Rubio continues to put his foot in his mouth

[Deranged Rhino]

 

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.

 

You think a decent answer is (greatly paraphrased): "if the intelligence, which we now know was bad, says what it said, I'd still go in even knowing that the intel is bad" In other words, he removes himself from having to do any independent critical thinking and is beholden to the intel given to him by the intelligence agencies he's throwing under the bus. The same intelligence agencies he would be relying upon if he were to win the office. What are we to take from that? That he'll go to war if the intelligence agencies tell him to.

 

He flubbed the answer, twice, with double talk and backtracking. To put it another way, he missed an opportunity to put some distance between himself and the rest of the pack but instead he somehow wound up looking worse than Jeb who flubbed the exact same question in almost the exact same way.

(and, for the record, it's my belief Hillary and every other candidate should be asked the same question)

[4merper4mer]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Dude this is ridiculous. For a republican sipping water awkwardly is bad optics but for a democrat a cum stain on an intern's dress is no big deal? Think for yourself.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

Dude this is ridiculous. For a republican sipping water awkwardly is bad optics but for a democrat a cum stain on an intern's dress is no big deal? Think for yourself.

 

I never said it didn't cut both ways. Optics matter for both sides, but this is a thread about Rubio. Hillary (and Paul and Walker and Jeb) all have their own optical blunders they'll have to face, that doesn't make the water sipping any less funny.

 

[IDBillzFan]

 

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.

 

I appreciate what you're doing here. I really do. It's fine work.

 

But no sensible person -- and you strike me as a very sensible person -- would ever think the water sipping thing "looked real bad." It was a little embarrassing for a handful of hours, but very few people who don't have DailyKos as their home page remember or care.

 

Since you haven't figured it out by now, let me be the one to save you the trouble: Magox doesn't usually jump at bait like this.

Edited May 18, 2015 by LABillzFan

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I appreciate what you're doing here. I really do. It's fine work.

 

But no sensible person -- and you strike me as a very sensible person -- would ever think the water sipping thing "looked real bad." It was a little embarrassing for a handful of hours, but very few people who don't have DailyKos as their home page remember or care.

 

Since you haven't figured it out by now, let me be the one to save you the trouble: Magox doesn't usually jump at bait like this.

 

I never said it was a big deal, Crayonz did. I just said it was funny and looked bad, which at the time it did in the embarrassing sense of the word. It doesn't make him unfit for the office, it's just an easy punchline that will be used by the left.

[GG]

 

You think a decent answer is (greatly paraphrased): "if the intelligence, which we now know was bad, says what it said, I'd still go in even knowing that the intel is bad" In other words, he removes himself from having to do any independent critical thinking and is beholden to the intel given to him by the intelligence agencies he's throwing under the bus. The same intelligence agencies he would be relying upon if he were to win the office. What are we to take from that? That he'll go to war if the intelligence agencies tell him to.

 

He flubbed the answer, twice, with double talk and backtracking. To put it another way, he missed an opportunity to put some distance between himself and the rest of the pack but instead he somehow wound up looking worse than Jeb who flubbed the exact same question in almost the exact same way.

 

(and, for the record, it's my belief Hillary and every other candidate should be asked the same question)

Part of the answer is that he's exercising good executive judgment in not throwing his potential subordinates under the bus, without having all the information.

[Azalin]

 

I never said it was a big deal, Crayonz did. I just said it was funny and looked bad, which at the time it did in the embarrassing sense of the word. It doesn't make him unfit for the office, it's just an easy punchline that will be used by the left.

 

To be honest, my perception of the media laughing at Rubio over his drink of water made them look ridiculous, not Rubio. I remember thinking at the time 'is this the best they can do against this guy?'

 

The left is going to go after Rubio with everything they've got. A young, charsmatic latino replublican could stand to upset quite a few of the proverbial apple carts within the democrat party. Best to get him out of the way as early as possible.

 

I don't mean that as an endorsement of Rubio - I don't feel much enthusiasm for any of the announced candidates, regardless of party.

[3rdnlng]

 

I never said it didn't cut both ways. Optics matter for both sides, but this is a thread about Rubio. Hillary (and Paul and Walker and Jeb) all have their own optical blunders they'll have to face, that doesn't make the water sipping any less funny.

 

It's about as funny, pertinent and disingenuous as the "Romney has a horse" line.

[Nanker]

A better question might be, "If you knew the Democrats would do everything they could to lose the war in Iraq and cut and run after Obama was elected forfeiting our nation's treasure and trashing the sacrifice of our dead and wounded soldiers, would you have supported going into Iraq?"

[3rdnlng]

You nailed it.

[Tiberius]

 

 

(and, for the record, it's my belief Hillary and every other candidate should be asked the same question)

Why? We are not going to invade Iraq again.

 

And Rubio does make a good point, the world IS better without Saddam. As much as I opposed the Iraq War I can't argue with that logic. Can anyone else?

[Magox]

Honest people can have honest disagreements. Of course it's debatable topic to have, is the world better without Saddam? If you were to apply facts to the argument, you could easily make the argument that the world is better.

 

"he [saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule". Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million, including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion. Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/magazine/07MAKIYA-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Not to mention all the other atrocities that occurred under his watch such as the An-Anfal campaign that is said to have killed around 200k kurds.

 

 

Whereas ISIS is responsible for less than 10% of the total mass atrocities that Saddam is responsible for.

 

Also, considering that Iran is looking to obtain a nuclear weapon, everyone, raise your hand if you believe that Saddam wouldn't have also looked to obtain nuclear capabilities as well and would have just allowed their avowed enemies to the east go unabated toward their quest to nuclear dominance in the region.

 

The bottom line, the only way that you could possibly make the argument that this is not a debatable topic is if you were to make the case that the civilians that Saddam killed had less value than the one's ISIS have murdered. Which of course would make that person a dumbass.

 

This is clearly a debatable topic for any well-reasoned thinking person.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Magox

[Deranged Rhino]

Honest people can have honest disagreements. Of course it's debatable topic to have, is the world better without Saddam? If you were to apply facts to the argument, you could easily make the argument that the world is better.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/magazine/07MAKIYA-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Not to mention all the other atrocities that occurred under his watch such as the An-Anfal campaign that is said to have killed around 200k kurds.

 

 

Whereas ISIS is responsible for less than 10% of the total mass atrocities that Saddam is responsible for.

 

Also, considering that Iran is looking to obtain a nuclear weapon, everyone, raise your hand if you believe that Saddam wouldn't have also looked to obtain nuclear capabilities as well and would have just allowed their avowed enemies to the east go unabated toward their quest to nuclear dominance in the region.

 

The bottom line, the only way that you could possibly make the argument that this is not a debatable topic is if you were to make the case that the civilians that Saddam killed had less value than the one's ISIS have murdered. Which of course would make that person a dumbass.

 

This is clearly a debatable topic for any well-reasoned thinking person.

 

Anything is a debatable topic -- regardless of whether or not you're a "well-reasoned thinking person". Hell, how many times have we seen Gatorman or JTSP debate the ridiculous or inane? Just because you can debate anything doesn't mean every debate is worth having. But here you are having it, so let's chop it up and "add facts to the argument".

 

Is the United States of America considered part of the world? You'd concede that, I'll presume. Whether or not we as a country are in a better place with Saddam gone is something to consider in this debate, is it not? So let's start with the good ol' U.S. of A:

 

Are we better off with 4,491 dead American soldiers? Are we better off with 30,000+ additional young Americans wounded and in need of long term (and expensive) health care? The war started in 2003 when the economy was flush, and yet we ran the war on a credit card to a tune of over $2 trillion -- which will expand to well over $6 trillion with interest in the next half century. Tell me, are we as a country better off without that treasure? Maybe a case could be made that we are better off if only there was an actual strategic gain from the invasion, one which secured American security for the long term future, but the evidence for that is non existent. If anything, with less treasure, less fighting power, and a war-fatigued population, America is fundamentally weaker and less secure today than we were in 2003. To argue otherwise is Gatorman level absurd.

 

Okay, so America isn't better off. Fine. Let's take a look at America's enemies. Are they better off without Saddam in power?

 

Undoubtedly the biggest enemy in the region -- even prior to the 2003 invasion -- was and still is Iran. If you hear Rubio talk about Iran, he'd agree with that statement. And yet, who benefited the most from the American invasion? The Iranians did through their proxy war against the great Satan, Saddam's Baathists, and the Sunni backed ISIS forces. Iran's influence and reach in the region has expanded dramatically since 2003 as a Shiite elite took over in what's left of Iraq. Iran is unquestionably in a more influential and threatening position in the region with Saddam out of the picture. Is that a good thing or a bad thing for the United States of America? Rubio would argue it's a bad thing -- or he would if he didn't stumble and stammer when someone reminded him of Saddam's role in limiting Tehran's influence prior to 2003. The one benefit of Saddam for American foreign policy was his ability to keep Tehran's power in check, now that's gone. As a result of our actions, Iran's strength in the region has grown exponentially. How could that possibly be viewed as a positive thing for the United States?

 

So, Saddam being gone is great news for our biggest enemy -- something Rubio would argue is bad for the world as a whole and America specifically. But what about Saddam's desire to supply terrorists? Clearly we're better off without him in power where he could one day decide to give a terrorist group funding, support, or even WMD, right?

 

Saddam was always a threat to fund and supply hostile actors against America, that was the main reason we invaded if you listen to (Vice)President Cheney talk about it, but Saddam was also a dog on America's leash. He was our bastard in power, one we funded and helped train from the day he stepped into office. His methods for stabilizing the sectarian violence in Iraq were deplorable and often genocidal, but there's no debate that Saddam was a predictable statesman. We understood him from a foreign policy perspective and knew how to deal with him, even if it meant swatting his nose with a carrier group from time to time. A Saddam led (or at least stable) Iraq kept the dogs of war at bay in the region more often than not. The conflict in Syria never, ever, would have gone on as long as it has today if Saddam was still in Baghdad. Over 220,000 Syrians and counting have lost their lives in that civil war, another country for which the world is most assuredly not a better place today than it was in 2003. With Saddam gone, a vacuum was created and nature filled that vacuum with a slew of homicidal douchebags, none of whom have a leash. Hardliners with no desire to negotiate or promote stability have taken his place, undercutting our ability to influence and stabilize the region. Worse, in Saddam's absence, Iran is now positioned as the voice of reason in the region. In other words, we took out one genocidal dictator to make us safer, and replaced him with 1,000 genocidal fighters with a death wish.

 

ISIS is fueled by the sectarian violence between Shias and Sunnis, violence that was kept in check by Saddam and his baathists while he was in power (grant it, largely through killing them). There's no believable argument that can be made which would deny the fact that the rise of ISIS is the direct result of Saddam not being in power in Iraq. According to Rubio, ISIS is an immediate and grave threat to American interests at home and abroad. How does their creation in the aftermath of Saddam's death make us safer? Is the world a better place with ISIS running amok in Iraq rather than Saddam? Is the region more stable? Is it less likely now that terrorists would find a safe-haven within ISIS and Iraq than they would have under Saddam? It would seem obvious to anyone with a fully functioning frontal lobe that the answer to both of those questions is a resounding no.

 

Of course 44 shares a ton of the blame for how the occupation and withdrawal was handled in relation to ISIS specifically, so you can obfuscate and dodge the issue by pointing that out. That's what Rubio will start to do sooner or later. But that doesn't change the answer to the original question: Is the world a better place without Saddam in power? So far we've seen it's not better for America or Syria, but it is better for Iran.

 

How about the Iraqis that you so worried about? Are they better off now?

 

In 23 years in power Saddam butchered a lot of his own people. He was a bad, bad man, there is no debate. But let's look at the facts and figures you presented. The Human Rights Watch lists only 50,000 to 100,000 Kurdish dead in the An-Afal campaign while Kurdish sources place it as high as 175,000. That's a lot and an atrocity regardless of the real number, we both can agree on that. The total number of people killed by Saddam during his reign is also highly controversial. The NYT number you offered of a million is not universally accepted and many sources place the number of dead closer to half a million, with another 300,000 (on both sides) during the Iran/Iraq war. We both can agree that the number, whatever it actually is, is too high. But how many Iraqis were killed during the war? The war alone, let alone the aftermath, killed 174,000 Iraqi civilians according to the Iraq Body Count Project, as many if not more than the number of Kurds killed during the An-Afal campaign.

 

I think it's hilariously disingenuous to dismiss ISIS's reign of terror by pointing out they've only killed %10 of the amount of people Saddam killed. That may be true (though your numbers are inflated, so there's no telling what the real numbers are), but Saddam had 23 years of power to kill his half million. ISIS has been active in the region for only the past 2 years and change. So by your own math, ISIS will top Saddam's number of victims quicker than Saddam ever dreamed. You add that up with the 174,000 civilians killed during the war, and the Iraqi body count as a direct result of the invasion is a wash when compared to Saddam's atrocities... Unless you wish to argue that the lives taken by Saddam are somehow more valuable than the lives taken by coalition forces and ISIS combined? At least with Saddam there was stability for every day Iraqis, and a growing middle class. That's no longer the case. How is their country better off now than in 2003?

 

So, in the end you're right. This is a debatable topic. But do you really want to make the argument you're making in this thread? I understand why Rubio has to make it. He's a politician and a hawk, he has no choice but to sell out if he hopes to win (which he won't). But you don't. You have the ability to think and speak for yourself without worrying about an election. Do you honestly believe the WORLD is a better place today with our country $2 to $6 trillion poorer, 4,491 dead American soldiers, another 30,000+ wounded, 1740,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, another 170,000+ dead Iraqis at the hands of ISIS in the aftermath of the occupation, a stronger more influential Tehran, and Syria in an endless state of civil war where over 220,000 people have been killed?

 

Is that really the argument you wish to make? It seems to me anyone who would take this side of the argument is not a "well-reasoned thinking person".

Why? We are not going to invade Iraq again.

 

And Rubio does make a good point, the world IS better without Saddam. As much as I opposed the Iraq War I can't argue with that logic. Can anyone else?

 

Once again you agree with Mags... Or Mags agrees with you. Gator=Mags is really gaining steam.

[Magox]

Every one sees right through you Greggy. And not many people seem to agree with you.

[Deranged Rhino]

Every one sees right through you Greggy. And not many people seem to agree with you.

 

Wonderful rebuttal, gator.

[Tiberius]

 

 

 

The war started in 2003 when the economy was flush, and yet we ran the war on a credit card to a tune of over $2 trillion -- which will expand to well over $6 trillion with interest in the next half century. Tell me, are we as a country better off without that treasure?

 

There's stupid and then there's Greg stupid! So we can add economics to the list of things you don't know about? How are we "without" that money? Just because the government borrowed the money doesn't mean it went up in smoke you ding bat. And I just started reading your ignorant screed

[Deranged Rhino]

There's stupid and then there's Greg stupid! So we can add economics to the list of things you don't know about? How are we "without" that money? Just because the government borrowed the money doesn't mean it went up in smoke you ding bat. And I just started reading your ignorant screed

 

So, we don't have to pay that money back? Is that what you're arguing, Mags? I mean Gator? I know you're a liberal, but there is no such thing as free money.

[Tiberius]

 

Maybe a case could be made that we are better off if only there was an actual strategic gain from the invasion, one which secured American security for the long term future, but the evidence for that is non existent. If anything, with less treasure, less fighting power, and a war-fatigued population, America is fundamentally weaker and less secure today than we were in 2003. To argue otherwise is Gatorman level absurd.

So a mass murdering tyrant sitting on top of an enormous supply of oil to get and buy whatever he wants was not a strategic concern? You do remember that stupid no fly zone we had to maintain, right? I was against the war but I have always given Bush the long term benefit of the doubt that if democracy takes hold there sometime in the future that is a good thing.

 

You say we are less secure?? How so? I'd love to hear this

 

So, we don't have to pay that money back? Is that what you're arguing, Mags? I mean Gator? I know you're a liberal, but there is no such thing as free money.

Sure, we pay it back mostly to ourselves, seeing how we mostly borrowed it from ourselves and spent it on ourselves. Money doesn't just disappear

[Deranged Rhino]

You say we are less secure?? How so? I'd love to hear this

 

If you actually read my post, the answer will reveal itself.

[reddogblitz]

Every one sees right through you Greggy. And not many people seem to agree with you.

 

Count me among the not many.