NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

The BBQ Pit
401

It is not my problem that you were unable to see, in 2002, that Bush was looking for any and all pretexts for war. It is not my problem that, today, you have to defend your error with weird appeals to popular opinion.

Well, as long as you continue to play games with facts, you leave me no option but to speculate why you swallowed Bush’s bullshit in 2002 or why you continue defending the swallowing of that bullshit in 2013.
Even if Hussein had every single WMD that the worst fear-mongers claimed for him, he was never a threat to the U.S. or even to regional peace. Hussein was a bully who liked to win. He only attacked Iran after the Ayatollah had purged the Iranian army of its most experienced officers giving Hussein the belief that he had a chance to roll across its borders, unchallenged. That failed. He only invaded Kuwait after he took a remark by a U.S. diplomat that he interpreted to mean we would let him roll over that country. We demonstrated very effectively that he was mistaken on that point, destroying an incredible portion of his army in the process, and then going on to limit his military activities to only the central portion of his own nation. Any attack he launched, whether nuclear weapons or pea-shooters, would have invited massive retaliation by the West.
He was not a threat.

You appear to ignore any fact that is presented and then whine that no facts are there.

I am perfectly willing to concede that Bush and Blair did a marvelous job, (in their own countries), of hyping the non-existent threat. Poll results bear out the results of their propaganda, (along with your willingness to swallow their nonsense and to continue to “believe” it even after 10 years). Poll results only show public opinion, however, not facts, and waving polls showing massive support for Bush’s war crusade in 2002 only demonstrate the success of his campaign, not the facts (or lack of them) behind his campaign.

You claim that I am making up your defense of the AUMF, but the only defense you have offered was that Hussein was a threat. He was not a threat. He was a little man confined to a disabled country over a third of which he could not even exercise control. As long as you insist that the AUMF was justified to counter a non-existent threat, you are living in a fantasy world. It was certainly a fantasy that a huge number of your fellow citizens had supported, but it was still a fantasy. Most people who have woken up to the lack of a threat, (e.g., XT), simply acknowledge that they were persuaded by the administration’s hype, at the time, and move on. You, however, feel the need to defend your every thought and belief, (even when they are demonstrably wrong).

402

You need to get it!!!

You are the reason the world invented contraception – hopefully you are sterile and do not reproducing.

Now go and get your club and crawl back into the cave you came from.

403

Yeah, do not reproducing!

404

Re: Arrg-401

It is not true that I did not see Bush looking for any and all pretexts for war. I saw that and more. Your Bush-Mindreading-Machine back in 2002 appears to be much too limited in magnitude of scope or maybe the batteries were dying.

The fallacy of your entire ‘holier than thou attitude’ and opinion is that contrary to what you think, I, along with a majority of Americans including the majority within the Halls of Congress, saw what your mindreading machine picked up, but we also saw and perceived the real possibility that Bush was going to find a way to do that war come hell or high water because the political and nationalistic environment after September 11, 2001 was geared in Bush’s and Republicans favor.

That attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center so suddenly gave the Commander in Chief an astoundingly high approval rating at over 90% and yes a political mandate to ‘avenge’ the hell out of that attack. However I did not go along with the 90 percent in adjusting my opinion of Bush based upon the need for the nation to come together as Bush proceeded to put us on a war footing and began to revise the role of America in the world on a self-defense by offense basis.

I saw absolutely no rational reason to change my approval of President Bush just because we all were attacked on 09.11.01. Bush had to ‘earn’ my approval and ‘goddammit’ to all you ‘know-it-alls’ here, Bush did some things that did improve my opinion of him. First of all, was his political courage to openly declare, despite the "BOOT IN YOUR ASS’ state of mind much of the public went into, that Islam is a religion of PEACE… He did well in that regard to tamp down the anti-Islam hysteria that arose mostly from his side -but many a Democrat leaner could go xenophobic to an extreme as well.

But when that Country-Western "Put a Boot up their Muslim Ass’ mentality took over our country I was quite averse to it. Bush and Cheney appeared to revel in it. As the public ‘highly and greatly approved’ of his handling of the WOT after the 9/11 attacks I had serious concern as you probably did, with talk about invading Iraq taking us down a path that need not to be taken.

For me and those opposed to much of what he and Republicans stand for, from the moment that Bush stood on the smoldering wreckage in NYC with a bull horn was not a demonstration of a politician doing anything that ‘fixed’ his political policies on anything foreign or domestic, they were more toward becoming Bush’s using that tragic moment in our history for as much political gain as possible.

However in the midst of all that, the other thing that I gave Bush points and approval was the response as it was at first limited to Afghanistan. There was the sense going in that he knew what he was doing and it was not going to be too radical and widespread an avenging of the 9/11 attacks.

But then as soon as I started to give him points for a potential sane foreign policy Bush began to show signs of some what I would call a 'GOD’s CALLING" role as president of a nation under attack.

And then as the Iraq obsession crept into our lives more and more I saw any pretense that Bush was a rational man fly out the Oval Office Window.

As the summer of 2002 came and went, we heard the drumbeat for war needed against Iraq. I would oppose anything related to the Boot up your ass - its’ the American Way mentality. But Bush was busy declaring victory in Afghanistan. The
“Taliban is eliminated” and there was the passage of some time leading up to September 2002. Prior to that September I felt that Bush was going to get his war - the pressure was so strong for it and there was nothing that could counter-balance the discussion to turn that drive for war around.

What really did it for me, was Rumsfeld, I believe, and others that came out with the “Two Options” argument which is what set off a real concern for me that irrational men were heading us in the wrong direction. The “Two Options” argument was that there were only two options available with regard to Iraq. Solve it by war or Do Nothing. That drove me to some serious cussing him out on my tv. What a stupid thing to say. Because talk had already begun. if you looked for it, about the potential way out of the impending showdown. There were THREE OPTIONS not two. And the Third was getting inspectors back in.
So in September when this crazy "two option’ talk and many many more obvious flights from reality were coming and going and circling, I had been thinking that war was going to happen and not in the context that Bush and Cheney thought they needed a specific AUMF just for the potential of invading Iraq. Cheney wanted war and Bush was seemingly willing to get it for him.

Then came September and this could be my only error. but I certainly do not think it is. I saw Bush lean away from Cheney and turn to Powell. I like most Americans I believe who were skeptical of Bush being sincere with some anti-Cheney talk about a peaceful inspections way out, was willing to take a look at Powell because of his cautiousness about getting into war record. I heard and read the testimony in the Senate where Powell to me , began to put a rational face on an Administration of Men and Rice who were exhibiting to me that they had lost all sense of reason.

Remember this was the pre-AUMF Powell, not the one who went to the UN and later had a fit because the French decided to do what was right and rational.

So yes if I made an error it was not to trust what I saw as a bizarre and irrational President , it was to trust who Bush appeared to be siding with. So be that as it may.

The vote happened.. and I guess you were all so upset that you could not deal with what happened afterward. Perhaps you can tell what you did after the AUMF vote? To remind you of the mood of the country that fits into my line of thinking on the bigger picture of what went wrong regarding Iraq, I have compiled a list of questions for Rumseld when he was on the radio on November 14 just after the UNSC had unanimously passed Res 1441.

I have listed only the questions by callers to show that a month after the AUMF the mood of these callers was that war was pretty much inevitable and none brought up the upcoming inspections process but Rumsfeld did. (see Caller “L”)

Rumsfeld’s reply to caller “L” shows me that the public was not quite in tune to inspections in November prior to the start… but by January and getting stronger through February of 2003, Americans were wiser and rational to respond to pollsters that it would be best if Bush did decide to let the inspections continue, unless the UN sanctioned war or a large coalition were on board with it.

To summarize what Rumsfeld said, I’ll put it right here again:

Rummy was riding that “if necessary only” part of the AUMF when he replied to someone he might be sending to kill or be killed if an invasion of Iraq was to come.
So since you didn’t see what I’ve written before that does not include my inability to see what Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld were driving toward, I want to know why those with so much special knowledge and insight were unable to apply political and moral muscle to stop the war by stopping the yes vote in October, and I’d like to know why you dropped out of the fight when Rumsfeld’s lies and the others turned into lies about the inspections. What did you do prior to the vote to turn the drive to war away, and then what did you do after the vote did not go the right way in your mind?

And through all this, regardless of our difference in perspectives on some key aspects, all of us were up against this:

This sums up the enormous odds against the rational overcoming the overwhelming presence of irrationality with regard to Iraq.

http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/....h.WCcw8XwF.dpbs

405

http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/buying-iraq-war#sthash.WCcw8XwF.cvZsYKgt.dpbs

The link at the bottom of the page in post 404 didn’t work. Hopefully this one will.

406

Well, of course not. You should’ve expected a 404 error.

407

I’ve been very busy. It’s tough keeping up with all the errors on this thread>
Here’s the latest example:

I have explained what I was able to see in 2002. See my post 404.

However your false claim that I “…set up a fantasy in which even though Bush really wanted war… his efforts to get support for the war (AUMF) were still justified.” has not been addressed by you. (Arrg-375)

I explained that the ‘yes vote on the AUMF’ was justified because of the fact that Saddam Hussein was in violation of international law at the time of the vote. Individual members of Congress could determine what the ‘threat’ might be due to the fact Iraq was in violation of international law at the time.

My point (Arrg-375) is that the AUMF was legitimate because being the regime governing Iraq was in serious violation of international law and that fact made the ‘threat of use of force’ legitimate and could be used ‘if necessary’ if the violator does not make efforts to get into compliance with international law. That of course determination if the ‘threat was or was not sufficient’ to vote on whatever AUMF came forward was of course up to each Congress Member’s discretion. The reality is that in October 2002, whether you agree or not, the majority did see sufficient threat to try and force the regime to get into compliance with its obligations to the United Nations and with the need to keep and uphold international law.

As far as your claim about popular opinion you accuse me of defending some unspecified error with “weird appeals to popular opinion”.

This is yet another bogus claim. I have explained this to you also, but you refuse to acknowledge many of the explanations I give you:
Quote: 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 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. - NotfooledbyW 07-05-2013, 10:53 PM Arrg-399

It’s complex because Blair is the one whom I believe forced Bush to go the UNSC route that gave Hussein one final opportunity to comply.

I cited the polls not as a claim, but as the back-up for a highly probable conclusion that Bush was politically formidable as the WAR President and on having whatever way he wanted with regard to Iraq following the 2002 mid-term elections. That has nothing to do with defending the AUMF of and by itself. Where do you think you are getting by making stuff up about what I wrote trying to defend that you don’t make stuff up about what I wrote?

408

Re\Arrg-401 Threat Hype By Bush and Blair.

You appear to be insisting that I become a parrot of your world view such as XT when your wrote, I should do as XT did to, “simply acknowledge that (He was) persuaded by the administration’s hype, at the time, and move on.” That is a ridiculous request because I was never persuaded by Bush and Bliar’s hype.

I have been telling you that the reality in the world is different than you must be remembering it. I will submit this poll and commentary as back-up to what I am saying.

Americans considered Iraq to be a threat long before Bush and Blair went off the deep end hyping it. Americans appear to have had a fairly steady opinion that Iraq posed a threat prior to the 9/11 attacks and then immediately after. From March 2001 through May 2002 Americans appear to have held a common opinion that Iraq was a threat holding at around 85% to 86% over that period.

And from the report I linked to, it on first glance to appear that Bush and Blair’s hype from May 2002 to August 2002 had caused the American Public’s perception of Iraq being a threat to go down . There was movement from moderate threat to serious threat within the range of polling … so this could be looked at deeper, but I think it over-rides the fantasy that you and many here have been presenting about Bush and Blair’s great hype job.

That’s a drop of perception of threat down about five to seven points. So how do you explain your world view that Bush and Blair successfully hyped that perception of threat?

I look forward to your reply Re\Arrg-401 Threat Hype By Bush and Blair.

409

People, particularly you, are stupid and gullible.

“Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

410

Yeah, but at least 99.9% of those people don’t waltz into this MB to spread their stupidity, so you gotta give them credit for that!

411

Heck, by now I’m just wondering how many monkeys, how many typewriters NFBW has available on demand.

412

I need to go take a walk today and thank all of them.

413

You fail at humor.

Also:

You fail at talking like a pirate. Please stop.

414

Here we see another error by the Munchkins. I am not the one that believes Bush and Blair’s hype is what made so many Anericans consider Iraq to be a threat. And I think Ravenman is also not correct because I believe it is quite possible that T&D is intelligent. The matter cited shows that he is just wrong about a few things going back to 2002 and 2003 with regard to Iraq.

The poll shows that the Munchkins here in general were part of a significant minority of opinion in August 2002 as they state now that they believed Iraq was not a threat (XT is an exception) to US national security when Bush bombed and invaded Iraq in March of 2003.

And one significant point I can make is that I agree with the Munchkins (except XT *) that Iraq was not a threat at the time (March 2003) that Bush decided to invade Iraq and occupy it for a time to locate all the WMD that he said was being hidden there from UN inspectors.

So I apparently cannot be one of Ravenman’s stupid Americans who believed Iraq was a threat precisely at the time that Bush decided to end inspections.

  • XT supported the invasion so I must presume XT still presumed in March that Iraq was a threat.
415

No, you are much worse, by several orders of magnitude. That’s because most Americans now understand why Iraq was a clusterfuck - because Bush wanted to go to war regardless of the reasons or consequences and that nobody should have ever believed him - but you persist in these pedantic, hairsplitting arguments about how Bush was right on October 19, wrong on March 19, mostly right on December 9, way off base on February 1, but a true statesman and patriot on September 9… Jesus H. Christ, and you can’t even spout off your delusions concisely.

416

So why bother with humor? Let’s go back to my reply to T&D’s post 401 and take a look at Rumsfeld’s response on the radio to Caller L:

In that same CBS call in Radio Show to Sec Rumsfeld there was this exchange:

So Rummy would look those parents of a soldier in the eye and tell them"the president went to the United Nations and sought a resolution, and **received unanimous support to **try to see if we can’t get a peaceful solution to the Iraqi problem."
So Dissonance, Rummy told those siblings and parents of US Military service members it was still unknown whether Iraq would let the inspectors in or if he would reject inspectors with the latter being the pretext for war. So on this date, in November 2002 do you agree with that Iraq was in violation of international law at that time? And sometime after March 7, 2003 when Bush made the decision to end inspections and start war, do you think Iraq was in violation of international law at that time?

And do you wonder if Donald Rumsfeld is quite nuts or stupid if he believes what he said, in 2011 about why the inspections were abruptly halted in March 2003.

Just wondering.

417

Oh dear god, you really do fail at humor. You are either trollin’ or the most singlemindedly obsessed person on the internet. You should have expected a 404 error.

A 404 Error.

Get it?

418

He’s going to get to the bottom of this whole Iraq War thing if it kills him. Just you wait! Then he’s going to work his way backwards through all the US wars until he gets to the American Revolution. I’ll bet you can find where those Founding Fathers lied to the sheeple about, well, stuff!

419

Whoa…you are asking if NFBW gets something that someone else wrote?? :stuck_out_tongue:

420

I think NFbW’s point is that the Declaration of Independence was a good document when it was written and signed, but that the Continental Congress erred by actually starting an illegal war based on that document. Negotiations with the Crown were working, in terms of process and possibly even on substance, until Washington decided to illegally short-circuit that process.