NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

[NotfooledbyW]

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. -Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW

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. -T&D

T&D has not seen any of this:

• I think the most parsimonious answer is that they **really thought they’d find “something”. **… Sure, there is a laundry list of reasons in the AUMF that are not WMD-related, but the Bush administration made it the sine qua non of the Iraq war. -John Mace 02-19-2013, 02:22 PM Hubris-055

*And I’m speaking as someone who does not believe that Bush and others lied. Lying to me means that they knew the truth and chose to say something else. –Ravenman 02-19-2013 05:40 PM Hubris-061

*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. - Ravenman 07-02-2013, 08:44 PM Arrg-362

And XT has stated that he supported the US invasion of Iraq, so we must assume that he believed the Bush believed he’d find WMD too. But that is my best guess. Hopefully XT can confirm this some day.

So the point (Arrg-381) now is that T&D comments on my posting but does not ‘see’ what is going on before he does. The explanation/backtracking of this one should be worth a couple a fairly hearty chuckles.

Now to follow up with (Arrg-374) where I see T&D has taken two tracks. The first is that his misunderstanding of written words has to mean that my written words had to be “ambiguous”. Let’s see those written words once again:

I clearly and plainly wrote, “I find it incredible that so many here wish to suppress the Bush “I wanted peace” lie.”

Then you (T&D) write that I made up some strawman nonsense that posters here claim that "Bush wanted peace?. (Arrg-374) Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW

Your claim was ambiguous. - Tomndebb 07-04-2013, 11:42 PM Arrg-378

So as a follow-up to your track one reply (Arrg-374) what may I ask was ambiguous about this statement:

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. -Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW

Can you explain the ambiguity that made you think this phrase "so many here wish to suppress the Bush “I wanted peace” lie and mount such a vicious attack on me,: must mean that I was saying “that posters here claim that “Bush wanted peace””.

I was not saying that posters here were ‘claiming’ anything whatsoever. I said they were ‘wishing to suppress’ something.

I said the posters here are wishing to suppress (tamp it down) (make it go away) (sweep under the rug) the discussed Bush Lie that He wanted peace not war.

No normal reader of English could insert a new term/phrase “claim” to replace “wish to suppress” and then call someone out on the former and think that such a dirty trick can be written off as ambiguity in the writers statement.

So perhaps I’m missing something in the meanings of words here, but I’m not seeing it. So could you explain it because so far I’m not buying your claim about my statement being ambiguous. That is quite absurd, but nice try. I realize you must move on…

Can you explain what you mean by Ambiguous? (Arrg-374).

[Gyrate]

@Ravenman

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.

There’s no reason to think that he couldn’t have been lying AND thought they’d find WMDs. He could have lied in saying they had evidence of WMDs, assuming that they would eventually find some despite the lack of evidence and thus gain *post hoc *cover for the lie.

No idea if that’s true, but it’s certainly plausible.

[tomndebb]

@NotfooledbyW

I was not saying that posters here were ‘claiming’ anything whatsoever. I said they were ‘wishing to suppress’ something.

Aaaah! Back to the semantic dodge, again.

I’d be curious (in an academic way) as to how someone would “wish to suppress” an idea without actually making a counter-claim that result in the idea’s suppression. (However, my curiosity is not so great as to inspire me to read the next three or four walls of text that wind up avoiding the the issue.)

As John Mace noted, you were fooled by W into believing that Iraq was some sort of threat so that you supported the AUFM, but now you have buyer’s remorse and are spending hours and months of your life defending your action by pretending that Bush “cheated” on the agreement that numerous people at the time recognized as based on bullshit and that many recognized as a ploy to get undeserved support for the war that he had already decided to launch.

[John_Mace]

Read Russ Feingold’s address to the Senate concerning the Iraq war AUMF. He wasn’t fooled by W. Nor was Bob Graham (Senator from FL, chairman of the Intelligence Committee), who actually took the time to read the N.I.E. in its raw, unedited form. They voted against the AUMF because they were not fooled by W.

[XT]

This thread (or at least one of the posters in this thread) is like the evil, twisted version of the Energizer Bunny. The really, really STUPID, evil and twisted version of the Energizer Bunny.

[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
And XT has stated that he supported the US invasion of Iraq, so we must assume that he believed the Bush believed he’d find WMD too. But that is my best guess. Hopefully XT can confirm this some day.
[/QUOTE]

No idea what you are getting at here as I’ve been unable to follow the continuing convoluted discussion where multiple posters attempt to explain things to you while you do everything humanly possible to not comprehend what they are saying.

However, yes…I BELIEVED (and still BELIEVE) that Bush BELIEVED that there were WMD. I think that this was merely an excuse that Bush et al used, and that the primary motivation was regime change and that WMD were merely the pretext, but I think they did believe that they would find some. You could tell it wasn’t a priority as once the invasion started it was clear the focus wasn’t on securing suspected WMD sites, but instead on securing things like the oil fields and other immediate military and key civilian infrastructure objectives.

[Shodan]

Cripes, you guys, this goes beyond feeding the troll - you’re making fucking foie gras.

Regards,
Shodan

[NotfooledbyW]

I was not saying that posters here were ‘claiming’ anything whatsoever. I said they were ‘wishing to suppress’ something. - NotfooledbyW 07-05-2013 Arrg-381 re/(Arrg-374)

Aaaah! Back to the semantic dodge, again.

I’d be curious (in an academic way) as to how someone would “wish to suppress” an idea without actually making a counter-claim that result in the idea’s suppression. (However, my curiosity is not so great as to inspire me to read the next three or four walls of text that wind up avoiding the the issue.) - Tomndebb 07-05-2013 06:14 AM Arrg-383 in response to “Can you explain what you mean by Ambiguous?” (Arrg-374)

This (Arrg-374) is not about semantics. It is about T&D’s error in misreading what I wrote applying a misread to fantastic charges against my posting, my message and my integrity.

As you can see by what T&D cited, my statement is a statement of the fact of what I said. And we have not been discussing some idea. We have been discussing Bush’s continuous dishonesty wherein he continues to state that he wanted peace and did not seek to start a war.

T&D now wants to call it semantics because he cobbled up my statement into his distorted complaint that I was saying that posters here were saying that Bush wanted peace.

That is not true at all. It is not even close to what I wrote.

In his latest response T&D states that he can’t figure out “how someone would “wish to suppress” an idea without actually making a counter-claim that result in the idea’s suppression.”

So if I have an answer to that nonsense it shows that this is not a semantical issue.

And here is the answer.

One way to suppress an idea is to burn books of the idea you want suppressed. That should suffice as a response.

But on the matter being discussed (Arrg-374), one way that the historically recorded observation that Bush is lying when he states he wanted peace instead of war is to attack anyone who wants more light shed on Bush’s lie as being ‘weird’ and then dismissing it as some kind of meaningless and small technical error. That is suppression without taking the view that Bush wanted Peace. Clear and unambiguous isn’t it.
Here are a few examples of wishing to suppress Bush’s lie:

*What our newest Village Idiot doesn’t understand is that being in violation of UNSC 1441 (or any resolution, for that matter) is not an immediate justification for the use of military force. It’s possible to believe that SH was in violation of that resolution, and others, and still think it unwise to invade. And most Americans don’t really understand how the UNSC works anyway, so blathering on about some technicality is nothing more than verbal masturbation. Americans don’t understand how the UN works, and largely don’t care. If we want war, we get war-- UN or no UN. - John Mace 06-27-2013 09:18 AM
*And it was clear that Iraq had not even “begun to comply” with 1441, per my quote from Blix on item #4 above. He had 30 days, and the 30 days had passed. -John Mace 06-23-2013 08:54 AM
*You’re weird. All the lies that have been told by all the presidents over the years and you are wasting hundreds of hours battling people on an internet message board to (in your mind) “correct” one technical error out of so many that people believe. -tomndebb 06-27-2013 06:15 AM Arrg-240

I do not believe T&D must believe that Bush wanted Peace instead of war, when they dismiss Bush’s huge lies about that as little more than Bush making some kind of technical error when he decided early in March 2003 to force UN inspectors out of Iraq because he ‘wanted’ a war more than he ever really meant to seek a peaceful resolution to Iraq’s possession of WMD. (Arrg-374)
I would rather keep discuss the “THE” issues, and will. I am not the one trying to avoid anything. Those who make things up and then try to cover it with ‘semantics’ … “strawman nonsense” … and “ambiguity” and ‘wall of text’ distractions are the ones avoiding the “The” discussion based upon facts and the reality of the world Between the 9/11 attacks and October 2002.

So on that note can anyone argue that this poll does not represent the mood of the American people just before the war?

In particular these two responses to the CNN Poll:

1. “nearly all Americans who responded said they believe that Iraq is a threat to the United States”

2. Only 1 percent said Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction and is not trying to develop them.
   **** 0.002% do not care if Saddam Hussein has WMD. (and that includes John Mace)

Excerpts:WASHINGTON (CNN) August 23, 2002 – A new poll suggests - Excerpts:

…
Also, a majority of the survey respondents said they believed the United States shouldn’t send in troops if Western allies do not endorse it.

In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Monday through Wednesday, nearly all Americans who responded said they believe that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

Only 1 percent said Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction and is not trying to develop them.

Just 8 percent said that Saddam is not supporting terrorist groups that have plans to attack the United States.

Respondents said they were less certain that Saddam was involved in the September 11 attacks – a bare majority believe he was, but a third don’t think so and one in eight were unsure.

Only one in five said the United States should attack Iraq without help from allies.
By a 41 percent to 30 percent margin, Americans polled said that Republicans are more likely than the Democrats to make the right decisions on Iraq.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/23/cnn.poll.iraq/index.html

BOB EDWARDS, host:

As the Bush administration struggles to win United Nations support for war against Iraq, public opinion polls show more Americans want to wait for that UN support. Polls also show most Americans are willing to give weapons inspectors more time before forcing a confrontation. That may not change the Bush administration’s plans for war, but it does suggest there are political risks if the war and its aftermath turn out to be longer and more difficult than expected. NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson reports.

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030304.liasson.html

[John_Mace]

@XT

However, yes…I BELIEVED (and still BELIEVE) that Bush BELIEVED that there were WMD. I think that this was merely an excuse that Bush et al used, and that the primary motivation was regime change and that WMD were merely the pretext, but I think they did believe that they would find some. You could tell it wasn’t a priority as once the invasion started it was clear the focus wasn’t on securing suspected WMD sites, but instead on securing things like the oil fields and other immediate military and key civilian infrastructure objectives.

Yes. He could not get Congress or the American people behind a war that was mainly about regime change. The WMD angle had to be played (OMG, SH is going to bomb America!) , and they probably did think it was a “slam dunk” that there were WMDs lying around somewhere. WMDs are a dime a dozen, and we gave SH some of his, so it’s not like there wasn’t a good chance he had them.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

Here are a few examples of wishing to suppress Bush’s lie:

No, they are not.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@NotfooledbyW

So on that note can anyone argue that this poll does not represent the mood of the American people just before the war?

That poll does not represent the mood of the American people just before the war.

I win. Thread over.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

No, they are not.

Sure they are John ‘No’ it all Mace. And unlike you I support my conclusions.

Back on the Bush Library Thread (blt-006), Adaher posted this gem of a belief about the US invasion of Iraq.

• He (GWBush) put pressure on Saddam with the buildup, got a UN resolution demanding the return of inspectors, and demanded full cooperation from Saddam to end the crisis. That cooperation was not forthcoming, so he had to invade… -Adaher 06-08-2013, 06:26 AM blt-006 (re/ Arrg-017)

You must admit John Mace that any false or ridiculous argument such as Adaher’s that Saddam did not cooperate would support not suppress Bush’s repeated explanations that he wanted peace most of all, but he had to decide for war because Saddam did not cooperate.

Adaher along with the likes of Bush and Blair, have come up with a perfect justification for why US and UK invasion of Iraq needed to be done. It was ‘all’ Saddam’s fault because he didn’t cooperate with those inspectors.

You see many people still believe as Adaher does, the entire Bush/Blair primary line:

According to then-President of the United States George W. Bush and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of that time; Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were “to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.”[16] According to Blair, the trigger was Iraq’s failure to take a “final opportunity” to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that US and British officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace

Read More: http://dbp.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Invasion_of_Iraq

So I was trying to open Adaher up to the reality that Bush is a liar when Bush says he wanted peace on the Bush Library thread and I explained that in post 17 on this thread:

*I was sensibly and factually refuting an Iraq invasion supporter when you (XT) butted-in basically taking sides with the supporter’s myth that Bush supporters typically cite as the excuse that Bush uses to this day to justify deciding to invade. –NotfooledbyW 06-20-2013, 06:17 PM Arrg-017

And then you came along John Mace and also presented a non-factual representation about the level of cooperation that the 2003 inspections had actually produced. And since you are presenting a biased, cherry-picked, out of context, version of what Dr Blix was saying, I must presume you must be wishing to suppress the obvious observations by most leaders and people in the world that Saddam Hussein’s cooperation by March 2003 was pretty damn good.

Here’s a sample of where you are with regard to Iraq’s cooperation with inspectors. As I said, the Bush defenders like Adaher, must agree with you on your misguided analysis of what all the inspection comments meant.

*SH had a bunch of WMDs at some point prior to 2002. Part of what he was supposed to do, per UNSC Resolutions, was account for how they were destroyed. He did not do that in full.

From Jan 2003:

Blix: Iraq can’t account for deadly gas, germs

The chief U.N. weapons inspector said on Monday that Iraq could not account for stocks of anthrax and a deadly nerve gas that it said it had destroyed.
-John Mace 06-09-2013, 01:03 PM blt-045

So if you do not wish to suppress a open and major discussion (Arrg-017) about the fact that Iraq cooperated better than ever before which means Bush is lying when he says he wanted peace more than war, why do you pick snippets of what Blix said about cooperation but avoid and ridicule my posting of Blix’s overall impression and expressed desire to continue inspections for a few more months to conclusion.

I know you are a man of few words John Mace, but what is up with the cooperation nitpicking over nothing really? (Arrg-017)

[Ravenman]

Hey, what’s the deal with the things in parens, like (aarg326)? I think it is a reference to the thread title, but I’m concerned that the citation is wrong. As is plainly seen, the word is AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH! That’s four As, four Rs, four Gs, and four Hs, with an exclamation mark at the end. I’m very concerned about this because (Aarg) is a very sloppy way to refer to this thread. It makes it seem like you don’t have any grasp on the facts. Why would you sloppily try to rename this thread? I just can’t trust anyone who says he’s reciting facts, but plays so fast and loose with other facts.

Until you start properly citing posts, I just can’t have any faith that you’re presenting any facts in an impartial manner.

In fact, I think you should go back through every quotation you have presented to prove to us that you quoted people accurately, whether those are other posters you are quoting, or the various people like Blix who were actually involved in these events. Because if you aren’t going to pay attention to details like there is no thread called (Arrg), then there’s no telling what bullshit you’re willing to invent and attribute to other people.

[John_Mace]

Nope. Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent!

[tomndebb]

@NotfooledbyW

T&D now wants to call it semantics because he cobbled up my statement into his distorted complaint that I was saying that posters here were saying that Bush wanted peace.

That is not true at all. It is not even close to what I wrote.

In his latest response T&D states that he can’t figure out “how someone would “wish to suppress” an idea without actually making a counter-claim that result in the idea’s suppression.”

So if I have an answer to that nonsense it shows that this is not a semantical issue.

And here is the answer.

One way to suppress an idea is to burn books of the idea you want suppressed. That should suffice as a response.

I am sure that is suffices for you. That probably works off in your Neverland fantasy world.
How would one go about burning all these books without making a claim that they were evil and needed to be burned? In OnlyfooledonceortwicebyW land, of course, one would magically sweep up all the books to be burned with a magical extractor-vacuum and simply deposit the books in the appropriate furnace.
In the real world, of course, there would need to be a claim that the books were bad and some rhetoric (claim) explaining how destroying the books would be a benefit to society (or to the “right” group in society).

No wonder OnlyfooledonceortwicebyW has such odd world views; he believes in magic.

= = =

The rest of his wall of text I will give the consideration it so richly deserves: I will ignore it.

[Smapti]

I, for one, salute you guys for fighting NotfooledByW in this thread so we don’t have to fight him in our homethreads.

[John_Mace]

@Smapti

I, for one, salute you guys for fighting NotfooledByW in this thread so we don’t have to fight him in our homethreads.

I was thinking the same thing just yesterday!

[digs]

Has anyone noticed that Notfooled has never even addressed the question of whether he’s shown his posts to his wife? She’s a psychiatrist, and would, if she was a good one, have some helpful advice for him. But by now (multiple requests since June), I think we can assume he’s afraid to show her what he’s been up to.

[Dissonance]

@John_Mace

Must be the German part of my ancestry-- I like compoundwords.

You know who else had German ancestry?

[NotfooledbyW]

• 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. -Ntfldbw 07-05-2013, 01:41 PM Arrg-371
• 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.-- Tomndebb 07-05-2013 05:14 PM Arrg-373

• 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? -Ntfldbw 07-04-2013 10:37 PM Arrg-375

*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. - Tomndebb 07-04-2013, 11:56 PM Arrg-379

There is no accurate or honest way to connect defending the yes vote for the AUMF to your total fabrication that it means that I have "…set up a fantasy in which even though Bush really wanted war… his efforts to get support for the war (AUMF) were still justified." .

I went on to explain my defense of the ‘yes vote on the AUMF’ in my post 375.

Just because you have made a narrow simple-minded assessment that the ‘yes vote’ for the AUMF was nonsense, it still does not entitle you to make things up and ignore some basics, about my position on this topic.

You replies have become a pattern of calling what you don’t understand as nonsense but you have no back up, reasoning or validation to toss around all those insults. You appear to be stating your views as a matter of entrenched board dogma of this forum.
I spoke of the ‘real world’ environment between the 9/11 attacks and the AUMF vote. It appears you may think that the opinions of posters on this forum in 2002 represents the reality out there in the rest of the world.

I posted a poll so you could be aware of an alternate reality to the dogma/orthodoxy that exists here. I’ll repost the highlights since I doubt you will address things you can’t seek to be too familiar with. I base that on you opinion that Iraq was **not a threat **or could even be considered or argued to be a threat when Saddam Hussein was in violation of international law.

“Cite” WASHINGTON (CNN) August 23, 2002 – A new poll suggests - Excerpts:

In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Monday through Wednesday, nearly all Americans who responded said they believe that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

Only 1 percent said Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction and is not trying to develop them.
By a 41 percent to 30 percent margin, Americans polled said that Republicans are more likely than the Democrats to make the right decisions on Iraq.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/2...raq/index.html “Cite”

I believe Bush and Cheney were Republicans. What do you think?

I cite those polls to show that Bush in September 2002 looked quite formidable politically to get whatever the hell he wanted to do against Iraq, but he needed to Tony Blair to do it with him. That made for some complex political calculations by members of Congress. All was not quite as simple as Dopers may have thought back in the day.
IF Bush “WANTED WAR” and “NOTHING WAS GOING TO STOP” it then Bush (67% approval rating) was going to get it. If not before the mid-term 2002 Election - then Afterwards.
I can defend my positions here, with much less text, but first T&D & others ought to stop making things up (Arrg-375) about what I post.

[John_Mace]

You keep thinking. THat’s what you’re good at.