# 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:** 38
**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 25, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/741 "2013-07-25T16:58:58Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > What was the primary reason for war when you were stupid enough to support the invasion? What is the reason for war now that you think you are not stupid anymore? You must be on artificial life support, because clearly you are too stupid for even your autonomic bodily functions to be working. I’ve already explained the answer to both of these up thread. I’d tell you to scroll up and try reading them for comprehension this time, but it would be a futile request. You don’t seem to realize you CAN scroll up, but even if you did you wouldn’t understand it any better on the second reading than you did on the first. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/742 "2013-07-25T17:45:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by XT: I didn’t support Bush you idiot. I supported the US’s stance on the war with Iraq. What was the US Stance, XT? > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by XT: I, as well as just about everyone here … pretty much knew that the fake peace thing was fake, and that the decision to invade had been made as soon as we started moving troops into the area. What can you cite that establishes with any basis in fact that the decision to invade was made before the before or soon after 1441 was passed. I’d love to see evidence if that. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/743 "2013-07-25T17:50:12Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You must be on artificial life support, because clearly you are too stupid for even your autonomic bodily functions to be working. I’ve already explained the answer to both of these up thread. I’d tell you to scroll up and try reading them for comprehension this time, but it would be a futile request. You don’t seem to realize you CAN scroll up, but even if you did you wouldn’t understand it any better on the second reading than you did on the first. Is this why you initially supported the offensive invasion in March 2003? > [@](#): > > My feeling at the time was that the UN was basically worthless and Saddam was pulling the wool over their eyes,… ---
**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 25, 2013, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/744 "2013-07-25T18:07:07Z")
Why aren’t you answering my question about the US Attorney? Are you scared to? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/745 "2013-07-25T18:17:11Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Is this why you initially supported the offensive invasion in March 2003? Still to you XT. > [@](#): > > Iraq, to me, was a threat to the OIL in the region, especially since the Iraqis had around a fifth of the worlds oil reserves under their control. Saddam was obviously hostile to the US, had a track record of brutality and obviously an expansionist agenda, and was clearly doing everything he could to wriggle out from under the thumb of those imposing sanctions on him (things such as the food for oil program and his constant testing of the no-fly zone were indications of this to me at the time). If that is why you originally supported killing and wounding people in Iraq, why did you think Saddam was not a threat to the oil in the region shortly after the US killing and maiming had begun? What made you change your mind so quickly about Iraq’s threat to the regions oil, just when the killing and maiming got started? Did you not know that starting a war to protect the region’s oil would get innocent people killed for your concern? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/746 "2013-07-25T18:27:16Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Why aren’t you answering my question about the US Attorney? Are you scared to? I’ll get more into your diversion efforts when I get the time. But your question is quite broad so is it safe to stick your Al Capone version? If so is it your scenario that Capone is suspected of violating ALL Federal laws equally? ---
**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 25, 2013, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/747 "2013-07-25T18:44:57Z")
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] What was the US Stance, XT? [/QUOTE] Regime change. > [@](#): > > If that is why you originally supported killing and wounding people in Iraq, why did you think Saddam was not a threat to the oil in the region shortly after the US killing and maiming had begun? Cost to benefits assessment. I thought (and still think now) that Saddam was a threat to at least his portion of the oil, if not to the oil in other neighboring countries, but that the cost to benefits of kicking him out of power was too high, since it became clear early on that our ‘plan’ for the invasion and post-invasion was deeply, fatally flawed, and that it was doubtful that most Iraqis were all that keen on having us kick Saddam et al out in any case. Plus, it was equally clear early on that Iraq was a powder keg of explosively hostile factions that were being contained, barely, by Saddam and his merry minions, and that our best bet would have been simply to let things ride…eventually Saddam would either have shuffled off this mortal coil on his own, or Arab Spring would have come early to Iraq. Hindsight, sadly, is always 20/20 and by the time I came to this realization we were already stuck deeply into Iraq. Not that my small support was a critical factor, but it’s not one of my proudest moments that I ever supported that fucked up war. > [@](#): > > Did you not know that starting a war to protect the region’s oil would get innocent people killed for your concern? Of course. Innocent people were already dying in Iraq, however, regardless of what we did, and I felt, erroneously, that once Saddam was out (something I thought would be fairly simple, and in fact wasn’t that much of a trial initially) that it would give the Iraqi people the freedom to put in their own government and improve their lives and their future. Thus, my flawed logic went, in the medium or long term it would be worth the short term pain of regime change. Also, my thought was that eventually the regime would come crumbling down regardless, and in doing so many, many innocent people (along with the guilty) would die as well, so this seemed preferable (think Libya or Syria today, though obviously that hadn’t happened when this was all going down). I was wrong, and I’ve freely admitted that (though you keep harping on it), and I was ignorant as well, especially of the sectarian hostile factions simmering under the surface. I didn’t know a lot about Iraq or the Iraqi people before the invasion, so thought of them as one people, being oppressed under the thumb of Saddam and the Baathists and who would be happy being freed of that yoke. I am gratified that you actually read AND seemed to comprehend something I wrote, however, and actually followed up with a coherent query. ---
**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 25, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/748 "2013-07-25T19:02:01Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I’ll get more into your diversion efforts when I get the time. But your question is quite broad so is it safe to stick your Al Capone version? If so is it your scenario that Capone is suspected of violating ALL Federal laws equally? It’s a classic obfuscation technique to pretend not to understand the question. I’ve asked it eight times in the last two days; if you’re capable of browsing my posts from 2007, you are surely capable of reading one of my posts on the previous page. Go back, read my original question, and provide a responsive answer. There’s no clarification needed at all. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/749 "2013-07-25T21:25:09Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Regime change. > > Cost to benefits assessment. I thought (and still think now) that Saddam was a threat to at least his portion of the oil, if not to the oil in other neighboring countries, but that the cost to benefits of kicking him out of power was too high, since it became clear early on that our ‘plan’ for the invasion and post-invasion was deeply, fatally flawed, and that it was doubtful that most Iraqis were all that keen on having us kick Saddam et al out in any case. Plus, it was equally clear early on that Iraq was a powder keg of explosively hostile factions that were being contained, barely, by Saddam and his merry minions, and that our best bet would have been simply to let things ride…eventually Saddam would either have shuffled off this mortal coil on his own, or Arab Spring would have come early to Iraq. Hindsight, sadly, is always 20/20 and by the time I came to this realization we were already stuck deeply into Iraq. Not that my small support was a critical factor, but it’s not one of my proudest moments that I ever supported that fucked up war. > > Of course. Innocent people were already dying in Iraq, however, regardless of what we did, and I felt, erroneously, that once Saddam was out (something I thought would be fairly simple, and in fact wasn’t that much of a trial initially) that it would give the Iraqi people the freedom to put in their own government and improve their lives and their future. Thus, my flawed logic went, in the medium or long term it would be worth the short term pain of regime change. Also, my thought was that eventually the regime would come crumbling down regardless, and in doing so many, many innocent people (along with the guilty) would die as well, so this seemed preferable (think Libya or Syria today, though obviously that hadn’t happened when this was all going down). > > I was wrong, and I’ve freely admitted that (though you keep harping on it), and I was ignorant as well, especially of the sectarian hostile factions simmering under the surface. I didn’t know a lot about Iraq or the Iraqi people before the invasion, so thought of them as one people, being oppressed under the thumb of Saddam and the Baathists and who would be happy being freed of that yoke. > > I am gratified that you actually read AND seemed to comprehend something I wrote, however, and actually followed up with a coherent query. Regime Change? The US stance was not regime change by ground invasion and occupation. Regime change was to be done by supporting Kurds and Iraqis willing to do it. My understanding is that regime change without ground troops was not viable because the majority Shiites had close ties to Iran and would have been the facilitators to regime change with US support. We really wanted no such thing as Shiites taking over Iraq. Bush was not authorized by the AUMF to use military force just to do regime change. There was no UNSC Resolution authorizing regime change. You needed to pay more attention when you go off supporting offensive wars of aggression. So you decided prior to the invasion that it was our business to determine a political outcome for the Iraqis. Why didn’t you consider to allow Iraqis the right to self determination. What gave you the right to decide to change their regime? And you couldn’t figure out it was going to be a mess if we toppled the regime and send non-Islamic troops who were not trained to fix things back then. They were trained to break things. I see why you are so confused by reality still today. You should know that Military intervention and lethal force can be justified to save lives faced with genocide. There was no genocide occuring when Bush finally decided to invade after March 7 2003. There was peaceful unfettered inspections taking place inside Iraq. No genocide and no actionable intelligence advised of a threat to the region’s oil took place at the time of the invasion. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/750 "2013-07-25T21:31:29Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > There was peaceful unfettered inspections taking place inside Iraq. No there weren’t. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/751 "2013-07-25T23:36:14Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > No there weren’t. Back your delusion up. There was a question as to immediacy on older unresolved issues but prior to the invasion the Iraqi Government was clearly defined as cooperating proactively. That is as unfettered. And cooperation on access to sites was early and immediate. Only a Bush lover, even a closet Bush lover would repeat Bush 's biggest lie. That Iraq did not cooperate. Are you open or closet Smurfy? ---
**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 26, 2013, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/752 "2013-07-26T00:07:33Z")
And now we have come full circle. Give it up, Drunky Smurf…it’s already been explained to him by multiple posters why he’s wrong. Basically, he doesn’t understand the definition of ‘unfettered’ and can’t read plain English. Since he can’t comprehend what anyone writes, including Blix, he won’t get it no matter how hard you pound your forehead against his cluelessness and stubborn stupidity. [QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] The US stance was not regime change by ground invasion and occupation. Regime change was to be done by supporting Kurds and Iraqis willing to do it. My understanding is that regime change without ground troops was not viable because the majority Shiites had close ties to Iran and would have been the facilitators to regime change with US support. We really wanted no such thing as Shiites taking over Iraq. [/QUOTE] Clearly you weren’t keeping up with current events, you clueless fuck. We DID do regime change by ‘ground invasion and occupation’. It was in all the papers. And clearly (to anyone with a clue) this was exactly what our policy was from the signing of the AUMF onward. That’s why we were moving forces into the area. One way or the other, Saddam and his merry men were gone. > [@](#): > > Bush was not authorized by the AUMF to use military force just to do regime change. There was no UNSC Resolution authorizing regime change. You needed to pay more attention when you go off supporting offensive wars of aggression. 😛 Gods you are stupid. Clearly he WAS so authorized, since, you know, he not only built up the forces in the area but fucking invaded Iraq and tossed Saddam and the Baathists out of power. I never said there was a UN resolution to do this…that’s YOUR fantasy that we somehow needed it. Clearly, again, we didn’t because WE FUCKING INVADED ANYWAY WITHOUT IT YOU STUPID FUCK! All that was needed, as Human Action pointed out earlier, was are own internal authorization, which Bush got from Congress. > [@](#): > > So you decided prior to the invasion that it was our business to determine a political outcome for the Iraqis. Why didn’t you consider to allow Iraqis the right to self determination. They couldn’t exercise self determination with Saddam and the Baathists firmly having their feet on the populaces throat, obviously. IMHO at the time, Saddam et al had to go, both for the Iraqi people and general regional security. > [@](#): > > What gave you the right to decide to change their regime? And you couldn’t figure out it was going to be a mess if we toppled the regime and send non-Islamic troops who were not trained to fix things back then. They were trained to break things. You are confusing me with someone who actually had any sort of power to make any sort of decision about any of this at all. What gave the US the right for regime change? Obviously we had the power to do so, and that’s all the ‘right’ that was or has been historically needed. I don’t think it was wise, in retrospect…in fact I’ve said repeatedly it was a major fuck up…but there is no ‘right’ in the real world. What gave us the ‘right’ to intervene in Libya? What is giving us the ‘right’ to intervene in Syria? What gave us the ‘right’ to invade Afghanistan, or assist the Europeans in Bosnia? What gave THEM the ‘right’ to interfere in Bosnia? Simple…they and we had the power to do so. Sadly, we didn’t have the wisdom to restrain ourselves, but there is no such thing as ‘right’. > [@](#): > > I see why you are so confused by reality still today. 😛 No, you really don’t, because you are a witless worm and clueless punch bunny who can neither grasp the events that actually happened back then OR understand either my posts or anyone else for that matter. You are a functionally brain dead asshole who basically has the understanding and IQ of pocket lint…particularly STUPID pocket lint. > [@](#): > > You should know that Military intervention and lethal force can be justified to save lives faced with genocide. There was no genocide occuring when Bush finally decided to invade after March 7 2003. There was peaceful unfettered inspections taking place inside Iraq. No genocide and no actionable intelligence advised of a threat to the region’s oil took place at the time of the invasion. So, you feel that Obama was wrong to intervene in Libya and now Syria as well? The only war you feel that was justified in the last 200+ years involving the US was our part in the European theater of World War II (presumably the Japanese part wasn’t justified since no genocide was occurring)? No, don’t answer that. Your answer would be as worthless as anything else that you spout out. Hell, you probably don’t even understand what I wrote. It’s like everything that anyone writes is being badly translated through babblefish to chipmunk, and then read backwards in the language of pocket lint before reaching the 2-3 synapses still functional in whatever it is you call a ‘brain’… ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/753 "2013-07-26T00:23:00Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Technically we didn’t need a Security Council mandate, since the invasion was about removing a threat. > > Originally Posted by tomndebb > A threat that was declared imminent by the president, but for which no evidence has been produced–further refuted by the fact that the military did not even take steps to secure sites where WoMD might have been stored, thus allowing them to be pillaged and redistributed to real terrorists (if there had actually been any). > > We were told we had to go to war to defend ourselves, but we have not demonstrated any such need and have taken steps that indicate that we did not believe our own rhetoric. > > Lacking a genuine (to say nothing of imminent) threat, our invasion was not legal. Why was the invasion of Iraq not legal T&D ---
**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 26, 2013, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/754 "2013-07-26T00:25:05Z")
[Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=198835) is a helpful link to where you posted this question in a thread that’s been dead for over 10 years now… Maybe Tom will answer you here instead. 😛 ---
**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 26, 2013, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/755 "2013-07-26T00:31:17Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Why was the invasion of Iraq not legal T&D Why is the US Attorney question hard NFbW ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/756 "2013-07-26T00:42:27Z")
> [@](#): > > And now we have come full circle. Give it up, Drunky Smurf…it’s already been explained to him by multiple posters why he’s wrong. -XT It was explained to XT by multiple posters why XT is not only wrong but lying. Blix said Iraq was cooperating proactively starting in February 2003 and Blix said several times that cooperation on access had been provided early on with few problems. The other poster was Tony Sinclair who set XT right and XT wilted away dumbfounded that someone knows more than he. Proactive cooperation is as unfettered as inspections needed to get - there was no timeframe to reach that point. Keep swallowing Bush’s biggest lie dudes. I here the Bush library is hiring some PR drones. You have swallowed enough to qualify - that is for sure. ---
**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 26, 2013, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/757 "2013-07-26T01:06:49Z")
Can you give me a link and some quotes showing multiple posters saying not only that I was wrong on this subject but lying as well? Thanks in advance (I’m not holding my breath for that link) ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/758 "2013-07-26T01:07:42Z")
To those who think Lil Dubby needed an AUMF to start building up troops to surround Iraq must think Lil Dubby didn’t know that Pops made a helluva precedent set up for Jr. > [@](#): > > President George H. W. Bush requested a Congressional joint resolution on January 8, 1991, one week before the January 15, 1991 deadline issued to Iraq specified by the November 29, 1990 United Nations United Nations Security Council Resolution 678. President Bush had deployed over 500,000 U.S. troops without Congressional authorization to Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf region in the preceding five months in response to Iraq’s August 2, 1990 invasion of Kuwait. President Bush said that as Commander-in-chief he did not need Congressional authorization to use military force against Iraq and that his request for a Congressional joint resolution was merely a courtesy to Congress. > **[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_1991)** > > The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (short title) (Pub. L. 102–1) or Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (official title), was the United States Congress's January 14, 1991, authorization of the use of U.S. military force in the Gulf War. > President George H. W. Bush requested a Congressional joint resolution on January 8, 1991, one week before the January 15, 1991, deadline ... “President Bush had deployed over 500,000 U.S. troops without Congressional authorization to Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf region in the preceding five months in response to Iraq’s August 2, 1990 invasion of Kuwait. President Bush said that as Commander-in-chief he did not need Congressional authorization to use military force against Iraq and that his request for a Congressional joint resolution was merely a courtesy to Congress.” Why could it not been like father like son? ---
**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 26, 2013, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/759 "2013-07-26T01:29:19Z")
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] Why could it not been like father like son? [/QUOTE] Because, moron, it wasn’t. This is all in the past, and you act as if it’s still in doubt. It already HAPPENED YOU IDIOT SO WE KNOW HOW IT PLAYED OUT!! I realize that you weren’t following along and this is all new to you, but the rest of us can actually grasp history. The [AUMF](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists) was passed and signed in Sept of 2001. The [Iraq War Resolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution) was enacted in October of 2002, and we began sending in troops (special forces to start) in late 2002 and early 2003, culminating in the invasion in March of that year. See the progression there? AUMF which gave Bush pretty much a blank check: > [@](#): > > To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. > > ``` > Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and > > Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and > > Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and > > Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and > > Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it > > Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, > > ``` The Iraq War Resolution further: > [@](#): > > The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3] > > ``` > Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors. > Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." > Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." > Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". > Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. > Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. > Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. > Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers. > The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them. > The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. > The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power. > Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. > > ``` > > The resolution “supported” and “encouraged” diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to “strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq” and “obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” > > The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” in order to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.” ---
**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 26, 2013, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/760 "2013-07-26T01:32:04Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Why could it not been like father like son? At what date, exactly, do you claim you stopped being fooled by W? Because it sounds like it was March 19, 2003. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=39)