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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

That might the issue you want to discuss because it does not lend creedance to W. But, I am saying and the topic of this thread was what would happen after Clinton left office. Thus, Clinton's comments after he left office are relevant and they certainly do not support your argument

They have no bearing because he doesn't make policy when he leaves office.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, he has said that he had windows of opportunity but essentially chose not to exercise them because of political reasons.

Specifics please?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

His revised Iraq policy was to fund Iraqi opposition forces.

I know that. But, he is now saying essentially that was not enough after 9/11 - hence the topic of this thread - what would have happend if Gore was in office. I submit a fairly accurate version of that speculation would be to look at what BC would have done. BC has said he would have done what W did and for the same reasons. He just would not have rushed to war, he would have let the inspectors finish their inspection. But, he clearly bleived SH was too bif os threat to leave unchecked after 9/11 - a point you have yet to respond to BTW

Also, what do any of the quotes you gave above have to do with supporting your point. YOu are gonna have to connect the dots because I am not seeing it. Nothing in that demonstrates the Bush Admin. was ignoring the Al-Q threats

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

They have no bearing because he doesn't make policy when he leaves office.

I know that. But, it is relevant to the topis of this thread. I think you do not want to admit that because it directly refutes your argument and it lends creedance to W, which you can never do

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know that. But, he is now saying essentially that was not enough after 9/11 - hence the topic of this thread - what would have happend if Gore was in office. I submit a fairly accurate version of that speculation would be to look at what BC would have done. BC has said he would have done what W did and for the same reasons. He just would not have rushed to war, he would have let the inspectors finish their inspection. But, he clearly bleived SH was too bif os threat to leave unchecked after 9/11 - a point you have yet to respond to BTW

Also, what do any of the quotes you gave above have to do with supporting your point. YOu are gonna have to connect the dots because I am not seeing it. Nothing in that demonstrates the Bush Admin. was ignoring the Al-Q threats

Jason, you lost me many moons ago when you claimed Iraq had attacked us, so forgive me if I don't chomp at the bit to have another go around. If you can't see it, I give up.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know that. But, it is relevant to the topis of this thread. I think you do not want to admit that because it directly refutes your argument and it lends creedance to W, which you can never do

We are off topic. Your speculation about how Clinton would have changed his policies doesn't lend credence to Bush or hinder my arguments, it's simply your speculation. Sorry.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Specifics please?

Here is the link to the recent interview with Larry King, during which he said:

KING: Do you ever say, I should have taken out bin Laden? I could have, should have, should -- shoulda, woulda, coulda?

CLINTON: No. What I say is I tried like the devil to take him out. I knew how bad he was. Even in my first term we were watching him. And we worked hard on terrorism. We had to.

Keep in mind, we had the first World Trade Center bombing in '93. We had the Oklahoma City bombing in '95. We finally passed the big anti-terrorism legislation I'd been pushing for a year and a half in '96. We averted all the terrorist attacks planned for the millennium, plus earlier attempts to blow up the Holland Tunnel and the Lincoln Tunnel and the U.N. building in New York, the L.A. airport. Planes flying from the Philippines to the L.A. airport.

KING: There were plans to blow up the L.A...

CLINTON: Absolutely. All those things.

And after the African embassies were blown up, there was a plan to blow up our embassy in Albania. We did that. There was a plan by many of bin Laden's allies from the mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Afghan War, to take over Bosnia after the Bosnian War and we stopped that.

So we were deeply immersed in this. So what I say all the time is -- and what I told President Bush when we had our little meeting after the Supreme Court decision -- I regret deeply that I didn't get him. I tried everything I knew to get him.

I wish -- the only real regret I have in terms of our efforts is nearly everybody in the world knew that he did the USS Cole in October of 2000. I knew what our options were, I knew what our military options were, I knew what our covert options were. And I felt I couldn't take strong military action against Afghanistan because the FBI and the CIA didn't officially agree that bin Laden had done it until after I left office.

If they had done so when I was in office, I would have taken stronger action -- even as a lame duck president.

KING: Do you know why they didn't?

CLINTON: I think they just had a process they wanted to go through. And keep in mind, you know, when Oklahoma City happened, which before 9/11 was the worst domestic terrorist incident, a lot of people immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was a Muslim militant terrorist. And I remember standing in the Rose Garden of the White House pleading with the American people not to jump to any conclusions.

So I felt if I launched a full scale attack, violated air space of countries that wouldn't give me permission, had to do the logistics of doing that without basing rights like we had in Uzbekistan and other things we had after 9/11, I would have been on grounds without an approval.

But I don't think -- I don't know of anything that I could have done that I didn't do at the time that would have dramatically increased the chances of getting bin Laden because I wanted to do it and I regretted not doing it.

So, he did alot to get OBL - I agree and have said so. But, he missed opportunites for political reasons - I also said that

He also said, which fully supports my argument in this thread:

KING: But you have supported the president's statements. I've read -- pretty much say that you might have waited a little longer, but you support him now. Why?

CLINTON: Well, because I think the whole world now has an interest. I don't approve of the timing. I didn't agree with the timing. I think we should have let Mr. Blix finish the inspections. We could have invaded and toppled Saddam Hussein at any time. His military was less than half the strength it was at the Gulf War, and we were in better shape militarily.

And I knew this was going to be quite a project. So, I preferred to let the weapons inspection play out and put more military personnel and more effort into Afghanistan to stabilize Mr. Karzai and to try to get bin Laden and Dr. al-Zawahiri and the other top aides.

But we are where we are. You can't undo history. We've lost over 600 young Americans there since the military victory was declared. So, now that everybody in the world has an interest in seeing a pluralistic, secure, safe Iraq. It may take four or five years, but if they can succeed at self-governance and observing basic human rights and treat the Sunni, the Shia, and the Kurds fairly, if they can do this, it might be a positive thing to promote reform throughout the Arab world.

KING: So, if you were in that seat today, you'd be hanging tough as he is and saying we're not leaving?

CLINTON: If I were in the seat today, I would be -- there might be some differences around the edges, but if I took office as president tomorrow, I'd say pretty much what John Kerry said, that we've lost all these lives, the Iraqis are decent people, they deserve a chance at the future. Whether we did right or wrong before, we are where we are.

So, I think we should turn over sovereignty to a representative government as quickly as we can, consistent with our commitment. I liked it when President Bush went back to the U.N. and got the U.N. to adopt a resolution on the future of Iraq. And then, I would try to internationalize this whole effort as quickly as possible so America couldn't be the source of continuing resentment and violence.

On the other hand, I wouldn't just pull up and leave there if I thought it was going to cause the whole thing to disintegrate.

KING: Would it?

CLINTON: Probably, unless there were a multinational force willing to go in and take our place.

KING: But they're not willing, are they?

CLINTON: Not right now, and a lot of them think that we didn't handle it right. Maybe we did and maybe we didn't, but I always find, you know, in life and in politics, you have to take the facts as you find them. We are where we are. And it would be better if Iraq succeeded, and it might, over the long run, actually help promote reform in other Arab states.

But we got to be sensitive to how they feel. I think this idea of saying we'll stay but we want to lower our profile, we want the U.N. to have a mandate on how this thing runs going forward, and we want increasingly the Iraqis to manage their own affairs, I think it's the -- generally the right approach.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/31/lkl.00.html

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Jason, you lost me many moons ago when you claimed Iraq had attacked us, so forgive me if I don't chomp at the bit to have another go around. If you can't see it, I give up.

When did I say Iraq EVER attacked us? That is flat out BS and you know it. I said Iraq attacked our ally Kuwaitt. But, I never said they attacked us. If I did, show it to me.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

We are off topic. Your speculation about how Clinton would have changed his policies doesn't lend credence to Bush or hinder my arguments, it's simply your speculation. Sorry.

Well, the whole topic of this thread is the speculation of what would Gore have done differently is he had won (don't go there ) and had been in office instead of W.

Moreover, your statement "Your speculation about how Clinton would have changed his policies doesn't lend credence to Bush or hinder my arguments, it's simply your speculation" is not true. Clinton has saifd this. See http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/....htmlTherefore, it is not speculation and you know it. But, if it makes you feel better to think that - by all means do - who am I to keep you down

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

When did I say Iraq EVER attacked us? That is flat out BS and you know it. I said Iraq attacked our ally Kuwaitt. But, I never said they attacked us. If I did, show it to me.

No, it's not BS. You said Iraq attacked us awhile back, then you cleared it up by saying that it was Kuwait. I don't feel like slogging through all the threads, but you can if you want because it's there, plain as day and clear as crystal.

In any case, I'm done with the Clinton speculation, I'll stick with his actual policies, thankyouverymuch.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Here is the link to the recent interview with Larry King, during which he said:

I saw the interview. What you posted reinforces my position. As I said, he gives W a disingenuous slap for the "timing". Clinton is still one of the best damn pols ever. He stays above the fray, very statesman-like, yet lets people know that Bushco f*d up. It's quite beautiful.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, the whole topic of this thread is the speculation of what would Gore have done differently is he had won (don't go there ) and had been in office instead of W.

Moreover, your statement "Your speculation about how Clinton would have changed his policies doesn't lend credence to Bush or hinder my arguments, it's simply your speculation" is not true. Clinton has saifd this. See http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/....htmlTherefore, it is not speculation and you know it. But, if it makes you feel better to think that - by all means do - who am I to keep you down

Again, Bill Clinton is no longer president and I feel that anything he says about his policies and how he would change them is said in hindsight and he himself is speculating about he would have done.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Again, Bill Clinton is no longer president and I feel that anything he says about his policies and how he would change them is said in hindsight and he himself is speculating about he would have done.

Well, it comes from him and he knows the facts at hand. Thus, if it is speculation, it is pretty accurate Certainly, one of the greatest leaders America has ever known who lead us into batle numerous times and once against the same enemy via the 98 bombings to force Iraq to comply with the UN is qualified to state his opinion of what he would have done in a continuation of the same conflict - but if you want to question the horse's mouth - go right on ahead

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, it comes from him and he knows the facts at hand. Thus, if it is speculation, it is pretty accurate Certainly, one of the greatest leaders America has ever known who lead us into batle numerous times and once against the same enemy via the 98 bombings to force Iraq to comply with the UN is qualified to state his opinion of what he would have done in a continuation of the same conflict - but if you want to question the horse's mouth - go right on ahead

Of course he can state his opinion, but that doesn't mean he would necessarily have done it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

No, it's not BS. You said Iraq attacked us awhile back, then you cleared it up by saying that it was Kuwait. I don't feel like slogging through all the threads, but you can if you want because it's there, plain as day and clear as crystal.

In any case, I'm done with the Clinton speculation, I'll stick with his actual policies, thankyouverymuch.

That is such rank spin even for you In case you did not know, which you may not, when an ally of the US is attacked, it is considered the same thing as attacking the US. Plus, you did not indicate my clarification when you made your blanket statement. So, what you said is just flat out wrong and you know it and IMO you were twsiting my words by saying half truths.