Republicans try but can't change history

[Correll]

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

Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not.


That you think this is a gotcha, does not make any sense.


You are really trying to hard to build a molehill into a mountain here.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"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 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. 21SEP18-POST#597

Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601

Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#428

NFBW wrote: You got yourself! 21SEP20-POST#602

 

[Correll]

"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 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. 21SEP18-POST#597

Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601

Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#428

NFBW wrote: You got yourself! 21SEP20-POST#602

Dude. That is the way that normal people think. I was not... required to conform to the stated reasons of the group in my thinking. And I can withhold judgement on the wisdom of the policy until we see the long term results.


That you think any of that is a "gotcha" is you being a freaking weirdo.

 

[sartre play]

SO its only a crime if its done by the Other political party? You really need to consider that if the law breaking part of one protest is criminal so is the law breaking part of the other protest.

 

[elektra]

It wasn't a riot, it was an insurrection. And it wasn't the FBI, or BLM or Antifa behind it. It was those waiving Trump flags, and carrying the stars and bars while chanting hang Mike Pence, that were behind it.

You are right, Liberty in opposition to American Marxism is an insurrection.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: I was not... required to conform to the stated reasons of the group in my thinking. 21SEP20-POST#603.

NFBW wrote: Your being in trouble has nothing to do with whether or not you conform with one group or another’s thinking on the 2003 invasion into Iraq. It is about you contradicting yourself and the web of lies that your contradiction has produced for the record on this forum. 21SEP20-POST#606

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW 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. 21SEP18-POST#597

Correll wrote: That is the way that normal people think. 21SEP20-POST#603

NFBW wrote: In your own words you were indeed a “normal” person thinking prior to the invasion that the WMD threat was no reason to start the invasion of Iraq on March 19 2003 and that is why you did not support it going in, if your 21SEP03-POST#428 means anything - see it next paragraph. 21SEP21-POST#607

Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#428

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: I was not... required to conform to the stated reasons of the group in my thinking. 21SEP20-POST#603.

NFBW wrote: Your being in trouble has nothing to do with whether or not you conform with one group or another’s thinking on the 2003 invasion into Iraq. It is about you contradicting yourself and the web of lies that your contradiction has produced for the record on this forum. 21SEP20-POST#606

Except I did not do that. YOur inability to understand nuance is... pathetic.

 

[Correll]

NFBW 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. 21SEP18-POST#597

Correll wrote: That is the way that normal people think. 21SEP20-POST#603

NFBW wrote: In your own words you were indeed a “normal” person thinking prior to the invasion that the WMD threat was no reason to start the invasion of Iraq on March 19 2003 and that is why you did not support it going in, if your 21SEP03-POST#428 means anything - see it next paragraph. 21SEP21-POST#607

Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#428

My statement that you quoted, was not in that context that you just put it.


Are you truly that confused, in which case, seriously, you need to talk to a medical person about your social disorder,


or, are you just talking shit, in which case, stop being a fucking dickhead.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

My statement that you quoted, was not in that context that you just put it.

Explain your version of context then, liar.

NFBW wrote: The US invasion of Iraq led to the deaths of half a million Iraqis. Rather nonchalantly Correll tells us he supported the start of killing some Iraqis in order to do nation building by the use of military power on them. And then he blames Iraqis for not making it go smoothly. 21SEP04-POST#438

Except we established that that was an error on my part. I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation.

That you slam me for something we both know to be not true, is pretty sleazy of you.

But more important, that you feel you have to lie to slam me, shows that you know that the Truth is not something what works for you.

What is the implication of THAT, Not,?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: My statement that you quoted, was not in that context that you just put it. 21SEP20-POST#609

Correll wrote: Except we established that that was an error on my part. - I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#454

NFBW wrote: Correll has clearly and unambiguously stated that he “did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT.” That part of @Correl ‘s official 21SEP03-POST#454 statement has no other context than what Correll put in writing on August 22, 2021 and again on September 05, 2021. 21SEP22-POST#611

Correll wrote: My position has always been about the arguments made for the war and their validity and the goals of the war, and the lessons to be learned. 21AUG22-POST#3305

Correll wrote: But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually I did NOT support the invasion, and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli. 21AUG22- POST#3305

Correll, post: 27736975 21AUG22- POST#3305 :

after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli.

Correll wrote: I only bought into the nation building agenda AFTER the invasion, and AFTER the course was already set. 21AUG22- POST#3305

NFBW wrote: Correll has clearly and unambiguously stated one time that he gave his “support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation.” and the second time that he “did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli.@ That part of @Correl ‘s official 21SEP03-POST#454 statement has no other context than what Correll put in writing on August 22, 2021 and again on September 05, 2021. 21SEP22-POST#611

NFBW wrote: It will be fun to watch how Correll will attempt to wiggle out of the trouble he got himself into on this one. 21SEP22-POST#611

 

[Correll]

Explain your version of context then, liar.

NFBW wrote: The US invasion of Iraq led to the deaths of half a million Iraqis. Rather nonchalantly Correll tells us he supported the start of killing some Iraqis in order to do nation building by the use of military power on them. And then he blames Iraqis for not making it go smoothly. 21SEP04-POST#438

I was referring to my "normal person" comment. YOu took it completely out of context, implying I was agreeing with something you said, which was not true.


In my context, I was making a point about your inability to understand how normal people think, ie with multiple factors considered and complexity and nuance.


That you would use such underhanded tactics is a sign that you know you have utterly lost the debate.


Your spin of my being "nonchalant" is also stupid. THat I am not being hysterical about decisions make over a decade ago, in order to use the suffering of others as emotional.... gist to support my argument,


is me not being a bad person like you are doing.


You are USING those deaths for cheap partisan points against your enemies. That makes you a vile person.

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: My statement that you quoted, was not in that context that you just put it. 21SEP20-POST#609

Correll wrote: Except we established that that was an error on my part. - I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#454

NFBW wrote: Correll has clearly and unambiguously stated that he “did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT.” That part of @Correl ‘s official 21SEP03-POST#454 statement has no other context than what Correll put in writing on August 22, 2021 and again on September 05, 2021. 21SEP22-POST#611

Correll wrote: My position has always been about the arguments made for the war and their validity and the goals of the war, and the lessons to be learned. 21AUG22-POST#3305

Correll wrote: But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually I did NOT support the invasion, and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli. 21AUG22- POST#3305

Correll, post: 27736975 21AUG22- POST#3305 :

Correll wrote: I only bought into the nation building agenda AFTER the invasion, and AFTER the course was already set. 21AUG22- POST#3305

NFBW wrote: Correll has clearly and unambiguously stated one time that he gave his “support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation.” and the second time that he “did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli.@ That part of @Correl ‘s official 21SEP03-POST#454 statement has no other context than what Correll put in writing on August 22, 2021 and again on September 05, 2021. 21SEP22-POST#611

NFBW wrote: It will be fun to watch how Correll will attempt to wiggle out of the trouble he got himself into on this one. 21SEP22-POST#611

Seriously, you are not making any sense. I read that, and I don't see that you made a point at all. I don't even have an idea what point you thought you were making.


A discussion of the Iraq War, should happen. I think there is a lot to discuss and much to learn.

BUt, we can't do that, because people like you are not good faith actors. All you are here for, is to use the issue to spam anti-American, Anti-Christian and Anti-white talking points,


in the pursuit of your goal of spreading hate and division in America.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I was referring to my "normal person" comment.

NFBW wrote: That is not your big lie. These are your contradictory statements that drive your self deluded and rightwing crackpot lie that the-decision to invade Iraq from Congress to the White House had anything to do with the necessity of nation building Iraq as a military option to defeat global terrorists. 21SEP22-POST#614

Correll wrote: As I have told you many times, I supported the decision to invade Iraq. 21AUG08-POST#3010

Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#454

NFBW wrote: There was only one reason that the US ended up as you say “committed as a nation” in Iraq and that reason was to disarm IRAQ of suspected possession of WMD. There was no other reason that influenced W’s horrendous decision to kick the UN inspectors out and start a war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis 21SEP22-POST#614

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: I was referring to my "normal person" comment. You took it completely out of context, implying I was agreeing with something you said, which was not true. - In my context, I was making a point about your inability to understand how normal people think, ie with multiple factors considered and complexity and nuance. 21SEP20-POST#609

NFBW wrote: Everything you say in 21SEP20-POST#609 Is a lie. The discussion about “normal” was as it relates to your estrangement from reality when it comes to knowledge and knowable facts in regards to the ramp up to the March 2003 W’s decision to invade Iraq. HERE Is WHAT WENT DOWN for the record. 21SEP20-POST#615

For the record “normal people” :
"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 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. 21SEP18-POST#597

Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601

Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#428

NFBW wrote: By the way I did not support the invasion going in, however I gave my support to our fighting men and women in uniform to their nation building process once we were committed as a nation. So we agree on that don’t we? I don’t see anything out of context. 21SEP20-POST#615

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: I was making a point about your inability to understand how normal people think, ie with multiple factors considered and complexity and nuance. 21SEP20-POST#609

NFBW wrote: I understand that quite well. However the point in this discussion is that there was only one reason that W decided to invade Iraq on March 19, 2003. That was to disarm IRAQ of WMD that he says he believed was being hidden there. It is not complex, it is not multiple factors, it is not nuanced. The WMD matter is the only reason that Congress authorized W to use military force in Iraq if necessary.21SEP21-POST#616

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

When did he do that? And we know it wasn't ANTIFA, because no buildings were burned down......in fact Ja6 was the definition of Peaceful Protest....one death (by a cop) and no property damage.........that's how it's done people.......now compare that to say Kenosha......Seatle, Portland, Minneapolis.....well you get the deal..........

 

[jbrownson0831]

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.

Oh this is comical....a commie Dimmer lecturing us on changing history! Oh my side is splitting

 

[jbrownson0831]

You are the imbecile, an insurrection does not require arms. It requires violence.

Yes, those violent flag wavers...causing horrible violence as compared to the gunbearing, match carrying, tv stealing gentle Dims burning down their rat infested cities. Do you Dims ever look at the garbage you post??

 

[jbrownson0831]

Yes, the fools didn't accomplish jackshit. But the goal was to stop the certification of the election and keep Trump in power. That is the definition of an insurrection attempt.

Fake leftyvirus mailins by the thousands are the definition of an insurrection