in some ways i can't say im sorry to Bush fast enough.

[onejayhawk]

The evidence was only convincing because the administration wanted it to be. There were plenty of reasons to believe that the Iraqis did not have WMDs, but those points were suppressed. The whole Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame incident was largely because of Wilson's report that uranium had not been sent from Niger to Iraq.

That is true. It was very convincing under Clinton as well.

J

[Wonderboy]

yeah, I have to agree. I don't know if he would have gone into Afghanistan, but at the time a lot of theoretically anti-war people were pretty convinced by the WMD evidence. I think anyone elected in 2002 would have invaded.

Oh wow, I respectfully disagree. A big reason Bush went to war in Iraq is because he and almost every single one of his inner circle had that mind-set. They were looking for an excuse and not proof. I don't think you would have had that in a Democratic inner circle with a Dem president. I keep thinking back to the eloquent speech by Sen Byrd in opposition to rushing into war. There were a lot of Dems who would have put the breaks on that invasion, and they just didn't exist in sufficient numbers in the GOP at that time. And the Dems would certainly have worked more within the UN that Bush did.

[Wonderboy]

That is true. It was very convincing under Clinton as well.

J

There's convincing and there's convincing. They may have thought there was a lot of evidence to support that, but not enough to invade or fail to follow though on other methods first. So there is a big distinction there. Big.

Having said that, I would be delighted if the GOP used your arguments in the 2012 election.

[Lucky]

Uh, no. Just debunking the silly myth that Gore certainly, never, ever wouldn't have gone into Iraq. FB could be right, and Gore could well be a liar playing the public for patsies. In fact, given how he's made tens of millions off his recent BS in the "green" movement, I'd say it's possible. But to make the claim Gore wouldn't have gone into Iraq, given his statements concerning Saddam, UN violations, and WMD is fallacious at best.

It's only a silly myth is you assume that Gore, or anyone else with half a brain and an objective perspective, would have reached the same conclusion that Bush did, given the intelligence available to him. And that is giving Bush the benefit of a doubt. Many believe, as I do, that the intelligence was intentionally manipulated to obtain a certain outcome, and that Bush told his people to find any plausible reason to invade Iraq. To assume that Gore would have acted similarly is fallacious at best.

I think reasonable people will agree that one thing Gore would not have done or permitted to be done was the outing of Valerie Plame.

I have wondered since then...how could our CIA not have found bin Laden during the Bush years when he was sitting like a prize turkey not an hour from the Pakistani capitol? I'm not sure how much the CIA and our other intel assets trusted the Administration after the Plame affair. These guys were a lot more independent, not like the lackeys in the DOJ who would hock up whatever legal nonsense the Administration wanted. You have to think there were a lot of old school intelligence professionals who were plenty p****d off by the Plame deal.

So yeah, it will take more than things Gore said while out of the loop to convince me that he would have invaded Iraq, when the information he had at the time was the same that we all had...manipulated and fabricated by an Administration who had reached the conclusion first and then started building the argument.

You're smarter than this, chance. Just chalk up Bush as a loss and move on. There obviously will be plenty of chances for your side to win, and soon, given such bright lights as Ryan, Bachmann, Trump, etc.

[amcg]

Ah... a Dubya thread... like the good ol' days...

DRINKS ARE ON THE HOUSE!!!!

[In the Corn]

It's only a silly myth is you assume that Gore, or anyone else with half a brain and an objective perspective, would have reached the same conclusion that Bush did, given the intelligence available to him. And that is giving Bush the benefit of a doubt. Many believe, as I do, that the intelligence was intentionally manipulated to obtain a certain outcome, and that Bush told his people to find any plausible reason to invade Iraq. To assume that Gore would have acted similarly is fallacious at best.

I think reasonable people will agree that one thing Gore would not have done or permitted to be done was the outing of Valerie Plame.

I have wondered since then...how could our CIA not have found bin Laden during the Bush years when he was sitting like a prize turkey not an hour from the Pakistani capitol? I'm not sure how much the CIA and our other intel assets trusted the Administration after the Plame affair. These guys were a lot more independent, not like the lackeys in the DOJ who would hock up whatever legal nonsense the Administration wanted. You have to think there were a lot of old school intelligence professionals who were plenty p****d off by the Plame deal.

So yeah, it will take more than things Gore said while out of the loop to convince me that he would have invaded Iraq, when the information he had at the time was the same that we all had...manipulated and fabricated by an Administration who had reached the conclusion first and then started building the argument.

You're smarter than this, chance. Just chalk up Bush as a loss and move on. There obviously will be plenty of chances for your side to win, and soon, given such bright lights as Ryan, Bachmann, Trump, etc.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

[senorsheep]

I think reasonable people will agree that one thing Gore would not have done or permitted to be done was the outing of Valerie Plame.

If you view Al Gore the way I do - the Democratic mirror image of Bush, an unaccomplished and unqualified empty suit who "legacied" his way into presidential consideration - then I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that he might have also torpedoed a political enemy with little regard for the moral/ethical and legal implications. I know of nothing in his background to suggest he was any more earnest statesman than privelaged opportunist.

[GwynnInTheHall]

If you view Al Gore the way I do - the Democratic mirror image of Bush, an unaccomplished and unqualified empty suit who "legacied" his way into presidential consideration - then I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that he might have also torpedoed a political enemy with little regard for the moral/ethical and legal implications. I know of nothing in his background to suggest he was any more earnest statesman than privelaged opportunist.

While I agree that Gore was about as dim as Bush, I believe he'd have surrounded himself with people far less hawkish than Bush did and thus there wouldn't have been the push to go into Iraq to the level that buzzed around GW.

Oh and Saddam didn't try to kill Gore's Father either.

[senorsheep]

While I agree that Gore was about as dim as Bush, I believe he'd have surrounded himself with people far less hawkish than Bush did and thus there wouldn't have been the push to go into Iraq to the level that buzzed around GW.

True dat. Just curious why Lucky would place Gore on a pedestal as a guy who wouldn't dream of compromising somebody who got in his way. He never impressed me as being all that saintly. I always kinda had him pegged as a weasel.

[GwynnInTheHall]

True dat. Just curious why Lucky would place Gore on a pedestal as a guy who wouldn't dream of compromising somebody who got in his way. He never impressed me as being all that saintly. I always kinda had him pegged as a weasel.

he kind of reminds me of John Boehner, ya know?

[Lucky]

True dat. Just curious why Lucky would place Gore on a pedestal as a guy who wouldn't dream of compromising somebody who got in his way. He never impressed me as being all that saintly. I always kinda had him pegged as a weasel.

Well, I don't think he's saintly, and we didn't get to see enough of him to know for sure how he would have performed, but I feel certain he would not have surrounded himself with the type of people Bush did.

I thought Bush Sr. was a decent president, and I respect him even now. I think W could have been a similar president if not for the "help" he received from some of his buddies. So, while I don't think Gore would have compromised Plame, I don't think the Bush Administration would have either, had it been populated differently.

[Lucky]

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

That does sound like a conspiracy theory. But tell me...do you think the CIA knocked themselves out for Bush after the Plame affair? There have been numerous interviews in which intelligence operatives talked about how that burned. None have said that they slacked off, but it would be hard to be human and not lose a little motivation.

[In the Corn]

That does sound like a conspiracy theory. But tell me...do you think the CIA knocked themselves out for Bush after the Plame affair? There have been numerous interviews in which intelligence operatives talked about how that burned. None have said that they slacked off, but it would be hard to be human and not lose a little motivation.

I honestly can't said, but let's turn that around and ask would military personal slack off for a Commander and Chief that never served in the military.

In both cases, I question the loyalty the person has to their mission of defending the United States.

[Lucky]

I honestly can't said, but let's turn that around and ask would military personal slack off for a Commander and Chief that never served in the military.

In both cases, I question the loyalty the person has to their mission of defending the United States.

The scenario wasn't a "never served" scenario. It was that the Bush admin actively screwed a member of the intelligence community for no reason other than political payback. That's a world away from slacking off for a President who never served.

I don't really have a good explanation as to why we couldn't find bin Laden before Obama became President. I never did understand Bush's thing about hunting him until the end of time, then later saying finding him didn't really matter. Maybe a Bushologist can explain that bit.

[Wonderboy]

Edit: I should add that Al Gore is probably the worst Democratic candidate I could ever envision.

John Kerry

Michael Dukakis

Edit II: Despite being an awful choice, I gladly voted for Gore over Bush and would do the same given the same choice today (as would many, many more people, I'd imagine, knowing what the vote for Bush really entailed).

No question that if that election were held over, Gore would get more votes than Bush.

Wait a minute...