The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Ghoulish Delight]

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).

[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.

It sickens me to think of all the money, resources, and (most importantly) lives that have been wasted in Iraq - diverted from what should have been our top priority; capturing Osama bin Laden and eliminating Al Qaeda.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Jeff, you know I love you.....but, please, return that joke for a full refund. ASAP!

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Get a freekin room!

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

It sickens me to think of all the money, resources, and (most importantly) lives that have been wasted in Iraq - diverted from what should have been our top priority; capturing Osama bin Laden and eliminating Al Qaeda.

I would argue that the surge has significantly weakened al Qaeda.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I would argue that the surge has significantly weakened al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda forces in Iraq, perhaps. It did nothing to touch the main Al Qaeda forces in Afganistan.

It's also worth mentioning that Al Qaeda wouldn't even be in Iraq if it wasn't for the US invasion; and that if we had kept our focus on Afganistan, which we had a legitimate reason for invading, we might have defeated Al Qaeda by now.

[sleepyjeff]

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:

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:

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.

[Strangler Lewis]

To be fair, we have to remember that this is from the 2000 campaign where everything Gore did and said was idiotic. Here, it appears that he is not actually answering the question but rather ticking off in a fairly kneejerk way all the military actions he voted to "support." I recall Bob Dole saying as a senator that it was important for the Senate to support Clinton's actions in the Balkans. Voting not to support a president's military plans takes particular gumption, particularly if one has greater ambitions.

Gore has also taken anti-choice and anti-gay marriage positions in his past life as a senator from Tennessee. I don't think these would have been good predictors of how he would approach these issues if he had been elected president.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

To be fair, we have to remember that this is from the 2000 campaign where everything Gore did and said was idiotic. Here, it appears that he is not actually answering the question but rather ticking off in a fairly kneejerk way all the military actions he voted to "support." I recall Bob Dole saying as a senator that it was important for the Senate to support Clinton's actions in the Balkans. Voting not to support a president's military plans takes particular gumption, particularly if one has greater ambitions.

Gore has also taken anti-choice and anti-gay marriage positions in his past life as a senator from Tennessee. I don't think these would have been good predictors of how he would approach these issues if he had been elected president.

Fair enough.

[scaeagles]

I won't bother to debate legitimate, as previous discussions already provide that I believe we had a legitimate reason the moment the cease fire from gulf war I was violated.

I think it's funny that when we can't take dems at their word....they were only showing support for military action to sound like hawks for political purposes but of course wouldn't have done anything of action on their own. It doesn't matter what they say or how they vote, it's only our perception of them, because they certainly wouldn't have done anything similar.

[JWBear]

You can replace the word "dems" and replace "repubs", and it would have just as much legitimacy.