Oh, I occasionally read it, yes. 
If this thread and the one linked hasn’t convinced you he’s not one of, if not THE worst new poster on this board then nothing will. I’m as mystified by your response as you seemingly are of me pitting this guy. MMV and all that. For me, coming to this conclusion was pretty easy, but then I suspect you are giving him a pass because you vaguely agree with some of what he’s saying. You might want to read through THIS thread in more detail, however, and note that many in this thread agree with what he’s saying, at least broadly, yet he’s still not winning many supporters for his overall position.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
And there’s XT so confused he says the inspections didnt mean anything. Of course that dumbass support the invasion going in until he realized sometime afterward what a dumbass he was. And I should respect his idiot views on the inspections.
[/QUOTE]
You would first have to understand what my views are before you could decide if you agreed with them or not, which, sadly, you don’t. But I guess we can wait and see how this whole Iraq business plays out and whether or not Bush et al factors in the inspections in his decision loop for invasion or no invasion and…
…oh, wait! We ALREADY invaded! Looking at the calendar it was over 10 years ago! Wow! Fancy that. And Bush et al DIDN’T factor in the inspections, since they dismissed them as flawed!
Then how do you explain Vietnam?
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW (today)]
I did not support the AUMF.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW (Post 95)]
I supported the vote to use force fully with the understanding that I had seen a change in Bush’s war actions in September 2002 when he put Colin Powell as the face of the pending confrontation against Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
Apparently everyone else can go home, as NFBW has decided to take on the burden of refuting himself.
(Although it does leave the lingering mystery of how someone willing to dig up John Mace quotes from 2003 can be blithely unaware that people can search through this thread to find his own words.)
Don’t worry. He’ll tell you that you quoted him out of context. Context of his reality, what ever it happens to be at the moment.
This is a Pitting, not a debate. There is lots more fodder for a Pitting.
Here’s more of my post 95. I can clarify. John Mace can’t. In 95 I said I supported giving Bush the authority to use force to bring Iraq into compliance with international law. And I continue to believe that. My later post you cite is in reference to the actual AUMF language that emerged and was passed. I did not support that version over any other that probably could not pass, but I do defend the fact that it was not a blank check.
One point I consistently make is that Iraq was in violation of international law in October 2002 when the AUMF passed, but Iraq was technically not in violation of international law at the time of the invasion. 1442 made that change in status a reality.
But did I run out and support the language they came up with to pass an AUMF? No. I think it could have been more specific, but that does not mean it was close to being a blank check for war. And that is the basic argument we are having.
I still don’t see how you can square this with post 157.
My emphasis. After looking at Post #95, I noticed this nugget, which seems to explain the obsession. Isn’t this what is called projection?
Apparently NotfooledbyW needs to prove himself an anti-mouse by fighting the Balrog of Bush’s lies: “I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. Bush’s lies cannot pass. Your dark ignorance will not avail you, SDMB. Go back to the Shadow!”*
He has be wronged, gentlemen. Wronged! And he will have his satisfaction if it takes 50 pages.
*Note: this is not actually a quote by NotfooledbyW on the board, AFAICT (although in his mind is anyone’s guess), but quotation marks used to indicate speech.
Would you say the original version that Bush presented to Congress was a blank check for war?
Seriously, dude.
This thread has dragged on for 20 pages now. This is well past the point where any reasonable person would shake the dust from his sandals and move on. You’ve spent 20 pages, hundreds of posts, and enough text to fill a mid-size novel in order to argue semantics over a fait accompli that occurred ten years ago, and you’re treating it like a personal vendetta against a handful of posters who you’ve apparently gone through archive binges on looking for ‘incriminating’ quotes from a decade ago, as if they’d personally insulted your honor as a gentleman and you were in need of satisfaction. You’ve not posted in any other thread than this one for two weeks, your last post outside this thread was to resurrect a ten-year-old thread about the exact same topic, and to date you have managed to convince absolutely nobody that your bewildering, incoherent, self-contradictory train of insane moon logic is correct.
Just fucking let it go.
Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering Bush; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned Bush! Thus, I give up the spear!
Not that we’re complaining about that part, mind ye.
Damn, you’re good. Can you give me the next set of Powerball numbers?
Agreed. The illegitimacy of a regime is a very thin fig-leaf if used to justify intervention. If it’s going to be the basis for military action, it ought to be declared very early in the history of that regime. Waiting for a decade and then saying, “Oh, by the way, he’s also not really the leader” is dubious.
There may be worse, but he sure is down toward the bottom of the barrel. I may have just agreed with one thing he said (and now need to cleanse my hands) but I think his overall approach here is just awfully ugly and wrong.
Yes because this language does not express support for diplomatic means, but it specifically only referred to UNSC resolutions referenced above.
This did not tie him to a potential Resolution that was to become 1441. The approved draft did that as you said, 1441 was part of All.
And Bush sought and got the UN resolution that he wanted.
But Bush did not enforce 1441. Bush shit on 1441 and therefore did not comply with the final AUMF.
You are dishonest to claim that he did or that he was not required to enforce 1441 which suspended military action on all previous resolutions unless the Council reconvened on the matter.
They never convened or saw a need.
Bush would not have been tied to a future Resolution such as 1441 under his original wording, so yes the original version was a blank check and Congress did not pass it as Bush wanted originally.
Sure a shit was. Thus the reason Dubya never took it to vote – blackmail and all. Doe4sn’t matter there are 5 permanent member in the SC – as you said yourself it only takes one to block a resolution. And Russia and China were a no go…and George knew
Look, I can see Dubya’s and other supporters of the invasion trying to squirm out of their own responsibility in the war, but as FACTS stand, the war was illegal.
Id NFBB rather strident in his comments? Mayhaps. But so is everyone else – and overall, he is correct. No surprises in his analysis.
But sure, keep going, surely it’ll make you feel better of what you though/did then.
Saddam Hussein was the legitimate leader of Iraq, but he was in violation of international law on a serious matter of being disarmed of WMD per his surrender agreement in 1991, when the AUMF was passed in October 2002.
Saddam Hussein was the legitimate leader of Iraq but he was in fact complying with his disarmament agreement and therefore was complying with international law in March 2003.
Are those both reasonable and factual statements?
How could Bush have agreed to offer to the UNSC on March 7, 2003 to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power if Bush actually believed that Saddam Hussein was concealing WMD from the Post 1441 inspection regime.
Bush’s draft resolution that failed to muster more than five maybe six of the nine votes needed allowed the option that Saddam Hussein could remain in power if the UNSC declared Iraq in full compliance with every single disarmament obligation by March 17, 2003.
If Bush had the ‘evidence’ he needed on March 7, 2003 to justify an invasion, why did he not give it up so as to convince a few more members on the Council to authorize war?
My argument is that Bush should not have relied on belief, but on evidence. If he had the evidence that could justify solid belief that WMD were actually there, according to some supposedly reliable source, then Bush would have surely played that hand.
But I believe as opposed to XT, that Bush had to see all the evidence he had been given get shot down by the UN inspectors for over three months. And Bush was fearful of standing hard on any evidence he may have had or believed he had.
Therefore Bush did not believe at all in his evidence, if he really had any evidence.
That is why XT was fooled by Dubya then and is fooled by Dubya now. The March 7 attempt to secure a majority vote for war by setting a March 17 deadline provides circumstantial evidence that Bush had no real solid evidence of WMD being hidden from inspectors in March 2003. Therefore we should not be expected to believe that Bush was some kind of victim of faulty intelligence and believed he’d find WMD there.
Or should we believe that some last minute intelligence of WMD being hidden from inspectors came in immediately following Bush’s chickenshit move to pull the draft resolution without a vote.
And that last minute intelligence is what he claimed to have that left no doubt in his speech on March 17, 2003 when he announced the necessity for war.
Got a cite that it was opposed by a majority of the UNSC? Thing is, the UNSC doesn’t vote by majority. Any permanent member can veto.
I don’t think we have a record of what “the majority” were thinking. AFAIK, we only have a few of the members on record. But if you have quotes from the majority of the members, that would be interesting to see.