Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

ONE DETERMINATION.

Correll reply to POST#3263: You said that. My response stands. Get to something new. POST#3270.

“America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not” W speech in November 2002.

Perhaps Correll accidentally missed replying to the content of POST#3263. He called me a liar because I know for a fact that the only case for invading Iraq was the threat of WMD in SH’s control meant he had to be removed.

POST#3263 informed Correll that my source regarding the above fact is W himself. W Affirmed I am telling the truth. But Correll calls the truth a lie:

How convenient it was for Correll to skip the following points from Post#3263.

NFBW wrote: The AUMF specifically authorized W to make a specific determination regarding relevant UN resolutions. POST#3263

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

NFBW wrote: In W’s precise and clear words, my star witness testified at the time. POST#3263

- 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?” POST#3263

President George W. Bush - The Rose Garden, The White House Washington, DC November 8, 2002 *** POST#3263

 

[NotfooledbyW]

My response stands

… although the terms in 1441 do not include conducting the KRAUTHAMMER/GINGRICH nation building experiment.

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. POST#3263

Apparently Correll learned about the nation building experiment a month after the attack on Iraq was launched.

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

Was that in April 2003?

GINGRICH 050519: So, an Islamist party dedicated to a constitutional system of liberty, and willing to tolerate the rights of others, it strikes me would be a totally acceptable future, and one we would have no right to reject. C-Span - APRIL 2003

U.S. Foreign Policy and the Future of Iraq

The panelists discussed U.S. foreign policy. Topics included the meaning of war, the war on Iraq, world terrorism, and the role of the United Nations. After their presentations the panelists answered audience members' questions.

www.c-span.org

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That was shit you made up.

Here are the exact words from the AUMF regarding what exactly the use of military force against Iraq is authorized.

*** SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. ***


Can you direct me to the relevant United Nations Security Council resolution that requires SH to get into compliance with the GINGRICH/Krauthammer nation building experiment?

 

[DELETED ACCOUNT]

I don't support any war we should be able to come to an agreement to keep the peace instead of killing each other

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The following is a fact. It is the truth about why W says he decided to invade Iraq in MARCH 2003. To be specific W told Americans that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the UN inspectors. DJT says that was a lie.

This is not a lie:

NFBW posted: “The premise of the war — the basis for going to the U.N., to the Congress and, indeed, to the nation — was Iraq’s possession of WMD in violation of the central condition for the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Gulf War.” POST#3285

Why does Correll call me a liar for saying basically the very same thing about the unfound, non-existent wmd, that one of the giants in the 2003 neocon warmonger industry said after the invasion and the admission that the WMD was not found?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. POST#766

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.

NFBW wrote: One of Correll ’s Giant warmongering advocates for nation building spent his pre-invasion time convincing the world that the immediate threat from Iraq was the nexus of WMD going from SH’s hands to terrorists that would use them to attack us. POST#3286

Correll wrote: 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. POST#3272

NFBW wrote: Gingrich said he was for the quick war and get out plan - with a small force?? Not sure how the nation building was supposed to work with a small force with an expectation that major religious sects were supposed to create their own democracy and thank us and send us on our way. POST#3286

NFBW posted: In a paper written late in 2001 for the American Enterprise Institute, where he [Gingrich] is a senior fellow, he asserted, "We are a serious nation, and the message should be simple if this is to be a serious war: Saddam will stop his efforts and close down all programs to create weapons of mass destruction." POST#3286

NFBW posted: Newt Gingrich's "outsider" act POST#3286

NFBW posted: On Oct. 31, 2002, he [Gingrich] wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Times opposing proposed U.N. inspections of Iraq's supposed WMD facilities; in it, he said, "President Bush and his administration have been abundantly clear why they believe Saddam must be replaced. They have convincingly argued that time is on the side of the Iraqi dictator, and that every day spent waiting is another day for him to expand his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction program." POST#3286

NFBW posted: In a piece for USA Today on Oct. 16, 2002, he [GingrIch] wrote, "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. Waiting is not an option." POST#3286

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

Correll wrote: 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. POST#766

GINGRICH: "President Bush and his administration have been abundantly clear why they believe Saddam must be replaced. They have convincingly argued that time is on the side of the Iraqi dictator, and that every day spent waiting is another day for him to expand his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction program." Oct. 31, 2002, WASHINGTON TIMES.

Correll what is going on here? The only show I could find with Gingrich and Krauthammer on together was C-Span - APRIL 2003

GINGRICH 050519: So, an Islamist party dedicated to a constitutional system of liberty, and willing to tolerate the rights of others, it strikes me would be a totally acceptable future, and one we would have no right to reject.

U.S. Foreign Policy and the Future of Iraq

The panelists discussed U.S. foreign policy. Topics included the meaning of war, the war on Iraq, world terrorism, and the role of the United Nations. After their presentations the panelists answered audience members' questions.

www.c-span.org

That’s five weeks after the start of the invasion.

 

[Weatherman2020]

A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%. They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.

I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq. I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.

Even a few years ago these people wouldn't admit that the war was a huge failure.

Now these pathetic liars try to act like they were against the war all along, that is how pathetic Trumpers are. These people don't even know what they support or oppose, they wait for Foxnews to tell them what to think, and then just go with it...

Republican attitudes on Iraq trip up GOP candidates

Was the Iraq war the right thing to do or the wrong thing? Most Americans answered one way; most Republicans answered another.

www.msnbc.com

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Weatherman2020 what’s up? I was for the AUMF vote in October 2002. POST#3289.

Cheney and Gingrich and Correll opposed going to the UN to avoid war. POST#3289.

HRC supported W’s decision to go through the UN as did Senator John Kerry. Great Americans HRC and Kerry.
They are not warmongers. They tried to keep the peace. POST#3289.

NFBW posted: Yes, Kerry voted to authorize the President to use force against Iraq. But he voted for that in order for Bush to go to the UN and get the inspectors back into Iraq, which Bush lyingly said was the only way to avoid a war. …… It sounds counterintuitive that Bush would want an authorization to use force in order to avoid war. But Bush claimed that that's what this was all about. POST#3289.

NFBW posted: Here's an exchange between Bush and a reporter from September 19, 2002, just before the vote in Congress: POST#3289.

NFBW posted: `If the United Nations Security Council won't deal with the problem, the United States and some of our friends will.'' POST#3289.


NFBW posted: Bush Sends Congress a Proposed Resolution on Iraq (Published 2002) POST#3289.

NFBW posted: ``If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force,'' POST#3289.

NFBW posted: Reporter: Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force? POST#3289.

NFBW posted: Bush: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, "We support the administration's ability to keep the peace." That's what this is all about. POST#3289.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Weatherman2020 what’s up? I was for the AUMF vote in October 2002. POST#3289.

Cheney and Gingrich and Correll opposed going to the UN to avoid war. POST#3289.

HRC supported W’s decision to go through the UN as did Senator John Kerry. Great Americans HRC and Kerry.
They are not warmongers. They tried to keep the peace. POST#3289.

NFBW posted: Yes, Kerry voted to authorize the President to use force against Iraq. But he voted for that in order for Bush to go to the UN and get the inspectors back into Iraq, which Bush lyingly said was the only way to avoid a war. …… It sounds counterintuitive that Bush would want an authorization to use force in order to avoid war. But Bush claimed that that's what this was all about. POST#3289.

NFBW posted: Here's an exchange between Bush and a reporter from September 19, 2002, just before the vote in Congress: POST#3289.

NFBW posted: `If the United Nations Security Council won't deal with the problem, the United States and some of our friends will.'' POST#3289.


NFBW posted: Bush Sends Congress a Proposed Resolution on Iraq (Published 2002) POST#3289.

NFBW posted: ``If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force,'' POST#3289.

NFBW posted: Reporter: Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force? POST#3289.

NFBW posted: Bush: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, "We support the administration's ability to keep the peace." That's what this is all about. POST#3289.

For all the lefties.

 

[Correll]

ONE DETERMINATION.

Correll reply to POST#3263: You said that. My response stands. Get to something new. POST#3270.

“America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not” W speech in November 2002.

Perhaps Correll accidentally missed replying to the content of POST#3263. He called me a liar because I know for a fact that the only case for invading Iraq was the threat of WMD in SH’s control meant he had to be removed.

POST#3263 informed Correll that my source regarding the above fact is W himself. W Affirmed I am telling the truth. But Correll calls the truth a lie:
....

I have already addressed that repeatedly. YOu have not addressed my counter points.


Are you playing stupid, or is this more of the circular debating?

 

[Correll]

… although the terms in 1441 do not include conducting the KRAUTHAMMER/GINGRICH nation building experiment.

.....

Did AMERICAN POLICY after the invasion include nation building as we have been discussing?

 

[Correll]

Here are the exact words from the AUMF regarding what exactly the use of military force against Iraq is authorized.

....

My comment was clearly in relation to your invention of "not knowing if it was before or after the invasion".


Were you being stupid or dishonest in dodging that point?

 

[Correll]

The following is a fact. It is the truth about why W says he decided to invade Iraq in MARCH 2003. To be specific W told Americans that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the UN inspectors. DJT says that was a lie.

This is not a lie:

NFBW posted: “The premise of the war — the basis for going to the U.N., to the Congress and, indeed, to the nation — was Iraq’s possession of WMD in violation of the central condition for the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Gulf War.” POST#3285

Why does Correll call me a liar for saying basically the very same thing about the unfound, non-existent wmd, that one of the giants in the 2003 neocon warmonger industry said after the invasion and the admission that the WMD was not found?

Because this thread is (or has become) about the INTENT of those that supported the war, often as specifically as MYSELF, personally.


DJT can spout off about his personal opinion, and that is fine. I clearly disagree with him.

YOU? You are trying to tell ME, what I thought at the time, and REJECTING, my responses because you don't agree with them.


You are a liar. And quite fucked in the head, personality disorder wise.


I have told you all of this many times. Your ability to pretend to not know answers and keep repeating the question, without any concern for how stupid or dishonest you look, indicates a very poor self image.


You should change your behavior. Other people will treat you differently, in time. You will feel better about yourself.

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. POST#766

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.

NFBW wrote: One of Correll ’s Giant warmongering advocates for nation building spent his pre-invasion time convincing the world that the immediate threat from Iraq was the nexus of WMD going from SH’s hands to terrorists that would use them to attack us. POST#3286

Correll wrote: 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. POST#3272

NFBW wrote: Gingrich said he was for the quick war and get out plan - with a small force?? Not sure how the nation building was supposed to work with a small force with an expectation that major religious sects were supposed to create their own democracy and thank us and send us on our way. POST#3286

NFBW posted: In a paper written late in 2001 for the American Enterprise Institute, where he [Gingrich] is a senior fellow, he asserted, "We are a serious nation, and the message should be simple if this is to be a serious war: Saddam will stop his efforts and close down all programs to create weapons of mass destruction." POST#3286

NFBW posted: Newt Gingrich's "outsider" act POST#3286

NFBW posted: On Oct. 31, 2002, he [Gingrich] wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Times opposing proposed U.N. inspections of Iraq's supposed WMD facilities; in it, he said, "President Bush and his administration have been abundantly clear why they believe Saddam must be replaced. They have convincingly argued that time is on the side of the Iraqi dictator, and that every day spent waiting is another day for him to expand his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction program." POST#3286

NFBW posted: In a piece for USA Today on Oct. 16, 2002, he [GingrIch] wrote, "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. Waiting is not an option." POST#3286

Clearly Newt wanted the nation building, and used the fear of WMDs, to sell the policy.

Do you want to discuss this, or do you want to pretend to not understand it?

 

[Correll]

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

Correll wrote: 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. POST#766

GINGRICH: "President Bush and his administration have been abundantly clear why they believe Saddam must be replaced. They have convincingly argued that time is on the side of the Iraqi dictator, and that every day spent waiting is another day for him to expand his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction program." Oct. 31, 2002, WASHINGTON TIMES.

Correll what is going on here? The only show I could find with Gingrich and Krauthammer on together was C-Span - APRIL 2003

GINGRICH 050519: So, an Islamist party dedicated to a constitutional system of liberty, and willing to tolerate the rights of others, it strikes me would be a totally acceptable future, and one we would have no right to reject.

U.S. Foreign Policy and the Future of Iraq

The panelists discussed U.S. foreign policy. Topics included the meaning of war, the war on Iraq, world terrorism, and the role of the United Nations. After their presentations the panelists answered audience members' questions.

www.c-span.org

That’s five weeks after the start of the invasion.

I don't know. Could be you could not find it. Could be, after nearly twenty years, I don't remember it as clearly as an autistic freak.

Either way, doesn't really change anything.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

POST#3292

Did AMERICAN POLICY after the invasion include nation building as we have been discussing?

NFBW wrote: Of course it was “after” the invasion. You lied. You didn’t hear the Krauthammer Gingrich nation building argument until five weeks after the invasion started. POST#3297

NFBW wrote: Before the invasion those two warmongers were hyping the WMD arguments for war that SH was gonna kill us all if we don’t take him out immediately. POST#3297

NFBW wrote: Here is the record on your “There was a national debate on nation building justifying war and that side won.” Your side of course. You are a liar. POST#3297

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. Iraq was presented as a good candidate for that POST#703

NFBW asked: Who made such an argument and when was it used by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq? POST#722

Correll wrote: I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument. POST#741

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

 

[Correll]

POST#3292

NFBW wrote: Of course it was “after” the invasion. You lied. You didn’t hear the Krauthammer Gingrich nation building argument until five weeks after the invasion started.

NFBW wrote: Before the invasion those two warmongers were hyping the WMD arguments for war that SH was gonna kill us all if we don’t take him out immediately.

NFBW wrote: Here is the record on your “There was a national debate on nation building justifying war and that side won.”
Your side of course. You are a liar.

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. Iraq was presented as a good candidate for that POST#703

NFBW asked: Who made such an argument and when was it used by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq? POST#722

Correll wrote: I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument. POST#741

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

You didn't answer my question. Did American POLICY include nation building after the invasion?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You didn't answer my question. Did American POLICY include nation building after the invasion?

You are a liar. I said “of course it was”..

NFBW wrote: Of course it was “after” the invasion. POST#3297

NFBW wrote: Are you stupid or trying to divert attention from your blatant lies. Post#3299

Meaning of of course in English - Cambridge Dictionary “of course” meaning: 1. used to say yes…

 

[Correll]

You are a liar. I said “of course it was”..
.....

So, did that come out of nowhere? Was it a surprise to you?