New Iraq report reminds us what a real issue is

Thing1 said:
How many people died because of Hillary using private email? How many terrorist groups formed as a result?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/europe/uk-iraq-inquiry-chilcot-report/

"Chilcot said former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was warned of the risks of regional instability and the rise of terrorism before the invasion of Iraq, but pressed on regardless."
Click to expand...
This report confirms what we knew all along! The report stated that there should have been more of a challenge but there wasn't. It still boggles my mind the way both countries representatives just rolled over for Bush and Blair.
 
Rana said:
This report confirms what we knew all along! The report stated that there should have been more of a challenge but there wasn't. It still boggles my mind the way both countries representatives just rolled over for Bush and Blair.
Click to expand...

Bush in particular did an outstanding job of framing the vote for war around patriotism. You were either on his side, or you were a traitor. It took a lot of political courage to oppose him at that time.

Not making excuses for the politicians who went along with it, but it's really despicable what they did. They treated the concept of war so lightly. It should always be a last resort.
 
cawacko said:
This is the defense of Hillary's email behavior? Point to a war she voted for?
Click to expand...

Not at all. If there are threads about her war vote, I'll join in enthusiastically criticizing her for her expediency & part in that war. I've even started a few.

Just pointing out that this email thing is the classic tempest in a teacup. There just isn't any there there.
 
No junior senator wants to be called a traitor by their President.
That is exactly how Cheney and Bush framed the vote.
 
cawacko said:
This is the defense of Hillary's email behavior? Point to a war she voted for?
Click to expand...

Benghazi would have been a more appropriate example.

So, calculating proportionally and assuming that those lives cut short in Iraq are worth as much attention as the lives cut short in Benghazi, House Republicans would have launched 6,750 investigations of the Iraq war to have been conducted over the course of 4,500 years. Wouldn't that have been absurd?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/28/congressional_republican_investigations_of_iraq_and_benghazi_compared.html
 
Thing1 said:
Not at all. If there are threads about her war vote, I'll join in enthusiastically criticizing her for her expediency & part in that war. I've even started a few.

Just pointing out that this email thing is the classic tempest in a teacup. There just isn't any there there.
Click to expand...

How many prior Presidential nominees have been under potential criminal review by the FBI? The whole point of a year long campaign to run for President is attempting to project how one will behave once in office. (Of course no one knows what they will actually do as President until they are in the office.) We know Hillary voted for this war and we know she has made extremely poor choices regarding potential national security risks with her email choice. How do those choices she made make her a good presidential candidate?
 
Thing1 said:
Bush in particular did an outstanding job of framing the vote for war around patriotism. You were either on his side, or you were a traitor. It took a lot of political courage to oppose him at that time.

Not making excuses for the politicians who went along with it, but it's really despicable what they did. They treated the concept of war so lightly. It should always be a last resort.
Click to expand...

did your congressperson and senators vote for the war?
 
cawacko said:
How many prior Presidential nominees have been under potential criminal review by the FBI? The whole point of a year long campaign to run for President is attempting to project how one will behave once in office. (Of course no one knows what they will actually do as President until they are in the office.) We know Hillary voted for this war and we know she has made extremely poor choices regarding potential national security risks with her email choice. How do those choices she made make her a good presidential candidate?
Click to expand...

I don't think she IS a good presidential candidate. You're talking about a separate question.

I do think this email story is completely overblown. If it's anyone but Hillary, it's probably a one news-cycle kind of story, and that's it.
 
Rana said:
Benghazi would have been a more appropriate example.

So, calculating proportionally and assuming that those lives cut short in Iraq are worth as much attention as the lives cut short in Benghazi, House Republicans would have launched 6,750 investigations of the Iraq war to have been conducted over the course of 4,500 years. Wouldn't that have been absurd?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/28/congressional_republican_investigations_of_iraq_and_benghazi_compared.html
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Politicians who couldn't be bothered to check into whether pre-war intel was manipulated, or whether it was a good idea to disband the Iraqi army, all of a sudden perk up and demand the most thorough kind of scrutiny & investigative work when Hillary is involved.

It's pretty obvious from any kind of objective standpoint.
 
Thing1 said:
I don't think she IS a good presidential candidate. You're talking about a separate question.

I do think this email story is completely overblown. If it's anyone but Hillary, it's probably a one news-cycle kind of story, and that's it.
Click to expand...

No disrespect but I completely disagree with you. If you are Sec of State and you run for President after pulling what she did it is going to be an issue. This speaks to decision making and judgement and involved potential national security risks. Sure, if you like her you're going to try and downplay this and if you don't like her you'll try to make it as big as possible but I don't know you objectively say this has no bearing on what her decision making might be like in the White House.
 
Trump is accused of raping an underage girl and defrauding people, but I don't see much Cawacky moralizing about that.
 
cawacko said:
No disrespect but I completely disagree with you. If you are Sec of State and you run for President after pulling what she did it is going to be an issue. This speaks to decision making and judgement and involved potential national security risks. Sure, if you like her you're going to try and downplay this and if you don't like her you'll try to make it as big as possible but I don't know you objectively say this has no bearing on what her decision making might be like in the White House.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not saying that it has no bearing, or that she isn't already a pretty weak candidate.

Listening to Trump & some other righties yesterday, I would have thought she was behind 9/11 or something. I just think this is completely overblown. Is it a consideration for voters? Sure. Like other SOS's, she used private email. She was also pretty careless about it. It was bad judgment.

But it wasn't intentional, or insidious, or traitorous. Ultimately, there is no damage to our national security that anyone has been able to identify. Just one of Bush's decisions in the Iraq War - disbanding their army - had enormous effects in terms of lives lost and instability caused, and it probably got about one news cycle. That's the point of the OP.
 
Thing1 said:
Again, I'm not saying that it has no bearing, or that she isn't already a pretty weak candidate.

Listening to Trump & some other righties yesterday, I would have thought she was behind 9/11 or something. I just think this is completely overblown. Is it a consideration for voters? Sure. Like other SOS's, she used private email. She was also pretty careless about it. It was bad judgment.

But it wasn't intentional, or insidious, or traitorous. Ultimately, there is no damage to our national security that anyone has been able to identify. Just one of Bush's decisions in the Iraq War - disbanding their army - had enormous effects in terms of lives lost and instability caused, and it probably got about one news cycle. That's the point of the OP.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Cawacko has misogyny issues. It seems like he tries to make everything about Hillary, even when it's not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top