# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 623
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/623 "2013-07-20T04:30:36Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > :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. What hype did I fall for? There you go again… Making stuff up since you got nothing otherwise. You cited this: > [@](#): > > I have never supported an AUMF vote that gave Bush a blank check to invade Iraq because the AUMF that passed did not do that 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? > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Ravenman “Yes, I think Iraq was in violation of 1441.” That is why Bush invaded Iraq. I believe you did understand the political reality in 2002 and 2003. > [@Bush bungled the diplomacy...how did he do that, exactly?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/12): > > ``` > You, however, are ignoring the fact that on the eve of war, the various polls showed the support for the war to be around 70% *if we went in as part of a U.N. declared intervention* but at only around 50% if we went in alone. > > ``` 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. > [@Bush bungled the diplomacy...how did he do that, exactly?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/6): > > After the WTC/Pentagon attacks, Bush made several claims that anyone who did not support the U.S. obviously supported terrorism–and further declared the right to seek them out and “bring them to justice.” So first he declares that the U.S. is not bound by international justice, then claims that the U.S. can impose its own justice on whomever it chooses. > > When pushing for the war on Iraq, U.S. spokespersons verbally agreed to the demands of France that 1441 could not be an automatic trigger for invasion. Following which, Bush began sending troops to Iraq in such force that it was clear that there would be an invasion, regardless. Then, when pushing for the second (failed) resolution, Bush declared that he could use 1441 to justify an invasion, despite the earlier (spoken, not written) comments and despite the fact that Blix and company had not filed their own final reports. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475)._