Deranged Rhino Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share Posted May 17, 2015 Hillary didn't vote FOR the war, she voted to give the president a bargaining chip to force Saddams hand in the hope he wouldn't have to invade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 <--------I'm afraid of the NSA Is that D-Bag code so NSA doesn't understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share Posted May 17, 2015 Rubio's Sunday trip to friendly Fox News doesn't do him any favors digging out of his hole. If a friendly Chris Wallace can rattle Rubio to the point of making the man stammer and stutter, do we really want him as our president? He refused to even answer the question, instead doubling down on it being a ridiculous question. "The world is a better place without Saddam," -- is it? Who is it a better place for? Not the Iraqis. Not us. Not the Middle East. Rubio -- against reforming the Patriot Act, against gay marriage, and for further wars in the Middle East. A record that says only one thing: BACKWARDS! Is that D-Bag code so NSA doesn't understand? It's code for your comment being one of the sillier things I've ever read on this forum. If you really believe Hillary voted for the war because she thought of it as a bargaining chip, you're either dumber than I realized or you think Hillary as a weak minded person who has no understanding of foreign policies. Which is it? Clearly anyone voting for the invasion of Iraq knew the immediate consequences of their vote. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you think Hillary is just a woman whose voting record shouldn't be held to the same standards as other politicians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Rubio's Sunday trip to friendly Fox News doesn't do him any favors digging out of his hole. If a friendly Chris Wallace can rattle Rubio to the point of making the man stammer and stutter, do we really want him as our president? He refused to even answer the question, instead doubling down on it being a ridiculous question. "The world is a better place without Saddam," -- is it? Who is it a better place for? Not the Iraqis. Not us. Not the Middle East. Rubio -- against reforming the Patriot Act, against gay marriage, and for further wars in the Middle East. A record that says only one thing: BACKWARDS! It's code for your comment being one of the sillier things I've ever read on this forum. If you really believe Hillary voted for the war because she thought of it as a bargaining chip, you're either dumber than I realized or you think Hillary as a weak minded person who has no understanding of foreign policies. Which is it? Clearly anyone voting for the invasion of Iraq knew the immediate consequences of their vote. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you think Hillary is just a woman whose voting record shouldn't be held to the same standards as other politicians? Greg it is time you become a Neo-Con. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share Posted May 17, 2015 Greg it is time you become a Neo-Con. That's awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Rubio's Sunday trip to friendly Fox News doesn't do him any favors digging out of his hole. If a friendly Chris Wallace can rattle Rubio to the point of making the man stammer and stutter, do we really want him as our president? He refused to even answer the question, instead doubling down on it being a ridiculous question. "The world is a better place without Saddam," -- is it? Who is it a better place for? Not the Iraqis. Not us. Not the Middle East. Rubio -- against reforming the Patriot Act, against gay marriage, and for further wars in the Middle East. A record that says only one thing: BACKWARDS! It's code for your comment being one of the sillier things I've ever read on this forum. If you really believe Hillary voted for the war because she thought of it as a bargaining chip, you're either dumber than I realized or you think Hillary as a weak minded person who has no understanding of foreign policies. Which is it? Clearly anyone voting for the invasion of Iraq knew the immediate consequences of their vote. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you think Hillary is just a woman whose voting record shouldn't be held to the same standards as other politicians? No, Iraqis are better off without Saddam. It's easy to forget, fifteen years on, how much of a thoroughly brutal bastard he was, but I've seen the pictures of the mass graves around Baghdad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) No, Iraqis are better off without Saddam. It's easy to forget, fifteen years on, how much of a thoroughly brutal bastard he was, but I've seen the pictures of the mass graves around Baghdad. Funny how quickly people on the left simply don't remember what Saddam was doing. I understand the argument that the reason for invading was WMD and not the atrocities he was committing, but to somehow believe that the world is not a better place with a dead Sadam is just idiocy. Edited May 17, 2015 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share Posted May 17, 2015 No, Iraqis are better off without Saddam. It's easy to forget, fifteen years on, how much of a thoroughly brutal bastard he was, but I've seen the pictures of the mass graves around Baghdad. Funny how quickly people on the left simply don't remember what Saddam was doing. I understand the argument that the reason for invading was WMD and not the atrocities he was committing, but to somehow believe that the world is not a better place with a dead Sadam is just idiocy. I was a full voiced proponent of removing a dictator regardless of WMD on this board back in the lead up to the war. I'm well versed in what a bastard Saddam was to his people and the region. But are things better now? Is ISIS not worse for the Iraqi people than Saddam? I don't think there's any reasonable way to answer that question in the positive. With Saddam there was at the very least stability -- now? But that's just Iraq. Even if Iraq is better off (I don't agree but for the sake of argument I'll concede that point), is the world? Are we better off as a country? Hell no. We lost 4,425 young lives (another 32,000+ wounded) and more than $2 trillion in treasure -- during one of the greatest economic downturns in our history. There is no argument that can be made that we as a country are better off with Saddam out of power -- yet Rubio continues to make it. I understand hawks are gonna hawk, but to double down on the mistake is a frightening display of either hubris or ineptness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Well you can blame Obama for squandering our investment there. He's the on who turned a relatively stable state into a s hit hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 Well you can blame Obama for squandering our investment there. He's the on who turned a relatively stable state into a s hit hole. He's absolutely not blameless. No argument here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 This crap about "if you knew then what you know now" would you still......????? is complete bunk. If Greggy knew then what he knows now he would have hit the last 100 Powerball jackpots......and probably squandered the money on hookers and buying the rights to bad movie scripts about UFOs. Every moment in history can have that question asked about it. Without a Googlebot and either a time machine or an AUAAE, which the Googlebot is developing BTW, then what is the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 This crap about "if you knew then what you know now" would you still......????? is complete bunk. If Greggy knew then what he knows now he would have hit the last 100 Powerball jackpots......and probably squandered the money on hookers and buying the rights to bad movie scripts about UFOs. Every moment in history can have that question asked about it. Without a Googlebot and either a time machine or an AUAAE, which the Googlebot is developing BTW, then what is the point? It's a hypothetical question, sure. But it's not bunk. It's a valid question to any presidential candidate considering the mess we started in Iraq. The fact Rubio refuses to answer the question, and instead says the demonstrably false statement that the world is better off without Saddam (the US isn't, Iraq isn't, the middle east isn't) shows he's inept or disingenuous. Take your pick. He's an unabashed hawk who hasn't learned a thing from the blunders of 43's foreign policy, or 44's. That's why it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 It's a hypothetical question, sure. But it's not bunk. It's a valid question to any presidential candidate considering the mess we started in Iraq. The fact Rubio refuses to answer the question, and instead says the demonstrably false statement that the world is better off without Saddam (the US isn't, Iraq isn't, the middle east isn't) shows he's inept or disingenuous. Take your pick. He's an unabashed hawk who hasn't learned a thing from the blunders of 43's foreign policy, or 44's. That's why it matters. If it is a valid question on Iraq it is a valid question on any topic. Knowing now what you know then Mrs. Clinton, would you have increased security in Benghazi? Is that a fair question? There are about 1000 others and they're all bunk. As far as Iraq, they're not better off without Saddam? They were, or seemingly so until the Los Gatos foreign policy kicked in weren't they? If you knew then what you know now, would you have implemented the Los Gatos foreign policy? Would you have called ISIS the JV team? If you knew then what you know now Mr. Hiroshima, would you have invaded Pearl Harbor? If you knew then what you know now Mr. Beerboy, would you have eaten all of that chili? I don't even like Rubio but disqualifying people based on hypothetical answers to stupid questions about impossible circumstances is a good way to allow our leaders to be dictated to us by parties, the press or a multitude of other sources. I remember a few years back people saying Rubio knocked himself out of his political future by sipping water awkwardly. Meanwhile a former SoS knowingly hides her communications from the public record for multiple years then destroys her private server. And that is allowed to just wither as a story? I'm guessing this is how they do things in Sweden but in case you haven't checked lately, Sweden blows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) It's a hypothetical question, sure. But it's not bunk. It's a valid question to any presidential candidate considering the mess we started in Iraq. The fact Rubio refuses to answer the question, and instead says the demonstrably false statement that the world is better off without Saddam (the US isn't, Iraq isn't, the middle east isn't) shows he's inept or disingenuous. Take your pick. He's an unabashed hawk who hasn't learned a thing from the blunders of 43's foreign policy, or 44's. That's why it matters. A much better question would be, "where did you stand on the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and why did you come to that conclusion?" Edited May 18, 2015 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 A much better question would be, "where did you stand on the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and why did you come to that conclusion?" That allows him to dodge and stick to the party line. The point of the question is to differentiate his stance on foreign policy from the other candidates running. He's clearly taking a hard line hawk approach to counter Paul's isolationism and Walker and Jeb's lack of experience on foreign policy. It also gives him a chance to distance himself from 43's policies -- an opportunity he didn't take. Which is yet another reason why he's got no real shot to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 That allows him to dodge and stick to the party line. The point of the question is to differentiate his stance on foreign policy from the other candidates running. So why not ask what you would do with the current Iraq situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 That allows him to dodge and stick to the party line. The point of the question is to differentiate his stance on foreign policy from the other candidates running. He's clearly taking a hard line hawk approach to counter Paul's isolationism and Walker and Jeb's lack of experience on foreign policy. It also gives him a chance to distance himself from 43's policies -- an opportunity he didn't take. Which is yet another reason why he's got no real shot to win. Plus he sips water funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 It's a hypothetical question, sure. But it's not bunk. It's a valid question to any presidential candidate considering the mess we started in Iraq. The fact Rubio refuses to answer the question, and instead says the demonstrably false statement that the world is better off without Saddam (the US isn't, Iraq isn't, the middle east isn't) shows he's inept or disingenuous. Take your pick. He's an unabashed hawk who hasn't learned a thing from the blunders of 43's foreign policy, or 44's. That's why it matters. It is a completely bunk question because we know exactly what happened, but we don't know what would have happened without the invasion. The question of course is also wrapped around the complete failure of the aftermath, which was made far worse since 2011. So there is no correct answer to the hypothetical question other than telling the questioner to stop asking stupid hypotheticals which would take a hour to properly answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 So why not ask what you would do with the current Iraq situation? Why not ask both? I don't think it's a gotcha question at all, either way you approach it. The fallout from the blunder in the desert will hang over every foreign policy decision the next commander in chief will face, if Rubio (or other candidates) allow that question to rattle them (especially when asked by a friendly reporter as was Rubios case yesterday on Fox) what business do they have thinking they can be president? Plus he sips water funny. Optics matter in modern politics. And the water drinking looked real bad. Not as bad as his statements on gay marriage, the patriot act, or the Iraq invasion certainly, but there is a pattern of Rubio making himself look foolish. It is a completely bunk question because we know exactly what happened, but we don't know what would have happened without the invasion. The question of course is also wrapped around the complete failure of the aftermath, which was made far worse since 2011. So there is no correct answer to the hypothetical question other than telling the questioner to stop asking stupid hypotheticals which would take a hour to properly answer. He could have done that. But he didn't. He tried to answer it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Optics matter in modern politics. And the water drinking looked real bad. Not as bad as his statements on gay marriage, the patriot act, or the Iraq invasion certainly, but there is a pattern of Rubio making himself look foolish. He could have done that. But he didn't. He tried to answer it. And he would have been ridiculed as a dodger. And I still think he gave a decent answer by trying to disassociate the rationale for the invasion from the aftermath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts