Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Jokes aside, wasn't it Bush that started the waterboarding thing in Gitmo? Obama inherited a lot of stupid stuff from the Bush adminstration.

[Angle]

Yeah, but he took his own sweet time shutting it down.

[mainiac]

Wasn't the waterboarding stopped long before Obama was a candidate, let alone president?

[Loud Whispers]

no

[Frumple]

Bush did issue a ban in '06, but apparently it was still enough of an issue that barack felt the need to issue another one in '09, that also included other torture methods. Make of that what you will.

[Kazturkey]

Literally almost every high ranking cabinet member, cabinet-level executive, or even important staffer under both the Bush and Obama administrations are in some way responsible for thousands of innocent deaths. Not to excuse such deadly and ironic shows of force, but Hillary just officially sanctioned the expansion of the program. As for Benghazi, that was hardly her fault, and happened at level a bit below her position frankly. Indeed, the media vilified her to an extreme. I mean, do you really think that somewhat who is constantly described as hawkish would let security slip in an embassy in a hostile area if she had any knowledge of it?

She IS good at her job, damn good, and people like to pick her apart for being aggressive when the world is pretty fucking aggressive towards us. The email thing is her one major flop, and honestly is being handled incorrectly. I wouldn't doubt if that kind of thing was common place.

"All the cool kids are doing it" is not an excuse. She signed it, the buck on that one stopped with her. In my eyes, she's culpable.

Shouldn't you also blame Obama? He's the one who okays the drone warfare stuff.

I do also blame Obama, but he's not a candidate for 2016...

[Sheb]

But then, do you seriously believe any of the GOP candidates would be any better? Apart maybe from Rand Paul, they all seems even more hawkish than Hillary.

[Kazturkey]

I believe all of them at least have the potential to be better. Clinton's a proven opportunist, shallow and dishonest to the point of caricature. I really quite like Fiorina, but she has less than a snowball's chance in hell.

[Sheb]

Ok, so you don't actually know them.

[Frumple]

Have to admit, now I'm vaguely curious if there's actually a republican candidate with their ticket in the hat that's actually for reduced military spending and/or cooling down foreign adventurism. I guess I'd accept one that just doesn't want to increase either as fitting that category as well.

Will say I've pretty much taken it as a given that if they're a republican politician they're for increased military spending and probably a notable increase in political belligerence, since that's kinda' been the party's default position for... a while now.

... not curious enough to actually check, but if someone willing to respond has noticed it, it would be neat to hear about.

[Sheb]

Rand Paul?

[Frumple]

Has apparently reversed on his earlier senatorial propositions to cut military spending. So he used to be, and then he ran as a GOP candidate for president* :V

Also one of the ways he'd apparently fund the increase in military spending would be to slash foreign aid spending (buncha' other stuff, too, for what that's worth, some of which significantly more worrisome from a domestic perspective). So. Pretty sure he counts on both, now.

*Near as the news says, that's actually pretty much the literal reason for the reversal, to appease the hawkish as the buggery portion of the GOP base/political engine. Is probably the primary reason to be skeptical as the blazes that any republican candidate would be (hell, could be) less hawkish than... pretty much any democrat one. One of these two parties has increased (or at least not decreased) military spending and more political strong-arming as what amounts to a party platform.

[Morrigi]

Has apparently reversed on his earlier senatorial propositions to cut military spending. So he used to be, and then he ran as a GOP candidate for president* :V

Also one of the ways he'd apparently fund the increase in military spending would be to slash foreign aid spending (buncha' other stuff, too, for what that's worth, some of which significantly more worrisome from a domestic perspective). So. Pretty sure he counts on both, now.

*Near as the news says, that's actually pretty much the literal reason for the reversal, to appease the hawkish as the buggery portion of the GOP base/political engine. Is probably the primary reason to be skeptical as the blazes that any republican candidate would be (hell, could be) less hawkish than... pretty much any democrat one. One of these two parties has increased (or at least not decreased) military spending and more political strong-arming as what amounts to a party platform.

Indeed, Hillary Clinton would make a good Republican in that respect.

[mainiac]

I believe all of them at least have the potential to be better. Clinton's a proven opportunist, shallow and dishonest to the point of caricature.

If someone looks like a caricature... maybe you are looking at a caricature of them?

[Kazturkey]

I believe all of them at least have the potential to be better. Clinton's a proven opportunist, shallow and dishonest to the point of caricature.

If someone looks like a caricature... maybe you are looking at a caricature of them?

Or maybe she is the most perfect stereotype of a dishonest politician I've seen...