>> Are you claiming that Iraq did not in fact invade and conquer Kuwait?
> I am claiming that the Nayirah testimony helped manufacture consent for US military involvement.
Oh, I see. I think the difference is that wasn't really the casus belli for the Gulf War (the Wikipedia entry doesn't mention Nayirah at all, for instance), while the WMD lie was the literal casus belli for the Iraq War.
> You claimed that the problem of the last few years was blatant lies gaining traction in the marketplace of ideas. I am pointing out that lies have forever gained traction in the marketplace of ideas, while also being co-signed by authoritative news sources and politicians.
I think we're using different definitions of "blatant." I'm talking about stuff like QAnon or Stop the Steal. In comparison, the lies you're talking about are far more credible and believable.
> I am claiming that the Nayirah testimony helped manufacture consent for US military involvement.
Oh, I see. I think the difference is that wasn't really the casus belli for the Gulf War (the Wikipedia entry doesn't mention Nayirah at all, for instance), while the WMD lie was the literal casus belli for the Iraq War.
> You claimed that the problem of the last few years was blatant lies gaining traction in the marketplace of ideas. I am pointing out that lies have forever gained traction in the marketplace of ideas, while also being co-signed by authoritative news sources and politicians.
I think we're using different definitions of "blatant." I'm talking about stuff like QAnon or Stop the Steal. In comparison, the lies you're talking about are far more credible and believable.