The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[BarTopDancer]

I'm done doing the coulda/woulda/mighta/what-ifs over the choices this Administration made vs. what someone else would have done. It's frustrating and can't be changed. Maybe this country would be in a better place. Maybe this country would be in a worse place. No one can truly say.

McCain scares the crap out of me with his 'pro war' stance. Hillary scares the crap out of me with her 'same ol same ol campaign promises that will never come true' (cutting tax subsidies to the oil companies? like that will get through Congress). Well that and her trying to prove to the world that she is just as tough as any man (who did the Republican gayboy war games reference) - that fits.

I suspect that if Hillary gets the Dem nom then McCain will win.

[Alex]

I wish that Edwards had stayed in through next week. That could have helped Obama but I see his departure now as hurting him.

Hundreds of thousands of people have already voted and probably 12-15% have voted for Edwards. It is purely a gut feeling but I believe that without Edwards those votes would have overwhelmingly gone to Obama.

Now he'll only get a few percent of the voting day votes (his name will still be on the ballot some people will still vote for him) meaning that in most states that he is unlikely to reach the minimum threshold in proportional assignment of delegates where if he'd stayed in the race he would have received them.

This isn't ideal for Obama, but I do believe that if things remain close between him and Clinton that Edwards will eventually throw his delegates to Obama. So if he'd stayed in the race those 12-15% of the absentee ballots would eventually have carried some weight for Obama but now they're likely completely off the table of no use to anybody.


This is one reason that, while I make use of it, I don't support early and absentee balloting (at least not as it is currently carried out).

[Alex]

I think that with the evidence and intelligence at hand in 2002 any significant leader from either party would have considered the continued presence of Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq to be a serious threat to our national security. While there were naysayers, it was the general belief that Saddam Hussein had old WMDs and was pursuing more.

I considered him an unacceptable threat (without ever linking him to 9/11) and continue to believe that this belief was reasonable at that time.

However, I do not believe that any other potential president would have followed the same course of action that led to the Iraq War. They would have prioritized things differently and it is very easy to accept that this would have move Iraq down the list of immediate threats worthy of pre-emption. It was the specific combination of believing Saddam to be a general threat (which pretty much everybody did) with the neoconservative filter on how to prioritize the many threats that exits (which the rest of the government was then convinced to go along with).

Yes, other presidents may have also made the decision that Iraq was an unacceptable imminent threat, but the way they made the argument may have proven unconvincing. Or any other thousands of factors would have played out differently (with a Democratic president, a Republican controlled congress may have applied the breaks harder just out of general cantankerousness whereas in the reality Democrats who otherwise would have argued stronger knew they were on the losing side and didn't want to be easy victims of charges of unpatriotism once the war started).

That's why, while fun, alternative history and games of "what if" are ultimately pointless. While one can lay out an alternative sequence that seems logical and inevitable given one single variable change it isn't real. It always proceeds not from the logic of its antecedents but rather with the objective of its endpoint.

[SacTown Chronic]

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

[Alex]

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.

[Strangler Lewis]

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.

[SacTown Chronic]

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.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

sleepy,

Can you provide those quotes*? We went into The Iraq as a direct result of 9/11 (allegedly). I'd love to read Al Gore's clairvoyant, circa 2000, quotes about The Iraq and 9/11/01.



*Noting vaugue about Saddam pre-9/11, please. Every national politician of the last 25 years has had something to say about Saddam. We never go into The Iraq without the 70% support from the masses....and Bush (or Gore) doesn't get that support without lying about Saddam's role in 9/11. It follows then, that the only way we invade The Iraq is through Bush and his merry band of liars.

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?

[SacTown Chronic]

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?

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

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