Quote:
Originally Posted by JWBear
I agree with STC. Just because someone spoke out against Saddam's regime does not mean that they would have followed the same course as the current administration. The invasion of Iraq was a neo-con wet dream that they were able to push trough via lies and misinformation.
|
From a 2000 debate between Gore and Bush:
Quote:
MODERATOR: Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If you had been president for any of those interventions, would any of those interventions not have happened?
MODERATOR: Grenada?
GORE: I supported that.
MODERATOR: Panama?
GORE: I supported that.
MODERATOR: Persian Gulf?
GORE: Yes, I voted for it, supported it.
MODERATOR: Somalia?
GORE: Of course, and that again -- no, I think that that was ill-considered. I did support it at the time. It was in the previous administration, in the Bush-Quayle administration, and I think in retrospect the lessons there are ones that we should take very, very seriously.
MODERATOR: Bosnia?
GORE: Oh, yes.
MODERATOR: Haiti?
GORE: Yes.
MODERATOR: And then Kosovo?
GORE: Yes.
|
What the debate doesn't say is that Gore also supported the next action (Afghanistan) and was even encouraging an attack on Iraq in early 2002.
Looks like he tends towards war to me.
To be fair, I suppose I should include the following from the same debate:
Quote:
|
BUSH: [Somalia]Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.
|