# NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH! **URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475 **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:** 709
### Author: ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW) #### Post date: [July 24, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/709 "2013-07-24T01:53:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Better’n you. It is a decade later and you still support it. I support the language that directed Bush to ‘enforce all UN Resolutions - which he did not enforce ANY… Not a freakin’ ONE. You have failed to explain how anyone supported or opposed paperwork that emerged from closed door negotiations between the WH plus the Senate and House leaders. There is a huge difference between supporting it… and accepting something that happened as a reality and then figuring out the best move with regard to that reality. And that was to realize that the AUMF did in fact restrain Bush to use force only to enforce UN Resolutions, and that it was not the AUMF at fault, it was Bush the liar’s fault. So prior to the war the emphasis should have been on getting the truth out that SH was cooperating. I know you don’t think Bush lied about WMD… but if you had any sense you could see that Bush lied about Iraq not cooperating with the 1441 inspection regime. And another thing… this from your 2007 post: > [@What's wrong with my Iraq War narrative?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-my-iraq-war-narrative/421590/6): > > I disagree. The resolution was offered by the White House to provide political cover by having Congress sign up to the war that Bush intended to prosecute. Does that mean the White House could have started war at any time without bothering with the whole messy UNSC thing, like under the War Powers Act? > [@So is this war and if so who declared it?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-this-war-and-if-so-who-declared-it/160899/12): > > Oh yeah, the War Powers Act. In 1974, Congress passed, over Nixon’s veto, an act that is supposed to be a guideline of how war powers are split between Congress and the president. > > In practice, the president can use troops for 60 days for basically any purpose, but he must made a good-faith effort to inform Congress prior to deploying forces into hostilities, and then those troops may only be kept there for 60 to 90 days without explicit congressional authorization. It also has some reporting requirements so that Congress can be “informed” about what’s going on, but those reports are basically a joke in that they don’t contain much useful information. > > [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020927.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020927.html) > " If Bush “intended to prosecute” an invasion of Iraq regardless of any restraint Congress could put on him, then what is your entire point? I think Bush was forced to take cover of going through the UN because Blair forced that upon him. Many members of Congress like Lieberman were gung ho for war… but not all. But some of those could not be certain that Bush was not crazy enough to send some advance forces in, and get the ground war rolling and then, take some casualties and … it wouldn’t take much to get a full authorization to ‘avenge’ the deaths of a few US troops killed, when the time had come to go all out to rid the world of an evil that no one could refuse to support. The AUMF produced what it was supposed to produce. It is just that Bush lied about Iraq’s cooperation. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475)._