NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

[NotfooledbyW]

Supposed to be The AUMF vote was barely discussed Sep 2002 to Apr 2003

Given that the AUMF is now the all and end all of why Iraq was invaded, it is interesting to note that Tomndebb posted little that I could find regarding that vote and what it meant. I see that back then prior to the vote, T&D had the same impression that I held at that time that Bush was pushing an agenda for invasion of Iraq and I believed at the time that Bush was pushing that he could attack Iraq because he had the support of the American people and had the support of Congress to be authorized to do it. I think that was the prevailing mood of all who were concerned that Bush was taking us down a doomed path to invade Iraq prior to September 2002, and then in September 2002 Bush began to change that push to preferring diplomatic means if that would work.
The public did buy that line from Bush that diplomatic means was preferable to war.
I can’ find anywhere in the time period of September 2002 through April 2003 were T&D and others discussed the AUMF. (perhaps I have not found the right keywords).

09-24-2002, 05:55 PM Post 034 tomndebb

(Originally posted by december:) If we’re in imminent danger now, we should deal with that danger. Period.

The U.S. has already demonstrated that it will invade any country that it believes has attacked or supported an attack. Bush is already trying to whip us up into a war frenzy. .
Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates
Given the Blair dossier, is there any alternative to attacking ASAP?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2464693&highlight=Iraq#post2464693

But I do see that T&D was aware that Bush did not follow what he was authorized to do in the AUMF with respect to ‘enforcing UN Resolutions’
It will be interesting to discover when the vote by Congress on the AUMF became the primary issue, where so many here assail those who disagree on the AUMF’s overall importance and slap the “You supported the VOTE FOR WAR” cliché against any intelligent open and honest resistance to dogma that exists on the SD forum.

Its odd because there was little or no discussion about the AUMF in real time as that event was happening and after the start of the war. The divisiveness generated by the AUMF-obsessed here about that vote had to have come well after the fact.

@tomndebb

04-13-2003, 12:49 PM “Bungling diplomacy” does not mean having failed to persuade France, Russia, and Germany. There are a number of reasons why those three specific countries may have refused to join the coalition or provide support in the U.N.

“Bungling diplomacy” notes that Bush could not get even a simple majority of members on the Security Council to actively support him (and had trouble twisting enough arms to get a majority to grudgingly vote with the U.S.). “Bungling diplomacy” notes that it took the administration over two months to get such mighty warriors nations as Eritrea, Iceland, and Palau (while lacking a lot of NATO countries) to come on board and got only four countries to send troops. “Bungling diplomacy” indicates that there was such resistance to his efforts, world-wide, that most of his Arab supporters (many of whom appear to have been coerced to begin with) could not publicly declare their support for fear of their own populations. “Bungling diplomacy” notes that they sent Powell into the U.N. with badly forged evidence. “Bungling diplomacy” reflects such idiotic comments as Rumsfeld cutting Blair off at the knees the week before the invasion saying that the U.S. would go in alone if Britain backed out. “Bungling diplomacy” notes that Bush was barely able to get a majority of his own citizens to agree to his “go it alone” stance while the appearance of actual international support would have raised that number to nearly three-quarters, prior to the invasion.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=3277103&highlight=Iraq%2C+vote#post3277103

Just saying! Any thoughts?