Re: A Warning From Warmonger

"Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1148000252.399807.186600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


No 33 Secretary wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:126pntogbee9ka7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


"Aaron Denney" <wnoise@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrne6ph62.bkk.wnoise@xxxxxxxxxx
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.sf.written.]
On 2006-05-18, Jordan <JSBassior2001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jordan S. Bassior said:

Mark K. Bilbo said:

Oh, you somehow think that we could be driven out of Iraq and
this would
_not_ constitute a "defeat of the US" with serious, violent
consequences
for us down the road?

Yes, neoconservative policies will have terrible consequences for
the US.

First of all, you've just contradicted your earlier statement
that the defeat of America would only be a defeat of Bush, rather
than a defeat of America as a whole. Secondly, you're ignoring
the larger issue.

Let's suppose that the President of the United States in 2001 had
been Al Gore, as nearly happened? How could he have avoided war?

Assuming arguendo that the 9/11 attacks came off, and did the same
amount of damage, I don't think we would have avoided war. Nor do
I think that there are many people arguing that, merely the
avoidance of war with Iraq. Presumably the taliban would also
have refused to hand over bin Laden, and we would have gone to war
there.



We wouldn't have avoided the war in Afghanistan. But we probably
would have won it. And captured or killed bin Laden, Zawahiri,
Omar and the rest. We would have sent enough troops to do the job.

You really believe that *Gore* would have made more effective use of
the US military?

Are you *really* that stupid?

I don't know what Al Gore would have done. He might have gone belly-up
on even invading Afghanistan in the first place, which would have been
craven and deserving of the contempt it would have generated.

Or screwed it up on a grand scale.

However,
the millitary could have been used more effectively and,

Could have been, yes. Could have been by Gore, I have strong doubts.

as far as I
know, the Commander in Chief was the same guy we have now. The
invasion of Iraq was pushed through by this same C in C.

The Commander in Chief, as defined by the Constitution, is the President.

It is
impossible at this point to believe that he was not lying. The idea
that the information about the absence of WMD was not readily
available to him is a non-starter.

I disagree. It is clear that Saddam Hussein put a lot of effort in to
convincing us that he had an active WMD program of some sort. How
convincing he was is arguable (and the weight of evidence at the moment
does seem to support your side), but it's not as clear cut as you say.
(Espcially when the Prez is a drooling moron.)

One does not have to be a liberal,
a Gore fan or a pacifist to think that this administaration is
deplorable.

And one does not have to be a conservative, a Bush fan or a warmonger to
think that Gore is smart enough, and crazy enough, to be even more
dangerous than Bush, if he were President.

I am none of those things, except a liberal by some old
standards, and I think that.

My political position is a firm, middle of the road, "a pox on all your
houses." *** both sides, since I generally can't tell them apart.

But the very idea that Al Gore would have tolerated more effective use of
US military force is one of the funniest (in both senses) ideas I've seen
in a long, long time.

--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.