And I'll try my best to stay out of this thread but no promises. Sometimes that DougR can get to me, but I love him...

Bobert

A

If Gore were president, he wouldn't be working fast and furiously to sell our environmental future to the oil lobby, at the very least. We'd probably be a lot less deep in debt, since he wouldn't have have pushed through the Giant Tax Giveaway For the Rich -- I mean the 2001 Tax Cut.

Alex

...which Gore, they tell me, actually won.

I suspect were Gore in power rather than the Shrubbery, Bleugh wouldn't be wagging his tail quite so enthusiastically. Of course, if Bleugh had any backbone himself (he seems to have had it surgically removed in the last 2/3 years) he would be doing what dogs usually do on bushes.

LTS

troll

I'd like you to find the transcript in which he claimed to have invented the Internet. I think you'll be a while at it, because it is not what he said. But even if it were, I guess there really is not way to say what he would have done or become under the awful pressures of 9-11-01 and the following months.

A

troll

The other might be: is it possible all this new hype about Iraq is meant to keep corporate scandals (including the goings on at Halliburton) off the front page?

No one seems to recall or report that quite a few moons ago the Israelis (without hype) destroyed Saddam's nuclear reactor.

The "balance of terror" worked for years with the USSR---striking unilaterrely can open quite a "Pandora's Box"--and without Congress seems unconstitional---but, perhaps we should check with that great constitutional scholar and defender of civil liberties--John Ashcroft--on that matter.

My own take on all this is that Cheney may well be the best ventriloquist ever---does not move his lips while Dubya speaks.

I end with a quote from Maureen Dowd in the NYTimes of a few days back---Geo. Bush the Elder is quoted as saying that his son goes to bed each night without a care in his head--I am proud of that. And as Maureen Down continues---that IS frightening

Bill H

But I imagine the response to September 11th would have been much the same. Maybe he'd have found it easier to build up a consensus and coalition that could have reduced the likelihood of further outrages.

But, looked at from here, it seems pretty clear that Gore could have been a Republican, and Bush could have been a Democrat. There seems to be an enormous overlap between the two parties. I suppose that's why there's apparently so much bad blood and recrimination.

A bit like two football teams with fans who detest each other (as they do here) - but they are playing the same game, and it wouldn't change much if you transferred the players from one team to the other, apart from the fact that some players are more competent at playing the game than others.

DougR

I think the most interesting question is: "How is it that reasonably intelligent people, looking at the same set of circumstances, can come to such divergent conclusions?"

One answer, of course, is that they are not truly looking at the same facts and data.....but often, it is just some deep emotional bias that they may not understand themselves. Some claim that Bush--deep down-- wants to 'finish Daddy's work'...I don't know if it is true, but I DO know that people have started wars for reasons even less sane! *shrug*

What would Gore do? Hard to say...just that it would be mostly different.

DougR

Gore's behavior during the debates was a clear indication of his mindset. We always knew that Bush was not the public speaker Gore was, yet Bush won two of the debates and Gore lost the last one. We never knew which poll Gore was responding to when he showed up. You'll notice that no Democrat is now clammering to have Gore run this time, although as commonly known, he won the national plurality. Why is this?

And, as is mentioned above, Bush picked probably the best cabinet in (again) the past fifty years. Clinton had three members indicted by this time, in his tenure in the White House. Gore then called Clinton, "the Greatest President in this Century", right after he was impeached.

Remember that Bush got better grades than Gore while in college, and while Gore did go to Vietnam as military clerk (not exactly front line) and Bush stayed home in the Reserves, Bush was landing jets at 400 mph; not exactly a fool's mission.

Bush fought a war in a country that kicked the Russian's ass, and we lost four men to combat. He's backed out of the Anti-Ballistic Missle treaty, and now Putin wants to become a member of NATO. The excesses of the Clinton economy have come back to haunt us, and yet that same economy is still sputtering upward, despite the bankrupcy of three of the biggest firms in the world (which caused a total of seven lost trading days on the NYSE). Gore backed the Kyoto Accords, which no Senator of this Nation was willing to go on record to ratify. I could go on, but I have work to do.

But my point remains the same; in every mutual contest where each man's decisions made the difference, Bush cleaned Gore's clock.

From this side of the pond it is difficult to suggest that Al Gore would have made any moves much different to that of Bush. But with possible conflict in or over Iraq still on the agenda I doubt wether it would be possible to descibe Gore as the muppet of the Oil Companies.

Different senatrio.

Gareth

PS Relect Gore in the year 04

DougR

A little story about the different way in which a common situation was handled:

Not widely known or publicised was the take over by the Revolutionary Guards in Iran of the Russian Embassy in Tehran, on the same day they took over the American Embassy. The hostage crisis for those trapped in the American Embassy was extremely protracted as we all know. The President in power at the time was Democrat, Jimmy Carter.

When the Revolutionary Guards took possession of the Russian Embassy, one person missing from the Russian Staff was the senior military Attache. On hearing that the Embassy had been invaded he first contacted Moscow and went directly to Quom(Sp?) for an meeting with Khomeni. The meeting was remarkably short and extremely one sided, Khomeni was informed of the subject matter of the conversation with Moscow and told (NOTE: Told, not requested) that unless orders for the immediate vacation and return of the Russian Embassy were given, the cities of Tehran and Quom would cease to exist. That threat from Soviet Russia was considered credible and sure as eggs are eggs the Embassy was back, intact in Russian hands that afternoon.

Now who do you think got it right?

You jest Sir!!

But not only was it thoroughly investigated by subsequent Democrat regimes as the "October Suprise", it was thoroughly discounted. And the NSC part in that scenario was the work of a true wackoid.

And twenty years after the investigation, I have to think you knew that... or you need to up the dosage.

I don't imagine that destroying Teheran would really have been the best way of saving the people in the embassy. Wouldn't have gone down too well at home either. That's what "hostages" means.

I suppose Carter could have said "Tough luck on those people in the embassy, but I'm going to show them I can't be pushed around. And I've lost the election anyway. So Goodbye Teheran." But you really need someone like Saddam Hussein for President if that's what you want. Or maybe George Bush? Who knows.

There can't be many countries on the planet where someone like Gore would be seen as some kind of left-winger.

DougR

As a Greenie, I have found this thread absolutely amusing. I mean, really, Doug, Teribis and Claymore. You three are the funniest fols in the Catdom. You all carry on like there's this big difference between the Republican and Democrsatic parties. Ha! There is a real world out there with ideas that are the hair-splitting ideas that you Reboocrats fight over.

Man, I can't believe that you all get worked up into a frenzy over hair splittin' politics-as-usual stuff. Imean, look at poor ol' Bill Cinton. Ya all hate him. Why? because he lost $20,000 in an investment and he had some kind of sex with a consenting adult. He also was the best Republican President you guys have ever seen. Oh, you didn;t seem to notice that he bedded down with the Republicans on just about every issue that could be wildly thought of? Hmmmmmm? so it's come down to personalities. Like soap operas and morning talk shows. Is that what you folks have really allowed you're fraternal biases to stoop to? Really. Calling Cinton names, when he went out and did pretty much exactly what the *Rebublican* would have done?

Give me a break, and, more importantly, give your selves a break.

It's said that that "small minds talk about people" and "large minds about ideas". I'm not too sure where this fraternal squabbling began but it's time to move on!

I would agree with those who are of the opinion that Gore would mst likely do the same things as Bush. Maybe not exactly, but pretty danged close. Afterall, they are both members of the grand old Repubocratic party. No new ideas. No courage to do anything that sets them apart. No pro-human policies. Just the same old crap...

Bobert

There was no need for Gore to perpetrate a coup. He was elected president of the United States Of America. It was Bush who pulled off a coup with the aid of the corrupt Florida powers-that-be and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Art Thieme

"I don't imagine that destroying Teheran would really have been the best way of saving the people in the embassy. Wouldn't have gone down too well at home either. That's what "hostages" means."

The situation as viewed by the Russian leadership at the time was that our country has been invaded we will react in the following way - saving the people in their embassy did not even enter the equation and what is even more remarkable given the timetable for that counterstrike was that the man delivering the threat knew that he would go up with the attack on Quom.

As to it going down well with the folks back home - During the days of power in Soviet Russian, when did the USSR give a flying fig about world or deomestic opinion - NEVER - but precisely because that threat was credible the threat worked - FACT.

Ton

At least I hope it would.

Theme song for the third party candidacy of Henry Wallace in the 1940s

From this site. Ain't Google magic?

If my memory serves me, the judge (who was an appointed Democrat) not only dismissed the case WITH PREJUDICE (meaning it cannot be refiled) but also used the word "claptrap" in his finding. Oliver North was stationed at the Pentagon during the October Suprise election, and was not on Reagans staff until his second year in office, a fact which did much to point up the utter stupidity of the case and those who supported it. Irresponsible minds may disagree, but there has to be some level of legal protection against idiots with a typewriter...

"I will only trust the story to be untrue after a trial, yes guilty until proven innocent when it is the government, especially when the fox is guarding the hen house. Cheers Larry"

My question: In that case, how guilty was Clinton anyway???

(Please disregard any comment I made about you being a lawyer... or not).

Cheers, Donny

As to music, I get a lot of free CD's from artists I have done sound for, so I'm currently listening to Cynthia Cathcarts playing the Clarsach, the Scottish wire strung harp. If I on a tear I go to Jerry O'Sullivan and the uilleann pipes or anything by Dervish.

Best all-around CD for me is "Song of the Irish Whistle" by Joanie Madden of the group, Cherish the Ladies. I play it frequently during intermissions and always get requests for it's source.

A final CD for my honors goes to "Memories of a Scottish Weekend 1998", which is a recording of the band for that weekend of Scottish Country Dancing at Ramblewood, led by Liz Donaldson. The strathspeys are magnificent.

DougR

Ok. As to the topic at hand. I think Al would have done things very differently. Al would have invited Saddam to the White House and charged him a billion dollars to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom.

Al may not be the brightest politician on earth, but I'll bet he learned a few things from his ex-boss, Bill Clinton. The next morning, Al probably would have provided Saddam a "down-home" breakfast consisting of country ham, scrambled eggs, hot biscuits, gravy, and grits, then offered Saddam a pardon from further persecution in exchange for an "unannounced" amount of money contributed to Al's library.

I didn't read that in the Guardian or any other like publication, but that's what I think.

DougR

DougR

But I think the reasons that Nader didn't get more votes are two fold. First, the two major parties have sent out the message that voting for third parties is a wasted vote. I don not agree with this premise but they have effectively sold this concept to the voters. The second reason that a lot of folks did not vote Green *htis Time* was because the idea of Bush as President seemed so scarey a proposition.

If you'll remember there was a movement toward trading votes between the Dems and the Green which was stopped by threatened court action by Bush's folks.

Yeah, I kind of like the rival fraternity theory of explaining the differences between the two parties, with the Repubs have the upper hand in dirty tricks and the Dems just trying to hang on until what ever it is they are hanging on for.

Ireally don't see any appreciable difference between the two that could be characterized as anything other than partisanship and self preservation...

Bobert

Maybe they were wrong in that, and maybe they were right. And maybe for one reason or another they would have needed to see a great deal of difference before they thought it worth voting for any candidate. But it seems pretty self-evident that they didn't actually think there was enough difference, or they'd have voted.

Of course this doesn't apply to the thousands of people who had their votes stolen by various crooked means, to stop them voting for the wrong people. But that's another matter.

DougR

Now say your sorry...

Bobert

I would imagine that, apart from anything else, one effect of a was against Iraq will be to provide various unpleasant governments round the world with a very powerful motive to get hold of nuclear weapons without delay.

After all, the mere possibility that you could obtain nuclear weapons is now evidently a good enough reason for a pre-emptive war against you by the United States. That could apply to most states in the world. Anyone who anticipated that at some time they might be in the bad books of the USA would be fools to wait around, when maybe a shopping trip to Kazhakstan or somewhere like that might give them immunity.

Imagine how it would have felt like if the Soviet Union had been saying things like Bush and Co...

3. There is no way of knowing what Gore would have done about the World Trade Center bombing. I sort of suspect our Republican friends are right, and that he would have vacillated. In fact, the two living individuals I might have trusted in that particular, situation -- Bob Dole and General Powell -- both happen to be Republicans. And I surely applaud Bush for chasing the Taliban out of Afghanistan. I hadn't belileved he could do it. But contrary to popular belief, that little adventure is not over. Mr. Karzai seems to be a sympathetic and well-intentioned guy. I predict Karzai will die young. Bush treats him as an American puppet and will abandon him at the first opportunity. Mr. Bush does not believe in "nation building." He is not a responsible person, and we may still be suffering the unintended consequences of his conduct long after he is gone.

And as for the "Bush doctrine" of "preemptive strikes," in good English that says he is intent on world hegemony and will walk over anyone who gets in his way. The world won't tolerate that, any more than it tolerated similar overreaching by Napoleon, the Germans or the Soviets. Foreigners don't want to be dominated, and can get extremely unpleasant when someone tries it. And the consequenses for us Americans will really, really be bad.

I don't recommend military action and the overthrow of governments as a method of reducing the number of nuclear threats on Earth, but unless something is done to head it off, I believe that most or all of the above-named states will have the weapons in 10 years. Is that a good thing, because they will be more assertive in the face of US threats? I'm really curious what you think ought to happen.

You might have all kinds of reasons for that. You might be left, right, centre, anything. If it's a choice between a Chicken Dinner and a Christmas Pudding, and I can't stir myself to eat either of them, I might indeed recognise there are real differences between a Chicken Dinner and a Christmas Pudding - but that wouldn't be enough difference to motivate me. What the two dishes would have in common would be more important - the fact that neither of them appealed to me.

Whatver, I think the chances are most of the non-voters wouldn't have been reading history books about what happened back in your election of 1948 to help them, decide.

If they are both too extreme, that's a similarity that is greater than the difference.

But the Democrats are an extreme party? Extreme what? Left-wing? Strewth.

DougR

Mince away our precious time
To make a vainer point
While slipping sliding in the slime
Corruption dost anoint...

I heard on one of the TV talk shows that ole'Al is going to announce to the world tomorrow what he would do were he in charge. So maybe we will have the answer to the question manana.

DougR

Here's to you, New York!

Kevin

Thomas the Rhymer is correct in that. in a time when things are so messed up, whether or not your tie is perfectly straight is the least of one's problems.

See, Doug, that's what Green thinking is. Forget about the beauty contest. We've got some bigger problems.

Doug, have you ever heard Nadar speak? No, not one of the 10 second sound bites on one of the ruling class owned TV stations... but actually heard him speak?

Hey, that's a fair question to ask since you are changing your postion on the poor guy faster than a chain smoker lights up.

Heck, if you actually were to hear him... just once... maybe you'd find that your guy is the "nut".

Hey, just an idea...

Bobert

DougR

Obviously the planning of the attack on at least a contingency basis can be traced back to before the election, but it may be that Bush's contempt for the international rule of law and his increasingly blatant siding with Sharon precipitated the decision to go ahead with the plan.

Gore finally issued his statement on Bush's handling of the terrorist/Iraqui situation. Man that guy is a firebrand behind a podium! I think I'll stay with my original prediction that he would have invited Usama to the White House to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom and tried to wiggle a contribution to the Democratic Party out of him. :>)

DougR

Make no mistake; as you noted, the attack was planned during the Clinton administration, the reason had to predate the action.

And to add to the Nader comments; I have to think that if someone wanted to vote against Bush, the choices were clearly Gore or Nader (left or lefter). On the other hand, if one wanted to vote against Gore, the choice was Bush and Nader (right or really left).

In this case I think that such a radical departure to a choice of right or extreme left mitigates to the idea that most votes for Nader, were votes that would have gone to Gore, and not Bush.

And I not only got a chance to hear Nader speak (at Georgetown U) I got a chance to ask him a question: "Since you are one of the few candidates of your party in this election, it is reasonable to assume that if you are elected, you will have to compromise with politicians from the other two parties. Could you tell me what those compromises would be, and with which party? His answer sunk him, in my view. "I will not compromise on any of my beliefs". Good moralist, lousy leader...

And, by the way, after reading many of the above comments, I beginning to wonder whether some peoples hatred for Bush is overcoming their love of reason...

Now, the situation is very changed. This isn't about personal stuff but issues. Your guy just happens to be real scarey to a lot of folks, including most of those whose votes were counted in the 2000 election and had all the votes that were cast been counted then your guy would not be president. I mean, Oral Robert's and the Supreme Court wouldn't have been able to pull it off.

Hey, I'd have to agree with you that Nader isn't the most charming or charismatic guy and I didn't support him because I thought he could win. The reason that most of us supported him was to try to get the required 5% of the vote toget future funding and into the debates. It's the only way that most of the American people will ever hear much more than the hair-splittin' squabbling that we hear from the Repubocrats.

Back to your guy, unchecked, he will have women getting abortions in the back of gas stations (not that I am pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice), he'll leave office with tons of red ink, he'll bully enough folks that the suicide bombers will be in our malls and theaters, he'll continue to lower the quality of life of the average American worker all while working him harder and he'll continue allow the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security to violate many provisions, the 5th Amendment taking the hardest hit, of the Bill of Rights.

Now these things aren't about his daughters getting drunk, or Bush taking $800,000 out of his failing oil company. It's about scarey policies. Hey, I'm not into hating folks but your guy is doing the best he can to challenge that part of me...

Bobert

DougR

1. I don't hate Clinton, nor does the subject of Clinton affect my reason. I don't care about the Lewinsky affair, but the lies told in a grand jury involved over twelve chargeable felonies, including many which were not mentioned in the press. (Hint: try Misprison of a Felony, various Conspiracies, Contempt of Court, etc). As an ex-police officer, those charges, many which were eventually admitted to, form the only basis of any disgust I have over Clinton's performance in office. The rest is disagreement.

2. As some already know, I am very clear on personal choices for women, and am in total agreement with the Supremes on this one, although the follow-on to the previously unknown and completely invented "Right to Privacy", did create some legal problems, which are still being sorted out.

3. While Bush has a right to feel the way he does about abortion, he has no right to set aside the law of the land, nor has he shown any inclination to do so. That was Clintons behavior, remember? In so far has he holds that view, it is shared by a slight majority of Republicans, and a significant number of Democrats, and is more characteristic of Catholics and Baptists, than either political party.

4. As one who spent a considerable portion of my life in the intelligence field, the changes brought about by the Homeland Security issue are long overdue. Many of the objections to the proposed, but yet to be debated and codified, portions of the program, are absolutely stupid. For example, there was an outbreak of hysteria over the changes in FBI procedure which would allow them to follow persons into public buildings and meetings, to continue a surveillence. Police officers have always had that right, yet to read some of the accounts in the press, we were about to invoke Stalin as an FBI role model.

5. Incidently, I have great quarrel with the NRA folks too, and am glad to see police departments getting away from using the NRA shooting qualification awards as the basis of their weapons training. (This, despite the fact that I was the only member of my department, and one of the few in Virginia to hold the NRA Distinguished Expert award, and was a competition shooter for many years.)

6. There are many more comments contained in your rant, that may well be strongly held views on your part, but do not comport with my experience. But, after all of that, you should take some comfort from that fact, that while your world seems to be collapsing around you, mine seems to be expanding...

You, me, or no one else is not going to convince the West By God Viginny kid though.

DougR

Of course, maybe, if you think long term, you could be right. Short term - 10, 20 years - I have a horrible feeling you could be very wrong.

But looking back, the pattern seesm to be that the world always tends to improve,and it always tends to get worse. Deciding which of those is the predominant tendency at any time is largely a matter of personal preference.

When I was a child in Panama, I used to run behind the DDT spray trucks, because the fog would hide you from the other children. When I was a little older, my mother would take us children to the mountains of Northern California to hide from the unknown ravages of polio during the summer. In the fall during school, we practiced "duck and cover" drills in case of nuclear war. My father served in Vietnam in 1954, and I in 1969. I got my undergraduate and graduate degrees on the GI Bill. While there are still world problems to be solved, I have no fear that the world won't solve them, and I have no doubt that Americans will lead the way on most of the solutions.

Yesterday he said in his speech that as a United States Senator in 1991, he was most disappointed Bush "One" did not take Saddam out during Desert Storm.

Yet in a speech on the Senate Floor in 1991, then Senator Al Gore said something to the effect that George Bush could not be blamed for not taking Saddam out after the liberation of Kuwait. It was expected by the U. S. and the world community that the war would end with the expulsion of Saddam's forces from Kuwait.

So who knows what Al Gore would do differently? He evidently doesn't know himself.

I'm absolutely amazed that a politician would make such conflicting statements so easy to research. Especially someone smart enough to invent the Internet.

DougR

Yesterday he said that Bush should have finished off Saddam in 1991.

In 1991, as a U. S. Senator he said on the floor of the Senate, Bush should NOT have finished off Saddam.

You don't think those statements are conflicting?

If you are offended that Gore said he invented the Internet, complain to him not me.

Hey, do me a favor and do a blue clicky thing fir me and get this thing restarted on a second thread. I just have a feeling that we're not done with Al yet.

And I might just have a little wrestling in my for Dougie and Claymore...

Thanks,

And, in case you were wondering, I had nothin' to do with inventin' no internet, either...

Bobert

A