NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

What you say is a ‘given’ is false. Define how one supports or opposed closed door negotiations between the WH and key members of Congress.
I supported (after the fact) the stated intent of the AUMF to demand that Bush use military force only to enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq. So you are making your claim falsely and dishonestly now, that I am trying to justify it. I am simply stating that it was what it was. And it was not a blank check. If it were a blank check there would have been no explicit tie to All Relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq.

So you now must be counted as having your head up your ass with regard to what is written in the AUMF like so many here have theirs,

The fact that nobody can is not my problem. Facts just will be facts and you do not have them on your side.

This is the single most devastating thing I’ve had said about me since Starving Artist said I was on his list of dishonest posters. Wait, I didn’t mean devastating. What’s that other word? Oh yeah, amusing.

“Sure, I signed the check without filling in an amount, but I wrote ‘Don’t make it more than $200’ on the memo line so it’s totally not a blank check.”

Ah, no thank you. Mostly because I don’t care to read walls of texts consisting of run-on sentences with no commas. This forum is more entertaining.

Sorry, but just noticed these paragraphs*.

Your contention is that the people who correctly predicted that giving Bush a blank check** for going to war was a bad idea are the ones who were “played for fools.” I am impressed at your ability to keep topping yourself, inanity-wise.
*Guess that’s one advantage of the Wall o’ Text approach to posting: easy to hide idiotic stuff amid the thickets.

**Can we just take the “But it wasn’t a blank check, despite looking exactly like one” fit as a given and skip the Wall o’ Text for it?

You are very stupid. The text of the AUMF makes it not a blank check.

The one’s that are played for a fool by Bush are those who believe the Bush lies about Iraq’s naughty behavior and failure at cooperation and Iraq was in violation of 1441 such as this Propaganda duped fool in 2004:

It does no good to repeat Bush supportive lies that Iraq was in violation of 1441 and then turn around and complain that it didn’t justify the invasion - you can’t explain true and proper opposition to the invasion if you accept and repeat the propaganda and lies that were deceitfully used to justify it.

I’m in California, too. I ain’t telling you. :stuck_out_tongue:

I made that prediction despite having skipped pages 2-10; I suspect there are others who wished they could say the same.

:dubious:

You were fooled into thinking that an AUMF had any validity. It did not. Now you are too cowardly to admit your error.

Trying to hedge your actual support in all sorts of silly, squishy reasons why your support was different than anyone else’s support simply makes you look dishonest. I have already demonstrated that any AUMF was wrong. Regardless how “criminal” Hussein’s regime might have been, there was never a legitimate reason to authorize an attack on the nation of Iraq. Therefore, any support for force, whatever your rationalization and regardless how many congresscritters you try to use to shield yourself from your actions, is wrong.

You were fooled by W and now it just makes you cringe to recall how badly you fell for his hype.
Tough.

But none of us lurkers GIVE ANY KIND OF SHIT about your retarded views. We are NOT going to read through your retarded walls of text, even if you point to the one it’s in, just to find out what we already know: You’re a retarded idiot who was, in fact, Fooled by W.

Give it up. Only you care about your excuse for being fooled by W. The rest of us are satisfied that you were, in fact, fooled by W.

What hype did I fall for? There you go again… Making stuff up since you got nothing otherwise.

You cited this:

But you must not be able to read it> *"… that gave Bush a blank check to invade Iraq" . * That is dishonest.
How and when and who are you to demonstrate that “any AUMF was wrong”

Are you one of those Bush believers like Ravenman is?

That is why Bush invaded Iraq.

I believe you did understand the political reality in 2002 and 2003.

Fifty Percent for war without UN Sanction… and you think that political will could have been conjured up to deny Bush an AUMF.

Bush would not stop his ignorant irrational self from invading Iraq after Iraq had shown three months of unprecedented cooperation with UN inspectors. He didn’t care about complying with either the AUMF he got and the UN Resolution he got and he said he wanted.

And you with your twenty percent of 9/11 weakened political capital in 2002 think you could have stopped Bush from getting a resolution in October 2002 or the following month when his Party took the Senate and his Party kept the House.
Well over two thirds of the US public in September 2002 thought Iraq had WMD and was a threat. And you didn’t.
So Congress did the best they could when they agreed to the AUMF after whittling away at Bush’s version to get the ties to UN REs Enforcement in there and support for a new Resolution demanding Iraq resume inspections.
The public wanted Iraq’s outlaw status confronted. So the lawmakers got it in writing that Bush could ONLY use force if he was enforcing ALL UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq’s disarmament.
You were close to figuring it all out at one time.
But today you ignore that Congress at least tried to force Bush to work only through the UN with an attempt to avert war if Iraq cooperated.

Congress got it in the AUMF, and Bush ignored it.

Yet you hold Congress responsible for Bush’s defiant and irrational actions. That is wrong. That is stupid. That helps Bush…
Did you ever hear the Bushies respond to any criticism of Bush the war decider…

Bbbbbuttttt Bbbbbbuuuutttt t Democrats VOTED FOR WAR.
At least I know we agree that Bush was NOT ‘enforcing all UN Resolutions’ when he acted wholly and defiantly outside the UNSC and UN Res 1441.

Has anyone else asked NFBW this? Friend, you do realize that your words here aren’t as ephemeral as they would be if they were spoken instead of posted on an Internet forum, don’t you? You posted your blather. It’s there. It’s not cool to deny that you posted what you posted.

I reposted what I said. I stand by the entire statements in both cases. T&D is capable of citing an entire sentence and posting it, but for some reason is incapable of reading more than half of it with comprehension.
It used to be that people would only post half a statement when they intend to perform a contextomy on it. But T&D just blurts the whole sentence out there and goes on with the contextomy anyway.

Its not a meaningful way of doing things, but I guess there are enough suckers around here that never notice.

You fell for Bush’s hype that Hussein was a threat to the U.S. or the region.

Sorry. Whining that you had an escape clause after you handed Bush his keys to the kingdom is both naive and dishonest. Ooooh! Look! It says right here that he was not supposed to do bad things if we gave him too much power. It’s not my fault.
You are the dishonest one, pretending that Bush would have ever refrained from using his congressionally approved powers once they were handed to him, powers “protected” from abuse by Bush’s willingness to abide by the letter of the law as you interpreted them.

I was a U.S. citizen who took the time to see the evidence put forth by the administration and recognize it as bullshit. There was never any evidence at any time that Hussein would launch an attack on another country following his defeats in Iran and Kuwait and the continued presence of the no-fly zones. There was no evidence, (despite strenuous efforts by the administration to manufacture such), that Hussein was involved in terrorist activities. Since he was not a threat, there was no reason to rationalize military force against him–particularly when we were already tied up in Afghanistan.

Bush invaded Iraq because it weas part of the overall plan of his neo-con buddies, many of whom he had invited into his administration. UN resolutions and congressional votes were the tools he used to carry out his stated intention, not the reasons for them.

I clearly failed to stop Bush. Most people fall into one of two camps: those who recognized that the war was not justified but was going to happen and those who were led astray by the Bush campaign to create the war. Only you, however, fall into a separate category that believes that your own (Bush created) views were entirely correct, then, but that Bush simply violated his word.
I do not criticize those who were led astray by the Bush propaganda machine; it was powerful. I do point and laugh at you who wants to believe his tripe at the time, but then excuse yourself by claiming that he did anything differently than anyone who was paying attention would have expected him to do.

The difference is that, unlike you, I do not run around bragging how I actually handed him the keys to the chicken coop and then whining that he stole the chickens.

The Bush propaganda campaign was powerful. Not everyone read all the outside information demonstrating his lies. We do not live in a society where people pay enough attention to details.

There were a number of congresscritters who pushed back at Bush and refused to go along with it. It is hardly my fault or theirs that you and the majority of the U.S. failed to look behind the curtain.

:dubious:

Thousands of us saw that. I was not alone. Unfortunately, millions were persuaded by the propaganda campaign.

Congress covered their butts with a tissue thin dress of convenience instead of demanding that Bush actually make a case for his games.

And there you go, trying to excuse your poor behavior and the failure of Congress on Bush, when anyone who wanted to see the truth did see it at the time. Levin saw it. Lee saw it. A handful of other congresscritters, (including a few Republicans) saw it.

If the Democrats did not want to hand the Republicans that sort of political fodder, they could have voted to withhold the AUMF until there was evidence that there was a threat. That too many Democrats were stampeded into supporting bad legislation for fear of looking “soft on terror” is not my problem.
That you are willing to pretend there was ever a legitimate reason to support the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 in order to defend those Democrats who voted for it, (and many did oppose it), just shames you.

I think I figured it out: NFbW is one of those Democratic Congressmen who voted for the AUMF. I can see no other reason for someone pretending so adamantly that giving Bush the green light to go to war actually constituted putting restraints on him. It would also explain his repeated “But 66% of the public supported going to war” mantra (as if it were somehow relevant to the wisdom of supporting the AUMF).

Wait. When did Hillary step down as SecState and when did Fooled By W join this MB?

What is truly incredible is that after what, 800 to 1,000 posts he’s made on Iraq, that he’s totally failed to find a single person to agree with him, including those who were even more anti-war than he (including yours truly).

Plus the whole bit about accusing people who were anti-AUMFAI of being more pro-Bush than he was for supporting that resolution. That’s just hee-larious.

Well, considering that he has been on the whole “I supported the war before I was against it” mantra for a few pages now…

…is that you, Mr. Kerry?

I know. You won’t find anyone on this MB more anti-war than I was (and generally am). I wasn’t even keen of the idea of the Gulf War 1, and almost everyone was on board with that.

Oh, come on! I’m a Republican from NY, where she was a senator, and I give Hillary more credit for brains and communication ability than to think she could be posting irrational, inarticulate tripe like FooledbyW does.

No anti-war soul on this earth would ever say the 2003 invasion of Iraq was both justified and legitimate. And you did write exactly that John Mace. You wrote it. Now fess up.