Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

The question is not, “Should we replace Saddam?” The question is, “Should we wait until Saddam gives biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to terrorists?” Newt Gingrich October 16, 2002


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. POST #639

I don’t see the “nation-build” argument in this major op-Ed. I only see WMD fear-mongering hype.

So when exactly was it that Newt sold you on the ‘nation-building rationale and basis for attacking Iraq..

Strike Sooner than Later - USA Today - Newt Gingrich October 16, 2002

If you apply Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s proposed guidelines for committing U.S. forces to the test case of replacing Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration meets its own criteria.

* First, is the proposed action truly necessary? The necessity of replacing Saddam Hussein is the unanimous view of not only the senior leadership of the United States and Great Britain.

They concluded that allowing him to acquire weapons of mass destruction–weapons he is willing to use–would make the world dramatically more dangerous.

That opinion is also held by former ambassador Richard Butler, who was the head of the United Nations inspections commission in Iraq.

* Second, is the proposed action achievable? No one seriously doubts that the United States and its coalition partners, including Britain, Australia, Kuwait, Israel, Turkey, Italy, Romania, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Italy, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands, are all prepared to succeed.

Even Saudi Arabia and other nations have agreed to help if there is a U.N. resolution.

* Third, is it worth it? The bombing in Bali, Indonesia, should have reminded us that we are permanently at risk until those who support terrorism are defeated.

The question is not, “Should we replace Saddam?” The question is, “Should we wait until Saddam gives biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to terrorists?”

We should not wait until Saddam has the full capacity to create terror around the planet and is able to blackmail with nuclear weapons.

Strike Sooner Than Later

If you apply Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s proposed guidelines for committing U.S. forces to the test case of replacing Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration meets its own criteria. First, is the proposed action truly necessary? The necessity of replacing Saddam Hussein is the unanimous...

www.aei.org

Waiting is not an option.

* Fourth, if there is to be action, we should act early, and we should have unrestricted options. The Bush administration has gotten congressional authorization, mobilized diplomatic and military forces, worked the U.N. aggressively and prepared and communicated with our allies. Moreover, the Bush administration will not restrict the options for success and ultimately will do what is necessary to win as rapidly as possible with minimum casualties.

* Finally, Rumsfeld calls for honesty with the American people. The president and many senior administration officials, as well as British Prime Minister Tony Blair and others, have been publicly explaining the case and presenting evidence for four months.

The administration has been as candid about the risks as it has been honest about the dangerous road of inaction.

For 11 years, Saddam has not responded to sanctions, diplomacy or 16 U.N. resolutions.

The only issue is whether the risks are greater now or whether the risks will be greater later.

We learned with Adolf Hitler that moving early would have been less expensive and less dangerous and would have saved millions of lives.

I believe Rumsfeld’s guidelines make an overwhelming case for replacing Saddam as soon as possible.

Newt Gingrich is a senior fellow at AEI.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We should then have just left.

we couldn’t just take out the regime and leave a void for who knows what terrorist thugs to fill on too oc Iraq’s oil.

WE could have kept up the NFZ in the north to keep the Kurds safe but the rest of Iraq plunges into chais and SUNNI SHIA sectarian violencez

SH Was a shit head but he kept the Terrorists elements away from his oil fields.

did you want Al Qaeda to be funded with bkack marjet Iraqi oil?

And there were all those stockpiles of WMD. You want al Qaeda finding them.

I know there weren’t any but W had to spend a year looking when the inspectors only wanted three months and now are.

What does Iran do if we just break it and leave. Did you game it out?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

*** America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not? *** W

Correll wrote: That a man focuses on one reason for doing something does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing it. POST#1598

Your argument sucks. The AUMF specifically authorized W to make a specific determination regarding relevant UN resolutions. My point is not reliant on W’s focus.

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

In W’s precise and clear words, my star witness testified at the time - Remarks by the President on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441:

*** America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not?

President George W. Bush
The Rose Garden, The White House Washington, DC
November 8, 2002

Text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

 

[Correll]

Like you say that was how you saw it. There is no relationship to reality when you see it that way.

The entire world saw him cooperating including the Secretary of State of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA at the time who said this being the reason that war was not inevitable.

IRAQ was cooperating and we will see if that cooperation continues.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: And if it does, war is not inevitable?

SECRETARY POWELL: They have been cooperating with the inspectors and we'll see if that cooperation continues

SECRETARY POWELL: We've never said that war is inevitable. The President has always said that he is interested in a peaceful solution. resolution?

Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos

But at the same time, if Iraq does not cooperate or if we find reason to believe that they do have weapons of mass destruction that they have not identified and turned over to the international community, then the President has all of his options available to him. And he has the option of also going back to the United Nations or acting unilaterally with likeminded nations.

You cant make reality go away when you don’t like it by pissing and moaning like a potbellied Trump supporter who cant find a girlfriend.

Not sure what your point is. Lots of talk. Powell had an opinion. It was different than mine. I've disagreed with him many times on many issues.


You seem to be moving away from the point I made. Is this more of your circular debating technique?

 

[Correll]

Your position is not valid because it strays from facts that were knowable at the time.

You don't know what the meaning of the word, "Facts" is. You have admitted to using hindsight in your supporting logic.

 

[Correll]

W Had to cut short the inspections because the whole damn world could see SH was outwardly cooperating.

W could onlyvsay that Iraq was mysteriously hiding stuff and therefore was not really cooperating.

Thats the reality at the times

IMO, President Bush saw that Saddam and the UN inspectors could and would string the "process" along forever, without the WMDs, ever being found.

So, it was a failure.


That was a valid conclusion to reach, based on what we knew at the time.


You will of course, not address this directly or honestly.

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: The case for the war was determined by W and it was solely on the basis of WMD. POST #1586

Correll wrote: 1. The President does not determine the case for war, by himself. POST#1602

It is very clear that Correll is wrong. W was given the authorization to solely determine the case for war in the AUMF that was passed in October 2002.

The AUMF is worded exactly that way;

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --

There is no ambiguity on this fact. Correll ‘s argument is absurd, and detached from reality.

And then, Bush made the sole determination after March 6 to start a war in Iraq because he told us that SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors.

LOL!!! Now you are taking statements and policies from completely different contexts and mashing them together to create imaginary conversations and asking me to join in, picking up one side of your fantasy?


I respectfully decline.

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote Jul 17, 2020: THe justifications and the goals were discussed and the nation came together behind it. POST#186.

POST#186.

Correll wrote Jul 17, 2020: I was initially skeptical but the idea of creating a liberal democratic state in the middle of the Middle East as an Ideological Pushback against Radical Islam eventually convinced me. POST#186.

Tell us Correll did Darkwind lose the national debate since you said the nation builder side won the grand national. debate.



Darkwind wrote: No one on the right loved the war in Iraq. No one on the right loves war.

What they said then was that Iraq was a necessary war in order to get advantage in the war on terror.

The problem is, the war was WON, but no one wanted to leave after that.

We did NOT support nation-building. War means you go in, break everything, then go home. POST#11


I recall on the conservative side There were a lot of darkwinders out there wanting to Nuke the damn place and nation build it into a giant parking lot after things went south and we were not greeted as liberators

Obviously we DID engage in nation building. Also, I doubt that only CONSERVATIVES were angry with Saddam. Indeed, I recall many strong words from Bill Clinton and Joe Biden about Saddam.

 

[Correll]

The question is not, “Should we replace Saddam?” The question is, “Should we wait until Saddam gives biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to terrorists?” Newt Gingrich October 16, 2002


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. POST #639

I don’t see the “nation-build” argument in this major op-Ed. I only see WMD fear-mongering hype.

So when exactly was it that Newt sold you on the ‘nation-building rationale and basis for attacking Iraq..

Strike Sooner than Later - USA Today - Newt Gingrich October 16, 2002

If you apply Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s proposed guidelines for committing U.S. forces to the test case of replacing Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration meets its own criteria.

* First, is the proposed action truly necessary? The necessity of replacing Saddam Hussein is the unanimous view of not only the senior leadership of the United States and Great Britain.

They concluded that allowing him to acquire weapons of mass destruction–weapons he is willing to use–would make the world dramatically more dangerous.

That opinion is also held by former ambassador Richard Butler, who was the head of the United Nations inspections commission in Iraq.

* Second, is the proposed action achievable? No one seriously doubts that the United States and its coalition partners, including Britain, Australia, Kuwait, Israel, Turkey, Italy, Romania, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Italy, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands, are all prepared to succeed.

Even Saudi Arabia and other nations have agreed to help if there is a U.N. resolution.

* Third, is it worth it? The bombing in Bali, Indonesia, should have reminded us that we are permanently at risk until those who support terrorism are defeated.

The question is not, “Should we replace Saddam?” The question is, “Should we wait until Saddam gives biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to terrorists?”

We should not wait until Saddam has the full capacity to create terror around the planet and is able to blackmail with nuclear weapons.

Strike Sooner Than Later

If you apply Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s proposed guidelines for committing U.S. forces to the test case of replacing Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration meets its own criteria. First, is the proposed action truly necessary? The necessity of replacing Saddam Hussein is the unanimous...

www.aei.org

Waiting is not an option.

* Fourth, if there is to be action, we should act early, and we should have unrestricted options. The Bush administration has gotten congressional authorization, mobilized diplomatic and military forces, worked the U.N. aggressively and prepared and communicated with our allies. Moreover, the Bush administration will not restrict the options for success and ultimately will do what is necessary to win as rapidly as possible with minimum casualties.

* Finally, Rumsfeld calls for honesty with the American people. The president and many senior administration officials, as well as British Prime Minister Tony Blair and others, have been publicly explaining the case and presenting evidence for four months.

The administration has been as candid about the risks as it has been honest about the dangerous road of inaction.

For 11 years, Saddam has not responded to sanctions, diplomacy or 16 U.N. resolutions.

The only issue is whether the risks are greater now or whether the risks will be greater later.

We learned with Adolf Hitler that moving early would have been less expensive and less dangerous and would have saved millions of lives.

I believe Rumsfeld’s guidelines make an overwhelming case for replacing Saddam as soon as possible.

Newt Gingrich is a senior fellow at AEI.

That was a stupidly long post. Ask it again, more concisely with less obvious propaganda talking points.

 

[Correll]

*** America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not? *** W

Correll wrote: That a man focuses on one reason for doing something does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing it. POST#1598

Your argument sucks. The AUMF specifically authorized W to make a specific determination regarding relevant UN resolutions. My point is not reliant on W’s focus.
.....

You said that. My response stands. Get to something new.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ask it again ..

NFBW wrote: So when exactly was it that Newt sold you on the ‘nation-building rationale and basis for attacking Iraq.. POST#3261.

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: So when exactly was it that Newt sold you on the ‘nation-building rationale and basis for attacking Iraq.. POST#3261.

Oh, I saw some live discussion on tv, with him, Krauthammer and some young female doctor. It was great to see Gingrich and Krauthammer together.

I felt really bad for the young woman. She was quite smart, and accomplished and easy on the eyes. But she was on stage with GAINTS.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW wrote: So when exactly was it that Newt sold you on the ‘nation-building rationale and basis for attacking Iraq.. POST#3261.

Oh, I saw some live discussion on tv

The question in POST#3261 was clear, when exactly was it that Newt sold you on the ‘nation-building rationale and basis for attacking Iraq?

So when did the Gingrich/Krauthammer nation building show take place? What year? What month?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But she was on stage with GAINTS.

Did one of your giants say this during that show?

*** 064733 Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem.

Why Correll would there be a “credibility problem” if no WMD were found and SH was right? What was your “giant” worried about?

*** 065137 I don't have any doubt that we will locate them. I think it takes time. They've obviously been deeply hidden, and it will require that we get the information from people who know where they are. If you're looking for anthrax and VX gas, which can be hidden in a basement or a closet, in a country the size of Germany, you can understand how in five weeks we might not have stumbled across them.

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: So when exactly was it that Newt sold you on the ‘nation-building rationale and basis for attacking Iraq.. POST#3261.




The question in POST#3261 was clear, when exactly was it that Newt sold you on the ‘nation-building rationale and basis for attacking Iraq?

So when did the Gingrich/Krauthammer nation building show take place? What year? What month?

I don't remember. Naturally. What kind of freak would remember that?


What is the point anyways? Are you seriously trying to prove that I'm lying about my reasons? To what end? I think I've demonstrated that I'm not afraid to take some heat.


You are freaking NUTS.

 

[Correll]

Did one of your giants say this during that show?

*** 064733 Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem.

Why Correll would there be a “credibility problem” if no WMD were found and SH was right? What was your “giant” worried about?

*** 065137 I don't have any doubt that we will locate them. I think it takes time. They've obviously been deeply hidden, and it will require that we get the information from people who know where they are. If you're looking for anthrax and VX gas, which can be hidden in a basement or a closet, in a country the size of Germany, you can understand how in five weeks we might not have stumbled across them.

I don't recall the details. It's been many years. I mean, really, what kind of weirdo would expect me to have prefect memory of a TV show from years ago?


Seriously dude. What is wrong with you?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I don't remember. Naturally. What kind of freak would remember that?

You don’t remember whether it was before the invasion or after the invasion. How could you not remember that?

 

[Correll]

You don’t remember whether it was before the invasion or after the invasion. How could you not remember that?

Are you being serious?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You have admitted to using hindsight in your supporting logic.

You are a liar. I base everything I say on public information that was knowable in real time.

Are you being serious?

Yes. You called me a lIar.

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

You say the case for war for you was made on tv when KRAUTHAMMER and GINGRICH sold you on the brilliance of experimental nation building.

Trouble is you can’t remember if they were on tv making the case before or after the war started. And you piss and moan because I expect that you would at least know if you are recalling your pre-invasion or post-invasion evaluation of supporting the war.

You cant recall but you call me a liar.

When was the KRAUTHAMMER/ GINGRICH nation building experiment show that you claim was a case/justification for war?

 

[Correll]

You are a liar. I base everything I say on public information that was knowable in real time.



Yes. You called me a lIar.

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

You say the case for war for you was made on tv when KRAUTHAMMER and GINGRICH sold you on the brilliance of experimental nation building.

Trouble is you can’t remember if they were on tv making the case before or after the war started. And you piss and moan because I expect that you would at least know if you are recalling your pre-invasion or post-invasion evaluation of supporting the war.

You cant recall but you call me a liar.

When was the KRAUTHAMMER/ GINGRICH nation building experiment show that you claim was a case/justification for war?

You asked me specifically what the date was, that the tv show took place.

I told you that I did not recall.


YOu took that "fact" and invented the bit, that I did not recall whether it was before or after the invasion.


That was shit you made up.


You then attacked me, based on shit you made up.


YOu are bat shit crazy and a troll and a partisan hack.