Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

you are a liar. You have not addressed the reality that under US policy at the time SH stays in power if he was successfully disarmed and there was no other reason to start a war ever mentioned or suggested by anybody except maybe nutcases like you here and there and the PNAC warmongers who figured Iraq would make a nice base for attacking Iran and Syria.

YOu asked, "what do you think he was telling you with this?"


And I answered,



"That as time went on, the discussion became more and more focused on the search for the wmds."


You missed it, for reasons having to do with your very poor communication skills.


Will you now address my answer, or get to your point, or do something other than rave in a circle?

 

[Correll]

What’s true then? Are you saying that US policy was that once Iraq is disarmed peacefully W was authorized to invade Iraq anyway to get the Kuwait art back?

Explain yourself. Based on what?

I am saying that what you claimed was not true.


I have also pointed out in the past, that you have a. accepted the principle of collateral damage so your whining about it is, quite unseemly.


AND, that your numbers show you putting the responsibility of other people's actions on US. Which is not reasonable.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But teh other weights are still there. And are part of the reason the scale moved.

But you said the scale didn’t move until the 10th weight went on. That’s because all nine weights combined were not enough to move the scale and start the war. There was only one weight to justify war and that was disarming Iraq of WMD.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

YOu asked, "what do you think he was telling you with this?"

And I answered,

"That as time went on, the discussion became more and more focused on the search for the wmds."

There is nothing in your answer that addresses this reality and what that realty means to you.

NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I am saying that what you claimed was not true.

Why is it not true?

 

[Correll]

But you said the scale didn’t move until the 10th weight went on. That’s because all nine weights combined were not enough to move the scale and start the war. There was only one weight to justify war and that was disarming Iraq of WMD.

LOL!!! When your defense is to be too stupid to understand that NINE is more than ONE, you make yourself look retarded.

 

[Correll]

There is nothing in your answer that addresses this reality and what that realty means to you.

NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187

Dude. You are being pitiful.

 

[Correll]

Why is it not true?

Because there were other reasons. As repeatedly and constantly explained to you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

“constantly explained” 101

Because there were other reasons. As repeatedly and constantly explained to you.

You called me a liar in June. Let’s examine exactly what you mean by “constantly explained” to me

NFBW wrote to struth: Justification for the war had to be based on a threat such as SH trying to hide real WMD. POST #1518

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

NFBW para1 wrote: It was the sole basis to confront and launch. Bush agreed to 1441 whether you like it or not - and inspectors had one task - to determine if Iraq was in compliance with his ceasefire agreement with respect to WMD and WMD’s alone. POST#1528

We got the rope-a-dope!
Correll wrote: "Confront and launch"? wtf does that mean? POST#1535

We got its irrelevant if I say It’s irrelevant!
Correll wrote: Your claims about ALL of his statements during a certain period of time, twenty years ago, are irrelevant and dismissed. POST#1535

Ditto!
Correll wrote: It is irrelevant that the inspectors had no other task. POST#1539

word salad or something! ?????
Correll wrote: If the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of the WMDs, as we know is the case, then focusing solely on the hunt for the wmds, in the timing of the war, is misleading at best. POST#1548

Then we were taken down the FLAWED AUMF track!
Correll Wrote: The case for war was made in the authorization bill. There were many stated reasons, of which wmds, were only one. POST#1552

Correll Wrote: Your claim that we cannot know the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of WMDs, is nonsense, because the case for war is a matter of public record. POST#1552

W’s word three weeks before the invasion are censured during this discussion
Correll Wrote: It is not a matter of Bush's opinion, especially his opinion at a later date. POST#1552

TO BE CONTINUED as a matter of record based on the facts.

 

[Correll]

“constantly explained” 101


You called me a liar in June. Let’s examine exactly what you mean by “constantly explained” to me

NFBW wrote to struth: Justification for the war had to be based on a threat such as SH trying to hide real WMD. POST #1518

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

NFBW para1 wrote: It was the sole basis to confront and launch. Bush agreed to 1441 whether you like it or not - and inspectors had one task - to determine if Iraq was in compliance with his ceasefire agreement with respect to WMD and WMD’s alone. POST#1528

We got the rope-a-dope!
Correll wrote: "Confront and launch"? wtf does that mean? POST#1535

We got its irrelevant if I say It’s irrelevant!
Correll wrote: Your claims about ALL of his statements during a certain period of time, twenty years ago, are irrelevant and dismissed. POST#1535

Ditto!
Correll wrote: It is irrelevant that the inspectors had no other task. POST#1539

word salad or something! ?????
Correll wrote: If the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of the WMDs, as we know is the case, then focusing solely on the hunt for the wmds, in the timing of the war, is misleading at best. POST#1548

Then we were taken down the FLAWED AUMF track!
Correll Wrote: The case for war was made in the authorization bill. There were many stated reasons, of which wmds, were only one. POST#1552

Correll Wrote: Your claim that we cannot know the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of WMDs, is nonsense, because the case for war is a matter of public record. POST#1552

W’s word three weeks before the invasion are censured during this discussion
Correll Wrote: It is not a matter of Bush's opinion, especially his opinion at a later date. POST#1552

TO BE CONTINUED as a matter of record based on the facts.

You are spending way too much time on this.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Dude. You are being pitiful.

You have no recovery from hitting you with this fact.

NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187

On the positives side “SH can only succeed in avoiding war if he cooperates on the one and ONLY ONE reason why W sent the Inspectors there. To verify the declaration by Iraq that it was disarmed.”

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You are spending way too much time on this.

Not really:

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

 

[struth]

“constantly explained” 101


You called me a liar in June. Let’s examine exactly what you mean by “constantly explained” to me

NFBW wrote to struth: Justification for the war had to be based on a threat such as SH trying to hide real WMD. POST #1518

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

NFBW para1 wrote: It was the sole basis to confront and launch. Bush agreed to 1441 whether you like it or not - and inspectors had one task - to determine if Iraq was in compliance with his ceasefire agreement with respect to WMD and WMD’s alone. POST#1528

We got the rope-a-dope!
Correll wrote: "Confront and launch"? wtf does that mean? POST#1535

We got its irrelevant if I say It’s irrelevant!
Correll wrote: Your claims about ALL of his statements during a certain period of time, twenty years ago, are irrelevant and dismissed. POST#1535

Ditto!
Correll wrote: It is irrelevant that the inspectors had no other task. POST#1539

word salad or something! ?????
Correll wrote: If the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of the WMDs, as we know is the case, then focusing solely on the hunt for the wmds, in the timing of the war, is misleading at best. POST#1548

Then we were taken down the FLAWED AUMF track!
Correll Wrote: The case for war was made in the authorization bill. There were many stated reasons, of which wmds, were only one. POST#1552

Correll Wrote: Your claim that we cannot know the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of WMDs, is nonsense, because the case for war is a matter of public record. POST#1552

W’s word three weeks before the invasion are censured during this discussion
Correll Wrote: It is not a matter of Bush's opinion, especially his opinion at a later date. POST#1552

TO BE CONTINUED as a matter of record based on the facts.

Nobody cares what you have to say anymore Baghdad Bob

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

I’m not seeing Correll backing up his nasty lie about me.

Correll wrote: You are ignoring the formal authorization for war, to focus on informal off the cuff comments. POST#1554

NFBW wrote: Every stated reason was not a case for war according to W’s determination as he was expected to do as laid out in the authorization. POST#1555

NFBW wrote: Bush determined there was ONLY one case for war and he publically declared his determination on March 06 that there was no need for war if SH is disarmed peacefully. POST#1555

Jim Angle. Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision?

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

I'm hopeful that he does disarm. But, in the name of peace and the security of our people, if he won't do so voluntarily, we will disarm him.

NFBW wrote: What was W “waiting to hear” before determining that war would be necessary other than WMD POST#1555

Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror.

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods.

the broken record kicks in*!
Correll wrote: A politicians public words do not trump formal policy positions laid out in formal government authorizations. POST #1556

NFBW wrote: I’m not ignoring it. The AUMF was designed around the idea that it would force Iraq to let inspectors in and it worked. POST #1557

NFBW wrote: The AUMF authorized W to make a determination in the future. POST #1557

NFBW wrote: W revealed his determination that ONLY real WMD would justify war. No other reason rose to the level of necessity for war. And that makes sense. POST #1557

the broken record kicks in*!
Correll wrote: His personal, informal statement does not trump the formal carefully crafted full justification for the war, laid out in the Authorization. POST#1558

NFBW wrote: The AUMF didn’t set a policy to start a war for any of those reasons listed. when it was voted on it did not authorize disarming IRAQ of his WMDs Unless W determined that it was necessary in the future. POST #1559

NFBW wrote: THAT is exactly the policy that W was discussing at the news conference on March 6. He was making his determination known to the world that he still preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully. POST #1559

NFBW wrote: Did W have the authority granted to him within the authorization to use force if he determined that an invasion of Iraq was not necessary? POST#1561

the broken record kicks in*!
Correll wrote: You found an off the cuff remark that you think support your position and you are ignoring all other evidence or information. POST#1565

NFBW wrote: on March 6, 2003 W made a public determination that the liberation of Iraq was not necessary if IRAQ WAS disarmed. The only case that would justify war in W’s determination was the case for continued possession of WMD. POST #1566

Correll wrote: Don't know, don't care, at this point. POST#1568

NFBW wrote: Its not an off the cuff remark. W waiting to hear if Iraq was disarmed and and if he was in fact disarmed there would be no invasion. That’s a fact you cannot remove from reality. POST#1569

NFBW wrote: The overall point is W had no intention of invading Iraq other than on the basis that SH was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspectors. POST#1572

NFBW wrote: W did not invade Iraq to liberate it. The March 6 press conference makes that clear. W invaded Iraq because HE suspected WMD was being hidden there. POST#1572

 

[Correll]

You have no recovery from hitting you with this fact.

NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187

On the positives side “SH can only succeed in avoiding war if he cooperates on the one and ONLY ONE reason why W sent the Inspectors there. To verify the declaration by Iraq that it was disarmed.”

I addressed it repeatedly, most recently refuting it with my ten one pound weights analogy.

You are the one not recovering from being hit.

 

[struth]

I addressed it repeatedly, most recently refuting it with my ten one pound weights analogy.

You are the one not recovering from being hit.

It's Baghdad Bob....he keeps repeating the same debunked lies over and over again.

He might consider working in the Xiden Press Office

 

[Correll]

Not really:

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

You're now raving. The case for war was NOT solely based on wmds. YOu are being a lying idiot.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The case for war was NOT solely based on wmds.

DEFEND your argument then,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I addressed it repeatedly, most recently refuting it with my ten one pound weights analogy.

You are a Hopeless retard.

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

I’m not seeing Correll backing up his nasty lie about me.

Correll wrote: You are ignoring the formal authorization for war, to focus on informal off the cuff comments. POST#1554

NFBW wrote: Every stated reason was not a case for war according to W’s determination as he was expected to do as laid out in the authorization. POST#1555

NFBW wrote: Bush determined there was ONLY one case for war and he publically declared his determination on March 06 that there was no need for war if SH is disarmed peacefully. POST#1555

Jim Angle. Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision?

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

I'm hopeful that he does disarm. But, in the name of peace and the security of our people, if he won't do so voluntarily, we will disarm him.

NFBW wrote: What was W “waiting to hear” before determining that war would be necessary other than WMD POST#1555

Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror.

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods.

the broken record kicks in*!
Correll wrote: A politicians public words do not trump formal policy positions laid out in formal government authorizations. POST #1556

NFBW wrote: I’m not ignoring it. The AUMF was designed around the idea that it would force Iraq to let inspectors in and it worked. POST #1557

NFBW wrote: The AUMF authorized W to make a determination in the future. POST #1557

NFBW wrote: W revealed his determination that ONLY real WMD would justify war. No other reason rose to the level of necessity for war. And that makes sense. POST #1557

the broken record kicks in*!
Correll wrote: His personal, informal statement does not trump the formal carefully crafted full justification for the war, laid out in the Authorization. POST#1558

NFBW wrote: The AUMF didn’t set a policy to start a war for any of those reasons listed. when it was voted on it did not authorize disarming IRAQ of his WMDs Unless W determined that it was necessary in the future. POST #1559

NFBW wrote: THAT is exactly the policy that W was discussing at the news conference on March 6. He was making his determination known to the world that he still preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully. POST #1559

NFBW wrote: Did W have the authority granted to him within the authorization to use force if he determined that an invasion of Iraq was not necessary? POST#1561

the broken record kicks in*!
Correll wrote: You found an off the cuff remark that you think support your position and you are ignoring all other evidence or information. POST#1565

NFBW wrote: on March 6, 2003 W made a public determination that the liberation of Iraq was not necessary if IRAQ WAS disarmed. The only case that would justify war in W’s determination was the case for continued possession of WMD. POST #1566

Correll wrote: Don't know, don't care, at this point. POST#1568

NFBW wrote: Its not an off the cuff remark. W waiting to hear if Iraq was disarmed and and if he was in fact disarmed there would be no invasion. That’s a fact you cannot remove from reality. POST#1569

NFBW wrote: The overall point is W had no intention of invading Iraq other than on the basis that SH was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspectors. POST#1572

NFBW wrote: W did not invade Iraq to liberate it. The March 6 press conference makes that clear. W invaded Iraq because HE suspected WMD was being hidden there. POST#1572

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

I’m not seeing Correll backing up his nasty lie about me.

Correll wrote: You are ignoring the formal authorization for war, to focus on informal off the cuff comments. POST#1554

NFBW wrote: Every stated reason was not a case for war according to W’s determination as he was expected to do as laid out in the authorization. POST#1555

NFBW wrote: Bush determined there was ONLY one case for war and he publically declared his determination on March 06 that there was no need for war if SH is disarmed peacefully. POST#1555

Jim Angle. Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision?

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

I'm hopeful that he does disarm. But, in the name of peace and the security of our people, if he won't do so voluntarily, we will disarm him.

NFBW wrote: What was W “waiting to hear” before determining that war would be necessary other than WMD POST#1555

Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror.

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods.

the broken record kicks in*!
Correll wrote: A politicians public words do not trump formal policy positions laid out in formal government authorizations. POST #1556

NFBW wrote: I’m not ignoring it. The AUMF was designed around the idea that it would force Iraq to let inspectors in and it worked. POST #1557

NFBW wrote: The AUMF authorized W to make a determination in the future. POST #1557

NFBW wrote: W revealed his determination that ONLY real WMD would justify war. No other reason rose to the level of necessity for war. And that makes sense. POST #1557

the broken record kicks in*!
Correll wrote: His personal, informal statement does not trump the formal carefully crafted full justification for the war, laid out in the Authorization. POST#1558

NFBW wrote: The AUMF didn’t set a policy to start a war for any of those reasons listed. when it was voted on it did not authorize disarming IRAQ of his WMDs Unless W determined that it was necessary in the future. POST #1559

NFBW wrote: THAT is exactly the policy that W was discussing at the news conference on March 6. He was making his determination known to the world that he still preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully. POST #1559

NFBW wrote: Did W have the authority granted to him within the authorization to use force if he determined that an invasion of Iraq was not necessary? POST#1561

the broken record kicks in*!
Correll wrote: You found an off the cuff remark that you think support your position and you are ignoring all other evidence or information. POST#1565

NFBW wrote: on March 6, 2003 W made a public determination that the liberation of Iraq was not necessary if IRAQ WAS disarmed. The only case that would justify war in W’s determination was the case for continued possession of WMD. POST #1566

Correll wrote: Don't know, don't care, at this point. POST#1568

NFBW wrote: Its not an off the cuff remark. W waiting to hear if Iraq was disarmed and and if he was in fact disarmed there would be no invasion. That’s a fact you cannot remove from reality. POST#1569

NFBW wrote: The overall point is W had no intention of invading Iraq other than on the basis that SH was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspectors. POST#1572

NFBW wrote: W did not invade Iraq to liberate it. The March 6 press conference makes that clear. W invaded Iraq because HE suspected WMD was being hidden there. POST#1572

As events and discussions continued AFTER THE FORMAL CASE FOR WAR WAS MADE, President Bush allowed himself to be painted into a corner, where if Saddam had provided undeniable proof that he was disarmed, that he would have had a difficult time going to war, with that one pound weight removed.


BUT, that does not change the fact that the other one pound weights were still on the scale. They just were not enough, by themselves to give President Bush the political support he felt he needed to go to war.


None of this changes ANYTHING I have said before. YOu are just talking in circles, like a lunatic, thinking that you are making a point, when you are not.