This question already has an answer here:

Consider the following sentence:

"The president simply obfuscates in pretending that the world would be the same even if it were not for the Iraq war."

The way I understood it: The president is aware that the world would NOT be the same if it were not for the Iraq War, but is pretending otherwise to confuse others/conceal the truth. (Probably to push his own agenda). Is this correct?

The question posted earlier on StackExchange is about the meaning of "obfuscate BY pretending that" while I am interested in the meaning of "obfuscate IN pretending that". Therefore, are previous answers still applicable to my new question? (In other words, is the meaning basically the same as in the previous question?)

marked as duplicate by AndyT, Drew, Gary, Glorfindel, user66974 May 7 '17 at 11:34

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – tchrist Apr 22 '17 at 18:56

Minor correction: it's about the Iraq war, not the Cold War. Apart from that, your understanding is correct. Another way to say it would be (changes highlighted):

The president simply obfuscates the truth by pretending that the world would be the same even if it were not for the Iraq war.

  • So this minor correction--the Iraq War vs. the Cold War--would that be the Iraq War beween Iran and Iraq during the 1980s, or would it have to do with the US. Invasion and Liberation in 1991 (or later, I may have that date wrong) under Bush I? I personally don't remember any statement like the basic one you're contending. Perhaps you can remind me. – Xanne Apr 20 '17 at 10:56
  • @Xanne - In the original post Joe11 quoted about the Iraq war, but in his interpretation mentioned the Cold war instead. ParaDice isn't professing any knowledge of where this quote comes from. – AndyT Apr 20 '17 at 11:02
  • So nobody seems to know anything about where their stuff came from or what it means or why they're doing it or why it was done before and wasn't satisfactory or who put them up to it.. So I'd say this is external manipulation on political (no definitive answer) topics. by people, possibly controlled by others, unable to cite sources and explain questions. What do we do? Close? Delete? I've said everything I can say; time to sleep. Enjoy. – Xanne Apr 20 '17 at 11:11

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.