Awww, Alex says we're engaging in pointless exercise. A disappointing departure from the usual message board goings-on, to be sure.

And I engaged in it as well. I took a side on the "what if" issue under discussion (would all paths have lead to the Iraq War).

Like I said, it is fun, there's just no basis at all for any one answer to be picked out as more correct than the others other than it matching what one has already decided must be the correct answer.

McCain gets national security right the same way the average tough-on-crime politician gets crime right: by promising harsh measures without consideration of whether dangerous situations might be prevented through use of ameliorative measures. Much like a dentist who would punish the unbrushed tooth for becoming diseased. I suspect that Hillary will get national security right in the same way, i.e., by placing all blame on radical Islam, the rap music equivalent of the Middle East for conservative purposes.

Obama, on the other hand, will at least consider whether national security situations require some adjustment of our behavior in the world. Perhaps such adjustments would only be perceived as weakness, and perhaps the leaders who dine out on hatred of America would never allow knowledge of such developments to filter down to the masses. But it's a different approach which, if combined with the perceived willingness to retaliate strongly against any attacks, might serve us well.

Strangle Lewis' post is a reminder to me of how much of a bullet we are dodging with Guiliani dropping out of the race. Imo, he had the potential to be the one president capable of pulling off the seemingly impossible trick of making Dubya look like a relatively rational peacemonger by comparison. That man has all the worst qualities of a DA combined with all the worst qualities of a politician.

As a case study on the effects of Edwards dropping out, my sister was a strong Edwards supporter and is now trying to decide which way to go. She says she's leaning Obama, but is hesitating only because he hasn't made clear any specific actions he would take (as if any candidate ever makes those clear, or holds to them if they do make them clear).

That's a neat debate trick. Make me defend something I did not say. I said Al Gore was pro-war regarding Iraq before Bush took office. I did not say anything about 9/11(although, he was also pro taking out Saddam right after 9/11 too). He is on record not just "saying something about Saddam" but actually harshly criticizing the first Bush for not going into Baghdad.

Are you suggesting Gore exaggerates his positions and would never follow thru with what he suggests others do when given the chance?

;)

I never claimed you said anything about 9/11, sleepy. You make the assertion we would be in Iraq if Gore were president and you base this on quotes from Al Gore pre-9/11. I make the assertion that our current occupation of The Iraq never happens without lying about the connection between Saddam and 9/11.


So, again, if you have quotes from Al Gore that claim a connection between Saddam and 9/11 and support Bush's plans for invasion of The Iraq, let's have them. If not, then wtf are you talking about?

What I am talking about is the clear fact that Gore wanted to take out Saddam just as much as Bush II.....and would have done so whether we were attacked on 9/11 or not.



http://youtube.com/watch?v=NVUO7voM-ns

What he said.

We'll never agree on this, sleepy, but there is no way any president gets the support from the legislative branch - at least not from the opposition party - or from the American people to pull resources away from hunting Bin Laden in order to occupy Iraq without lying about Saddam's connection to 9/11 (especially with Hans Blix speaking truth to the world about WMD).

I don't care if Al Gore desired to imprison Saddam, pop his eyeballs out, and ram a hot poker into the empty eye sockets every day for a hundred years -- unless President Gore was willing to lie about the Iraqi threat in order to drum up support for invasion, we would not be in Iraq today.

(Sorry, but your video from 1992 does nothing to change this obvious fact.)