Missing the big picture in the Clinton email thing

[byco42]

yes, there are hawkish democrats. I see that Bill Clinton was mentioned there, he had 8 years in office where he could have invaded Iraq, but he chose not to, why?

Of course we isolated Iraq and imposed sanctions, we worked with the UN to get weapons inspectors out there. There is a big difference between that and twisting evidence to promote a war you always wanted to have. the blame for this one goes squarely on those who met on 9/12/2001 and started talking about invading Iraq, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfled.

there is no passing the buck here, those guys own this one.

And the Dems I quoted share in the stink because they helped to generate it. You are ignoring the quotes from Dems that stated that Saddam had WMDs and the intelligence that backed up that information. I do not know why.

 

[Gulo Blue]

you don't say they're equal but then you don't say they're not equal. you reference transgressions of democrats and juxtapose those against bad behavior by democrats, they are far from equal.

You then say that it's a dead horse and stop beating it. this is one you can't just sweep under the rug, this is an atrocity, not just a simple harmless mistake. there are hudreds of thousand of lives that are ruined by the decision to invade Iraq. Should we all just shrug our shoulders and say "hey, it's in the past, no need to dwell on it, just let it go?"

I guess there are only 2 possible solutions: point to this whenever anyone else is accused of doing anything else, or forget about and let it go. Bring it up always or never. Anybody that has a problem with either of these approaches is in favor of the other one.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I guess there are only 2 possible solutions: point to this whenever anyone else is accused of doing anything else, or forget about and let it go. Bring it up always or never. Anybody that has a problem with either of these approaches is in favor of the other one.

I'm going to point to this 50% of the time whenever anybody else does anything wrong for the rest of this year.

In 2016 I'm going to go to one out of every three times, and then in 2017 I'm going to go to one out of every four times, and so on and so forth for every subsequent year that follows, Until basically pointing to this will have run its course.

 

[Sbee]

And the Dems I quoted share in the stink because they helped to generate it. You are ignoring the quotes from Dems that stated that Saddam had WMDs and the intelligence that backed up that information. I do not know why.

they did believe the intelligence reports, but they looking to seize on the post 9/11 hysteria to conduct this war that they've wanted to have for years. I have a problem with democrats who voted to authorize the president to conduct the war that he was dying to have, though it was Bush/Cheney beating the drum. Dick Armey opposed the war initially but had one on one briefings with cheney where he told him that Saddam had direct contact with Al qaeda terrorist planning a suitcase bomb in the US, though there was no evidence to back that up.

How do you explain the meeting on 9/12 where Dick Clarke told the president that this was Al Qaeda 100% and they were still talking about invading Iraq?

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm going to point to this 50% of the time whenever anybody else does anything wrong for the rest of this year.

In 2016 I'm going to go to one out of every three times, and then in 2017 I'm going to go to one out of every four times, and so on and so forth for every subsequent year that follows, Until basically pointing to this will have run its course.

I'm putting you in both columns then, wrong for bringing it up and wrong for letting it go. And since you're taking both sides, I'm going to consider you a double hypocrite for also taking both sides you sometimes disagree with. These things stack, they don't cancel.

 

[Michchamp]

I guess there are only 2 possible solutions: point to this whenever anyone else is accused of doing anything else, or forget about and let it go. Bring it up always or never. Anybody that has a problem with either of these approaches is in favor of the other one.

Sure, if someone was consistent, it's obviously not fair to point to it, but can you at least bring it up to people that shriek about Billary's private email use, but for years rolled their eyes and shrugged their shoulders and said "meh" over scandals like this, this, or this, and continue to do so today?

 

[Michchamp]

I'm putting you in both columns then, wrong for bringing it up and wrong for letting it go. And since you're taking both sides, I'm going to consider you a double hypocrite for also taking both sides you sometimes disagree with. These things stack, they don't cancel.

Look at you putting people in boxes. I guess you'll probably blame me for that.

 

[Spartanmack]

you don't say they're equal but then you don't say they're not equal. you reference transgressions of democrats and juxtapose those against bad behavior by democrats, they are far from equal.

You then say that it's a dead horse and stop beating it. this is one you can't just sweep under the rug, this is an atrocity, not just a simple harmless mistake. there are hudreds of thousand of lives that are ruined by the decision to invade Iraq. Should we all just shrug our shoulders and say "hey, it's in the past, no need to dwell on it, just let it go?"

I'm not sweeping anything under the rug. And I'm not a Bush apologist even though you, michturd and bob desperately need me to be. I just don't buy into your stupid, predictable, tired and overplayed deflections. When discussing Hillary and any one of her multitude of scandals, what happened under the Bush administration is irrelevant.

I've discussed Bush and the war and made my position abundantly clear on relevant threads (although, it's clear you, Turd and Bob still have no idea what my position is). Virtually every thread devolves into that conversation - at least every thread that mentions any Democrats behaving badly. It's a waste of time.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm going to point to this 50% of the time whenever anybody else does anything wrong for the rest of this year.

In 2016 I'm going to go to one out of every three times, and then in 2017 I'm going to go to one out of every four times, and so on and so forth for every subsequent year that follows, Until basically pointing to this will have run its course.

You should start out at 60% because 60% of the time it works every time.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Sure, if someone was consistent, it's obviously not fair to point to it, but can you at least bring it up to people that shriek about Billary's private email use, but for years rolled their eyes and shrugged their shoulders and said "meh" over scandals like this, this, or this, and continue to do so today?

I thought I covered both ends of it in that post. That was my intent anyway.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Look at you putting people in boxes. I guess you'll probably blame me for that.

 

[Gulo Blue]

...can you at least bring it up to people that shriek about Billary's private email use...

More significantly, did you notice the very 1st post in this thread? Not exactly what you're asking for, but come on, I started this thread being critical of people getting too hung up on the email thing.

Those two posts you responded to were sarcastic. This thread eventually reached the thing I was complaining about.

 

[Michchamp]

...

Those two posts you responded to were sarcastic. This thread eventually reached the thing I was complaining about.

I got the sense you were being sarcastic, but decided you weren't really known for sarcasm, so hedged by sort-of answering you seriously.

 

[Spartanmack]

That's a huge reach, but I expect it from you. You say that they lie, cheat, and steal without any specific examples. Getting elected is not a process for those who aren't cutthroat. The fact that the Clintons have been in the public eye for 20+ years gives those who hate liberals a lot of ammunition.

After 20 years, you really need me to provide specific examples? try a quick google search.

You say I'm a sheep that blindly supports the Clintons? never mind that I said that I would reluctantly vote for her over the majority of the republican field just because she's part of the grown up party, the one that believes in science, guns not being the answer to everything, that a deity in the sky doesn't control the weather, and we shouldn't sit around and debate if women who are raped can have an abortion. She is very much corporate owned and hawkish, the things that Bernie isn't.

I know it fits the narrative to say that I'm a blind Hillary supporter. I don't particularly care for her and I think this email "scandal" is just a way to affect poll numbers.

I said you're a sheep who blindly swallows her excuses - something you've admitted to in this thread when you said you don't believe she did anything improper because it can't be proved despite the fact that any evidence was destroyed by her by her own admission. You also said you didn't read the Reuters article detailing why what she did was probably a crime so in your mind, since you didn't read it, nothing changed. And I think we've been over the science argument a few times - nice to see you're still perpetuating yet another Dem myth.

 

[Sbee]

After 20 years, you really need me to provide specific examples? try a quick google search.



I said you're a sheep who blindly swallows her excuses - something you've admitted to in this thread when you said you don't believe she did anything improper because it can't be proved despite the fact that any evidence was destroyed by her by her own admission. You also said you didn't read the Reuters article detailing why what she did was probably a crime so in your mind, since you didn't read it, nothing changed. And I think we've been over the science argument a few times - nice to see you're still perpetuating yet another Dem myth.

I don't really concern myself with the excuses because it's not a big deal, it's just politics, trying to drag her name trough the mud ahead of the election.

My point is that you have this steady stream of vitriol towards the Clintons (all liberals actually) that prevents any objectivity on the issue. The catastrophic end result of her keeping her emails on a personal server is ___________________?

You should stick to the legitimate reasons not to like Hillary, like the fact that your top line income will be taxes at 38%, people may pay inheritance taxes on money over 40m, we might enact environmental restrictions that won't make the oil and gas industries happy, etc, you know, the real pressing problems.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't really concern myself with the excuses because it's not a big deal, it's just politics, trying to drag her name trough the mud ahead of the election.

My point is that you have this steady stream of vitriol towards the Clintons (all liberals actually) that prevents any objectivity on the issue. The catastrophic end result of her keeping her emails on a personal server is ___________________?

You should stick to the legitimate reasons not to like Hillary, like the fact that your top line income will be taxes at 38%, people may pay inheritance taxes on money over 40m, we might enact environmental restrictions that won't make the oil and gas industries happy, etc, you know, the real pressing problems.

"unknown*"

*because the evidence was destroyed without an independent review. We don't and may never know the harm caused. Was her email hacked? Were bad people able to access information such as the travel itinerary of her employees at our embassies? Were they aware of security deficiencies noted in those emails? We may never know but a Dem administration thinks it's worthy of investigating. But you conveniently ignore that so you can just stick our head in the sand and say it's all politics and hatred from the right despite obvious facts to the contrary.

I have no shortage of reasons for disliking Hillary and contrary to your repeated misstatement, my dislike of politicians isn't exclusive to liberals.