NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

[XT]

[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
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.
[/QUOTE]

No, it’s still going on because you are a fetid pile of wormy dingo droppings, with an IQ to match. You are also completely, totally and even fundamentally incapable of reading for comprehension.

BTW, have you noticed that no other posters are leaping to your defense about the supposed lies I have told about you?

You attacked my point against Adahar who was claiming in support of the invasion that Iraq did not cooperate enough to avoid war.

And I’ve answered why this was the case. Again, you seem to be under the impression that these events are transpiring right now, today…instead of the fact that they all played out a decade ago. It’s pretty obvious today that Iraq DIDN’T cooperate enough (to GW, who made the actual decision to invade) to avoid war because, moron, the war already happened. We DID invade, you idiot! :smack:

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.

I didn’t support Bush based on ‘his outright lies that Iraq did not cooperate after 1441’. I’ve explained this to you several times, but you are basically too stupid to understand even simple sentences or statements. I have no intention of explaining this to you again in another circle jerk of you failing epically to grasp the point, so I’ll just continue with the theme of the actual thread and point out that after 19 pages you are still providing examples of exactly why I pitted you in the first place. Hell, you are a text book case.

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.

And yet, you’ve failed every time you’ve been asked to provide a cite showing ANYONE who agrees with your stupid interpretations and whacked out theories. At this point, who cares what Bush is or isn’t trying to do to spin that fucked up war to make himself look good, or at least look less boob like in his incompetence?? Who cares if he’s still lying about it (though I have to say I haven’t heard much out of the man since he slunk out of office, but then I really don’t care what he’s got to say either so maybe I just missed it)?

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.

Again, this has been explained to you, at length and by different posters trying to get through the several meters of thick concrete that guards you fetid dingo dropping (with worms) that you call a brain. It’s like you can’t comprehend either what others write OR the fact that this shit all happened in the past, and we can look back on it and see how events actually played out. To anyone who is not a complete and total moron, even if they weren’t following along at the time, it’s clear that Bush DID have a blank check to do whatever the fuck he wanted. HE DID IT YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

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.

You are supremely ignorant. Militantly so in fact, because even after this has all been explained to you, and even after it’s been pointed out that these events happened in the past and so we have the benefit of hindsight and can actually look back and see what actually happened and how it played out, you STILL say stupid shit like this as if it’s still in doubt. It’s not, you ridiculous idiot.

I’m simply glad that your idiocy has been contained to this one thread.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

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.

Just to be clear, that represents an opinion we both hold, not a fact. I happen to think it’s an opinion with a lot of strong support behind it, but it is an opinion.

@NotfooledbyW

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.

@NotfooledbyW

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.

So, if Bush didn’t need or benefit from the AUMF from Congress, why did he request and sign it? Does he just like signing bills?

[42fish]

@NotfooledbyW

For every Senator who called it [the AUMF] a blank check there’s a few who would dissagree. The majority voted for it dumbass.

And since a majority voted for the AUMF, my interpretation that it was intended as a secret warning to the Lizard People must be correct! If anything, it’s even more correct than YankedByW’s “It was intended as a limit on Bush” interpretation, since there’s no Senators on record directly refuting my notion.

[42fish]

@Human_Action

So, if Bush didn’t need or benefit from the AUMF from Congress, why did he request and sign it? Does he just like signing bills?

Well, he did get to hand out souvenier pens at the signing ceremony, and who wouldn’t like doing that?

[Darth_Panda]

For the whole loaf!!!

You got to be fucking kidding me. When I first met Albert, I thought he was crazy, but now I’m rethinking Idaho from the get go.

So, yeah, I hear what you’re saying, and I may just take that offer. But, seriously, the whole loaf?

[XT]

[QUOTE=Human Action]
Just to be clear, that represents an opinion we both hold, not a fact. I happen to think it’s an opinion with a lot of strong support behind it, but it is an opinion.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed, but with the proviso that you need to also say from who’s perspective you are looking at the question from. Quite obviously it wasn’t sufficient cooperation from GW’s or his minions perspective. Nor was it sufficient cooperation from Congresses overall perspective, since they went along with it. I think in hindsight (or even at the time), many here can agree that in their opinions Iraq WAS cooperating enough, especially towards the end, to avoid war…if that was the sole reason being used TOO go to war with Iraq.

Of course, it wasn’t, and the reality was this was all pretext and excuse for public consumption. By this time the inspections mattered little in the calculation for taking us to war. Since Bush et al didn’t believe the inspections were relevant since they weren’t finding what they KNEW was there (from their own cherry picked data and tunnel vision), whether Iraq was seemingly cooperating fully or not was moot.

[Human_Action]

@42fish

Well, he did get to hand out souvenier pens at the signing ceremony, and who wouldn’t like doing that?

That would be fun, you’re right. We may have figured this thing out.

@XT

Agreed, but with the proviso that you need to also say from who’s perspective you are looking at the question from. Quite obviously it wasn’t sufficient cooperation from GW’s or his minions perspective. Nor was it sufficient cooperation from Congresses overall perspective, since they went along with it. I think in hindsight (or even at the time), many here can agree that in their opinions Iraq WAS cooperating enough, especially towards the end, to avoid war…if that was the sole reason being used TOO go to war with Iraq.

Sure, that’s a fair point. I’d say Iraq’s cooperation passed a “reasonable person” test, as being sufficient to move forward with further inspection and disarmament without a war, or even sanctions.

@XT

Of course, it wasn’t, and the reality was this was all pretext and excuse for public consumption. By this time the inspections mattered little in the calculation for taking us to war. Since Bush et al didn’t believe the inspections were relevant since they weren’t finding what they KNEW was there (from their own cherry picked data and tunnel vision), whether Iraq was seemingly cooperating fully or not was moot.

That’s something I’ve tried to convey to NotfooledbyW, but it never seems to sink in, at all, as he seems to view explaining the war as the product of cognitive failure rather than pure evil as nothing less than a hagiographical whitewashing that only Bush apologists traffic in.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Toppling SH was always justified-- in 1991, in 1995 and in 2003. But it wasn’t wise.

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.

I have explained that I was not FOR the AUMF. I am a realist who recognized after its passage that opposition to the war would now hinge on what Iraq and the UNSC did with regard to inspections. The objective of the antiWar movement should have focused on Bush keeping his word about disarming Iraq peacefully.

The anti-war left focused instead on the pre-AUMF hype and lies about WMD and could not move on to the reality beyond the AUMF vote.

It was the afternath of the September 2001 attacks, Bush’s popularity, and the large number of hawks in the Senate and the GOP controlled House that meant Bush was going to get an AUMF no matter what John Mace or I thought about it. And at that time of the vote Bush had been posturing that he could defend America from Iraq without a new authorization in the first place.

John Mace could have seen that Iraq was cooperating and Bush could never be justified in launching an attack, but John Mace didnt see it.

If Mace would take his judgment to Bush and Congress that an invasion of Iraq was justified based upon SH defiance of international law but tell them to do nothing because it would not be wise to commit troops to war, they would still be laughing at him to ths day.

If Mace says it was justified to do it, it was justified to do it. There is probably 4 of 10 Americans who stiil think invading Iraq was justified. Mace is one of those dumbasses, and I am not nor ever was stupid enough to think that.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW Human Action agrees with me that, Iraq cooperated sufficiently that war should have been avoided.

Just to be clear, that represents an opinion we both hold, not a fact. I happen to think it’s an opinion with a lot of strong support behind it, but it is an opinion.

It is a fact however that the majority on the UNSC rejected Bush’s opinion that Iraq was not cooperating. It is a fact that the majority on the UNSC favored the continuance of enforcement of 1441 without war or military action.

It is a fact that Bush was authorized to use military force by Congress in order to enforce such a resolution as 1441.

It is a fact that Bush did not enforce 1441. It is impossible to serously conclude that a UNSC Resolution that called for peaceful disarmament based upon Iraq’s cooperation could be enforced by violence and war after Iraq’s cooperation had been established as valid enough to avert war.

Therefore XT’s ignorance-based opinion that Bush was compliant with the AUMF by ignoring Iraq’s cooperation and the UNSC’s determination that Iraq’s cooperation sufficed to avert war, is the opinion that should be ridiculed. There are no flaws in my opinion nor are there any unsubstantiated facts.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

It is a fact however that the majority on the UNSC rejected Bush’s opinion that Iraq was not cooperating. It is a fact that the majority on the UNSC favored the continuance of enforcement of 1441 without war or military action.

Sure.

@NotfooledbyW

It is a fact that Bush was authorized to use military force by Congress in order to enforce such a resolution as 1441.

Sort of, it reads “all relevant [resolutions] regarding Iraq”, which is not interchangeable with “Resolution 1441”.

@NotfooledbyW

It is a fact that Bush did not enforce 1441. It is impossible to serously conclude that a UNSC Resolution that called for peaceful disarmament based upon Iraq’s cooperation could be enforced by violence and war after Iraq’s cooperation had been established as valid enough to avert war.

First, again, “all” isn’t code for “just 1441”.

Second: Enforce

1. to put or keep in force; compel obedience to: to enforce a rule; *Traffic laws will be strictly enforced. *

2. to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.

3. to impose (a course of action) upon a person: *The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen. *

4. to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force: to enforce one’s rights as a citizen.

5. to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon: *He enforced his argument by adding details. *

Let’s see…“compel obedience to”, “put in force”, “impose upon”…yes, Bush enforced UNSC resolutions via his military action.

If you have a legal argument that “enforce” means none of the above in the context of the AUMF and instead means “participate in a UN coalition” or “act after the UNSC declares Iraq to be in material breach of 1441”, preferably one with, you know, evidence, let’s see it. Once more: your words alone are not evidence.

Or, if you have an argument that the Congressmen who voted for the AUMF understood it to mean what you say it does, let’s see that. I linked you to Senator Lincoln Chafee’s essay earlier, and Senator Robert Byrd’s view has also been provided. Against those, you’ve presented nothing but your personal say-so to support your claim that Congress intended the AUMF to limit Bush in the way you say it did.

@NotfooledbyW

Therefore XT’s ignorance-based opinion that Bush was compliant with the AUMF by ignoring Iraq’s cooperation and the UNSC’s determination that Iraq’s cooperation sufficed to avert war, is the opinion that should be ridiculed. There are no flaws in my opinion nor are there any unsubstantiated facts.

Yes, there are unsubstantiated facts. Your interpretation of the AUMF is unsubstantiated. Again, not even the Doe v. Bush plaintiffs agreed with you. Your refusal, or inability, to marshal a scrap of evidence beyond your own bluster indeed makes the supposed fact unsubstantiated, i.e. unproven or unverified.

[Human_Action]

Oh, and request #5: What was the difference between the Levin Amendment and the AUMF?

[Darth_Panda]

I guess you could say that it all started in Salisbury. Jean wasn’t just a woman, she was what it meant to be a woman.

When the reforms passed, it took a toll on all of us. The men were stoic at first, but it didn’t take long before there were cracks in the facade.

At first, it was small things. The block, the burries, the patrols - you could see it in daily life. It all went to shit in August, though - Jerry was going to make a stand, and we were all going to pay the price.

[NotfooledbyW]

Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW
It is a fact that Bush was authorized to use military force by Congress in order to enforce such a resolution as 1441.

Sort of, it reads “all relevant [resolutions] regarding Iraq”, which is not interchangeable with "Resolution 1441

’ All relevant’ covers it. And they couldn’t name it because it had not been conceived and passed at the time of the vote.

Unless you wish to argue that 1441 was not to become a relevant UNSC Resolution when it passed unanimously by the UNSC.

A blank check for Bush would not have had a ‘sort of’.

‘All’ covers any future Resolutions. So why write suggested nonsensical escape clauses for that despicable lying SOB GW Bush?

[Smapti]

@NotfooledbyW

Wrong again. I never believed that Bush was interested in a peaceful outcome in Iraq.

I know of someone who would disagree with you on that point;

@NotfooledbyW

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…

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.

@NotfooledbyW

Bush locked in to inspections with no completion date set when he told Congress he wanted an AUMF so he could keep the peace but force Iraq to disarm, and when he sought and received UNSC Resolution 1441.

I suggest that a 20-page thread in which NotFooledByW explains to NotFooledByW the myriad of ways in which he was fooled by W.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

Oh, and request #5: What was the difference between the Levin Amendment and the AUMF?

When will you explain how it is conceivable that Bush ‘enforced’ 1441? Bush’s enforcement method was opposed by the UNSC majority.

And why was the UN Res enforcement language in the AUMF if it meant nothing?

I can point out the difference between Levin and as passed, and have answered it somewhat. But the LA does not negate the language in the AUMF passed so there is little relevancy to the discussion.

[Smapti]

@NotfooledbyW

When will you explain how it is conceivable that Bush ‘enforced’ 1441? Bush’s enforcement method was opposed by the UNSC majority.

Do I even need to remind you that the majority opinion of the Security Council means jack shit without the consent of all five permanent members?

Of which the United States is one?

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

’ All relevant’ covers it.

It, but not only it. That’s what “all” means. This isn’t rocket science.

@NotfooledbyW

And they couldn’t name it because it had not been conceived and passed at the time of the vote.

As it happens, the Senate voted on a version of the bill that read:

@Levin Amendment

AUTHORIZATION.–Pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 2(2) that is adopted after the enactment of this joint resolution, and subject to subsection (b), the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and related facilities, if Iraq fails to comply with the terms of the Security Council resolution.

…and voted it down (bolding mine). Congress was entirely capable of specifying a future UNSC resolution. Note also the lack of “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”, and the prescribed limits of what Bush can do with the Armed Forces, and how it’s linked to a new UNSC resolution.

@NotfooledbyW

Unless you wish to argue that 1441 was not to become a relevant UNSC Resolution when it passed unanimously by the UNSC.

A relevant resolution, that’s right. Not the only one, as you keep writing.

@NotfooledbyW

A blank check for Bush would not have had a ‘sort of’.

The “sort of” was in response to the “fact” you wrote, which was only sort of (partially) true. You wrote:

Bush was authorized to use military force by Congress in order to enforce such a resolution as 1441

The factual version would be: Bush was authorized to use military force by Congress in order to enforce all relevant resolutions regarding Iraq. Y’know, what the AUMF actually says.

@NotfooledbyW

‘All’ covers any future Resolutions.

And past ones that are still in effect and regard Iraq. Again, not rocket science.

@NotfooledbyW

So why write suggested nonsensical escape clauses for that despicable lying SOB GW Bush?

Because I’m not a partisan hack that puts propaganda over truth, no matter how noxious the target of the propaganda is. If you wrote that Hitler created the polio virus and unleashed it on the world, I’d defend Hitler against that charge. Whether something’s true or not doesn’t depend on whether a person involved is despicable.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@NotfooledbyW

Bush’s enforcement method was opposed by the UNSC majority.

No it wasn’t.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

When will you explain how it is conceivable that Bush ‘enforced’ 1441? Bush’s enforcement method was opposed by the UNSC majority.

:dubious: I already did. Post 950, most recently. By starting the war, Bush certainly “ensured compliance to” various UNSC resolutions. Unless there’s some secret meaning to “enforce” that only you know about.

@NotfooledbyW

And why was the UN Res enforcement language in the AUMF if it meant nothing?

It doesn’t mean nothing, just little. Bush couldn’t have used the AUMF to invade Iran, for instance, or to assassinate Saddam Hussein. But, by allowing enforcement of “all”, ie any resolutions, and having such enforcement be as Bush “determines to be necessary and appropriate”, the AUMF didn’t constrain Bush much at all. Which is why he asked for and signed it: it gave him an open-ended declaration of war that didn’t constrain him from anything he wanted to do: invade Iraq and depose Saddam.

@NotfooledbyW

I can point out the difference between Levin and as passed, and have answered it somewhat.

Then please do so. The relevant text of both bills is a few dozen words, I’m not asking a lot here.

@NotfooledbyW

But the LA does not negate the language in the AUMF passed so there is little relevancy to the discussion.

Actually, there is, as you’ll see once you articulate the difference between the bills.

For convenience:

Iraq War Resolution

Levin Amendment

[42fish]

@NotfooledbyW

When will you explain how it is conceivable that Bush ‘enforced’ 1441? Bush’s enforcement method was opposed by the UNSC majority.

Could you explain which part of the AUMF constrained Bush into using only those enforcement methods that the UNSC approved of?