Republicans try but can't change history

[Correll]

You’re a liar because I’ve made that point to you, you idiot. I have never said that aware of means agreement. I have pointed that out to you. You ignore it because you’re committed to lies.

Your previous post was built on conflating the two terms.

Your denial now, is you...just being a liar.

 

[Correll]

I have never suggested that the nation building argument did not exist. The point is in the AUMF there is only one clear precise concise explicit reason that W was being authorized by Congress to invade Iraq if necessary. Nation building is not part of it, it was never considered, there was no national debate on it.

That is the truth and when you deny it you are lying.

The national debate was huge, and wide ranging. Your pretense that it not being in the AUMF, means that it was not part of it,


is retarded.

 

[Correll]

It is in no way a pretense you Liar and dodger. You cannot be made any clear and precise and explicit than this.

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

Kerry was one person. His personal motivations were his. Perhaps he was an one issue person.

That means NOTHING for anyone not him.


Your pretense of confusion on this, I hope you are just being a liar here.

If you are really this fucked in the head, I feel sorry for you.


That is not... a rhetorical device. If this is the real you, I really feel sorry for you.


Have you talked to a real doctor about your social disorder?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Kerry was one person. His personal motivations were his. Perhaps he was an one issue person.

But Kerry demanded that his personal motivation and one reason to go to war was written into the language of the AUMF Or as he states he would not have voted for it. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States, and the separation of powers there would have been no invasion of Iraq and there definitely would have been no attempt at nation building if there was no authority for W to invade.

Is it your contention here that W was not bound by the AUMF? Do you think Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer authorized the war based on nation building and that’s why W did it?

Answer the question Correll - Does the language Authorizing military force in the AUMF reflect what you call the “personal motivations quote of John KERRY?

If you agree that it does it means that Senator John Kerry’s “personal motivation” was shared by every congress member and senator that voted to give W authority to use military force in Iraq if necessary.

And that means your deviation from reality on this topic is absurd

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that. - I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too. 21MAY22-POST#1013

NFBW wrote: I pointed out that the above statement proves Correll was aware that W had the option to peacefully disarm Iraq and avoid war., 21SEP10-POST#545

NFBW wrote: We can see (above) that prior to the invasion Correll does remember that the peaceful option was absolutely available to W and it would have been fine with Correll to not take the costly gamble of invading Iraq for any reason other than disarming the dictatorship. Just keep that in mind. 21SEP07-POST#495

NFBW wrote: Correll goes on an absurd piss and moan diversion and complaint that I think I’m a better authority on his “internal thoughts” than he is. WTF is that lunatic whining about in POST#519? 21SEP10-POST#545

Correll wrote: We are talking about what I THINK, and you are arguing with me about it, as though you are a better authority on my internal thoughts than I am. 21SEP08-POST#519

NFBW wrote: Regarding the above paragraph POST#519 on the record written by Correll, I asked the following question: 21SEP10-POST#545

NFBW wrote: Is what you put in writing Correll on MAY 22 2021 in POST#1013 your “thinking” and word that you would have been fine with W’s decision not to invade Iraq -(no invasion and no nation building obligation) - if SH had provided evidence that his WMDs had been destroyed 21SEP08-POST#522


NFBW wrote: Correll has not answered that question. 21SEP10-POST#545

NFBW wrote: The truth is, I am talking about what you think Correll based on what you write. You say “IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed … and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq ….. you would have been fine with that. 21SEP08-POST#545

NFBW wrote: You Correll with that statement you acknowledge, perhaps unwittingly because you are stupid, that you were aware that W had an option to peacefully disarm Iraq and avoid war. It’s called reality. 21SEP10-POST#545

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW wrote: Republicans try to change history in many ways. Correll has a very unique BIG LIE going with regard to the ramp up to war in Iraq. The Administration’s ramp up by fear-mongering on WMD that generally began around Labor Day 2002 and ended with the announcement of the start of BLITZKRIEG SHOCK and AWE by W on March 19, 2003. 21SEP10-POST#546

NFBW 21SEP10-POST#546 wrote: On May 11, 2021 Correll answered in the affirmative (based on faulty memory which I will discuss later) that he supported the launch of BLITZKRIEG SHOCK and AWE for the reason stated in his 21MAY11POST#639 see next paragraph.

Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer

Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. 21MAY11-POST#639 * reposted by NFBW 21SEP10-POST#546

NFBW wrote: Correll ‘s BIG LIE on Iraq that begins with POST#639 has been debunked., NFBW 21SEP10-POST#546

 

[Correll]

But Kerry demanded that his personal motivation and one reason to go to war was written into the language of the AUMF Or as he states he would not have voted for it. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States, and the separation of powers there would have been no invasion of Iraq and there definitely would have been no attempt at nation building if there was no authority for W to invade.

Is it your contention here that W was not bound by the AUMF? Do you think Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer authorized the war based on nation building and that’s why W did it?

Answer the question Correll - Does the language Authorizing military force in the AUMF reflect what you call the “personal motivations quote of John KERRY?

If you agree that it does it means that Senator John Kerry’s “personal motivation” was shared by every congress member and senator that voted to give W authority to use military force in Iraq if necessary.

And that means your deviation from reality on this topic is absurd

It does not mean that Kerry's personal motivation was shared b y every congress man, nor that every congressman did NOT have additional reasons that they, not being drama queens, did not insist on being written into the bill.

It means very little.

Your attempt to inflate it, has failed.

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that. - I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too. 21MAY22-POST#1013

NFBW wrote: I pointed out that the above statement proves Correll was aware that W had the option to peacefully disarm Iraq and avoid war., 21SEP10-POST#545
.....

DIscussing a hypothetical does not mean that I considered it a true, viable alternative.


Normal people understand that.


Is this a sign of how extreme your social disorder is, or are you just being dishonest?

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: Republicans try to change history in many ways. Correll has a very unique BIG LIE going with regard to the ramp up to war in Iraq. The Administration’s ramp up by fear-mongering on WMD that generally began around Labor Day 2002 and ended with the announcement of the start of BLITZKRIEG SHOCK and AWE by W on March 19, 2003. 21SEP10-POST#546

NFBW 21SEP10-POST#546 wrote: On May 11, 2021 Correll answered in the affirmative (based on faulty memory which I will discuss later) that he supported the launch of BLITZKRIEG SHOCK and AWE for the reason stated in his 21MAY11POST#639 see next paragraph.



Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. 21MAY11-POST#639 * reposted by NFBW 21SEP10-POST#546

NFBW wrote: Correll ‘s BIG LIE on Iraq that begins with POST#639 has been debunked., NFBW 21SEP10-POST#546

You are just being an asshole now. I made a very understandable mistake. You harping on it, is just you being an asshole.


What is your point in this, or are you just, SOLELY being an asshole?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW wrote: Answer the question Correll - Does the language Authorizing military force in the AUMF reflect what you call the “personal motivations quote of John KERRY? 21SEP09-POST#544


Correll wrote: It does not mean that Kerry's personal motivation was shared by every congress man,. 21SEP10-POST#547


NFBW wrote: The WMD argument Giving W authority to use military force against Iraq was to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions. WMD was the only argument that was voted by a majority and signed into law. 1SEP10-POST#5

Nation building was not a UNSC resolution.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

DIscussing a hypothetical does not mean that I considered it a true, viable alternative.

NFBW wrote: There is no way in anything I have ever posted that suggests that your discussing a hypothetical means that you considered it a true, viable alternative. I say you were aware at the the time that W had the option to allow Iraq to be disarmed peacefully and no invasion to do regime change. I know you do not believe in what you were aware of because you are stupid Correll. 21SEP10-POST#551

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW wrote: @Correll ‘s BIG LIE on Iraq that begins with POST#639 has been debunked., NFBW 21SEP10-POST#546

NFBW wrote: Correll has fabricated a BIG LIE that ‘nation building’ was part of the “national debate” regarding the necessity of preemptive war against Iraq. 21SEP11-POST#552

Correll wrote: There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case. And they won. 21May14- POST#741

NFBW wrote: That claim in 21May14- POST#741 is a lie. Prior to the invasion those who supported a decision by W to invade Iraq as authorized by Congress, based their support on one defined threat - from SH using WMD himself or giving them to al Qaeda to hiding stockpiles from the 1441 inspectors. That is the ONLY reason. There was no national debate - W held all the cards on WMD due to limited public access to intelligence sources. 21SEP11-POST#552

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW wrote: In the same post that Correll presented his fabricated BIG LIE he also exposed the reason a white cultural Christian, Bush Republican, at the time, had to join the right wing propaganda chorus at some point after the invasion had begun as the non-existence of WMD began to undermine the actual reason and justification for war. 21SEP11-POST#553

The purpose of the BIG LIE in 21MAY13- POST#703 is to divert attention from the right wing WARMONGER failure on WMD and lack of preparation for the aftermath of regime change was to put the failure on the Iraqis for not appreciating the favor that white American Christian Republicans had so gallantly done for them. WMD had to cease to be the reason for the war that Hillary Clinton voted to authorize. 1SEP11-POST#553

Correll Wrote: A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism. 21MAY13-POST#703

NFBW 21SEP11-POST #553 wrote: Let’s blame the Iraqis:

Correll Wrote: The results were fairly disappointing. The Iraqis did fairly poorly at forming and maintaining their democracy and really shitty at DEFENDING their democracy from the Islamic Terrorists. 21MAY13-POST#703 reposted by NFBW 21SEP11-POST#553

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW wrote: Correll told us that he would be fine had the peaceful disarming of Iraq worked and the decision to invade was not made by W and that meant SH was not removed from power. Yes, Correll told us what he believed to be true about his position at the time, admitting that war was not necessary if certain conditions were met - and peacefully disarming Iraq was one of those conditions. 21SEP12-POST#554

Correll wrote: IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that. - I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too. 21MAY22-POST#1013

NFBW wrote: I understand full well that a hypothetical question is based on supposition, opinion, personal belief or disbelief, or conjecture, and not facts. It is not based on reality. It can deal with actions and scenarios that might happen, or something that might not have happened. 21SEP12-POST#554

NFBW 21SEP12-POST#544 wrote: So why is Correll pissing and moaning like this?

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

NFBW wrote: Of course I understand that the (peaceful disarming Iraq) scenario that Correll created in his very own hypothetical question, did not happen. but Correll cannot ethically change his answer to the very hypothetical question he provided because he is no longer comfortable with the fact that his answer exposes a huge weakness in the BIG LIE regarding Iraq that Correll has been spreading going on for nearly to two decades. 21SEP12-POST#554


NFBW wrote: So with that explanation, I must ask, if Correll wishes to change his answer from “ I would have been fine with that” to “ I would have NOT have been fine with that” Correll should man up and say it instead of pissing and moaning about what others do not understand. 21SEP12-POST#564

 

[Ringo]

Rewriting history is the job of you Marxist assholes.

Complete moral decay is natural for an opportunist-liberal (an american Democrat), directly following from his philosophy of achieving big goals with small efforts (for example, voting in the bourgeois parliament).
For him, theft, deception and betrayal will only become competitive advantages, eventually bringing up the ideal lackey of the master class.
I mean, don't call them marxists or communists.

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: Answer the question Correll - Does the language Authorizing military force in the AUMF reflect what you call the “personal motivations quote of John KERRY? 21SEP09-POST#544


Correll wrote: It does not mean that Kerry's personal motivation was shared by every congress man,. 21SEP10-POST#547


NFBW wrote: The WMD argument Giving W authority to use military force against Iraq was to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions. WMD was the only argument that was voted by a majority and signed into law. 1SEP10-POST#5

Nation building was not a UNSC resolution.

I never said it was. I stated clearly that it was part of the internal debate here in America.


For someone who is obsessive about details and dates and exact working,


you seem to sometimes get very...sloppy.


When it serves your partisan and hate mongering purpose.


This is you being dishonest, because you know that you cannot defend your positions or actions, HONESTLY.


You are the bad guy here, and your goal is to spread hate and division in America.

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: There is no way in anything I have ever posted that suggests that your discussing a hypothetical means that you considered it a true, viable alternative. I say you were aware at the the time that W had the option to allow Iraq to be disarmed peacefully and no invasion to do regime change. I know you do not believe in what you were aware of because you are stupid Correll. 21SEP10-POST#551

1. Then what is the point of this line of discussion?

2. Dude. YOu are teh one here who has utterly gotten his ass kicked and who looks not "stupid" but who has been outed as a bad actor, intent on causing harm to his own society.

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: Correll has fabricated a BIG LIE that ‘nation building’ was part of the “national debate” regarding the necessity of preemptive war against Iraq. 21SEP11-POST#552

Correll wrote: There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case. And they won. 21May14- POST#741

NFBW wrote: That claim in 21May14- POST#741 is a lie. Prior to the invasion those who supported a decision by W to invade Iraq as authorized by Congress, based their support on one defined threat - from SH using WMD himself or giving them to al Qaeda to hiding stockpiles from the 1441 inspectors. That is the ONLY reason. There was no national debate - W held all the cards on WMD due to limited public access to intelligence sources. 21SEP11-POST#552

Remember all the times you insisted that you were NOT claiming that people made decisions based on singular reasons like a fucking machine?

And right above, "the ONLY reason".


I think you even called me a liar based on it, several times.


Now you are back to insisting it was the only reason, teh single reason.


You have argued yourself in a circle AGAIN, Wally.


Are you aware, intellectually, that if you were mentally healthy that you would feel embarrassment?

 

[Mac-7]

We know better! It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.

You would have to more delusional than you accuse them of being to think that was an actual threat to the Deep State

they were protesting a stolen election not trying to overthrow the government

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: In the same post that Correll presented his fabricated BIG LIE he also exposed the reason a white cultural Christian, Bush Republican, at the time, had to join the right wing propaganda chorus at some point after the invasion had begun as the non-existence of WMD began to undermine the actual reason and justification for war. 21SEP11-POST#553

The purpose of the BIG LIE in 21MAY13- POST#703 is to divert attention from the right wing WARMONGER failure on WMD and lack of preparation for the aftermath of regime change was to put the failure on the Iraqis for not appreciating the favor that white American Christian Republicans had so gallantly done for them. WMD had to cease to be the reason for the war that Hillary Clinton voted to authorize. 1SEP11-POST#553

Correll Wrote: A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism. 21MAY13-POST#703

NFBW 21SEP11-POST #553 wrote: Let’s blame the Iraqis:

Correll Wrote: The results were fairly disappointing. The Iraqis did fairly poorly at forming and maintaining their democracy and really shitty at DEFENDING their democracy from the Islamic Terrorists. 21MAY13-POST#703 reposted by NFBW 21SEP11-POST#553

I have no desire or need to distract from the mistake on WMDs or the issues with nation building.

Indeed, those issues are WHY I am in this thread. I think that there are important lessons that America should have learned.


I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THOSE ISSUES. YOU ARE THE ONE AVOIDING THEM.


Unfortunately, all you care about is using those issues to smear white christians as part of your goal of spreading hate and division.


THe important point here, that you will not address, is that I have NO MOTIVE OR DESIRE TO DISTRACT FROM THE ISSUES YOU MENTIONS.


Your point is... not only wrong, but really, fucking stupid. With all due respect.