Apparently Dasmoocher prefers to remain in ignorance.
How do you figure? He certainly did not ask you to explain it, which would be the clearest sign that he wished to remain ignorant.
Just like I can go back and read NotfooledbyW’s posts to show where NotfooledbyW said something he first said he didn’t but now claims is out of context, I can also find the transcript of Blix’s speech online. Which I did. Except this isn’t Great Debates, and someone’s already mentioned wrestling with pigs, so I prefer to mock in the Pit.
But let me cherrypick something out of context, just to keep him aggravated:
Apparently NotfooledbyW wanted them to. 
[Besides, isn’t the real purpose of this thread to keep him tied up here and from ruining threads in other forums? We’re almost to 20 pages here; imagine that in amount of effort by him in other forums.]
He is ignorant to have attacked my point while thinking that 1441 had a deadline to resolve all areas of relevance prior to March 17, 2012.
That is ignorant. Do you think there was a deadline too?
Your turn to embarrass me, NotfooledbyW. Please point out where I specifically say 1441 had a deadline. Inferences from what you think I was thinking or inferences from inferences don’t count. You certainly wouldn’t want someone to be misquoted here, right?
I think you are a loon. (Which, by the way, is the point of this thread–a point you have repeatedly and persistently proven. 
)
First tell me where I said you specifically said it. My point is you have no point about what Blix said unless you believe Blix was operating under a deadline. Iraq complied with 1441 by cooperating such that the UNSC majority saw no need for war or regime change. Iraq did not need to have all areas of relevance resolved prior March 17 2003. There was no deadline in 1441.
Well, you obviously think I think it. Go come up with a wall o’text laying out the case for us.
Yawn Enough with UN this and Hans Blix that, it was stale 18 pages ago. Let’s shake things up a bit, okay? Bush was in clear violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, to whit:
Oh yeah, and since it’s the actual point of the thread you’re a blithering idiot and it’s hard to believe you weren’t fooled by W. You go on about things that happened 10 years ago as if they are some fantastic new revelation; most people who post here already had it figured out when it was happening.
My emphasis. So, it would have been legal to invade them from Hawaii, right?
Yes, but you have to offer all parties Rice Crispy Squares first.
I see none in the Blank Check Stooge Tribe here can offer an explanation for why “in order to ENFORCE all relevant UNSC Resolutions” is written into the AUMF and how it could be that Bush actually “enforced” 1441 with military force when the authorizing body determined it should and could be enforced by peaceful means.
This Tribe here requires one to be a dumbass in order to join.
That’s a lie. I checked ten years ago and very little if any discussion about the AUMF on this forum. And no one looked at the actual language of the AUMF until I brought it up.
Like lemmings you all bought the blank check story line probably in 2007 when Obama and HRC were competing for the presidential nomination.
That is how imbeciles operate - don’t check the facts - just follow some dumbass over the cliff.
Well, it’s only good manners to offer the contracting parties snacks for the munchies when they’re all high.
Touched a nerve, did I? It’s no lie; the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawed war forever, and was signed by the US and ratified by congress. Any authorization by congress granting the right to use military force in any way whatsoever to the president is thus invalid on its face.
Oh, I see. The entire fucking country is full of nothing but imbeciles and lemmings except for you. You know via psychic powers when we all probably bought the blank check story line too.
It was pretty fucking obvious in the months leading up to the war that 1) Dubya was going to have his war with Saddam no matter what anyone said or did and 2) Congress wasn’t going to stop him.
Yes, obvious. Except for those people who were Fooled By W.
The language to enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions in order to use military force should have stopped Bush but it didnt, so the dumbass, imbecile response was to blame Congress as if they didnt stipulate such a restraint.
Being that kind of dumbass is what keeps Bush from having to deal with the irrationality and illegitimacy of what he did. You dumbasses also sit by and watch Bush claim for ten years that he really wanted Peace but Saddam didn’t cooperate.
And many have argued that Saddam didn’t cooperate after 1441.
Bush loves you all for it and you all think you are so smart.
Yes, many can be dumbasses. It has happened before and will happen again.
When it comes to ignoring facts and points of view that don’t fit a preconceived idea, Bush may or may not be guilty of that. But even if he is, you make him look like a Little Leaguer to your Pro All-Star Team talents. Yeesh.
John Mace said immediately following the attack on Iraq that Bush was justified in doing it and John Mace gave Bush the benefit of the doubt that Bush was protecting out security when he attacked Iraq.
Anyone who put such a smooch on Bush’s war president ass has no fucking business calling anyone fooled by Dubya.
Nothing justified Bush’s decision to invade. I would never utter such an imbecile conclusion.
Name one fact that I am ignoring.
I cite the exact language written into the AUMF and the Blank Check dimwits here ignore the fact that a restraint is clearly written there.
It limits the military action to Iraq. That’s pretty much all it does, because “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate…in order to enforce” is as vague as the day is long. The AUMF doesn’t define its terms, and doesn’t actually say any of what you claim it does.
I take it that you couldn’t find any evidence to support your interpretation of “enforce” as “be part of a UN force, or act unilaterally after a UNSC resolution declaring Iraq to be in breach of 1441”, could you? Why might that be?
Not even the plaintiffs in Doe v. Bush, whose anti-Bush, anti-War bona fides are unimpeachable, agree with your interpretation of the AUMF.
Oh, and I’ll ask you for the fourth time: What was the difference between the Levin Amendment and the AUMF that was passed?