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

[In the Corn]

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 know if the two are mutually exclusive. Both have an extremely important role in protecting our nation.

If the CIA agent slacks off because he/she doesn't like Bush or any other president because of the president's actions and one of their fellow agents is put in danger, hurt or killed, they have lost focus and lack the discipline I would want in someone defending our nation.

[In the Corn]

hang on...

fixed

[Wonderboy]

Al Gore is just plain wrong on so many different issues, it boggles the mind. John Kerry was probably an elitist douchebag, but he was right politically, at least in my views, a hell of a lot more often than Gore.

I'm not a huge Gore fan, but we've sure done worse. The biggest drawback for Kerry and Dukakis was that they were incredibly poor candidates. Gore as well.

[chancellor]

Can you provide some links? I've been doing some poking around and have found a whole sh!t ton of quotes from Al Gore regarding Iraq but not one of them mentioned invading.

As an aside, two distinct "WTF?!?!"s at the rest of your quote: First, the idea of Gore as a liar playing the public for patsies during a conversation about Bush/WMDs/Iraq. Second, the gratuitous shot at Gore's "BS" in the green movement. Surely you're not still trying to play the global-warming-is-a-myth card after being so thoroughly debunked, are you?


Edit: I should add that Al Gore is probably the worst Democratic candidate I could ever envision. I'm sure that my reasons for thinking that are dramatically different for the reasons conservatives have a problem with the guy, but Al Gore is a pandering f*ck.

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).

Key money quotes, feel free to look up and verify:

As an aside, two distinct "WTF?!?!"s at the rest of your quote: First, the idea of Gore as a liar playing the public for patsies during a conversation about Bush/WMDs/Iraq. Second, the gratuitous shot at Gore's "BS" in the green movement. Surely you're not still trying to play the global-warming-is-a-myth card after being so thoroughly debunked, are you?

1. "Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table." Al Gore, as quoted by the NY Times, Feb 13, 2002.
2. While seeming to claim he was arguing against entry into Iraq, Gore conceded Bush's main point in September, 2002: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power...We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

And those are the post-9/11 quotes - his campaign rhetoric concerning nation-building and using troops to do it was far more aggressive than Bush.

Per his "green" life, post politics, yeah, he's a complete tur..I mean success. His movie's been debunked with so many fallacies, I've honestly lost track, and he's simply used his position to leverage into the type of money-making corporate whore you'd just love. But his net worth has gone from about $80 mil, to $300-500 mil, depending on whose numbers you believe. Gotta love the free market, no?

Per being the worst candidate, I'd have a hard time arguing. For as bad as Dukakis was, he wasn't given a balanced budget, favorable economy, country at peace, and an opponent as poor as GWB and managed to still completely screw up the campaign. I mean, think about that for a minute. He came in with just about every favorable political benefit available...and lost to George W Bush. Dukakis came in against an economy on the upswing being led by his opponent, and his opponent, like him or not, could communicate vastly better than GWB.

[amcg]

I don't know if the two are mutually exclusive. Both have an extremely important role in protecting our nation.

If the CIA agent slacks off because he/she doesn't like Bush or any other president because of the president's actions and one of their fellow agents is put in danger, hurt or killed, they have lost focus and lack the discipline I would want in someone defending our nation.

Bit of an inconsistency there, surely?

If the CIA back off then they have lost focus and lack the discipline... etc...

but if the Bushies deliberately jeopardised the CIA then that's fine and dandy?

[In the Corn]

but if the Bushies deliberately jeopardised the CIA then that's fine and dandy?

Nope not saying that at all. They were wrong to do that. However, two wrongs don't make a right.

[amcg]

Nope not saying that at all. They were wrong to do that. However, two wrongs don't make a right.

Agreed. However, what cannot be denied is that the incentive system for CIA operatives to do their sometimes highly dangerous work was damaged by that outing. While I don't agree with all that they do/have done, I at least understand that a huge, huge amount of that work is based on an implicit ironclad trust. With the Plame outing that trust can only have suffered, perhaps greatly. To admit that is not a treacherous crime.

[nullnor]

I've been watching nullie carefully over the past 18 months or so (which should give you some idea about my life), and I can report that we are in the middle of a sea change. I'd say that right now he's right around Dennis Miller circa 2002...kicked off Monday Night Football, but not yet playing footsie with Bill O'Reilly.

Either that, or someone has hacked his account. The nullnor I know would not be permitted by conscience to condone torture, and to laud the Bush administration's handling of foreign policy is to do just that. Americans don't torture people. No excuses. If we lower ourselves to the level of those we abhor, we can no longer claim any measure of moral, philosophical or political superiority.

Sorry, nullie. You know I love you like the brother I never had, but you've run off the road and into the ditch on this one.

i was really, really drunk when i started this thread. more than i planned to be. the next day i was very nervous about it. not so much afraid what ppl would think about me but what i thought about myself. whether i was right or wrong. and i always have this desire to accelerate time. and senor and jay were the ones that said we won't really know, in total, about the last 10 years until all the dust has settled.

it's the middle east uprisings that fascinate me. not that anyone was predicting it but i believe it was related to our actions in Iraq. on torture, the abu ghraib thing bothered me a lot. and i attributed it to GW's policies. and then he didn't accept any responsibility. on the Iraq surge thing, it bothered me that democrats didn't support it. Obama didn't support it. on the valerie plame thing, i blame cheney. it bothered me that Iraqi hospitals were in pitiful condition, but im not sure i can blame Bush for that. also, there's the whole tax cuts for the rich thing and the collapse of the middle class that i seemed to completely forget about. im sure in my drunken condition i was having a very short memory. i but i really want to try to see all sides of everything. you and i are a lot alike where it's the judge in you and the scientist in me where perception concurs.

simply my thought process was, wondering why the middle east wants some democracy. then i watched that video of Bush with the children during the 9-11 attacks. and reading about the children, now older, defending him. that kind of got to me. michael moore criticized him for it, but it was the right thing to do. and how they all got in a circle afterward and every bowed their heads in silence and he explained what happened to them. he didn't panic but instead it's like he took a personal interest in how the events affected them. like seperating the politics from the real stuff. and then i felt bad that he declined to attend the rally after OBL was captured. and it made me want to rehash some stuff.

it's probably not the time yet for that. but when it is, i feel the community here is mature and smart enought to tackle it. and i also thought that the recent OBL thing will bring everyone closer together.

i usually don't get happy drunk. i also don't get angry drunk either. but i did get happy drunk. heh... i hate waiting to figure everything out. and now that im older, im a little spoiled in that sense because im not as used to having to wait for that as i was in the past.

[Wonderboy]

i was really, really drunk when i started this thread. more than i planned to be.

OK, you say that like it's a bad thing...

[Kevin Seitzer]

then i watched that video of Bush with the children during the 9-11 attacks. and reading about the children, now older, defending him. that kind of got to me. michael moore criticized him for it, but it was the right thing to do. and how they all got in a circle afterward and every bowed their heads in silence and he explained what happened to them. he didn't panic but instead it's like he took a personal interest in how the events affected them. like seperating the politics from the real stuff. and then i felt bad that he declined to attend the rally after OBL was captured. and it made me want to rehash some stuff.

I agree with this. I believe he has been unfairly judged on some points and that history will show him to have made some correct decisions. That doesn't come anywhere near making me think he did a good job as president or that many of his important decisions were not disastrous, with negative consequences that continue to this day.

[Lucky]

I agree with this. I believe he has been unfairly judged on some points and that history will show him to have made some correct decisions. That doesn't come anywhere near making me think he did a good job as president or that many of his important decisions were not disastrous, with negative consequences that continue to this day.

On the one hand, this is a good point. Not every decision he made was bad. On the other hand, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Agreed. However, what cannot be denied is that the incentive system for CIA operatives to do their sometimes highly dangerous work was damaged by that outing. While I don't agree with all that they do/have done, I at least understand that a huge, huge amount of that work is based on an implicit ironclad trust. With the Plame outing that trust can only have suffered, perhaps greatly. To admit that is not a treacherous crime.

Isn't it somewhat ironic that the same folks who glossed over the Plame outing are up in arms about Pakistan's outing of CIA operatives?

[nullnor]

it may not seem like it sometimes, but i have troubles seeing things in the bigger picture. i mean, i can see the bigger picture. but when i try to explain it, it's either too confusing or i simply haven't the skills or experience to put it to explanation. it's like you see it, but the meaning gets lost in the individual parts of it.

Architect: Your 5 predecessors were, by design, based on a similar predication - a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the rest of your species, facilitating the function of the One. While the others experienced this in a very general way, your experience is far more specific

sometimes when i want to someone else comes in and does it for me. for which i am grateful. it's like the ppl fleeing Libya by ship right now. i could try to drop whole anchor right in the middle of the ocean and ponder how or why allied forces could forget about a ship in distress of 72 ppl they had previously dropped bottles of water and biscuits to. but all i see are the ppl on the ship holding up two starving babies as jets fly overhead. even after their parents died, the 11 survivors on the ship said how they had saved the last two bottles of water for them, but the babies ended up being too small.

i reckon our two political parties are similar. republicans see the survival picture better while democrats get addled and stranded in the details. or perhaps maybe we each do both. and it goes back and forth. and there is no perfect answer. i think we're all heroes if you catch us at the right moment, while at other times, each of us can be less than heroic.

[chancellor]

OK, on the humorous side, take a read of this:

http://www.pop.is/2kt2i