Republicans try but can't change history

[Correll]

Correll wrote: We were discussing my beliefs. That Saddam is not obligated to conform to my beliefs, is something only a retarded asshole would say. 21SEP14-POST#576

NFBW wrote: In my hometown we had a guy who firmly believed that he was Elvis Presley‘s son. He also firmly believed that he had been cheated out of his inheritance which led to actions that were detrimental to society. Whenever he saw a nice big shiny Cadillac with the big tail fins stopped at a stoplight he would run in front and pound on it and yell at the owner that he was driving his car, the one that Elvis his father bequeathed to him. He was clearly crazy and society has no obligation to conform to his beliefs and ignore the detrimental actions that were aroused by a false belief. 21SEP14-POST#580

NFBW wrote: Similarly, Correll has a crazy false belief that it was not be possible for SH to prove that Iraq was in fact disarmed back in 2003. That insanity helped lead to the deaths of half a million Innocent Iraqis. It led to a war that cost Americans nearly 5000 military lives and trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars. 21SEP14-POST#580

NFBW wrote: We as a society because of the detrimental effects of false beliefs and absurd opinions, have an obligation to put them away. Crazy is not good for democracy as we saw on Jan6 what happens when the Trump crazies decided to run amok of reality and were violently attempting to overturn the ejection. 21SEP14-POST#580

That's a lot of bullshit to hide from the fact that you are afraid to answer a serious question.


What the fuck is wrong with you, that you are conflating "false belief" with "lying" and attacking me on both, and being a complete asshole troll about it?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW wrote: Correll has a crazy false belief that it was not possible for SH to prove that Iraq was in fact disarmed back in 2003. 21SEP14-POST#580

Correll wrote: What the fuck is wrong with you, that you are conflating "false belief" with "lying" and attacking me on both, and being a complete asshole troll about it? 21SEP15-POST#581

NFBW 21SEP16-POST#582 wrote: The following was a false belief at the time of the ramp up to war that was announced publicly by Correll in the following comments:

Correll wrote: Surely you remember that I did not believe that peaceful disarmament was possible. 21SEP06-POST#503

Correll wrote: I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565

NFBW wrote: I can’t do anything about Correll ‘s inability to keep his lies and his false beliefs straight. Prolific Liars like Correll rarely do. 21SEP16-POST#582

NFBW 21SEP16-POST#582 wrote: But here is the lie by Correll that I originally referenced;

NFBW wrote: it does not matter what you “believed” about peacefully disarming IRAQ. You lied when you said you were not aware of the fact that W had the option. You are a liar. That is the point. 21SEP13-POST#566

NFBW wrote: I have conflated nothing. Correll is a liar who holds or has had a plethora of false beliefs to lie about. 21SEP16-POST#582

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: Correll has a crazy false belief that it was not possible for SH to prove that Iraq was in fact disarmed back in 2003. 21SEP14-POST#580

Correll wrote: What the fuck is wrong with you, that you are conflating "false belief" with "lying" and attacking me on both, and being a complete asshole troll about it? 21SEP15-POST#581

NFBW 21SEP16-POST#582 wrote: The following was a false belief at the time of the ramp up to war that was announced publicly by Correll in the following comments:

Correll wrote: Surely you remember that I did not believe that peaceful disarmament was possible. 21SEP06-POST#503

Correll wrote: I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565

NFBW wrote: I can’t do anything about Correll ‘s inability to keep his lies and his false beliefs straight. Prolific Liars like Correll rarely do. 21SEP16-POST#582

NFBW 21SEP16-POST#582 wrote: But here is the lie by Correll that I originally referenced;

NFBW wrote: it does not matter what you “believed” about peacefully disarming IRAQ. You lied when you said you were not aware of the fact that W had the option. You are a liar. That is the point. 21SEP13-POST#566

NFBW wrote: I have conflated nothing. Correll is a liar who holds or has had a plethora of false beliefs to lie about. 21SEP16-POST#582

If I don't believe that it was really a viable option, then I don't believe that it was really an option.


Are you really unable to grasp the concept that I was able to discuss an hypothetical, that I did not believe was really possible?


My God, your brain is as flexible as a rod of glass.


Serious, at best there is something really wrong with you. AT worst, you are just a complete asshole troll.

 

[Desperado]

Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics

When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.

www.cnn.com

Because history is what it is. Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.

Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.

We know better! It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States. Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.

Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are: enemies of the American people.

Fuck you it is not the republicans removing statues and trying to remove history, It is the low life democrats that are trying their best to rewrite history.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: If I don't believe that it was really a viable option, then I don't believe that it was really an option. - Are you really unable to grasp the concept that I was able to discuss an hypothetical, that I did not believe was really possible? 21SEP16-POST#583

NFBW wrote: It does not matter what you “believed” about peacefully disarming IRAQ. You lied when you said you were not aware of the fact that W had the option. You are a liar. That is the point. 21SEP13-POST#566 reposted by NFBW 21SEP16-POST#585

Correll wrote: DIscussing a hypothetical does not mean that I considered it a true, viable alternative. 21SEP10-POST#548

NFBW wrote: You have constantly lied for 18 years or from whenever it really was the first time you applied your false fake belief (see below) into a discussion about invading Iraq whether it was before or long after the invasion was launched. 21SEP16-POST#585

Correll wrote: I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565

NFBW wrote: What you Correll wrote in 21SEP14-POST#565 is a false belief based on a lie. It is a false belief based on a lie whether you heard the lie from an outside source or if you fabricated it entirely from within your own head. 21SEP16-POST#585

NFBW wrote: When you say that you did not believe that “it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed.” as part of your argument and thought process that you supported the March 2003 unnecessary invasion of Iraq and subsequent killing of half a million Iraqis to implement the Gingrich/Krauthammer conceptual experiment of nation building, you are basing you entire support for killing all those Iraqis on a lie. That is a fact. Your support for killing half a million Iraqis was based on a lie and still is. 21SEP16-POST#585

NFBW wrote: This “it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed.” Correll is a lie and it does not matter if you believed it and still believe it. It is still a lie. 21SEP16-POST#585

NFBW wrote: It is a lie because SH was not required after W got 1441 passed to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. He was required to disclose the status of WMD in Iraq and cooperate with inspectors. You are a liar Correll to falsely believe that 1441 required to provide evidence WMD that he potentially did not have. 21SEP16-POST#585

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: If I don't believe that it was really a viable option, then I don't believe that it was really an option. - Are you really unable to grasp the concept that I was able to discuss an hypothetical, that I did not believe was really possible? 21SEP16-POST#583

NFBW wrote: It does not matter what you “believed” about peacefully disarming IRAQ. You lied when you said you were not aware of the fact that W had the option. You are a liar. That is the point. 21SEP13-POST#566 reposted by NFBW 21SEP16-POST#585

Correll wrote: DIscussing a hypothetical does not mean that I considered it a true, viable alternative. 21SEP10-POST#548

NFBW wrote: You have constantly lied for 18 years or from whenever it really was the first time you applied your false fake belief (see below) into a discussion about invading Iraq whether it was before or long after the invasion was launched. 21SEP16-POST#585

Correll wrote: I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565

NFBW wrote: What you Correll wrote in 21SEP14-POST#565 is a false belief based on a lie. It is a false belief based on a lie whether you heard the lie from an outside source or if you fabricated it entirely from within your own head. 21SEP16-POST#585

NFBW wrote: When you say that you did not believe that “it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed.” as part of your argument and thought process that you supported the March 2003 unnecessary invasion of Iraq and subsequent killing of half a million Iraqis to implement the Gingrich/Krauthammer conceptual experiment of nation building, you are basing you entire support for killing all those Iraqis on a lie. That is a fact. Your support for killing half a million Iraqis was based on a lie and still is. 21SEP16-POST#585

NFBW wrote: This “it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed.” Correll is a lie and it does not matter if you believed it and still believe it. It is still a lie. 21SEP16-POST#585

NFBW wrote: It is a lie because SH was not required after W got 1441 passed to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. He was required to disclose the status of WMD in Iraq and cooperate with inspectors. You are a liar Correll to falsely believe that 1441 required to provide evidence WMD that he potentially did not have. 21SEP16-POST#585

You are talking nonsense now. Give it up. You lost. YOu have revealed that you are nothing but a troll here to spam anti-American and racist and anti-Christian talking points.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: I am not a religious person myself, though I would describe myself as Cultural Christian. 20SEP21-POST#106

Cultural Christian - Correll, post: 25536651

I would describe myself as Cultural Christian.

NFBW wrote: On Iraq when Correll, a self described not religious cultural Christian says that he did not and does not believe that “it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed.” as part of his argument and thought process as to why he supported the March 2003 unnecessary invasion of Iraq and the subsequent killing of half a million Iraqis in order to implement the Gingrich/Krauthammer conceptual experiment of nation building, Correll is basing his entire support for killing all those Iraqis on a lie. That is a fact. Correll ‘s support for killing half a million Iraqis was based on a lie and still is. I contend based on the above that Correll is not Christlike when it comes to his support for invading Iraq to do nation building. 21SEP17-POST#587

NFBW wrote: For pointing out the truth to Correll he accuses me of spreading anti-white Christian hate. What else can a liar say when confronted with the truth. 21SEP17-POST#587

NFBW wrote: I don’t hate white Christians, I hate liars. My mother was a white Christian and she was religious Christian who voted for Reagan - but five of her six kids canceled her Republican votes - but we all loved her very much. 21SEP17-POST#587

 

[Correll]

Correll ...., Correll is basing his entire support for killing all those Iraqis on a lie...

Hey, remember when you said you don't act as though people make decisions based on sole reasons?

LOL!!


You are such a wally.


I'm kind of done with your silly circular debating technique.


Do you have anything new to say, (and say it without the race baiting or partisan spamming.) ?

 

[Roudy]

The real insurrection and terrorism occured during the Floyd riots.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW wrote: That is a fact. Correll ‘s support for killing half a million Iraqis was based on a lie and still is. I contend based on the above that Correll is not Christlike when it comes to his support for invading Iraq to do nation building. 21SEP17-POST#587

Correll wrote: Hey, remember when you said you don't act as though people make decisions based on sole reasons? 21SEP17-POST#588

NFBW wrote: Correll ‘s reply in the 21SEP17-POST#588 suggests that Correll views “lying” to be some sort of “reason” when he made the decision to support the invasion that subsequently killed half a million Iraqis. That is very interesting because I don’t believe lying should be part of the process when making any kind of decision. 21SEP17-POST#590

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: That is a fact. Correll ‘s support for killing half a million Iraqis was based on a lie and still is. I contend based on the above that Correll is not Christlike when it comes to his support for invading Iraq to do nation building. 21SEP17-POST#587

Correll wrote: Hey, remember when you said you don't act as though people make decisions based on sole reasons? 21SEP17-POST#588

NFBW wrote: Correll ‘s reply in the 21SEP17-POST#588 suggests that Correll views “lying” to be some sort of “reason” when he made the decision to support the invasion that subsequently killed half a million Iraqis. That is very interesting because I don’t believe lying should be part of the process when making any kind of decision. 21SEP17-POST#590

Why are you being such an asshole?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: Did you seriously think, that the act of me discussing the issue that you cared about so fucking much, meant that I was thus agreeing with you that it was valid, despite my repeatedly and clear statements to the contrary? 21SEP07-POST#512

NFBW wrote: No! Not at all. I’m saying you were aware of the fact that not only W had the option to allow SH stay in power by disarming Iraq peacefully, and you know that W took many actions and made dozens of public statements that he preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully and avoid war. So what is your point after I answered your bogus question? 21SEP17-POST#592

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW wrote: Correll stated in August 2018 that the dictatorship in Iraq failed to live up to those 1991 UNSC ceasefire provisions and specifically, the failure to provide evidence of the destruction of WMDs was what’s provided legal justification for W to start a war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis. 21SEP18-POST#593

NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593 wrote: In May of 2021 Correll wrote: “I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.”21MAY14-POST#766

NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593 wrote: In August 2021 Correll wrote: “The Persian Gulf war was ended with an Armistice, which had provisions, provisions agreed to by the Iraqi government. - The Iraqi Government failed to live up to those provisions, specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and thus, the armistice ended,and fighting was clear to resume, legally speaking.” 18AUG19-POST#1065

specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs

18AUG19-#1065 reposted by NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593

NFBW wrote : In MAY 2021 Correll explained that his support for war was not based on the issue and threat of SH being in possession of WMD - He told us he supported the invasion as a rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593

NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593 wrote: Correll wrote: The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me. 21MAY14-POST#766

NFBW wrote: So we are left to wonder which year Correll was mostly lying (2021 or 2018) about why he supported the idea of invading Iraq going in. If 2018 Correll is telling the truth then 2021 Correll would not have found the WMD argument ‘not convincing’ at the time. There is no reason to have made a distinction between supporting war based on a wmd threat and an experimental idea about nation building. So what do you think was @Correll’s motive to lie in such a precise way in 2021? NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: Did you seriously think, that the act of me discussing the issue that you cared about so fucking much, meant that I was thus agreeing with you that it was valid, despite my repeatedly and clear statements to the contrary? 21SEP07-POST#512

NFBW wrote: No! Not at all. I’m saying you were aware of the fact that not only W had the option to allow SH stay in power by disarming Iraq peacefully, and you know that W took many actions and made dozens of public statements that he preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully and avoid war. So what is your point after I answered your bogus question? 21SEP17-POST#592

He might have stated that he wished it. That does not mean that he truly though it was a real possibility. NOr did I.


This is simple shit, not, by pretending to not get it, you are presenting yourself as a very stupid person.


Especially as I have explained this to you many times.


Wally.

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: Correll stated in August 2018 that the dictatorship in Iraq failed to live up to those 1991 UNSC ceasefire provisions and specifically, the failure to provide evidence of the destruction of WMDs was what’s provided legal justification for W to start a war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis. 21SEP18-POST#593

NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593 wrote: In May of 2021 Correll wrote: “I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.”21MAY14-POST#766

NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593 wrote: In August 2021 Correll wrote: “The Persian Gulf war was ended with an Armistice, which had provisions, provisions agreed to by the Iraqi government. - The Iraqi Government failed to live up to those provisions, specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and thus, the armistice ended,and fighting was clear to resume, legally speaking.” 18AUG19-POST#1065

18AUG19-#1065 reposted by NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593

NFBW wrote : In MAY 2021 Correll explained that his support for war was not based on the issue and threat of SH being in possession of WMD - He told us he supported the invasion as a rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593

NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593 wrote: Correll wrote: The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me. 21MAY14-POST#766

NFBW wrote: So we are left to wonder which year Correll was mostly lying (2021 or 2018) about why he supported the idea of invading Iraq going in. If 2018 Correll is telling the truth then 2021 Correll would not have found the WMD argument ‘not convincing’ at the time. There is no reason to have made a distinction between supporting war based on a wmd threat and an experimental idea about nation building. So what do you think was @Correll’s motive to lie in such a precise way in 2021? NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593

Legal justification for a just war and a personal reason for supporting a war are two distinct and separate concepts. As we have discussed before.

I tried to prompt a discussion as if that might be a bad idea for the separation, but you just moved on to your normal troll spamming.

Do you have anything new to say about this issue?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: Legal justification for a just war and a personal reason for supporting a war are two distinct and separate concepts. 21SEP18-POST#595

NFBW wrote: They are distinct but highly related concepts is the reality. The utter nonsense of your support for the invasion of Iraq is that you say you were unconvinced of the legal justification of the war. So you supported the war, you say, in 2021, after the invasion although you also say in 2021 that you were not convinced that it was legally justified based on WMD. But in 2018 you argue the invasion was legally justified on the WMD threat. 21SEP18-POST#596

NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593 wrote: In May of 2021 Correll wrote: “I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.”21MAY14-POST#766

NFBW wrote: So which is it? What year were you lying the most? 21SEP18-POST#596

NFBW wrote: You supported the rebuilding of Iraq but were confused because the nation building started after the invasion when the legal justification (WMD threat) was falling apart. I supported the nation building after the terrible decision to invade was made but I stick with the truth that the only reason to invade was to find the WMD that was alleged to be hidden. You agreed IN 2018 the invasion was legit based on WMD but in 2021 you say that the WMD didn’t matter because nation building was another reason to justify war. And that is a lie. 21SEP18-POST#596

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW 21SEP18-POST#597 wrote: This is the question for voting age adults about whether they supported the invasion of Iraq going in or not.

"Do you think going to war with Iraq in 2003 was the right thing for the United States to do or the wrong thing?" 15MAY28-MSNBC Steve Benen

Correll wrote: “I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.”21MAY14-POST#766

NFBW 21SEP18-POST#597 wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in. After seeing how the WMD argument for war turned out, they one would expect they would agree with the following:

TRUMP: “Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right? …. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty.” 16FEB14-DJT-IRAQ-BigFat mistake.

NFBW wrote: But Correll says he does not agree with DJT on the “big fat mistake” while knowing that he did not find the WMD argument to be convincing at the time. How can that be? 21SEP18-POST#597

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans. 15NOV16-POST#7

NFBW wrote: That dishonest comment posted by Correll from November 2015 explains the motivation that produces all the lies from Correll over the past six years regarding the ramp up to war in Iraq. 21SEP19-POST#598

NFBW wrote: To start with I have not seen Correll attempt to provide some written historical record of any such attempts by DEMS to rewrite the history of the ramp up to war in Iraq. Perhaps Correll can do so now? 21SEP19-POST#598

NFBW wrote: There is only one man who decided to force the UN inspectors to leave Iraq so that one man could start an invasion on MARCH 19 2003. All Dems in prominent leadership roles were publicly opposed to W’s decision to stop the inspections.abd start the war at the time that he did. 21SEP19-POST#598

Senator Joe Biden *3: I am going to front-end guess it. I come down on the side of suggesting that another several months is not something that in any way appreciably increases any risk. (U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 HEARING on Iraq•••)

On October 2, 2002, John Kerry said,
“The vote that I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections.” 02OCT02-KERRY-AUMF-01

“Hillary Clinton tells Irish TV she is against war with Iraq,” Irish Times, February 8, 2003 “Hillary Clinton prefers ‘peaceful solution’ in Iraq,” Associated Press March 3, 2003 “[Clinton said the US] should continue its attempts to build an international alliance rather than going to war quickly with Iraq...nspection is preferable to war, if it works, the New York Democrat said.”

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW 21SEP19-POST#599 wrote: Our 2021 Correll on nation building wrote: “It is too early to tell. Ask me again in twenty years.- If Iraq is a functioning democracy, and the Arab Street has taken notice, and Islamic Fundamentalism seems even a little less of an unstoppable tide, then I would have to say it worked out, despite being harder than it was supposed to.“ 21SEP06-POST#475

NFBW 21SEP19-POST#599 wrote; but 2015 Correll already wrote that nation building didn’t work out: “You don't fight a Religion with a Secular Government. We tried that in Iraq and it didn't work.” 15NOV16-POST#14

 

[Correll]

So you supported the war, you say, in 2021, after the invasion although you also say in 2021 that you were not convinced that it was legally justified based on WMD. But in 2018 you argue the invasion was legally justified on the WMD threat. 21SEP18-POST#596

Wow. This is new. How exciting.


I was clear that I did not find the WMD argument a convincing argument because wmd tech, much of it, is WWI era tech. I do not believe that such old tech can be contained.


That I do not find it a convincing national security reason for supporting a war, is NOT me saying that I do not believe that it does not meet the technical definition of a LEGAL CAUSE for war.


We have touched on this before. Perhaps if you were less focused on peppering your posts with anti-American filler, you would have caught this long ago.


Anyway, I hope that clears it up for you, and resolves some, or at least one of your..... inabilities to understand normal thinking.


Do you have anything relevant to add to this? Please do not pretend to not understand the concept. Please do not pretend that this is some...evul motive because I am a white male. Try to not be a race baiting asshole or any of your related issues.