NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

[NotfooledbyW]

@42fish

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:

@Ravenman

Yes, I think Iraq was in violation of 1441.

Along with prior resolutions, it required Iraq to document what happened to all its WMD. It never did. Now, I seriously wonder if it would ever be possible for any country to document what happened to all its WMD.
…,

Nonetheless, I think Saddam took it a step further by trying to screw with the UN weapons inspectors in a variety of ways.

Not that any of this made it okay for the US to go off on its own and start a war, of course.

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.