NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

[dasmoocher]

Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW
The right and the pro-Bush types need that “Iraq failed to cooperate” myth to keep Bush from being seriously questioned and examined as to why he failed to see that peaceful disarming of Iraq in March 2003 was the only rational way to go.

Why do we let the irrational Bush off the hook by letting his lie float around unchallenged that Iraq ‘didn’t let the inspectors in’… after 1441.

Originally said by Hans Blix
It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3–4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues."

So, isn’t this the Hans Blix statement that is used by the “right and the pro-Bush types” to describe Iraq as being in material breech?

NotfooledbW, you’ve used part of this statement as evidence that Iraq was in compliance because their cooperation ‘can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”’ And you’ve stated Iraq was in complete compliance as a fact. If your authority states that “Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.”, why can’t the “right and the pro-Bush types”, or anyone else for that matter, read that as Iraq’s compliance was not complete?

I personally am not familiar to which areas of relevance Blix is referring to, but if this paragraph was on a SAT reading comprehension section, I don’t think the correct answer would include “The author describes Iraq as being in complete compliance with all relevant areas of the initiatives”.

Originally Posted by Human Action
This wasn’t some historical footnote, this was an extremely controversial war launched just 10 years ago after lengthy, heated debate within the government, the media, and the citizenry. There was great opposition to the war, including a legal challenge, Doe v. Bush:

But…but…but, the Bush myth has been kept from “being seriously questioned and examined”. So obviously Doe v. Bush was not a serious examination. Yes, apparently, no one has given much serious thought or examintion to this invasion. If they had, they would obviously agree with NotfooledbyW.

NotfooledbW calls Bush irrational, but Bush had a clear goal—the removal of Saddam Hussein from power (with his execution later being the cherry on top), and he successfully accomplished his goal.

NotfooledbW’s goal apparently is to prove that the invasion of Iraq had nothing that could be possibly interpreted as giving Bush the authority to do so, since 1441 was never voted on with regard to Iraqi compliance. But in 18 pages of this thread and in other threads, he apparently can’t find anyone that agrees with his interpretation.

I guess this is because no one understands what “all” and “enforce” mean and everyone has let Bush off the hook because they’re guilty-feeling war supporters or they’re stupid.

Originally Posted by Human Action
If you’re the only person promoting this interpretation of the AUMF, your takeaway shouldn’t be that the legal profession is “complacent”, but rather that you’re probably wrong.

This reminds me of another wall—o’—text poster here who had a case before an appeals court. All the lawyers on the board told her she didn’t have much chance of succeeding based on the information she had provided. But she had gone to the law library to research her case and if the lawyers didn’t agree that the statutes and precedents that she cited as supporting her appeal, then they just didn’t get the facts of the case or were not interpreting the legal authorities correctly and didn’t understand that the law was on her side. She had a self-described intuitive understanding of the law because her legal readings made sense to her and confirmed her view that she was right. IIRC, that appeal was lost badly.

The Iraq invasion is certainly worthy of debate. I just don’t find NotfooledbyW to be a good debater. If he was, maybe he could find people that agree with his interpretation, instead of pointing to other people who have disagreed with people about something who have disagreed with him about something. He also wouldn’t present his opinions as facts.

[NotfooledbyW]

I am saying your summation pretty much sums up the actual language that is written in the AUMF and that Bush did not adhere to it because it is not legally possible to ‘enforce’ a UN Resolution such as 1441 when Iraq was in compliance with it or never found to be out of compliance with it. -Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW

The language is the word “enforce”. You’re claiming that the word is packed to bursting with all these inherent meanings and limitations, but have no support for that view other than your own conviction that it is so. -Human Action

You need to tell me how Bush had anything to ‘enforce’ with respect to 1441 since Iraq was not declared in material breach of it. Bush could not enforce compliance when compliance is already there. -Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW

Where, again, do the words “material breach” or “compliance” appear in the AUMF? Again, you’re trying to spin all of this off the word “enforce”, based on nothing but moral outrage. -Human Action

The language is plain and unambiguous. The President is authorized to use military force ‘IN ORDER TO ENFORCE ALL UNSC RESOLUTIONS with regard to Iraq’ and that is indisputable.

Blank Check language would be, the President is authorized to use military force as he determines necessary.

So you are behind in your argument already when you state there were no restraints and limitations.

Why was ‘in order to ENFORCE ALL RELEVANT UNSC RESOLUTIONS’ included in the language of the AUMF if it means absolutely nothing and is not a restraint?

Where is your proof that language placed in the most relevant part of an authorization to use military force is just there to take up space or whatever the hell you think it is there for.

You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
And how do you explain that this AUMF language carried an intent to meant that Bush has the authority to use military force to enforce a UNSC Resolution which Iraq is not in material breach of said resolution.
Drafters of legal documents do not normally include a list that negates every stupid interpretation of the written word that could be out there.

And your insistence that Bush WAS freely authorized in the AUMF to ‘enforce’ a UNSC Resolution by an act of war when the violating party causing the concern is complying with that resolution and submitting to being disarmed peacefully is completely absurd and lacks merit. It is irrational out of touch with reality.

Tell me how it would be possible to ‘enforce’ a UNSC resolution by violent means that is already being enforced by peaceful means and that is what the drafters of the AUMF intended their language to mean.

Bush can bypass that Resolution and enforce it by violent means on his own, but then he is not 'enforcing that resolution, he is enforcing his own biased unilateral conclusion that violence was the best way to go. But there is no way in hell that Bush when Bush chose violence, that he it was to enforce the UNSC Resolution as the AUMF clearly demanded that he do.

[Trinopus]

@Human_Action

Oh yes. Nominally, it’s about whether the invasion was a violation of the Iraq War Resolution. On a deeper level, though, it’s about whether it’s acceptable to use deceptive propaganda to attack a despicable person, namely George W. Bush.

What matters more, the truth, or that the reputation of an awful President be as awful as possible? There’s a worthy discussion to be had there.

As a dyed-in-the-wool yellow-dog Hubert Humphrey Democrat…I have to grit my teeth and say, truth is more important. I detest GWB with the fiery fury of a thousand neutron bombs… But truth is more important.

[NotfooledbyW]

If you wish to engage me Dasmoocher in this discussion you could start by addressing my position instead of some position that you have conjured up in your narrow and ill-informed mind.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3–4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues." -Originally said by Hans Blix and Cited by DasMoocher

So, isn’t this the Hans Blix statement that is used by the “right and the pro-Bush types” to describe Iraq as being in material breech?

NotfooledbW, you’ve used part of this statement as evidence that Iraq was in compliance because their cooperation ‘can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”’ And you’ve stated Iraq was in complete compliance as a fact. If your authority states that “Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.”, why can’t the “right and the pro-Bush types”, or anyone else for that matter, read that as Iraq’s compliance was not complete?

I personally am not familiar to which areas of relevance Blix is referring to, but if this paragraph was on a SAT reading comprehension section, I don’t think the correct answer would include “The author describes Iraq as being in complete compliance with all relevant areas of the initiatives”.

I’ll be tied up for a bit Dasmooch… but until I get back to your commentary you have made the same classic error as many of the stooges here.

This is a false and nothing but pure hogwash and it crumbles your entire attack on my position. This is what you wrote,

“…you’ve stated Iraq was in complete compliance as a fact”
You have opined with a bogus and outright lie. I stated no such thing.

My statement on that point is that **Dr Blix’s Statement is a fact **that Iraq had begun to cooperate proactively sometime in February 2003 on long outstanding unresolved issues, and Dr Blix did state that as a matter of fact. There is no disputing that. I have stated nothing about Iraq compliance beyond what Dr Blix and Dr El Beradai have said about it.

My position also is that Iraq was not required to be in **COMPLETE COMPLIANCE **according to any deadline under the direction of 1441. What was required under 1441 was immediate cooperation and ‘immediate’ is a subjective term not a specific deadline.

My position is that when Blix stated at any point that Iraq was proactive in cooperation that meant Iraq was complying in accordance with 1441 but still not in full compliance with all Iraq’s disarmament obligations. But the fact is Iraq was not required in any way shape or form to be in full compliance by March 17, 2003.
So if you could rewrite your uninformed attack on me and we’ll see if there is an argument or a response to be returned.

As of now you have it all mostly wrong if not all wrong about what my argument is.
Do me a favor and get yourself educated about the fact that Iraq was not required to be in ‘complete compliance’ by a certain date under the application of UN Res 1441 toward the peaceful disarmament process.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Trinopus

As a dyed-in-the-wool yellow-dog Hubert Humphrey Democrat…I have to grit my teeth and say, truth is more important. I detest GWB with the fiery fury of a thousand neutron bombs… But truth is more important.

Can you cite anything I have written that does not conform to the truth. You seem to be viewing Human Actions versions of what I write, not what I write directly.

I contend that Human Action strays from normal reading of plain text when Human Action suggests that there were no restraints in the AUMF on Bush with regard to enforcing UNSC Resolution 1441 which followed the AUMF vote.

I also contend that Human Action is pushing an absurd interpretation of language in the AUMF that Bush was authorized to use military force to enforce a UNSC Resolution that was already in force and Iraq was complying sufficient to avoid the need for military force. Iraq was not found in material breach of 1441 and therefore Bush had no cause or legal authority from the UN or from the AUMF (If you read the actual language) to engage military action.

The truth aint that the language in the AUMF intended to authorize military force to enforce a UNSC Resolution which was being enforced without any need whatsoever from military force.

The threat of force behind that peaceful cooperation from Iraq of course may have been an influence, but that is where military action should have stopped - Using it as a threat to resolve the matter peacefully.

Human Action is telling you that the drafters of the AUMF could have cared less if Iraq would come in later and comply by cooperating with a future UNSC Resolution that sought just that. That is ridiculous. That is untruth if I have ever seen it.

[dasmoocher]

@NotfooledbyW

If you wish to engage me Dasmoocher in this discussion you could start by addressing my position instead of some position that you have conjured up in your narrow and ill-informed mind.

I’ll be tied up for a bit Dasmooch… but until I get back to your commentary you have made the same classic error as many of the stooges here.

This is a false and nothing but pure hogwash and it crumbles your entire attack on my position. This is what you wrote,

“…you’ve stated Iraq was in complete compliance as a fact”
You have opined with a bogus and outright lie. I stated no such thing.

Really?

I guess my narrow mind misread your post on the first page of the thread (#33):

Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW
When Adaher stated “If” as "If Saddam had ‘completely complied’ it is a suggestion that Saddam did not comply. But the truth is there is no evidence that Saddam was not in compliance with the demands of the UNSC at anytime between December and March just prior to the war. -NF 06/20
My response to Adaher came in post #056 on 06/10 at 06:35 AM.

I made this statement of Fact: “Saddam Hussein did completely comply prior to the invasion.”

You know, a lot of people have pointed out to you that it is possible to scroll back to previous posts in a thread.

Eat your own words, asshole.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

The language is plain and unambiguous. The President is authorized to use military force ‘IN ORDER TO ENFORCE ALL UNSC RESOLUTIONS with regard to Iraq’ and that is indisputable.

Blank Check language would be, the President is authorized to use military force as he determines necessary.

So you are behind in your argument already when you state there were no restraints and limitations.

Why was ‘in order to ENFORCE ALL RELEVANT UNSC RESOLUTIONS’ included in the language of the AUMF if it means absolutely nothing and is not a restraint?

Where is your proof that language placed in the most relevant part of an authorization to use military force is just there to take up space or whatever the hell you think it is there for.

You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
And how do you explain that this AUMF language carried an intent to meant that Bush has the authority to use military force to enforce a UNSC Resolution which Iraq is not in material breach of said resolution.
Drafters of legal documents do not normally include a list that negates every stupid interpretation of the written word that could be out there.

And your insistence that Bush WAS freely authorized in the AUMF to ‘enforce’ a UNSC Resolution by an act of war when the violating party causing the concern is complying with that resolution and submitting to being disarmed peacefully is completely absurd and lacks merit. It is irrational out of touch with reality.

Tell me how it would be possible to ‘enforce’ a UNSC resolution by violent means that is already being enforced by peaceful means and that is what the drafters of the AUMF intended their language to mean.

Bush can bypass that Resolution and enforce it by violent means on his own, but then he is not 'enforcing that resolution, he is enforcing his own biased unilateral conclusion that violence was the best way to go. But there is no way in hell that Bush when Bush chose violence, that he it was to enforce the UNSC Resolution as the AUMF clearly demanded that he do.

I’ve read it all before, pal, and responded to it. Unless you have some kind of evidence that backs up your interpretation, it means nothing. And your tortured illogic and your meandering emotional rants ain’t evidence.

[Human_Action]

@Trinopus

As a dyed-in-the-wool yellow-dog Hubert Humphrey Democrat…I have to grit my teeth and say, truth is more important. I detest GWB with the fiery fury of a thousand neutron bombs… But truth is more important.

Agreed. It’s part of a moral high ground, which shouldn’t be surrendered lightly.

Also, there is plenty of dirt to bury Bush without fabricating more charges. Doing so is both dishonest and needless, except for partisan propagandizing.

[Bryan_Ekers]

So Bush is a war criminal but you’re debating to what extent?

[NotfooledbyW]

Iraq according to UN Res 1441 was in compliance with the final opportunity afforded it when they agreed to allow inspectors in and then were in a stage of proactive cooperation by the end of Feb 2003 -#038 NotfooledbyW 06-09-2013 09:38 AM

[quote=“dasmoocher, post:881, topic:661475”]

So, isn’t this the Hans Blix statement that is used by the “right and the pro-Bush types” to describe Iraq as being in material breech?

NotfooledbW, you’ve used part of this statement as evidence that Iraq was in compliance because their cooperation ‘can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”’ And you’ve stated Iraq was in complete compliance as a fact. **If your authority states that “Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.”, **why can’t the “right and the pro-Bush types”, or anyone else for that matter, read that as Iraq’s compliance was not complete?

@dasmoocher

Really?

I guess my narrow mind misread your post on the first page of the thread (#33):

My response to Adaher came in post #056 on 06/10 at 06:35 AM.

I made this statement of Fact: “Saddam Hussein did completely comply prior to the invasion.”

I wrote that in the context of compliance with 1441 in order to avert war. It was not full legal compliance such that "covering all areas of relevance” would matter. All areas of relevance had nothing to do with proactive cooperation being sufficient for Iraq to avert a war because there was no deadline or set date for complete compliance to be established. It is lying to even suggest or hint that a deadline was set in UNSC Res 1441.

You are so full of shit because I was talking about Iraq being in compliance with 1441 yet you take that to mean in complete compliance with everything.

Proactive compliance would be ‘complete compliance’ with Iraq’s obligations according to 1441. However you twisted the argument to question that:

" If your authority states that “Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.”, why can’t the “right and the pro-Bush types”, or anyone else for that matter, read that as Iraq’s compliance was not complete?
And the answer to your ignorance based question is because 1441 did not require Iraq to be in full complete compliance with all its disarmament obligations by March 17, 2003. You are a sucker for Bush’s demand for full compliance by March 17, 2003.

I realize now that most of you are too ignorant and narrow-minded to get the fact that 1441 did not have a deadline.

You are pretending that there was a deadline in 1441 with every argument you make.
I realize how stupid you stooges are since there are two parts to compliance. There was compliance with 1441 which primarily amounted to cooperation. And Iraq according to Blix provided Proactive cooperation about a month prior to the start of the ground invasion.

That was what was required to avert war and Iraq provided it.
Then there was ***full compliance ***to the point that sanctions could be lifted.

Blix wanted months not years…

You ignorant Bush butt kissing drones … have translated 1441 into a demand that Iraq be in full compliance by March 17, 2003 which was Bush’s deadline and nobody elses.

So what is it with this Bush love, here?.

No matter what the facts are, you all keep seeking to find a way to as John Mace said, … give Bush the benefit of the doubt…

Again, for the ignorant; Iraq’s full compliance with 1441 came when Blix announced that Iraq was cooperating proactively. That was the requirement the majority of UNSC members accepted as sufficient to avert war.

Now, I know it is hard for stupid people to understand a two part situation, but that proactive cooperation announced by Blix, did not produce a status of ‘full compliance’ with all relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq.

Intelligent people would understand that it was obvious that war could be avoided and that within a few more months - Iraq would be in full compliance under continued action by the UN inspectors under the authority of 1441.

But if most here prefer to be stupid so be it.

[John_Mace]

Ok, that’s clear as glass. “Complete compliance” is not “full legal compliance”. That makes perfect sense. Why didn’t you just say so in the first place?

The only remaining question, then, is what constitutions “double secret compliance”. Can you clarify that for us dunces?

Damn, we are so lucky to have you explain all this to us!!

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Ok, that’s clear as glass. “Complete compliance” is not “full legal compliance”. That makes perfect sense. Why didn’t you just say so in the first place?

Why must you distort what I wrote?

I said proactive compliance was complete compliance with 1441. That does not mean full compliance on all matters was achieved. That is a fact.

Coming from one who says that invading Iraq was justified I would expect you not to know that there was no deadline for full legal or complete compliance written or implied in 1441.

[NotfooledbyW]

If your authority states that “Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.”, why can’t the “right and the pro-Bush types”, or anyone else for that matter, read that as Iraq’s compliance was not complete?

I personally am not familiar to which areas of relevance Blix is referring to, but if this paragraph was on a SAT reading comprehension section, I don’t think the correct answer would include “The author describes Iraq as being in complete compliance with all relevant areas of the initiatives”. -Dasmoocher

If Dasmoocher would like to be relieved of ignorance on 1441 and the matters of compliance, DasMoocher could actually read the statement by Blix when he spoke of not covering all relevant areas of compliance. You see if Dasmoocher bothered to read the full text himself he’d know that Blix talked at that time about the inspection team putting together a list that would define all relevant areas of compliance so Iraq’s progress could be measured.

It was not Iraq’s fault that the inspectors had not finalized the list and then couldn’t because Bush launched a ground invasion before they could get it done.

[dasmoocher]

@John_Mace

Ok, that’s clear as glass. “Complete compliance” is not “full legal compliance”. That makes perfect sense. Why didn’t you just say so in the first place?

The only remaining question, then, is what constitutions “double secret compliance”. Can you clarify that for us dunces?

Damn, we are so lucky to have you explain all this to us!!

Yeah, I was wondering how he was going to spin that. Personally, I thought he was going to say that he said Saddam Hussein and not Iraq, and since one was a human male and the other is a country, he therefore never stated that Iraq was in complete compliance.

I thought I read different, but I would have guessed he was a high school freshman who got a poor grade on his history term paper about this and is now seeking validation, but I don’t want to insult high school freshmen.

P.S. I’m pretty sure Bush had everyone who knew about double secret compliance shipped to Gitmo and terminated. Go ahead–prove that’s not what happened. Or was it Dean Wormer? Now I am confused.

[RedFury]

For all the nitpicking bullshit in this thread, three things remain true:

1-Iraq was illegally invaded per UN resolutions to that point

2-Bush & Co. lied their ass off in selling the war.

3-All you imbeciles that thought Iraq could be a threat to the US were just that: imbeciles.

Of that, there can be no doubt.

There. Ignorance fought.

End thread.

[Human_Action]

@Bryan_Ekers

So Bush is a war criminal but you’re debating to what extent?

In effect, yes. The discussion has other implications, though, such as the amount of blame shouldered by Congress for passing the AUMF. NotfooledbyW assigns them none, the rest of the world assigns them a fair portion.

[John_Mace]

@Human_Action

In effect, yes. The discussion has other implications, though, such as the amount of blame shouldered by Congress for passing the AUMF. NotfooledbyW assigns them none, the rest of the world assigns them a fair portion.

I assign them 17.42% of the blame.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

Why must you distort what I wrote?

I said proactive compliance was complete compliance with 1441. That does not mean full compliance on all matters was achieved. That is a fact.

Yes, I get that now that you explained it using small words. But I still don’t know what “double secret compliance” would be. Please provide a wall of text to educumate us!

[Bryan_Ekers]

@John_Mace

I assign them 17.42% of the blame.

That’s funny, currently America assigns them 17.42% of its approval.

[John_Mace]

@Bryan_Ekers

That’s funny, currently America assigns them 17.42% of its approval.

No way it’s that high!