I am having a discussion on FB

[AndreaCG]

The other person posted RW tripe saying that Bush got UN and congressional authority for Iraq which Obama hasn't for Syria. I said Iraq approval was predicated on WMD lies. He said do you support this war? I said without 100,000 boots on the ground they're not comparable. And that I had mixed feelings about the bombings, that I'm not sure they will be effective or just stir up more terrorist sentiment. He again asked if I support the war. I think I answered adequately. Anything else you'd suggest I say or just say I answered you that I had mixed feelings and if you don't like that answer tough. I have had previous discussions that he has failed to answer my points.

[elleng]

1. Maybe try some of this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017217553

Good luck.

[bvf]

3. Nuance would be wasted on this guy, IMO

His mindset seems to be simply "Obama bad," blah blah blah.

Also noted his insistence on "yes" or "no" wrt AndreaCG's support. Binary thinking is as far as he goes.

I myself would just point this out, walk away, and stick to discussions with people with more than two interlocking brain cells.

[CaptainTruth]

2. Actually, Bush never got congressional approval for the Iraq invasion.

This is a point that really annoys me, I keep hearing the media refer to the congressional authorization to use force (under Bush) as if it went into effect. It didn't.

As is so often the case with our media, none of them have actually read the "authorization" (Public Law 107-243) & Bush's reply to it, & figured out what it all means legally. For a good explanation see John Dean's book, Worse Than Watergate, pages 146-149.

In a nutshell, the "authorization" contains a list of 23 items, some of which required Bush to show proof (or at least convincing evidence) of the allegations he made against Saddam Hussein & other conditions. Bush provided no evidence whatsoever to Congress. He never met the conditions required by the resolution. His reply was largely a copy-and-paste of the text of the resolution, saying "Congress has found the following to be true." That was completely false, Congress had not found any of it to be true, in fact, Congress had told Bush HE needed to show it was true ... if he wanted the authority to go forward with an Iraq war.

So, that 2002 "authorization" everyone keeps talking about ... never actually (legally) went into effect. Congress told Bush he could have the authority to invade Iraq *IF* he met certain conditions ... & he never met those conditions.