# 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:** 40
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/781 "2013-07-27T03:24:51Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That threat makes no sense, though. “Give me the power to easily make war, or I’ll make war!” > > Imagine someone with a baseball bat approaching you. “Give me your shotgun!”, he yells, “Or I’ll go rob that bank!” So, aware that he might be able to rob the bank with the baseball bat, you hand over the shotgun, then watch in bafflement as he robs the bank with it. That’s what Congress did, because they were either fools, cowards, or not actually averse to war. > > Yes, Bush could have invaded Iraq under the 2001 AUMF. But it’d be a blatant fraud, a middle finger to a Congress that could repeal the AUMF, and alienate Bush’s foreign allies. You said it yourself. It make sense because Bush could make war without it. And Bush starts offering a third way out of “DO NOTHING” “MAKE WAR” … as were the only two choices being pushed until Bush began offering the “PEACEFUL DISARMAMENT” Route. Do any of the stooges think Bush was going to agree upon 'DO NOTHING"? Here is what Bush said when the White House and the House Leadership agreed to the language in the AUMF.. > [@](#): > > None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. **America’s leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict**. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable. > President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution The Rose Garden October 2, 2002 That is for Ravenman too. Apparently Ravenman missed all this run up to the war when he was ‘lurking’. ---
**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 27, 2013, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/782 "2013-07-27T04:12:12Z")
Is Bob Woodward “nutty?” ---
**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 27, 2013, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/783 "2013-07-27T04:18:45Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Is Bob Woodward “nutty?” How many needless wars did he start? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/784 "2013-07-27T09:05:12Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Is Bob Woodward “nutty?” I’m not sure that Woodward didn’t take a few too many sips of the neocon Kool-Aid after 9/11. But if you are referencing some of Woodward’s writing about the early stages of planning for an attack on Iraq to depose Saddam, I’ll have to see if Woodward shuts down like most journalists have on the period of UN inspections and that significance of the passage of 1441 and the change of attitude by Bush prior to the AUMF vote in October 2002 and what Iraq’s cooperation should have done to all Bush’s planning for war. As the famed investigative journalist that Woodward used to be, you’d think he’d been screaming for ‘evidence’ on the WMD claims in the paper where he sits on the editorial board, plus been able to see that Iraq was cooperating as never before and scream that on the front page of the Washington Post with blazing headlines. Many polls showed that at least six of ten Americans wanted Bush to let the inspections continue with no need for war. Woodward could have figured out that 1441 and the subsequent inspections changed the dynamics of that period quite a bit and favorable to a peaceful resolution. But the major change it should have forced was that the focus should have moved away from the potential threat of Iraq possessing WMD… to a focus on whether or not the inspections were working and how much that meant to reducing the threat to the US and our allies in the region. I suspect there was fear of proclaiming the truth of Iraq’s cooperation by the US mainstream media because reporting anything positive about Saddam Hussein put n journalists and news organizations in the unfair category of working in the interests of an evil dictator who might someday give his WMD to terrorists. The rightwing media, led by Fox News set the standard and the narrative of how journalists were supposed to conduct themselves during Bush’s handling of the war on terror. A dedicated watchdog journalist would have noticed that in October 2002 there was an argument that Iraq could be a potential threat and its violations of international law on WMD and disarmament matters needed to be confronted and ended. There was an argument that Iraq was a threat and most officials down to Joe Sixpack considered Iraq to be some kind of a threat. Like XT… a threat to the oil in the region. But it doesn’t take much expertise in military or foreign policy affairs to realize that a couple hundred inspectors scouring Iraq for a few months and not finding evidence of WMD in Iraq in March 2003 provided a tremendous reduction in the potential threat from Iraq to I’d say non-existent. That huge reduction in threat has been little discussed anywhere. That is absurd. The comparative level of threat between October 2002 to March 2003 allows anyone to shoot down and reject Bush’s final days decision to end inspections when they only had four months to go to probable conclusion. And long term monitoring would be fully set in place. No one discusses that. Perhaps Woodward does, I have not read everything he has written on Iraq, but I doubt it. To me it is fundamental in any discussion about Iraq. That is because Bush was publically stating that regime change WAS NOT necessary if the UN acted to disarm Iraq and Iraq acted properly to be disarmed. Bush put no real deadline on that condition at the time either. So if regime change WAS NOT NECESSARY in October 2002 if disarmament of WMD could take place, then only the most ignorant and unsophisticated buffoon could ever state and be believed that Iraq was more of a threat in March 2003 and that regime change was necessary. Bush is the buffoon who stated it and no one questions that aspect of his decision. I ran across these when I tried to figure out what Bob Woodward has to do with the conversation at this point. > [@So Bush lied to get into Iraq, ok but why?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/155): > > … clearly Bush et al did not want to be locked into inspections with no completion in sight. Bush locked in to inspections with no completion date set when he told Congress he wanted an AUMF so he could keep the peace but force Iraq to disarm, and when he sought and received UNSC Resolution 1441. > [@So Bush lied to get into Iraq, ok but why?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/166): > > While I agree with you that the burden of proof ought to have been on the Bush Administration to show that Iraq was a real, not just imagined, danger, Blix had been saying for about two months prior to the invasion that he was unable to come to any conclusion about whether or not the WMDs existed, as well as criticizing the intelligence he had been provided. The threat from Iraq compared to October 2002 was reduced at the point where you begin to cite Blix’s uncertainty. The threat is not relative to Blix doing his job in a professional way. The threat is reduced because Blix is and has been inside Iraq with a couple hundred inspectors and infrared planes and ground penetrating radar and more monitoring stuff on the way and most important that you all pretend didn’t happen… is Blix had proactive cooperation from Iraq before an invasion was decided. The THREAT WAS REDUCED and if it was ok not to have regime change in October 2002 when no inspectors were inside Iraq… it is absurd to accept the need for regime change in March where the inspection conditions were extremely improved and were working. > [@So Bush lied to get into Iraq, ok but why?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/170): > > I’m happy to provide multiple cites in which Blix says that, with sufficient time and cooperation, he would be able to determine whether Iraq has disarmed. That is true and it means the threat from Iraq was reduced, not increased from October 2002 to March 2003. > [@So Bush lied to get into Iraq, ok but why?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/183): > > … There was certainly a bald-faced lie when Nicholas Negroponte said of UN Resolution 1441 that it had no “hidden triggers for war,” and then the US went to war because 1441 “allowed” the US to do so. More ammo for my point that Bush came no where’s near to ‘enforcing all UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq’ when he decided to invade Iraq and piss all over 1441 and the AUMF and the American people, our troops, our Congress and the entire world. > [@So Bush lied to get into Iraq, ok but why?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/183): > > … But I think the concern from Bush was not that UN inspections were going to disprove the WMD claim, it was that the inspections would go on forever with no conclusive end. **Bob Woodward wrote extensively on this point**. So are you and Bob sympathetic to this rationale for war? I’m not. Even if inspections went on forever any simpleton could figure out that it was a reduction in threat from five months before, and a cheaper less risky means to further contain Iraq. So we should not have expected Bush to figure these simple facts out. If these were Bush’s concerns Woodward should have ripped them to shreds. Does He? ---
**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 27, 2013, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/785 "2013-07-27T11:34:23Z")
Can I summarize your verbal diarrhea this way: you don’t know if Woodward is nutty, because you first need to know if he agrees with you or not? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/786 "2013-07-27T13:31:26Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You said it yourself. It make sense because Bush could make war without it. And Bush starts offering a third way out of “DO NOTHING” “MAKE WAR” … as were the only two choices being pushed until Bush began offering the “PEACEFUL DISARMAMENT” Route. > > Do any of the stooges think Bush was going to agree upon 'DO NOTHING"? He could make war without it, but only with great difficulty. A sensible Congress would have withheld their authorization to invade. That would have placed Bush in a position where he’d have to either a) formally claim that Iraq was behind 9/11, b) hope that Congress wouldn’t end his invasion after 60 days, or c) refuse to confront Iraq on the WMD issue at all, and face the wrath of a frightened, 9/11 scarred electorate. The choice of “Do Nothing” or “Make War” was a false one, a bluff. Doing nothing would have been ruinous to Bush, and making war without the Iraq Resolution would have been ruinous to Bush. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Here is what Bush said when the White House and the House Leadership agreed to the language in the AUMF.. When the President says that the only way to keep peace is to give him the sole power to decide if war is necessary, that’s what we call a red flag. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/787 "2013-07-27T13:58:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Can I summarize your verbal diarrhea this way: you don’t know if Woodward is nutty, because you first need to know if he agrees with you or not? Woodward wrote dozens of books. If Woodward wrote anything nutty that was merely based on reading Bush’s mind as you and XT do, then yes I believe Woodward is nutty while I believe he drank a little of the neocon kool laid and writes from a perspective that more justifies what Bush did than is critical of it. He’s protecting his paper and his profession from culpability in the news media’s cheerleader role in making a war happen that did not need to happen. > [@](#): > > "Had the resolution been legitimate, it would have authorized the U.S. to act with the U.N. to enforce the U.N. resolutions. Instead, the U.S. acted unilaterally, not to enforce U.N. directives, but for a whole host of shifting claims (from WoMD to regime change) that have little to no connection to the first Gulf War and had absolutely nothing to do with defending the U.S. against a third rate power on the far side of the Earth. -TomnDebb Now I will ask you a question directly related to the immediate topic and is not a broad and widely generalistic question that leads toward a separate topic. Do you agree with TomnDebb’s statement that I have cited? And in particular the first sentence, “Had the resolution been legitimate, it would have authorized the U.S. to act with the U.N. to enforce the U.N. resolutions.” Keep in mind that the AUMF Oct 2002 did direct Bush to enforce all UNSC resolutions with regard to Iraq? That being the case, is it true that T&D has stated that the AUMF is in fact legitimate, but Bush did not adhere to it? ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/788 "2013-07-27T14:36:41Z")
This is a great thread. For me to shit on! ---
**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 27, 2013, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/789 "2013-07-27T15:36:45Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Woodward wrote dozens of books. If Woodward wrote anything nutty that was merely based on reading Bush’s mind as you and XT do, then yes I believe Woodward is nutty while I believe he drank a little of the neocon kool laid and writes from a perspective that more justifies what Bush did than is critical of it. Well, let’s just review what Woodward wrote: > [@](#): > > **Shortly after New Year’s Day 2003** , national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had a private moment with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex. . . . “You have to follow through on your threat,” Rice said. “If you’re going to carry out coercive diplomacy, you have to live with that decision.” > > “He’s getting more confident, not less,” Bush said of Hussein. "He can manipulate the international system again. We’re not winning. > > “Time is not on our side here,” Bush told Rice. “Probably going to have to, we’re going to have to go to war.” > > **In Rice’s mind, this was the moment the president decided the United States would go to war with Iraq.**. . . . > > Back in Washington in **early January 2003** , Bush took Rumsfeld aside. > > **“Look, we’re going to have to do this, I’m afraid,” he said.**. . . > > **So on Saturday, Jan. 11** , Cheney invited Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador, to his West Wing office. . . . “You can count on this,” Rumsfeld said, pointing to the map. **“You can take that to the bank. This is going to happen.”**. . . > > **So that Monday, Jan. 13,** Powell and Bush met in the Oval Office. . . . “The inspections are not getting us there,” the president said, getting down to business. The U.N. inspectors were just sort of stumbling around, and Hussein was showing no intention of real compliance. “I really think I’m going to have to do this.” **The president said he had made up his mind on war. The United States should go to war.** [Cite.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19691-2004Apr17.html) Was this based on Woodward reading people’s minds? Woodward [based the book](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-612067.html) on interviews with 75 senior Administration leaders, including a three and a half hour interview with President Bush, who “permitted Woodward to quote him directly.” Woodward also “permitted 60 Minutes to listen to tapes he recorded of his most important interviews, to read the transcripts, and to verify that the quotes he uses are based on recollections from participants in the key meetings.” Sure, you say, that just means that Woodward had access to every single senior Administration official and quoted President Bush directly that the decision for war was made in January 2003. That doesn’t mean that Bush intended war and regime change all along… does it? See the last cite: > [@](#): > > “And there’s this low boil on Iraq until the day before Thanksgiving, Nov. 21, 2001. This is 72 days after 9/11. This is part of this secret history. President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically, and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, ‘What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.’” And I’m not even mentioning the Downing Street Memo, in which Tony Blair was advised of the White House push for regime change in July 2002. Holy fuck, I’d be totally embarrassed by those cites if I held the view that the decision for war happened only in mid-March 2003. Glad I’m not you. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/790 "2013-07-27T16:14:40Z")
So, if I’m reading this correctly, the person whose name is “NotFooledByW” has currently staked his argument on the statement that _he sincerely believed George W. Bush only wanted a peaceful resolution via diplomacy when he signed the AUMF._ Is that right? ---
**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 27, 2013, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/791 "2013-07-27T16:29:01Z")
That is right. Plus, let’s remember that “Regime Change” was the official policy of the US towards Iraq since the Clinton years (before many of us had even heard the term 'WMD"). Bush’s idea of “peaceful resolution” would have been SH fleeing the country. ---
**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 27, 2013, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/792 "2013-07-27T18:47:31Z")
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] Another way you run is by not citing my relevant response. I didn’t claim that another and I posted exact words that you are wrong and liar. I wrote that I and another (multiple posters) explained why you are wrong and a liar. Then I posted the cites where you are wrong and being to this moment very deceitful. [/QUOTE] Dude, again, it’s almost like you don’t realize that people can scroll up and see what you said. Here, let me help you: [QUOTE=NFBW, purportedly] It was explained to XT by multiple posters why XT is not only wrong but lying. [/QUOTE] You claimed that multiple posters said I was not only wrong but lying. I asked you for some links and quotes. You failed to provide them. Then you tried to dance around a bit and wave your hands in the air about me running away as well as some other loopy horseshit. > [@](#): > > Go back to my post and respond. Don’t run from it. There is nothing to run from, dipshit. You didn’t provide a link and quotes backing up the statement I asked you for a cite for. Instead, you spewed out some other horseshit that, frankly, I’ve already responded to in the past and I see no reason to do so again, since it’s clear you were too stupid to get what I said the FIRST (or hell, in some cases the second or third) time I did so. The more you respond in this thread the more clear it is to everyone but you that not only don’t you know the first thing about this subject, but that you really are very, very stupid. Some folks are ignorant. Some are stupid. Rarely is someone both ignorant AND fundamentally stupid. You are one of those rare individuals, combining a near text book example of both. Couple that with your reading comprehension issues and your delusions of adequacy and, well, it’s a potent mix, keeping many 'dopers in this thread amused and coming back to continue to point and laugh at you for hours on end. My only concern is that we might be nearly the event horizon where your density and negative brain power causes a black hole to materialize on the board, sucking us all into the singularity of your mega ass-hattery and sheer boneheaded stupidity. Could be bad, but it’s like watching a train wreck in very, very slow motion…you just have to keep watching to see what happens next. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/793 "2013-07-27T20:02:49Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I’m not sure that a ‘request that ‘reports’ of rape by soldiers loyal to Gadhaffy should be investigated’ is something that should be framed as a lie by Clinton or was inappropriate? Ok I’ll merely frame it as outright war propoganda, not a lie. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/794 "2013-07-27T23:40:53Z")
You stooges are a joke. “probably” and “I think” and citing Rumsfeld pointing to a map to Prince Bandhar… smoking cigars… wow? “In Rice’s mind” too efn funny. That woman didn’t have much of mind. When did Woodword’s book come out? So did Bush inform Congressmen and Senators that he had decided to invade Iraq before getting the full reports from the inspectors? You’d think he’d given them time to consider that he had been lying to them about wanting to disarm Iraq peacefully. Come on Ravenman. This is what you got… “Probably” and “I think”… > [@](#): > > Shortly after New Year’s Day 2003, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had a private moment with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex. . . . . > > “Time is not on our side here,” Bush told Rice. “_ **Probably** _ going to have to, we’re going to have to go to war.” > > **In Rice’s mind** , this was the moment the president decided the United States would go to war with Iraq. . . . . That’s nothing. ““Probably going to have to..”” give me a break. > [@](#): > > Back in Washington in early January 2003, Bush took Rumsfeld aside. > > “Look, we’re going to have to do this, I’m afraid,” he said. . . . > > So on Saturday, Jan. 11, Cheney invited Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador, to his West Wing office. . . . “You can count on this,” Rumsfeld said, pointing to the map. “You can take that to the bank. This is going to happen.” . . . > > So that Monday, Jan. 13, Powell and Bush met in the Oval Office. . . . “The inspections are not getting us there,” the president said, getting down to business. The U.N. inspectors were just sort of stumbling around, and Hussein was showing no intention of real compliance. “I really \*\*\*think \*\*\*I’m going to have to do this.” The president said he had made up his mind on war. The United States should go to war. More nothing… “I really **think** I’m going to have to do this.” Well Ravenman, I \*\*\*think \*\*\*I am going to win the lottery tonight. $200 million. And I didn’t know Rumsfeld was the one making the decision. Here’s the reality that we knew when all this was going down: Bush hadn’t made a decision on January 28, 2003, the night of the State of the Union Speech. Check out the use of “IF”. Do you know what “IF” means? > [@](#): > > The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi’s–Iraq’s illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and \*\*its links to terrorist groups. \*\*We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: \*\*\*If \*\*\*Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. > > We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. > > _ **If** _ war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. > > And _ **if** _ war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military, and we will prevail. “IF” trumps “PROBABLY” and “I think” every time. So Bush was lying to us all in the State of the Union Address, including the US Congress whom he standing before, and on such a grave and serious matter as the need for starting a war? Is that what you all believe? ---
**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 28, 2013, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/795 "2013-07-28T00:47:47Z")
So, you’re saying you aren’t fooled by what Bush said behind closed doors to his closest advisors, because it contradicts what Bush was saying in public, which you believe. I… I… I just don’t know what to say. ---
**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 28, 2013, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/796 "2013-07-28T00:59:43Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So, you’re saying you aren’t fooled by what Bush said behind closed doors to his closest advisors, because it contradicts what Bush was saying in public, which you believe. > > I… I… I just don’t know what to say. It’s very clear. Bush wanted peace when he thought SH had WMDs, but as more and more evidence surfaced that there were no WMDs, Bush decided to wage war. It’s completely logical! ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2013, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/797 "2013-07-28T01:44:23Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > So, if I’m reading this correctly, the person whose name is “NotFooledByW” has currently staked his argument on the statement that _he sincerely believed George W. Bush only wanted a peaceful resolution via diplomacy when he signed the AUMF._ > > Is that right? Do you know anything about anything Smapti? Ravenman cites a third Party Account in a book published what four of five years after the fact. I cite what comes straight from the horses’ ass Commander in Chief’s mouth: Excerpts from this link: [Center for Cooperative Research - Find Your Bill of Sale Template Online](http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq"es_from_senior_us_officials=decisionQuotes) > [@](#): > > February 26, 2003: … President Bush gives a speech on the impending invasion of Iraq to a friendly audience at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute… The danger must be confronted. **We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not** , we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. > > March 6, 2003: **Bush Says Decision Has Not Been Made To Use Force Against Iraq** > > During a press conference, Bush is asked if the US will provide journalists, humanitarian workers, and weapons inspectors enough time to leave Iraq before the war begins, if it comes to that. Bush responds that people will be given a chance, but also recommends to journalists, “If you’re going, and we start action, leave.” He also insists that **no decision has been made to use military force**. “\*\*I’ve not made up our mind about military action,” \*\*Bush says. **“Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.”** At the conclusion of the press conference, Bush again says that he has not made any decision to use force. \*\*“I want to remind you that it’s his choice to make as to whether or not we go to war. It’s Saddam’s choice. He’s the person that can make the choice of war and peace.” \*\*[US President, 3/10/2003] > > March 8, 2003: Bush Says Saddam is Refusing to Disarm; **Says US Is Doing Everything Possible To Avoid War** > Edit event > > In a radio address, … Near the conclusion of his radio address, Bush says: “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.” [US President, 3/17/2003] Question for Ravenman, Did Woodward address the obvious contradictions between the interviews he got from Bush insiders and what Bush was on record saying to the world all the way through March 8, 2003. My God If Woodward were on tenth of what he was during Watergate, he’d have sicked some reporters against Bush to find out who the hell was lying. ---
**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 28, 2013, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/798 "2013-07-28T02:21:14Z")
Just when I thought you couldn’t possibly get more stupid, you do this. We are definitely in uncharted territory at this point. [QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] Ravenman cites a third Party Account in a book published what four of five years after the fact. I cite what comes straight from the horses’ ass Commander in Chief’s mouth: [/QUOTE] Yeah, you tell him NFBW! Preach it brother! Who ya gonna believe here, some yahoo dishing the dirt on Bush or Bush himself! 😛 If Bush said he hadn’t made a decision yet then clearly he hadn’t, since he was the Decider and all. I mean, politicians NEVER lie, especially this one, right? All he was asking, is give peace a chance! ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2013, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/799 "2013-07-28T03:36:36Z")
[quote=“XT, post:798, topic:661475”] Who ya gonna believe here, some yahoo dishing the dirt on Bush or Bush himself! /QUOTE] Why are you asking that XT? At that pivotal point in time we only could know what Bush said publically. And at that point in time you wrote off as Machiavellian ‘peace’ statements from Bush because you were convinced that war was justified and it was either ok for Bush to lie like that as long as Bush went ahead with regime change because in your misinformed mind, Saddam was a serious threat to the region’s oil. On the other hand, at that same point in time, I was protesting against those Bush lies about the level of Iraq’s cooperation as he claimed he was really for peace. Truly being for peace, meant he would not lie about the reality of the inspections and Iraq’s cooperation. It was those lies about cooperation that went unchallenged and being unchallenged Bush could claim he was for peace yet secretly could plan on invading Iraq anyway, not because Iraq was hiding WMD or not cooperating, but because Bush could get away with lying about Iraq’s lack of cooperation because there were too many XT’s in the world who efn believed the lying sack of crap while the case of proactive cooperation was out in the news being reported for anyone interested enough in finding it. And Bush got away with it because of uniformed suckers like XT, who now claims he didn’t give a damn about UN inspections because Saddam was pulling the wool over the inspectors eyes. > [@XT](#): > > I didn’t CARE if the inspections were working or not (I didn’t think they were, but didn’t really care at the time one way or another). My feeling at the time was that the UN was basically worthless and Saddam was pulling the wool over their eyes, but that WMD was just a pretext anyway. XT had the wool pulled over his eyes by Bush in March 2003 and has not taken that wool off as of today. XT still believes the inspections were not working… Just exactly as Bush wants everyone to keep believing. ---
**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 28, 2013, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/800 "2013-07-28T03:42:53Z")
Did all your protesting the impending war occur between March 7 and March 19, 2003? Because I think you’ve made it clear that prior to early March, Bush had no interest in going to war because Bush told us so. And since you believed Bush right up until March 7 (or a few days before or after that), there would be no reason to protest a war that you were convinced wouldn’t happen. How much marching and letter writing did you get done in those two weeks? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=41)