The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[T.Lex]

Hoping for a Webb comeback when Clinton gets jailed and Sanders succumbs to old age.

Or Biden.

I think you misspelled "Jerry Brown."

 

[T.Lex]

Well, there weren't any weapons of mass destruction.

This is incorrect. They may not have been where we thought they were, or what we thought they were, or the amounts we thought they were, but Iraq did have WMD.

Intel failures? Undoubtedly. But not objective lies. Maybe subjective, in the sense that maybe they did know more than what they said, but that's different than what Trump is saying.

 

[Alpo]

I'm still waiting for Huntsman to be called in. He'd make everyone happy, including all the dems who won't vote for Billary.

 

[BogWalker]

This is incorrect. They may not have been where we thought they were, or what we thought they were, or the amounts we thought they were, but Iraq did have WMD.

Intel failures? Undoubtedly. But not objective lies. Maybe subjective, in the sense that maybe they did know more than what they said, but that's different than what Trump is saying.

We found plenty of chemical weapons. There are soldiers with VA claims due to mustard gas poisoning from the caches of mustard gas shells we captured that were leaking in storage.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I get it that you're very salty about Trump being in this race, but constantly shouting it from roof tops is getting comical, especially when you keep citing opinion pieces that only feed your views by twisting reality to the point it finally reflects those opinions.

k

this will be our last conversation on the subject, since you speak ad hom like a second language.

 

[Tombs]

This is incorrect. They may not have been where we thought they were, or what we thought they were, or the amounts we thought they were, but Iraq did have WMD.

Intel failures? Undoubtedly. But not objective lies. Maybe subjective, in the sense that maybe they did know more than what they said, but that's different than what Trump is saying.

We went to war based on faulty or fabricated intelligence and no one was held accountable. Forget the mess that this has made for us today.

What we found after we'd already invaded doesn't magically resolve that fact.

I'm going to go ahead and say it's a nice big steaming pile. We know North Korea is in possession of NUCLEAR WMDs, we know India is in possession of NUCLEAR WMDs, we know Pakistan is in possession of NUCLEAR WMDs, we know Syria is in possession of WMDs, we know Iran is on its way to being in possession of WMDs. So is Israel but of course they get a pass, why? Who knows.

Why aren't we invading these countries, if we're going to pretend the Iraq war wasn't for other various reasons?

We found plenty of chemical weapons. There are soldiers with VA claims due to mustard gas poisoning from the caches of mustard gas shells we captured that were leaking in storage.

Doesn't make an ounce of difference. It was discovered after we invaded, not because of our intelligence that lead to an invasion.

And I'm sure someone will find a way to twist my words to make it sound like I'm denigrating soldiers' service, and I'm not. I'm simply saying if we found it due to an invasion justified by faulty intelligence, that it's a ridiculous point.

 

[jamil]

Hoping for a Webb comeback when Clinton gets jailed and Sanders succumbs to old age.

Or Biden.

Biden? Really? If he replaced Hillary I would still vote for any Republican in the race before Biden. He'd be ahead of Sanders though.

I'm still waiting for Huntsman to be called in. He'd make everyone happy, including all the dems who won't vote for Billary.

At this point, yeah. I'd probably vote for Huntsman.

k

this will be our last conversation on the subject, since you speak ad hom like a second language.

Honestly I don't think the jawing back and forth is all that useful. Trying to look at this objectively, you pretty much got what you gave.

We went to war based on faulty or fabricated intelligence and no one was held accountable. Forget the mess that this has made for us today.

What we found after we'd already invaded doesn't magically resolve that fact.

No one was held accountable because the commission said there wasn't anyone who needed to be held accountable. Maybe that's bull****. Probably is. But you and I don't have all the information to call that a verified fact. Personally, I strongly suspect that somehow or other, Bush was going to get his war. Before we had the "slam dunk" intelligence, Bush made it clear what he wanted to do. That's how railroading works. Just make it happen.

But that's just a suspicion. And I'm just a guy on the internet posting his opinion. Trump is a presidential candidate, where the expectations and standards of conduct should be much higher. He gets to use language that "Bush lied", when he has facts that he can make public to show it.

 

[T.Lex]

We went to war based on faulty or fabricated intelligence and no one was held accountable.

Remind me who was held accountable for Gulf of Tonkin?

The world, let alone politics, doesn't really work like that.

Unless you count Obama getting elected as the electorate holding Republicans responsible. That's kinda how accountability works in politics.

What we found after we'd already invaded doesn't magically resolve that fact.

Confirmation is confirmation. No magic required. Fundamentally, the intel was right - Iraq had WMD. A bit more abstractly, but as important, it became clear that Saddam THOUGHT he had more WMD than he really did.

I'm going to go ahead and say it's a nice big steaming pile.

Ok, but that doesn't make it so.

We know North Korea is in possession of NUCLEAR WMDs, we know India is in possession of NUCLEAR WMDs, we know Pakistan is in possession of NUCLEAR WMDs, we know Syria is in possession of WMDs, we know Iran is on its way to being in possession of WMDs. So is Israel but of course they get a pass, why? Who knows.

Why aren't we invading these countries, if we're going to pretend the Iraq war wasn't for other various reasons?

Well, first we have to agree on what time-reference we're going to talk about. Back when we invaded Iraq, or now? Partly because of Iraq, the world is different now.

One thing that is the same is that Israel, Pakistan and India are relatively stable and open about their programs. Syria is, of course, problematic now, but back then was considered stable.

Iran is a different situation.

If we are going to go down this road, it is also important to note that after the invasion of Iraq for WMD Libya abandoned and disclosed its WMD program.

Doesn't make an ounce of difference. It was discovered after we invaded, not because of our intelligence that lead to an invasion.

This is a confusing paragraph It concedes that WMD was found, after intel predicted there was WMD, and the case made that we should go to war for WMD, but that it doesn't make a difference?

And I'm sure someone will find a way to twist my words to make it sound like I'm denigrating soldiers' service, and I'm not.

I can separate the two just fine, although I can't necessarily guarantee the same from the INGOtariate.

I'm simply saying if we found it due to an invasion justified by faulty intelligence, that it's a ridiculous point.

This is quite a digression, that probably deserves its own thread, though. Again.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Biden? Really? If he replaced Hillary I would still vote for any Republican in the race before Biden. He'd be ahead of Sanders though.

At this point, yeah. I'd probably vote for Huntsman. .

Biden and Trump, you're getting a liberal SCOTUS justice either way. But Trump is further to the Left of Biden politically, and Trump is smarter. I don't want a Smart Obama. I want a dull, boring, stupid weak Democrat like Biden if given those as a choice.

At least Biden would be more funny and less embarrassing.

Trying to look at this objectively, you pretty much got what you gave.

90% of the time, I'm sharing reporting and articles critical of Trump. I rarely do personal attacks on users unless they make that their preferred method of discourse. It is, definitely, a waste of time. So I'm done wasting my time with a few users. Those wells run dry real quick, and I can only read the same Obama-worship apologist stuff so many times before it gets tiring.

 

[pudly]

How soon we forget. Iraq had a clear and documented history of using chemical weapons.

Halabja chemical attack (Kurds)- Human Rights Watch
Iraq used chemical weapons at least 6 times against Iran- NonProliferation.org

These were not minor incidents:
Halabja- 5,000 killed, 8,000 injured (civilian)
Iraq-Iran war- 21,000 killed, 92,000 injured (military & civilian)

 

[Tombs]

Remind me who was held accountable for Gulf of Tonkin?
The world, let alone politics, doesn't really work like that.
Unless you count Obama getting elected as the electorate holding Republicans responsible. That's kinda how accountability works in politics.
Confirmation is confirmation. No magic required. Fundamentally, the intel was right - Iraq had WMD. A bit more abstractly, but as important, it became clear that Saddam THOUGHT he had more WMD than he really did.
Ok, but that doesn't make it so.
Well, first we have to agree on what time-reference we're going to talk about. Back when we invaded Iraq, or now? Partly because of Iraq, the world is different now.
One thing that is the same is that Israel, Pakistan and India are relatively stable and open about their programs. Syria is, of course, problematic now, but back then was considered stable.
Iran is a different situation.
If we are going to go down this road, it is also important to note that after the invasion of Iraq for WMD Libya abandoned and disclosed its WMD program.
This is a confusing paragraph It concedes that WMD was found, after intel predicted there was WMD, and the case made that we should go to war for WMD, but that it doesn't make a difference?
I can separate the two just fine, although I can't necessarily guarantee the same from the INGOtariate.
This is quite a digression, that probably deserves its own thread, though. Again.

My point with these other nations is that, Iraq at no point had a nuclear ballistic missile with expressed intentions of destroying Americans. North Korea does. So if Iraq was a threat to our country, but North Korea isn't, I'm left scratching my head as to what qualifies as a clear and present threat.

Some leaky mustard gas artillery shells isn't nearly as dangerous as a nuclear ballistic missile, even if it were to fall into terrorist hands, it's still not even on the same scale.

The intelligence was trumped up to mean a whole hell of a lot more than some mustard gas. It was made out to be such a threat to our nation and so time sensitive we had to invade. If I'm not remembering things wrong, there was considerable propaganda pushing that claimed they had nuclear weapons. It's not exactly easy to look back 10+ years online for unchanged articles, so I have to go from memory to some extent.

How soon we forget. Iraq had a clear and documented history of using chemical weapons.

Halabja chemical attack (Kurds)- Human Rights Watch
Iraq used chemical weapons at least 6 times against Iran- NonProliferation.org

These were not minor incidents:
Halabja- 5,000 killed, 8,000 injured (civilian)
Iraq-Iran war- 21,000 killed, 92,000 injured (military & civilian)

"What was the Gulf War."

 

[Expat]

I am not sure what the argument is on Iraq having chemical WMDs. As stated upstream, he used them before. As I recall, even the Russians acknowledged he had them, they just disagreed with what to do about it. The Clinton administration said they had them. The NY Times a year or so ago, ran a big article finally admitting that they were there, they were found and there was nothing to argue about on the subject. I have notice the argument has now changed to "well, we were only concerned about nuclear WMD".

 

[Tombs]

I am not sure what the argument is on Iraq having chemical WMDs. As stated upstream, he used them before. As I recall, even the Russians acknowledged he had them, they just disagreed with what to do about it. The Clinton administration said they had them. The NY Times a year or so ago, ran a big article finally admitting that they were there, they were found and there was nothing to argue about on the subject. I have notice the argument has now changed to "well, we were only concerned about nuclear WMD".

I guess the yellow cake just became a running joke for no reason.

 

[pudly]

"What was the Gulf War."

Who had a history of using chemical weapons leading up to the Iraq War for $1,000, Alex.

 

[T.Lex]

My point with these other nations is that, Iraq at no point had a nuclear ballistic missile with expressed intentions of destroying Americans. North Korea does. So if Iraq was a threat to our country, but North Korea isn't, I'm left scratching my head as to what qualifies as a clear and present threat.

Again, much depends on what your time reference is. Nork ballistic missile technology has had 10 years of maturing. I can't say it didn't exist back then, but it was less a threat than Hussein's stockpile being used by terrorists.

Which, technically, is pretty close to what is happening.

Regardless, the "clear and present threat" thing still requires a ranking. Both are threats. One was more "present" at the time.

If I'm not remembering things wrong, there was considerable propaganda pushing that claimed they had nuclear weapons. It's not exactly easy to look back 10+ years online for unchanged articles, so I have to go from memory to some extent.

Your memory is faulty. I'm pretty sure Powell's UN address is available. I believe he did say that there were efforts to obtain uranium, but the focus was on chemical/biological.

"What was the Gulf War."

Which one?

ETA:
I guess I somewhat misremembered, too. Biological was the focus:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa

 

[jamil]

Biden and Trump, you're getting a liberal SCOTUS justice either way. But Trump is further to the Left of Biden politically, and Trump is smarter. I don't want a Smart Obama. I want a dull, boring, stupid weak Democrat like Biden if given those as a choice.

At least Biden would be more funny and less embarrassing.



90% of the time, I'm sharing reporting and articles critical of Trump. I rarely do personal attacks on users unless they make that their preferred method of discourse. It is, definitely, a waste of time. So I'm done wasting my time with a few users. Those wells run dry real quick, and I can only read the same Obama-worship apologist stuff so many times before it gets tiring.

I guess you're more convinced of Trump's current ideology than me. The other day my son asked me what I thought of Trump and what I thought he'd do as president. I told him I honestly have no idea, except that it will definitely benefit Trump in some personal way.

Everything he says publicly, he says to close the deal. Is he honest about what he's most recently said about the 2nd amendment? I dunno. But I do know what Joe Biden has said and done about it. The only Democrat that I could think of that could run that I'd vote for over the least Republican is Jim Web. And perhaps I'd vote for him over the squishy Republicans in the race. Including Rubio.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not this crap again.

 

[jamil]

Not this crap again.

Ambiguous. Too much crap to know which.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ambiguous. Too much crap to know which.

That's because you post blocked me.

I was referring to the Bush lied crap.

 

[BugI02]

My point with these other nations is that, Iraq at no point had a nuclear ballistic missile with expressed intentions of destroying Americans. North Korea does. So if Iraq was a threat to our country, but North Korea isn't, I'm left scratching my head as to what qualifies as a clear and present threat....

Tombs, I don't think anyone is discounting the DPRK as a 'clear and present' threat. I think that having the worlds sixth largest standing army (depending on whose figures you accept) and being hard upon the chinese border somewhat constrain the strategic options regarding them. Providing we get a president with a set in November I would certainly send an envoy to the chinese and tell them privately that if the DPRK launches on us we will utterly obliterate them and the PRC would be wise to stay out of the way.