Sen. Marco Rubio Agreed with Invasion of Iraq

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2015 6:36 PM GMT
    NYT: Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has not yet offered his view on the question, but in a 2010 Senate debate his answer to a question about whether Iraq is better off because of the United States military presence and the war, he did not sound much different than Mr. Bush’s response.

    “I think ultimately, yes,” he said, surmising that Iraq would be in an arms race with Iran if it had not been toppled. “First of all, the world is better off because Saddam Hussein is no longer in charge.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/13/iraq-war-remains-a-quagmire-that-republicans-hope-to-avoid/?
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4435

    May 13, 2015 7:44 PM GMT
    Boy, that is the company line isn't it. No interest in the 3,000 plus American men who died for worse than nothing or the tens of thousands who were maimed. Or the hundreds of thousand Iraqi's that died. Or the destabilizing of the "Mexican standoff" of the religious crazies. Rubio is slime.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2015 11:44 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidBoy, that is the company line isn't it. No interest in the 3,000 plus American men who died for worse than nothing or the tens of thousands who were maimed. Or the hundreds of thousand Iraqi's that died. Or the destabilizing of the "Mexican standoff" of the religious crazies. Rubio is slime.

    +1
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    May 14, 2015 1:11 AM GMT
    This appears to be the new Republican litmus test for candidates...
    you must agree that you would invade Iraq all over again, even if you knew the intelligence was faked.
    It's not that different from how they all pretend there is no such thing as global warming or that evolution never happened. icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    May 14, 2015 12:38 PM GMT
    FYI, the hapless Hillary ho also supported the invasion of Iraq last decade. So she is slime as well. A lot of your beloved donkey dorks are war hawks because they have been bought by the defense contractors and are now beholden to them. The hapless Hillary ho would say she opposes anymore involvement in Iraq but if she gets elected you just watch that scummy, power hungry whore automatically switch sides and become a major backer of getting involved in Iraq and even Afghanistan again because she is a war mongering, backstabbing bimbo who is only interested in following the money trail while putting the lives of our American troops in serious jeopardy and costing American taxpayers billions of dollars for another unnecessary war effort. So all of you need to terminate your republican bashing because the large majority of your beloved donkey dorks are no damned better. Stop being such blind, brain dead sycophants to the Democratic Party.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    May 14, 2015 1:18 PM GMT
    So everyone knows. When the OP of this thread posts something.

    The complete opposite is true.


    Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said Wednesday that he would not have authorized the invasion of Iraq given what he knows today, becoming the latest candidate to weigh in on a question that has tripped up likely GOP rival Jeb Bush.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/politics/rubio-iraq-war-shift/
    Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said Wednesday that he would not have authorized the invasion of Iraq given what he knows today, becoming the latest candidate to weigh in on a question that has tripped up likely GOP rival Jeb Bush.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2015 1:51 PM GMT
    ^ I do not think you read my OP.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2015 4:03 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidFYI, the hapless Hillary ho also supported the invasion of Iraq last decade. So she is slime as well. A lot of your beloved donkey dorks are war hawks because they have been bought by the defense contractors and are now beholden to them. The hapless Hillary ho would say she opposes anymore involvement in Iraq but if she gets elected you just watch that scummy, power hungry whore automatically switch sides and become a major backer of getting involved in Iraq and even Afghanistan again because she is a war mongering, backstabbing bimbo who is only interested in following the money trail while putting the lives of our American troops in serious jeopardy and costing American taxpayers billions of dollars for another unnecessary war effort. So all of you need to terminate your republican bashing because the large majority of your beloved donkey dorks are no damned better. Stop being such blind, brain dead sycophants to the Democratic Party.


    Very well said, in all respects. +10!
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    May 14, 2015 4:11 PM GMT
    Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who has been clear and consistent on this issue.

    I dare say that will always be true about him.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    May 14, 2015 6:51 PM GMT
    woodsmen said^ I do not think you read my OP.


    I did , your title is misleading. Its not what he said yesterday.

    The few of us that are up to date on news know the difference.

    Its really irrelevant. You wouldn't vote for him even if the Devil was running against him. So what does it matter really what he said.

    In 2010, he said they were better off, and they were quite frankly , very different than the question he was asked and the response he gave yesterday.

    The Iraqi's were better off before Obama dropped the ball and didn't leave troops allowing ISIS to take over the country and slaughter innocents.

    This President is an embarrassment on foreign policy. His recent Arab "summit" only 2 countries showed up. The others stayed away in protest.

    Is Kuwait better off? Egypt? anyone asking those questions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2015 7:04 PM GMT
    ^ The initial sentence of the OP indicates at the time of the reporting Sen. Rubio has not answered. His answer is different from what he said in 2010. It seems once he heard that conservatives advise Jeb Bush that he will lose the election unless a different answer emerges that Sen. Rubio provided an answer that is inconsistent with his past answer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2015 10:29 PM GMT
    Sen. Rubio Changes Iraq Answer from March 2015

    NYT: Mr. Rubio’s own answer Wednesday seemed to offer a departure from his previous answers to such questions. In March, when asked on the Fox News program, “The Five,” if it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq, and Mr. Rubio replied, “No, I don’t believe.”

    “The world is a better place because Saddam Hussein is not in Iraq,” he said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/14/marco-rubios-answers-on-iraq-a-departure-from-the-past/?
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 15, 2015 3:04 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    woodsmen said^ I do not think you read my OP.


    I did , your title is misleading. Its not what he said yesterday.

    The few of us that are up to date on news know the difference.

    Its really irrelevant. You wouldn't vote for him even if the Devil was running against him. So what does it matter really what he said.

    In 2010, he said they were better off, and they were quite frankly , very different than the question he was asked and the response he gave yesterday.

    The Iraqi's were better off before Obama dropped the ball and didn't leave troops allowing ISIS to take over the country and slaughter innocents.

    This President is an embarrassment on foreign policy. His recent Arab "summit" only 2 countries showed up. The others stayed away in protest.

    Is Kuwait better off? Egypt? anyone asking those questions.


    Some of us are registered Democrats, so the devil running against Rubio is a non-issue. We don't vote in your primary race.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2015 4:20 PM GMT
    NYT: Mr. Rubio said, “Not only would I not have been in favor of it, President Bush would not have been in favor of it.”

    But in fact, while Mr. George W. Bush has said he was sick to learn the intelligence was off base, he has always defended his decision to invade Iraq as the right one, arguing that the world is still better off without Saddam Hussein.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/us/politics/some-ask-what-george-w-bush-would-have-done-with-different-iraq-data.html?ref=politics
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2015 4:22 AM GMT
    He thinks they're better off but we spend almost $2T over there "making it right."

    Seriously...can everybody in Washington just take a day and watch Season 2, Episode 22 of "Star Trek: Enterprise"
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    May 16, 2015 5:54 AM GMT
    20150515_invade.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2015 7:26 AM GMT
    ^
    Interesting, but the discussion is about America in the 21st century, not Britain in the 19th.

    Apart from the loss of lives and the life-changing injuries, Americans will be suffering from the Iraq War for the next 40 years, as they pay off the estimated $6,000,000,000,000 bill for this Republican* folly. How's that for 'small government'?

    *Over half of the Dems in Congress voted against the invasion of Iraq, while almost every Republican in Congress voted for it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2015 5:04 PM GMT
    Sen. Rubio Defensive in Saying Iraq Invasion Was Not A Mistake

    NYT: Senator Marco Rubio of Florida struggled on Sunday to give clear answers about whether it was a mistake for the United States to go to war against Iraq in 2003, becoming the latest Republican presidential candidate to trip on the wisdom of the military invasion.

    Under a barrage of questions from Chris Wallace of Fox News, Mr. Rubio repeatedly said “it was not a mistake” for President George W. Bush to order the invasion based on the intelligence he had at the time. But Mr. Rubio grew defensive as Mr. Wallace pressed him to say flatly whether he now believed the war was a mistake.

    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/17/marco-rubio-struggles-with-question-on-iraq-war/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2015 5:11 PM GMT
    Republican Voters Confused Over Sen. Rubio's Comparison of Iraq War to Boxing Match

    NYT: “Based on what we know, a lot of things — based on what we know now, I wouldn’t have thought Manny Pacquiao was going to beat, uh, in that fight a couple weeks ago — — ” Mr. Rubio said before Mr. Wallace interrupted.

    Mr. Rubio’s readiness for the presidency has been questioned among some Republican voters, given than he is a 43-year-old first-term senator, and moments like the boxing reference seemed discordant on a subject like the Iraq war.

    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/17/marco-rubio-struggles-with-question-on-iraq-war/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2015 9:59 PM GMT
    sunjbill said
    So along with all the evil republicans, the following evil democrats who voted FOR the invasion should all be fired (NOTE: i have not searched on who is and is not still in office):
    58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:
    Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).


    And 60% of House Dems voted against.

    Maybe they should be fired, but that is for voters to decide. Some, mostly Dems (including Clinton) and a few Republicans too, have said they were wrong to have voted as they did. It does not alter the fact this was an overwhelmingly Republican-driven war.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    May 17, 2015 10:13 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said^
    Interesting, but the discussion is about America in the 21st century, not Britain in the 19th.

    Apart from the loss of lives and the life-changing injuries, Americans will be suffering from the Iraq War for the next 40 years, as they pay off the estimated $6,000,000,000,000 bill for this Republican* folly. How's that for 'small government'?

    *Over half of the Dems in Congress voted against the invasion of Iraq, while almost every Republican in Congress voted for it.

    I heard George Bush once say 'big' government always ends in failure.
    Well, I can`t think of a better example of such government as the US led attack, occupation and colonization of Iraq!
    That the Iraqis were going to be eternally grateful to the US and behave themselves and create a democracy that even began to resemble ours...
    Never mind the practical failures, the idea itself was seriously flawed; a product of ignorance and arrogance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2015 2:34 PM GMT
    GOP Changing Iraq Invasion Narrative as a "Mistake" But It Was Premeditated

    NYT: Yes, the narrative goes, we now know that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake, and it’s about time that everyone admits it. Now let’s move on.

    Well, let’s not — because that’s a false narrative. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war. The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at that. We were, in a fundamental sense, lied into war.

    And at this point we have plenty of evidence to confirm everything the war’s opponents were saying. We now know, for example, that on 9/11 itself — literally before the dust had settled — Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, was already plotting war against a regime that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/opinion/paul-krugman-errors-and-lies.html?ref=opinion
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2015 5:12 PM GMT
    woodsmen saidNYT: Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has not yet offered his view on the question, but in a 2010 Senate debate his answer to a question about whether Iraq is better off because of the United States military presence and the war, he did not sound much different than Mr. Bush’s response.

    “I think ultimately, yes,” he said, surmising that Iraq would be in an arms race with Iran if it had not been toppled. “First of all, the world is better off because Saddam Hussein is no longer in charge.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/13/iraq-war-remains-a-quagmire-that-republicans-hope-to-avoid/?

    I agree with him. The world is a lot better off without Hussein.