John Mace appears to agree with your rendition of history today, but six months ago on the Hubris thread it was a different story. Solosam asked John Mace a question. Check out this exchange from last February:
I don’t claim to know for certain, but I don’t think Bush and his cronies ** ‘really thought they’d find something’ **. I believe Bush is a sinister, amoral doofus who may have known that Iraq had no WMD but went through the motions faking their belief that Iraq was hiding WMD all the way through March 2003 to start a war.
So it looks right now that it’s your buddy, John Mace who was (at least six months ago) totally duped, suckered, gas lighted for writing that Bush thought they would really find hidden WMD in Iraq. You got the wrong person if you think it was me.
I think Bush thought he’d find WMD, too. There’s been a bazillion threads on whether Bush lied about WMD, and I’ve consistently argued that he was simply wrong.
But his main interest in going to war was clearly regime change, regardless of the presence of WMD.
That only works if the resolution envisioned (1441) does not eventually pass, giving Iraq a **final opportunity ** to comply with ‘all’ preceding relevant resolutions with regard to Iraq.
You have to remember that the AUMF was written at a time when Congress members had no way to know if the UNSC would pass such a ‘final opportunity’ Resolution as they did the following month. And if such a resolution passed the UNSC they also could not know if Iraq would comply with it.
So the language was written to accommodate that unknown and what to do in case the UNSC acts as they should and Iraq acts as it should.
Any eighth grader I think could grasp this too if someone bothered to explain it to them.
If the UNSC failed to pass an envisioned 1441, leaving Iraq without a ‘FINAL OPPORTUNITY’ to comply with “ALL” relevant resolutions then yes Bush has the authority to start a war if he also determines that America’s national security cannot be defended in any other way.
But we know that the UNSC unanimously passed 1441 and many have said it was likely passed because the US Congress gave Bush the authority to wage war if necessary to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions. All members of the UNSC wanted to see if Iraq could cooperate properly this time in order to avoid war.
I think you’re saying that US law referring to “all relevant resolutions” actually only means 1441… And the rest is jibberish. And the part I understand is nonsense.
As far as I’m concerned, people can believe the full range of what went on inside Bush’s head after 9/11 with regard to Iraq. I tend to take what was said and what was done by all the players at that major crossroad of history.
Where we differ is merely that I believe there was a legitimate assessment of threat of WMD in Saddam Hussein’s control when Iraq did not have one UN inspector on the ground getting to the truth of that matter. That is an assessment of mine and I believe it with no regard to what Bush or any other warmonger were saying or doing at the time. But I also believe without regard to what Bush or Blix or anyone else had to say after the start of the year in 2003 that my visual eye contact with reports that 200 some UN inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and that threat I thought earlier existed when there were no inspectors had turned into a **very significantly reduced threat **by the first days of March.
Therefore I don’t spend time speculating what Bush’s interest was or what he ‘really’ wanted in contradiction to what he said he wanted, - I am focusing on the very simple observable fact that Iraq had no inspectors in October 2002 and a couple hundred in Iraq in March 2003 and they were preparing to set up long term monitoring and to settle longstanding unresolved issues. Therefore, and argument for a threat existed in September 2002, but any argument that a similar threat existed in March 2003. And specifically a threat existing that would justify a war.
I post facts that support my case and beliefs such as Blix reporting that Saddam Hussein had begun to cooperate actively on all inspection matters in February 2003.
“That the intent ‘is to compel Iraq’ only works if the resolution envisioned (1441) does not eventually pass”
**I know what I am saying **as we continue (Arrg354). And I did not write as you responded, “…that US law referring to “all relevant resolutions” actually only means 1441… And the rest is jibberish”.
Here is what I wrote in the sixth quote down - 4th Para, "If the UNSC failed to pass an envisioned 1441, leaving Iraq without a ‘FINAL OPPORTUNITY’ to comply with “ALL” relevant resolutions then yes Bush has the authority to start a war if he also determines that America’s national security cannot be defended in any other way. "
My First and Second quote from the top, are still the point. You cannot untie Bush from 1441 as you have simply tried to do in your base argument. Bush is tied to 1441 (if it happened after the AUMF vote was taken) just as he is tied to “ALL RELEVANT UNSC RESOLUTIONS” in the event that a future 1441 does not happen.
If Bush is tied to the history of “ALL” UNSC RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS by the JAMF as it does, then the foundation for you Iraq Invasion viewpoint essentially crumbles away.
This means you should not go around promoting this - “President Bush’s objective was to remove Saddam, not to protect the United States against WMDs.” - Since Bush’s publically defined objective as defined in the language of the AUMF is the opposite of what you are claiming.
I realize you are trying to claim that Bush had an inner objective opposite the publically defined objective as evidenced by what the AUMF actually says, but that is mere fodder for speculation. I base my argument against you on the publicly defined reality that ‘the threat of WMD’ at the time of the vote for the AUMF was real, since there were no UN inspectors and no 1441 to refer specifically to — but at the time Bush decided to invade Iraq in March 2003, there were hundreds and sufficient numbers of inspectors inside Iraq, thus reducing the ‘AUMF vote day threat’ from an arguably high and credible threat - to a substantially and significantly incredibly REDUCED THREAT level when Bush decided to end peaceful disarmament and start the invasion.
Sure Bush could have had his ‘inner objective’ all along… and did what he did. But 1441 and a very solid round of unfettered inspections with pro-active cooperation took place while the blood-thirsty ‘inner objective’ may have been dancing around in Bush’s head.
The point again is (Arrg354) that you cannot untie Bush from 1441 from the AUMF. And my point is based entirely upon all facts and language in the AUMF as written.
Yep. FooledByW is offering a classic false dichotomy. Bush thought Saddam had WMDs, but that needn’t have bene his primary motivation for invading. It was a convenient excuse to get rid of SH. As we all know, that was even “leaked” by Wolfowitz as things were heating up. They thought it was the best way to sell the war to the American people.
FooledByW just can’t wrap his mind around the idea that most people had this all figured out as early as 2002. But then, most of us were not fooled by W.
Nope. You ignore facts that conflict with your crazy world view, and make up “facts” to bolster it. We need to hit you on the head with this 2x4 everyday until it sinks in:
Emphasis added. Do you understand what the word “all” means? Hint: it doesn’t mean “some”.
[You have another error XT that I just noticed. “quite clear that the trigger had already been pulled.”"]
[quote=“NotfooledbyW, post:34, topic:661475”]
You have another error XT that I just noticed. “quite clear that the trigger had already been pulled.”](
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW;16400650)
Can you tell me how what you wrote makes any sense, since I am on record stating that I have always believed that Bush had to know that his WMD intel was flimsy at best. -(he only needed to read the Blix and el Baradai reports to the UN the first 2.5 months of 2003) I did. Did you? That is why I doubt that Bush believed Iraq had a real threat of WMD. But at the same time Bush was stating that he wanted to see that threat disarmed peacefully… and when I saw the inspections working better than ever before I realized that if Bush decides to end those inspection and start a war then He would be lying about hat too.
You get it.. John, XT, Ravenman. I suspect Bush lied when he puts it out there that he thought Iraq had WMD, can’t exactly prove that. But I know Bush lied when he also claimed that he wished to remove the threat of WMD through the peaceful means of UN inspections.
So you are arguing quite unintelligibly that you and Ravenman trust that Bush thought Iraq had those stockpiles of WMD and were being hidden from UN inspectors as late as March 2003. That is nice of you to respect Bush so much… and Cheney too. But you are arguing somehow the cockamamie point that It didn’t matter that he lied about the desire for peaceful disarmament because you were smart enough to figure out I guess in October 2002 that Bush wanted to do regime change no matter what.
**I say Bush wanted to do regime change no matter what **because he fucking proved it when he kicked inspectors out. But what you are all in denial of is that since Bush wanted to do regime change ‘no matter what’ then the bullshit about wanting to go the peaceful route got him a bit bollixed up when the UN and Saddam Hussein actually put together a damn good inspection regime… that was working quite well.
I suspected Bush of wanting regime change early on after 9/11 but I also focused on the reality in the world from 9/11/01 to October 2002…
The "REALITY of the WORLD was that a piece of shit like Saddam Hussein could easily be linked to the “WAR on TERROR” and Bush had the right to defend America’s security as he saw fit… against any regime that could be linked to terrorism.
Bush had an ace in his pocket if he wanted regime change as his primary objective in the WOT being Commander In Chief and all he needed was to get some American troops shot at in his regime change country of choice - which of course was obviously Iraq.
The other reality up to October 2002 was that Iraq was in violation of international law and over a dozen WMD related UN Resolutions against him.
The realty was that politically and existentially it was arguable that Iraq’s potential WMD stockpiles could end up in the hands of terrorists and was therefore a real threat and could therefore justify war if the inspections were never going to be finished and Iraq verified to be disarmed.
And I knew this but it seems to have been lost among the great thinking minds here around here who figured out in October that Bush ‘was interested’ most of all in regime change… not WMD" .. If only all Americans were so smart.
But I knew this and still believe what I believe and know when facts and quotes are facts and quotes:
Gee, bombing a nation like we and the Brits did that summer sure did not seem like Bush and Cheney really gave a shit about getting an authorization for war or getting involved with UN at all did it.
So can you tell me John Mace why you think I did not suspect that Bush was up to no fucking good prior to the time that he began considering going through the UN at Tony Blair’s request… I was not fooledbyW on the ‘regime change’ matter.
But I also was not fooldbyW on the statements coming in September 2002 that he wanted to keep the peace by giving the UN and Saddam a chance.
I was admittedly hopeful that Bush was telling the truth about wanting a peaceful resolution to this matter, but I was not concerned that the man was lying through his teeth about that. But being hopeful is not being oblivious to the reality that Bush could be lying.
I find it incredible that so many here wish to suppress the Bush “I wanted peace” lie and mount such a vicious attack on me for suggesting that this provable lie should be the one that matters in remembering what happened prior to the US invasion of Iraq.
And I brought up XT’s “the trigger has been pulled” assertion (Arrg-034) from Post 034 in this thread, because you seem to concern yourself with all kinds of errors and lies and stupidity that you some how see on my part, but pay no attention to that sort of thing by other posters.
Maybe you can help XT show me where or how he knows that Bush pulled the trigger for war prior to Blix announcing early in March 2003 that Iraq was cooperating both on Process matters and on Substance matters early in March 2003.
So do you know with any degree of certainty that Bush pulled the trigger for war prior to March 7, 2003?
So what? Everyone who was paying attention to the events as they unfolded knew by February (at the absolute latest), that Iraq no longer had functional WMDs. You keep ascribing beliefs to others that they have not held in order to hammer your own weird beliefs into the discussion as “Truth.”
More straw man arguments. The only point that has been made against your fantasy in recent weeks is that you have made claims regarding 1441 that are not supported by evidence and have made claims about what Blix said that are contradicted by Blix’s own words.
I have seen no one arguing that Bush (and the intelligence community) actually believed that there were WMDs in Iraq. That is simply you trying to turn correctives to your fantasies on their head and using them to pretend that your opponents held a radically different set of views than they actually hold.
Go back and read the posts on Iraq on this board between September 2002 and March 2003. A number of us argued that exact point, that, based on Bush’s own statements prior to the 2000 election with citations to Wolfowitz’s term paper, along with the utter lack of connection between Iraq and the WTC/Pentagon attacks, Bush was looking for (or inventing) any excuse he could to invade Iraq. This was no secret for anyone who wished to examine the facts at the time. That it seems surprising to you, now, that anyone would have realized it, then, shows only that you were pretty clueless at the time, (and have spent more effort creating your fantasies than examining the facts since then).
Your last point was xplicitly disproved on multiple occasions prior to the invasion. Hussein could NOT be linked to the “War on Terror,” easily or with difficulty. He had holed up in his own country subsequent to his defeat in the First Gulf War and his only “connection” to terrorism was the sporadic handing out of token cash to the families of suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine after the fact. He did not offer them money prior to attacks to induce them to launch their bombs and he was pretty random in his disbursement of funds after the fact, so no potential bomber could ever have been lured into action on the off-chance that Hussein would take care of their families. The only other “connections” to terrorism was the presence of an al Qaida training camp in Kurdish Iraq–that they were allowed to set up because the US/UK no-fly zone prevented the Iraq army from rousting them out, the retirement in Iraq of Abu Nidal–who had not been involved in terrorist acts since his attack on another Palestinian faction a decade earlier, and a brief visit to a hospital by one person suspected of being connected to al Qaida. Any “connections” between Saddam Hussein and “terrorism” were purely the fabrications of the Bush administration trying to pile on irrational arguments to support their mindless drive toward war.
Do you know how many UN Resolutions have been directed against Israel? That argument is weak sauce.
People who were paying attention knew that al Qaida was opposed to the Hussein regime and that Hussein would not have armed them so that they could use his weapons against him. People with any sense of awareness recognized that any weapons that Iraq possessed were actually safer under the guard of the Iraqi military.
The more you post, the less I believe you have a clue as to the reality of the world in 2002-2003.
And yet, you have continually have posted defenses of the AUMF resolution that was clearly designed to give Bush an excuse to attack Iraq, even though you now claim that you knew he was up to no good.
It should seem incredible, since it all occurs in your head. There is no one here that claims that Bush wanted peace, (more straw man nonsense). However, you have set up a fantasy in which even though Bush really wanted war, (something we do know), his efforts to get support for the war (AUMF) were still justified on the grounds that he just might have used them for legitimate purposes, despite having declared a desire for war over three years previously.
Go read Richard Clarke’s comments regarding Bush demanding that intelligence find a connection between Hussein and the WTC/Pentagon attacks as early as September 12, 2001. Read Bush’s comments in 1999 and 2000 claiming that, as president, he would consider a regime change in Iraq to be his duty. Note the numbers of guys from the Project for the New American Century, that was actively campaigning for a war against Iraq in 1998 and 1999, that Bush brought into his administration as security advisers and even cabinet members.
How can you claim to be aware of anything that was going on at that time while being utterly ignorant of those well publicized facts?
Your credibility should suffer for the above comment and accusation that I put up strawman nonsense. If you will re-read what I wrote from what you cited you should easily see exactly that you have wrongfully interpreted my clearly written words.
I clearly and plainly wrote, “**I find it incredible that so many here wish to suppress the Bush “I wanted peace” lie.” **
Then you write that I made up some strawman nonsense that posters here claim that "Bush wanted peace?.
I will debunk the rest of what you wrote, since it is full of similar errors and misinterpretations of my message.
This is about defending my posting and one of my points (Arrg-374) is how so much about my posting is all made up and has nothing to do with what I put in writing.
Do you have an explanation for making the error you made as noted above or can you refute my response to you?
My second point (Arrg-375) against your above fantastically untrue comment that I set up a fantasy that Bush’s trumped up efforts to get support for the war (AUMF) were justified or still justified. You need to cite what I have written where I state that Bush’s drumbeat for war justified the yes votes for the AUMF. Why do you make things up about me?
I have said from the first moment I set words to this forum that what justified the AUMF yes vote was the fact that at the time of the vote, there was a case that Iraq was a threat and should face the consequences of war because he was in violation of international law at the time.
That is a point that has been consistently evaded since I have been here.
My message on what justified the yes votes for the AUMF as a non-partisan Republican and Democrat decision about a post-911 threat, was that the threat of Iraq’s WMD was potentially real.
This is what I believe. And this is why I have to repeat things over and over.
But I didn’t write it; Tony Sinclair did. I have stated my agreement to it, quite often.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16024590&highlight=Blix#post16024590 TonySinclair She was correct. The… 02-19-2013, 05:16 PM Hubris-060
My argument for a yes vote is that Iraq was in violation of international law and the perception of a potential threat by members of Congress were justified to give Bush the authority that they gave him.
And a secondary but essential argument for that yes vote for the AUMF was the ‘real’ possibility that Bush would 'find a way to 'have his regime change in Iraq with or without a new AUMF specific to Iraq.
But I have never and have not ever suggested in any way that Bush Rice and Cheney’s ridiculous Pre-October warmongering is what ‘justified’ those people in Congress to vote yes to give Bush the authority to take military action against Iraq if it can be determined by Bush,… yes one man… to be necessary.
I’ll say it (Arrg-375) again, and again until all who cannot seem to get it, that the vote yes for the Iraq AUMF was justified because Iraq was in violation of international law and that outlaw status with the potential that he possessed WMD was a threat.
If the way T&D reads things is an indication of ‘you getting it’ your point is quite worthless.
Look at this:
Look specifically at what I wrote…(Arrg-377). where I stated that I was referring to “reality **up to **October 2002” - Yet T&D changes my specifics and tells me that everything was ‘disproven’ PRIOR TO THE INVASION.
Do you get it John Mace? Really do you? Can you see what I must put up with. Many to you have done essentially the same type of thing. So I doubt that you really ‘get it’.
Your claim was ambiguous. But even if we go with your re-interpretation, it is a straw man. No one has posted anything that would have “suppresed” the mention of Bush’s lie. That is still your imagination.
No. You will bury us in another wall of text that misses the point and demonstrates, once again, your massive ignorance on this topic.
You have repeatedly defended the AUFM as appropriate at the time of the vote. That was nonsense every time you posted that. AUFM was only intended to rationalize Bush’s efforts to get a war going–a war that people who were paying attention knew he wanted.
And you were wrong, every single time. Blank checks for military use should never be written when one knows that the person who is going to cash it is just looking for an excuse.
Afghanistan was a logical invasion based on that country’s harboring of al Qaida after the WTC/Pentagon attacks. Iraq was a sideshow. Bush declared when we went into Afghanistan that we were not going to get involved in “nation building,” yet Wolfowitz’s term paper and the several open letters published by PNAC explicitly called for a rebuilding of the nation of Iraq. Hussein was not a threat to anyone. After the First Gulf War, we had demilitarized nearly a third of his country with the no-fly zones, Iran and Turkey were too powerful to attack, we had already demonstrated that we would crush him if he went back toward Kuwait, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, and Syria was a loose ally of his. He was not supporting terrorist actions around the world, (being on the opposite side of the religious boundary for most of the active terrorist groups). He was not a danger and only a fool would think he was.
The premise is utterly false and the conclusion is stupid.
We all recognize that you believe it, we just know that you are wrong. You only have to repeated it because you believe in a matter of historical falsity.
Iraq was never a threat to the US, and the AUMF was a huge mistake. Many of us "got it’ at the time, and history has proved us right. We were not fooled by W, but you obviously were. You can’t re-write history to get out of that.
