you supported it. But when you saw it going badly… then you didn’t. You are a squeamish unprincipled nitpicker.. who does not fool me. So go skedaddle back to where you’ve been hiding since you have never demonstrated that you have anything to say that is right or informed. It has been at least ten to one against me here and I am doing just fine. If you wish to make it eleven to one… let’s see what you got. Just bring facts and reason. You had none shortly after Bush launched the invasion. Your ignorance of what the UN inspections accomplished in the first few months of 2003 is enormous. It is massive ignorance. And you attack my knowledge of what happened? > [@Will WMDs be as big as Watergate?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wmds-be-as-big-as-watergate/187040/17): > > I can’t believe I’m even getting in this, as I can’t stand ole GW OR his administration. > However, much as I’d loved to see him trashed, I also have full use of my frigging memory, and I seem to recall that EVERYONE fucking thought that Saddam had the god damn thing!! > > I didn’t hear you people whinning about all this BEFORE the invasion. I didn’t hear the French or Germans or ANYONE ELSE (except the Iraqis) protesting that Saddam DIDN’T have the things. > > Even the UN teams THOUGHT that he had some things out there. If someone knows of a country, head of state, etc etc, that KNEW that Saddam didn’t have them, please provide some cites for said protest well in advance of the invasion. > > Personally I think ole GW and his merry men were just WRONG (and they aren’t alone in being wrong either). But they launched an invasion based on bad data, and doing so, they fucked up…royally. > I think that they will pay for it too come next election (personally I’ll vote for Mickey Mouse before GW…which will probably be my choice too). If you want to nail him/them for being stupid, for being wrong, or for exagerating what ‘evidence’ they had, cool…I’m with you. > But to say that he knowingly and deliberately mislead the American people and the world, KNOWING that Iraq DIDN’T have ANY WMD, and knowing that HE’D BE CAUGHT FOR IT (which is the only way there would be a scandle like Watergate)??? > > Bullshit. If this is the case then GW is MUCH stupider (and more importantly his STAFF is) than I can credit. I see NO logical reason for him to lie, knowing he’d be eventually caught. I DO see reasons for him to exagerate his evidence, or to look at said evidence in a biased way. He actually thought that they would find said WMD, and is probably in a state of shock that they haven’t yet. > -XT Bush’s lie was not about the WMD, XT. IT was that he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully, but he didn’t. And the lie that covers that lie, is the LIE that Iraq was not cooperating with the UN in 2003. I see why you are sensitive to letting the truth get out that Blix said Iraq was cooperating proactively for at least a month before Bush invaded. You are a damn fool sucker for that lie from Bush. You were a sucker back then. An uninformed damn fool sucker who has no excuse because the cooperation by Iraq was easily found if you searched for the facts instead of believing Bush’s and all the pro-invasion propagandists’ lies. But suckers like you can’t admit it. You just hit and run attack those who were engaged and informed at the time and are much better informed now than you can ever be. ---
**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 24, 2013, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/713 "2013-07-24T03:09:46Z")
You see, I also believe that you, in your own twisted mind, think you are right. You believe your own BS the same way you believed Bush’s BS in 2002. You and he have a lot in common, as many other have already noted. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/714 "2013-07-24T03:32:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Ooooh, our dim-witted friend thinks he found some kind of gotha as he trolls through past posts. But, as usual, he’s wrong. I was never in the “Bush is evil/Bush lied” camp. I have no doubt that he sincerely thought he was acting in the best interest of the country as opposed to sitting in the WH, rubbing his hands together and cackling about how his “evil” plot was playing out. > > If you really want to take a trip down memory lane (and the search function seems to be severely impaired once you try to go back more than 10 years), here’s my response to an OP in Jan 2003 when someone asked us to play devil’s advocate and offer a justification for invading Iraq: > > Emphasis added. So, that’s my thoughts on a reason someone might have for going to war, but I wouldn’t go to war for that reason. My point is that you are a damned fool then, because you said after the inspections were working in unprecedented success after success… that the war was legitimate and justified. And You gave Bush the benefit of the doubt after he force the peaceful process of inspections to end. I would never say the US invasion of Iraq was justified, legitimate or give Bush the benefit of the doubt because I saw what everyone should have seen that the ‘threat of force’ put such pressure on Iraq … that they were proactively cooperating with the UNMOVIC and the IAEA… and just a few more months would have led to the verification by the proper authorities that Iraq was indeed disarmed. You perpetuate Bush’s major and most significant lie that Iraq did not cooperate with the inspectors. You were not pointing out reasons for war after the war started. You said “The US is invading Iraq because our gov’t believes it is necessary for the defense of this country. You may disagree with that, as the UN has done. \*\*I’m giving the administration the benefit of the doubt myself on that one.” \*\*-John Mace and: “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 You didn’t write that it was ‘clear to others’… You didn’t think much of the WMD argument… but you bought lock stock and barrel the primary BUSH argument that Iraq was in violation of it’s disarmament agreement. So squirm and slither Mace. You wrote what you wrote. You said you hadn’t been convinced in January 2003 but that it appears you were convinced at some point after the invasion. And that is kissing Bush’s Butt whether you think it was or not. Justified… because “S.H. did his best to violate the letter and the spirit of that disarmament plan” - wow Mace. That is whacko - Bush duped whacko. I do recall you said you didn’t care if Iraq had WMD anyway… But you cared if SH violated the letter and the spirit of the disarmament plan. ---
**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:** [July 24, 2013, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/715 "2013-07-24T03:34:09Z")
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] XT repeats the Bush lie… “the AUMF was the instrument he (Bush) used” but cannot even try to explain how Bush was in fact ‘enforcing UN Resolutions’ when he used military force to bomb and invade Iraq in March 2003. Bush could not have used the AUMF as an instrument if he didn’t do what the Instrument directed him to do. If Bush ‘used’ the instrument of the AUMF then he would have ‘enforced all relevant UN Resolutions regarding Iraq’ and that would include 1441 which would have included waiting a few months to see those inspections resolve the disarmament of Iraq peacefully. [/QUOTE] Why yes, XT can explain this seemingly impenetrable conundrum to you. See, Bush wasn’t fucking enforcing UN resolutions. Simple, ehe, you ridiculous fuck monkey? Let me run that by you again, since I’m fairly certain you don’t get it (and sadly never will, regardless of repetition)…Bush wasn’t enforcing UN resolutions. Bush wasn’t enforcing UN resolutions. Or, to put it another way, Bush wasn’t enforcing UN resolutions. > [@](#): > > Why did you butt in on the Bush Library thread that was about contemporaneous news just to complain about something that I wrote in response to a war supporter? Simple…I butted in because you were wrong, and it amused me to butt in. It’s the reason I post on this board…it amuses me. Let me run that by you again, since you are probably too stupid to grasp this. I butted in because you were wrong and it amused me to do so. Or, to put it another way, I butted in because you were wrong and it amused me to do so. > [@](#): > > And then it turns out you were the freakin’ nit-pickin’ factless fool that had it all wrong… but you ran away without defending or admitting your ignorance… Just like your ignorance in March and April 2003 when you supported the invasion that Bush had just kicked off. Um, no. I’d say it’s clear to everyone, except you because you are a clueless fuck nugget, that it’s you who are wrong. I won’t bother explaining it to you several times as you are basically too stupid to breath and it’s shocking to me that you are still alive at this point. > [@](#): > > Yes you supported it. But when you saw it going badly… then you didn’t. No, I stopped supporting it long before it turned bad. You could see the trajectory of my loss of support on this very board if you bothered checking…and if you had the wit to understand what anyone types, which sadly you don’t. Yes, I initially supported the war. I felt that Saddam and Iraq were a threat to a vital strategic resource and also that they were complete pains in the ass. I figured that it was only a matter of time before the sanctions were lifted and Saddam was free to start playing games again and thought that regime change would be best for all concerned (leaving aside Saddam and the Ba’athists of course). I was wrong. When I realized I was wrong, I changed my position. You are repeatedly wrong. You are epically wrong. Hell, you are Biblically wrong. The difference between us is I have the minimal wit and intelligence to realize when I’m wrong and change. You don’t. > [@](#): > > Bush’s lie was not about the WMD, XT. IT was that he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully, but he didn’t. And the lie that covers that lie, is the LIE that Iraq was not cooperating with the UN in 2003. Again, you obviously WERE fooled by GW. In this respect, I never was. Iraq was neither about WMD OR peacefully disarming Iraq. Bush never intended to peacefully disarm Iraq, and while I have no doubt he and others thought there were WMD that wasn’t the primary reason for the invasion either. It was a fucking excuse to invade, something they planned all along, idiot. And AUMF gave Bush the perfect instrument, without constraint to do just that. Which, obviously he did, contrary to your own fantasy narrative on this subject. The proof is in the history that WE all lived through and can grasp, and sadly you can’t. Bush launched his invasion using the AUMF. WMD were obviously of secondary concern since the main task of the army, initially, was to SECURE THE FUCKING OIL AND CIVILIAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND NOT LOOK FOR FUCKING WMD YOU FLAMING ASSWIPE! Jeeze you are 5 of the stupidest people who have ever posted on this board, and that includes freaking Gonzomax. I wouldn’t have believed ANYONE could be more stupid that that ass clown, but you, sir, take the cake. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/716 "2013-07-24T03:38:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You see, I also believe that you, in your own twisted mind, think you are right. You believe your own BS the same way you believed Bush’s BS in 2002. You and he have a lot in common, as many other have already noted. I never believed one word of Bush’s WMD bullshit … not in 2002 and not ever since. I specifically did not believe that the war was justified after seeing Iraq cooperate proactively according to Dr Blix… like you did. The WMD bullshit issue went away and became secondary to the question of whether Iraq would cooperate and be disarmed peacefully. Iraq offered to let the CIA come in. That settled the WMD question for me. That was 2002. Why were none of the stooges here paying attention to that? And none of your fellow stooges have explained how Bush was enforcing UN Res 1441 when he bombed and invaded Iraq in March 2003. At least you have admitted that Bush was not. Why are the other stooges remaining silent on that? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/717 "2013-07-24T03:48:29Z")
> [@XT](#): > > See, Bush wasn’t fucking enforcing UN resolutions. Simple, ehe, you ridiculous fuck monkey? Let me run that by you again, since I’m fairly certain you don’t get it (and sadly never will, regardless of repetition)…Bush wasn’t enforcing UN resolutions. Bush wasn’t enforcing UN resolutions. Or, to put it another way, Bush wasn’t enforcing UN resolutions. Oh. I get it. It is what I have been telling the other stooges here. So thanks. Two stooges down… two to go. So now will you quit bitching about Senator who voted for the AUMF? The President\*\* is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States \*\*as he determines to be necessary and appropriate \*\*in order to **– (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and(2)** enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. \*\* Bush was authorized to use force to ‘enforce’ those UN Resolutions XT. Bush didn’t do what the AUMF authorized him to do. And that has been my point going back to February. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/718 "2013-07-24T03:56:12Z")
> [@XT](#): > > No, I stopped supporting it long before it turned bad. But you supported it going in… which means you were not paying attention… .you were dumbstruck by something. I didn’t support it going in. I protested and wrote letters and did all that I could do. You supported it going in. You supported it after the inspections were working. You were a dumbass then and are an obnoxious dumbass now, and you have displayed some graphic ignorance Iraq for all to see. ---
**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 24, 2013, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/719 "2013-07-24T11:40:45Z")
You can hang your head on your precious 1441, like Gollum pining after The Ring, but Bush invaded Iraq with the full authorization of the US Congress and that’s all that matters. He decided that he was enforcing all the UNSC resolutions, per the authority given him by Congress. The AUMF states that if he decides that, then that is all that matters. That’s why he’s The Decider! ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/720 "2013-07-24T12:11:02Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Hey shitstain, don’t misrepresent me, my argument, or my cites. I’m showing that you are wrong and John is correct, and you’re too dumb to know that. > > Let’s do a little mental excercise: what would have happened if a resolution was voted on to declare Iraq in compliance with 1441? The US and UK would have vetoed it, meaning the UNSC couldn’t possibly have had that judgment. > > What would have happened if there were a resolution declaring Iraq in violation of 1441? France and Russia would have vetoed it, meaning the UNSC couldn’t possibly have had that judgment. > > That is what people have been telling you for the past month: any conclusion that Iraq was, or was not, in compliance is not the conclusion of the only body that was charged with deciding such matters. Therefore, your conclusion is your opinion, not a fact. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > You can hang your head on your precious 1441, like Gollum pining after The Ring, but Bush invaded Iraq with the full authorization of the US Congress and that’s all that matters. He decided that he was enforcing all the UNSC resolutions, per the authority given him by Congress. The AUMF states that if he decides that, then that is all that matters. That’s why he’s The Decider! Congress didn’t stutter Mace. I cite the exact language in the AUMF - you stutter and slobber bullcrap that Bush could somehow decide to enforce UNSC Resolutions on his own. That is bogus thinking just as your thoughts following the invasion that Bush was justified to kill Iraqis because their dictator didn’t behave proper under the disarmament agreement. Keep posting stupidity Mace. It’s looking great in the archives. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=37)