NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

[Human_Action]

@XT

The AUMF was passed and signed in Sept of 2001.

Right, and on the subject of extremely broad blank checks for war, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists states:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Under the AUMF, all any president needs to do to make war on any nation, organization, or person is make that determination. If Obama decided to invade Jamaica tomorrow, he is empowered to do so under this law. It is absurdly broad, and it’s a credit to the general honor of the U.S. that it hasn’t been abused more than it has.

So, if Bush was willing to lie (perish the thought!) and didn’t get the Iraq War Resolution, he could have invaded Iraq under the 2001 AUMF, and dared Congress to repeal it.

[NotfooledbyW]

@XT

Can you give me a link and some quotes showing multiple posters saying not only that I was wrong on this subject but lying as well? Thanks in advance (I’m not holding my breath for that link)

From Bush Library Thread:
Here is where Tony Sinclair laid out a case for why you are wrong and lying. I didn’t say multiple posters were quoted “SAYING” you were wrong and lying .

I said,

It was explained to XT by multiple posters why XT is not only wrong but lying.

I said it was ‘explained to you’ “WHY” you are wrong and lying.

I did not say that posters directly wrote that you were wrong and lying. I’m saying that their explanation has shown that you are wrong and lying.

I will say it again, so maybe this time you can understand English"
It **was explained **to XT by multiple posters why XT is not only wrong but lying.

It was explained here:

Do you have a cite (prior to the war) where Blix said that the inspections were either unfettered OR that they were working? I agree that he didn’t feel there was ample evidence to go to war over, but I’ve never seen a statement where Blix was that open that he felt SH or Iraq were cooperating to a level he was comfortable with and that the inspections were working to his complete satisfaction. To me, from memory, his stance was much more nuanced than you seem to be attempting to portray it…shades of gray, instead of the black and white picture you seem to be trying to assert. - Originally Posted by XT (Post 16368906)

I posted this link earlier. Please read it:

Security Council 7 March 2003

Blix clearly states that Iraq is fully cooperating, that he expects the remaining issues can be resolved in a matter of a few months, and that the continued presence of the UN team will prevent Saddam from resuming prohibited programs.

The quote from Ravenman about this report does not contradict any of those points; it only acknowledges that Iraq’s cooperation was not immediate. To someone like Bush, I suppose that is a pretext for war. To any sane person, it is a ridiculous reason to invade. -TonySinclair BL-073 06-10-2013 04:42 PM

And XT’s reply also shows that XT is wrong and clueless and absolutely in denial of what is true.

I’ve only skimmed it (sorry I missed your link earlier btw), but this is dated the 7th of March, 2003…12 days before the invasion, when it was quite clear that the trigger had already been pulled. By that point, nothing Blix could have said would have made any difference. -BL-074 XT 06-10-2013 04:55 PM

See above post by XT. He asked for this:

“Do you have a cite **(prior to the war) **where Blix said that the inspections were either unfettered OR that they were working?”
The phrase in parenthesis “before the war” belongs to XT. He asked me for a ‘cite’ before the war.

Sinclair obliged. Citing Blix “BEFORE THE WAR”…

XT replies, and admits:

…by the 12th Blix was reasonably happy with the progress, that he still had reservations and needed more resources and specifically more time. Certainly he DID need all of those, but by the 12th of March it was too late by half a year to be even as cautiously optimistic as your cite shows he was at that time…hell, it might have been too late a year before. -BL-074 XT 06-10-2013 04:55 PM

I was asked to provide a quote from Blix where *inspections ‘were working’ *PRIOR to the WAR.

XT admitted to Tony Sinclair that :Blix **was reasonably happy with the progress: and that was ‘BEFORE THE WAR’

So,

Not only did XT move the goal post with all his *March 12 **was too late *nonsense ,XT went on to imply that I was a liar about what Blix said and came here and started this thread complaining dishonestly about what I write.

Now I have this great opportunity to explain why XT is wrong and not at all honest about things.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

So, if Bush was willing to lie (perish the thought!) and didn’t get the Iraq War Resolution, he could have invaded Iraq under the 2001 AUMF, and dared Congress to repeal it.

Oooooops HA. The stooges are not going to like you much around here. Thanks for bringing this up.
Bush also had the “War Powers Resolution of 1972”

*Actually, I would hope that everybody voting for that resolution knew that Bush already had that authority. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 says that the President can start a war on his own authority, provided he meets a very low bar — and it was passed as a restriction on more sweeping powers. -02-21-2013, 10:02 AM Tony Sinclair Hubris-117

*So the AUMF didn’t give Bush any authority he didn’t already have to start the war. It even made it a bit harder in some ways, and the only thing it did to make it easier was to lift the toothless 60-day restriction of the WPR. -02-21-2013, 10:02 AM Tony Sinclair Hubris-117

This makes the case that those who voted for the October 7 2002 AUMF had legitimate concerns that Bush had been driving for war and could get it started in any number of ways without a new AUMF. And that when Bush began talking about avoiding war if Iraq allowed the UNSC to verify that he was disarmed… they took the best deal they could get.

There was the possibility that the UNSC would pass a tough resolution and that with the threat of force backed by Congress… Saddam would not mess around.

[tomndebb]

@NotfooledbyW

Why was the invasion of Iraq not legal T&D

Just b’cause.
While I do forget, from time to time, this thread has persuaded me of the wisdom of G B Shaw’s observations regarding wrestling pigs.

[XT]

FooledByW…dude, seriously, just stop. It’s pretty obvious that even when quoting people you don’t understand what they are saying. I realize at this point that you don’t see that you make yourself look even more stupid and foolish with every post, and that’s an extremely difficult to do. I mean, you’d think as one approaches 100% that there would be some indication of slowing down, but you actually seem to gain stupid and foolish momentum the more you post. I don’t see any benefit in parsing your latest two posts, since I’m pretty sure that every other poster can read what you said there and what you were responding too and is probably laughing fit to split, while it would be futile to even attempt to continue to engage with you, since it would just be more of the same. It’s like trying to explain calculus to a particularly stupid rock…there just is no benefit to anyone in continuing the attempt. The rock is never, ever going to get it or absorb even the rudiments of what is attempted to be conveyed.

[NotfooledbyW]

@XT

Because, moron, it wasn’t. This is all in the past, and you act as if it’s still in doubt. It already HAPPENED YOU IDIOT SO WE KNOW HOW IT PLAYED OUT!! I realize that you weren’t following along and this is all new to you, but the rest of us can actually grasp history. The AUMF was passed and signed in Sept of 2001. The Iraq War Resolution was enacted in October of 2002, and we began sending in troops (special forces to start) in late 2002 and early 2003, culminating in the invasion in March of that year. See the progression there? AUMF which gave Bush pretty much a blank check:

The Iraq War Resolution further:

You posted this XT…

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” in order to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”
I bolded the last line after “and”
So when will you tell me how in the hell you could claim that Bush “enforce(d) all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq” when he attacked Iraq in complete defiance of UN Resolution 1441, which is NOT in any way ‘enforcing’ ALL UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

Oooooops HA. The stooges are not going to like you much around here. Thanks for bringing this up.

I think I’ll be fine.

@NotfooledbyW

Bush also had the “War Powers Resolution of 1972”

That’s not much to work with, something like shooting at a U.S. plane wouldn’t be enough for Bush to invade the nation of Iraq and topple its government; the Caroline test requires proportionality. Also, while it may be an article of faith that Congress would never force the President to remove troops after 60 days, going to war in defiance of their power to declare war is a fine way to make them do just that. Power is the currency of politics, and Congress wouldn’t relinquish theirs lightly.

@NotfooledbyW

This makes the case that those who voted for the October 7 2002 AUMF had legitimate concerns that Bush had been driving for war and could get it started in any number of ways without a new AUMF. And that when Bush began talking about avoiding war if Iraq allowed the UNSC to verify that he was disarmed… they took the best deal they could get.

There was the possibility that the UNSC would pass a tough resolution and that with the threat of force backed by Congress… Saddam would not mess around.

Hard to call it a “deal” when one side made no material concessions.

Those other ways required either Bush to openly claim that Iraq was involved in 9/11, which would be easily discredited, exposing him as a blatant liar and giving public support to Congress to repeal or amend the AUMF (or not, hard to say given the way the winds were blowing back then), or to rely on Congress not having the stomach to enforce the 60-day limit of the War Powers Act.

In contrast, the Iraq War Resolution was a clear authorization to make war on Iraq in particular with no end date and no need to lie or test Congress’ commitment to guarding their Constitutional powers. It was just what Bush needed to avoid the aforementioned complications of other paths to war. It wasn’t the only way, but, second only to a UNSC resolution, it was the best and easiest way, and it shouldn’t have been passed.

[NotfooledbyW]

@XT

FooledByW…dude, seriously, just stop. It’s pretty obvious that even when quoting people you don’t understand what they are saying. I realize at this point that you don’t see that you make yourself look even more stupid and foolish with every post, and that’s an extremely difficult to do. I mean, you’d think as one approaches 100% that there would be some indication of slowing down, but you actually seem to gain stupid and foolish momentum the more you post. I don’t see any benefit in parsing your latest two posts, since I’m pretty sure that every other poster can read what you said there and what you were responding too and is probably laughing fit to split, while it would be futile to even attempt to continue to engage with you, since it would just be more of the same. It’s like trying to explain calculus to a particularly stupid rock…there just is no benefit to anyone in continuing the attempt. The rock is never, ever going to get it or absorb even the rudiments of what is attempted to be conveyed.

You have established a pattern of running away in this manner.

You asked for a cite - prior to the war and you got it. Then you kept on lying about me after agreeing with Sinclair You can run but you cannot hide from the facts.

[XT]

[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
You have established a pattern of running away in this manner.
[/QUOTE]

What do you imagine I’m running away from? You?

You asked for a cite - prior to the war and you got it. Then you kept on lying about me after agreeing with Sinclair You can run but you cannot hide from the facts.

Except that’s not what I asked you to cite, and your cite didn’t demonstrate…well, anything really. Unsurprisingly, you failed to grasp what I (or anyone else in that or any other thread) was actually saying. Other than that, however, you were spot on.

[QUOTE=Human Action]
I think I’ll be fine.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I’d say that’s a safe bet, since aside from the fact that FooledByW didn’t understand what you said, I think all the ‘stooges’ agree with you on this point, more or less.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

At what date, exactly, do you claim you stopped being fooled by W?

Because it sounds like it was March 19, 2003.

I was never fooled by Dubya’s lies about cooperation by Iraq with the final opportunity to comply as it appears that all you stooges were and still are. I was never fooled by the crazy assed notion that Bush decided to actually launch the attack prior to March 2003. And the Bush/Blair Draft Res to the UNSC that failed to get majority support proves with a physical document that Bush did not decide for war up to that time. That draft Res had the provision that SH could remain in power if the UNSC did something he wanted.

This Bush actually decided for war not because SH failed to take advantage of his final opportunity to comply. It was becsuse the UNSC refused to accept Bush’s deadline for a decision by the Council for Full Compliance. That was never part of 1441 so Bush pulled his resolution and absolutely abandoned 1441 and then decided for war.

Bush has a severe problem though because he must not have truly (on March7) had the intel that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from the UN inspectors - because he did not share it with the Council as he was required to do under 1441.
Think about it. Ten Days later Bush claimed to have had that specific contemporaneous intel for which he said war was necessary.

Think about it.

[NotfooledbyW]

Do you have a cite (prior to the war) where Blix said that the inspections were either unfettered OR that they were working? - Originally Posted by XT (Post 16368906)

That is what you asked me XT. You cannot deny it. Quit trying. And your denying is a big part of your running.

[Ravenman]

@NotfooledbyW

This Bush actually decided for war not because SH failed to take advantage of his final opportunity to comply. It was becsuse the UNSC refused to accept Bush’s deadline for a decision by the Council for Full Compliance. That was never part of 1441 so Bush pulled his resolution and absolutely abandoned 1441 and then decided for war.

When the White House proposed a war resolution to Congress in September 2002, do you think Bush’s primary goal was regime change or the peaceful disarmament of Iraq?

[quote
Bush has a severe problem though because he must not have truly (on March7) had the intel that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from the UN inspectors - because he did not share it with the Council as he was required to do under 1441. [/quote]
Are you contending that Bush wasn’t sure about Curveball until March 2003?

Think about it. Ten Days later Bush claimed to have had that specific contemporaneous intel for which he said war was necessary.

Think about it.

So the NIE presented to Congress in October 2002 was known to be wrong?

Please stop running away from my US Attorney question.

[NotfooledbyW]

Think about it. Ten Days later Bush claimed to have had that specific contemporaneous intel for which he said war was necessary. Think about it. -Ntfldbw

So the NIE presented to Congress in October 2002 was known to be wrong? -Ravenman

The Oct 2002 NIE intel was all mostly shot down in public in UNMOVIC and IAEA reports. The intel Bush claimed to have on March 17 2003 that left no doubt had to be something new that was obtained after March 7 2003. You must know that the US and UK had already given all the NIE intelligence to Blix and El Baradei and it all led inspectors on wild goose hunts and to dead ends.

Bush should not have any had fresh intel on March 7, 2003 that Iraq was concealing the most lethal Weapons ever devised from Blix and his team, because he could have shared it with Blix so that he could expose it and that could convince UNSC members that Iraq was still up to no good and not cooperating.

Instead Bush informed the UNSC with the draft resolution that Saddam Hussein could remain in power if the UNSC could verify Iraq disarmed in ten days.

That makes no sense to request a ten day ultimatum if Bush had the smoking gun intel when he requested it.

So we know the Council rejected Bush’s timeline and the lo and behold Bush had the undoubtable intel smoking gun just ten days later proclaiming the need to start s war.

Think about it.

[Ravenman]

I am thinking about your half-baked reasoning, and how you never answer questions.

Are you saying that Bush wanted a peaceful resolution to Iraq’s suspected WMD programs when he sent a war resolution to Congress in September 2002?

Are you saying that any belief that Bush had decided, before mid-March 2003, to start a war to remove Saddam Hussein from power is a “crazy assed notion?”

Are you saying that Bush didn’t believe the intelligence reports he had been given until 10 days before the war began?

Are you saying that Bush knew the NIE he presented to Congress in September 2002 was wrong when he sent it over?

Are you ever going to answer my question about a US Attorney’s duty to enforce all US laws?

[XT]

[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
That is what you asked me XT. You cannot deny it. Quit trying. And your denying is a big part of your running.
[/QUOTE]

No, dude, it’s not. Here’s what I asked you:

[QUOTE=Me]
Can you give me a link and some quotes showing multiple posters saying not only that I was wrong on this subject but lying as well? Thanks in advance (I’m not holding my breath for that link)
[/QUOTE]

See, you were supposed to give me links with quotes of multiple posters saying that not only was I wrong but I lied too. You didn’t even provide a link (at all) showing that other posters besides yourself said I was wrong, let alone that I was lying. This was a simple request on my part, and not only did you fail to provide it but, once again, you showed that you simply can’t read or comprehend what anyone asks or tells you…hell, Ravenman has been asking you to just answer a simple question for over a page now and you are incapable of doing that either. Because you are a dumb ass little fuck weasel.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

Are you saying that Bush wanted a peaceful resolution to Iraq’s suspected WMD programs when he sent a war resolution to Congress in September 2002?

I am affirming that is exactly what Bush began saying after Labor Day 2002. Bush began expressing his desire to seek a new UN Resolution that would demand that Iraq submit to tough and complete inspections so that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully. Bush also stated very clearly that he needed the authorization to use military force in case the UNSC and Saddam Hussein did not act.

Bush made an argument that was plain as day that Congress needed to show Iraq that he would face severe military action if he did not allow the resumption of stronger inspections. Bush said giving him an AUMF was a way for Congress to send a message to the UN and Iraq to get Iraq disarmed as a way to keep the peace.

Yepp, just going by what Bush said and did when he sent Powell to the UN. It is called identifying reality whether one believed Bush or not, it happened.

@Ravenman

Are you saying that any belief that Bush had decided, before mid-March 2003, to start a war to remove Saddam Hussein from power is a “crazy assed notion?”

No I am saying Bush has stated he did not decide until the final days of decision just before Mid-March. Anyone who tells me they know when Bush made the final decision that does not comport to the record of what was said and transpired is expressing a crazy assed notion and nothing else. You can believe whatever the hell you want, but don’t bring it as a matter of fact to this or any other discussion.

And as I said that when Bush submitted a draft resolution to the UNSC he made it known in an official document that he was willing as late as March 7 2003 to leave Hussein in control of Iraq. Had the UNSC been able to expect Blix to declare Iraq fully disarmed by March 17, 2003 and having approved Bush’s draft Resolution - Bush would have lost the Brits at least and would have been hard pressed on legitimacy to proceed with war and regime change.

Bush was not a rational man so who knows what he thought and when he thought. I go by the public record and statements. If you can read Bush’s mind - more power to you. I think that is quite nutty.

@Ravenman

Are you saying that Bush didn’t believe the intelligence reports he had been given until 10 days before the war began?

Not even close, Ravenman. I see no point in speculating on what Bush believed or did not believe. I think Bush was not a fully rational man after 9/11.

I am questioning how it was that Bush had undoubtable intelligence on March 17 but ten days before, when trying but failing to convince six UNSC members to set a deadline for ending 1441, Bush did not have that undoubtable intel to use in making his case. Why didn’t Bush give his undoubtable intelligence to UNMOVIC so Blix could verify where the “concealed” “most lethal weapons ever devised” were being hidden.

@Ravenman

Are you saying that Bush knew the NIE he presented to Congress in September 2002 was wrong when he sent it over?

I am not talking about the NIE intelligence. If you could think you would realize that Bush cited undoubtable intelligence that Iraq was ‘concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised’ from the 1441 inspection regime. The 1441 inspectors did not arrive in Iraq until December 2002. The NIE was presented prior to October 2002.

Why bring up the NIE Ravenman? Esoteric debates on whether Bush knew the NIE was wrong add anything to the discussion.

@Ravenman

Are you ever going to answer my question about a US Attorney’s duty to enforce all US laws?

Sure.

[NotfooledbyW]

@XT

No, dude, it’s not. Here’s what I asked you:

See, you were supposed to give me links with quotes of multiple posters saying that not only was I wrong but I lied too. You didn’t even provide a link (at all) showing that other posters besides yourself said I was wrong, let alone that I was lying. This was a simple request on my part, and not only did you fail to provide it but, once again, you showed that you simply can’t read or comprehend what anyone asks or tells you…hell, Ravenman has been asking you to just answer a simple question for over a page now and you are incapable of doing that either. Because you are a dumb ass little fuck weasel.

Another way you run is by not citing my relevant response. I didn’t claim that another and I posted exact words that you are wrong and liar. I wrote that I and another (multiple posters) explained why you are wrong and a liar. Then I posted the cites where you are wrong and being to this moment very deceitful.

Go back to my post and respond. Don’t run from it.

[Ravenman]

@NotfooledbyW

No I am saying Bush has stated he did not decide until the final days of decision just before Mid-March. Anyone who tells me they know when Bush made the final decision that does not comport to the record of what was said and transpired is expressing a crazy assed notion and nothing else. You can believe whatever the hell you want, but don’t bring it as a matter of fact to this or any other discussion.

And as I said that when Bush submitted a draft resolution to the UNSC he made it known in an official document that he was willing as late as March 7 2003 to leave Hussein in control of Iraq. Had the UNSC been able to expect Blix to declare Iraq fully disarmed by March 17, 2003 and having approved Bush’s draft Resolution - Bush would have lost the Brits at least and would have been hard pressed on legitimacy to proceed with war and regime change.

Bush was not a rational man so who knows what he thought and when he thought. I go by the public record and statements. If you can read Bush’s mind - more power to you. I think that is quite nutty.

Is Bob Woodward “nutty?”

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

Are you saying that Bush wanted a peaceful resolution to Iraq’s suspected WMD programs when he sent a war resolution to Congress in September 2002?

I’m saying that is exactly what Bush was saying prior to the vote for the AUMF:

Question: Mr. President, are you going to send Congress your proposed resolution today? And are you asking for a blank check, sir?

The President: I am sending suggested language for a resolution. I want – I’ve asked for Congress’ support to enable the administration to keep the peace. And we look forward to a good, constructive debate in Congress. I appreciate the fact that the leadership recognizes we’ve got to move before the elections. I appreciate the strong support we’re getting from both Republicans and Democrats, and look forward to working with them.

Question: Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?

The President: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you’ve got to have the authorization to use force. But it’s – this will be – this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It’s a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration’s ability to keep the peace. That’s what this is all about.
Remarks by the President in Photo Opportunity with Secretary of State Colin Powell
The Oval Office, Washington, DC September 19, 2002

Pretend you are a US Senator on October 1, 2002 knowing that Bush has the 2001 AUMF against terrorists in has back pocket and you hear the President as Commander in Chief during the WAR on TERROR threaten you with this:

“If you want to keep the peace - you’ve got to have the authorization to use force”
And if you take that as Bush saying, “I am going to war like my Vice President wants, but I will consider keeping the peace if you give me the AUMF and that forces the UN and Saddam Hussein to act - and be disarmed and the threat is removed.”
Human Action has recently provided the back-up for taking Bush’s KEEP THE PEACE words in that way.

The AUMF was passed and signed in Sept of 2001. -XT

Right, and on the subject of extremely broad blank checks for war, the Authorization for Use of Military Force **Against Terrorists **states:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons** he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations**, organizations or persons.

Under the AUMF, all any president needs to do to make war on any nation, organization, or person is make that determination. If Obama decided to invade Jamaica tomorrow, he is empowered to do so under this law. It is absurdly broad, and it’s a credit to the general honor of the U.S. that it hasn’t been abused more than it has.

So, if Bush was willing to lie (perish the thought!) and didn’t get the Iraq War Resolution, he could have invaded Iraq under the 2001 AUMF, and dared Congress to repeal it -Human Action

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

And if you take that as Bush saying, “I am going to war like my Vice President wants, but I will consider keeping the peace if you give me the AUMF and that forces the UN and Saddam Hussein to act - and be disarmed and the threat is removed.”
Human Action has recently provided the back-up for taking Bush’s KEEP THE PEACE words in that way.

That threat makes no sense, though. “Give me the power to easily make war, or I’ll make war!”

Imagine someone with a baseball bat approaching you. “Give me your shotgun!”, he yells, “Or I’ll go rob that bank!” So, aware that he might be able to rob the bank with the baseball bat, you hand over the shotgun, then watch in bafflement as he robs the bank with it. That’s what Congress did, because they were either fools, cowards, or not actually averse to war.

Yes, Bush could have invaded Iraq under the 2001 AUMF. But it’d be a blatant fraud, a middle finger to a Congress that could repeal the AUMF, and alienate Bush’s foreign allies.