Here Gore Goes Again

[yakky doodle]

Gore: Bush Making Serious Mistakes
(AP) - Al Gore said Wednesday that President Bush is making serious mistakes in the war on terrorism and called his economic plan "a catastrophic failure." That gives Democrats "an excellent chance" to win the White House in 2004, whoever their nominee is, he said. "Now the warlords are back in control, the Taliban is back in Afghanistan and for a variety of reasons al-Qaida is back at full strength and Osama is back making his threats against the U.S," Gore said in an interview with The Associated Press.

the rest of the story is on yahoo news if you want it. i just wanted to point out that Gore is saying that Bush is making a serious mistake in regards to his actions on terrorism. Is that to say that while he (gore) and his former boss were in office, they were doing the right thing (taking no action)?

 

[Tonio]

The Post said that Gore has agreed to host Saturday Night Live next month. Well, some of the most fascinating guests spots on that show have been by politicians (Jesse Jackson, Sen. Paul Simon, Janet Reno).

 

[demsformd]

Just wanna say, Tonio, I love your dialogue there from Airplane! One of the best movies ever made.

 

[MGKrebs]

Originally posted by yakky doodle
Is that to say that while he (gore) and his former boss were in office, they were doing the right thing (taking no action)?

Mebbe, mebbe not, yakky. But what do you think about what BUSH is doing? :question:

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by demsformd
Just wanna say, Tonio, I love your dialogue there from Airplane! One of the best movies ever made.

Thanks! I love Zucker, Abrahams and Zucker's work (Police Squad, Hot Shots).

"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?"

"There's no reason to be alarmed and we hope you enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?"

 

[Bruzilla]

I like what Bush is doing. If the former occupants of the White House had taken care of business Bush wouldn't have to be taking up their slack.

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
I like what Bush is doing. If the former occupants of the White House had taken care of business Bush wouldn't have to be taking up their slack.

The GOP's been picking up the slack behind Democrats for decades. And will for decades to come.

Truman may well be the only Democrat, this century, that didn't leave more of a mess when he left than when he arrived.

 

[justhangn]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
I like what Bush is doing. If the former occupants of the White House had taken care of business Bush wouldn't have to be taking up their slack.

I would have to say that if Bush 41 did it right the first time, there would be no need to finish it now.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by justhangn
I would have to say that if Bush 41 did it right the first time, there would be no need to finish it now.

This wasn't 41s call, it was the world (aka UN) that determined that Saddam only needed to be confined within his borders after the last little war. We know Stormin' Norman wanted to do a Patton on him but it just wasn't to be.

 

[SmallTown]

And the UN is such a driving force on our foreign policy..

Jr. came out told the UN we are going to go after iraq, with or without you.

We could have done more the first time. Lets hope we learn something from our mistakes and get it right this time. I find it odd that we sent so many troops over there and spent so much money to keep them there as well as the money spent on all of the bombs and missles we dropped just keep saddam contained?? I thought republicans were all about "smart spending"??

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Ken King
This wasn't 41s call, it was the world (aka UN) that determined that Saddam only needed to be confined within his borders after the last little war. We know Stormin' Norman wanted to do a Patton on him but it just wasn't to be.

An excellent reason for us to stop taking marching orders from the likes of the U.N.

 

[justhangn]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Lets hope we learn something from our mistakes and get it right this time.

Someone wake up smalltool, he's dreaming again.

The world never learns from it's mistakes.

 

[MGKrebs]

So, you all buy into the argument that...

(Pick one or more of the following):

1. Iraq is an imminent threat to the US.
2. Iraq is an imminent threat to the middle east, which Israel is incapable or unwilling to deal with.
3. Iraq is not now sufficiently contained.
4. Violence first is better than at least TRYING a diplomatic solution.
5. Iraq is somehow connected to terrorism, despite no evidence to support it.
6. We can fight al qaida and iraq at the same time.
7. We need the oil. Killing Iraqis to get it is justifiable.

 

[Oz]

Re: So, you all buy into the argument that...

Originally posted by MGKrebs
(Pick one or more of the following):

1. Iraq is an imminent threat to the US.
2. Iraq is an imminent threat to the middle east, which Israel is incapable or unwilling to deal with.
3. Iraq is not now sufficiently contained.
4. Violence first is better than at least TRYING a diplomatic solution.
5. Iraq is somehow connected to terrorism, despite no evidence to support it.
6. We can fight al qaida and iraq at the same time.
7. We need the oil. Killing Iraqis to get it is justifiable.

I see it differently, but if that's how you view it, then YES, because I don't know that any of us are going to change our minds on the issue.

Iraq is an imminent threat. Throw North korea and China into that mix too, because we'll be dealing with these countries at some point in the next 10 years.

Israel is willing and capable. But they lack the ability to build the necessary coalition with other Arab states to fight Iraq. They would set off an Arab versus Israel war, and we would be involved regardless.

Saddam just paid Khadaffi 3.5 Billion for safe harbor. He's not contained at all. He's been doing what he wanted (building weapons) for 8 years under Clinton's watch. I don't think a regular citizen has enough information to determine the extent of how dangerous Iraq is, but I think we know enough to make a reasonable assumption.

Was there a phone call that we missed that said "Hey Dubs - Unless you give Osama a jingle, we're going to fly jets into the WTC, Pentagon and White House?"

Diplomacy? Where has Iraq been willing? They stalled on the new inspections. Saddam is trying the bob-and-weave that worked with Clinton, and it's not working now. What indicates to you that they are willing to negotiate about anything?

We can and will fight both. We are technologically superior. Our allies were in awe when our little guided drone blew up the carload of Al Quaida. We will fight them at night in the dark, where we have the advantage.

We do need the oil. There are a lot of cars on the road. We may not need Iraq's oil, but what about their neighbors? If we allow a crazed dictator to build up against their neighbors (remember Kuwait?) then ultimately, we are indeed protecting our interests.

I say, Let's Roll...

 

[MGKrebs]

Iraq

I’m not certain where I stand on Iraq. I just believe that violence should be the last option and I’m not sure we’re there yet. But like you said, we peons don’t know enough to know.

“Iraq is an imminent threat.”

It’s just that nobody else seems to think so. Perhaps they are all mistaken.

“Throw North korea and China into that mix too, because we'll be dealing with these countries at some point in the next 10 years.”

Before we started threatening NK, they seemed to be making progress on reconciling with South Korea. And I think China is so tied in to the world economy now, it would take a huge disaster to provoke them into a confrontation.

“Israel is willing and capable. But they lack the ability to build the necessary coalition with other Arab states to fight Iraq. They would set off an Arab versus Israel war, and we would be involved regardless.’

Interesting point. I hadn’t thought of it this way. I will have to think more about this.

“Saddam 's not contained at all. He's been (building weapons) for 8 years ...”

We shall see soon enough.

“Was there a phone call that we missed that said "Hey Dubs - Unless you give Osama a jingle, we're going to fly jets into the WTC, Pentagon and White House?"

Not sure what you mean here.

“Diplomacy? Where has Iraq been willing? “
“We can and will fight both.”
“We do need the oil.”

I can’t argue with this. I just don’t have enough information. We have to trust our leaders to do the right thing, and there are a few circumstances involved that makes me not completely trust them. Saddam continuing to shoot at coalition planes is a bad thing, though. he needs to cut that sh*t out.

I just can’t see the way through to where we are going to end up with a better situation than what we have now.

You’ve given me some things to think about. Thanks.

 

[Oz]

It’s just that nobody else seems to think so. Perhaps they are all mistaken.

I read that if we forget history, we are doomed to repeat it. People didn't think Hitler was a threat, until it was too late. Khadaffi wasn't a threat, until he hit us. WE fought back and he was last seen taking a 3 billion dollar buyout from Saddam for exile. Osama wasn't a threat - oops! Finally we have a President who will see things in black and white, and stand up to these aggressors.

I don't know who "nobody else" is. The French, or the ungrateful Germans? We are building agreement among UN members, and among Arabs, so it seems that as we continue to make our case, we get more countries on board.

Before we started threatening NK, they seemed to be making progress on reconciling with South Korea. And I think China is so tied in to the world economy now, it would take a huge disaster to provoke them into a confrontation.

The only progress they were making is in developing the weapons needed to intimidate South Korea. China is tied to the world economy. However, they will eventually decide that they have enough firepower to intimidate Taiwan and get away with it, and that will be bad for the world economy. That's why I think we will be dealing with them sooner or later.

“Was there a phone call that we missed that said "Hey Dubs - Unless you give Osama a jingle, we're going to fly jets into the WTC, Pentagon and White House?"

Not sure what you mean here.

You were implying that we should try diplomacy with another madman, Saddam Hussein. These guys aren't into diplomacy.

My biggest concern about the whole thing is that our administration seems to value secrecy, and keeping the people in the dark, as much as possible. However, we have elected these men and women to serve, and we need to trust them to take decisions for our nation. I have tremendous respect for George W Bush and Tony Blair. As they make "our" case to other world leaders, the other nations seem to get onboard with us, save France who never takes a stand on anything, and Germany - a surprise. (What's going on in Germany that we don't know enough about? We know that country seems to be a haven for al quaida. Hmmm?) The only reason we haven't taken a stronger stand against Germany, is because we need their intelligence info about the al quaida operatives who are working in their country.

We aren't mobilizing around Iraq, to turn around and come home. Once we have a certain level of response in place, we're going in. Period. Otherwise, we'll need to send the troops home, and I don't see that as an option, unless Saddam goes into exile without the use of our force.

 

[MGKrebs]

I want to try and say this delicately.

There are those who are saying that the comparisons to pre-WW2 Germany more closely resemble our behavior. WE are the ones threatening pre-emptive aggression. WE are the ones talking about world domination. WE are the ones who threaten to ignore international will.

I suppose I believe that saddam is a bad guy. We will end up killing him sooner or later. However, I do NOT believe that attacking Iraq and/or killing saddam will end terrorism, al qaida or otherwise. Will it reduce terrorism? I have no evidence to think so. If our guys have other info, then good luck to them, I hope they are right. it would be a terrible mistake to make.

Sometimes I am sympathetic to the peaceniks, but they have a tough gig. If they succeed in winning peace and we get attacked, many will say it's their fault. But if we are aggressive and get attacked anyway, most will say that "we did all we could to prevent it", even though our aggression may have instigated the attack. They can't win.

Some peace activist just want peace under all circumstances. But many current peace activists just want there to be some kind of consensus that violence is necessary. Since bush and co. won't tell US what they know, it seems reasonable to look at other foreign leaders, who presumably have similar information, to see what their opinions are. After all, it is not out of the question to think that we have a rogue element within the government (a la Iran/Contra) which is manipulating the Shrubster.

 

[vraiblonde]

Can we realistically say that MOST people prefer peace over war? The problem comes when you get people who aren't happy to live and let live.

Peaceniks only have a tough gig because they're trying to control the behavior of people they have NO control over. If they had a big enough coalition, they could get the US to take a pacifist stance. But what about other countries? And when those other countries decide to take advantage of the weakness and pacifism of the US, then what? Should we just let them? I mean, in t he interest of peace and all?

I give you bin Laden as an example. Now he's given the world his list of demands, which the US is certainly not going to commit to. He says no peace until we do what he says. We give him the finger. He commits more acts of terror. So who is breaching the peace - bin Laden for trying to tell us what to do, or the US for not doing it?

If you see our invasion of Afghanistan the same as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, then you and I have fundamental differences of opinion that will never be resolved. If you think Bush giving Texas criminals the death penalty is the same as Saddam torturing and killing Iraqui citizens, we can't come to a consensus. Because that's what people like bin Laden would have you believe. The hypocrisy is stunning.

 

[vraiblonde]

And a few rejoinders...

WE are the ones talking about world domination.

Who is talking about world domination? I haven't heard Bush say anything like that. Please cite your source.

WE are the ones threatening pre-emptive aggression.

Would you rather we wait until they nuke us?

WE are the ones who threaten to ignore international will.

Who do you think is more vested in the best interests of the US - Bush, Cretien, Putin, Hussein or Annan?

We will end up killing him sooner or later.

When was the last time we killed another country's leader?

 

[Ken King]

WE are the ones threatening pre-emptive aggression.

No, we have taken the case to the UN stating that Iraq is still in material breech of the accords bringing about a cessation of hostilities carried over from their invasion of Kuwait. The UN has agreed.

WE are the ones talking about world domination.

Talking about it, aren’t we the dominant country that every one is looking to for leadership (which had been lacking for a long time)? Who is the country that the others call when they need help?

WE are the ones who threaten to ignore international will.

No, we are in compliance with international will. The UN endorses and has prescribed the effort to de-arm Iraq’s WMD programs and stockpiles as the world has directed in previous resolutions.