Not just Bush, but any legitimate power.
Nope. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he thought he was doing so.
Nope. I was not Fooled by W like you were. I was against the war from the beginning. Hell, I was against the First Gulf War!
Cough Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. Bush had no right to use military force with or without the UN’s blessing, and congress had no right to authorize Bush to use military force for any reason. War had been made illegal forever and all major powers agreed to never use war or military force to resolve any disputes or conflicts ever again, remember?
What makes you a delusional buffoon is that you think you’re the only one on the planet who can or could see through Bush’s BS - and you’re saying this delusional garbage right after I said and you even quoted “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.”
Seriously NfbW, you’re a complete moron. That is the point of this thread; you can be called out for your idiocy elsewhere but here you can be called the delusional moron that you are.
The longer this thread drags on, the more appropriate its title becomes.
My emphasis. Yeah, his reading comprehension needs work. He only sees what he wants to. Check out this from posts 433-435:
#433
#434
#435
He’s so eager to jump on John Mace, he doesn’t get the joke even though he quoted John Mace’s response, which quoted my question, in his post.
Just picture the smoking gun not being a mushroom cloud but an overused bong.
Expect by pacific means, right? We could have invaded from Hawaii and Alaska in a classic pincer movement. The key to invading Iraq has always been the pacific. The Greeks knew it. The Carthaginians knew it. Now you know it too.
I am addressing your Blank Check Bullshit.
If Bush’s bullshit is as obvious as you say there should be no quarrel about the fact that Bush failed to comply with the language of the AUMF and lied about Iraq’s failure to cooperate after 1441,
But this forum is pretty much stuck in tribal behavior - just sticking up for tribal dances and customs and beliefs. This Blank Check BS is one potent tribal belief.
Except we have multiple cites from Senators and Congressmen saying it was a blank check. You have ZERO cites supporting your crazy hypothesis. You are the only person in the world who reads the AUMF that way. That makes you a nut.
That is what this thread is about. You’re a nut. Stay here as long as you like, but everyone thinks you’re a nut.
Like I said, delusional
Bolding mine. What the fuck is this about my blank check bullshit? This blank check bullshit of mine exists only in your head. Where have I said a single thing about it? All I’ve done is tell you neither Bush nor congress had any right to authorize or use war or military force to resolve conflict as per the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, which you continually ignore. I am mocking you by bringing up the Pact of course as nobody bothers to abide by it, but there is something you should note: unlike your entirely unique interpretation of the AUMF, I don’t have to use tortured logic or reading of the text of the Kellogg-Briand Pact to demonstrate both Bush and congress were in flagrant violation of it. Herbert Hoover signed it on behalf of the US, the Senate approved it by a vote of 85-1, the instrument of ratification by 54 nations are still deposited in Washington DC, and it is still in effect under international law.
Wow! That makes the words “in order to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq” mean nothing.
For every Senator who called it a blank check there’s a few who would dissagree. The majority voted for it dumbass.
Being called nuts by the guy who opposes a war from one side of his mouth but tells the one who started it that he was justified to do it, just doesn’t have much kick, dies it.
Why is that phrase I cited above in there Mace?
They mean as much as Bush wanted them to mean, since the AUMF said he was the sole authority to decide.
The dumbasses were the ones who voted for it, and the ones, like you, who were Fooled By W into supporting it. But do you care to cite any of those Congressmen who agree with your interpretation? You’ve given no cites to date.
I’m not the one being Pitted here, amigo. You are. Did you fail to notice that? And it’s not my fault that you’re too stupid to understand the difference between something being justified and that same thing being unwise. People like Cheney even understood that in 1990/91, but they lost sight of it in 2002/03. I guess they, like you, were Fooled By W.
If that was all it said you and your fellow stooges would be correct, but it said more. It said ‘in order to’ use military force for two specific reasons. One was to enforce a Resolution such as 1441 if it came to pass.
Bush did not enforce 1441 - he pissed on it and after he pissed on it you said Bush was justified to start a war. You are on the record here Mace saying the war was justified in 2003 right after the invasion.
You may still fool the stooges here but you don’t fool me.
Right!
That was W’s job.
Toppling SH was always justified-- in 1991, in 1995 and in 2003. But it wasn’t wise.
You were Fooled By W into thinking he was interested in a peaceful resolution and so you endorsed a blank check to let him go to war. You’re stupid, and that is what this thread is about. You can try and hide, but that is FACT. I was against the AUMF, and you were for it. Look what happened. If only more people were not Fooled by W as you were.
Still going I see. 
Really, we should all be pitted, myself foremost, for allowing this idiot to not only hijack this thread into yet another inane and pedantic discussion about Bush and Iraq (which is what was being pitted in the first place) but to troll us all along for page after page of this stupid shit. Much as I see this thread as a public service, seemingly containing this ridiculous idiot to this one thread and preventing him from destroying the board and perhaps western civilization, I have to say that he’s managed to troll all of us into page after page of endless discussion about a subject that hasn’t been relevant for nearly a decade now. And he’s done it by the same methods I originally pitted him for…shifting the goal posts, purposely or by sheer stupidity misreading and misunderstanding others posts or the plain text or words of various cites, including his own (I’m going with the latter here, though I’m starting to wonder if even bread mold could be this stupid and pedantic) and making statements of fact and offering AS fact assertions that he hasn’t even bothered to attempt to back up.
By who’s authority? Because this was the daily news out of Iraq:
And I do mean day by day by day…
Mised edit window. Original cite: Bombings, Security Raids Leave 49 Dead Across Iraq
Mind you, that’s regular day in Iraq, not the Boston Marathon.
Wrong again. I never believed that Bush was interested in a peaceful outcome in Iraq. I have pointed out the fact to the many ignoramuses here that Bush promoted his fervent desire for peace as part of the negotiations prior to the AUMF vote, and has lied about his desire for peace ever since it was clear that he never intended to take that option.
The really dumbasses are those who think Bush would have ended his drive for an invasion of Iraq if there was no AUMF passed in October 2002.
And since Dumbass Mace still believes Bush’s explanation why peaceful means wouldn’t work it is obvious I was never fooled by Dubya, ever.
When Mace put in writing that Bush was justified to invade becsuse S.H. defied the spirit of the UN inspection process, that is the blindfolded swallowing of Bush’s coordinated and parallel lies that Bush could not take the Peace peace option (lie one) because Iraq did not cooperate after 1441. (lie two)
Mace lapped it up and even argues that Bush was justified to make war not peace.
It is going on because you can do nothing but lie about me. Name one fact assertion that I have not backed up or even needs backing up. Human Action agrees with me that, Iraq cooperated sufficiently that war should have been avoided.
You attacked my point against Adahar who was claiming in support of the invasion that Iraq did not cooperate enough to avoid war.
I can’t help it XT that you were one of the dumb assess in March 2003 that supported Bush’s decision to invade Iraq based on his outright lies that Iraq did not cooperate after 1441.
And you are an idiot who says the indirection didnt matter.
And it is not a dead ten year old issue because Bush is still lying that he wanted peace but Saddam Hussien did not cooperate do an invasion was necessary.
You swallowed Bush’s lies ten years ago and now you want us to forget about what an ignorant uninformed American you were when Bush shit on the AUMF and UNSC Res 1441 by deciding Iraq’s cooperation. You like the blank check storyline and false narrative because it takes attention from your post-AUMF ignorance and places blame on members of Congress.
I was not ignorant after the inevitable AUMF vote like you were. That is a fact that will never change. I was not ignorant before the AUMF vote either because I recognized that Bush could start or provoke a war with Iraq by escalating the NFZ hostilities or by invoking the sep 2001 AUMF by linking Iraq to ak Qaeda whether true or not.
Just so that we’re all on the same page:
The AUMF was not a blank check (according to Fooled By W), but Bush was able to get exactly the war he wanted, exactly when he wanted it, and he was also able to get every penny he every requested from Congress in order to fund it. But he didn’t have a blank check.
I feel better already!