isn't it chilling to think if Gore won in 2000

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by MikeVielhaber

the second sentence was the point of his comment not the first. the one dude said it wouldve been better but he said maybe it wouldve been worse who really know what would've happened.

And I asked him to elaborate on that theory and apparently neither of you can.

[MikeVielhaber]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

And I asked him to elaborate on that theory and apparently neither of you can.

well it didn't seem a proper question to his point.....cause it was self explanatory. you dont know whether it wouldve been better or worse because it never happened and you can just predict things and present them as fact. you just dont know what would've happened had al gore been the president the past 4 years. you just dont know. is that good enough for you? most likely not. and mostlikely you have some smart ass remark and rebuttal most likely containing a rip on george bush. seems to be the trend in your posts.

[paleshadow]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

And I asked him to elaborate on that theory and apparently neither of you can.

Well, I am still interested in knowing what your thoughts are regarding Michael Moore telling people not to re-elect senators who supported the war, but calling for the election of one such senator to President. You left me hanging on that one. That's OK though. If he couldn't answer it, I don't see how anyone else could.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dontlookdown

there would be over 900 families in this country that didn't suffer the loss of a son or a husband or father.


amazing and so sad to think the potential that this country could have lived up to had we had a different president in the White House.

I am not so sure that would have happened. I know it is not popular to think it, but the Clinton/Gore Administration was set on removing SH from power and had exercised military might to make SH comply with the UN resolutions. Moreover, Clinton and Kerry have supported W's reasons for the invasion of Iraq - they just argued against the timing of it. They say, albeit somewhat after the fact, they would have waited for the inspectors to conclude the inspections and, perhaps, have gotten more world support. Gore is also on record as thinking SH had WMD. So, while I do not think Gore would have pursued the removal of SH with the zeal that W did, I am not so sure he would not have also acted to remove him after 9/11 made it imprudent to do nothing about his non-compliance with the UN resolutions. The UN was on beard with this post 9/11 thinking with Res. 1441. Everyone recognized SH had nothing to do with 9/11. The thought process was he had WMD (which turned out to be wrong) and he could make WMD - which has mostly turned out to be correct - he could transform certain facilities in little time according to Kay. So, I fully agree the way W went about the war in Iraq was a bad thing and he should be called out for it. However, I am unsure the shared reasoning behind the basic premise for the invasion - SH refused to account for his previously admitted WMD and SH was a terrorist with, according to the 9/11 report, ties to terrorist groups including Al-Q (these were slight prior ties, but ties nonetheless, and he aided and abetted a Al-Q refugee during the Afgan. conflict). So, while again, Gore may not have rushed to war, I think it is unfair to conclude he never would have done it at all or in any manner.

Note: I make no comment on the veracity of the intelligence prior to the war. I comment only on al of our political leaders' willingness and the UN's willingness in 1441 to accept it as true. It is that somewhat bilnd reliance on faulty data that I base my conclusion that like W, Gore would have had no choice to persue some type of action against SH after 9/11 to cure the unknown and potentially highly dangerous variable security threat SH respresented and would do little to dispell. That is all I am saying. I agree the intelligence was flawed. I agree W rushed to war by strectching the truth and preying on the fears of a teriified and Muslimphobic Amercia. We agree on all of that.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I am not so sure that would have happened. I know it is not popular to think it, but the Clinton/Gore Administration was set on removing SH from power and had exercised military might to make SH comply with the UN resolutions. Moreover, Clinton and Kerry have supported W's reasons for the invasion of Iraq - they just argued against the timing of it. They say, albeit somewhat after the fact, they would have waited for the inspectors to conclude the inspections and, perhaps, have gotten more world support. Gore is also on record as thinking SH had WMD. So, while I do not think Gore would have pursued the removal of SH with the zeal that W did, I am not so sure he would not have also acted to remove him after 9/11 made it imprudent to do nothing about his non-compliance with the UN resolutions. The UN was on beard with this post 9/11 thinking with Res. 1441. Everyone recognized SH had nothing to do with 9/11. The thought process was he had WMD (which turned out to be wrong) and he could make WMD - which has mostly turned out to be correct - he could transform certain facilities in little time according to Kay. So, I fully agree the way W went about the war in Iraq was a bad thing and he should be called out for it. However, I am unsure the shared reasoning behind the basic premise for the invasion - SH refused to account for his previously admitted WMD and SH was a terrorist with, according to the 9/11 report, ties to terrorist groups including Al-Q (these were slight prior ties, but ties nonetheless, and he aided and abetted a Al-Q refugee during the Afgan. conflict). So, while again, Gore may not have rushed to war, I think it is unfair to conclude he never would have done it at all or in any manner.

Note: I make no comment on the veracity of the intelligence prior to the war. I comment only on al of our political leaders' willingness and the UN's willingness in 1441 to accept it as true. It is that somewhat bilnd reliance on faulty data that I base my conclusion that like W, Gore would have had no choice to persue some type of action against SH after 9/11 to cure the unknown and potentially highly dangerous variable security threat SH respresented and would do little to dispell. That is all I am saying. I agree the intelligence was flawed. I agree W rushed to war by strectching the truth and preying on the fears of a teriified and Muslimphobic Amercia. We agree on all of that.

I think the more important question to ask is Would 9/11 have even happened under Gore?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

I think the more important question to ask is Would 9/11 have even happened under Gore?

I was wondering when you were going to bring that up!!!

Who can say. The Clinton administration of which Gore was No. 2 did not get OBL when they had the chance if the alleged story is to be believed. Much of the planning went on during Clinton's watch and they did not get catch them. Also, there is the evid. that the planew attacks were to have happened in April (I think - maybe May) but they got post-poned. Finally, Clinton/Gore never stopped any other OBL attack, except possibly the Y2K border stop, but I am unsure if that was OBL So, who can say for sure.

I do think, however, Gore would have kept much of the same team as Clinton and that team specifically warned W's new team that OBL/AQ was the biggest problem. Yet, W's team, while still concerned about Al-Q and OBL - persued America's policy of the removal of SH apparently with more vigor than trying to catch OBL, who, unlike SH, had directly attacked America two or three times prior to 9/11. In the end, I do not think without a lucky break anyone from either side could have stopped OBL and 9/11 because there was never any chance to connect the remotely located dots, etc. But, all we can do is speculate - so I say it probably would have happened - sadly.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I was wondering when you were going to bring that up!!!

Who can say. The Clinton administration of which Gore was No. 2 did not get OBL when they had the chance if the alleged story is to be believed.

Debunked and debunked again. I've posted all of that here. Use the search function if you wish. If you still don't believe me, ask yourself this: Why wouldn't he get Bin Laden? It certainly wouldn't taken some of the heat off of him.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Debunked and debunked again. I've posted all of that here. Use the search function if you wish. If you still don't believe me, ask yourself this: Why wouldn't he get Bin Laden? It certainly wouldn't taken some of the heat off of him.

Spin - period. There is no concrete evcidence that the US knew OBL was going to fly four airplanes on a suicide mission on the morning of 9/11/01. If there is, let's see it. There were memos saying OBL wanted to use planes as weapons or something like that and that he wanted to attack the US. Well, who did not know that even without those memos - the US gets thousands of threats a day. But, to argue W knew it was going to happen that day at that time and did nothing about it is just not supported by any facts I have ever read and I assert I have read most of them

I think OBL got away. There is no concrete proof it was anything other than that. So, the rest is just speculation. I mean despite the popular OBL will be "captured" on late oct. of 2004 just in time for the election, but that theory if flawed in that W's reelection would be pretty much guaranteed by "capturing" OBL at anytime Again, to argue that W let OBL get away in Afgan. makes for good conspiracy theory, but there are no facts (and I am talking facts ) to support that. If there were such facts, don't you think MM would have SCREAMED them in F-9/11

In any event, until you or anyone else can show me the memo. that said OBL was going to blow up building by ramming airplanes into them on 9/11/01 - I am standing by my conclusion that W did not know about 9/11 and did nothing about it. True, the US was caught with its pants down and out intelligence system was flawed and tainted with territorialism all of which caused the US not to be able to connect the dots that may and I mean MAY have prevented that horrible day, much like we were during all of the other OBL terrorist attacks none of which were prevented - but to flat out say it could have been prevented and W knew this but did nothing about it and then let OBL get away for out of some loyalty to the bin Laden family is just flat out unspported by any facts I have ever read, which includes, Lord love ya, all of your prior posts

But, I still love ya anyway!!!

AND - it does not excuse the Bush Admin. for not capturing OBL - that was a failure. It also does not excuse the Bush admin. for rushing to war with Iraq, using the National Guard that was not properly trained (prison scandal is a good example), by preying on the scared out of their wits Americans. We have spent billions on billions of $$$$$ when apparently waiting a few more months perhaps could have thwarted the need for the war or at least an all out war. Again, if I had an employee who did that on some corp. scale, I would fire them immediately - who wouldn't

EDIT: I am unsure if my response actually responded to your response. On second reading, I think you meant the debunked theory about Clinton having access to OBL and not going after him. So . . . . my response was not in response to you. But, I'll let it stay for posterity sake, etc.

I agree though, the man who provided info. about OBL location was suspect as was the whole incident. But, there were other times, when we had a good bet on where he was but chose not to go after him because of the fear of violating another nation's sov. In hindsight, which is always 20/20, I wish we had

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Finally, Clinton/Gore never stopped any other OBL attack, except possibly the Y2K border stop, but I am unsure if that was OBL

According to the August 6 PDB, Bin Laden was "aware" of it.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Who can say. The Clinton administration of which Gore was No. 2 did not get OBL when they had the chance if the alleged story is to be believed.

I was wondering when the talking points would appear. There is nothing to lend credence to those stories. Next.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I was wondering when the talking points would appear. There is nothing to lend credence to those stories. Next.

Apparently, I had hope too soon. Well, at least you are consistent

I know this may come as a surprise to you and it may be hard for you as a far far ledt person to comprehend, but some of the things the Bush Admin. has said are true and admitting that is not the end of the world.

Again, please tell me why trying to stop SH from giving WMD, which the world agreed he had, to terrorists was a bad idea?

I am not excusing W's rush to war. I am talking only about that exact premise, which the world supports was true - see UN Res. 1441.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I am not so sure that would have happened. I know it is not popular to think it, but the Clinton/Gore Administration was set on removing SH from power and had exercised military might to make SH comply with the UN resolutions.

Hogwash.

They had a policy for Iraq that stressed regime change from within, not invading and taking over. However, that policy had all but been abandoned until the Bush administration charged in and used it as leverage to invade, even though they didn't tell the American people what the policy really said and when it had last been even looked at by the Clinton administration. Just like the myth that has been perpetuated about John Kerry advocating war on Iraq in '98, the "Clinton was set on removing Saddam" is just another myth. There's nothing to substantiate those claims but his policy of regime change from within, which I submit is 180 degrees different from what Bush and cronies advocated.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Hogwash.

They had a policy for Iraq that stressed regime change from within, not invading and taking over. However, that policy had all but been abandoned until the Bush administration charged in and used it as leverage to invade, even though they didn't tell the American people what the policy really said and when it had last been even looked at by the Clinton administration. Just like the myth that has been perpetuated about John Kerry advocating war on Iraq in '98, the "Clinton was set on removing Saddam" is just another myth. There's nothing to substantiate those claims but his policy of regime change from within, which I submit is 180 degrees different from what Bush and cronies advocated.

You know the Clinton admin. all but abandoned this policy? How do you know this. The reason I ask is because Clinton is still espousing it and he fully supports the reasons W gave for removing SH - Kerry does for that matter as well. Clinton agreed SH had to go after 9/11 - He has said SH was too large of a potential threat to leave unaccounted for. Clinton just argues that W was wrong for not waiting for Blix to finish the inspections So, I think you are incorrect here. If not, on what facts are you basing your argument that Clinton and/or the regime change policy was adandoned.

True, bombing a country with quasi-UN approval is not and never will be invading a country. We agree on that. My point was and is however, both Clionton and W did it on essentially the same info. and for the reason that SH was a dangerous person that left unchecked was a major threat to the world. The only difference in motive was W's assertion that after 9/11 the US could not longer afford to allow SH to be defiant of the UN. I submit that is not that bad of a reason and Clinton agrees with me. I mean Kay admitted that although WMD were not found SH had the ability to go back to making them at any minute with just a few alterations of some plants and although there was no collaborative relationship, SH had according to the 9/11 report met with Al-Q on a few sep occasions and SH helped that huigh ranking Al-Q official during the Afgan war. That suggests a link to me. AND - Al-Q is not the only terrorist organization out there So, I submit Gore or any other Pres. may have made a similar choice to W - perhaps not all out war or the improper rush to it that W did - but similar action if they are to be believed now. Again, all of this is speculation - and that is mine, which I submit is supported by many if not all facts.

Note: my tone is civil not contrary. Please do not respond by attacking me by saying what I am saying are right wing talking poins. If they are, then Clinton (Hillary and Bill), Kerry, and many other left wingers are all right wing talking point promoters because I am saying exactly what they pretty much all say I would much rather you cite facts and let's have a real debate Otherwise, I am not participating as I have said all I can say and have said this repeatedly and all I get is I am saying right wing talking points, which is an insult, not a debate

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You know the Clinton admin. all but abandoned this policy? How do you know this. The reason I ask is because Clinton is still espousing it and he fully supports the reasons W gave for removing SH - Kerry does for that matter as well. Clinton agreed SH had to go after 9/11 - He has said SH was too large of a potential threat to leave unaccounted for. Clinton just argues that W was wrong for not waiting for Blix to finish the inspections So, I think you are incorrect here. If not, on what facts are you basing your argument that Clinton and/or the regime change policy was adandoned.

Do you know what Clinton's policy was, Jason? Seriously, because you don't seem to, in all honesty.

I am speaking about his policy during his presidency, not what remarks he made after 9/11. They have no bearing on his policy.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Do you know what Clinton's policy was, Jason? Seriously, because you don't seem to, in all honesty.

I am speaking about his policy during his presidency, not what remarks he made after 9/11. They have no bearing on his policy.

I agree the U.S. was trying to promote it through internal methods. But, my point is and was 9/11 changed that. After 9/11 W came out with a policy that said America can no longer afford SH as a variable in the war on terror. Clinton and Kerry agree with that.

Here is a pretty thorough doc. on the regime change policy

http://www.fpc.state.gov/documents/o...tion/14391.pdf

Here is the Iraq Liberation Act Clinton signed in 1998. http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

Interestingly, here is a quote from it "SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

That sounds awfully familiar to W's policy - granted Clinton did not invade in a rush to implement it.